By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - BioWare's Ceo hints at PS3 Mass Effect 2, ME2 DLC - English and Polish.

TRios_Zen said:
Procrastinato said:
 

I hear ya, with the feeling screwed, but I don't think EA is considering your feelings, or the feelings of anyone who has already purchased the game, when re-releasing it, or lowering the price in general.

Think about it.  Say ME2 rocks (I have high confidence it will).  It would be downright stupid of EA to continue the ME franchise as a X360 exclusive for ME3, given the rapidly advancing PS3 userbase.  If they want to alienate near half of the ME3 audience, then they should keep it as an exclusive -- if they want to make it multiplat, and rake in more money, they should bundle ME1 with ME2, and release them together on the PS3 for the 2010 holidays, well after they've raked in the X360 timed exclusive dough.  Cha-ching! ...and they're set for a crossplat release of ME3, which will probably sell a gazillion copies.

They'd be fools to keep it exclusive to the X360 voluntarily, when they obviously have a working PS3 engine that evolved from the ME1 engine (see: Dragon Age engine references in OP).  The timed exclusivity may very well be due only to the extra time needed to port ME1 to the PS3, and nothing more.  They may not speak about it, not because MS paid them, but because they want multiplat owners to buy the X360 version at full price, and then buy it again in bundle/GotY form on the PS3.  If you're gonna establish a franchise foothold on a platform, what better way to do it, than to release the first two episodes together on the giant storage medium the platform provides, as a bundle with a huge amount of value?

You could write them a nastygram after E3 when they announce it (okay I'm going overboard with my theory here ;), but it won't make them want to lose money, because your feelings are hurt. =)  The more I think about this theory, actually, the more feasible it sounds.

Just remember, come E3 -- I called it first. ;)

Mass Effect is a great series, but it isn't a Gears of War/Halo type of exclusive, so I have absolutely no problem with them porting the game to the PS3.  If you are a PS3 only owner I hope you have the opportunity to play it, I've played through the first twice and enjoyed it both times.  My argument has never been PS3 owners shouldn't have access to either of these games.

@kitler53, outside of Game of The Year discs (with DLC included) how often are current generation games included completely free?

By your logic, since I'm a new PS3 owner, if I want MGS or Resistance 2, them being old and all, I can just wait for the next game to come and I shoud get both for $60, right?  Come on!  That's silly and you know it.

 

No, by Kitler's logic, you'd get Resistance 2+Resistance 3 for $60 if you waited until ~6 months after Resistance 3 launched. If Mass Effect 1+2 comes out for PS3 in Summer/Holidays 2010 for $60, at that stage it will be about $60 for both games on 360 as well. The reason you paid more for it ($60 per game) is because you wanted it sooner, which you obviously have to pay more for. Otherwise, why not complain that ME is cheaper now than when it launched? The reason it is cheaper is because people sacrificed having it now in order to save money. That is what PS3 gamers would need to do.



Around the Network

not gonna happen ever.



GAMERTAG IS ANIMEHEAVEN X23

PSN ID IS : ANIMEREALM 

PROUD MEMBER OF THE RPG FAN CLUB THREAD

ALL-TIME FAVORITE JRPG IS : LOST ODYSSEY

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=52882&page=1

Dno said:
TRios_Zen said:

Mass Effect is a great series, but it isn't a Gears of War/Halo type of exclusive, so I have absolutely no problem with them porting the game to the PS3.  If you are a PS3 only owner I hope you have the opportunity to play it, I've played through the first twice and enjoyed it both times.  My argument has never been PS3 owners shouldn't have access to either of these games.

@kitler53, outside of Game of The Year discs (with DLC included) how often are current generation games included completely free?

By your logic, since I'm a new PS3 owner, if I want MGS or Resistance 2, them being old and all, I can just wait for the next game to come and I shoud get both for $60, right?  Come on!  That's silly and you know it.

 


They bundle a lot of games that dropped this gen for free... hell i got lego batman and pure on one disk for free with a xbox bundle. and also

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93813-Capcom-Bundles-Three-Platinum-Hits-for-360 

thats 3 games that was 60 bucks each for 40 bucks!!!!!

your being silly to think that 2 years after a game has dropped that people will pay full price for it.

its clear that ps3 owners are not getting ME2 on release date ,so then they will release mab a 3 year old game at the time (mass effect) and a one year old game if it comes out in 2011 (which i think it will).

Should retail for no more then 60 bucks (30 for each) .

 

So bundling free games WITH A CONSOLE, is the same as doing so with a game?  OK.

You edited, your post, but I'll re-iterate, no where have I said that people should pay full price for a many year old game; but I have seen no precedent for a current gen game to be bundled free with the sequel.

That is my only argument, I'm not sure why you think that is SO outlandish.



Carl2291 said:
Just leave it alone already. Seriously.

It's getting just as annoying as MGS4 - 360 was.

If it was coming, it would have been announced already. Not to mention the original would likely already have had a port announced/released.

I was thinking the same thing. I'll say the same thing now that I said about MGS4 on 360. Unless Bioware/EA come out and officially announce a PS3 version. Stop posting threads about it. I have a feeling EA/Bioware is doing what Konami did and doing what they can to squeeze as much money out of exclusivity as they can.

OMG Poland is mentioned. Zajebiscie.



Around the Network
TRios_Zen said:
Dno said:
TRios_Zen said:
 

Mass Effect is a great series, but it isn't a Gears of War/Halo type of exclusive, so I have absolutely no problem with them porting the game to the PS3.  If you are a PS3 only owner I hope you have the opportunity to play it, I've played through the first twice and enjoyed it both times.  My argument has never been PS3 owners shouldn't have access to either of these games.

@kitler53, outside of Game of The Year discs (with DLC included) how often are current generation games included completely free?

By your logic, since I'm a new PS3 owner, if I want MGS or Resistance 2, them being old and all, I can just wait for the next game to come and I shoud get both for $60, right?  Come on!  That's silly and you know it.

 


They bundle a lot of games that dropped this gen for free... hell i got lego batman and pure on one disk for free with a xbox bundle. and also

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93813-Capcom-Bundles-Three-Platinum-Hits-for-360 

thats 3 games that was 60 bucks each for 40 bucks!!!!!

your being silly to think that 2 years after a game has dropped that people will pay full price for it.

its clear that ps3 owners are not getting ME2 on release date ,so then they will release mab a 3 year old game at the time (mass effect) and a one year old game if it comes out in 2011 (which i think it will).

Should retail for no more then 60 bucks (30 for each) .

 

So bundling free games WITH A CONSOLE, is the same as doing so with a game?  OK.

You edited, your post, but I'll re-iterate, no where have I said that people should pay full price for a many year old game; but I have seen no precedent for a current gen game to be bundled free with the sequel.

That is my only argument, I'm not sure why you think that is SO outlandish.

ahhh i see what your trying to say..

i dont think it will be like "here buy mass effect 2 and get part one for free" more so as it gonna be "buy mass effect 1 & 2 for the price of one full game"

like god of war 1 & 2.....

i dont think thats outlandish at all since its gonna be a year old port by then. (ME1 is 3 years by then.)



GreyianStorm said:

No, by Kitler's logic, you'd get Resistance 2+Resistance 3 for $60 if you waited until ~6 months after Resistance 3 launched. If Mass Effect 1+2 comes out for PS3 in Summer/Holidays 2010 for $60, at that stage it will be about $60 for both games on 360 as well. The reason you paid more for it ($60 per game) is because you wanted it sooner, which you obviously have to pay more for. Otherwise, why not complain that ME is cheaper now than when it launched? The reason it is cheaper is because people sacrificed having it now in order to save money. That is what PS3 gamers would need to do.

Obviously the VGChartz world disagreees with me, but I'm stubborn, so...  By your logic above (which is what I meant in my post, you just stated it better), if Resistance 3 launches at %60, and I wait for it to drop to platinum price, I could get both for $60.  OK, I agree with that.

However would this be the case if ME2 if it were ported 6 months later to the PS3?  Basically the launch price of ME2 on the PS3 would be $40 and ME1 would be on sale for $20, right?

How much did Bioshock launch for at it's port?  I honestly don't remember.



Carl2291 said:
Just leave it alone already. Seriously.

It's getting just as annoying as MGS4 - 360 was.

If it was coming, it would have been announced already. Not to mention the original would likely already have had a port announced/released.

I also agree. I can't believe people still talk about this crap without some sort of hard evidence to back it up. If you want the game then just buy a 360, just like I had to do for MGS4. Life sucks, get a helmet.



I think the problem is that for Mass Effect to fully be enjoyed, you must be able to carry over your saved game from the previous Mass Effect.

However, Microsoft had publishing rights to the last Mass Effect as part of Microsoft Game Studios first party line-up. Therefore (and this is just my opinion) Microsoft is holding onto those rights to prevent an enjoyable experience if EA should bring Mass Effect 2 to the PS3.

Bioware might be having problems porting to the PS3 solely because they might wish to bring the entire trilogy over.



TRios_Zen said:
Procrastinato said:
 

I hear ya, with the feeling screwed, but I don't think EA is considering your feelings, or the feelings of anyone who has already purchased the game, when re-releasing it, or lowering the price in general.

Think about it.  Say ME2 rocks (I have high confidence it will).  It would be downright stupid of EA to continue the ME franchise as a X360 exclusive for ME3, given the rapidly advancing PS3 userbase.  If they want to alienate near half of the ME3 audience, then they should keep it as an exclusive -- if they want to make it multiplat, and rake in more money, they should bundle ME1 with ME2, and release them together on the PS3 for the 2010 holidays, well after they've raked in the X360 timed exclusive dough.  Cha-ching! ...and they're set for a crossplat release of ME3, which will probably sell a gazillion copies.

They'd be fools to keep it exclusive to the X360 voluntarily, when they obviously have a working PS3 engine that evolved from the ME1 engine (see: Dragon Age engine references in OP).  The timed exclusivity may very well be due only to the extra time needed to port ME1 to the PS3, and nothing more.  They may not speak about it, not because MS paid them, but because they want multiplat owners to buy the X360 version at full price, and then buy it again in bundle/GotY form on the PS3.  If you're gonna establish a franchise foothold on a platform, what better way to do it, than to release the first two episodes together on the giant storage medium the platform provides, as a bundle with a huge amount of value?

You could write them a nastygram after E3 when they announce it (okay I'm going overboard with my theory here ;), but it won't make them want to lose money, because your feelings are hurt. =)  The more I think about this theory, actually, the more feasible it sounds.

Just remember, come E3 -- I called it first. ;)

Mass Effect is a great series, but it isn't a Gears of War/Halo type of exclusive, so I have absolutely no problem with them porting the game to the PS3.  If you are a PS3 only owner I hope you have the opportunity to play it, I've played through the first twice and enjoyed it both times.  My argument has never been PS3 owners shouldn't have access to either of these games.

@kitler53, outside of Game of The Year discs (with DLC included) how often are current generation games included completely free?

By your logic, since I'm a new PS3 owner, if I want MGS or Resistance 2, them being old and all, I can just wait for the next game to come and I shoud get both for $60, right?  Come on!  That's silly and you know it.

 

are you completely ignoring the part where ME2 on ps3 (if it happens) is not going to release the same day as the 360 version.   it would be a bundle of a six month old game with a 2+year old game.  want a freakin' example....fine.

assassins creed + assassins creed 2 = $68

gears of war + gears of war 2 = $55

metroid prime trilogy = $48

rock band + rock band 2 = $32

lego indiana jones + lego indiana jones 2 = $63

and btw.... 

mass effect + mass effect2 = $75