Ubisoft announces Assassin's Creed (formerly Project Assassin)

[blakjedi]

However, it is still entirely possible that there are multiple strategic and practical reasons working together. Say that, for instance, the PS3 has slightly more power, the Unreal Engine is in a slightly more advanced state on the PS3, the streaming on BluRay is slightly easier to code for, and the extra space on the BluRay disc saves Ubisoft from having to be scrupulous in texture and mesh resolutions, pre-calculated scenes, pre-rendered movies and what not. Sony might just add to that by handing over some cookies for timed exclusives, or maybe they don't.

Then when the PS3 version is launched, they can get the game running for the 360 and in the process work on optimising the code and downgrade the graphics (or optimise the graphics so that no downgrades are necessary). This could in the end result in a 360 game that is almost the same as the PS3 version, thanks to additional development time helping to compensate for slight system inferiority. This happened to PS2 and Xbox games as well, after all - the PS2 had half the RAM of the Xbox, and although I don't doubt DirectX ate some of the difference, the Xbox still had power and resources to spare in most scenarios I presume.

It is just a possibility. My main point, really, is that we don't have to come up with just one reason.

I doubt graphic inferiority whatsoever... but there maybe gameplay differences based on streaming ability etc...

 

[Nemo80]

I doubt graphic inferiority whatsoever... but there maybe gameplay differences based on streaming ability etc...

Of course it could also be grahically inferior. RSX/CELL is simply alot faster, if treated right. But as you said, streaming alone would already make it graphically inferior-smaller levels/rooms.

As HS devs stated, they're streaming a 300MB (e.g. a room as they said) of content every moment from BR, that would hardly fit on a DVD9 if it's just a medium sized game (which AC doesnt look like).

 

[Hardknock]

Of course it could also be grahically inferior. RSX/CELL is simply alot faster, if treated right.

And you know this how exactly?

But as you said, streaming alone would already make it graphically inferior-smaller levels/rooms.

Streaming only decreases loadtimes, there's not technically reason why this couldn't be duplicated on DVDs across multiple discs.

 

[Hardknock]

Agree. Sony never ever claimed that this would be exclusive. It's all UBIs statements. If it was exclusive in any way, Sony would have praised it as such, because it's a potential system seller. On the other hand UBI would harm themselves if they wouldnt do some advertising on a potential 360 version (which they dont do right now).

So that leaves only one logical possibilty. At the moment, it's not in development for 360, maybe because of technological limitations (Blu-Ray).

This is the only 'logical' possibility you could come up with when it was announced at X05?

 

[TheChefO]

after all - the PS2 had half the RAM of the Xbox, and although I don't doubt DirectX ate some of the difference, the Xbox still had power and resources to spare in most scenarios I presume.

It is just a possibility. My main point, really, is that we don't have to come up with just one reason.

In the above instance was it systems resources that caused ps2 to get games first or something else? As you've illustrated ps2 was by all accounts inferior in most respects yet it got more multiplat games first. Why would this be the exact opposite? One constant in this situation is Sony.

But like you said, it could be many technical things, or many incentives. But certainly one of the two.

 

[Nemo80]

This is the only 'logical' possibility you could come up with when it was announced at X05? lol

Ubisoft never announcd it officially, it was MS - they "liked" to have it as it seems. (Get as much games as possible, of course).

And yes there is a reason streaming from BR is much better, because it's much more efficient (constant data rate, in contrast to DVD).

And nice to see that nobody enters the argument that Sony does not do advertising about this being exclusive at all - doesn't fit your expectations, huh?

 

[TheChefO]

Ubisoft never announcd it officially, it was MS - they "liked" to have it as it seems. (Get as much games as possible, of course).

And yes there is a reason streaming from BR is much better, because it's much more efficient (constant data rate, in contrast to DVD).

And nice to see that nobody enters the argument that Sony does not do advertising about this being exclusive at all - doesn't fit your expectations, huh?

Nemo - look back on the posts in this thread.

As has been said before, it seems likely Sony payed UBI something to not advertise this game for 360. Whether it's time exclusive, exclusive, or same day release. At least with this method they can decide at a later date how they will handle the exclusivity issue. Consider it a "lease" over the exclusive.

 

[scooby_dooby]

You dont see Sony hyping this game up at all. It's more Ubisoft.

Give me a break, check most E3 awards and this was PS3's game of show. Let me ask you this, how good do you think Sony's E3 showing would have been if Mercenaries and AC were both announced as 360 titles as well? The answer is very, very poor.

Of course they're not hyping it as an exclusive, if they said it, it would have to be true. That's the entire point, give the perception of an exclusive without ever saying it.

Shifty - The game is getting the same level of advertising it would already, like I said the huge spread in GI, many hands on reports at E3, this game is being hyped to the max and it's not costing Ubi anything at all.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Note; im not saying there is no money involved, its just theres no proof or any real evidence. Just speculation and rumors.

You think Ubisoft is just doing Sony a solid?

@Nemo - the game is in development for 360, if it weren't they would've announced it as an exclusive. Instead the official line is: "No other platforms have been announced at this time"

For what it's worth gamespot agrees with me:
"Bogus or not bogus?: What's "official" and what's going to happen are two different things. PS3 exclusive? Likely Bogus. What do you think?"
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=24636503

- sorry for the double post

 

[rabidrabbit]

Weren't Assasins Creed and Mercenaries pretty low key presence in E3 anyway? I think it would've had little effect on how the shows were perceived had they not been there.

Looking back, none of the E3 showings from none of the three companies really were anything earth shattering.

Sony, well it's been covered here already so there's no need to go back there.

MS had little beyond GoW: Live Anywhere was still just a concept, GTA afer the initial "shock" when people thought it would at least be liited exclusive, was just a tattoo on Moores arm. Halo, a trailer that raised little excitement except among rabid fans who faint for the sight of MC.

Nintendo mainly showed the controller working but the games were GC quality or even below. How exciting is it to watch a bunch of middle aged men waving their arms in front of audience interacting with some simple game graphics. Tennis, some music conducting game, Mario Galaxies, Zelda that's a port of GC title. While the controller idea is exciting, it's difficult to put up a good show based on mainly that.

 

[scooby_dooby]

GoW, Mass Effect, Bioshock were all big hits with the press for 360, for Sony it was Heavenly Sword and Assassin's Creed, but mainly assassins creed that walked away with all the awards.

 

[Nemo80]

GoW, Mass Effect, Bioshock were all big hits with the press for 360, for Sony it was Heavenly Sword and Assassin's Creed, but mainly assassins creed that walked away with all the awards.

Huh? did i miss something or did anyone actually play Mass Effect or Bioshock?

And to the other thing. Sorry, but still nobody explains to me why Sony should not advertise the game of the show as an exclusive, if they have such a deal with ubisoft.

If they have no such deal, they are not allowed to do this kind of advertising.

If there is no such deal, then why Ubisoft does not even say it might come out for 360 sometime (or even PC)? They would harm themselves by saying it's PS3 exclusive, even if it actually was, that's why they don't say anything about it - it's simply not (anymore) in development for 360 and i bet it's because of multiple technical issues - porting is just too expensive with such advanced hardware which is much more different than last generation.

 

[TheChefO]

it's simply not (anymore) in development for 360

Do you have a link to justify this statement?

 

[Nemo80]

Do you have a link to justify this statement?

Do you have a link that says something else? Everything speaks against a 360 version, with UBIsoft at first place...

 

[scooby_dooby]

Ya you missed alot of things apparently. Both MAss Effect and Bioshock were demoed in-game for the press and won many game of show awards or nominations.

They would harm themselves by saying it's PS3 exclusive, even if it actually was,

What are you talking about? They wouldn't harm themselves at all. I guess Gears of War, Mass Effect, Too Human, Crackdown etc have all 'harmed' themselves as well because they've announced exclusivity? You make no sense.

Bottom line is, when a game is exclusive it's announced as such. Therefore this either a timed exclusive, or a same-day release being presented as an exclusive, nobody agrees with your theory it's not in development at all, that's nonsense. If it wasn't in development at all, they would simpyl have announced it as an exclusive title for PS3.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Do you have a link that says something else? Everything speaks against a 360 version, with UBIsoft at first place...

No, Ubisoft refuses to state that it is a PS3 exclusive, instead saying "There have been no other platforms announced", quit making stuff up, they have never said a single word 'against' a 360 version.

 

[Nemo80]

Bottom line is, when a game is exclusive it's announced as such. Therefore this either a timed exclusive, or a same-day release being presented as an exclusive,

Where is the logic? Nobody knows if it's timed exclusive, so if it was, Sony could easily praise it as "exclusive" (like it's been donein the past with lots of titles) but it simply is not the case. And if it wasn't then there is no need to not announce it for other platforms.

nobody agrees with your theory it's not in development at all, that's nonsense. If it wasn't in development at all, they would simpyl have announced it as an exclusive title for PS3.

Exclusive means there is a deal between a Publisher and Sony e.g.

And ofcourse UBIsoft will harm themselves by not announcing it for 360 if there ever was such a version but it doesn't seem to be anymore - that's lost advertising.

Bottom line:
There is no sign of an exclusivity deal with Sony.
There is no sign of another version than the PS3 one.

So what does that say to you?

 

[Tap In]

Bottom line:
There is no sign of an exclusivity deal with Sony.
There is no sign of another version than the PS3 one.

So what does that say to you?

well I know you weren't addressing me but it says to me...

let's drop this nonsense until the events unfold. It's still 5 months until PS3 releases, a lot can happen until then.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Bottom line:
There is no sign of an exclusivity deal with Sony.
There is no sign of another version than the PS3 one.

So what does that say to you?

It says the EXACT same thing that Fight Night 3 did in 2005.

In 2005, there was no announcement of a 360 version, there was also no announcement of exclusivity, on the website they only had playstation listed.

Exactly the same situation as here. We had fanb0ys all over the internet swearing up and down this mean a PS3 exclusive, while everyone else with an ounce of common sense realised it was nothing more than a hype tactic.

Can you remind me what system Fight Night eventually launched on?

"Where is the logic? Nobody knows if it's timed exclusive, so if it was, Sony could easily praise it as "exclusive" (like it's been donein the past with lots of titles) but it simply is not the case. And if it wasn't then there is no need to not announce it for other platforms."

They would not announce it for the same reason EA did not announce the 360 version of fight night, MONEY. Can you not grasp this?

Sony has shown this precedent before, so none of your arguments hold any weight whatsover. They've done it before, they can do it again, and this situation looks VERY familiar.

 

[TheChefO]

Do you have a link that says something else? Everything speaks against a 360 version, with UBIsoft at first place...

Everything except one: announcement. With a game getting as much attention as this, if it were exclusive right now at this point, then Sony would be singing this from the mountain tops. Instead it's infered exclusive. I believe this is because the agreement that Sony has with UBI at the moment is similar to a PR lease-exclusive w/ option to buy-exclusive.