Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 17, 2007, 06:42:44 PM
Read between the lines
Quote
Konami’s highest-profile titles, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Metal Gear Online, have only been announced for PS3, continuing the developer’s strong support of Sony’s console. Sony’s entry into the next generation of consoles has been shaky, with tough competition from Microsoft and the mass market-friendly Nintendo Wii, but Konami is confident in its longtime partner.
“Sony’s always been a strategic partner of Konami since the early days, and they will continue to be,” Crouts insists. “We still have high hopes for the platform itself, and what it can do. That’s one of the reasons you see Metal Gear Solid 4 running on it so well…. We have high expectations for PS3. We know Sony is an established console player in the industry, and we know they’re not going anywhere.”
Post by: Kairon on October 17, 2007, 07:25:57 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 17, 2007, 07:26:23 PM
But seriously, Konami really doesn't have much that interests me anymore. I want Contra and liked Elebits. I'd probably try the new Silent Hill if I got a chance. Karaoke and DDR and Yu-Gi-Oh are bleh. Same for their Soccer. Metal Gear is interesting but overrated and I've never bought one. I appreciate Castlevania, but I don't have time to give this franchise the time it deserves.
Post by: Mashiro on October 17, 2007, 08:26:59 PM
Quote
We know Sony is an established console player in the industry, and we know they’re not going anywhere.”
And Nintendo and MS ARE going somewhere?
Post by: Infernal Monkey on October 17, 2007, 08:48:03 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 17, 2007, 08:48:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MashiroQuote
We know Sony is an established console player in the industry, and we know they’re not going anywhere.”
And Nintendo and MS ARE going somewhere?
The point is that Konami is at that stage of life where they're ready to settle down, and Sony offers that sort of firm, solid, dependable commitment that suits those needs perfectly, exciting or not.
Post by: Crimm on October 17, 2007, 08:54:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MashiroQuote
We know Sony is an established console player in the industry, and we know they’re not going anywhere.”
And Nintendo and MS ARE going somewhere?
As blasphemous as this sounds here, we don't know where the Wii will be in 4 years. The 360 doesn't do well in Japan. MGS isn't big in Japan, but many of Konami's franchises are.
Post by: SixthAngel on October 17, 2007, 11:17:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: CrimmQuote
Originally posted by: MashiroQuote
We know Sony is an established console player in the industry, and we know they’re not going anywhere.”
And Nintendo and MS ARE going somewhere?
As blasphemous as this sounds here, we don't know where the Wii will be in 4 years. The 360 doesn't do well in Japan. MGS isn't big in Japan, but many of Konami's franchises are.
I don't see why we should worry. As long as the Wii is selling and doing well Nintendo will support it. As we have seen with all the gameboys and the earlier systems if they don't absolutely need to send out a new model they won't. With their lack of focus on power and how well the Wii is doing now I don't see any reason for them to cut it short. The differences between the consoles will not increase in the future. I would be surprised if the 360 is around in four years since it will have outlasted the original xbox. I don't think there is really any game that will make the ps3 get a huge sales pickup. Certain games will cause sales bumps but the thing is just too expensive to actually sell in large amounts. By the time it even becomes the right price it will be way too far behind. I still think Sony doesn't really care about the ps3's overall success, they are still willing to sacrifice the playstation if they can just reap the benefits of next gen media.
Konami has put so much time and money (as well as probably received some) for Metal Gear Solid they can't really afford to fully back another system until it comes out. They need all the concentration on the ps3 and the big game if they are to make money.
I would think that developers would be worried about a company that puts the media format as a higher priority then selling games but they still cozy up.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 17, 2007, 11:41:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crimm
As blasphemous as this sounds here, we don't know where the Wii will be in 4 years.
All signs point to "above the PS3".
Post by: Darkheart on October 18, 2007, 02:01:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MashiroQuote
We know Sony is an established console player in the industry, and we know they’re not going anywhere.”
And Nintendo and MS ARE going somewhere?
LOL yeah they ARE going somewhere, they are going to the bank with all the money they make. Sony can STAY where it is right now, low sales, no software, and bad marketing pr. . .
Post by: Arbok on October 18, 2007, 03:21:35 AM
Post by: Mashiro on October 18, 2007, 04:19:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: darkheartQuote
Originally posted by: MashiroQuote
We know Sony is an established console player in the industry, and we know they’re not going anywhere.”
And Nintendo and MS ARE going somewhere?
LOL yeah they ARE going somewhere, they are going to the bank with all the money they make. Sony can STAY where it is right now, low sales, no software, and bad marketing pr. . .
Hahaha very good point! =D
Post by: Ian Sane on October 18, 2007, 06:05:05 AM
What the hell are the early days? I don't think Sony was doing anything with Konami back when Frogger was a hit. Or during the 8 and 16 bit eras.
To be fair I figure PS2 owners were complaining that Capcom was wasting time making Gamecube exclusives and Tecmo was making Xbox exclusives when the PS2 was the clear market leader. Now the Wii seems to be getting screwed on third party support in general but even if (or hopefully when) the third party support gets to a level one would expect for the market leader having one of two holdouts would be normal. Still sucks of course.
I think from a third party perspective the safest choice is the Xbox 360 since it seems to be doing about as well as everyone thought it would. The Wii is surprisingly successful and the PS3 is surprisingly (well except with us) unsuccessful so it's harder to predict what's going to happen. I predict the PS3 is fizzuckored but the Wii is a little more iffy. Though it becomes less iffy every day.
Post by: Mashiro on October 18, 2007, 06:37:38 AM
Quote
I think from a third party perspective the safest choice is the Xbox 360 since it seems to be doing about as well as everyone thought it would.
Really?
I dunno, the Xbox 360 is almost being eclipsed by the Wii (if it hasn't been already) and it lacks any major footing in Japan . . .
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2007, 06:59:15 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 18, 2007, 07:31:07 AM
Yeah but it's the one that's consistent. There's still "what if the Wii is a fad?" talk and stuff like that that creates doubt. The future of Xbox 360 is not in doubt so that's why that's probably the safest bet. Meanwhile the PS3 is on it's way to being a complete flop.
Let's put it this way. If you're making up excuses to stay away from the Wii at least be smart enough to support the Xbox 360 over the PS3.
Post by: Pale on October 18, 2007, 08:09:20 AM
The Wii isn't doing well enough yet to warrant going to it over the 360 or the PS3 for those developers who's assets rely heavily on technical horsepower.
The 360 sells like crap in Japan.
Therefore Konami, who sells a ton to Japanese customers, will stick with the PS3 for titles like MGS. That's why I'm positive the primary release of Final Fantasy XIII will end up still being on PS3 as well.
Post by: Mashiro on October 18, 2007, 08:15:46 AM
MGS4 and FFXIII were probably well in development for the PS3 before the sh*t hit the fan with the Wii and the PS3 became a proverbial flop.
Given that each game is heavily reliant on the PS3s graphical power it's clear to see why each game wouldn't jump ship for the Wii, since the cost to port it and make the gameplay tailored to the Wii would just add to the already grossly high costs that each game already has.
Loyalty is a very fickle thing these days with consoles . . . that's all I can really say.
Post by: Pale on October 18, 2007, 08:33:53 AM
Post by: Mashiro on October 18, 2007, 08:37:50 AM
To be fair though . . . Square didn't goto the PSX because of it's power. They went to it because of the storage medium. As was proved with Resident Evil 2, the N64 can do whatever the PSX could, it was just a matter of space and in the case of Final Fantasy VII, doing the same game on N64 as was released on the PSX would have had an astronomical production cost per cartridge and it would have to have been a multi-cart game more than likely lol.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2007, 08:37:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
Good point Mash, but I still can't see Square running away from horsepower. I mean, they went to the PSX before it was an overwhelming success. That's a sacrifice Nintendo made in making Wii affordable. In the long run, that decision has and will continue to play a huge part in Wii's success, but it will also keep it from ever being the only console on the block.
Well the thing is that with the PSX Nintendo pretty much handicapped Square with the carts, which played a role in their decision. Also why can't you see Square running away from horsepower? They did it with PSX.
Post by: Mashiro on October 18, 2007, 08:39:54 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2007, 08:40:40 AM
Post by: Pale on October 18, 2007, 08:44:16 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2007, 08:51:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
Well i mean, you are right in that n64 was more powerful in some ways, but not in the ways Square wanted. And all (successful) consoles were cart based before psx so it's less a handicap by Nintendo and more an added feature by Sony.
I really don't think Square cares a whole heck of a lot about graphical ability, if they did they wouldn't be putting their remakes of the FF games on NDS instead of PSP.
Post by: Kairon on October 18, 2007, 10:06:39 AM
Post by: Mashiro on October 18, 2007, 11:07:27 AM
Quote
Well i mean, you are right in that n64 was more powerful in some ways, but not in the ways Square wanted.
What was the way they wanted and what couldn't the N64 do that they wanted?
It was just the storage medium =)
Post by: darknight06 on October 18, 2007, 11:17:51 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2007, 11:18:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
The problem with the PS3 though is that even if its the most powerful console doing decently (yeah right) in Japan, it's still TOO EXPENSIVE. This is why I really, really, REALLY want games like Kingdom Hearts to come to the Wii: the Wii is cheaper and therefore can get into more houses, especially kids. FFXIII and MGS4 are actually pretty decent fits for the PS3 and I don't anticipate those jumping ship any time soon, but there are other franchises that, I believe, simply make more SENSE on consoles other than the PS3. For Squaresoft, this is Kingdom Hearts for Konami... umm.... ?
For Konami it is "low budget" game X.
Post by: IceCold on October 18, 2007, 01:41:49 PM
QuoteI'm sorry? The PS2? The DS? Hell, even the PS One - they were all underpowered compared to the competition, yet Square stuck with them. It's not about horsepower, it's about money.
Good point Mash, but I still can't see Square running away from horsepower.
Post by: ThePerm on October 19, 2007, 02:05:04 PM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on October 19, 2007, 05:01:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteI'm sorry? The PS2? The DS? Hell, even the PS One - they were all underpowered compared to the competition, yet Square stuck with them. It's not about horsepower, it's about money.
Good point Mash, but I still can't see Square running away from horsepower.
...and storage space. Face it, all of those consoles had greater storage space than their competitors (except the DS, but that has the touchscreen so that helps). At the time the PS2 came out it was the only DVD based console out there. I think the Dreamcast just used CD-ROMs...
Square became more interested in making interactive movies than making games. That's why it chose the PS line.
Post by: Mashiro on October 19, 2007, 05:04:13 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on October 19, 2007, 05:52:10 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 19, 2007, 08:19:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo GhostQuote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteI'm sorry? The PS2? The DS? Hell, even the PS One - they were all underpowered compared to the competition, yet Square stuck with them. It's not about horsepower, it's about money.
Good point Mash, but I still can't see Square running away from horsepower.
...and storage space. Face it, all of those consoles had greater storage space than their competitors (except the DS, but that has the touchscreen so that helps). At the time the PS2 came out it was the only DVD based console out there. I think the Dreamcast just used CD-ROMs...
Square became more interested in making interactive movies than making games. That's why it chose the PS line.
Storage medium is not it, because if worse came to worse Square could have used multiple disks. I think the GD-ROMs held almost double of a CD.
Post by: Kairon on October 19, 2007, 09:19:22 PM
