MGS4 possibility on 360 tidbit?

[Nesh]

Someone else would have got the meaining : companies dont make unnecessary costs

 

[TheChefO]

...long post...Now that the consoles are similar in overal performance they make the differences in acrhitecture stand out more(includes Storage, HD, Online services and other differences too). And they are big differences...long post...

I see what you're saying here Nesh and in certain instances you would be correct.

Say for example, if GTA4 were ps3 exclusive and ported to xb360. There is a chance that Rockstar would have utilized significantly more space than is available in DVD9. Because their game world is seamless and does not have multiple environments, the port would suffer. A port would still be possible in one of two ways:

1) Reduced/compressed/compromised assets
or
2) Splitting the game world off into sections with different discs per section

Either way the port would work, but it would be inferior.

In this specific example of MGS4, the game is level based. This allows natural breakpoints to insert the next disc as the required space in this game will span multiple DVD9 discs. Thus, option 2 would be the way to go. Before measuring the disc space required and counting exactly how many DVD9 discs it would take to match the BR version, also consider the option of using compression in addition to multiple discs to minimize disc swapping.

Audio -
From what I've read on the matter, Kojima is using uncompressed audio samples. Dolby Digital 5.1 would suffice for most I'm pretty sure and for those that want the absolute best audio experience, the ps3 version will be there. A cheap space saving technique.

Textures -
From what I've read, texture compression is a bit better on xb360. how much savings can be had here are unknown to me but I'm sure we have members that can clarify. This method of space saving is relatively cheap and fast though. If developers decide they still need to shrink the total size, they can downres the textures which is also cheap and fast.

Poly models -
It would take work (money) and thus will likely not be done for a port, however using the tesselator and normal maps can approximate significantly more detailed geometry in the same space as raw poly meshes. Even without this advanced (costly) method, the models could simply be scaled back to show less geometry if need be.

All of these space saving techniques are in addition to and complimentary with disc swapping and would merely be used to minimize the use of it.

From what I understand, getting game code up and running on xb360 is very painless with their sdk and thus finding workarounds for their ps3 specific code should not pose much of an issue for a competent design team. Others have done the same with favorable results (Sumo Digital).

________

Porting is an option and likely is being considered currently. Whether this port takes place in-house or out is of little concern. As long as the developer is competent, the result would likely be a few more million units moved and stockholders dancing in the streets.

 

[TheChefO]

Someone else would have got the meaining : companies dont make unnecessary costs

Agreed, companies generally avoid unnecessary expendatures.

However, in this case, the reward is likely a million(+) more units sold than would have otherwise bought the game on ps3 alone. This should more than make up the costs of porting the game.

 

[Tap In]

Agreed, companies generally avoid unnecessary expendatures.

However, in this case, the reward is likely a million(+) more units sold than would have otherwise bought the game on ps3 alone. This should more than make up the costs of porting the game.

actually it's the only way they may make a profit at all. Unless they delay it deep into 2008

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Someone else would have got the meaining : companies dont make unnecessary costs

But thats far from what you said.

From a business/publisher/stockholder perspective this is a waste. if an extra spent cost or investment doesnt quarantee or trasnlate to extra Net profits it shouldnt be done at all.

This does not mean "companies don't make unnecessary costs".

Companies avoid unnecessary costs, is something that everybody understands.

Since your mentioning "investment and cost", that doesn't "guarantee" extra profits, this clearly talks about risk.

This means "companies don't take risk". Which is completely wrong.

Companies not investing in a project because the project does not guarantee extra profit, is not something that happens in real life finance. In real life, nothing (well almost) is guaranteed positive NPV.

You discount potential income with risk probability, if you still get a big enough potential gain, you go a head and do it.

 

[TheChefO]

actually it's the only way they may make a profit at all. Unless they delay it deep into 2008

How so?

Ahh ... I see your meaning.

Agreed. The ability to generate a profit will be difficult on it's current target platform.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Hes obviously implying because of the small userbase, unless you delay so that there is a significant larger portion of PS3 owners, it will be hard to turn a profit with such a high budget game.

 

[Nesh]

This does not mean "companies don't make unnecessary costs".

This means "companies don't take risk". Which is completely wrong.

Companies avoid unnecessary costs, is something that everybody understands.

Companies not investing in a project because the project does not guarantee extra profit, is not something that happens in real life finance.

You discount potential income with risk probability, if you still get a big enough potential gain, you go a head and do it.

......that doenst quarantee any or enough extra returns to compensate for the extra cost.

They arent government public companies. They are private competitive companies with risks.

=Private companies dont take risks naively
=companies dont make unneccesary costs
=anything else regarding what you think I implied about risk is your assumption because I havent explicitly said anything about it. Now you are trying to make a big deal out of the opportunity

Companies not investing in a project because the project does not guarantee extra profit, is not something that happens in real life finance.

My post=refering to extra costs
Your assumption or an effort to twist my words=not investing at all on a project
Plus another mistake =you didnt add "enough gains to compensate for the money spent" which I did

Agreed, companies generally avoid unnecessary expendatures.

However, in this case, the reward is likely a million(+) more units sold than would have otherwise bought the game on ps3 alone. This should more than make up the costs of porting the game.

Oh yes I totally agree with that. But I wasnt refering to the general extra costs generated by making the game for more platforms than one.

I was refering to extra costs regarding efforts to take advandage fully of specific features and capabilities of each console after you "port it".

Lets say you are a Company making a game for many platforms. You make the game for all and decide to optimize it a bit better for each or to take advandage of some extra features available seperately. Such costs will be up to the point where estimated gains are maximized. Any extra cost beyond that level, that doesnt seem to be able to generate enough extra gains to atleast compensate for the extra cost made, you will consider it an unnecessary cost. You wont make that cost

Another simple example. very different but it serves the purpose of passing the idea. Lets say you are making cakes and sell them at some fixed price. You ve got a certain amount of customers. The next period you wonder....

"Lets say I add some extra bits of chocolate since I know my cuctomers like chocolate. I know I will increase my costs by doing so. Will this increase sales? Will this generate enough extra income to compensate for the extra costs I ll make?"
If the answer is highly unlikely and not enough extra income there is no reason to do it. Unless:
1) you care about your customers more than your personal income or gains
2) there are other gains involved.

I see what you're saying here Nesh and in certain instances you would be correct.

Say for example, if GTA4 were ps3 exclusive and ported to xb360. There is a chance that Rockstar would have utilized significantly more space than is available in DVD9. Because their game world is seamless and does not have multiple environments, the port would suffer. A port would still be possible in one of two ways:

1) Reduced/compressed/compromised assets
or
2) Splitting the game world off into sections with different discs per section

Either way the port would work, but it would be inferior.

In this specific example of MGS4, the game is level based. This allows natural breakpoints to insert the next disc as the required space in this game will span multiple DVD9 discs. Thus, option 2 would be the way to go. Before measuring the disc space required and counting exactly how many DVD9 discs it would take to match the BR version, also consider the option of using compression in addition to multiple discs to minimize disc swapping.

Audio -
From what I've read on the matter, Kojima is using uncompressed audio samples. Dolby Digital 5.1 would suffice for most I'm pretty sure and for those that want the absolute best audio experience, the ps3 version will be there. A cheap space saving technique.

Textures -
From what I've read, texture compression is a bit better on xb360. how much savings can be had here are unknown to me but I'm sure we have members that can clarify. This method of space saving is relatively cheap and fast though. If developers decide they still need to shrink the total size, they can downres the textures which is also cheap and fast.

Poly models -
It would take work (money) and thus will likely not be done for a port, however using the tesselator and normal maps can approximate significantly more detailed geometry in the same space as raw poly meshes. Even without this advanced (costly) method, the models could simply be scaled back to show less geometry if need be.

All of these space saving techniques are in addition to and complimentary with disc swapping and would merely be used to minimize the use of it.

From what I understand, getting game code up and running on xb360 is very painless with their sdk and thus finding workarounds for their ps3 specific code should not pose much of an issue for a competent design team. Others have done the same with favorable results (Sumo Digital).

________

Porting is an option and likely is being considered currently. Whether this port takes place in-house or out is of little concern. As long as the developer is competent, the result would likely be a few more million units moved and stockholders dancing in the streets.

Well. Cant disagree with anything you said assuming MGS4 is very linear, and the biggest difference is the storage and the developer doesnt go far to make the game as unique as possible by taking advandage of specific offerings

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Nesh, for the last time, im not twisting your freaking words. Im not making assumptions, your inability to properly word your argument is not me making assumptions. Its you writing bad arguments.

I'm just gonna put you on ignore list now. Bye bye

 

[dobwal]

These are some solutions but what happens if the developer wants to use that storage seemlessly? Meaning things like not forcing a linear path, or having multible sections thata interact with each other. If you want to add more content plus this kind of story/gameply development BR does not add such limitations.
Knowing you have to port the game to something that has less available storage you will have to rethink the game again.

Then there are uncertainties on what Cell can do best and what Xenon can do best. There are many things both can do great. But according to many developer claims there are some significant differences and experimentation. I am not a techie but AFAIK assigning specific tasks to SPUs most likely they will be very fast with them and do things the Xenon will find hard to do them efficiently and as fast to be considered practical. At the same time there are general tasks that Xenon can take easilly while the developer would have to figure how on earth these should be put and processed in Cell with a PPU that doesnt work all that great alone and very small independent processing units that can not take general purpose tasks.

What makes Hideo Kojima's work and MGS so different than other MP games is that when he makes a game for a console such as MGS although a 3rd party developer, he wants to put all the effort a 1st party developer puts for an exclusive game that is perfectly optimized to take fully advandage everything that is available on that hardware (whether that is HDD, optical storage, controller, Memory, edram, you name it )

What makes MP games in general so cost effiective? Fixed cost. It is very similar to economies of scope.
It involves reusage of assets to develop one extra game/title on another platform without much extra cost involved. Variable cost on the other hand involves optimization and experimentation with the hardware. Increase Variable cost too much and economies of scope are reduced.
This was no problem last gen because if the developer wanted to port an awesome game from a powerful hardware to the PS2 all he had to do was cut out some things and reuse whatever the console could do with some optimization. The game would be worse but forgiven for anything cut or altered from the version as long as it was at an acceptable level since limitations of the console were known(thats why such ports never hold a candle to the perfectly optimized PS2 1st party exclusives). If a game was ported from the PS2 to XBOX, the XBOX could do pretty much everything the PS2 could do generally. So it was a perfect port (usually with some minor imporvements) and forgiven for being a ported PS2 game.

Now that the consoles are similar in overal performance they make the differences in acrhitecture stand out more(includes Storage, HD, Online services and other differences too). And they are big differences. Variable costs play a much bigger role than before because of this, and in order to make as less costy port and as identical port as possible this variable cost should be as minimal as possible. Simply put even if each console can do perfectly or replicate perfectly anything the other can it would invoilve too much money, time and effort consumption that doenst quarantee any or enough extra returns to compensate for the extra cost.

From a business/publisher/stockholder perspective this is a waste. if an extra spent cost or investment doesnt quarantee or trasnlate to extra Net profits it shouldnt be done at all. They arent government public companies. They are private competitive companies with risks.

Even if Konami does take time to exploit some advandages for each console these will be minimal compared to the costs they would have spent trying to exploit fully the differentiation in advandages each one has.
(for both cost reasons and for enabling them to "mimick" or replicate well everything in some form what is available in one version to the other )

PS Just a personal comment: Personally since I am very attached to the MGS series (and I can go as far as to say that it has a sentimental value for me) I am saddened by this reality

PS2: DONT CHOP MY POST

First, MGS tends to be a very linear game due to the way Hideo Kojima produce his games with strong cinematics and a very sophiscated storyline. You have to get through point A to get point B to get to point C. Now there may be a non linear way to get to point A to B but its unlikely you can get to point A to C by skipping point B with the points being major story points and cutscenes. You may be able to skip a few small story lines but you won’t be able to skip around the major plot lines.

You have a point when it comes to storage but it’s a relative hard topic to discuss since a free roaming game such as San Andreas exist on the PS2 with no HDD and on a single DVD. When it comes to the Cell/RSX’s and the Xenon/Xenos’s you would have to drastically change the game play mechanic to force an issue where something could be done on the PS3 and not the 360. Both consoles are game machines so both were designed to handle a large scope of different possible scenarios presented by games looking into the future. Remember Hideo Kojima doesn’t like to stray to far from the gameplay presented by past games, its one of the reason he has given to explain way it took so long to move to a 3d camera in Substience. He wanted some gameplay continuity to exist between the Metal Gears games. Looking at that continuity its hard to imagine that MGS4 will be so different and rely on a distinct advantage of Cell that it will be inhibitory to port MGS4 to the 360.

When it comes to cost regardless of the discussion this is the one area where the 360 has the advantage. The 360 could support the proposed budget of the MGS4 PS3 only development on its own and better than the ps3 can at this point, so porting cost isn’t an issue since porting would be cheaper than a exclusive MGS PS3 game itself. The 360 has the bigger userbase who on average buys more games. The risk doesn’t lie with a 360 port it is lies with a PS3 exclusive. I doubt anyone would argue that at this point and time and for the near future that the 360 version (even a downgraded version) wouldn’t outsell the PS3 version if MGS4 were to be released.

 

[Nesh]

Nesh, for the last time, im not twisting your freaking words. Im not making assumptions, your inability to properly word your argument is not me making assumptions. Its you writing bad arguments.

I'm just gonna put you on ignore list now. Bye bye

You think too much into someone's words. Stop that. We are making unnecessary arguements

 

[Cheezdoodles]

You think too much into someone's words. Stop that. We are making unnecessary arguements

I didn't think "into" those words at all. I took the exact literal meaning of the words and commented on it.

 

[TheChefO]

Oh yes I totally agree with that. But I wasnt refering to the general extra costs generated by making the game for more platforms than one.

I was refering to extra costs regarding efforts to take advandage fully of specific features and capabilities of each console after you "port it".

Well, in this instance, they are already tuning the game for ps3. The only additional cost would be replicating the ps3 experience to the best of their abilities on xb360. This additional cost is the one which I'm refering as not being prohibitive when the likely result will be a million(+) additional units sold.

 

[TheChefO]

I doubt anyone would argue that at this point and time and for the near future that the 360 version (even a downgraded version) wouldn’t outsell the PS3 version if MGS4 were to be released.

This would depend on exactly how many corners were cut!

Assuming the game is a reasonable representation of the ps3 version*, the xb360 version will likely outsell the ps3 version on install base alone. Factor in the buying habits of xb360 users and I'd say it's very likely to outsell the ps3 version.

Now if the game has major shortcomings in comparison to the ps3 version it may be rejected. To further the argument, if the xb360 version looks very similar to the ps3 version, but both versions offer inferior production value when compared to similar titles available on xb360 (SC5), then I'd have to say the xb360 version will likely sell less than the ps3 version due to available competition/choice on both platforms.

(*which I'm assuming will be a stellar AAA game and compare favorably to most on the market by the time it ships)


**edit** I agree with your risk assessment as well.

 

[dobwal]

This would depend on exactly how many corners were cut!

Assuming the game is a reasonable representation of the ps3 version*, the xb360 version will likely outsell the ps3 version on install base alone. Factor in the buying habits of xb360 users and I'd say it's very likely to outsell the ps3 version.

Now if the game has major shortcomings in comparison to the ps3 version it may be rejected. To further the argument, if the xb360 version looks very similar to the ps3 version, but both versions offer inferior production value when compared to similar titles available on xb360 (SC5), then I'd have to say the xb360 version will likely sell less than the ps3 version due to available competition/choice on both platforms.

(*which I'm assuming will be a stellar AAA game and compare favorably to most on the market by the time it ships)


**edit** I agree with your risk assessment as well.

Being Metal Gear Solid, one of the biggest franchises for Konami, I doubt they would dump a bad port into the market. Plus it would take a total hack job to badly port the key features in MGS4, its boss battles and cutscenes.

 

[Nesh]

First, MGS tends to be a very linear game due to way Hideo Kojima produce his games with strong cinematics and a very sophiscated storyline. You have to get through point A to get point B to get to point C. Now there may be a non linear way to get to point A to B but its unlikely you can get to point A to C by skipping point B with the points being major story points and cutscenes. You may be able to skip a few small story lines but you won’t be able to skip around the major plot lines.

You have a point when it comes to storage but it’s a relative hard topic to discuss since a free roaming game such as San Andreas exist on the PS2 with no HDD and on a single DVD. When it comes to the Cell/RSX’s and the Xenon/Xenos’s you would have to drastically change the game play mechanic to force an issue where something could be done on the PS3 and not the 360. Both consoles are game machines so both were designed to handle a large scope of different possible scenarios presented by games looking into the future. Remember Hideo Kojima doesn’t like to stray to far from the gameplay presented by past games, its one of the reason he has given to explain way it took so long to move to a 3d camera in Substience. He wanted some gameplay continuity to exist between the Metal Gears games. Looking at that continuity its hard to imagine that MGS4 will be so different and rely on a distinct advantage of Cell that it will be inhibitory to port MGS4 to the 360.

When it comes to cost regardless of the discussion this is the one area where the 360 has the advantage. The 360 could support the proposed budget of the MGS4 PS3 only development on its own and better than the ps3 can at this point, so porting cost isn’t an issue since porting would be cheaper than a exclusive MGS PS3 game itself. The 360 has the bigger userbase who on average buys more games. The risk doesn’t lie with a 360 port it is lies with a PS3 exclusive. I doubt anyone would argue that at this point at time and for the near future the 360 version (even a downgraded version) wouldn’t outsell the PS3 version if MGS4 were to be released.

Portable Ops was less linear (not completely though) which shows a trend of possibilities that the game might not necessarilly be linear. Some "complains' about MGS was the extreme linear nature. San Andreas has a free roaming enviroment in DVD because the game was developed with DVD in mind (highest storage available ), and all platforms in mind. On the other hand Fable was chosen for XBOX because Molyneux wanted to use the XBOX's HDD for other reasons. One of the things he envisioned was the ability to plant a seed wherever you wanted, or alter an enviroment which will remain altered. That seed would eventually become a tree and you will always be able to find it there and observe it as it grows. You would even curve something on it while its still small and still see the curved words on it when it is a full frown tree. Things didnt make it at the end to Fable but you get the picture.

Hideo Kojima does listen to feedback thats why he added the new camera system, and in some of his interviews he did made a few references to SC. Btw he didnt like the idea of implementingcamera system because he said it caused him motion sickness.

But he did implement it due to the fact that more open enviroments made many gamers complain. The old camera system wasnt practical. It has nothing to do with trying "not to spray too far"

He is willing to add advancements, enhancements and make changes to the gameplay wherever he finds necessary. There is huge room for such. And he already made changes for MGS4 it seems. Whereas you tried to hide in previous games this time you do not hide behind objects and you cant always hide behind them. You use a camo system which seems to drain off its batteries. He wouldnt leave the opportunities offered by next gen hardware. These advancements can take various forms according to what is available to him. In other words he wouldnt hesitate to make drastic changes if that means making a better MGS4 game

For the last paragraph:
If Kojima is given the freedom to develop the game exclusively for the PS3 he will do his best to use its advandages fully even if it involves more costy development. He wants the extra storage, likes the possibilities Cell and other features (sixaxis for example) offer. He is more concerned with the creative aspect of his games and he prefers to make it exclusive to the PS3 no matter how much more costy it will be. He always favored the PS3.
BUT:Because though there are other interests involved Kojima most likely wont have that freedom to do such a work for the PS3 and he will be forced for an MP released. In such a case MGS4 most likely will end up somewhat different in specific areas to ensure identical versions.
Something that you accidentally ommited in my post about cost is that I wasnt specifically refering to which version is going to be worse. What I was pointing at is tha the game most likely wont take fully advandage of any hardware's capabilities even if one of the two console versions ends up being better or even impressive( for example on the 360 as you said for the possible reasons you mentioned).

 

[TheChefO]

...In other words he wouldnt hesitate to make drastic changes if that means making a better MGS4 game...

For the last paragraph:
If Kojima is given the freedom to develop the game exclusively for the PS3 he will do his best to use its advandages fully even if it involves more costy development. He wants the extra storage, likes the possibilities Cell and other features (sixaxis for example) offer. He is more concerned with the creative aspect of his games and he prefers to make it exclusive to the PS3 no matter how much more costy it will be. He always favored the PS3.
BUT:Because though there are other interests involved Kojima most likely wont have that freedom to do such a work for the PS3 and he will be forced for an MP released. In such a case MGS4 most likely will end up somewhat different in specific areas to ensure identical versions.
Something that you accidentally ommited in my post about cost is that I wasnt specifically refering to which version is going to be worse. What I was pointing at is tha the game most likely wont take fully advandage of any hardware's capabilities even if one of the two console versions ends up being better or even impressive(on the 360 as you said for the possible reasons you mentioned).

Even with severely drastic and ps3 centric design, the game could still be ported. It will be notably inferior in some aspects because of the origin of the design but it would not be impossible to do.

However, I think the talk of a 100% seemless MGS world is not in the cards for reasons presented by others and Kojima himself. He fancies himself a psuedo movie director in the game realm and in order to fulfill this role, one must have a plot/storyline as dobwal mentioned. For a smaller medium like psp he may venture off, but his views on the home market and specifically ps3 are very clear. He views the ps3 as a medium to expand his movie/story telling/building ability. To effectively achieve that requires some level of control over the experience.

The ideal scenario may be the contiguous game world which Bluray enables. The ported dvd version may sacrifice some continuity in this regard, or it may not. Really depends on the imlementation and what the port team can get away with.



Regarding Kojima and optimising for ps3:
I don't think there are any sacrifices being made for the ps3 version. The OP addressed this.

The only question is: if it's ported (not a certainty but wouldn't surprise either), what must the team do to get it to run on xb360?

 

[Nesh]

I didn't think "into" those words at all. I took the exact literal meaning of the words and commented on it.

you dont realise it then

 

[Nesh]

Even with severely drastic and ps3 centric design, the game could still be ported. It will be notably inferior in some aspects because of the origin of the design but it would not be impossible to do.

However, I think the talk of a 100% seemless MGS world is not in the cards for reasons presented by others and Kojima himself. He fancies himself a psuedo movie director in the game realm and in order to fulfill this role, one must have a plot/storyline as dobwal mentioned. For a smaller medium like psp he may venture off, but his views on the home market and specifically ps3 are very clear. He views the ps3 as a medium to expand his movie/story telling/building ability. To effectively achieve that requires some level of control over the experience.

The ideal scenario may be the contiguous game world which Bluray enables. The ported dvd version may sacrifice some continuity in this regard, or it may not. Really depends on the imlementation and what the port team can get away with.



Regarding Kojima and optimising for ps3:
I don't think there are any sacrifices being made for the ps3 version. The OP addressed this.

The only question is: if it's ported (not a certainty but wouldn't surprise either), what must the team do to get it to run on xb360?

Well hopefully we will find out

 

[Nesh]

Anyways this is getting tiredsome. Lets just wait and see. Its pointless to discuss any more as I see it. We have pretty much set our opinions