Splinter Cell 5 is exclusive to the 360?
- Thread starter PSman
- Start date
not annouced by ubisoft.
When did Ubisoft announce anything about Splinter Cell 5? All I can find any info about is the leaked screenshots. Splinter Cell 4 is scheduled for X360, Xbox, PSP, PS2, PC and Gamecube. Its non-appearance on the PS3 is probably due to the delays of the machine and devkits. Maybe you're getting confused by the X360-exclusive content for its version.
It would certainly be weird, considering they multi-platform most everything else. (Even to GameCube, where I don't think they enjoy comparatively great sales.) Few enough expected it with AC, and R6:Vegas is heading to the 360 and PS3, so... is there any reason to expect they'd go for more than a timed exclusive otherwise? Would the SC engine be somehow THAT much more complex that they'd have to go exclusive to one platform, when they can pull off marvels like Assassin's Creed multi-platform?
Not buyin' it. Short of Microsoft handing them the keys to their money vault for Ubisoft to spend a week looting, I figure they're short more on comments because of certain internal struggles they've having with Sony (such as related to online support), or quite possibly to just sit on the PS3 version a while to tweak it more and add more to it (such as the PS2 version of RE4 to the GC one) and bust out when there are more PS3's on the market than during the beginning drought.
And maybe--MAYBE--there's the chance that they'll be working on divergent storylines for the platforms instead, so the PS3 wouldn't get "Double Agent" but instead its' own sort. If they're going to do the same thing in regards to the Wii, maybe they're thinking they'll get more sales out of the additional effort: each of the platforms would get the "Splinter Cell" they desire, but there'd be more chance that multiple-console owners would buy the versions for EACH to take advantage of the platforms' uniqueness and divergent storylines. Maybe get different characters doing different things...
An unlikely proposition, but interesting nevertheless, and something they're doing to a degree already with the PSP Essentials. (Unless that is mainly repeating earlier material...? I haven't really bothered with the Splinter Cells.)
Not buyin' it. Short of Microsoft handing them the keys to their money vault for Ubisoft to spend a week looting, I figure they're short more on comments because of certain internal struggles they've having with Sony (such as related to online support), or quite possibly to just sit on the PS3 version a while to tweak it more and add more to it (such as the PS2 version of RE4 to the GC one) and bust out when there are more PS3's on the market than during the beginning drought.
And maybe--MAYBE--there's the chance that they'll be working on divergent storylines for the platforms instead, so the PS3 wouldn't get "Double Agent" but instead its' own sort. If they're going to do the same thing in regards to the Wii, maybe they're thinking they'll get more sales out of the additional effort: each of the platforms would get the "Splinter Cell" they desire, but there'd be more chance that multiple-console owners would buy the versions for EACH to take advantage of the platforms' uniqueness and divergent storylines. Maybe get different characters doing different things...
An unlikely proposition, but interesting nevertheless, and something they're doing to a degree already with the PSP Essentials. (Unless that is mainly repeating earlier material...? I haven't really bothered with the Splinter Cells.)
Actually, I think we should try to make clear how this exclusive thing works in practice.
As far as I know, there aren't any exceptions - each developer will pay its own development costs down the line, unless the game fails miserably and they still get away with it. The publisher only gives them an advance which they will substract from the sales revenue to recoup their investment.
I'd rather believe that an exclusive deal means that the contract favors the developer a lot more then usual. There are many possibilities: they can retain IP rights, they have a bigger royalty percentage, MS requires a lower amount of licence fee per games sold; and these can all apply to inhouse development teams like UBI and EA as well. Keep in mind, if MS asks $5 less per unit, that already means an extra $5 million pure profit for a million selling game. For something like GTA 4, we're talking about as much as 30-50 million.
Smaller, independent or semi-independent game studios can also negotiate better terms for the calculations of how MS gets back its advance. In most cases the publisher gains a larger percentage of the revenue then the developer who did the actual work, just because they've presented the advance to fund the actual development, and it's still a better deal then a straight bank loan. But if a title has achance to increase the console's value for the customers, maybe even become a system seller, then I'm sure that MS or Sony is willing to give up some of their profits in exchange, just to secure the title.
So the point is, that I can't really believe MS and Sony throwing out millions to developers and not taking it back at all, that sounds unrealistic.
As far as I know, there aren't any exceptions - each developer will pay its own development costs down the line, unless the game fails miserably and they still get away with it. The publisher only gives them an advance which they will substract from the sales revenue to recoup their investment.
I'd rather believe that an exclusive deal means that the contract favors the developer a lot more then usual. There are many possibilities: they can retain IP rights, they have a bigger royalty percentage, MS requires a lower amount of licence fee per games sold; and these can all apply to inhouse development teams like UBI and EA as well. Keep in mind, if MS asks $5 less per unit, that already means an extra $5 million pure profit for a million selling game. For something like GTA 4, we're talking about as much as 30-50 million.
Smaller, independent or semi-independent game studios can also negotiate better terms for the calculations of how MS gets back its advance. In most cases the publisher gains a larger percentage of the revenue then the developer who did the actual work, just because they've presented the advance to fund the actual development, and it's still a better deal then a straight bank loan. But if a title has achance to increase the console's value for the customers, maybe even become a system seller, then I'm sure that MS or Sony is willing to give up some of their profits in exchange, just to secure the title.
So the point is, that I can't really believe MS and Sony throwing out millions to developers and not taking it back at all, that sounds unrealistic.
Well there is certainly good reason to "make less profit on a popular game to attract more consumers to your platform and stiff your competitors," which is what we'd be referring to it. We're not saying the "payment" would be handing the developer a giant bag with millions of dollars in it, extra profit is extra profit.
One wonders just how much the practice would go with the likes of "timed exclusives," though, considering a developer could get incentivized to relax their development timetable stress on the competitors' version, tweak the engine more specifically for their platform, and toss in extra content. You end up paying money to make your competition's version better!
groper said:
fearsomepirate said:
There seems to be some confusion in this thread.
The screenshots are of Splinter Cell: Double Agent (i.e Splinter Cell 4) which is due out this fall.
Splinter Cell: Conviction (leaked name) is Splinter Cell 5, and this is the title in development by the Montreal group I believe.
2 different games, and based on what I have read (I didn't get to listen to the audio streams) it is the next SC title made by Ubisoft MTL.
Similar threads
- Locked
