[Rumor] MGS4 no longer exclusive?!?!

I wouldn't say it's debunked, what exactly where they supposed to say? The chance of it happening is fairly large if you consider the cost it takes to create the game, and the amount of PS3s that will be out in a year. The only way it will stay a true exclusive is if Sony throws a ton on money at Konami, which they just might. Then again, MS has 13 billion dollars lying around every quarter and 8 million consoles already on the market.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

It will come to other consoles just like the other games, which were exclusive.

Still no talks of a MGS3 title on any other console.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

That and I believe, at least for MS, sold and shipped mean the exact same thing.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The 360 is arguably more powerful overall than the PS3. If that's what you were getting at.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

What amazes me is that you'd launch a console with so many crippling production issues in the first place. Coupled with the high price, it may as well be an invitation to developers to jump ship.

Thing is, they had no choice. They already "delayed" the launch and any further would just hurt them even more. As bad as their launch might've been and the problems they're facing now, they can at least say it's launched, it's out there, and people are buying it. They painted themselves in a corner basically.

Quote:

Konami says that MGS4 is Sony exclusive, but the same thing was said about 2. Then Substance came out and was ported.

Which means next to nothing. Until we DON'T see a port ever it's still technically up in the air. Just look at RE4, and more recently, though everyone saw it coming, Assassin's Creed. We all knew it was going to be a multi-platform title, but that's not what Ubi said for quite awhile.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Metal Sphere

Bullshit. They could've at the very least prioritized the machine over all else in terms of production and started far earlier than they did. This is a combination of their artificial demand building strategy backfiring and terrible planning on their part. I still don't see why they'd do this to one of the few divisions that's actually still profitable.

Launching means nothing when you had something like 200k units on launch date with just a few units coming every week. Looking back on the PS2's launch, they handled the shipment and launch date much better than this.

I'm tempted to call this the most botched launch of any console (there are some close runner-ups though).

Actually, in this one case, I wouldn't doubt that a large part of the shortages weren't artificial. They've been experiencing production issues for ages, including low yields (and various other problems with the Cell chip), Blu-Ray lasers, and just the difficulty of producing a high-end piece of hardware and getting it out the door. But you're right, launching doesn't mean a whole lot when there's only 200,000 consoles to ship. But they got them out in time for the holidays and gathered enough hype for it to matter. Believe it or not, a lot of news stations seem to reporting the PS3 as one of the top must-have items, placing ahead of the Wii. They would have suffered beyond belief if they further delayed the console, at least no they can build themselves back up and try to keep pace with Microsoft.

They should have done more to ensure a better launch, I agree, but they constantly fucked up along the way. To the point where they really didn't seem to have much of a choice. They chose the lesser of the two evils That's my point.

Quote:

Why are people using Assassin's Creed as an example of the machine losing exclusives? It was announced as a Xbox 360 game (though not exclusively) before the PS3 announcement came. Even then, at E3 insiders mentioned that it was running on a hidden 360.

I expect SE to spread their titles across consoles to rake in the big bucks. Multi-platform is the way to make money these days, so we'll see everyone losing exclusives across the board. Heck, maybe we'll even seen "compilation" type deals where certain titles in a series are on one console, and one is on the other.

This gen is definitely looking like pure trash, though. Hopefully by late '08 these guys shape up, because either the console doesn't have the games there to justify their purchase or there are massive droughts where nothing worthwhile is available.

AC is viable because it was reported as a Sony exclusive. As I said, everyone knew it was going to be on the 360, but that's not Ubi was saying. Plus, the 360 project wasn't exactly titled "Assassin's Creed." The name was announced for the PS3 and for all we knew they dropped the project and took it over to Sony. Anyways it's just a recent example of a publisher saying something's exclusive when it's not. RE4 is a better one though, which is why I included it. That actually came as a surprise.

As for the second paragraph: yeah, no kidding.

Third: I disagree. I'm already enjoy this generation and have found a ton of good titles to enjoy. The 360 got off to a shaky start, but I have no regrets purchasing it. Same with the Wii, especially knowing great games are just around the corner. And though I won't be getting a PS3 for awhile, I'm sure it'll turn around like the 360 did. Good games will eventually come, whether exclusive or multi-platform.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Which gets me to another point: If that hadn't been placed in the machine, we likely would've saw it at a much lower price point and at far greater quantities at launch and beyond.

You say this like I'm defending Sony. You're right, of course. But they're trying to push a new format, much like they did with the DVD.

Quote:

Again, not viable. Ubisoft's long been suspected of having a very close relationship to Microsoft, so when they announced it was "exclusive" there was widespread skepticism already. Early reports about the game, while lacking the game, were still reporting on AC.

Either way you look at it, the sudden exclusivity seemed like a joke as the machines are nowhere near close enough to simply jump ship like that (nor are they close to Sony).

Like I said, everyone knew it wasn't an exclusive. It was just an example of a company saying something was an exclusive when it's not. Simple as that.

Quote:

IMO, none of them are there yet.

No launch is really worth it right away. But chances are, if you're buying a console at launch, you know what's coming down the road. And that's enough for some people.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

MGS4 would certainly boost the 360. I mean, people will buy a PS3 just to play MGS4. But if you can pick up a console a couple of hundred dollars cheaper, with more of a variety of games, and get your favorite title (even if it is (possibly) dumbed down/not as high quality) I'd say most people would swing for that option.

I've actually gotta wonder how much sway MGS still holds in the US. Every new iteration has sold less and less in the States with MGS3 only selling, what, 700,000 copies? Who knows how MGS4 will sell, but if the past is any indication it will see a further decline in sales. I doubt it, since more hype seems to be placed around MGS4, but is that because it's one of the few reasons to buy a PS3? And if so, does bringing it over to the 360 lower the anticipation, even just a bit? It's going to move systems, but I'm not sure if it will really have the pull people expect it to. I mean, the PS2 was a pretty good price when MGS3 came out, and I doubt the PS3 will see any kind of price drop before MGS4 hits the shelves...

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?