MGS4 possibility on 360 tidbit?

[Cheezdoodles]

Basically, all you did was rambled on about wether or not MGS4 is worse of being multiplatform or not. Which pretty much anybody agrees with you on, if they read the logic i posted earlier (that unless the dev studio separately develops the game with 2 talented dev teams and use equal resources on each one as they would with an exclusive, it will not be as good)

You saying that what stockholders want or not is irrelevant in this thread is flat out wrong, its absolutely relevant (you may not find it relevant in your personal offtopic rambling about mp quality but this thread is not about that, so don't generalize and act like your ramblings decide what this topic is about or not) (its actually relevant for your off topic theories about it being worse or not, because of stockholders wanting as high ROI as possible, less money will be alocated per dev team when you make a multiplatform title than you do with a exclusive)

The point I was trying to make is that stockholders' interests and gamer interests' dont always align. And that was one example. Clover Studios was talented and offered great games. Financially it was a hole. Creatively it did wonders. It had to close. It shows clearly what I want as a gamer and what an investor wants sometimes point to opposite directions. Stockholders dont care about games. They care about money.

Actually, thats a terrible example. Clover Studios was talented, but "nobody" bought their games, THATS why it was a financial whole, THATS why it was closed down, IT DIDN'T BRING IN PROFITS . Stockholders are largely irrelevant in your example, they were loosing money, even if it was owned by developers it would still be closed down because it kept loosing money.

What you personally might want as a gamer is irrelevant for this example, gamers wordwide obviously didn't want these games enough.

 

[Nesh]

Some didnt agree and some others said it is unimportant.

Actually, thats a terrible example. Clover Studios was talented, but "nobody" bought their games, THATS why it was a financial whole, THATS why it was closed down, stockholders care about money, if the games doesn't sell, you don't make any money.

What you personally might want as a gamer is irrelevant for this example, gamers wordwide obviously didn't want these games enough.

Well ofcourse I agree.

Probably under that logic it is a bad example.

But here is another perspective. Gamers who bought their games were left with a bitter state when the studio closed. Why?Their games were loved by those who bought them. People didnt buy the games and descovered they didnt want them which as a result spread word from mouth to mouth it wasnt good. Unlike some craptastic games that didnt sell because they were crap.

Spongebob was on the top charts, made stockholders happy. If there wont be another Spongebob nobody will notice. Well actually more people know who made Okami than who made Spongebob. If the creators of Spongebob are closed no one will notice either. Which game made the biggets impression?

Likewise if we assume MGS4 has some drawbacks due to being multiplatform or pressures from some executives, MGS fanatics will still buy the game. All of them will buy the game. I will buy the game because I am attached to it. The game will have lots of sales still. Stockholders will be happier than I will be. And despite that I will most likely continue to buy the next MGS and the next and the next....and so on. It happened with DMC2 (sold more than a million), Xenosaga2 (Jesus what have they been thinking), Sonic Heroes, and others and it will happen again. Many were dissapointed but they sold

 

[Cheezdoodles]

S
But here is another perspective. Gamers who bought their games were left with a bitter state when the studio closed. Why?Their games were loved by those who bought them. People didnt buy the games and descovered they didnt want them which as a result spread word from mouth to mouth it wasnt good. Unlike some craptastic games that didnt sell because they were crap.

Spongebob was on the top charts, made stockholders happy.

You cannot possibly blame stockholders for this or make any logical argument using stockholders in this example.

CLOVER STUDIO DID NOT MAKE A PROFIT.

I realize that some gamers (obviously a minor population of gamers) are sad because it shut down, but its totally unrealistic to expect that a business which is not turning profits is going to be kept running at a loss to satisfy a minority of gamers.

This is the software industry, gamers buy the games they like, they chose not to buy the games they don't like. It would be unreasonable to expect that developers who are not making a profit should still get funding because a minority liked their games.

It might be sad, but its completely delusional to make an example out of.

 

[Nesh]

You cannot possibly blame stockholders for this or make any logical argument using stockholders in this example.

CLOVER STUDIO DID NOT MAKE A PROFIT.

I realize that some gamers (obviously a minor population of gamers) are sad because it shut down, but its totally unrealistic to expect that a business which is not turning profits is going to be kept running at a loss to satisfy a minority of gamers.

This is the software industry, gamers buy the games they like, they chose not to buy the games they don't like. It would be unreasonable to expect that developers who are not making a profit should still get funding because a minority liked their games.

It might be sad, but its completely delusional to make an example out of.

I am not trying to blame anyone! Point one sentence where I said that its illogical for stockholders not to expect money! Point me one sentence where I said this stockholder behavior is illogical.
Point me one sentence where I said stockholders shouldnt have such a behaviour.

The point still doesnt change: Stockholders and gamers have different interests.

Some gamers love some studios and games with a passion. Stockholders dont because they dont gain from them.Do these gamers even if not millions want them? Yes. Do stockholders (which can be fewer) want them? No

Is that a fact? Yes.
If I talk from a business perspective would I talk as a gamer? No! Has the business perspective beaten to death in such discussions a million times? YES! Have I already agreed that financially it is the best thing to do? YES! Have I disagreed with you about this? NO

If I want to talk passionately as a gamer and solely as a gamer about a game I will act as such even if I am in the minority.

And even in such cases I still wont say that stockholders shouldnt act as they do and I will continue to agree with you. But I will still point at the sad facts

Why is it delusional to describe this sad fact? Is it because it is a natural phenomenon? So?

People assume too much continuously from my posts because I am not following the trend of views that is expected by the majority of the "realists", "rationalists", "pragmatists" or whatever in the boards. I sound unconventional and people will assume too much but I dont care. There are many in these boards that are reluctant to express their opinions because of this

 

[Sankari]

IMO These topics should be banned just like Killzone threads if there is no real info. Because its really getting out of hand and people only blow out theyr pants here. /

 

[Cheezdoodles]

The point still doesnt change: Stockholders and gamers have different interests.

The problem with your example nesh, that in that example, gamers and stockholders, neither wanted games from them.

You might have wanted it, but gamers in general didn't.

Thats all i pointed out. You even mentioning stockholders in that example shows either that you have some sort of irrational hate against them, or that you don't know what exactly your talking about.

 

[Deleted member 7537]

I think this discussion makes no sense, James Mielke just tried to makes all think that Ryan said that maybe they were developing the game for the 360 too, but he didn't say that, you just have to hear the podcast.Mielke is a known anti-sony fanboy, and when he does this kind of things makes me sick.

Anyway, i think 360 will have a version of MGS4, like MGS3 and MGS2, but not right now. Probably in 2 years.

 

[quest55720]

I think this discussion makes no sense, James Mielke just tried to makes all think that Ryan said that maybe they were developing the game for the 360 too, but he didn't say that, you just have to hear the podcast.Mielke is a known anti-sony fanboy, and when he does this kind of things makes me sick.

Anyway, i think 360 will have a version of MGS4, like MGS3 and MGS2, but not right now. Probably in 2 years.

I don't think it would be worth there time to wait so long to port it. In 2 years it will be a pretty old game and there will be 3rd or 4th gen games to compete against on the 360. If there is a port I think it will hit 6-9 months after the PS3 version or there is no point IMO. The only way there will not be a 360 version IMO is if Sony is paying to keep it exclusive. There user base is just not there on the PS3 for such a huge budget title. To make matters worse there is a percentage of the user base who could really careless about games since they got a PS3 for blue ray, Linux or other non gaming apps.

 

[TheChefO]

I don't think it would be worth there time to wait so long to port it. In 2 years it will be a pretty old game and there will be 3rd or 4th gen games to compete against on the 360. If there is a port I think it will hit 6-9 months after the PS3 version or there is no point IMO.

Agreed.

There is too much comptetion now in the games market for any game (even a FF) to do well if ported a year or more after initial release. I think this is the reason we will not see ports of Lost Planet or Dead Rising. For games which offer a substantial upgrade, I think there is a market although this same game would sell better if it were simultaneously released. The only exception I can think of to this rule would be GTA3. But for obvious reasons, this one success story will likely never be repeated.

 

[Nesh]

The problem with your example nesh, that in that example, gamers and stockholders, neither wanted games from them.

You might have wanted it, but gamers in general didn't.

It doesnt matter if the majority didnt buy it (not want it, BUY IT) from a gamers perspective.

Are you trying to say that the closure of Clover Studios benefited gamers as much as stockholders if at all? Not to mention....a loss?

Thats all i pointed out. You even mentioning stockholders in that example shows either that you have some sort of irrational hate against them, or that you don't know what exactly your talking about.

Will ever stop continuing with your assumptions? Even after I explain? You are trying to make me spit something when its not there no matter what. Or even shove up my ass something that I did not express. This is the god damn problem in this forums. People assume and are trying to force people to confess things that arent there. Why? Because of an assumption. Its almost as if assumtpions are more important that what the other is actually saying

I know perfectly what I am talking about. And I brought other examples which you tend to ignore. Also the most rediculous thing is that I talked about possible implications on the game development going MP and I was infested with replies about stockholders and profits. Go figure!

Next time I ll talk about how much I like Tekken and I ll be filled with replies about stockholders' interests

 

[Cheezdoodles]

It doesnt matter if the majority didnt buy it (not want it, BUY IT) from a gamers perspective.

Are you trying to say that the closure of Clover Studios benefited gamers as much as stockholders if at all? Not to mention....a loss?

Listen to your own argument. this didn't benefit the stockholders at all, CLOVER STUDIOS WENT BANKRUPT. THEY DIDN'T MAKE MONEY. Gamers lost their games, and stockholders lost their money.

I know perfectly what I am talking about. And I brought other examples which you tend to ignore. Also the most rediculous thing is that I talked about possible implications on the game development going MP and I was infested with replies about stockholders and profits. Go figure!

You sure about that? All implications because of a game going Multiplatform is actually caused by management and therefore indirectly stockholders.

There is no reason why a MP game would be of less quality of an exclusive if you assigned both versions as talented dev teams and gave them each the same budget as the single exlclusive title. But however, since Stockholders want highest possible ROI, management will reuse as much as the assets, using as little money possible to make 2 acceptable games.

Therefore talking about stockholders and profit IS relevant to the argument your making.

Not only that, this topic wasn't even about this to begin with, it was about a game possibly going multiplatform, which is definately governed by management and stockholders.

 

[DJ12]

Listen to your own argument. this didn't benefit the stockholders at all, CLOVER STUDIOS WENT BANKRUPT. THEY DIDN'T MAKE MONEY. Gamers lost their games, and stockholders lost their money.

Erm, no.

http://ir.capcom.co.jp/english/news/html/e061012a.html

Reason for the Dissolution:
Clover Studio Co., Ltd. has met the goal of developing unique and creative original home video game software, however, in view of promoting a business strategy that concentrates management resources on a selected business to enhance the efficiency of the development power of the entire Capcom group, the dissolution of Clover Studio Co., Ltd. has been raised and passed at a Board of Directors' meeting.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Um, thats basically the same, it didn't make money.

 

[DJ12]

Not making money (although sales suggest they did) is not "basically the same" as going bankrupt.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Not making money (although sales suggest they did) is not "basically the same" as going bankrupt.

They were loosing money, and it got closed down. In my book that's more or less the same. Of course its impossibly to go bankrupt when your owned by a big multi billion company, unless they actually go bankrupt themselves.

Your just nitpicking right now.

Closing down Clover Studios, because they were loosing money on it, means that stockholders were loosing money on it, which means they didn't benefit from it. Its completely retarded to try to make some big deal out of gamers wanting otherwise. You cannot begin to cry every time a unsuccessful closes down and blame the stockholders.

 

[DJ12]

I cannot find any figures for Viewtiful Joe, but Okami made $8 million from US sales (japanese sales sucked though) so they cannot of been doing that bad.

Reading the wording on the release I'd say they wanted to stop making good games that you might consider a "risk" and concentrate on churning out updates of various tried, tested and stale IPs such as Resident Evil that sell on name alone.

 

[Nesh]

Listen to your own argument. this didn't benefit the stockholders at all, CLOVER STUDIOS WENT BANKRUPT. THEY DIDN'T MAKE MONEY. Gamers lost their games, and stockholders lost their money.

If you want to talk about something you should know what you are talking about instead of making up "logics"

Thank God DJ12 showed you how ridiculous this statement is. For you it is the same but thats why you are totally wrong.

The existence of Clover was beneficial to gamers, negatvie returns to investors. The closure of the Studio was a loss to gamers and beneficial to the future returns of the Stockholders.

You sure about that? All implications because of a game going Multiplatform is actually caused by management and therefore indirectly stockholders.

reasons for going MP and who caused it to go multiplatform belong to a different world of discussions than discussions on whats changes I am going to get from it

Stop giving birth to "logics"

There is no reason why a MP game would be of less quality of an exclusive if you assigned both versions as talented dev teams and gave them each the same budget as the single exlclusive title. But however, since Stockholders want highest possible ROI, management will reuse as much as the assets, using as little money possible to make 2 acceptable games.

Therefore talking about stockholders and profit IS relevant to the argument your making.

Not only that, this topic wasn't even about this to begin with, it was about a game possibly going multiplatform, which is definately governed by management and stockholders.

Oh my GOD! And you claim you read my posts!

And another false logic! And an "IF" one too. Since stockholders care about RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND ONLY ROI, the reusage of assets and the fact that these assets should be ported with as less cost as possible, the developer should NOT have to go deep into one platform's very specific traits that are absent from the other platform to ensure as less costy port and as perfect port as possible.
BECAUSE:


You probably didnt know that Maximizing profits also equals minimizing COSTS!

Acceptable level it will be. Butthat level could be anything.a) From a simply good game when MGS4 could have been better to b)a game that took advandage from creative point of view fully the device's potential and offerings.

Which is more quaranteed if the game is developed exclusively OR as I said if we lived in an ideal world where developers would have all the time and freedom to develop on each platform from scratch and exploit each platforms specific traits without worrying about ports, costs,deadlines , or how different the end product will be.
But we dont live in such a world!

Also who are you to tell what is relevant and what is not and what should be discussed and what should not? Its not irrelevant from MGS4 going MP! Show me that rule because I cant see it

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I cannot find any figures for Viewtiful Joe, but Okami made $8 million from US sales (japanese sales sucked though) so they cannot of been doing that bad.

Reading the wording on the release I'd say they wanted to stop making good games that you might consider a "risk" and concentrate on churning out updates of various tried, tested and stale IPs such as Resident Evil that sell on name alone.

1. You do not know the Budget for Okami, thus what it made in sales is irrelevant.
2. Even tho a studio makes profit, it may still count as a loss for stockholders, anybody with the basic understandings of finance should know that you must discount the income based on what you could get either risk free or with the same risk elsewhere.

 

[archangelmorph]

The loss of clover is not so bad especially since the talented guys that worked there have been integrated back into the rest of the development teams at Capcom which only means an overall increase in the quality of Capcom's work across the board (i'd say this increase is pretty obvious when looking at some of the work they've released/been working on lately, LP, DR, RE5, DMC4 to raise but a few...)

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Wow, just wow.

reasons for going MP and who caused it to go multiplatform belong to a different world of discussions than discussions on whats changes I am going to get from it
Stop giving birth to "logics"

Yes, but then again this thread title is "MGS4 possibly on 360", not what can developers do to please Nesh.


Im not giving birth to logics, im just using simple logic based on the basics of finance. I'm not creating new ones.

Oh my GOD! And you claim you read my posts!
And another false logic!And an "IF" one too.

You obviously lack the reading comprehension to understand my posts. The last part of your post is basically what i have said in 3 posts to you now:

What i said was that in a theoretical situation, if you had two similularly talented teams, making a mp game, working separately which each version, and each having the same budget as the potential exclusive title would have, there is nothing that would imply a better\worse result.

In real life because Stockholders like ROI, this does not happend, you will re-use as much as possible and cut costs.


THEREFORE, SINCE STOCKHOLDERS GOVERNS THE "QUALITY" (in terms of budget) OF THE TITLE, STOCKHOLDERS ARE RELEVANT TO WHATEVER POINT YOU TRIED TO MAKE ABOUT YOUR MULTIPLATFORM RANT.

Also who are you to tell what is relevant and what is not and what should be discussed and what should not? Its not irrelevant from MGS4 going MP! Show me that rule because I cant see it

I have made the same argument 3 times about why its relevant, and you have not been able to dismiss it by making an actual argument.