StarDestroyer.Net BBS

More PS3 exclusives head to 360
Koei makes Fatal Inertia and Bladestorm multiplatform, announcing both will come to Microsoft's next-gen console.


It would appear that the PlayStation 3 may not have as many exclusive titles as previously thought. First came the announcement in September when Ubisoft said that the much-publicised Assassin's Creed--which had previously been billed as a PS3 title--would be coming to the Xbox 360 and PC as well.

Producer Jade Raymond told GameSpot in an interview that the reason for this was that Ubisoft had at first been unsure how many consoles it could support but that it had "always wanted to share our next-gen vision with everybody."


Then came an article earlier this week, by Newsweek correspondent N'Gai Croal, in which he stated that both Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto IV were originally intended to be exclusive for Sony's next-gen console, but Kaz Hirai's "slowness" in finalising the deals meant that the developers decided to port to Microsoft as well.



Today, two more games which were previously presumed to be PS3 exclusives have been announced for the Xbox 360 as well: Koei's aerial combat racing game Fatal Inertia and its miltiary actioner Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War.

Fatal Inertia is the debut title for the Toronto-based studio Koei Canada, which is led by Takazumi Tomoike, creator of the Dynasty Wars series, and Koei cofounder and chief advisor Yoichi Erikawa. The game features "an evolutionary sport mixing high-performance street racing, rally, and demolition derby."

Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War is set in the first half of the 14th century in Medieval Europe, and players will assume the role of a mercenary leader commanding troops in real time.

A Koei spokesperson confirmed to GameSpot that Fatal Inertia and Bladestorm would be launch titles for the PS3's 2007 debut in Europe, but wouldn't comment further on the Xbox 360 versions of the game.

Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach? I realise there are costs involved in porting a game over, but for mega-hype games they should make their porting money back comfortably [and then some].

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I don't know but square is primarily why I own a PS2....

General Zod wrote:

Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach? I realise there are costs involved in porting a game over, but for mega-hype games they should make their porting money back comfortably [and then some].

It's all about having the "killer app". If you have fantastic titles that nobody else will have and people are clamoring for, it gives them more incentive to buy your console in order to get the game, and thus rake in more profits since the consoles cost more. Having it available on other consoles gives them less incentive to buy your system.

Darth Wong wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach? I realise there are costs involved in porting a game over, but for mega-hype games they should make their porting money back comfortably [and then some].

It's all about having the "killer app". If you have fantastic titles that nobody else will have and people are clamoring for, it gives them more incentive to buy your console in order to get the game, and thus rake in more profits since the consoles cost more. Having it available on other consoles gives them less incentive to buy your system.

Which is why the owner of the console platform would want to have a single-platform game, which is in turn why the owner of the console platform might want to buy up a software developer as Microsoft did with Bungie. It is still entirely unclear why an independent developer would restrict his sales to a single platform.

weemadando wrote:Dev costs are HUGE factor, it will often be far more profitable to develop and release for a single system, especially if you lack the initial capital to purchase devkits and set up everything for multiple platforms.

Ubiquitous wrote:So Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo pay developers/publishers for one-system deals?

Ubiquitous wrote:So Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo pay developers/publishers for one-system deals?

Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach? I realise there are costs involved in porting a game over, but for mega-hype games they should make their porting money back comfortably [and then some].

Darth Wong wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach? I realise there are costs involved in porting a game over, but for mega-hype games they should make their porting money back comfortably [and then some].

It's all about having the "killer app". If you have fantastic titles that nobody else will have and people are clamoring for, it gives them more incentive to buy your console in order to get the game, and thus rake in more profits since the consoles cost more. Having it available on other consoles gives them less incentive to buy your system.

Which is why the owner of the console platform would want to have a single-platform game, which is in turn why the owner of the console platform might want to buy up a software developer as Microsoft did with Bungie. It is still entirely unclear why an independent developer would restrict his sales to a single platform.

Praxis wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

General Zod wrote: It's all about having the "killer app". If you have fantastic titles that nobody else will have and people are clamoring for, it gives them more incentive to buy your console in order to get the game, and thus rake in more profits since the consoles cost more. Having it available on other consoles gives them less incentive to buy your system.

Which is why the owner of the console platform would want to have a single-platform game, which is in turn why the owner of the console platform might want to buy up a software developer as Microsoft did with Bungie. It is still entirely unclear why an independent developer would restrict his sales to a single platform.

Perhaps if the owner of the console platform were to pay the independent developer a *LOT* of money...

Stark wrote:Hey, remember Munch's Oddysee?

No?

That was one of the big games early in XBox's life. Hilarious, no?

Admiral Valdemar wrote:You know, if you hadn't mentioned that, I'd have been ignorant of it still after all these years. I actually recall all the videos of it before the launch and how good it looked after they defected to Xbox. For some reason, I keep thinking it was Xbox 360 now. Doesn't seem like half a decade ago.

Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach?[and then some].

MKSheppard wrote:

Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach?[and then some].

Because it's not worth it trying to make the game work on Sony's fucked up and retarded memory management system....life's much simpler on the 360.

Stark wrote:Or gets killed by an update!

But that's irrelevant from a dev perspective. The PS3 is an architecture nightmare to all reports, and the dev kit is quite expensive. That means plenty of developers won't be able to 'buy in' to the PS3 market.