Sony: Metal Gear Solid 4 PS3 Only

Article written by Rob Wright.

Sony did take the opportunity to preview what many believe will be the killer app for the PS3.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/0 [...] r_solid_4/

meh.

I almost guarantee it won't remain PS3 exclusive for long. Whether Konami ports it to 360 a few months to a year later or whether it's MGS4: Substitution or some rerelease like they did with MGS2 and MGS3. I think MGS4 will be too little too late when it comes to the PS3 regaining its footing. Unless they can start putting together a string of consistent hits and demonstrate that games on PS3 are superior to 360 and have developers take advantage of the supposedly more powerful hardware, then I think the PS3 is doomed except for people who want to dive into Blu-Ray.

Might aswell add ''The Last Remnant'' to that list. Personally, I think the ps3 is lacking some good rpgs, while the 360 does provide some, they are of little interest.As for the ps3 success I think its just taking time. Some great games are coming our way, and I mainly hope for its success for some Square-enix magic.

Echofoxtrot, I so completely agree with you.
Once upon a time it was true, now I simply don't have enough cash or time to buy all the great games I want; and unless you are seriously loaded and can play games all day long - nor would you. I am completely sick of hearing "the PS3 has only 3 good games" from fanboys who just reiterate garbage they hear and won't let go of it.
Whether or not MGS or any of the other PS3 exclusives go to Xbox is up for debate. What I can tell you for a fact is that almost all of the exclusives for Xbox have already shown that they do eventually get ported (and very readily due to their similar architecture) to the PC where I can play it on a better graphics card. I am talking about Halo, Gears of War etc. The few that haven't made the transition to PC will probably do so, or their are better versions of the genre already on the PC.
So I ask you, if you want already own a PC gaming machine, what would do you think is the better choice for games that you can't get any other system? That's not to mention you get a very useful media unit that plays the only relevant next gen HD medium for free.

Then how does it have some 20% of the 7th-generation console market, in a solid third place to the Xbox 360 and Wii? I really can't consider that "doing fine."

Similarly, Blu-Ray isn't really gaining traction terribly fast, at leat nowhere near as well as would be expected for something being advertised so ridiculously much.

I'd note that as far as exclusives go, both the Xbox 360 and Wii have very hefty lists... And to be honest, most of them have some that readily trounce any of those; Resistance, for instance, is hardly comparable to Halo 3 or Gears of War.

I dunno. The PS3's still not doing markedly better. It's more or less trudging along as it has been.

That's true, but at that time, the Playstation 2 had more than half as many units out as the Xbox... The numbers were more of over four times as many.

I wouldn't be surprised that, in spite of Sony's claims and protests to the contrary, that Konami (which is, after all, a third-party company) decides to port it to the Xbox 360.

I second Info's position. As much as I enjoyed Ratchet & Clank, hey, it's just one game. Not quite enough to make me buy a PS3.

However, Blu-ray did give HD DVD a curb stomping at CES, so it looks like Blu-ray will begin to get more traction this year.

Yes, but they are merely DECENT to GOOD... Hardly comparable to games that could be described a "Excellent," of which the PS3 is sorely lacking.

Though many do play worse; I noticed that it appears that Madden NFL '08, for instance, runs at 30fps instead of 60fps... I chalked it up to the Xbox 360 having all its memory in one pool, so it could easily use its 300-400MB texture pack; being Madden, it doesn't really have need of 256MB of memory for the CPU alone. Furthermore, I'd note that although it requires a subscription, Madden is MUCH better played on Xbox Live than on the Wii or PS3's online service, for two reasons: first, Xbox Live has shown to be FAR more stable here (EA's servers seem to crash and you wind up never finishing a good chunk of your games) and also, you'll still be able to play Madden '08 online when Madden '09 comes out... Knowing EA, you can count on them to take down the servers for '08 the very day a sequel's out.

Likewise, I've noticed that the PS3 version of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion lacks anti-aliasing as found in the Xbox 360 version, primarily because the GPU in the PS3 is based upon the G70 core, which can't use OB's HDR and AA at the same time.

So yeah, while the gameplay might be the same, the graphics are worse.

I'd actually argue otherwise: The Xbox 360 really hit it in 2006, well before its 1-year mark, with The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and *especially* Gears of War, both of which out-sold anything on the PS3 by far. Similarly, the Wii had The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Wii Play, Wii Sports, and by now, Super Mario Galaxy.

Technically, it's "biggest dog," Super Smash Bros.: Brawl, the one game that people were talking about at the Wii's original release, has still not arrived... Yet the console's managed to do FAR better than the PS3, typically selling twice as many units during the same given amount of time.

It is true that the online play is free; as primarily a PC gamer, the subscription fee for Xbox Live is something I consider worth expressing indignation over. However, I'd note that it's ALSO free on the Wii as well.

Again, as a PC gamer, I'm not all that impressed, having seen the likes of Crysis.

TBH, even in the perspective of console games, I'm not all that impressed: I see it typical of racing games: inordinate amounts of detail on the cars, and relatively primitive-looking landscape by comparison. It looks not much different in that respect from, say, Need for Speed: Pro Street. Plus, those screenshots are 800x450... Given that most "HD" console games don't even run at full 720p, that makes me question what resolution that game will run in at the end.

Owning Uncharted, I can tell you that it doesn't say it supports 1080p on the package, so supporting a resolution higher than 720p at all is actually a gift. In fact, before you posted that, I didn't even realize I could make it run at something higher than 720p on my 1080p display.

Now that Blu-ray has more or less beat out HD-DVD, paired with a pretty strong PS3 lineup this year, I'd imagine we'll see the system start catching up to the Xbox360 this year. The Wii however should remain on top because I'm pretty sure nothing can catch up to it's insane popularity.

Please don't take any of this personally; it's just been that over the past couple weeks, I've been finding that there's literally just about nothing defensible about the PS3, and hence any argument I see that tries to defend it comes across looking rather silly to me.

I don't know... "beat" is a VERY relative term there, given that both (legally) downloaded video content as well as conventionally standard-def DVD sales both dwarf the sales of Blu-Ray products. The value of its ability to play Blu-Ray as a selling point matters not on whether Blu-Ray is more popular than HD-DVD, but how popular it is compared to the whole market. And in that respect, it's still got many years to go.

To me, neither would really seem like a good compliment, as in many cases, the PS3 outright LACKS any decent games. FF XIII is still quite a long ways into the future, and it may very likely get ported to other systems due to the PS3's poor sales figures. Already titles like Grand Theft Auto 4 have lost their exclusivity on the PS3 before they even released... And it's hard to really blame them for wanting to avoiding releasing to an installed user base of only 6 million, which would drastically cut the game's chance at good sales... When the previous three GTA games for the PS2 all topped 10 million copies sold each.

Technically, the default Xbox *does* have a hard drive, and that version costs less than any version of the PS3; I personally find mention of how the "arcade edition" of the Xbox 360 (which is clearly set as a watered-down model) lacks a hard drive as an argument in favor of the PS3 to be pretty silly.

What if one doesn't give a flying care about "next gen HD" movies at this point? Blu-Ray may have a dominance over HD-DVD at this point, and the media has been harping all over that, but it's utterly crushed by the two competitors that the media haven't given a mention to: online distribution and DVD. Yes, the "obsolete" DVD.

Likewise, what good is "free" internet gaming when there aren't many games that support it, and very few good ones? And what good does a web browser do when a cheaper PC can do it better?

Wherever the heck did I suggest anything of the like that HD-DVD would "make a comeback?" I'd highly appreciate it if you would please REFRAIN from trying to put words in my mouth; I *do* know what I mean, even if others would like to think that they know what I mean better than I do. Do *not* try to construe my posts to have vague meanings that don't quite fit; it'll only serve to make you look ridiculous.

For reference, the first home DVD products, which had *no* competitors, first started selling in 1996, and it wasn't until around June 2003 that DVDs started truly out-selling it. Blu-Ray was released for the first commericial products in 2003, though it's still far, far behind DVD in sales levels... And way, WAY off track to have a hope to capture the market in the ~7 years it took DVD... I might estimate that it might take it at least 7 years *once* the "format wars" are over, whenever that happens. It'll certainly be a rockier road, as well: the PS2, from 2000 onward, was there to really help DVD along, (with some nearly 20 million units sold in its first year) while the PS3 clearly is not anywhere near as present.

How did the PS3 versions become "on a par" with their 360 counterparts? By more or less saying "good-bye" to their ability to play older games? And perhaps a slight adjustment to their features otherwise? I honestly don't see much of what's changed... And as for PS3 exclusives this year... Last I checked, the only really strong game coming would be MGS4, for which pretty much all odds are pointing to it being ported to the Xbox 360 not long afterwards. (perhaps at the time when it'll debut the Substance/Subsistence/Sub-whatever edition?)

And again, one OKAY year of games would be insufficient to bring a console's lineup to be competitive against a lineup that is already *excellent*, and most importantly, is not standing still. (that last bit being a key point that literally 100% of the PS3's fans miss) Remember that Gears of War and Mass Effect are the first games in their own respective trilogies, with all three games planned as 360 exclusives or 360/PC Microsoft exclusives. And then there's the likes of Too Human, Fable 2, Ninja Gaiden 2, and Banjo-Kazooie 3.

Yes, there is all that talk about games for the PS3 in the distant future... But are people going to assume that they're going to come out at a time when there are no other games being released? And you really can't jab the 360 for being full of sequels if you're defending the PS3's future lineup... I mean, what with it having MGS 4, God of War 3, Gran Turismo 5, and all...

Well, I'd doubt it was a "serious" RROD, sincethey were effectively eliminated with the "Zephyr" revision; part of the problem apparently stemmed from the 90nm process that had been used for the CPUs; "Zephyr" units (which include all "elite" 360s) use parts made on a 65nm process instead.

Make no mistake: I'm not defending the 360 here. I'm attacking the PS3. The two are *not* the same.

The problem I think you've completely missed here is that the basis for Blu-Ray's success relies ENTIRELY on the premise that high-definition movies and shows become the norm. For the vast majority of people, (of which very, very few are enthusiasts, I'd note) they simply do not own an HDTV. Hence, no matter what features Blu-Ray may claim for them, the main reason for using it in the first place is utterly moot, since they can't even display anything above 480p, if that.

Likewise, there is still another form of competition that is doing strongly for HD content, and that's downloads. While I personally like having physical media myself, I will admit that it provides the distinct advantage of not requiring any form of particular hardware: just hardware that meets the general standards for support of H.264 and HDCP.

This is a kinda silly question, don't you think?

Nonetheless, I'll put it this way: I don't place any real stock in opinions for the sake of opinions; I consider them pretty worthless. I recognize that it is NOT the case that "all opinions are equal." Their value is determined entirely by the strength of the facts behind them.

Well, I happen to own none of them. It is very rare for me to play a single-player game on a console; there are a few, but they are definitely not very common. When I play console games, it's almost always along with someone sitting next to me. (or elsewhere in the room, whatever) So while I've played on the three 7th-generation consoles pretty heavily, (combined, perhaps twice as much as I've played on my own PC over the past year) it's been invariably with someone else with me. If I want to play alone, I actually use the PC.

I own 4 controllers for all 3 of my consoles, and I pretty much play multiplayer games exclusively. I will however pick up a single player game on a console if it's an exclusive for that platform as I already own the hardware, otherwise I generally wouldn't bother. Halo 3 is probably my most played, for we can't get enough of Infection with zombie speed at 300%.

It takes time, but eventually HDTVs will be the standard.