Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


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

Two 360 Titles Lose Their Exclusivity 77

Posted by Zonk from the now-we-go-back-the-other-way dept.
While for the most part we've been hearing about formerly PS3-exclusive games heading to Microsoft's console, as the PS3 begins to get some momentum up in the marketplace we'll start to see the opposite happening. The first converts are the titles Kane & Lynch (a stealth shooter), and Crossfire (a co-op military shooter). Both are now slated to launch on the PlayStation 3, as well as the Xbox 360. Opposable Thumbs reports: "'[SCi Entertainment's] Board believes that a release of these products simultaneously on all three platforms (PS3, Xbox 360 and PC) including the two next generation platforms will benefit the long term revenue potential for these two strong franchises rather than releasing different versions at different times.' It's hard to say that this move is all that surprising. We've said time and time again the high development costs of current generation software are going to lead to an increase in the number of cross-platform software, as extending the possible player-base for a title is crucial for profit. From the looks of these two games, this is a solid win for the PS3: two more quality games to add to the growing list of the PS3's star software."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Two 360 Titles Lose Their Exclusivity More

Two 360 Titles Lose Their Exclusivity

Comments Filter:
  • Personally it doesn't seem like these games carry the same weight as the PS3 exclusives that made it to the 360, but still good for Sony taking something back.

    • Re:What can you say (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kelbear ( 870538 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @01:01PM (#18873119)
      I visit game news sites daily, and have never even heard of these two games.

      • Re:What can you say (Score:5, Insightful)

        by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @02:43PM (#18874681)
        I visit game news sites daily, and have never even heard of these two games.

        Now you know the reason this article exists. On the surface it's an article about XBOX360 games losing exclusivity. However, on second read:

        "IO Interactive's Kane & Lynch is a strange and mysterious action game that focuses on the relationship between two men on opposite sides of a deal gone wrong. The developer is best known for the Hitman series, so stealth and careful gunplay are likely to be the order of the day. As for Crossfire, information is somewhat scarce, but the Pivotal Games-developed title is a two-player co-op FPS that revolves around two government agents on a mission behind enemy lines." ... "From the looks of these two games, this is a solid win for the PS3: two more quality games to add to the growing list of the PS3's star software."

        What actually happened is you were introduced to two games you never heard of, and they were placed as "two quality games" to add to the "growing list of PS3's star software".

        Ninja advertisement at its best.

        • Ninja advertisement at its best.


          If it really was ninja advertising, none of us would realize it - kind of like the GP. Plus it would have been delivered on the shaft of an arrow, or tactfully placed with a shuriken, killing the would-be submitter instantly. Ninja are sneaky like that.
          • Barely related video link: A Ninja Pays Half My Rent [youtube.com]. If you have not watched, you must.

            On a more related note - I think this really is a publicity move: I did see a preview of Kane & Lynch in OXM a while back but it's not getting the press it needs to garner any sales; if the PS3 fanboys (no offense) still have their backs up about the lost DMC they might jump all over this just to convince themselves it's not that bad.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by MaXMC ( 138127 )
        I've waited for these games some time myself.

        If you've played the Hitman games you're bound to keep a lookout for what they are going to do next. Since the good games rarely get the publicity they need to be popular games.
  • I still can't believe that one's exclusive.
  • K&L is not a 'stealth' shooter. It is a shooter alright, but with more gameplay in common with IO Interactive's Freedom Fighters than the Hitman series.
  • Oh boy, more military shooters! There certainly aren't enough of those out on the market!

  • Wow, what a sea change (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Control Group ( 105494 ) * on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @01:07PM (#18873197) Homepage
    Let's see, the PS3 loses Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto IV to multiplatform releases.

    The 360 loses two games I've already forgotten the names of to multiplatform releases.

    Yep, the tide is definitely turning.
    • yeah I'm not impressed with a man biting a dog, but it is "news"

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by mgabrys_sf ( 951552 )
      GTA4 isn't exclusive like GTA3, Vice City or San Andreas?!!! OMG! Oh wait - those came out for Xbox and computers. I forgot - what's the fucking point here?

    • Re:Wow, what a sea change (Score:5, Interesting)

      by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @02:43PM (#18874683)
      Let's see, the PS3 loses Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto IV to multiplatform releases.

      GTA4 was never a PS3 exclusive. I'm not sure why the assumption would even be made, as GTA1, GTA2, GTA3, GTA:VC and GTA:SA were never exclusives either.

      I think people need to make a distinction between "exclusive" and "coming out on one platform six months before being ported to another". They are not the same thing, and never have been. This notion of a "timed exclusive" is one of those either meaningless or wrongly-applied industry buzzwords that really needs to go. There is no such thing as a "timed exclusive" - a game is either exclusive or it isn't.

      Assassin's Creed I don't know about, but GTA4 was always multi-platform. The only difference in GTA4's case is the simultaneous release. Losing six months of "exclusivity" isn't losing exclusivity, it's losing six months. Again, not the same.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by (A)*(B)!0_- ( 888552 )

        "I think people need to make a distinction between "exclusive" and "coming out on one platform six months before being ported to another". They are not the same thing, and never have been. This notion of a "timed exclusive" is one of those either meaningless or wrongly-applied industry buzzwords that really needs to go. There is no such thing as a "timed exclusive" - a game is either exclusive or it isn't."

        There is a difference between "exclusive" and "timed exclusive" (for lack of a better term) but I th

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Babbster ( 107076 )
        Here's the problem with your thesis that timed exclusives don't mean anything: If a company releases an exceedingly popular game for one console and refuses to (or contractually cannot) confirm development and eventual release for another console then the "timed exclusive" status can mean quite a lot. There were Xbox owners who bought PS2s in order to play GTA3 and Vice City because they couldn't be certain that an Xbox version was ever going to come (Rockstar and Sony repeatedly denied it would happen, r
        • I'm going to agree - a month advantage isn't going to do much, but I think there was almost a year between the releases of the Xbox and PS2 versions of GTA3 and later, Vice City.
          • It was longer than that. GTA3 and Vice City arrived on the Xbox simultaneously (and were packaged together), almost exactly - likely due to contractual obligation to Sony - a year after the latter made its PS2 debut. I owned both on PS2 (and later bought the Xbox versions) because I had no idea that they would come out for Xbox. With San Andreas, on the other hand, I went ahead and waited the 7-8 months for the Xbox release because, thanks to the previous release, I was certain the port was being made.
  • I am not familiar with these games. The impact is lessened considerably.

  • Strong Franchise? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hidannik ( 1085061 )
    It's not a franchise until two games in the series are released (i.e. there's at least one sequel).

    It's not strong until it sells well.

    Both of these titles are new properties, unreleased and without sequels. Therefore they are neither franchises nor strong. Calling them so is merely wishful marketing.

    Hans

  • How about the Wii? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HalAtWork ( 926717 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @01:11PM (#18873257)
    The Wii is the system creaming the competition, how about offering this on the Wii? The article states: "...a release of these products simultaneously on all three platforms (PS3, Xbox 360 and PC) including the two next generation platforms..." -- That's a pretty curious omission of the Wii... It's definitely possible to scale down the graphics and offer the same exact game on the Wii, a system even more powerful than the original XBox, which could handle Half Life 2.

    • Re:How about the Wii? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dan Ost ( 415913 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @01:15PM (#18873313)
      It's possible that the Wii's lack of processing power makes it unsuitable for these games.

      As developers learn to take advantage of the 360 and the PS3(!), expect this to happen more and more often.

      • Re:How about the Wii? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by revlayle ( 964221 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @01:22PM (#18873415)
        As much as i like the Wii.... i would have to completely agree with the above statement. Point: I want to get a 360 for games like Mass Effect or Bioshock. I just don't ever expect them to be ported to Wii... EVER. Wii is fun for other games, however.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Jubetas ( 917500 )
          By the same token, there are going to be some awesome games for the Wii that could never work on the 360 or PS3 by nature of design. Here's to hoping for an epic Jedi game and/or Castlevania or Indiana Jones.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by IrquiM ( 471313 )
            Hmmm.... you say what?

            Just make a new controller that cost anoter 50-60$ and you've got the same function on 360 and PS3, with better hardware...

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by BeerCur ( 627281 )
              Almost everyone agrees that the controller for the WII is a leap forward in terms of interacting with a game. Why has a similar product from MSFT or Sony not been released? Figure it would have been done by now. Are there patent issues? ~Matthew

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by trdrstv ( 986999 )

                Almost everyone agrees that the controller for the Wii is a leap forward in terms of interacting with a game. Why has a similar product from MSFT or Sony not been released? Figure it would have been done by now. Are there patent issues? ~Matthew

                Actually they both have respective patents for thier own Wiimote solution, the issue is now 'Default configuration' vs 'Mee-Too add on'. Developers can make games for the limited owners of that periferial (like making games for the Eye Toy) or they can make it co

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by trdrstv ( 986999 )

            By the same token, there are going to be some awesome games for the Wii that could never work on the 360 or PS3 by nature of design.

            Unfortunately, that won't prevent developers from trying. Rayman Raving Rabbits is now multiplatform, and for the life of me I can't imagine how that would work with a "regular controler".

        • Parent posters Dan and Rev... I agree too. But I do think the wii can have some good hardcore games. Afterall, we are talking about a system that is twice as powerful as the system that brought us Metroid Prime. I feel the real problem is the Wii will lose on the cross platform staples. Games like Burnout were pretty much the same on all previous gen systems, but now, with the hardware disparity, Wii is the odd console out, since it can't match the muscle. I do hope above all else that the UBIs and EAs

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
        It's possible that the Wii's lack of processing power makes it unsuitable for these games.

        As developers learn to take advantage of the 360 and the PS3(!), expect this to happen more and more often.

        Lack of processing power, didn't stop high energy games like Need for Speed Underground to be ported (and successfully) to any platform under the Sun, including Nintendo DS and PSP.

        Wii has enough power to transfer the feel and gameplay of any high-end PS3 game. All it takes is cutting few effects and reducing the
        • "High energy" is not equivalent to requiring lots of CPU power. Just look at the Burnout series on the PS2 (or Xbox). However, having intelligent AI systems, good physics processing and some goodies like accurate dynamic 3D sound are out of reach on the Wii. Lots of games will be lots of fun without those things, but designers who want to go for gusto in those areas will not be making their games on the Wii.
    • Just because a system has more processing power for the GPU and CPU does not mean that the internals are similar or capable of outputting the same graphics. It should be noted that the XBOX has more advanced pixel shaders and lighting capabilities than the Wii, so just because the Wii's CPU and GPU have higher clock speeds doesn't mean they can magically replicate what the XBOX could. Think of replacing your old P4 1.7 Ghz processor with a new Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66 Ghz but still keeping your old nvidia MX
    • The Wii is "on par" with the Xbox. With a slight bit more memory no HD and slightly more horse power on paper. Not much better. Although it's hard to compare from nothing more then the specs. I'd think it's more capable but not by that much.

    • It's definitely possible to scale down the graphics and offer the same exact game on the Wii...
      And why exactly would anyone want to buy the same game with much worse graphics?

  • Wait, people give a shit about this? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RichPowers ( 998637 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @01:18PM (#18873343)
    Let's say I own a 360. A videogame I really want will also be released for the PS3 and PC. So what? I still can purchase a 360 copy.

    People who bought a console for just one game (ya, such people exist) might be upset if a title's exclusivity is lost. But why should anyone else care? These "OMG UR CONSOLE DOESNT HAVE EXCLUSIVES!1" pissing contests represent videogame geekery at its worst.

    Would this even be a story if the headline read: "Videogame publishers increasing profits"? Because that's exactly what they're doing by releasing a game on multiple platforms.

    And as far as I know, Kane & Lynch was never totally exclusive; a PC launch was planned from the beginning.
    • Right on point. Why is this news? I hadn't heard of either game and my choice of purchasing a console definitely wouldn't hinge on one game. I guess the PS3 is just hard-up for any compliments at this point.
    • This would be news if they were A-list games, because Sony has lost two A-list exclusives in recent days, and it would indicate that influential publishers are deciding not to be exclusive and not just that influential developers are deciding not to be Sony-exclusive. They are B-list games at best, and so no one actually cares, and it doesn't mean anything.
    • Fanboys use exclusives to demonstrate their superiority over people who were not "smart" enough to buy the same console as themselves. A bit of a "haha, I have x and you don't." Rather childish really...
    • Obviously it doesn't matter at all if you already own a console that the game was originally targetted for and still is, except of course for the fanbois and their pissing contests. It does matter if you own a console that the game wasn't targetted for but is now.

      The important part, though, is for people who don't own a console but want one and are deciding which to get. That's the whole reason why exclusives are important, as it gives a reason to buy that console instead of another. At least theoretical

  • Good for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Perseid ( 660451 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @01:26PM (#18873465)
    Exclusivity sucks. The more even the 3 systems are in sales the more even the game releases get. If we can all just buy one system and get all the games we want, even if one version is slightly better, this is good.

    I expect to see more of this, too. It really has little to do with the success or failure of any one system. It has more to do with the insane development costs games are amassing. If you're spending $20mil on a game is it really that bad to spend another couple mil to port it?
  • SCi Entertainment's Board believes that a release of these shitty products merely on the 360 would deprive PS3 and PC owners of the absolute crapfest that is to come. So, we're releasing them on all platforms with the hope against hopes that we'll be able to make our money back and won't be forced to file Chapter 11.

  • Bigger News - Beautiful Katamari 360 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Alzheimers ( 467217 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @01:39PM (#18873679)
    From a recent NAMBCO/BANDAI press release:

    "Leading video games publisher and developer NAMCO BANDAI Games America Inc. announced that The King of All Cosmos, everyone's favorite pint-sized Prince, and the whole wacky and wild Katamari crew will be making their hilarious next generation debut in Beautiful Katamari for the PLAYSTATION 3 computer entertainment system and Xbox 360 video game and entertainment system from Microsoft later this year."

    Still no compelling reason to invest in a PS3 if you've already got the Wii60.
  • Like the article states its more profitable to go cross-platform then exclusive. The days of staying on one platform is over for the 3rd party companies, theres no incentive to stay exclusive unless your being paid by the big dogs(Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft).
    • It also depends on the cost of portability. While the 360 and PS3 are similar in capabilities, the Wii might lack a bit in power for some games. Alternately, WiiMote games wouldn't port well to Xbox/PS3

      In theory, a game heavily optimized for either the 360 or PS3 might also be a little time (and time==$$$) consuming to port.
  • I've never even heard of those two games before. Who cares...
  • this is a good thing. Neither of these titles are as big as say Mass Effect or Final Fantasy (although the exclusivity of FF13 is in question)...I actually want to see smaller lesser known titles such as these on multiple systems just to get their exposure increased (even though prior to the comments above, I didn't realize that Kane was a lesser known title...then again, I had never heard of the other one so ::shrug:: whatever)

  • There's no advantage (from the gamer's POV) to exclusives.
    I hope PS3 owners enjoy these games as much as we 360 owners will.. and hope some PS3-exclusive devs will give us 360 gamers some lovin' by releasing their game for our consoles..
  • It is nice to see that several people here are dumping on two games that in fact may be very great. Sure we have not played them, but is that any reason to dismiss them out of hand just because they have not been published yet? Let's all be reasonable and logical and wait for the games to come out so we can judge them on their merits. I know that sounds crazy, but in reality, it the correct thing to do. If they suck, then yes, it is not a big loss for the 360. But if the do in fact kick major ass, then
  • SCi's biggest hit was Conflict Desert Storm which was found in bargain bins weeks after release. While I understand the desire for something positive for the ps3 fanboy crowd, they may want to skip the bravado over this crapfest.

    Here's a list of all of SCi's accomplishments to date, look at all the hits...

    Alfreds Adventure
    Aqua Aqua
    Battlestations:Midway
    Carmageddon
    Carmageddon II: Carpocalypse Now
    Carmageddon TDR 2000
    Conflict: Desert Storm
    Conflict: Desert Storm 2 (a.k.a. Back to Baghdad)
    Conflict: Global Terror
  • No, seriously. I can see why you titled this "Two 360 titles" instead of giving the names of the actual games. Nobody would have recognized them of course because they are obscure and by no means AAA titles. This, in turn, means that this "news story" has no value whatsoever and I suspect the only reason it got approved is because it falls in the "bad news for m$" category.

    Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
    • How do any of us know if these are or are not AAA titles? Because in all reality, we don't. They could be great. For example. Remember when GTA was top down? No one really saw GTAIII coming nor imagined it's impact. Any game coming out at any time could have a similar impact. But we don't know until it is reviewed and comes out.
  • Its funny how we get an ARS link to some nobody link (http://www.pro-g.co.uk/ps3/crossfire/news-5307.ht ml) to a story about some exclusives moving and none of those pages has a Sony source link. Im sure its in the bowels of Sony somewhere.. I just find it interesting that the breadcrumbs dont lead to the house I guess..

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close