And factor in that 360 launched CHEAPER then PS2.
Multiplatform Assassin's Creed--si or no?
- Thread starter g35er
- Start date
And factor in that 360 launched CHEAPER then PS2.
um what? since when did the 360 launch cheaper then the PS2? Not in north america.
Last edited by a moderator:
cheaper? ps2 launched for 300
In the UK i meen, PS2 was £300 at launch thus 360 ( more specifically the core package ) being ALOT cheaper then PS2 was at launch.
Thats irrelevant, we are looking at US hardware numbers from NPD. (as we dont have any reliable UK\europe numbers from NPD).
So how is it a big commercial flop? Please show me some hard facts. I showed hard facts for why it is not.
So how is it a big commercial flop? Please show me some hard facts. I showed hard facts for why it is not.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Oh only the best western RPG of the generation and GOTY for 2004, KOTOR, or Ninja Gaiden one of the best action games in the last 5 years. Or Forza, which many people consider an upgrade to Gran Turismo the king of sim racers, to name a few.
How did this spiral into some pointless comparison of PS3 vs 360 holiday sales, some people simply pointed out that PS3 manufactuerers *might* be short of BR pickups, and it somehow turns into this?
MS will sell good this holiday, how good will depend on the quality of their game library, and consumer reaction to the PS3 (and to a lesser extent Wii) to analyse it any further than that is an exercise in futility. We have no idea how good Forza, GOW etc will be, we have no idea if Sony has any ace's up their sleeve, we don't know how Viva Pinata will play out. There's absolutely no point in doing these huge lengthy, tit for tat comparisons when the buggest factors are still question marks i.e. Quality of the software.
scooby_dooby
Legend
It's not, 5million in 7.5 months has only ever been surpassed by the PS2 which was the best selling console in history, and it's not by much.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Very true, but back to the original topic: It should have been obvious to everyone that Assassin's Creed was always coming to X360. Since when has Ubisoft ever gone exclusive with a big title? I've been saying this for months.
cyberheater
Newcomer
Maybe time to change the thread title...
Not sure what you mean by that. I would call it tempered realism. The market changes every generation and new variables impact the market. This gen is no different in those regards. I have never been a gloom and doom person toward Sony (I have long held my stance on 80-100M unit sales in 5 years from launch), but I also see where the pristine shine on Sony's market leadership has a couple blotches. Much of that will wash away once real software hits and the focus shifts (like it did last year for the 360), but since the spring Sony has stirred up a fairly constant stream of negative market reaction. Console delay, expensive pricing, E3 no shows, rumors of significant hardware shortages, key games slipping to 2007, hardware speed reductions, the appearant concession of exclusive titles, etc. There has been some good news, but all of the above was completely avoidable. Of course MS and Nintendo make similar gaffs, but I think the difference is that as the market leader Sony is not only more visible, but has also made a habit of NOT making these sort of mistakes.
Anyhow, the point of my responses was only to temper the reactions to AC being multi-platform. The industry HAS changed. Exclusives are rarer.
Spelled out: One of Sony's many key strengths has been exclusives. This has been driven by a number of factors like large install base, significant support / lack of competition in Japan, early release, etc
The market has changed, and I think publishers see the following as "changes from the status quo":
• Early Release: MS launched a year earlier and already has a selection of quality "budget" games. That combined with MS surely hitting stategic price points first will mean MS having a larger install base, this is an important and viable platform for software in a way the Xbox1 was not. Publishers cannot afford to ignore the platform with exclusives because it would cost money.
• Install Base: MS looks like they will have an install base lead into 2008. If Publishers want to maximize their development investment it going exclusive to the PS3 without Sony funding would upset investors and their bottomline.
• Games are more expensive to develop, specifically on the art creation side: Exclusive status needs to be offset by significant funding. We hear rumors of MS paying SK and Bioware $20M+ to cover dev costs for games. That is an expensive investment. Now consider the cost of an exclusive for an existing, established franchise that is guaranteed to sell 2M+ copies? The potential lost sales means the publisher will demand mad moneyhats for exclusive status. Both MS and Sony are less willing to pay lots and lots of money to aquire these exclusives. Again, for publishers to maximize profits of higher dev costs they need to either receive significant funding for exclusive status or go multi-platform.
• Cost: Consumers are price sensative. No one knows exactly how the entire market will react, but we can safely bet consumers wont buy as many $400 consoles as they would $200 consoles, especially when you begin factoring in casual gamers and poorer nations. The cost of the PS3 will slow some sales whereas MS has positioned themselves for a higher install base this time around. I believe Publishers realize this and know that sticking a game exclusive on the PS3 won't maximize sales. In 2009 or so there may be a large enough PS3 install base to ignore MS, but from a Publisher stand point it is almost suicide to ignore 50%+ of the next gen consoles in 2007.
This is an Assassin's Creed thread so I am trying to stay on topic, which I am trying to do by expressing my view on why a Publisher, like Ubi, would not make AC an exclusive on the PS3 in Q1 2007. This isn't pro MS, anti Sony, etc, but my perspective on why this deal turned out the way it did. Now you are looking this as the "MS route" but note I said "changes from the status quo". The status quo is Sony is the market leader, owns Japan, has THE brand presence for gaming and quality consumer goods, and pretty much everyone agrees they are going to win the install base war. But there are a number of factors, from a Publishers perspective, that have changed this generation that make such exclusives not as wise this time around. At least not at this point in time.
And Sony had GTA3...and..?
You want to talk honesty, I say lets talk honestly and seriously. MS and Nintendo have a number of critically acclaimed and excellently selling exclusive titles.
It is not MS slant/route/twist to recognize that MS might just have a number of quality games in their portfolio.
Saying this is like saying Sony relies too much on Japanese products. e.g. I cannot stand turned based RPGs, but I don't see the wealth of such titles on the PS2 as a weakness, but a strength. There are a lot of PC gamers who want PC titles on a console in the living room and non-PC gamers who want to play the best the PC has to offer.
And fair enough, lets look at the PS3 lineup for the next 6 months. It includes a number of PC titles:
Unreal Tournament 2007, Rainbow Six: Vegas, GRAW, Brother in Arms 3, Assassin's Creed, FEAR, the Darkness, Half-Life 2, and so forth.
Seems like a fair share of Sony's upcoming titles are PC ports as well. But no one in their right mind would complain: Those are some REALLY good games!
I cease to see how porting of great PC games hurts Sony or MS.
See above and note the UE3 titles. Further, the biggest realtime demo at E3 2005 for Sony was an UE3 game. Gears of War is made by Epic so of course they are going to use their engine -- common sense says that parts of UE3 are tailored toward GOW and parts of GOW are tailored around the UE3 technology. That is not a bad thing.
But yes, I have not been a big fan of so many games using UE3. But the fact is for ~1M you get a complete game engine and toolset. That could take 12 months and much more money than that to make -- and there is absolutely NO guarantee your in-house tools will be better or that your renderer will be significantly better. From a AAA dev with skilled people, large budget, and and ample dev time -- yes.
But being realistic, UE3 is a good solution for smaller dev teams, on tight budgets, and needed a NEXT GEN looking game out in late 2006 / early 2007.
Since games like Gears of War, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Brother in Arms 3, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and so forth are some of the BEST looking games coming in the next 6 months it would seem MS was VERY smart to go this route.
I am with you on UE3, but the proof is in the end product. And based on what MS and Sony have been showing, in general it looks like UE3 was a big win to push early this gen.
So on both points, UE3 and PC ports, I do think you are wrong: They do benefit Console Gamers and they have benefited the industry in more games, more often, on more platforms.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Wow! Acert, excellent post! you the man
Despite Acert's good efforts on making a well thought out post, I think this to the point comment is what it's all about here. The whole discussion about exclusives not being as common as they used to really doesn't apply to this particular game. Ubisoft had a strong reputation of releasing their games on all platforms last generation already.
The point here is that most large developers recognise that whoever wins the biggest market share in the end, the other players still make for a big enough market extention to make a decent amount of extra money at a relatively small investment - Art and content creation is becoming an increasingly large part of the development budget, and these assets can usually transfer to the other console fairly easily. Sure, some work needs to be done creating an engine, but even then you have an engine which you can then reuse for a few more games.
Ubisoft is a good example here, as they created Beyond Good and Evil using the same engine as Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, and that engine also was further developed and used for the next two installments of the game. Most of these games were available on all three consoles, and Warrior Within even provided the assets for the PSP version.
For such games, it will be interesting to see what small differences will pop up when comparing the different versions. For instance, the Xbox version had more detail in the main character, visible for instance in the hands, and the GameCube version turned out with better color. Some xbox games had progressive scan, dolby 5.1 support, and custom playlists for the Xbox version, but not for the PS2. There have been a lot of head-to-head's on IGN highlighting differences, benefits and downsides of the different versions of multi-platform games. More and more, you saw the PS2 version also lag in framerates here and there.
I'm sure we'll see them again this time around, though they will be more PC/360/PS3 than Xbox/PS2/GameCube with the odd PC thrown in last time. And while it will be interesting to see what differences pop-up, we will also see what we saw last time, which is that multi-platform games really do typically cater for the lowest common denominator, so that mostly the gameplay will be comparable across platforms.
Nevertheless, differences between the systems do have a tendency to show themselves through the games eventually, and by 2008 I think we'll have a pretty clear picture of how the consoles are matching up in practice.
crystalcube
Newcomer
just a conspiracy theorist in me but based on timing of announcement was ubisoft aware that PS3 will not have as many units shipped at launch as expected earlier ?
mckmas8808
Legend
funny you should say that, because it's eaxactly what I said last week (before badboy tried to jump down my throat). I had a feeling the amount of PS3 consoles predicted would play a big role in this title staying exclusive to PS3 for any time frame. I don't think it would be a stretch to think that at all. Big publishers have weight with console makers, and sometimes certain information is disclosed privately, long before any new makes it's way into the public eye. sometimes it never makes it's way to the public.
scooby_dooby
Legend
I don't know, at this point that leaked list is basically accurate as far as I'm concerned, which makes me believe it was always intended to be a PS3/360 title, sony bought a marketing exclusive for E3 imo.
Considering SCEE and EA and GAME and other European gaming industry corporations didn't know about this (including European game developers writing PS3 games), I don't know how Ubisoft would get advance warning. As Scooby points out, it was always on the cards back in inception, before any release dates for PS3 were announced (and the general idea was a March '06 launch!)
What makes you think EA and SCEE didn't know about this? Did any EA rep sound suprised? Even more so then EA, why would you think SCEE (Aka sony computer entertaiment europe) didn't know about this??
What scooby pointed out was that yes Ubi always had both platforms in development. that doesn't mean however they planned on releasing both versions at the same time.
Similar threads
