Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Vice City To Xbox, Not GTA? 61

Posted by simoniker from the bizarre-whisperings-du-jour dept.
Thanks to IGN Xbox for their report that Grand Theft Auto:Vice City may be coming to Xbox this Christmas, but without the famed 'GTA' name. According to the piece: "As many insiders know, the Grand Theft Auto series is supposed to be PlayStation 2 console exclusive, however sources reveal that Rockstar is circumventing the agreement by stripping the Xbox version of the title Grand Theft Auto, and simply repackaging the game as Vice City." If true, this would mean that Rockstar wouldn't need to wait until after the next GTA game was released to lose Sony exclusivity, and could put out suitably renamed/rebranded GTA titles on other consoles sooner, rather than later - a fascinatingly sneaky concept.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vice City To Xbox, Not GTA? More

Vice City To Xbox, Not GTA?

Comments Filter:
  • Sounds like Microsoft-style contract agreement.

  • Just the sort of sneaky, lowdown, paralegal thing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Red Pointy Tail ( 127601 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @10:40PM (#6449748)
    ... you would expect from the designers of GTA! Where do you think they get their inspiration from? Way to go!
  • No, I'm not talking about the morality of Rockstar doing this, I'm pondering how the consumer is supposed to deal with it. It is just a game, but should I feel dirty buying a game that's been repackaged to escape a contract?

    • Re:Uh...morals (Score:5, Funny)

      by eMartin ( 210973 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @11:20PM (#6449950)
      If that's bothering you, maybe Vice City isn't your type of game anyway.
      • Well, being the kind of person who enjoys violent video games but who isn't keen on violent movies (and I'm still not sure exactly why that's the case), I guess that makes me...pretty confused. So I suppose I have the right to wonder.
      • Actually, to put it more concisely, I still remember where the real world ends and the TV screen begins. I think a telefrag in real life would gross me out, regardless of how funny it is in a game.

  • I'd be damned surprised if this worked. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by andrew_dupont ( 253112 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @10:51PM (#6449808)
    I'll be far less skeptical when they quote someone other than an unnamed source.

    One thing I know about Sony--they're a big company, and thus have lots of lawyers. If Rockstar wants to wage a giant legal battle over the semantics of a contract, then I'd advise them to start of small and work up to multinational conglomerates.

    • If Sony wanted to make a stink about it, they probably could, but don't forget that Rockstar would likely have MSFT on there side for this one. I doubt Sony will bother to piss off a star developer over an aging title.

      As for the next GTA, I doubt that Rockstar will break from the trend of an exclusive PS2 release for at least the first year. I would really not be surprised if they take this engine out for another run with some new content. Think GTA-LA or GTA-Chicago or whatever. You get the idea. Th
    • I'll be far less skeptical when they quote someone other than an unnamed source.

      Especially since IGN's rumor guys don't seem to have very reliable sources. I'd say that IGN's sources are slightly more reliable than the Official Xbox Magazine's sources for the crap that rag spouts.

      Either way, it's shit flying from someone's mouth until we hear an official announcement from Rockstar on the matter.

      Thursdæ

  • I would imagine that the contract would be a little bit more concise than to just say "No games with the 'GTA' title can go to another platform". I'd expect all loose ends to be covered by Sony's legal department.

    If not, then I'm going to rename my Radiohead mp3s as "Radiohat" -- then I won't have to worry about distributing Radiohead's material.
    • This is closer to Prince changing his name to "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" (sorry, don't think I can type the squiggle.) That of course didn't work, and eventualy he became "The Artist".

      Also, Without a massive restructuring I think it would be hard to clame that it was a different game. I find it hard to imagine that all these console exclusives were simply a name change away from being something else, but what do I know.
    • You'd certainly hope that the contract wouldn't let R* do something this simple to get out of it. If not, then maybe Sony needs to fire their lawyers and hire Rockstars.

    • If not, then I'm going to rename my Radiohead mp3s as "Radiohat" -- then I won't have to worry about distributing Radiohead's material.

      Not quite...the difference in this case is that Rockstar owns the copyright to the game...not Sony. Rockstar just signed an agreement to only release for the Sony system not to give Sony the claim to Rockstar's stuff. Rockstar could change it to whatever the hell they want...it's just a legal grey area whether they are breaching their contract with Sony.

  • Sony's grip on GTA series (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jvmatthe ( 116058 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @11:14PM (#6449911) Homepage
    It occurred to me just the other day that EVERY GTA game is playable on the PS2. GTA was released for the PSX as was the add-on disc London 1969. Then GTA2 was also released on the PSX. (GTA2 also came out for the Dreamcast.)

    Then along came GTA3 and GTA:VC, both for the PS2.

    Except for GTA2 on the DC, no other console has had a GTA game. Not the N64 (duh). Not the Saturn. Looks like Sony's had a lock on this series for longer than I'd realized. Of course, there are the GameBoy Color versions, but those don't compete in the same market. And the mythical GTA3 for GBA still seems like vaporware.

    The London 1969 add-on is cool, BTW. Plays better than the original GTA1, which is a bit choppy on the PSX. The prices on the PSX games are also way cheap nowadays. Is GTA2 worth playing?
    • GTA 1 was actually a PC game, with a really nice multiplayer mode.

      I never made it through the single player game, but I played quite a bit of multiplayer GTA 1.

      GTA 2 was very, very similar to GTA 1, I would say if you liked the London add on, it's definitely worth playing.
    • That came out a little wrong...

      I meant GTA 1 was a PC game as well (of course)

      In any case, try GTA2
      • I have always wanted to try the multiplayer on the PC version, but never knew anyone else locally that owned it. I wish that Sony had pushed the serial link cable more, then we might have seen multiplayer GTA on the PSX.

        I'll try GTA2...thanks!

        • Re:Sony's grip on GTA series (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          You'd be highly dissapointed with the level the multiplayer is at right now. I've tried several versions of it, but until they just create an entirely seperate mod that can start in game and basically just use the city as a huge race track (at the very least) it's no good. There is a tremendous potential for this addition to the game to be huge. I would absolutely love and likely be instantly addicted to a MMO GTA. Imagine the original concept of Quake clans applied to GTA, virtual gangs would control d

  • Cooling off period (Score:3, Insightful)

    by August_zero ( 654282 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @11:25PM (#6449983)
    GTA is not PS2 exclusive exactly, there is just something like an 6 or 8 month waiting period before they are allowed to port it, at least that was my take on it. Vice City will be over a year old by the time it comes to x-box, most of it's revenue has already been made and if anything they will be selling it to many of the same people that already bought it since very few x-box owners don't have PS2s.

    The name change trick is a clever idea, but it would never work if it went to court.
  • Some of you might remember this [slashdot.org] article... I personally commented that such a move like that may be for the company to gain support from the average consumer. So even though Joe Spender may have heard about these current events, they will remember that Rockstar is a "Gamer's gaming brand" and just overlook this "little bit" of bad business... Check M8?

  • Bad Form (Score:4, Interesting)

    by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @11:55PM (#6450136) Homepage
    Yeah, they're Rockstar, but how stupid is it to give Sony of all people the big double deuce? Bad Fscking Move. Because trust me, Rockstar, you will see the same people coming down that ladder that you saw on the way up.

    I will admit that I have not looked into this past the blurb (so apologies in advance if a closer look would have revealed all this to be bogus), but if it's true this strikes me as very, very poor form. You got there, in part, with Sonys help. Incredible games, but I really hope their lawyers cram it up your ass.
    • I think Rockstar has a better claim saying that Sony got to where they were with Rockstar's help. Every console needs a system-seller. Everyone thought it would be MGS2 for the PS2. Turns out it was GTAIII. Sony would probably still be in the lead in the console race without that killer title but certainly not by the large margin they are now.
      As proof, if GTA wasn't so important to Sony, why would they pay so much money for exclusivity, both for III and the upcoming iV?

      • Re:Bad Form (Score:3, Insightful)

        by limekiller4 ( 451497 )
        It doesn't matter who has a better claim. A deal was made and now Rockstar is pulling some really, really cheezy stunt to back out of it. That will haunt them until they die. Everyone slumps at some point. And when they do, they will be harshly reminded of this event in the form of a producer that thinks to themselves "look what they did to Sony, I don't need that kind of hassle."
    • Very bad form indeed. No Sony game gets released without the approval of the Sony QA process. And that process can be very political. If they really want to hose you, Sony QA will return your release submissions over and over, quibbling about tiny details, until you miss your much coveted deadlines (XMas and financial quarterly).

      Rockstar may be on top now... but no franchise goes on forever. Take a look at Tomb Raider and Tony Hawk's Skating. Stale. That can (and odds are, will) happen to the GTA franchise
    • I dunno, if you sign a brand to a particular group sony would probably be best

      Nintendo dont deal well with 3rd party titles any more, you dont know how long microsoft will be around, although I'd suspect at least one or more generations, but they just dont have the market shared. You just plain cant trust EA.

      Sony have the market share, and now that theyre stronger and more expierienced than when the playstation was around, they have started to look into gameplay details like nintendo used to

      And from what
  • Which is more scary to take on Microsoft or Sony?
    Im sure Sony will immediately seek some remedies if RockStar moves forward on this. Why pay them millions for exclusivity only to be sidestepped on semantics.
    If I were on a jury I definitely would strike against Rockstar.
    • Microsoft is a big company - they own the computer market, and even the software market...

      Sony, OTOH, is a BIG company. They have the giant electronics division, Sony Pictures, Sony Music, Sony Entertainment, Sony kitchen sinks, etc.

      In Q1 of 2003 (source: SmartMoney.com financials), Sony had revenues of $13.7 Billion. Microsoft had revenues of $7.8 Billion. Sony is so large and so diversified, wheras Microsoft is in one (admittedly large) industry. It wouldn't be two 800-pound gorillas, it would be one 80

  • I heard a rumor (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by foniksonik ( 573572 )
    That Microsoft was also planning to use this sort of loophole to circumvent the DOJ anti-trust issues around Windows by simply repackaging it with a new name.

    Anyone hear similar rumors?

    • I've heard the same rumor. The one that says the anti-trust settlemts/judgments all revolve around "Windows", so that MS may simply change Longhorn's name to something other than "Windows" when it is released in order to bundle every MS-made product under the sun into it and still get around anti-trust litigation.

      We talking about the same rumor here?

      Thursdæ

    • Yeah, I heard it was gonna be repackaged as "Trash Chutes".

  • I heard they're also... (Score:4, Funny)

    by yotto ( 590067 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2003 @01:21AM (#6450427) Homepage
    ...selling a new game to Xbox as well, named III.
  • all the GTA games are also on PC with the exception of a couple of expansions and there was the crappy gameboy port.
    • They're exclusive. There are multiple realms of exclusivity, like PC; portable; and consoles. Typically, consoles are the most competitive and they have the most exclusive agreements because those games can be system sellers. If that game were to appear on the GameBoy, then it hardly affects Sony's bottom line as they are not in that market.

      However, when the PSP comes around -- you can be sure that portable system exclusivity contracts will be at the forefront.

  • Rockstar Would Pay Hard (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bloodmoon1 ( 604793 ) <<be.hyperion> <at> <gmail.com>> on Wednesday July 16, 2003 @02:47AM (#6450691) Homepage Journal
    Assuming this is true, I'm sure Sony would make Rockstar eat this one hard. I have 0 evidence to support this, but I think it's pretty safe to assume that, especially after the success of GTA 3, Sony must have thown enough very heavy bags of money at Rockstar to make them keep VC (And probably GTA3) a PS2 exclusive (as far as consoles go), if not forever, for at least a good few years. Rockstar doing this would probably get them the support of X-Box fans, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Sony blocked Rockstar titles in the future as a form of punishment. And there are a lot more people with PS2's then X-Boxs (Though this may have something to do with PS2 failure rates inflating sales numbers, but that's another post) so a Sony block would hurt Rockstar in the long run.

    Besides, I'm sure a healthy number of people with X-Boxs probably have PCs, and those that would buy VC probably already bought it when it came to PC, so I really think any customer gain would be slim, mostly limted to X-Boxers without PCs capable of running VC. I'm not saying it wouldn't still sell well, but it probably wouldn't be worth: 1) Alienating Sony for the rest of time, 2) The loss of whatever "retention" bonus I'm sure Sony would violently take back out of Rockstar's ass, and 3) Any costs associated with said violent anal raping of Rockstar by Sony, i.e. Court Fees. So, again, assuming this is true, it would be a very bad case of near sightedness on the part of Rockstar.

    And as for the validility of this story, why the hell would Rockstar risk fucking up like this a year or less [slashdot.org] before their Sony exclusive deal is supposidly going to expire? Odd both these come from the same source.

    • Re:Rockstar Would Pay Hard (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday July 16, 2003 @04:26AM (#6450926) Homepage
      ...I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Sony blocked Rockstar titles in the future as a form of punishment.

      Only if Sony is beyond stupid. That would be the equivalent of saying to Rockstar, "No thank you, we would rather NOT have those millions of dollars in royalties."

      If Rockstar WERE to evade the exclusivity deal in this matter, Sony might sue them, they might simply demand a portion of the cash they paid for the exclusivity back (Rockstar, Take Two, et. al. can easily afford it at the moment), and they would certainly be wary of doing any more exclusive deals with the company. They would not, however, discourage Rockstar from making PS2 games. The fact that Rockstar sells millions of units means that Sony makes millions of dollars in licensing fees. And Sony ain't Nintendo with the the whole grudge thing - they're in too many markets to take that kind of narrow view.

      • Indeed. The GTA series of games are a huge money making brand. If Sony were to piss Rockstar off they would simply move to the other consoles to make their millions while Sony would be losing a large chunk of royalties. Alot of people bought a PS2 for GTA3/Vice City.
    • I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Sony blocked Rockstar titles in the future as a form of punishment.

      Microsoft would love this, actually. They'd get an exclusive deal with Take Two Interactive faster than shit through a goose to secure the GTA series on the Xbox.

      Then they'd hype it up to no end. "Grad Theft Auto IV, only on Xbox!" (Ballmer does his sweaty monkey dance, and repeats the word 'four' over and over and over again to really hype it up.)

      A lot of sales of the PS2 in North America and Euro

  • Doinign criminal games, working in a criminal way, AND I LUV IT.....
  • ...is to name the game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Simulator. That way, you aren't playing GTA: Vice City on your XBox, your are merely simulating playing it. They could have the game start with the Playstation 2 logo, or if they wanted to say it was a simulation of the PC version it could just have a really low framerate, lowres textures and crash all the time.

  • License Agreements (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Quill_28 ( 553921 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2003 @06:47AM (#6451433) Journal
    Things like this are why license agreements are twenty pages long and take a team of lawyers to decipher. Grrrrr
  • The game formelly known as Vice City?
  • I think Rockstar are making a huge mistake if they go ahead with this. I seriously don't think they've thought it through. At the very least, Sony will sue them to hell, worst case sceanrio is that Sony block them from producing PS2 games. Turning your back on a multi-million selling platform to the console that is mecca for piracy is a bad mistake. Any idiot with a soldering iron can chip an X-Box (hell, I know, I chipped mine). The PS2 on the other hand is a lot more complicated. The majority of people I
    • um, Rockstar/Take 2 is a pretty big company. With all the money and attention they've received with the GTA series, I'm pretty sure they can afford to hire people that would tell them if this renaming is possible. Don't be so nieve and think that they havent thought about Sony's opinion on all this. I dont think they would be doing it if there was a chance Sony could overrule it.
    • You're about as wrong as you could possibly be when you claim that the PS2 is better at protecting against piracy than the xbox. The xbox can be chipped but so can the PS2. It's actually much more common to chip one of those than an xbox. In asia, part of the reason that the Ps2 is still so much more popular than either xbox or gc is because it's so easy to pirate games. In thailand, for instance, you can get (legally) ps2 games for about $2. In just about any store that sells games. You can't find the same
      • Erm, the PS2 has been out longer than X Box or GC, hence why it is still more popular in the far east. Have you chipped either machine? The X Box is simple to chip, 9 solder joints on the header that's absolutely huge and can hardly go wrong and one wire on D0 that may pose a problem to some people but it's just a case of tinning the wire, taping the wire to the board over the hole, quick press of the soldering iron and thats it. To chip a PS2 with a decent chip like Messiah or Magic you're looking at solde
        • Have you been to asia? What I said about stores there is true. You can buy pirated games for about $2. Yes, I'm sure a large part of it is because the PS2 was out first. But chipping xboxes isn't as common and the games are nowhere near as easy to get hold of. In fact, you can't find pirated xbox games in stores. And I sincerely doubt that Rockstar doesn't care about the most populous continent on earth as a market.

          But I see your point about here in the states. Though everyone I know who ever had a console

  • Okay everyone seems to think that if this is true (which I still highly dough) Sony would just turn their back on Rockstar and stop supporting them. This is very stupid, the last thing Sony would do is turn their back on the company that has made the PS2 such a hit.
    Most likely what would happen is that Sony would sue Rockstar's ass to hell and back for this very stupid move, and then buy the company up and make all Rockstar games Playstation Only.

    Sony will not just sit back and let their #1 title go ove

  • oooh whee. as if this really make a frikkin' difference. how many more copies can they sell on the Xbox that they haven't sold to people that have a PS2?!

    what percentage of the market has ONLY the Xbox console?! and SOO crazy for it that they could not even stand renting a PS2 to play a game?!

    if there are such people. i feel sorry for them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Human resources are human first, and resources second. -- J. Garbers

Close