Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Starcraft Ghost Off The Cube

Posted by Zonk on Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:52 AM
from the console-officially-dead dept.
GameCube (Games)
Gamespot has the news that Blizzard's upcoming action/stealth title Starcraft: Ghost is officially no longer in production for the Gamecube. From the article: "Speaking to GameSpot, a Blizzard staffer confirmed that the game is now only being released for the Xbox and PlayStation 2, meaning the previously announced GameCube edition has been canceled ... Unfortunately the GameCube has no online service and since so much work is going in to the online portion, it would be additional work to release only part of the intended game."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Starcraft Ghost Put On Hold 110 comments
After numerous previous delays, Blizzard has made the likelihood we'll ever play Starcraft: Ghost effectively nil. They've announced they're putting game development on hold indefinitely, as they're reconsidering options for the next generation of consoles. From the Gamespy article: "Like many in the industry, we've been impressed with the potential of the new consoles, and we're looking forward to exploring that potential further ... In addition to allowing us to determine the best course for StarCraft: Ghost, this review period will help us lay the groundwork for our future console games."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Starcraft Ghost Off The Cube 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • So that means it IS comming out for the Revolution.. Right??
      • With that sort of insider knowledge, I can only assume you work for Blizzard. It's the only thing that makes sense. And given the wording of your post, (mocking the man, rather than just saying no...) Do you work for Blizzard's marketting department?

  • This is an understandable move. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rowan_u (859287) on Thursday November 03 2005, @12:08PM (#13942051) Homepage
    When Ghost was in early development the focus was on the single player experience. Now, with the information and playable versions released at Blizcon, it seems that the game is shaping up to have a considerable multiplayer portion. In light of this new focus, it makes sense to drop costly support for the Gamecube version.

    If you look at the PS2 version of the game, I'm sure this already requires extensive extra work to the multiplayer portion as well. Its going to be a big difference between putting a game up on Xbox live, and creating a complete multiplayer service like you have to do with PS2 online games.

    I wonder if the Ps2 version will contain features like matchmaking, buddy lists, and playlists. With Blizzards previous excellent multiplayer track record on battlenet, it seems unlikely they would expect anything less from developers taken under there wing. Could such extensive online support be the killer-app for the PS2 Ethernet adapter?
    • Still, they make it sound like the game is worthless without the online mode so if I was planning to buy it that would be a definite reason not to as I don't use my PS2 for online.
    • Sadly this move from single player to Multiplayer might turn off some fans, personally I don't play many multiplayer games on the consoles, because when I play games I like to give a little taunt, or just relax. I don't see many games on the consoles(though tony hawk has been fun to play multiplayer most games are less then stellar, especially EA's fare (SSX 3 was dead)) that are worth playing multiplayer.

      Personally I'm more likely to skip a multiplayer heavy game and likely I'll do the same for this one.

      B
    • It would make sense if the Gamecube didn't have a broadband adaptor. Oddly enough, it does. So Blizzard is lying. Not that I care at this point, but to make this decision 3 years after the game was announced is a bit slimy.

      Good luck selling any copies on the previous-gen Xbox, wankers.
      • That was my first thought as well. The Gamecube has a broadband adapter (i've sadly never gotten to use mine... but I have it.)

        If they are cancelling the Gamecube version just because they have no central online service then would not the Playstation 2 version be cancelled as they have no central online service. XBox has the Live service so that qualifies as a central online service... but as far as I know Playstation 2 does not. Didn't we just have an article yesterday about how Sony isn't going to have on

      • Re:This is an understandable move. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RogueyWon (735973) * on Thursday November 03 2005, @01:02PM (#13942527) Journal
        And how many games make use of it? How many consumers are likely to own one? How does the market penetration compare to X-Box Live and the PS2's online services?

        While it's technically wrong to say that the Cube has no online services, in any serious business decision, you cannot include the Cube's network adaptor as a factor. It's sold far too few and it's not going to start selling them now, so late in the cycle.

        Blizzard's decision makes perfect sense and I doubt most people outside of slashdot games will even notice.

        • Re:This is an understandable move. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by valintin (30311) on Thursday November 03 2005, @01:15PM (#13942646)
          There is far more consoles that do not have online than there are that do. It makes perfect sense to sell more games to more users to make more money. If the game was any good they would come out with a robust single player to sell to the majority of console users. This shows their lack of confidence in the game over all and in the single player mode.

          The single player mode is not good enough to sell the game to enough Gamecube owners to make it profitable for that platform. That says much about the game for any console owner.

            • Since Decemeber of last year. I got it because it was a cheaper option to upgrading my son's computer to play games. I guess I'm a Nintendo fan because I think it's the best game system for kids and adults together.

              We still play Starcraft on his PC and if the next gen of consoles end up being PC like, I will skip them and build a new PC for him. I'm interested in the next gen game systems, not PCs for dumb people.

        • THere is not such thing as "PS2 Online Services" unless by that you mean "It has an ethernet port". Sony has made it very clear that each game developer is responsible for developing and maintaining their own system for making their games talk to each other. A previous post hit the nail on the head with the response that Blizzard's reasoning doesn't make sense.
        • Unless this game is entirely multiplayer-dependant, with no single-player component, this decision makes no sense. Cube owners are just as able to buy the broadband adapter as PS2 owners, and are just as able to connect to Battle.net through it. If the content is good enough, I guarantee Cube owners will buy the adapter. And without it, there should still be a rich, single-player experience to be had. Personally, I was really looking forward to playing this game by myself, and had no intention of playin
        • I, for one, would have bought an online adapter for this game.
      • Yes the GameCube has a broadband adaptor. But Nintendo show absolutley no interest in it at all. There are two whole online games availible in Europe (PSOI&II, PSOIII), and another two games that support LAN play (Mario Kart and Kirby Air Ride). Compared to Sony, who have managed to get a fair selection of online games, and intergrated it into newer consoles. The PS2 doesn't have a unified online service, but Sony support online game development for it (they've actually developed some online games thems
        • The Xbox IS dead. Microsoft's contract with NVIDIA has run out. There wil be no new Xboxes. Like I said, good lick selling to a dead system. Hope the dev costs pay off.
          • Well, considering it's sucessor is just about to launch, I'm not surprised Microsoft are dropping the Xbox 1, it's famously made at a loss, and they can't easily redesign it to be cheaper, so it's getting dropped. A contract running out would be as good a point to stop as any (I hadn't heard that however, do you have a source?).

            However I doubt it'll kill the Xbox 1 software market dead overnight, there's generally some overlap between generations, the software will still sell. There's still a fair amount of
        • I agree with you but anyone that owns an older version of the PS2 would still have to go out and buy the Sony Network Adapter to get their PS2 online. Or I guess they could pay for a whole new console (or maybe their old one is broken, etc, etc)

  • OH NOES! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Inoshiro (71693) on Thursday November 03 2005, @12:09PM (#13942054) Homepage
    Considering when it was announced [slashdot.org] years ago, you have to wonder a bit. Does this matter? It's like saying that Duke Nukem Forever won't come out on the GameCube -- it's sure as shit not coming out on anything else, either!

    After 3 years, it's not going to live up to expectations anyways. The edge of gameplay is further out, and whatever monetary hit they took developing a game in 2002 and 2003 is 100% wasted money. Some of the code and art may transfer, but the gameplay and graphics standard have been raised in the meantime. Anything over 18 months is wasted money in game development.
    • Yeah,

      WOW was a complete waste for Blizzard.

    • Anything over 18 months is wasted money in game development.

      I wouldn't really say that, but given the fact that the game was supposed to come out late '03, early '04, you really have to question just how much money was wasted after all this time. Other than nailing down the gameplay, everything else is more or less rearranged for them. (Just mimic the art from Starcraft, copy and paste Starcraft units and characters, stealth based games have been done already so build on those and the storyline for Starcra

      • iirc, it isn't being made by Blizzard anyways. Which is why I'm confused about people caring abou this title - I mean, don't they remember what happens to a franchise when some other development team makes a sequel/spin-off? Star Control 3? OMF: Battlegrounds? This is going to be just another standard fare stealth-shooter that happens to be in the StarCraft universe. It won't be the perfectly polished gameplay (with just enough creativity to make it fresh) and beautiful artwork that Blizzard is known f
        • "iirc, it isn't being made by Blizzard anyways"

          Well, actually now it is, sort of. Originally it was being developed by Nihilistic Software:

          "During the summer of 2002, the entire Nihilistic Software development team, the original developer of the game, quit en masse after an internal power struggle with Blizzard Entertainment. At the time, Slashdot and Penny Arcade reported that the team had already completed more than 85% of the game engine and 40% of all level design." Wikipedia Starcraft Ghost [wikipedia.org]

          So now Blizz
          • But Blizzard is taking responsibility for it. Blizzard would not take responsibility for the game unless it was going to be a good game.
            Now, I'm not a Blizzard advocate. I didn't even like Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 that much, but I recognize their goodness as games, and I trust blizzard to kick out another excellent game.

            They have eared my trust, and the trust of a lot of people, that when we buy their games, we're getting the cream of the crop, and I doubt they would blow it on a shooter, of all thin
  • So why are they dropping it just for the GameCube? By their logic they should be dropping the PS2 version also since all it has is an internet adapter. X-Box is the only console with an online service.
    • Exactly. I wouldn't be too suprised if money was exchanging hands behind the scenes of this.
    • The difference is that the PS2 has enough marketshare to make the extra work worthwhile.
    • Must just be poorly worded. Who actually owns a GCN internet adapter anyway? For just PSO, there can't be too many people with it.
      • Actually, Sony does have an online system, it's just bare-bones by comparison to XBox Live. It's called DNAS (not to be confused with DNS). Every game that goes online on the PS2 goes through a set of basic DNAS tests, then you're allowed online.

        I preferred this over the Live method because your online play time was free, and it gave more freedom to the developers. What I've found now, however, is that the developers really don't WANT that freedom, because now they have to develop network game backends,
        • The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online. I play VERY sporatically, [sic] so I'd wind up paying $15/1 game session of football online if I only get to play once per month. Far too expensive for my tastes. :\

          Is someone actually charging a monthly fee to play football online on the PS2, or are you crying wolf here? Please back up your claim...

          Otherwise, I agree with you - Heck, even at $5/mo for 1 year of Live, it's too expensive for as sporadica
            • GP post is talking about Xbox Live service costing a monthly fee. Work on your reading comprehension a bit.

              I'm sure you're right. My mistake. When the OP said "The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online." it was not clear (to me) which prior point this was the end result of. I thought he meant it was the end result of developers having to write their own networking code, while he probably did mean it was the end result of having someone else (Live)
                • The OP actually said $15/1, meaning $15 for 1 time playing Madden online. Of course that means the OP only plays 3.333 repeating times per year, ...

                  Hate to beat the horse even more, but the OP actually did say $15/mo. Here's the line again: "I play VERY sporatically, [sic] so I'd wind up paying $15/1 game session of football online if I only get to play once per month." He didn't say once every three months, as your calculations imply, which would be the $5/mo of Live, capice?

                  ... but you get the gist o
  • Taking into consideration all the delays that we've been put through.... it's not coming out for any system. I mean, come on! It was supposed to be out summer '04
  • I think we've all seen enough press releases to read between the lines on this one. Either: (1) Someone figured out it wouldn't sell that well on GC, or (2) Blizzard had some falling-out with Nintendo about something.

    Either way, I guarantee it has nothing to do with online multiplayer. *Every* console game is sold on the strength of the single-player experience. Only PC games (BF2, CS) can be sold as primariliy multiplayer. Sure, Halo grew into a MP juggernaut, but everyone played the SP first.

    Why PS2

    • Either way, I guarantee it has nothing to do with online multiplayer. *Every* console game is sold on the strength of the single-player experience. Only PC games (BF2, CS) can be sold as primariliy multiplayer. Sure, Halo grew into a MP juggernaut, but everyone played the SP first.

      Wrong. Everquest Online Adventures (PS2) has no single player mode at all. Same for Final Fantasy XI (PS2). And a LOT of games are sold on the strength of their multiplayer. Also multiplayer doesn't have to mean ONLINE. You wou
    • *Every* console game is sold on the strength of the single-player experience.

      Next time I'm playing Counter-Strike on Xbox, I'll remember reading your post and laugh and laugh...

      You would have been right a few years ago, though.
  • I smell BS here. Both the PS2 AND the GQ use a online adapter, there is no service other than the maker themselves supporting a service. So if they do go through with the PS2 version, it means Blizzard pulled bullshit out of their ass to justify not completing a game like they where supposed to and to just rush it out because they changed it last minute. If they dont release a GQ OR a PS2 version, it means Blizzard is yet another in the long line of gamemakers who sell out to Microsoft for the money.

    Eithe

      • well that may be true, but they said no online support. The gamecube might not have a service, but so doesnt Sony, and both use a online adapter.
        • Well, in Sony's case their broadband adaptor has a far higher market penetration than the Gamecube one, especially as new PS2s have it built in. Bringing an online-aimed game to the Gamecube is stupid, as Nintendo frankly have given no support to online gaming on the 'cube, and therefore few 3rd parties have either.

          I think the "service" claim is a bit of bullshit from Blizzrd though, it's really a case of the fact that Microsoft and Sony actively support online games, Nintendo don't.

          I do wonder about the on
  • I found it funny when looking the /. original posting of Blizzard's annoucement and the post of Blizzards FAQ about the game. Taken from that FAQ:

    "We expect to ship StarCraft: Ghost in late 2003."

    lol. Yes blizzard has added a lot and changed a lot, but by the time this game is ready to ship to PS2 and XBox it's going to be playing on a system that's already replaced by the next gen systems. I know this is Blizzard's first attempt at a video game system, but I think they are going to learn a lot of lesson
      • That is the only scenario that makes any sense to me at all. Most people who buy this game are going to spend more time playing it on next-gen consoles than current gen consoles, anyway. Why not just make Ghost a Rev title and be done with it, rather than waste all of that effort? They don't even have to take the time to develop it for the Rev's unique controller (though I think it would be a fantastic match.) They can either use the shell or require a Cube controller, since initial development was on th
  • However, they still lack a reasonable explanation why they aren't releasing it for the PC.

    The reason can't be technical, as everyone knows the Xbox IS a (crippled) PC.
    • Could be any number of reasons here. I suspect the most likely issue are concerns about the expense of getting it to work on a decent spread of PC hardware. With console development, you know the exact hardware yur customers are going to use. For PC games, you've got to make sure your game will run on umpteen billion different combinations of hardware. Even after extensive testing, most developers don't actually maange this, which usually results in bad publicity and noisy forums.

      It's not surprising that, w

  • So, let's see here... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Txiasaeia (581598) on Thursday November 03 2005, @05:54PM (#13945803)
    ...Ghost was announced in 2001 as being developed by Nihilistic Software. Then it changed hands from Nihilistic to Swingin' Ape Studios. Nihilistic had completed 85% of the engine and 40% of level design, but Ape scrapped most of this (according to an interview earlier this year) in favour of a new engine(?) and entirely different story. Now they've changed it to a PS2 and XBox-title only, and four years after production began, they're shifting the focus from single-player to multi-player. I'm taking bets that the game is going to merge productions with Duke Nukem Forever, and the resulting unholy union will only be playable on the Infinium Labs Phantom.
  • I personally find myself agreeing with Nintendorks' take [nintendorks.com] on it:

    Apparently a big part of StarCraft: Ghost is a subpar online mode where everyone stealths around while trying to capture a base or some crap. That certainly sounds more exciting than the single player story mode full of StarCraft lore that we've been waiting 3 years for.

    Seriously, if there's going to be so much of a focus on online gameplay that they don't think releasing the game for the GCN makes sense, it sounds like Ghost will become yet ano

    • Yeah, it is bullshit. The real reason is it wouldn't sell well enough on the Gamecube (it's not dead, it's just pining for the Fjords![1]), especially if it's an online focused game (what with Nintendo's great online support).

      [1] OK, so it's not that quite bad, Nintendo do have enough money from their portable cash cows to keep on propping it up with new software if you've got a system, but very few third party developers (at least western ones) seem to think it's worthwile nowadays. A solid 3rd place in th
          • You can probably make a fair guess at worldwide share by adding up the figures for known markets though.

            Anyway, it's moot anyway as "second place Worldwide" is rather meaningless apart from as a second rate pissing contest between manufacturers. How the console does in each induvidual market is probably more relavant for most things, like if you can actually buy it. Actual retail stuff (like say, whever high street shops in the UK stock Gamecubes) they'd only really look at performance on a more local level
    • Seriously who the hell cares? That's like making an article titled: "Super Mario not coming out for Xbox 360!!!!"

      yeah, just like that.

      except Super Mario was never announced or even rumoured for Xbox 360, of course.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.