MGS4 possibility on 360 tidbit?

[Nesh]

Wow, just wow.



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

Ok...What is the problem then? Does it annoy you that much that I described what the developer can do, and want to do? Is that such a big problem?

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

Your simple logic was false on who benefited with the closure of Clover Studios. You took the losses each had at different periods and prsented them as if they happened simultaneously.

You obviously lack the reading comprehension to understand my posts. The last part 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.

Thats the problem with your arguenment. We all already know that if such a hypothesis took place would have resulted to better results and wouldnt disagree. But we know the hard, empirical and practical facts. So I dont understand the point of your arguement.

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.

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.

I dare you to point me ONE sentence where I stated that stockholders are IRRELEVANT to the game going MP. If they were IRRELEVANT I wouldnt have been trying in all these dozens of posts describing how STOCKHOLDERS' INTERESTS AND DECISIONS RESULT TO THE GAME GOING MULTIPLATFORM THUS FORCING THE GAME TO PASS THROUGH CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENT THAT I PREFER THEY DIDNT EXIST IN MP DEVELOPMENT

What I ve been saying so many times is that I WAS DISCUSSING THE RESULT OF THESE DECISIONS ON THE GAME DEVELOPMENT!

SUBJECT OF MY POST=WHAT THE END RESULT IS GOING TO BE ON THE GAME!
EMPHASIS ON END RESULT

NOT SUBJECT OF MY POST= HOW THE GAME ENDED UP TOWARDS THAT DECISION AND HOW STOCKHOLDERS AFFECT THIS
SINCE I SO MANY TIMES STATED THERE IS NOTHING TO DISCUSS OR DISAGREE ON THAT! WE ALL AGREE ON THESE

Kapish?

Like your previous false logic you mix periods and subjects discussed.

I hope you understand that what I ve been screaming all this time in more than 3 POSTS while pulling off my hair is that its YOUR arguments that are irrelevant to my post and NOT stockholders' implications on the multiplatform title (because there is nothing to disagree on that).

You even brought arguements that support mine anyways

This is probably the 4 time I am saying this but I am still warning you....STOP ASSUMING TOO MUCH!

You assumed something once, made up your mind and as a result you are rendered incapable to follow

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Thats the problem with your arguenment. We all know that if such a hypothesis would have resulted to better results and wouldnt disagree. But we know the hard, empirical and practical facts.

What? We don't have any situation like that theoretical one in real life, which is why its a theoretical example. What part of this logic don't you understand?

If i have 2 equally talented teams, making two versions of the game each with a budget of $10 million. The end result should be just as having 1 of the teams making an exclusive game with a budget of $10 million. Nobody of course does this in real life, its a THEORETICAL example.

This is where you are supposed to make an argument in return, as to why this theoretical example is wrong, instead of saying its broken logic.

Your simple logic was false on who benefited with the closure of Clover Studios. You took the losses each had at different periods and prsented them as if they happened simultaneously.

Your line of thought is amazing. If you loose money on Clover Studio's and decide to shut the operation down, the only thing your doing is cutting your looses. Your not willing to invest any more money in it. Its not a benefit for the stockholders to see that all the money they invested in that studio has gone to waste.

I dare you to point me ONE sentence where I stated that stockholders are IRRELEVANT to the game going MP.

2) Its even more ridiculous to bring up "stockholders" and "games" in the same sentence

If you want to discuss what is best for a business, and why a game should be MP to increase their gains fine. Lets make a different topic and we will all agree. Since this thread is not about stockholders and I am free to argue about the MGS4 as a creation not as a "product that will bring green paper"

Now you will notice, that all i have done is argue that stockholders and things going multiplatform or not is very relevant.

Are we done now?

You assumed something once, made up your mind and as a result you are rendered incapable to follow

No you just did a TERRIBLE job at making what your point was in the posts you made.

 

[NERO]

Be cooool my babies. Be coooool
---
OT
Repeat after me, "MGS4 is single platform...MGS4 is single platform.MGS4 is single platform...MGS4 is single platform.MGS4 is single platform...MGS4 is single platform"

 

[Nesh]

What? We don't have any situation like that theoretical one in real life, which is why its a theoretical example. What part of this logic don't you understand?

If i have 2 equally talented teams, making two versions of the game each with a budget of $10 million. The end result should be just as having 1 of the teams making an exclusive game with a budget of $10 million. Nobody of course does this in real life, its a THEORETICAL example.

Ahm....just pointing the fact that just as you said this is nothing more than a theory, a hypothesis, a "what if" , it served no purpose as this best case scenarios are extremely unlikely. It is very similar to my statement "if we lived in an ideal world...." I wouldnt have had any concerns. But at the end I do because this is only a hypothesis

Your line of thought is amazing. If you loose money on Clover Studio's and decide to shut the operation down, the only thing your doing is cutting your looses, your not getting any advantage. Its not a benefit for the stockholders to see that all the money they invested in that studio has gone to waste.

Do you know that reduction of risk or losses (thus increasing estimated positive returns) is accounted as a benefit in financng?
You are messing with the meaning of words

Even if I do the favor and accept your view of the definiton of the word:
1) they scrap operating losses from the studio which makes their investments approach nearer postive returns
2) One bad studio doesnt necessarilly create losses on total returns of returns rely on more "sectors" or "departments" or the company as a whole. It can reduce returns but still have positive returns, while closing it increases them.
3)Assuming they did have losses: while stockholders reduced their "losses" and risk with the closure of Clover Studios, gamers who expected more games from Clover studios lost these potential future games, which once again shows a negative relation

Negative relation is the magic word (to avoid further misunderstandings I ll say it is not always like this thats why I said that interests dont always align).

I can post a simple and quick graphical representaion of this if you want showing that negative correlation and "losses" on both at the same time

Now you will notice, that all i have done is argue that stockholders and things going multiplatform or not is very relevant.

Are we done now?

Yeah and wasted our time

No you just did a TERRIBLE job at making what your point was in the posts you made.

No. Thats because of too many assumptions made.
As many tend to do in these forums. And I see it done with many users too. Not necessarilly you assuming. But others making too many assumptions on other people's posts.

 

[Nesh]

Be cooool my babies. Be coooool
---
OT
Repeat after me, "MGS4 is single platform...MGS4 is single platform.MGS4 is single platform...MGS4 is single platform.MGS4 is single platform...MGS4 is single platform"

I ll be cool if you buy me a next gen console

 

[TheChefO]

Long story short - as someone pointed out previously in this thread, if the potential to make money is there and the risk associated with the endeavor is low enough, the title will go multiplat along with any other.

Publisheres/Developers are quickly finding multiplat development to be necessary this gen given the uncertainty and rising dev costs.

 

[Jesus2006]

Long story short - as someone pointed out previously in this thread, if the potential to make money is there and the risk associated with the endeavor is low enough, the title will go multiplat along with any other.

Publisheres/Developers are quickly finding multiplat development to be necessary this gen given the uncertainty and rising dev costs.

Still contradicts with what we've heared so far - H.K. making big use of the PS3s advanced features like BR or CELL which are just not there on the Xbox 360 no matter how you turn it.
And if Konami goes this way there definately is no way this will go mutliplatform. More likely will there be a MGS4 Subsistence (or whatever) which could very well be a totally different game.

 

[woundingchaney]

Still contradicts with what we've heared so far - H.K. making big use of the PS3s advanced features like BR or CELL which are just not there on the Xbox 360 no matter how you turn it.
And if Konami goes this way there definately is no way this will go mutliplatform. More likely will there be a MGS4 Subsistence (or whatever) which could very well be a totally different game.

Why??


Release the game on more than one disk and port the code over. Its not something that hasnt been done in the industry and Im sure with enough tweaking the 360 could mimmick the results in order to release the game. Where as a potential port may not blow for blow run exactly like the PS3 version there should be enough lee-way between the two machines for the title to be more than a quality release and even play to the strengths of the 360. Toned down code or watered experience isnt going to stop an entire consumer base from purchasing the port. Implementation is of course going to change but "quality" of final build may be very similar.


Where there is money and opportunity there is potential if Konami makes the call the game will be ported regardless of console architecture or the advantages associated with either one.

 

[TheChefO]

...More likely will there be a MGS4 Subsistence (or whatever) which could very well be a totally different game.

Making a "totally different game" defeats the purpose of maximizing ROI. Not saying you're wrong, they may do exactly as you illustrated. However, such an action would be foolish as it would cost more than a direct port.

Regaring technical difficulties, I'm sure they'll figure it out. Compression, multiple discs, and cutting corners if need be just as any port prior to this has done and will do in the future.

 

[dobwal]

Its a given that when you do a game with intention of targetting multiple consoles both consoles' technical limitation have to be taken into account.

Ttech limitation of the 360 isn't going to drastically affect the PS3 version. The benefit of accounting for both consoles' technical limitations is allowing one to focus on both PS3 and 360 friendly code that helps reduce cost by making porting easier. That benefit was lost when MGS project was conceptualized and developed (for a period of time now) with only the PS3 in mind.

If there is an technical issue presented by the 360 then the question becomes how do the devs work around the issue without dramatically altering the experience.

There no need to backward gimped the PS3 version, plus stripping the PS3 version comes with additional costs. Having a superior PS3 version and a gimped version on the 360 is not going to produce less sales than 2 gimped version for both consoles.

Furthermore, the metal gear series's popularity isn't exactly built on its graphics, physics or animation prowess, its built more on its cinematic experience and boss battles.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Still contradicts with what we've heared so far - H.K. making big use of the PS3s advanced features like BR or CELL which are just not there on the Xbox 360 no matter how you turn it.
And if Konami goes this way there definately is no way this will go mutliplatform.

Stop drinking the cool-aid.

Any problem has a workaround, the 360 is a perfectly capable box, close enough in specs that any PS3 game could be ported, and vice versa. In a level based game like MGS, discspace is essentially a non-issue anyways.

 

[Darkon]

Furthermore, the metal gear series's popularity isn't exactly built on its graphics, physics or animation prowess, its built more on its cinematic experience and boss battles.

What ? it's the whole package why the series is so good and pretty much every other hideo kojima game.

 

[Jesus2006]

Stop drinking the cool-aid.

Any problem has a workaround, the 360 is a perfectly capable box, close enough in specs that any PS3 game could be ported, and vice versa. In a level based game like MGS, discspace is essentially a non-issue anyways.

Says who?
After all this perfectly capabale box isn't definately as capable as the PS3 when it comes to things like physiks calculations or other stuff that make extensive use of the PS3s special features (like CELL's SPUs,GPU-CPU bandwidth, BR etc.).

The workaround won't work when the raw processing power is missing.

Of course, as i said before it depends on how well the platform is utilized.

 

[TheChefO]

Says who?
After all this perfectly capabale box isn't definately as capable as the PS3 when it comes to things like physiks calculations or other stuff that make use of the PS3s special features (like CELL's SPUs,more than 2x GPU-CPU bandwidth, BR etc.).

The workaround won't work when the raw processing power is missing.

Of course, as i said before it depends on how well the platform is utilized.

Nevermind.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Says who?

Says the specs, 512mb of ram(actually an extra 64mb for 360), 3.2ghz CPU's, essentially equal GPU's.

These consoles are so close it's not even funny, each has their own advantages that the other can't match, but any game can be ported. Hell, they ported HL2 to Xbox1 last generation...

Of course, as i said before it depends on how well the platform is utilized.

The only thing that would determine is how much of a downgrade the 360 version would require. They could still certainly port the game though, if they wanted.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

The only thing that would determine is how much of a downgrade the 360 version would require. They could still certainly port the game though, if they wanted.

Going by some people here, it seems like we would need a Quantum computer to be able to even try to downgrade and port PS3 games to X360.

 

[Jesus2006]

Says the specs, 512mb of ram(actually an extra 64mb for 360), 3.2ghz CPU's, essentially equal GPU's.

So, a 3.2Ghz Intel Quad Core would be as capable as a 3.2 Ghz Celeron? (just as an example)

Sorry but

I guess it's pointless to go any further in this discussion...

 

[scooby_dooby]

Both CPU's are multi-core PPE based processors, and each have their respective advantages. The two consoles are FAR more comparable than any consoles in the past, and the 360 has it's fair share of advantages to make up for deficiencies, which makes the whole thing a wash.

To suggest it 'definately' couldn't be ported is fanboy FUD. Sorry.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Says who?
After all this perfectly capabale box isn't definately as capable as the PS3 when it comes to things like physiks calculations or other stuff that make extensive use of the PS3s special features (like CELL's SPUs,GPU-CPU bandwidth, BR etc.).

The workaround won't work when the raw processing power is missing.

Of course, as i said before it depends on how well the platform is utilized.

You know, if MGS4 was an X360 exclusive it with all the "opimization" "utilization" buzzwords would be a helluva lot more work in order to port it PS3 than vice versa.

The X360 has 3 cores that are equal and they can run any code that you would write on the PS3 (its all C++), it will suck at some parts (this is where you would downgrade) and it would be good enough for other parts. Even great at some parts.

Other way around, the problems begin because you have to start managing the code more, what SPE does what.. yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Jesus2006]

To suggest it 'definately' couldn't be ported is fanboy FUD. Sorry.

Actually the same could be said bout the statement that everything could be ported. That's wishful thinking, sorry.

The same talk we had when people talked about mud trails in Motorstorm with statements like "that could be done on 360 as well" - just it hasn't been done yet.

Other way around, the problems begin because you have to start managing the code more, what SPE does what.. yadda yadda yadda.

The difference is not so much code. If you really want to take advantage of the SPEs you have to (re-)design/structurize your data in a way that really isn't very well suited for other processors. That's where i think porting will be a pain in the a**.