dbot said:
My question was designed with what is best for the gamer? Would you rather have GTA and GTA DLC or GTA and Killzone 2? If you read the original post, you would understand why I framed it as I did. Basically, the op asked what is best for each company, and I am asking what is best for the gamer. 1) Killzone 2's budget was reported to be 60 million dollars by a forum poster named Surfer Girl. He made up a lot of stuff, not just Killzone's buget. Usually, publishers don't disclose their game bugets to the general population. 2) Killzone 2 is a AAA title, go check metacritic or gamerankings. If you want to view this in the context of the original post, and want to pretend that Killzone cost 50 million dollars, then would you spend the money to be able to market content to at most 24% of your installed userbase (GTA DLC), or do you spend the money to be able to market content to 100% of your userbase (Killzone 2). GTA is no more one of Sony's franchises, then Final Fantasy, or Metal Gear Solid. These are IPs owned by unrelated entities, they should and can market content on whatever platform they desire. The 360 was getting GTA4 without the DLC and due to its significantly larger install base, was bound to outsell the PS3 version. The fact that you refer to Killzone 2 as a tech demo is laughable at best, and it really makes it difficult to respond to your other points in a serious manner. Tech demos don't average 90+ in reviews, and judging by the game demo and beta response, Sony sacrificed nothing in the making of this game.
|
First of all, though it's not a Sony franchise, it's a franchise that *was* associated with Sony. Just like Final Fantasy or MGS. If you've been around you saw the ruckus caused the FFXIII was announced as multiplatform, and you can imagine what would have happened if MGS4 had gone multiplat.
As for referring to it as a tech demo, I stand by the statement. Not, let me be clear though, I didn't intend this as a slight on the finished product - merely that when Sony poured all the money into it, it was clearly a bad business decision from the viewpoint of just making a new game. Make your most expensive new game a sequel to a product noone really cared about? They wanted a game that could showcase what the PS3 could do - whatever the cost. Now, this yielded a great, and technically impressive game. But for a smaller budget they could have made something less graphically impressive, and something that would likely increase the overall value for players. (Not just things like split screen and Coop - something like the Forge Halo 3 has) How many players want a bit better looking game that has a lot less options they've grown to enjoy/expect? That's why I refer to it as a tech demo - the purpose of the game's development was showcasing what the PS3 could do. However, when the dust settles, it's still going to be a less complete (albeit prettier) experience than the AAA shooters which will also consistently outsell it.
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
