Honestly? $14.99 retail and $9.99 digital across all platforms, and that's me being generous. $40 retail is absolutely insane. (Japan gets it for $24 retail including DLC).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Game Informer played through MGS Ground Zeroes' main mission in [1.5hrs, not rushing]
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Honestly? $14.99 retail and $9.99 digital across all platforms, and that's me being generous. $40 retail is absolutely insane. (Japan gets it for $24 retail including DLC).
SJRB
Gold Member
You should look up some pictures of the new LA studio and the opening parties, then you'll see where all that money went.
Ein Bear
Member
Damn, 2016 would be 8 years since MGS4. I know they did Peace Walker, and have been working on the Fox Engine, but still... Can't help but wonder what the hell they've been doing at KojiPro for all this time.
There's a stretch of 80+ minutes without any sort of real gameplay between MGS4's Act 4's ending cutscene until the beginning of Act 5.
matrix-cat
Member
$15 digital, $20 boxed would be totally acceptable, I think. On all platforms, none of this next-gen tax nonsense.
Like you just said. They made Peace Walker and worked on the Fox Engine. Those aren't insignificant things.
Don't forget, they also wasted a ton of time with stuff which literally went nowhere, like the internal version of Metal Gear Solid Rising.
$10 would be reasonable for a download, I could maybe except up to $20 for a physical copy, but the price would have to be uniform across all platforms.
This is ridiculous:
Yep, when you include the briefing scenes (semi-interactive cutscenes) I think the longest 'cutscene' in MGS4 is around 1 hour and 20 minutes.
Yeah. The $20 price for the 360/PS3 digital version is on the edge of fairness, provided it runs well. $30/$40 is asking a lot for anyone who isn't a Metal Gear diehard that will replay the crap out of it.
Like you just said. They made Peace Walker and worked on the Fox Engine. Those aren't insignificant things.
Don't forget, they also wasted a ton of time with stuff which literally went nowhere, like the internal version of Metal Gear Solid Rising.
Er no. A lot of the assets ended up in Platinum's MGR.
Much more didn't, like my avatar. MGS Rising Raiden skull suit helmet concept, for the scene where Raiden rescues Sunny.
Graphics Horse
Member
I seriously don't think it'll drop into 2016, that would be 5 years since we saw the Fox Engine jungle demo. We saw GZ at a very advanced state 18 months ago. I wouldn't be surprised if it's mostly the performance side which is taking the most time, as you have to wait for actors to be available and Kojima likes doing stupidly elaborate scenes with effects that take weeks to implement. Funny they promoted their tools as being a way to make games faster.
Ein Bear
Member
Like you just said. They made Peace Walker and worked on the Fox Engine. Those aren't insignificant things.
Don't forget, they also wasted a ton of time with stuff which literally went nowhere, like the internal version of Metal Gear Solid Rising.
Well Peace Walker was 2010, so that would still be six years working on the engine/MGS5, which seems a bit crazy.
I did forget about MGS:R though, which must have eaten up a good chunk of time. Was that version of MGS5, featuring the Boss in WW2 ever actually in development, too? Was never sure if that was just a mooted idea, or a cancelled project.
If TPP doesn't drop by next year, I'll say something is really wrong. I don't expect it this year either, but 2016 seems pretty far off.
I dunno, but I don't think so. The way he mentioned it in the Rising re-announcement video made it sound like it was just one of many concepts they were kicking around. 5-6 years on a game certainly sounds like a really, really long time, but if you think about it, it's not that unusual for: a) a Rockstar game, which is sort of what they're trying to chase here, b) Japanese AAA titles from developers who have struggled to adapt to the requirements of modern development cycles (FFXV, TLG, hell even every GT game).
I dunno, but I don't think so. The way he mentioned it in the Rising re-announcement video made it sound like it was just one of many concepts they were kicking around. 5-6 years on a game certainly sounds like a really, really long time, but if you think about it, it's not that unusual for: a) a Rockstar game, which is sort of what they're trying to chase here, b) Japanese AAA titles from developers who have struggled to adapt to the requirements of modern development cycles (FFXV, TLG, hell even every GT game).
Man, looking at this now, they really should have made Metal Gear AC!D 3 or some spin-off.In one of the previous interviews, Kojima straight out said that this wasn't his own decision, but something decided by the marketing team at Konami due the various reasons. The reasons he gave were that it's been really long since the last major MGS release and fans have been getting impatient, and that the rest of MGS5's development still has quite a way to go so they needed something to release. It's just business.
Messofanego
Banned
People will still buy it for full price because it's current gen and they thirsty since they sold their old consoles too early.
I meant 180 but auto correct struck again. Either way, I want clarification from Konami.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Jesus Christ, this was said earlier but I really didn't want to believe it -_-
Ein Bear
Member
Whilst I loved the hell out of the Metal Gear Rising that we got, I really would have loved to have seen the original plotline in some form. A flashback mission or something, I really want to see MGS2 Raiden rescuing Sunny, then getting cyborged-up in the process.
GZ became priority 1 seemingly for awhile. So it would be advanced. And it took them 18 months from that point to reach release (soon).
I can't see TPP being done any sooner than late 2015. With multiplayer, not so sure. Polished to Kojima standards? Not so sure. Late 2015 would be 18 months after the E3 footage, and TPP is a larger game.
I think mid-2016 unless Konami demand it for late-2015. Mid-2015 seems miraculous for Kojima Productions.
Then you should have wished harder that Kojima Productions were capable of making AAA games without Kojima himself.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Does Konami/Kojima view this as some sort of semi-kickstarter for TPP? I just can't spend $40 on a 2 hour game (and I am a huge fan), but if I knew my investment would save me money on TPP later, I might still get it.
Soo, i guess it's a large area and you can just run to the end if you know where it is?
StoppedInTracks
Member
rabble rabble 2 hours! rabble rabble not paying! rabble rabble $20 per hour! rabble rabble konami! rabble rabble rabble!
I fucking LOATHE Kojima for this but I cannot resist Snake. He gets my $40.
Herb Alpert
Banned
so it's a full-price demo, huh?
Well done, Konami.
Well done, Konami.
nature boy
Member
If the TPP is coming out in 2015 or (!) 2016 why is it coming out for PS3 and X360?
They lost a LOT of time with the Fox Engine (which is outdated by the time the game comes out) for no apparent benefit.
They lost a LOT of time with the Fox Engine (which is outdated by the time the game comes out) for no apparent benefit.
5 min? This is what happens when you make cutscenes skippable.
That's what happens when you master sight lines in a short stealth game.
I'm loving how the facts about Ground Zeroes are finally coming out. It sure helps debunk all the dumbest stuff we've seen from stubborn defenders before this. It's really baffling how obvious it was that this is a paid demo, but yet some people just refused to believe it and made up all sorts of reasons why it might not so. Really hilarious imo!
>Kojima calls it a prologue.
"Anything can be a prologue! It can be a full game and still be a prologue to another game!"
>Kojima says it serves as a sort of tutorial for the full game.
"You don't know what that means! Don't judge!"
>Achievements leak showing that there's likely only one mission and a bunch of optional side-ops in the same area.
"They probably want to protect people from spoilers! There has to be more than one mission! And you don't know how long a mission is!"
>Game Informer spends 4 hours on the game, playing through the main mission and the extras.
"You don't know if they finished it! Even if they did 4 hours is a long time! They could have rushed it!"
>Game Informer confirms the main mission took less than 2 hours to complete.
"So what! The Tanker can be beaten in 15 minutes if you know what you're doing! Could be way longer than that for normal people!"
>Konami speedrunners can beat the main mission in 5 minutes.
"..............."
>Kojima calls it a prologue.
"Anything can be a prologue! It can be a full game and still be a prologue to another game!"
>Kojima says it serves as a sort of tutorial for the full game.
"You don't know what that means! Don't judge!"
>Achievements leak showing that there's likely only one mission and a bunch of optional side-ops in the same area.
"They probably want to protect people from spoilers! There has to be more than one mission! And you don't know how long a mission is!"
>Game Informer spends 4 hours on the game, playing through the main mission and the extras.
"You don't know if they finished it! Even if they did 4 hours is a long time! They could have rushed it!"
>Game Informer confirms the main mission took less than 2 hours to complete.
"So what! The Tanker can be beaten in 15 minutes if you know what you're doing! Could be way longer than that for normal people!"
>Konami speedrunners can beat the main mission in 5 minutes.
"..............."
so this is 1/3 of the tanker mission? lol
Steiner_Zi
Member
I wonder how many will buy this without realising that this is just the prologue to the real MGSV. A subtitle "prologue" in the likes of "MGSV Prologue: Ground Zeroes" wouldn't hurt at all.
Well I probably wouldn't think of it that way, because being "open world" in a smaller area means you can probably complete it very quickly or take an even longer time to explore. But either way, it's clear that this is basically the Tanker mission. Except they're throwing in some Peace Walker style side-ops which use the same map, and selling it for a premium.
And not scam people out of their money? Plz.
Ein Bear
Member
Yeah, this is the dodgiest part in my mind. We at least know what we're getting, poor Joe average is going to see 'Metal Gear Solid 5' on the shelf, buy it, then get crushingly disappointed when they finish it two hours later.
matrix-cat
Member
I have to admit, this was exactly me for a long time. "They keep showing the same area, it must mean that they're trying to hide the actual rest of the game so they don't give the whole thing away so soon. I mean, it's $40! There's no way this is it".
Yeah, so much for that
Some were in such disbelief, they were arguing the usage of "through" in the original quote, and questioning people's reading comprehension.
I have to admit, this was exactly me for a long time. "They keep showing the same area, it must mean that they're trying to hide the actual rest of the game so they don't give the whole thing away so soon. I mean, it's $40! There's no way this is it".
Yeah, so much for that
I can certainly understand wanting it to be more than it is. The price really surprised me when it was announced too, because it actually went against logic based on what Kojima had already repeatedly said Ground Zeroes was going to be. But I'll never underestimate Konami's ability to do bad business with their franchises. History has shown us what they're capable of... >_<
Always-honest
Banned
I don't understand.. why not focus on releasing a fullblown game? This sounds like a Pre game DLC. I'm sure fans will love it, buty i don't think i get it.
Well I probably wouldn't think of it that way, because being "open world" in a smaller area means you can probably complete it very quickly or take an even longer time to explore. But either way, it's clear that this is basically the Tanker mission. Except they're throwing in some Peace Walker style side-ops which use the same map, and selling it for a premium.
Assuming guard positions aren't random getting from A to B in a stealth game isn't too difficult when you understand detection parameters.
So yeah, when you know where not to explore speed-running in an 'open world' stealth game shouldn't be that much more difficult, particularly when that open world is just a large level surrounded by nothing.
'Open World' for GZ is lol-worthy, though. Snake Eater is more of an open world game.
Graphics Horse
Member
Well I probably wouldn't think of it that way, because being "open world" in a smaller area means you can probably complete it very quickly or take an even longer time to explore. But either way, it's clear that this is basically the Tanker mission. Except they're throwing in some Peace Walker style side-ops which use the same map, and selling it for a premium.
The tanker mission had a boss fight and stuff, this might be closer to Virtuous Mission.
Scottish Sin
Member
Yeah, $10 to $15 seems more reasonable and was along the same lines as what I was thinking. I also can't say I'm surprised that they're charging more for the PS4/XB1 versions and I do feel bad for the uninformed who end up picking the game up expecting the standard MGS experience.
Thanks for the responses guys.
Thanks for the responses guys.
Sanctuary
Member
I was just being slightly facetious and making a jab at how disproportionate the actual gameplay to cutscene ratio was. Overall MGS4 was somewhat short if you only factor gameplay.
Just saw the update going from 4 hours to 2 hours. That's really a shame since I was considering getting this day one. I'm not upset, since it's always up to myself, the consumer to vote with my wallet, something I always do when it comes to pre-orders, day one DLC, season passes, etc.
I'm a fan of the Metal Gear Solid stories, codec talks and so on but I can't simply purchase a 2 hours title for 40, it's too much for too little and this is coming from someone that have been budgeting really hard to make my choices regarding March purchases (considering how often new games will release in said month). There's still time to change my mind but either way 2 hours for 40 is a bit to much for my budget. Too bad...
I'm a fan of the Metal Gear Solid stories, codec talks and so on but I can't simply purchase a 2 hours title for 40, it's too much for too little and this is coming from someone that have been budgeting really hard to make my choices regarding March purchases (considering how often new games will release in said month). There's still time to change my mind but either way 2 hours for 40 is a bit to much for my budget. Too bad...
Whether there's a "boss" or not doesn't really matter though. Both are the same things. Arguing schematics is pointless. We can also compare it with the Peace Walker demo.
This is the sort of release which would be fantastic value if it were free, and create a lot of excitement and goodwill for the full game if it's actually fun and good. As a paid product, I think 10-15 bucks is probably the upper limit before it feels like a complete rip-off in value in most reasonable comparisons. As a 40 buck retail release for the PS4/XB1 version, it's just insane. Lol.
People say the Gran Turismo Prologue releases are demo's, but in all honesty I've sunk 50+ hours in to those things. 2 hours is actually taking the piss, and there's no way I can support such robbery. Other day I was questioning spending less than half that for Octodad, because I felt 3-4 hours was short. 2 hours for $40...