AkaMagi

GT5 should be finished just in time for the PS4 launch, but it will still be a PS3 game.


In all seriousness though, GT5 is probably Sony's biggest selling franchise and their biggest system seller, and Sony doesn't seem the least bit interested in getting the game out before next-gen starts. Last I heard, it looks like a 2010 release, which is only 1 year before the start of the next-gen.

Nothing wrong with my eyes.

When was the last time you had your brain checked?

Which part of that was too much for your brain Vegeta?

Sicne thinking seems to be too much for you, how about a visual aid. It's what I use to help my child understand difficult concepts.


Now look at the picture of Max Payne at the top of the page. See his face?

Now look at Niko Bellic:
http://images.wikia.com/gtawiki/images/1/1a/Gta4-niko-bellic1.jpg


See any similarity?


If this is still too hard for you perhaps I can arrange some finger painting to help you along.

Keep working on that English. Sooner or later you'll come up with a coherent statement.

I was excited until I found out Remedy isn't working on it.


Now I'm not feeling too thrilled with the idea Niko Bellic pretending to be Max Payne.

krodos

I don't bash people for owning one, but I don't hesitate to complain about the company that made the decisions that created a system I don't want or need at a price I wouldn't be willing to pay even if I did.

Apparently some people around here think that's enough of a reason to bash anyone who doesn't feel like Sony is better than sex.



I'll tell you right now, I'm glad the PS3 is failing as bad as it is. I'm glad it's in last place and look forward to it staying there.

Not because I hate Sony, and not because I hate the PS3.

I'm glad it's failing because if it had been a huge success then next-gen might have started with all 3 consoles launching at $600. The PS3's failure virtually assures that next-gen every console maker will be very careful not to price their consoles at a point that consumers are not willing to pay.

bakerboi


Yes, that would mean that developers pay less on PSN than consumers pay on XBL.....

IF you assume that XBL offers it's users nothing but DLC.



Of course the part you are missing is that it also means that the PS3 version of the game has earned them $640,000 less than the Xbox 360 version earned them, and if they made less than $640,000 in net profits before those charges, the PS3 caused them to lose money.

Which of course means it would have been better for the developer to have no PS3 version at all.



And I can assure you developers have taken notice of that point.

Tony,

A loss of sales is not necessarily a financial loss.

You see, before that PS3 version can be sold, it has to be made. That's a huge up-front expense. Then Sony goes and adds in an additional DLC charge. Add the two together and you'll find many, many developers who had borderline profits before would now be looking at a loss.

Most games do not make a profit. Several industry studies and execs have pinned the number at around 80% of all games lose money. So any extra charge you add just increases the losses and increases the number of devs who would be taking a loss by supporting the PS3.

They will pay those charges without DLC. Those are not DLC related charges.


Look, I'll give you an analogy.

Let's say you're going to the store. I ask if I can ride with you to the same store. Does it cost you anything extra to take me?

No. You're paying for the car, gas, insurance, maintanance, and everything else whether I go or not. It doesn't cost you a single penny to let me sit in your passenger seat while you go to the store.

That's the same situation with the DLC on the PC and XBL. These systems were bought and paid for already. Adding DLC is just letting a passenger get a ride on a trip you were already taking in a car you've already paid for. It doesn't cost a thing extra.

If an old Pentium II 400MHZ with 256MB of RAM, 16MB video card, and a 28.8k modem can handle Everquest, I'm sure the Wii could handle Pokemon.