-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Well, Konami haven't made a modern AAA game since MGS 5 and that was eight years ago. Also IIRC they downsized a lot of their internal dev studios, so they likely don't even have the manpower studio-wise to do AAA games today without partnering up with others, as we're seeing with Silent Hill 2 Remake.
Capcom aren't in that position, so they wouldn't need a platform holder's help. But they probably still benefit plenty from Sony's marketing deals for RE4R and Street Fighter 6. For example, Sony's most likely a sponsor for Capcom Cup this year, which has a $2 million total prize pool and $1 million for the winner of the event. Not saying that's 100% likely, but it's a good possibility considering Sony were the main sponsor for Capcom Cup during most of SFV's run, too.
But a publisher like Konami, who have been out of the game WRT AAA development for several years, I could see why they would want to turn to even a platform holder to help bringing some IP back into the main fold and out of the Big 3, Sony are the most equipped to help them realize that.
Some of them do; others do not. And a lot of the time the ones that sell well on Steam are at big sales discounts, not to mention a lot of those people are also using CD Keys to get discounts regardless, so sales revenue is probably lower than it would be on console.
Games like Halo and Gears only became "PC focused" once MS adopted Day 1 to PC as a policy. Otherwise, they were primarily console franchises and designed as such, they just also happen to fit in well on PC side because FPS games are big on that platform. Or, at least they would fit in well if they had better modern installments; Halo Infinite is a joke on PC in terms of players and Gears 5 has been very much dormant.
For a company like Microsoft who want to solidify Windows as the PC OS, and knowing doing that through games is a big way to do so, then yes PC Day 1 is a very good idea. But there's no contradiction in saying that simultaneously has come to hurt Xbox consoles in terms of their value proposition, because it has, so from that perspective it's become a very questionable business decision. But like I also said, Windows means much more to MS than Xbox, so if one had to take a hit, they'd rather it be Xbox.
Sony, as an example, is nowhere near in that same boat. They do not have a dominant PC OS they have 100% full ownership of, so they have no need to leverage their software to retain control and install bases for a non-existent product. They do not have a Windows, they do not have lucrative licensing deals with OEM PC manufacturers for their OS the way Microsoft does. PlayStation as a console is magnitudes more important to Sony than Xbox is to Microsoft in terms of the bottom line, so PC Day 1 is much, much less of a priority.
And that is perfectly fine. Different companies have different needs and priorities. It is what it is.
EDIT: Also in terms of PC-focused games being on console Day 1, well again it comes down to priorities. Console players aren't entitled Day 1 access to League of Legends or Counterstrike; if they really want to play those games, they should get a PC and play them there.
Those games are optimized for PC setups anyway and the amount of resources they'd need to also optimize for console setups Day 1 is likely way too much, plus the devs may not want to pay for console development licenses or pay yet other platform holders a 30% cut.
Last edited:
XesqueVara
Member
not counting the medium running like crap and justifying it with "2 screens" bullshit
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
It's why people shouldn't get their hopes up. Konami is casting a wide net with their Silent Hill revivals and the crown jewel of that franchise is being handed to Blooper Team. I expect we will see something similar with MGS with Konami not wanting to invest a ton of money into any single project. It's the best argument for Konami partnering with Sony (and hopefully Bluepoint) as Konami doesn't care enough about their gaming legacy on their own to invest in proper revivals.
DoktorCoktor
Member
Good
AeonGaidenRaiden
Member
MGS3 makes more chronological sense if they got remaking more titles.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Can someone tell me what Virtuous Studios has made before by themselves?
Their website claims they have 3500 employees and are an art resources studio...did they ever make their own game before?
Their website claims they have 3500 employees and are an art resources studio...did they ever make their own game before?
Absolutely false.
MGS3 is a prequel. A god damn prequel, and one of the best ever created, in the sense that it relies on, and enriches the previous story. You get half the intended experience, by starting with 3.
Let alone the fact that the MGS remake rumour is a weekly routine on these internet forums, since ~ 2006 or so, if they are ever going to do it, it will be MGS1 first, not 3.
(old MG games are not that iconic for tday's gamers, so i'm guessing they will not start with them, and also MGS1 is a kind of re-make of old MG anyway)
coffinbirth
Member
Monster Jam: Path of Destruction. Not kidding.
They are mainly a port/remaster and asset production company, the former being an extremely mixed bag of ports, with the latter being across all media.
They most recently did The Outer Worlds: Spacers Choice Edition.
They are basically work for hire, with HEAVY Tencent dealings.
RagnarokIV
Battlebus imprisoning me \m/ >.< \m/
The power of top tier direction.
ManaByte
Rage Bait Youtuber
Nice job not reading the link.
DarthPutin
Member
Good, I feel like XBOX Fanbase deserves a little sunshine))
It wasn't going to be Sony studio anyway, so we're losing nothing on that front. That said, simply knowing Sony, it's a little weird that they didn't pounce on it or that Konami stood their ground
All this neverending melodrama with FFVIIRemake... Sony was never shy boasting about exclusivity when they had it, why would they hide it now? Exclusivity ended, and if the game's not on XBOX, it's because Square Enix can't be arsed to port it. I suspect due to sales data, or maybe just hoping for sweet GamePass deal.
It wasn't going to be Sony studio anyway, so we're losing nothing on that front. That said, simply knowing Sony, it's a little weird that they didn't pounce on it or that Konami stood their ground
All this neverending melodrama with FFVIIRemake... Sony was never shy boasting about exclusivity when they had it, why would they hide it now? Exclusivity ended, and if the game's not on XBOX, it's because Square Enix can't be arsed to port it. I suspect due to sales data, or maybe just hoping for sweet GamePass deal.
SJRB
Gold Member
I want them to fully incorporate the original vision this game had in the earlier stages of production, as seen in the reveal trailer.
- Hunting
- In-game eating [and not via a menu]
- larger groups of enemies on patrol
- dynamic weather
- day/night cycle
- larger environments
This trailer is a banger but has so much that is barely in the final game:
(interestingly enough the game was first revealed at E3 2003, almost exactly 20 years ago)
- Hunting
- In-game eating [and not via a menu]
- larger groups of enemies on patrol
- dynamic weather
- day/night cycle
- larger environments
This trailer is a banger but has so much that is barely in the final game:
(interestingly enough the game was first revealed at E3 2003, almost exactly 20 years ago)
Last edited:
AeonGaidenRaiden
Member
I think it makes perfect sense as a prequel to go first. Just because you know Ocelot and Raiden from previous games, doesn't make their introduction to newcomers less impactful. The bosses are all new, you are the OG snake so no mumbo jumbo about clones just yet. The Perfect soldier upon whom other versions were made. Its a way better intro to the series than...old Ocelot, with an arm of a past Snake clone that takes over etc.
Plus the only reason he made a prequel was because he said he doesn't wanna do anymore MGS (like he always says) and then thought the only possible option is to make a canon past.
Esppiral
Member
I guess Sony has the marketing deal
Vognerful
Member
Pour one for the warrior.
More like pour one for Speshal Nick and Jez who got it wrong again.
NeonGhost
uses 'M$' - What year is it? Not 2002.
Konami won’t but virtuos studios will definitely fuck it up
Similar threads
- Locked