PS3 Metal Gear Solid 4 Will be a System Seller Just like Halo for The 360

For the size of some of these posts, the mods need to smack you all.maabus99

Dreams and I have both been here long enough to know the rules and play by them.

Long posts aren't outlawed; long quote chains are.

The latest, and last, installment of the 20-year-old Metal Gear franchise is crafted exclusively for PS3 consoles and is heralded as just what Sony needs - a blockbuster title to drive demand for their hardware.

Metal Gear will "absolutely" boost PS3 sales in the way the Xbox 360 video game Halo 3 is doing for Xbox 360 consoles, predicts Konami assistant producer Ryan Payton.

Metal Gear has sold tens of millions of copies the franchise premiered in 1987.

"I think the slow start for PS3 has been blown out of proportion. Once they have killer titles, things will be different."

"Metal Gear will be a system seller. It will be excellent for the PS3 - a Halo 3 for the PS3."

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20071019-085946-4942r

Lemmings its not coming to the 360 don't lie to yourself you are torturing your soul..

crazegamez

NO! It's not going to sell like Halo 3. Not even close. MGS4 should sell over 500,000 copies, but it's not going to reach 2 million in 24hrs, that's for sure. GT5 will sell more copies then MGS4.

No, you're confusing "casual" with "multiplayer". That is the problem with the premise of that entire paragraph. Just because a game has a multiplayer element making it more desirable doesn't mean it's more casual. MGS is a very approachable game. It's not technically challenging or complicated. What it is....is a single player game in a niche section of gaming. That doesn't make it "hard core"...unless...welll...maybe you should define what you mean when you say "hard core" because everything that is "niche" (catering to a small cross-section of gamers) is not "hard core"...and everything that is hardcore is not niche. But to suggest that because MGS3 is more casual than MGS2 is failure in and of itself...as sans multiplayer, it's a continuation of the story and game series, and done in classic Kojima fashion.

Dreams-Visions

You misunderstood my point here. Casuals are attracted to multiplayer games. Why? Because they can play games with other people, either in person or through online. They can put as much time into them as they want. You can turn your system on play some online matches and kill half an hour or 8 hours. You don't have to worry about things like keeping up with a story, searching for items/weapons, leveling up, all that crap. Its you vs other player(s) in competition, thats it. Simple and fun.

I never said MGS3 was more casual than MGS2. I simply stated that MGS3: Subsistence is when the series first included multiplayer, a feature in games which attracts casuals. This is the first time that you twisted my words around, either on purpose or by accident and you continue to do it throughout your post.

Disagree. Before I played MGS2 and 3, the last time I played MGS was...never. I started with Metal Gear. No Solid (PS1) for me. I didn't need the background to enjoy the game...and quite frankly, as long as the gameplay is good, people will play. Also, I don't know anyone who had a PS2 and consciously decided to NOT buy MGS because of the cut-scenes or story. I've just never seen it or heard of it. Everyone I showed the game off to loved how it looked. I think in the end, it's a great game in a niche gameplay segment that isn't super popular.

I mean really...suggesting the story is holding the game back? The story is the best part. :lol:

Dreams-Visions

I don't understand how you can be a fan of the MGS series and have had no desire to play the game where it essentially all started. The MGS series has a confusing story as it is, I can't imagine following it having not playing the original MGS.

People complain about the gameplay in MGS all the time on here, all the time. It doesn't have enough stealth elements, the controls are complicated, its repetitive and hasn't changed, etc. and posters here complain about the story here as well, and everyone here is at least a moderate-hardcore gamer. "Possessed arms? Clones? Secret groups that control the world? I thought this game was just about some terrorists hijacking military technology" Apparently, the game turns off a lot of people.

And you're right, nobody conciously decided not to buy MGS2 because of the cut-scenes or story. However, after people realized what the game was about and how it played, they did choose not to buy MGS3 because of it. If this wasn't this case, then why did MGS3 sell worse than MGS2? The userbase was significantly larger, MGS3 is a lot better. What held it back? I already explained this. MGS2 attracted casuals because they knew almost nothing about it and because MGS2 had the "Wow factor". Casuals, for the most part, didn't buy MGS3 because they knew what it was.

Casuals - gamers that own gaming systems as a secondary form of entertainment, often buy systems, and games, simply because their friends own them as well. They base their game buying decisions on all kinds of things such as game types (Madden - football, everyone loves it), word of mouth, and what they have played with their friends. Also listen to employees in stores for recomendations and are given games by their parents, siblings, and friends as gifts. Hell, they even buy games based on the boxart. They do not hang out on gaming forums, subscribe to gaming magazines, or read/watch reviews. Is this a generalization? Of course.

As far as Bioshock goes, I agree that some just blew through the game...but that is to be expected. Some will do that. Many more played the game how it was meant to be played. Why focus on the minority that blew through the game quickly and skipped the story? Oh yea...to try to make a loose point. But guess what? Bioshock sold strongly. The story didn't hold it back...and the story (or people's desire to experience the story) won't keep Bioshock 2 from selling better than Bioshock 1...or maybe even becoming a system seller in and of itself.

Dreams-Visions

You are completely moving away from the reason why I brought up Bioshock in the first place. Its like you aren't even reading my entire post. I brought up Bioshock as an example of a game that disappointed people who played it and didn't follow the story. Similarly to how you won't fully appreciate and enjoy MGS is you don't follow the story. Because if you don't follow the story in MGS you will have no idea whats going on and you have to sit and watch "boring" cutscenes and fast-forward long conversations on your codec.

And for some reason you decided to bring up Bioshock sales? Of course the game sold well, its a fantastic game, by far my favorite game this gen. But you know what helped it? A lull in quality games during that time for the 360 and also the game's uniqueness. Being the spiritual successor to System Shock 2 didn't hurt either. Neither did the amazing graphics and art style.

Explain Gran Turismo.

Explain Final Fanatsy.

Explain Madden.

Explain Tekken.

Explain Grand Theft Auto.

Explain Devil May Cry.

All are exceptional games. Are are more complex than Metal Gear Solid to control. All (with the exception of DMC) are system-sellers. And why quote difficulty levels, as if they can't be set to "easy"? Another failed point. Casuals will play hard, complex games if they want to. The problem is the GENRE. It's just not super popular yet. Not on the level of the others listed.

Dreams-Visions

MGS genre isn't super popular? Then why did MGS2 sell more copies than any Madden game on the PS2, any Tekken game on PS2, any DMC game, any FF game? That makes absolutely no sense.

Those games are all casual friendly games. Do casuals play VF? No. Why? Cause of the damn controls and the fighting engine. Casuals and frame counting does not mix. I already stated why casuals don't play MGS2. It doesn't have to be because of the controls (although several people have problems with the controls in MGS), I just mentioned that as another reason why casuals don't play certain games. Games with steep learning curves also turn off casuals. Thats a fact. It goes back to instant gratification.

Surely you jest. GT sells so well because the game feels real. It successfully mimics the driving experience of the cars presented...and makes it hella fun. Hella fun. It's like you think casuals are retarted or something. They know the difference between Gran Turismo and Burnout. Gran Turismo has been around for what? 12 or 13 years? I think by now it's safe to assume that people buy Gran Turismo because they want more GRAN TURISMO. They want to tune their cars. They want to play arguably the best driving game on the planet.

Not because they're so stupid they don't even know what "driving simulation" means. :|

Dreams-Visions

Casuals are retarded. 50 Cent's Bulletproof sold over a million copies. Case closed.

Casuals didn't buy GT because it "feels real". They don't know the game does that, unless they heard about it from someone. They bought it for the visuals and the amount of cars, tracks, and overall content. And GT obviously has a very large fanbase which does care about it feeling real and being a racing sim. But thats not why casuals bought it.

You are assuming just because a game is the third or fourth installment in the franchise that people have played the first two or know anything about the series (My first FF game was VII, I had never even heard of the series before and I had been gaming since the original NES). Except for the fact that a significant amount of the PS2's userbase, as it is with all consoles, are gamers who have never owned a console before. So if you're a casual gamer, which racing game are you going to buy? The half-assed ridge racer game with limited car and track selections, and less than stellar graphics? Or a game with beautiful graphics and a huge amount of cars and tracks and racing options?

Maybe you need to read your initial post then. You never supposed that there could be other factors involved in Halo's attach rate. You never suggested that your statement wasn't "the only or the main reason why it did so well..." You said, categorically that Halo 2 and 3 sold well because

a.) they didn't have competition

b.) they had multiplayer

c.) they were "casual friendly"...whatever the hell that means to you.

That's what you said. Now you're simply trying to change what you said to not look ignorant. It is what it is...and I responded to what you said. No more, no less. Fair? You got called out on a ridiculous statement. It happens. Life goes on. Live and learn.

Dreams-Visions

This is really getting old. You keep attacking my posts for the way they are worded and are essentially putting words in my mouth. I'm sorry I didn't point out that Halo also sold well BECAUSE ITS A GOOD GAME. I thought that was a known fact. I'm not a stupid idiot trying to prove that the original Halo sold 5 million copies simply because it had no competition and was casual friendly. I gave other reasons for its success. All you have to do is look at Goldeneye's success, take that formula and apply it to a new game, which is exactly what Halo did, and it capitalized on it.

I'm outta this thread, boys. Been fun, but the thread failed on multiple levels:

1.) MGS4 will not sell systems like Halo 3, though I think it will be the first system seller for our PS3's...and perhaps the first console-selling game in the franchise (?)

2.) People turned the thread into something it's not, which I contributed to. When someone wants to gather real data to support the claim MGS2 was a system seller and show us the numbers, I'll entertain that conversation again. Otherwise, it is nothing but a frustrating circular argument and I can see others don't like it when people don't accept their assumptions as fact. me? I don't give a damn. I'm a grown man and people moaning on a web forum almost make me laugh.

In order to spare people's feeling from being hurt or seeing them get emotional, I'll simply acquiese, as I did from fuzzy's MGS thread some time ago. I have better things to do than write paragraps upon paragraphs of circular argumentation.

cheers, all. be safe.

Dreams-Visions

1. Nobody that has been posting in here legitimately has said MGS4 will move consoles to the extent of Halo 3. Neither Fuzzysquash or myself is dumb enough to state that. We are simply proving that MGS IS a system seller. And you know what? MGS4 will sell more copies than MGS3...eventually.

2. Its not a circular argument. We don't need any proof beyond the fact that MGS2 was the 6th bestselling game on the PS2. That alone makes it a system seller, because more consumers bought it than any other game except for the five already mentioned. If they didn't buy PS2 for MGS2 then what did they buy it for? Just the GT and GTA series?

And you know what? It came out a month after Grand Theft Auto III. So it would be impossible to differentiate how many people bought consoles for which game. A sales spike at this point in the year could be because of one or both of those games or simply because it was the beginning of the holiday season.

The Metal Gear Soild series has never sold really well.

Wasdie

It's sold 20 million copies.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

The Metal Gear Soild series has never sold really well.

Thompsonwhore

It's sold 20 million copies.

lol, thread should've ended right there. Where were you this morning with that post? :lol:

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

I'm outta this thread, boys. Been fun, but the thread failed on multiple levels:

1.) MGS4 will not sell systems like Halo 3, though I think it will be the first system seller for our PS3's...and perhaps the first console-selling game in the franchise (?)

2.) People turned the thread into something it's not, which I contributed to. When someone wants to gather real data to support the claim MGS2 was a system seller and show us the numbers, I'll entertain that conversation again. Otherwise, it is nothing but a frustrating circular argument and I can see others don't like it when people don't accept their assumptions as fact. me? I don't give a damn. I'm a grown man and people moaning on a web forum almost make me laugh.

In order to spare people's feeling from being hurt or seeing them get emotional, I'll simply acquiese, as I did from fuzzy's MGS thread some time ago. I have better things to do than write paragraps upon paragraphs of circular argumentation.

cheers, all. be safe.

NavigatorsGhost

1. Nobody that has been posting in here legitimately has said MGS4 will move consoles to the extent of Halo 3. Neither Fuzzysquash or myself is dumb enough to state that. We are simply proving that MGS IS a system seller. And you know what? MGS4 will sell more copies than MGS3...eventually.

2. Its not a circular argument. We don't need any proof beyond the fact that MGS2 was the 6th bestselling game on the PS2. That alone makes it a system seller, because more consumers bought it than any other game except for the five already mentioned. If they didn't buy PS2 for MGS2 then what did they buy it for? Just the GT and GTA series?

And you know what? It came out a month after Grand Theft Auto III. So it would be impossible to differentiate how many people bought consoles for which game. A sales spike at this point in the year could be because of one or both of those games or simply because it was the beginning of the holiday season.

Thank you.

You explained it more clearly than I could have. "Charts" are not the only form of evidence. The fact that MGS2 is the sixth best selling game on a system that has sold 120 million+ units strongly indicates that MGS has been a system seller. Same goes with the original MGS.

It's true, we don't have the week-by-week PS2 sales numbers to show a "sales spike." Then again, Dreams, you don't have week-by-week sales of any game you claim to be a system seller either, except for very recent one's like Halo 3.

Looking back 10 years from now, I won't have to see Halo 3's week-by-week launch window sales to know it was a system seller. All I'll need is to see its aggregate sales (let's say 8 million), and by that I can infer that Halo 3 was a strong system seller.

Without definitive evidence, we have to piece together bits and pieces of evidence to arrive at a conclusion. This is essentially the scientific method. It's the same way historians prove the existence of the Roman empire: no one was there, but nevertheless we have fragments--bits and pieces of evidence that strongly indicate such a civilization did exist.

(And I should add here: even a chart would not be definitive evidence. As NavigatorsGhost points out that there may be multiple, independent, complimentary causes for a sales spike).

Similarly, by looking at MGS and MGS2 sales figures, as well as reading industry reports released around the time of MGS2's launch, we have strong evidence for believing that those games were system sellers. We also have authorities like Michael Pachter--long-time industry analysts with access to week-by-week sales figures--who say that MGS is a system seller. That's a whole lot of evidence, not in chart form, that nevertheless give strong evidence for believing the conclusion NavigatorsGhost and I are defending.

[QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

I'm outta this thread, boys. Been fun, but the thread failed on multiple levels:

1.) MGS4 will not sell systems like Halo 3, though I think it will be the first system seller for our PS3's...and perhaps the first console-selling game in the franchise (?)

2.) People turned the thread into something it's not, which I contributed to. When someone wants to gather real data to support the claim MGS2 was a system seller and show us the numbers, I'll entertain that conversation again. Otherwise, it is nothing but a frustrating circular argument and I can see others don't like it when people don't accept their assumptions as fact. me? I don't give a damn. I'm a grown man and people moaning on a web forum almost make me laugh.

In order to spare people's feeling from being hurt or seeing them get emotional, I'll simply acquiese, as I did from fuzzy's MGS thread some time ago. I have better things to do than write paragraps upon paragraphs of circular argumentation.

cheers, all. be safe.

fuzzysquash

1. Nobody that has been posting in here legitimately has said MGS4 will move consoles to the extent of Halo 3. Neither Fuzzysquash or myself is dumb enough to state that. We are simply proving that MGS IS a system seller. And you know what? MGS4 will sell more copies than MGS3...eventually.

2. Its not a circular argument. We don't need any proof beyond the fact that MGS2 was the 6th bestselling game on the PS2. That alone makes it a system seller, because more consumers bought it than any other game except for the five already mentioned. If they didn't buy PS2 for MGS2 then what did they buy it for? Just the GT and GTA series?

And you know what? It came out a month after Grand Theft Auto III. So it would be impossible to differentiate how many people bought consoles for which game. A sales spike at this point in the year could be because of one or both of those games or simply because it was the beginning of the holiday season.

Thank you.

You explained it more clearly than I could have. "Charts" are not the only form of evidence. The fact that MGS2 is the sixth best selling game on a system that has sold 120 million+ units strongly indicates that MGS has been a system seller. Same goes with the original MGS.

It's true, we don't have the week-by-week PS2 sales numbers to show a "sales spike." Then again, Dreams, you don't have week-by-week sales of any game you claim to be a system seller either, except for very recent one's like Halo 3.

Looking back 10 years from now, I won't have to see Halo 3's week-by-week launch window sales to know it was a system seller. All I'll need is to see its aggregate sales (let's say 8 million), and by that I can infer that Halo 3 was a strong system seller.

Without definitive evidence, we have to piece together bits and pieces of evidence to arrive at a conclusion. This is essentially the scientific method. It's the same way historians prove the existence of the Roman empire: no one was there, but nevertheless we have fragments--bits and pieces of evidence that strongly indicate such a civilization did exist.

(And I should add here: even a chart would not be definitive evidence. As NavigatorsGhost points out that there may be multiple, independent, complimentary causes for a sales spike).

Similarly, by looking at MGS and MGS2 sales figures, as well as reading industry reports released around the time of MGS2's launch, we have strong evidence for believing that those games were system sellers. We also have authorities like Michael Pachter--long-time industry analysts with access to week-by-week sales figures--who say that MGS is a system seller. That's a whole lot of evidence, not in chart form, that nevertheless give strong evidence for believing the conclusion NavigatorsGhost and I are defending.

That should be the end of it. No more squabbeling.