Not unless you absolutely have to play Mass Effect and Final Fantasy XIII or MGS 4 and Halo 3 or whatever other exclusives interest you. Since I mostly want multiplats such as FIFA, GTA, Burnout, Resident Evil ect. it wouldn't make much sense for me to own both but it could be well worth it for some people.
[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]T_T PC gamers say you can max Crysis out,DX9 mode,with a 7600GTX,Pentium 4,and 512mb of RAM...but consoles cant?Since Crysis is soooo scaleable,and can easily run on 5 year old PC's and still look good,PS3 nor 360 should have no problem at all running Crysis maxed at DX9,I dont believe Crytek are very lazy devs,the only reason this game wouldnt run on consoles is if they wouldnt take the time to make it run.This is ofcourse if what PC gamers say about Crysis system requirements are true.One minute theyll say Crysis runs beautifully on a 5 year old PC due to high scaleability,then when someone brings up it could be done on a console...they say "consoles could never handle Crysis!".:roll:Rather annoying.Danm_999
Crytek said 2-3 year old PCs actually. And yes, those have way more RAM than consoles (since 360 is nearly a 2 year old PC).
Consoles do not need as much RAM because they are set platforms. Take Doom 3 for instance. Min Requirements for PC are 512 MB of main RAM and 64 of video RAM. The game ran on the Xbox's 64 MB total RAM, that's 512 MB less or 1/9th that amount of RAM of the PC version minimum requirements.
According to what I've experienced and know about the 360's hardware, the 360 could actually run a decent version of Crysis if it wasn't for the lack of RAM hampering such an idea. mobius1aic
Developers were able to somehow fit Doom 3 on the original Xbox's 64 MB of RAM. It might be possible at lower level graphics.
My favorite and most played game was FIFA 06, followed by GT3. I must be a fan of innovative and unique games :lol: If I had to pick a game that showed a bit more vision and creativity it would be Deus Ex.
No way. Development for the high end consoles costs a lot of money and if the PS3 doesn't sell well then there is less of a market for 3rd party developers. I don't care if games are multiplat as long as they are good quality and their graphics engines are built around PS3/360 level hardware.
Konami would be stupid NOT to try and make the most they can off of MGS4. Sony would be stupid NOT to try to do everything they can (i.e. money) to keep MGS4 exclusive. Microsoft would be stupid NOT to try to do everything they can (i.e. money) to get MGS4 for the 360.
Verge_6
Either way, Konami wins. Must be nice to feel like golden property...
Not exactly. I'm sure they would have hoped for better PS3 sales and the 360 hasn't exactly been selling great. They might be forced to put the system on platforms that will never have the sales potential the PS2 had because I don't think the game could be ported to the Wii. That's assuming the Wii is the PS2 of this generation.
[QUOTE="musicalmac"]The game is expensive to make. Development costs will be high. I wish we had an idea of how many copies at 60 dollars they have to sell to make a profit.kage_53
Namco Bandai said they had to sell 500,000 units of their games to make profit so its probably slightly above that range.
MGS 4 would probably be more expensive to produce then the majority if not all of Namco's games. It really depends on the game and MGS4 would be one of the more expensive games to make, right up there with Final Fantasy I would imagine.
Log in to comment