Interview with Kojima and Nomura > here

You don't think an approximation of these effects through scripting or otherwise would not be possible to get very close to the original version?

This is what I'm refering to when I say porting hurdles are not technical, but $$/political.

I'm not saying they will take the code and drop it into the 360 devkit and Viola! perfect port. I'm saying it could be done and most wouldn't be able to tell the difference. And from what I gather, developing on 360 is relatively a piece of cake and should only be getting easier/better.

Long story short - mgs4 will be on 360 unless there is $ or in the way.

 

Actually, the only interesting thing from that article was the statement that the PS3 is too expensive, but that will change in 2-3 years as the games come out.

Not as the PS3 price drops.. but as the games come out.

That is actually interesting. Especially if he's operating under the belief it will be vastly superior games, not a lower price point, that will make the PS3 an investment worth making.

 

Actually what I found most interesting was the 2008-2009 timeframe for FF. That's going to be quite the wait!

 

And I fully agree with him (Nomura). As far as the majority are concerned, the PS3 is currently too expensive a games console. That's pretty close to what Kojima said in both of his analogies (albeit in a rather more conventional way!). However, Kojima's analogy and subsequent elaboration says that while PS3 is more expensive, it's still something worth doing every once in a while to treat yourself - like a meal for a special occasion with all of your family, or going to the cinema.

I'm still not 100% sure about who should be doing the "occasional" bit of cinema, DVD or TV - whether he means devs only producing games that "max out" the PS3 occasionally with less being spent on games that push the X360/Wii, or if he means the price of the games themselves will be more on PS3 than X360/Wii and so people will buy more freely for X360/Wii and save the PS3 for special occasions. He could mean both of course! I'd consider the former to end up truer though.


@Scoobydooby - it'll be worth the wait (especially with Versus coming at the same sort of time!)

 

It is? That's obvious to me. Such is the case with every medium.

 

This is what I take issue with as it implies it is not capable on 360 to produce this same "Movie quality" content on 360 which most reasonable people would agree is garbage.
So:

From a technical point of view - doesn't make sense.
From a installed base (potential sales) point of view, doesn't make sense.
From a -Sony point of view - makes sense.

I helps them to justify the cost of the machine to potential buyers but in reality is garbage.

 

What?

You can't be serious.

You think the price of the console is irrelevant to it's rate of adoption and the only matter of importance (or the matter of most importance) is the superiority and availability of its games?

PAH!

The PS3 ain't going anywhere until it's priced closer to $299, I don't care if it generates full holographic environments, so Little Suzy Homemaker can 'play' that she's getting a massage from Brad Pitt while the PS3 actually vacuums and cooks dinner.

 

lol! agreed! no I meant the concept that ps3 will be more desirable (regardless of pricedrops) years down the road when it's games library is much stronger and a fuller library bluray titles available. This in combination with the pricedrops will make the machine much more desirable than it will be this year. How it will look in comparison to it's competition though at the time is what I question as people aren't just going to ride the pine for years waiting for Sony to get their act together.

 

I really think you should give Kojima more respect than that.

 

Now, that certainly sounds to me like he's saying that in 1-2 years when the games 'are there' and Blu-Ray is adopted that the PS3 will no longer be considered to be too expensive. It'll somehow been seen as a good value at that point, which I definately disagree with.

The PS3 needs significant price reductions in addition to Blu-Ray adoption and a great library in order to be not be considered too expensive.

And didn't he put a 2-3 year time table on FF? So the console is going to remain 'too expensive' for 1-2 years after release, some where between years 2-3 there's going to be some sort of price reduction, and after 2-3 years FF will be released and that will make the PS3 not "too expensive"?

The only way the PS3 isn't too expensive in 2-3 years is if it's selling at $249.

 

Has nothing to do with respect. Has to do with reality. People like to hear what they like to hear. As long as it isn't a flat out lie then there is no harm per se.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, MGS4 right now to me is the most compelling reason to own a ps3. I give him all the respect in the world. That doesn't mean I take his word as gospel. It also doesn't mean I think he is above "steering" his opinion one way or the other either intentionally from direction of Sony or unintentionally from what Sony has said to him.

 

I don't understand it either. Maybe it's just a reference to the whole 1080p, HDMI 1.3 with nicer FMV and more varied textures from place to place, but I don't see that as quite the difference between going to a Chinese restaurant and having an Anniversary bash. Similarly, I don't understand the price comparisons since PS3 games will most likely be the same price as X360 games (maybe $5 or so more), and you don't have to pay a monthly upkeep to watch your DVD's with friends.

Quoted in agreement.

 

While I wouldn't say "I understand completely" there does seem to be a logical answer there:

 

That is one possibility, yes. We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

His most recent analogy works best when applied more literally - Blu-ray movies vs upscaled SD-DVD movies. There's more choice to SD-DVD's, but you could certainly consider the odd BR movie a comparitive treat.

 

umm ... lol ... I don't think a few years from now Kojima's gonna come out and say:

"ya got me! I was just using the dinner analogies etc cause Sony wanted me to hype their system for em! That thing was expensive back then! they had to do somethin!"
or
"yeah Sony sold me a line of crap on the minimum standards for ps3. I thought every game was going to have to be at least (a certain budget) and look at least as good as (a certain game) - what a bunch of liars!"

Point is - pretty much everyone in the know agrees ps3 ~ 360 capabilities wise. hence:

Also from the early launch of 360 to the late launch of ps3 one could make the argument ps3 is actually 2 years late when compared to how ps2 hit the market. This in combination with high price in comparison to competition ...

So that leaves:

...or am I missing something?

 

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, it's still one possibility, not the only option. I've already said that I accept that you could be right, so it surprises me that you think you're definitely right. The only thing that's actually fact is that, with time, we will see whether or not Kojima's analogy is at all accurate. Hence, "we'll wait and see".

I've got this post Ctrl+C'd, if you feel like repeating yourself again .


edit: actually, your argument that the PS3 is 2 years late is tenuous at very best! Are you comparing it to the launch of the first console of each generation for fairness, or just that which gives you the nicest number to plonk into your case? Not to mention that neither the movie nor the food analogy makes any implication whatsoever about install base. In fact, that whole point of view doesn't make sense as a result of itself, rather than anything Kojima has said.

 

What I don't understand and why I've repeated my point in different ways is your "wait and see" comment. What are we waiting for?
Minimum standard of all games on ps3 in five years that crush the top 360 ones up to that point?
Kojima to come out and "speak the truth"?
Kuta to spill his guts in a mental institute?

The point is it takes two things (three maybe) to make a "blockbuster game" (movie analogy).

Budget
Tech
(talent)

In order for the big budget to make sense one must be able to count on a large number(userbase) of these blockbuster games to be sold. ps3 ? 360 -check

In order to create a "blockbuster game" one would have to have the tech to realize their vision. ps3 -check 360 -check

The talent question is answered by the man(and his team) in the interview. They have the talent, 360 and ps3 are by all accounts roughly equal tech wise and I would imagine most would give 360 the nod for installed base in 2007 when mgs is launched.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I can't see how his comments are anything but marketing. (for Sony to be specific)

edit -
ps2 hit market first followed a year later by xbox and gc
360 hit market first followed a year later by ps3 and Wii

2 year gap when compared head to head

 

We're waiting to see what actually happens, rather than what you or I theorize months and years beforehand.

Halo was a blockbuster, no?

Pretty much. Certainly multi-platformers will be almost identical. Of course, asymmetric processors and unified shaders are relatively new technologies, so the impact of them is a bit harder to predict in the coming years.

Yup, possibly.

Dreamcast, miladdo. That was first to the market, with a larger install base than the PS2. Of course there are differences between then and now, but that's not stopped people on all sides quoting history before..


Sorry if this is rushed, I'm going home - I'm not hanging around for just anyone!

 

You are exaggerating and thats not a serious thing to say. These developers arent the kind that will come out and state whatever Sony told them just because Sony wants it that way and want to believe what they want to believe.

They arent mindless consumers. They are high profile developers. They are the last people to believe what they would want to hear without having first hand experience and search what they ve got.

 

And you think Kuta couldn't work his magic on devs? I don't factually know what went on behind the scenes in this case, but it is clear that his statement is not based on technical advantage. It is not based on his ability to budget (and hence sell) his "Blockbuster Movie" on one system over the other (in fact I would argue the other way).

So then what is it based on? If it isn't marketing (like I stated earlier intentional or not), then what is it?