Perhaps I don't know but it's still going to be at least 2 years away imo. I doubt Capcom is going to rush out a port with a less than 12 million PS3 install base. It's not like anyone who owns a PS3 who wants those two games are going to wait 2 years for it. By the time a port is available the original version on X360 will already be down to maybe $30. Maybe the sequels will get ports to PS3 within 10 months of each other, then maybe not. It's kinda pointless to speculate about sequels that won't be released until about 3 years from now anyway.
Metal Gear 4 headed for XB360?
- Thread starter Brimstone
- Start date
Perhaps I don't know but it's still going to be at least 2 years away imo. I doubt Capcom is going to rush out a port with a less than 12 million PS3 install base. It's not like anyone who owns a PS3 who wants those two games are going to wait 2 years for it. By the time a port is available the original version on X360 will already be down to maybe $30. Maybe the sequels will get ports to PS3 within 10 months of each other, then maybe not. It's kinda pointless to speculate about sequels that won't be released until about 3 years from now anyway.
Why? If you're creating a game already, you're investing all that money for one platform. For a second platform, you only need to cover the costs of creating the engine. If your engine is already multiplatform, or you're intending to port the engine anyway, you'd be looking to recover those costs too. Your sales on the second platform only have to cover those costs to become profitable. If LO is coming on XB360 anyway, PS3 would only need to sell a few tens of thousands to be profitable on PS3, whatever happens on XB360. The ROI on the porting is generally far better than the ROI on an exclusive.
Huh? What do you mean? It'll be a couple of years before the PS3 has a huge user base, and only when PS3 has a huge user base will it be worth porting games for it? How does XB360 work then? Has it already got a huge user base? Does it not need one to get ports?
I'm not seeing any sense in that comment
Going by that logic every exclusive game has been ported to another console because "you're creating a game already". There are quite a few famous games that have not been ported to other consoles that have smaller install bases. Can you guess what those games are? In fact one of them hasn't yet been ported even though the engines "were already created" for the other consoles in the previous versions of that game. Can you guess what that game is?
If you hypothetical assume the engine is already multiplatform AND already intended to be ported then what is there to discuss? How do you know LP and DR were intended to be ported? Answer: You don't. Going with that logic every game that is based on UE3 will be ported to the other console. I don't think so.
No, covering those costs gets you to break even not make a profit.
A few tens of thousands? I don't think so. You act as though the game being discussed is some simple Tetris game that can be ported in a couple weeks. If LP takes 6 months or more to completely port, I don't think selling a few tens of thousands on PS3 will rake in major profits. Resources could better be spent on something that will sell hundreds of thousands like the sequel on the original platform don't you think?
I don't think it's "far better". I think it "depends" on a few other factors like popularity of the franchise, install base, etc.
What I mean is pretty obvious, X360 will be at what? 12 million by the time LP is released? That's what 2-3 times the PS3 user base right? How does it make sense to port it to PS3 when you don't even know how well the game will be received on X360? If it doesn't do well why would you want to port it to PS3 with 1/3 the userbase? If it does do well on X360 why would you want to put resources into the port for a smaller userbase for a game that will be old hat by then and likely won't sell as many at full price? Why not dedicate those resources to the sequel on X360 which you know will do well because the prequel did well in additon to the larger install base?
Porting MGS4 to X360 makes sense - larger userbase
Porting VF5 to X360 makes sense - larger userbase
Porting DMC4 to X360 makes sense - larger userbase
Porting Tekken6 to X360 makes sense - larger userbase
Porting RE4 to PS2 made sense - larger userbase
Porting LP to PS3 doesn't make sense - smaller userbase
Porting DR to PS3 doesn't make sense - smaller userbase
Last edited by a moderator:
Which means porting to PS3 is worth 33% extra sales. If the cost to create the same engine on a different platform, without having to touch the assets, is substantially less then you'd make on that extra 33% sales, which it is, you makes economic sense to do it. There's no need for a huge user-base. That's why we had cross-platform games last gen. XB still nets you 20% extra sales over if you only release on PS3. And that's why people are expecting 3rd party exclusives to be few and far between this gen. The reasons they are aren't economic on the whole. There's virtually no economic reasons to still single platform.
By then being 3-4 months? That's not a game-destroying time. Do you think if GeoW was released on PS3 next July, it wouldn't sell?!
As for investing those resources in LO2, you'd end up making less money in the long run. Spending a $million on LO2 instead of on porting LO (and thus LO2) to PS3, would mean 4 million and 12 million less extra customers to sell to when you ignore the PS3 market with both LO and LO2 when it is released (made up figures of course).
Huh? You're increasing your market by the number of PS3s. Creating for XB360 exclusively - 12 million potential customers. Creating for PS3 exclusively - 4 million potential customers. Porting your game from XB360 to PS3 or vice versa, 16 million potential customers.
I don't think you understand the relative costs and complexities of porting games. For 3rd party developers whop are going cross-platform anyway, it makes economic sense to target pretty much all their titles to multiplatforms, and they'll be spending on developing cross-platform engines anyway. If a game is targetted solely at one platform with no original intention to port, the cost of a port obivously increases, and if you don't intend to release future titles cross-platform sharing the same engine, you may question its worth. That's unlikely though. The economically sensible thing to do for 3rd parties is develop cross-platform engines (or license them) and use them for all your titles where you'll get 25+% extra profits for maybe 5% extra investment.
Your forgetting one thing in your equation:
I know that Sony offers better licencing deal if the game stays exclusive on Sony plattforms. Thats potentially a lot of cash saved.
I know that Sony offers better licencing deal if the game stays exclusive on Sony plattforms. Thats potentially a lot of cash saved.
First of all you didn't answer the question so I'll ask it again. How does it makes sense to port when you don't even know how well the game will sell on the primary platform?
Second the fact last generation had ports on different consoles means didley squat. Why didn't Namco release SC3 on Xbox and GC even though the GC and Xbox version sold very well and the engines were already complete from SC2? Why didn't Namco release the Tekken and Ridge Racer games on Xbox? Why didn't Capcom port RE4 to Xbox? Why didn't SEGA port VF4? Your argument doesn't hold water. It may sound good in theory but it doesn't really always work in reality.
Finally you bring up a strawman point. I don't remember anybody saying games should be exclusive instead of multiplatform. What has been said was that it doesn't make sense to port to a small userbase because the resources, time, etc. may not be worthwhile to the development/publishing company. When the install base is sufficient to make it worthwhile it is when porting should be considered. If the game doesn't sell well then it is stupid to port let a lone port to a small userbase out of the blind notion that "we will sell 33% more units".
Of course it would sell simply because it sold well on the original platform. Isn't that obvious? The question is why would you spend your precious resources working on a port for a smaller userbase when you could spend it working on the sequeal for a much larger userbase with dedicated fans that is guaranteed to sell millions? Why delay the sequel to work on a port that you don't even know will sell AS well on a competing platform that don't have established fans? All of this talk is easy from hindsight but when you are starting to develop a game you have NO IDEA if it will sell well or not unless it's an already established franchise. LP and DR were not established franchises when development started and Capcom were themselves very surprised that those two games were getting/got so much positive reaction.
This is purely speculation. You have no realworld market figures to actually back up what you claim. Pulling figures out from thin air doesn't make it fact. Again going by your logic SC3 would've been ported to Xbox and GC but it wasn't despite the fact the engines were already developed and used for SC2 on those two platforms. Where does that fit in with your logic?
And somehow you understand it better? Is that why you don't have realworld figures? Is that why you can't unwrapped the mystery behind SC3? Get off your high horse already.
Again you're just regurgitating what you said before so I'm gonna regurgitate my answer. If a company plans on doing someting anyway then there is nothing to discuss is there? That's like saying if I'm planning on going to the grocery store to buy beer anyway, might as well buy some some extra beer while I'm there to save myself a trip another trip down the road..well duh. The point is for some companies we don't know what they are thinking. We'd be ignorant to claim (based on psuedo economics) otherwise. If thes economics theories held true we'd be playing SC3 on Xbox and GC.
Yet Capcom ported RE4 to PS2 which was NEVER intended to be ported. Why is that? Answer: Because they saw that PS2 install base and couldn't resist. How about we not pretend we know everything about the dynamics that force these decision?
Again not that simple..if the game doesn't do as well as expected the additional resources put into the ports would make the failure even worse.
LO (Lost Oddysey) is made by mistwalker, which is paid bucketloads of money by MS for exclusivity.
Ithink I'm just confusing LO with LP as initials. I was only using LO as a name in the discussion of porting currently exclusive 3rd party titles, and probably picked the wrong initials.
To Capeta, I wasn't saying games should be cross-platform for economic reasons. In a separate thread I've said why 3rd party games aren't always, and won't always be, cross-platform, which answers your SC3 point. My point in this thread is that you seem to think the cost of porting to another platform isn't worth the 33% larger market - using your own pie-in-the-sky figures (you gave us 12 million XB360s and 4 million PS3s, not me...). The cost of porting a game isn't that high. If a game costs $10 million to make, it doesn't cost $5 million to port. Probably won't even cost a tenth of that. Don't take my word for it. Read around on the forum about the costs involved in creating games and the costs of porting engines. Thus if the other console offers a good percentage of the primary, such as 33%, it's profitable to port to the game assuming equal sales success.
Now if a game doesn't sell well on the first platform, there's no point in porting, obviously. Assuming the original title is a success, which is all people care about with these 'lost exclusivity' rumours/announcements, then you can expect fair sales on other platforms (as long as the port is good), which cover the cost of porting very profitably.
In summary, porting isn't expensive relative to the increase in market size it allows. In those simple economic terms there no reason not to port, though there other factors that affect a choice to go cross-platform. In your example, PS3 is still an appealing economic platform with only 4 million units to XB360's 12 million (going by your own made-up figures...)
Your assertion...
Porting LP to PS3 doesn't make sense - smaller userbase
Porting DR to PS3 doesn't make sense - smaller userbase
...is flat-out wrong. The userbase is larger than XB360's on it's own, and the cost to reach that larger userbase is small in comparison to the increase in market.
Unless you know the cost of porting + manufacturing costs vs. the royalties deal vs. projected sales estimate, you could be better off not porting until these factor weigh heavily into your favor.
So while you'd be increasing your potential customer pool by 4million (using your example) vs. 12million, the amount of resources spent to reach that 4million and capture sales from that pool, might not be worth. Of course this would vary game to game and studio to studio but you simply cannot use blanket statements when discussing such low volumes.
One important factor to consider is the number of multiplatform users at this stage also. Like myself and many others, the people who bought a PS3 also own a 360, as we're still in the enthusiast state of purchase with people wanting the latest and greatest. The above is all assuming that the Port itself is comparable on both systems, something the PS3 has suffered from in these early stages.
I disagree. The cost per disc in terms of printing and licensing is the same, roughly speaking, for the different platforms, unless a deal was cut - but that's obviously outside the scope of the argument. For the orignal XB360, there's the cost of the engine, the assets, the marketting, the printing, the licensing, and the distribution. Printing, licensing and distribution is a per disk value. It's, say, $15 per disc. Marketting, engine and assets are the development costs, which runs into millions, with development of the engine being the smaller part of that. To port to PS3, you'd need to create the engine on new hardware, which should cost similar to the original. Perhaps it'd cost more because of trickier tools to work with, and perhaps it'd cost less because you've got the engine mechanics worked out and only need translate them to different methods. The per disc costs will be the same, you save a fortune on assets, and the marketting depends on whether you release in a similar time-frame or not.
If you spend $10 million developing an XB360 game, and sell 300,000 copies to 12 million users, the returns are, say $50 per game, $15 million, and costs are $10 million + $15 per disc = $4.5 million = $500,000 profit.*
If porting the engine to PS3 costs $1 million, and you expand your market by 33%, That's a total cost of $11 million to 400,000 sales (assuming uniform sales) to 16 million gamers. The returns are, $50 per game, $20 million, with costs of $11 million + $15 per disc = $6 million = $3 million profit.
Yes, these are 'out of thin air' figures, though they're at least in the realms of what happens. And they're only for demonstration purposes. You can try out different figures to see how the earnings vary, and if you do this, you'll see that the only time the port doesn't make more money than not having a port is when the price to port is a higher percentage of development costs then the market size it adds. If the cost to port a title to PS3 is 50% of development cost, and the increase in market is 33%, it's not profitable.
Now the cost of porting a title is low relative to the 20+% extra market size that a second platform introduces. You're talking some 8-10 devs for 6 months or so. ERP has commented elsewhere that a port can be made in 3 months, IIRC. You lose all the iterative development costs, have a finished design, have your finished data structures and full assets for testing. Obviously difference in architecture add complication, but not to incredible costs. Pretty much the only time it isn't economically sensible to port, barring incentives from the console company, is if the second console is expected to buy differently and you'd expect sales lower than the percentage market increase.
And this is why there's lots of cross-platform games coming out this gen! Factor in also that 3rd party developers want cross-platform engines, and the investment in the initial port carries through to multiple other titles. Imagine Games X1, X2 and X3 come out exclusively on XB360 to an install base of 12, 20 and 30 million units respectively. Port the engine with X1 and with a 33% install base, PS3 fetches you 16, 26 and 40 million units unstalled base. That's 33% extra, for a relatively small initial outlay. That's why cross-platform is popular! That's why UE3 is big business! That's why devs are creating multiplatform engines! There isn't a massive economic barrier discouraging multiplatform titles. You don't need a console base to reach a large critical mass before you target it with your games, as long as it remains a worthwhile percentage of the leader. The only exception, on economic grounds, for targetting the larger cross-platform userbase, is if you expect one platform to not buy. For example BGDA on PS2 was ported to XB and GC. It sold poorly on GC (poor port by accounts), so the sequel wasn't released to it. If it sold as well on that platform as the others, it would have received a port because GC offered an extra 20% or so returns on the investment. Sometimes a console appeals to a certain type of gamer, and the alternative platform lacks users interested in that genre. Porting 'Violent FPS' to 'Pink Fluffy Cutesy-Platformer-Favourite Console' doesn't make sense as it's a different userbase with different tastes. That's not likely to be an issue with XB360 and PS3 though, with perhaps the exception being regional cultural variations. You may well not port Pachinko to XB360!
Though that's a factor, I doubt it's high. Otherwise why are developers creating multiplatform games if the PS3 userbase is the same as the XB360 userbase? Why create Madden on PS3 if 80% (P.I.T.S. figure!) have an XB360? The PS3 userbase has to be considered a large enough proportion of the XB360 user base or it wouldn't be economical to port, with the exception of an investment for future games on the same engine...at which point there's no reservation to porting either way!
* And yes, I know licensing isn't paid per game sold. It'll still remain proportional to the platforms though, and can be ignored to keep the explanation simple, despite it already being long-winded!
number 3 is wrong.
It should be:
3. The biggest deciding factor is how big the PS3 userbase will be (AND how well it sells - if it doesnt sell well, it wont get ported)
No, he's right.
Hot games sell new consoles, therefore enlarging said hardware installed base.
That's why Sony invested in MGS4, much like MS did with GoW (and this last one is selling X360's like there's no tomorrow over here right now).
Hardware is nothing without good software, especially so in the first two years of market exposure for each platform.
The added initial cost to grab the exclusive pays off later when there are more Playstation 3 owners, increasing sales of more and different software titles.
Last edited by a moderator:
1- well the publisher pr is not the most reliable source for these kind of things you know.
2- gaming publications like egm, 1up, ign ( and several "insiders" who claim that they are close to konami) say it's a definite possibility.
3-i think it will be a combination of factors not just one big factor leading to Konami's decision. How ps3 and 360 will perform in 2007, how ms and/or sony would react to such deal , how well the game will sell on ps3, and how a port of the game to 360 would fit in the konami's company resource planning are all parts of the puzzle imho.
1- well the publisher pr is not the most reliable source for these kind of things you know.
2- gaming publications like egm, 1up, ign ( and several "insiders" who claim that they are close to konami) say it's a definite possibility.
3-i think it will be a combination of factors not just one big factor leading to Konami's decision. How ps3 and 360 will perform in 2007, how ms and/or sony would react to such deal , how well the game will sell on ps3, and how a port of the game to 360 would fit in the konami's company resource planning are all parts of the puzzle imho.
1) I think he isnt basing it on Konami's PR but mostly on Kojima's past decisions
2) I ve heard only about the rumor at EGM. Never heard of anything else regarding that one from 1up, IGN or somewhere else except from speculation. Definite possibility? Are you sure?
Avon_Implosion
Newcomer
I think that sites like IGN and 1up are speculating as much as we are at this point, with suspenseful statements such as "predict huge 360 support from Konami and Namco in 2007", or "now that VF5 is on the 360, what other once-exclusive title will come to the console?" *hint hint*
Personally, I'm a bit annoyed by it, because if they have a source telling them these things, why not make an article about it and throw it in the ever-popular rumor mill. Otherwise, quit acting like you're not talking about of your ass as much as we are.
In the end, I think that, despite all the huge technical hurtles Kojima may face in porting, it will boil down to the userbase size, and Sony's dedication to the game. I suppose that, if Kaz wanted to crunch down on the franchise and make it at least a timed exclusive, he'd do it-if he already hasen't. I would hope that Sony realizes how vital this game is to their big black box.
Similar threads
