Well unlike the PS2, the PS3 was ridiculously priced and they were arrogant enough to expect gamers to buy it at that point.
I just think they should have delayed the console a year, added a bit here and there, and released it for say $400.
As for the 360's success, eh, that was more of the Halo, Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto (exclusive content), and Call of Duty (exclusive content) machine, as well as a better price point (as you mentioned) and superior marketing (although the PS3's marketing the last year or so has been absolutely great).
Well I never said recent Nintendo console appearances decide a characters inclusion. I was more so getting at the fact that Nintendo seems to be getting hand-me-down ports of MGS games.
Well that's because the Wii basically had hand me down technology (sans motion controls). It was barely stronger than the GameCube.
And I find it odd to give a roster spot to a character that appears on Nintendo's latest consoles only through ports. If Nintendo wasn't on of the first choices for this game to debut on, why should the character be on of the first choices for 3rd party contenders.
When was the last time classic Mega Man appeared on an original Nintendo console game=???
Although, it that maybe efficient I'm not sure if going the "Baller on a Budget" route will be fore the best.
Sometimes investing a bit more can pay off in the long run; especially if it could possibly benefit the overall game.
Though i doubt Snake's inclusion is that big of a deal. It's more of a personal peeve for me.
Personal peeve's doesn't mean much to Sakurai. He doesn't care really what Nintendo is peeved about. Plus if Nintendo said no to Snake in Smash, what do you think that does to their relationship with Konami=??? "No to Snake in Smash, yet you keep Sonic? Okay. Metal Gear Solid V and the next home console Castlevania denied."
Besides, such vendettas would make these 2 games worse. Sakurai seems to dislike Intelligent Games and the Pokémon Company's handling of their characters and how difficult they are to get characters from them, yet you won't see him go "fine, we won't have a single Pokémon/Fire Emblem/Paper Mario character or reference."
I doubt that will be the case the 360 and the PS3 have a well established install base. And I highly doubt every existing 360 and PS3 owner will have a PS4 and 360 by the time this game comes out. I don't think Konamai will alienate a bigger install base and more cash.
In time I think most owners of said consoles will get the next ones. Also, Kojima is his own man, and does what he wants. If Konami tells him no, he could just be like "okay," make that one game, and create his own studio that basically takes over Konami. He's not exactly a guy a company can or should try to "control."
I really hope Wii U gets MGS V in the same launch window as the other platforms, I don't want to play a Director's Cut version 1 year after the game was released. *cough*Deus Ex*cough* ) or at least an Anniversary/Legacy collection as you mentioned
I think MGS V on the WiiU is a tricky thing; I mean, MGS V is always cutting edge, and it will push the Xbox One and PS4 to their limits further than any game before it. With the 360 and PS3, it will do the same with those consoles. But for the WiiU, it will need to be somewhere in between, especially with literally no hard drive space (8 GB, lol! I can't believe Nintendo fanboys defended that!) and 1/4th of the RAM of the 360 and PS3.
That tweener status (albeit more towards the PS4 and Xbox One) is really what hurts the WiiU with ports of such "cutting edge" games.
