Not being able to bring your character over reminds me of .Hack. Those games you could, but it did not really matter if you did or not. What you would lose is all the vast story telling from one game to the next. Good luck trying to figure it all out in the middle.

^ **cough** GoW Collections **cough**

Like you said a save game where your skills and character class wouldn't matter. it is all the decisions that you had to make that effects the overall storyline that really matters in the end. 

I think BioWare are having a lot of fun playing all coy like this with PS3 owners.

I think in whatever agreements have been made between BioWare, EA and MS regarding the Mass Effect franchise there is simply no way a PS3 announcement would be permitted before ME2 comes out for the 360. So I disagree that if there was going to be a PS3 port of the series that it would have beeen announced already.

It doesn't mean I think there will be a port, I'm inclined to think BioWare are playing with people's minds. However I do think the "it woulda been announced already argument" doesn't really stack up as proof that it's not going to happen.

In all these rumours floating around has anyone from BioWare or EA come out and flatly said "The Mass Effect series is not coming to the PS3" or something similarly definitive?

There are of course a lot of 360 console exclusives from third parties that no one has said "it's not coming to PS3". But for the most part they are exclusives that no one has asked whether they are coming to PS3. Mass Effect is an exclusive that people have asked about a lot, so I would expect that someone must have said a definitive "no" at some point, or will say a definitive no some time soon.

At people saying they paid $60 for ME 1 and will pay $60 for ME2 and feel they're going to be ripped off if ME1+2 comes out on PS3 for $60 on a single BR disc: How do you feel about people who bought ME1 for $30 new on 360, and will wait until ME2 goes down to $30 to buy it? They will have paid half what you paid, and they have relied on you to pay full price in order for the prioce to come down. Do you feel ripped off by that too? If PS3 owners have to wiat until ME2 is nearly a year old, and ME1 is over 3 years old isn't that pretty much the same thing as waiting for the games to become best sellers?

Having said that I don't see why they'd sell a 2 for 1 "Mass Effect Collection" for the price of one game even if ME2 came out on PS3 a year late. I'd think more like 2 for the price of 1 1/2 games. That would be fair wouldn't it?

Also I wouldn't bitch about Konami putting MGS4 and MGS:Rising one one disc for the 360 and selling for the price of one game...oh wait, they couldn't, nvm.

That's a bit of a long post for someone who is sceptical about the possibility of a PS3 port. If there was one I'd get the game(s) for sure though...once they went platinum on PS3.

Tagged!

HAHA, it's cool that we disagree, I have no problem with that, not every discussion has to have a "winner" and a "loser". 

However I don't think any of those examples are very appropriate though, sorry.

Look at it this way: Bioshock, from what I can find launched for full price, 1 year later on the PS3.  By comparison, in this hypothetical situation, Mass Effect 2, will launch 6 months to a year later on PS3, and EA will GIVE you Mass Effect 1 with it.  Helll forget everything else I've said, is EA that generous in your opinion?

edit: I won't be able to defend myself anymore as MW2 calls, peace all.

It's not silly at all.

For one thing, your examples are pretty poor.  Resistance is a Sony-owned, 2nd party franchise, and it shipped on BD from the start.  R1 and R2 may not even fit on a single BD together, and they'll certainly never be on the X360, thanks to their owner.  R1 and R2 are both readily available, at discount prices, as well as used, on the PS3, so there's no reason at all to release them again.  MGS4 is the final entry in a long-standing series which originated on the PS1, and had two iterations on the PS2.  I sincerely doubt that they would be easy to bundle/port to the 360, unlike ME1, which, by nature of using the Unreal Engine, was practically doable on the PS3 when it was first released anyway.  On top of that, MGS4 was made, for years, as a custom engine on the PS3 -- porting it to the 360 probably would have cost an arm and a leg.  Millions of arms and legs, if you will, especially in comparison to what ME1 would likely cost to port to the PS3.

Mass Effect is a new,hot, franchise.  It started this gen, and it may last until next gen.  EA would be fools to exclude PS3 owners from the potential buyer base.  That there is plenty of incentive to put an easy port onto a BD disc which could clearly hold both ME1 and ME2 without raising cost-of-goods, from the information presented in the OP.

There's nothing wrong with my theory.  The only real question is... is EA smart enough to do it?  E3 is only a couple months after ME2's release -- the game will still be hot, and PS3-only owners would be ecstatic to learn the game was coming to their platform, especially in this kind of value-pack format.  Instant hype -- and big sales.  More importantly, in one fell swoop, EA turns ME3 from an exclusive to a multiplat, probably boosting its actual revenue by a good 50%, while only raising the dev cost about 10%, if that (since Unreal will do most of the work for them, presumably, so the typical in-house +10% devcost rule doesn't apply).

Back to your example of MGS4 -- I can pretty much guarantee that, if the port cost, and potential sales were there, there would be MGS4 360.  But... the port cost would be excessive, the cost-of-goods (say 3 or 4 DVDs) would be tragically larger (which severely impacts publisher profit), and any pre-established fanbase probably owned the game already, since the series spanned two generations beforehand, and the fans knew which platform it was coming to well in advance.  Mass Effect is a completely different beast -- its first iteration was during this gen, and its fanbase is still growing, as are the console(s) that it is on.  It uses a game engine that is widely known to perform very well on both HD consoles with relatively cheap and painless porting.  It started life on a console which, by nature, would cost more cost-of-goods to have any sort of Game-of-the-Year or bundle edition than the competition (2 DVDs probably cost more than 1 BD, and 1 BD will hold what.. 6 DVDs?), and thus would have no serious issues in making the transition to the larger media format.

Lets just play it on Xbox 360/PC and not think about it so it catches us by surprise.

I get what you're saying and I think that my thing with Resistance 2/3 was a tad...not unfair but unbalanced perhaps? That would, admittedly, be waiting for it while its on the same console.

As for Bioshock, I have no idea what it launched at, but I do think it launched at full price (although here in Ireland, the price of a next gen game had fallen from €65 to €50 or €55 by that stage). I'm not saying that we should expect ME/ME2 to release on PS3 (if it ever does) as a collection for the same price as one game. I'm just saying that people who bought it earlier shouldn't feel ripped off or exploited because of it. Sure, you might have paid double the price (if you bought both games at their launch dates), but it also means you've had the games for longer. Mass Effect you would have had for 2-3 years. $30 saving on that works out as $0.04 (approximation, $30.00/730 days) per day, which I think most would have been happy enough paying. Then ME2 would obviously end up at more like $0.10-$0.15 per day, although you could say that ME costs $20 and ME2 costs $40.

I'm not saying that EA should launch a collection, although I would love it if they did. What I am saying is just that you shouldn't feel exploited or ripped off. You're the lucky one who has gotten to play the game for years. We (as in, PS3 owners who can't play it) haven't had that chance.

Note: I own a 360 and Mass Effect just isn't really my type of game. I'm not really into RPGs. I just figured that any argument makes more sense if you're for it, as opposed to me saying something along the lines of "$60 for the collection would still be a rip-off, cause I think the game is bollox".

I'd hate to have to do interviews with gaming journalists. You have to answer dumb questions while wording answers in a way that doesn't offend kneejerk-reactionist fanboys and that can't have double meanings, or unintended implications. ridiculous.