SaviorX said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
venepe said:
the PSP port gives credit to the theory that the game was a flop, or at least that it did not met their expectations.

I tend to agree. Why release it on the PSP? It cannot be a straight port due to the lack of touchscreen, and they already stated exclusive content. If the game would have made the money they expected, then they would not need to invest in a PSP version.

You clearly didn't pay attention to what was done with the previous GTA games. Why would they port III, VC, and SA to the Xbox and PC whey they clearly made plenty on the PS2?

Ports don't mean flops. Those tend to reduce the chances of ports. Even Okami made money before it was ported (just not a lot).

I bought the III/VC double pack on the Xbox 1 year after Vice City was released. By that time,both games were definitely past 10 milion right? So Knight is right here.

I get why they think it's proof of a flop. They think ports are easy and cheap, so a port on another system is a low cost way to recoup losses.

That is completely false.

  1. 1. Unless gaming systems have cross platform firmware (like the Xbox and PC), the code to run the game has to be completely rewritten. That will require a lot more manhours.
  2. 2. With this game, they have to adjust the graphics from the dual screen to a widescreen.
  3. 3. They have to reprogram the gameplay.
  4. 4. The DS uses fixed point calculations, and the PSP uses floating point. That means all the math coding on the game has to be redone.

There is no way in hell that will be cheap, even if on DS level instead of PSP level. Ports aren't to recoup losses. They are to milk hits. Why do you think Super Mario and Street Fighter II were ported so much, and not smaller games?

A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs