ghaleon0721's forum posts

Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="bballboy986"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="campbell1874"]

Unless Sony put their hand in their pockets and pay for an exclusive deal then they will loose ANY 3rd party game that wont make money if its sold only on the PS3.  That includes MSG.  Conpanies only make games to make money.

I think Sony should keep FF and MGS for any price as alot of people will be waiting to buy a PS3 just for FF or MGS.

bballboy986

Dead wrong. Metal Gear Solid is a perfect example of why you are wrong. You are right, any 3rd party developer would be stupid to ignore the profit potential in the marketplace that Xbox 360 has created. That means, if it can be ported, it will be ported. Period. Sony does not pay for exclusives. It's been their policy since the beginning and it's worked for the last ten years. They are not going to change now, just five months into the PS3's life. Metal Gear Solid is a game that harnesses the unique features of the PS3 and takes advantage of the enormous blu-ray disc capacity. What that means, is that if you try to play it on your Xbox, it will overheat and burn your house down. Sony doesn't have to pay Konami anything for the exclusive. They have presented Konami with the ONLY option for bringing their progressive game developement ideas to life. That is why it's a Sony exclusive. It has nothing to do with loyalty, contracts, payments, or anything. It's simply a matter of which machine is the most capable. That is the PS3. The PS3 is still young, and so far, MGS is the only game I know of that is going to push it this far. Wait until its released and other developers start seeing what is possible with a superior machine like the PS3.

Ummm Kojima himself already stated it could run on the 360...

UMMM, no he didn't. And if he did, I'm sure he qualified it by saying that it would take some astronimical amount of compression technology and some prohibitive amount of production costs since it would take about 5 DVD's to fit the whole game.

"1UP: With your debut of the Tokyo Game Show Metal Gear Solid 4 trailer, which has seen wide distribution in both Japanese magazines, online, and in the U.S. Official PlayStation Magazine recently, it really heralded the dawn of the next-generation. Everything else has been polished and nice, but this was so powerful, so compelling you even had to do a real-time demonstration at TGS to prove it was running on PS3 hardware. That said, it makes you wonder how much of a gap there is between the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. Do you think you could create MGS4, technically, on 360 if you wanted to? Hideo

Kojima: Yes, that's technically possible. I want to express, first of all, it's not that I don't like Xbox or 360. It's just that last year, our hands were really tied to MGS3, so the other Konami developers were able to get their hands on the 360 tools and hardware earlier. But we simply didn't have time to do that last year. So, meaning that we were behind the other developers in terms of 360 development. Kojima Productions has this philosophy that we want to be the first in everything regarding new technology. So after we finished MGS3, the option was to work on the PS3 to try all the new things for Metal Gear Solid 4. The only reason for this is I'm the kind of person who wants to be the first person on the moon, and don't want to be asking "what the moon was like?" from other people. So that's the real story behind selecting PS3.

1UP: It's interesting that you think you could do this on 360, though.

 Hideo Kojima: Maybe some nuance or a small details here and there might be different, but I feel that hardware is no longer a matter. I'm just talking about PS3, 360 and PC. Revolution is totally different, but there are really no differences among the other three. " You going to argue with quotes from Hideo himself too?

So the PS3 is like "going to the moon" and the 360 is like sitting on earth asking what the moon is like. So, no I'm not going to argue, that sounds about right to me It's interesting that you didn't provide a link. I looked on 1up.com for that interview and found a completely different interview. Here's the link http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=2&cId=3140852 But here is the relevant part. 1UP: How would you describe each of the three consoles in terms of a human personality? HK: Can I change that to a food? [laughs] PS3, it's a real fancy dinner that you only have maybe on your anniversary, so maybe once or twice a year. 360, it's a kind of a nice dinner, but you can have it maybe once or twice a month. For Revolution, I can only comment just on the fact that you can play all the games on the past, but listening to that, I think it's a good dinner that you have at home every day.
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
The main reason that Sony had so many exclusive the last generation was the Console Gap.  They had many times the consoles out there compared to xbox and nintendo.  This generation for a game developer to make money they pretty well have to go multiplatform because no 1 console maker holds a super dominant share of the market like Sony did in last generation.  If Sony wants to keep exclusives they are probably going to have to pay out the nose for them this generation because of the lack of household dominance over xbox and nintendo.GRIMSAGE
You're half right. The console gap was the reason for exclusives during the past two generations. With teh PS1, the Cd-format compared to cartridges was more attractive and cheaper for developers. Therefore more games, therefore more consoles, therefore even more games. With the PS2 was the same. a backward compatible system that played DVD's out of the box sold like crazy. Therefore, more consoles in the market, therefore more games. And now today, there are TWO consoles with big market share. Therefore, games go multi-platform. But you're wrong when you say that Sony is going to have to pay through the nose for exclusives this generation. Couldn't they just offer developers a FAR superior medium for their games? Couldn't they just say, "Hey, developers, it looks like your fans want a game that's bigger, faster, deeper, and longer than anything you've ever come up with. How are you going to do that on that "other" console? Come on over to our side, we got what you need."
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
[QUOTE="eclipsed4utoo"][QUOTE="snyper1982"][QUOTE="Dualshockin"]

[QUOTE="rappid_rabbit"][QUOTE="Giddieon"]Not going to happen we all know this... Sony owns a part of Square and what will most likely Happen is that 6 months after the game is released Sony will have to buy more shares of Square Enix to help stablize there shares and bring them up again... snyper1982

Sony owns 10% at most. If you are talking about owning shares of stock in Square, Im sure, Microsoft owns Square shares too, through dubious "front corporations". Sony doesn't nearly have enough for majority control, and they probably never will, unless they outright buy Square. (Which may be a good idea) In fact, before Google went public, Yahoo, had stake in Google. I mean I have shares of Google, and Microsoft, and a host of other companies...I guess, I own significant, decision making part of them too huh? So Starbucks would treat me different because I have some shares in the company?...Yeah right. Point of the story is, It wouldn't matter to Square if Sony owned even the second highest majority of shares, as long as Square has that 51%, its their show...They want to make money so that their shares go higher, making the Final Fantasy series totally multi platform, it will only help their bottom line. Im not saying its gonna happen, but with games costing tens of millions of dollars to produce, you never know with a third party company.

Lol,you think Sony cant afford Square?

Tell me something:How much money do you think Sony Corporation has?

Not nearly as much as MS :)

you really think MS wants to keep spending money for their gaming division that has yet to post a profit?

That is soon going to change, and I believe even the Sony fans can admit the 360 is going to be a legit contender this year. Not to mention they are pulling a profit off the hardware already, so this year will put MS in the black. Or at least that is my guess. Only time will tell though. Even IF that is not true, and they lose money this gen too, I believe they will go at least one more generation.

I never said that the 360 wouldn't be a legit contender this year. In fact I said the WOULD. I even said that if I had to buy a system just for this year, it would probably be the 360. But the fact is, someday developers will start using the power of the processors and the capacity of the blu-ray and that means, bigger, better, deeper, and more engaging gaming experiences for PS3 owners. MS will have to release additional hardware, or a whole new console in order to compete with the PS3 in its mid to late years. By that time the PS3 will have had a price drop or two. Microsoft will be smoked!
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
[QUOTE="kingtito"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="snyper1982"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="Alyxm1"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="campbell1874"] anybody who tries to compare the PS3 sales against the current 360 sales is just retarded.eclipsed4utoo
Yeah....completely friggen mental
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
When did I say that the PS3 was selling more at launch the the PS2? The PS2 is still the number one selling console period.
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="Alyxm1"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="campbell1874"]

Unless Sony put their hand in their pockets and pay for an exclusive deal then they will loose ANY 3rd party game that wont make money if its sold only on the PS3. That includes MSG. Conpanies only make games to make money.

I think Sony should keep FF and MGS for any price as alot of people will be waiting to buy a PS3 just for FF or MGS.

snyper1982
Dead wrong. Metal Gear Solid is a perfect example of why you are wrong. You are right, any 3rd party developer would be stupid to ignore the profit potential in the marketplace that Xbox 360 has created. That means, if it can be ported, it will be ported. Period. Sony does not pay for exclusives. It's been their policy since the beginning and it's worked for the last ten years. They are not going to change now, just five months into the PS3's life. Metal Gear Solid is a game that harnesses the unique features of the PS3 and takes advantage of the enormous blu-ray disc capacity. What that means, is that if you try to play it on your Xbox, it will overheat and burn your house down. Sony doesn't have to pay Konami anything for the exclusive. They have presented Konami with the ONLY option for bringing their progressive game developement ideas to life. That is why it's a Sony exclusive. It has nothing to do with loyalty, contracts, payments, or anything. It's simply a matter of which machine is the most capable. That is the PS3. The PS3 is still young, and so far, MGS is the only game I know of that is going to push it this far. Wait until its released and other developers start seeing what is possible with a superior machine like the PS3.

you are right, but if Sony wana sell their console well enough at the beginning they should change that policy,as they will be the ones paying them off, come on!! be more implusive!

Why would Sony pay for an exclusive that doesn't fully take adavantage of the power of its console? And SOny's console IS "selling well at the beginning". The PS3 is selling FASTER than the Xbox 360. People just don't realize that the whole reason that there are 10 million 360's out there is because it's been out for a year and a half.

Really? What were the sales figures last month?

LISTEN TO ME!!! I KNOW THAT THE 360 IS SELLING MORE UNITS RIGHT NOW. I KNOW THAT THEY SOLD MORE UNITS THAN THE PS3 LAST MONTH. IT'S NOT A FAIR COMPARISON, THE PS3 IS ONLY 4 MONTHS OLD AND ONLY HAS LIKE 30 GAMES OUT. HOW MANY XBOX'S SOLD WHEN IT WAS 4 MONTHS OLD AND ONLY HAD 30 GAMES OUT? I said it before, possibly in a nother thread. I read it in the APril 2007 issue of PSM. Sony sold 2 million consoles as of Jan 5 2006. That is approx 45-50 days after launch, they had 2 million consoles out there. The xbox has sold 10 million in the last year and a half. That's an average of 1 million consoles every 1.8 months. That means that it takes 1.8 months, or 54 days for Microsoft to sell 1 million consoles. Sony sold DOUBLE that amount in 5-10 days less time. That means that there will come a time, very soon, when the number of PS3's surpasses the number of Xbox's. As the games library fills out, and another christmas comes and goes, the 360 will be in the PS3's dust.
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
After FFIII for DS, I wouldn't be so surprised.Viennoiserie
What does that have to do with anything? Square didn't find it worthwhile to bring FF3 over here back in the NES days, why would they release it NOW on something as powerful as the PS3 or PSP. That would be like playing the atari version of Pac Man on a high-end PC. What other system do you suggest would be a better home for FF3?
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="The_G00se"][QUOTE="syscotech"]

Wow, check out this bombshell. Is the PS3 going to have any exclusives left??

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6167864.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1snyper1982
I still say that because of the high development cost with these next gen games, most if not all exclusives will go away in the next few years. It just makes sense. As these units get more expensive, people aren't going to buy one machine just because of a title. Exclusives are going the way of the dinosoaurs.... soon with PS3 and then eventually with XBOX.

On the surface, you are right. There is no way that a developer can ignore the profit potential in either the Xbox or Playstation market. It only makes sense that games will start going multi-platform. If I were a developer, there would be no price that Sony could pay that would make me ignore 10 million Xbox gamers. It's just reality. So you would be completely right IF both systems were equal. But they are not. Sony's machine has about a billion times more horsepower than the 360. That means that as game developement technology advances (like it is with Metal Gear), then games will become exclusives simply because there is only one machine that can play them.

Are you serious? What are you on?

I'm high on life man. And my previous comment about the xbox catching on fire was a joke, an exxageration of the truth. And i'm not abandoning my truce from yesterday. But that doesn't mean I'm cheering on the 360 either. I think that it is an inferior machine that is approaching its peak very early in its life and it cannot keep up with the competition. And what I said about metal gear not being played on the 360 is a fact. It's not my "Fanboy" opinion
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
Absolutely right
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="campbell1874"]

Unless Sony put their hand in their pockets and pay for an exclusive deal then they will loose ANY 3rd party game that wont make money if its sold only on the PS3.  That includes MSG.  Conpanies only make games to make money.

I think Sony should keep FF and MGS for any price as alot of people will be waiting to buy a PS3 just for FF or MGS.

bballboy986
Dead wrong. Metal Gear Solid is a perfect example of why you are wrong. You are right, any 3rd party developer would be stupid to ignore the profit potential in the marketplace that Xbox 360 has created. That means, if it can be ported, it will be ported. Period. Sony does not pay for exclusives. It's been their policy since the beginning and it's worked for the last ten years. They are not going to change now, just five months into the PS3's life. Metal Gear Solid is a game that harnesses the unique features of the PS3 and takes advantage of the enormous blu-ray disc capacity. What that means, is that if you try to play it on your Xbox, it will overheat and burn your house down. Sony doesn't have to pay Konami anything for the exclusive. They have presented Konami with the ONLY option for bringing their progressive game developement ideas to life. That is why it's a Sony exclusive. It has nothing to do with loyalty, contracts, payments, or anything. It's simply a matter of which machine is the most capable. That is the PS3. The PS3 is still young, and so far, MGS is the only game I know of that is going to push it this far. Wait until its released and other developers start seeing what is possible with a superior machine like the PS3.

Ummm Kojima himself already stated it could run on the 360...

UMMM, no he didn't. And if he did, I'm sure he qualified it by saying that it would take some astronimical amount of compression technology and some prohibitive amount of production costs since it would take about 5 DVD's to fit the whole game.