Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PS3 Unreal Tournament 3 Delayed

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the it-doesn't-look-good-man dept.

Sony 70

Dr. Eggman writes "Gamasutra breaks the bad news from over at Midway. Midway states that Epic Games' Unreal Tournament 3 for the PS3 has been delayed into the first quarter of 2008. No official reason has been give for the delay, as only CEO David Zucker of Midway has released information. The PC version is still on track for a November release." Additional details from a Midway Conference call are available on Next Generation.

cancel ×

70 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

More bad news (1)

sunsfan1991 (1114991) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838061)

It keeps getting worse for Sony and the PS3, it seems like all the good games have been delayed until 2008 or later. I won't be buying one until Final Fantasy 13 comes out.

Re:More bad news (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838121)

I wonder if this will have a cascade effect. How many games for the PS3 plan on using the UT3 engine and will they be delayed as well?
Since the PC version is on track I would guess that it is an engine performance issue and not a content issue...
In other words it looks as if the Cell programming model is bitting back.

Re:More bad news (1)

I'll Provide The War (1045190) | more than 6 years ago | (#20839779)

Almost every cross-platform Unreal Engine 3 game has been delayed for the PS3 version: Stranglehold, Rainbow Six: Vegas, BlackSite: Area 51, GRAW 2, Medal of Honor: Airborne, Fatal Inertia, etc.

Wikipedia has a list of upcoming games using this engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_engine#Unreal_Engine_3_2 [wikipedia.org]

Re:More bad news (1)

Gravatron (716477) | more than 6 years ago | (#20857505)

Right. It's the delay of the engine that really screwed over the ps3's lineup this year. The non-UT3 games seem to ether ship on time or with small delays of a week or two. Pretty much what you'd expect. Guitar Hero 3,Folklore, Rachet, and Eye of Judgement all hit this month, so i'm happy.

The UT3 thing is probabaly a warning for the future that you don't want to put all your eggs in a 3rd party engine for a launching console. Just too many potential problems.

Re:More bad news (2, Funny)

biocute (936687) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838341)

Same here. I won't be buying one until Duke Nukem Forever comes out.

Re:More bad news (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838369)

It keeps getting worse for Sony and the PS3, it seems like all the good games have been delayed until 2008 or later. I won't be buying one until Final Fantasy 13 comes out.

By then it'll be a more reasonable price. I paid full price and I feel okay with it. It's a nice machine. Doubles as a linux boxen/truly open media center. It has soem okay games no major unit movers yet but I'm hoping MGS4 and FFXII will bring it some respect.

Re:More bad news (1)

SpeedyRich (754676) | more than 6 years ago | (#20840227)

You're so right. I mean, Heavenly Sword. Motorstorm are terrible, terrible games. I do so hate playing them in 1080p - Halo 3 is much better, especially at its sublime resolution of 640p.

Re:More bad news (1)

toolie (22684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20841483)

Because the graphics in Heavenly Sword really make up for the incredibly repetitive game play and stupidly short game itself.

Not that Halo 3 is any better in the length of the campaign part, at least it has multiplayer to fall back on.

Re:More bad news (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20841845)

Both Halo 3 and Heavenly Sword are just fine in terms of length. Heavenly Sword, for that matter, is even better than Halo 3, because it doesn't have a level like the High Charity level. I'll take a shorter, but amazingly fun, game any day of the week, thank you very much.

Re:More bad news (1)

SpeedyRich (754676) | more than 6 years ago | (#20842159)

You are, of course, quite correct.

All those nasty anime shorts, the horrific unlockable art, the tedious poorly-acted cut-scenes truly make Heavenly Sword thoroughly hellish. How blinkered was I! Oh, not forgetting the outlandishly usual multi-player gaming of Motorstorm, too - it's just, well, not terribly ground-breaking, is it?, multi-player. Not these days. Wouldn't you say? That must be where Warhawk fails. Not only does it have quite the worst 1080p graphics I've ever seen; not only does it have the most god-awfully composed surround sound, but to cap it all it TOO is multi-player!!!

What is it with all these wannabe PS3 games, I ask you?

Re:More bad news (1)

toolie (22684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20842329)

Notice how I didn't even mention MotoStorm? The reason is because I enjoyed it and didn't feel like it was a waste of my money. My point, that you completely missed, was that Heavenly Sword wasn't worth the money. The pretty graphics don't increase the replayability at all. MotoStorm and Halo 3 both have a ton more replayability - and I don't feel like either was a waste of money like Heavenly Sword.

Re:More bad news (1)

SpeedyRich (754676) | more than 6 years ago | (#20842599)

I don't know how much you paid, but for my forty quid I felt Heavenly Sword is well worth the cash. I got Hollywood-level cut scenes (not much of a plaudit, I admit) starring the wonderful Andy Serkis; I got exemplary - EXEMPLARY - graphics, fabulous sound and ENJOYABLE gameplay. Not the best gameplay, of course (for that I cast my mind either to Tetris or Elite on the BBC Model B) - but, nonetheless, enjoyable.

Let's see. It took me about 16 hours to finish the game, plus another fun few hours discovering unlocked artwork and anime - let's agree on 20 hours' entertainment. By my ropey calculation that's not too far off 2 pounds per hour. In the UK, I pay 6.5 pounds to see Die Hard 4 for 90 minutes, for crying out loud. Which makes Heavenly Sword a better value proposition by about 50%.

The only - ONLY - thing that you consider affords Motorstorm and Halo 3 (even with its last-generation graphics) more 'playability' is their multi-player aspect.

If I want multi-player, I have Motorstorm/Quake 4/Doom 3/Enemy Territory. I'd rather Serkis, quite frankly.

Re:More bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20843931)

20 hours?! I beat heavenly sword in 6 hours after renting it, and unlocked everything in less than 10. What the heck were you doing for 20 hours?

Meanwhile I am not the type of gamer to rush through games. I put well over 100 hours into each of FFX and FFXII. Close to 200 hours into Oblivion and Morrowind. Likewise I've clocked a good 25 hours so far into Halo 3 on the campaign alone (3 playthroughs, one at normal difficulty, one at heroic collecting the secret skulls, and one co-op on Legendary - the last of which was great fun). I expect I will spend much more time on Halo3 in matchmaking too.

A good game should give at least 30-40 hours of entertainment in my opinion. It doesn't have to all be in the main campaign like an RPG, but I should still be able to get some lengthy enjoyment out of it. Even God of War (which Heavenly Sword was VERY much like) was able to get it right! It's a shame that with the ridiculous space that a blu-ray disc offers, they decided to waste the space with raw uncompressed audio then on the playing experience.

Re:More bad news (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20842373)

Your counter argument to "Heavenly Sword plays like crap despite the graphics" is "it looks pretty and has nice movies"?

Re:More bad news (1)

SpeedyRich (754676) | more than 6 years ago | (#20842869)

Nope. My "counter-argument" is that I disagree.

Mark Rein on the delay (3, Informative)

kosanovich (678657) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838091)

Mark Rein responded to this and said that midway was announcing the delay because "they have an obligation to their shareholders to let them know about the possibility of a delay" but Epic is still trying to get the PS3 version shipped before the end of 2007. He also said that the delay will mean that the PS3 version ships with all the maps that the PC version will have.

http://threespeech.com/blog/?p=604 [threespeech.com]

Re:Mark Rein on the delay (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838151)

Dang! I was going to post that (like I did in the comments of my own firehose submission. Well, here's the link [epicgames.com] anyways. Also, he said the PC version will have a demo come out before release.

Re:Mark Rein on the delay (1)

Shagg (99693) | more than 6 years ago | (#20839403)

Yeah, it sounds like this story was from an investor conference call, not a press release. I thought it was a federal SEC thing that public companies were required to report the worst possible cases to investors? It doesn't mean that they'll necessarily happen that way. A lot of companies file "doom and gloom" things like this for stock purposes, but nobody in the media usually pays much attention to it.

Funny... (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 6 years ago | (#20845185)

That's funny, I remember that Epic said the reason why those maps wouldn't be on the PS3 version was "the PS3 lacks the resources to ensure smooth gameplay", now it turns out it's not true?

Go Epic!

I think I know why... (0, Troll)

apdyck (1010443) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838093)

Did anyone stop to think that the reason they have delayed the release of the PS3 version of the game is that nobody owns a PS3? It's the lowest selling system in the current generation, eclipsed by both the XBOX 360 and the Wii. The primary reason for this is that there is such a high price tag. I think that Sony made a mistake when they decided to go with such high-end hardware for their console. For the price of a PS3, I could buy both a 360 and a Wii. So, would I buy one console, and limit myself to the expensive games released for said console, or would I prefer to buy two consoles, opening up the opportunity to play a wider variety of games with the same quality as that of the more expensive alternative? I think the answer is obvious.

Re:I think I know why... (2, Insightful)

SynergyBlades (1004560) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838245)

Yes, it's currently expensive, and that's fine if you don't want to buy one, but ultimately this delay is nothing to do with its lack of popularity or high price, rather everything to do with getting the engine up to speed on the PS3. It's still coming out before the 360 version, even if that is only to do with the 360 needing extra time to support mods, so it's not like they're leaving the PS3 version until last; if they thought no-one owned a PS3, they wouldn't be making a PS3 version at all.

Re:I think I know why... (3, Informative)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838709)

It's still coming out before the 360 version...

Wrong.

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7359&Itemid=2 [next-gen.biz]


"These technical issues are now completed at a core level in our engine, and now that we have the systems working, looking ahead to 2008, we expect the PS3 versions of our titles to ship day and date with our other versions," [CEO David Zucker] said.

Re:I think I know why... (1)

SynergyBlades (1004560) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838827)

Ah, fair enough. I had assumed that meant for future titles using the engine, considering Sony apparently had a publishing deal regarding UT3, and the article mentions there's still no release date for the 360 version, so I guess it's just a waiting game to see what gets published and when.

Re:I think I know why... (2, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838279)

Did anyone stop to think that the reason they have delayed the release of the PS3 version of the game is that nobody owns a PS3? It's the lowest selling system in the current generation, eclipsed by both the XBOX 360 and the Wii. The primary reason for this is that there is such a high price tag. I think that Sony made a mistake when they decided to go with such high-end hardware for their console. For the price of a PS3, I could buy both a 360 and a Wii. So, would I buy one console, and limit myself to the expensive games released for said console, or would I prefer to buy two consoles, opening up the opportunity to play a wider variety of games with the same quality as that of the more expensive alternative? I think the answer is obvious.

No because a low install base doesn't stop you from shipping. Perfect dark wasn't stalled simply because the n64 had low numbers .The PS3 launch price in Canada is within $50 of the PS2 launch price. Sony misjudged which direction the US dollar was going in not the machine as a whole. The machine itself is very nice. Sony might have made a mistake in the price tag, they badly misjudged how the economies of it's two largest markets were going but I think the delays are due to the newness and complexity of the architecture. It's a lot easier to get near optimal results from an API that has many experienced programmers (Dirext X) and universal shaders help (360). The Ps3 takes more work to get juice out. Many have already pointed this out. It likely has a higher maximum performance but takes more tinkering to get there.

I got a ps3 and a wii so I got games covered. Casual and pretty/hardcore. The answer isn't so straight forward as most of the games on the 360 have PC peers/superiors. So it's really about how much money you have and what you play.

Re:I think I know why... (1)

SeeManRun (1040704) | more than 6 years ago | (#20839347)

Perfect dark wasn't stalled simply because the n64 had low numbers .The PS3 launch price in Canada is within $50 of the PS2 launch price.
Rare was pretty much tied to Nintendo, and had no choice but to make games for the Nintendo64. They hadn't made a game for another system until they were purchased by Microsoft. Also, living in Canada, I see the launch price of the PS3 to be about 2 times higher than the PS2. I remember the PS2 being $299, while the PS3 was $599 and $699. Not sure where your information comes from, but I think its false.

The PS3 might be a technically nice machine, but it is supposed to be a gaming machine, not a complete home media solution. They shouldn't have used the name Playstation if they wanted to make an all-in-one solution. Looking at the Wii, there is no mistaking that Nintendo makes gaming machines, they don't market their machine to do other things. Do what you do well, don't try to do everything for everyone.

Re:I think I know why... (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20839735)

Also, living in Canada, I see the launch price of the PS3 to be about 2 times higher than the PS2. I remember the PS2 being $299, while the PS3 was $599 and $699. Not sure where your information comes from, but I think its false.


No my information is not false go back and look at the launch price, then adjust for inflation. You'll find the 20gb version is withing $50.

PS2 Release Oct 26, 2000 price : $449 CND ($524.07 CND after inflation)
PS3 20gb launch price: $549 CND

The $299 price was the price of a PS2 2 years after launch.

Inflation doesn't work with consoles... (1)

PhoenixOne (674466) | more than 6 years ago | (#20841183)

As we've seen time and time again, you can not adjust for inflation when it comes to consoles or PCs.

I'm not sure why this is, but there is some weird "stasis bubble" around the price which is why my first console (Atari 2600) and my latest console (Wii) both cost $249.99 (and each came with one game).

Re:Inflation doesn't work with consoles... (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20841735)



As we've seen time and time again, you can not adjust for inflation when it comes to consoles or PCs.

I'm not sure why this is, but there is some weird "stasis bubble" around the price which is why my first console (Atari 2600) and my latest console (Wii) both cost $249.99 (and each came with one game).


Inflation does work with consoles. It works with everything as it's a statement of the amount of things you can buy in general with a certain amount of money. So a amount of money at time X is worth a different amount at time Y. Inflation is about the money not the products.

What you mean is that PC's go counter to the general trend of inflation. But Consoles aren't PC's. Games increase in cost along with inflation while Consoles themselves do but in a convoluted way. A PS2 launch vs a Ps2 slimline is a set of hardware which has gotten progressively cheaper to make. Thus it's price decreased. But the next major revision has a higher price because it's not the same hardware. Similarly Hard drives come down in price per GB but remain at approximately the same slowly inflating price point when you consider "product segment" vs GB. A commodity HD is around the same price point of the same HD product segment the year before but with a larger capacity. (HDTV's have a similar trend. At any particular size the price has dropped but in broad categories of "top end" "middle end" and "low end" you find the general price point following inflation.)

PC's get cheaper not due to some strange voodoo about electronics but because they get cheaper to make due to various technological factors. They pass those savings on and reprice as technology advances. But some components don't' follow this trend. Item's like sound cards, Keyboard, Mice, Monitors tend to move with inflation but the reduction in price of CPU's, GPU's motherboards and such counteract it.

This works largely due to a almost ideal free market in those devices and progress in technology related to yield and expense of manufacturing. If they hit a floor on the cost of manufacturing then you'll see all PC component following the inflationary trend.

Re:Inflation doesn't work with consoles... (1)

PhoenixOne (674466) | more than 6 years ago | (#20844985)

I understand inflation. I also understand why electronics get faster and cheaper over time. That wasn't the point of my post.

Maybe I should of said: "Buyers do not adjust for inflation when it comes to consoles or PCs."

The PS3 may be equal to the adjusted price of the PS2, but all consumers see is that the price is double what they paid for their last system.

Re:Inflation doesn't work with consoles... (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20848201)



I understand inflation. I also understand why electronics get faster and cheaper over time. That wasn't the point of my post.

Maybe I should of said: "Buyers do not adjust for inflation when it comes to consoles or PCs."

The PS3 may be equal to the adjusted price of the PS2, but all consumers see is that the price is double what they paid for their last system.

*for this post all currency in USD*
What consumers expected doesn't work either. No expects the 360 to be the same price as the Xbox of the same time frame (the "core" launch price was the same as the xbox launch price but almost double what the price was at the 360 launch, the core version lacked an HD too). No expected the SNES to be the same price as the 7 year old NES (SNES at launch was x2 the price of a NES at launch due mostly to inflation). So why would anyone expect the PS3 to be less then the launch price of the PS2? The "almost double" is relative. The "double" was due to a deep decline in the US currency in the last 8 years. In most markets including japan it was around the same. The 360 matched the price due to skimping on components. The wii went with cheaper components as well. Sony's mistake was not reading the writing on the wall and using more expensive components.

They've noted their error and have worked to reduce costs. At least I hope.

Re:Inflation doesn't work with consoles... (1)

PhoenixOne (674466) | more than 6 years ago | (#20853655)

Am I not being clear?

I'm comparing the launch prices of consoles. Not the current price of old-generation to the launch price of next-generation.

People who buy next-generation consoles in their first year are comparing it to the cost of the last-generation console in its first year. People who wait to buy the last-generation console shortly after the next-generation console is released, will wait until the PS3 cost less than $200 to purchase it.

You can move the numbers around how you like, compare as many apples to as many oranges as you can, but this is been trend. Consumers expect a new console launch price to be roughly equal to the previous console launch price.

Re:Inflation doesn't work with consoles... (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20853887)

Consumers expect a new console launch price to be roughly equal to the previous console launch price.

I guess you didn't see the examples because the history of console price does not support this assertion. Console prices have been all over the map.

ps. Also for most major markets outside the USPS3 launch price is around the PS2 launch price.

Re:Inflation doesn't work with consoles... (1)

PhoenixOne (674466) | more than 6 years ago | (#20861839)

I'm only talking about US prices.* We could compare the current price of a NES in France to the Launch price of the XBox 360 in Austria if you like, but I don't see the point.

Here's the launch prices in US dollars: Atari VCS (1977)$249.99, Nintendo Entertainment System (1985) $199.99, SEGA Genesis (1989) $249.99,NeoGeo (1990) $699.99, Super Nintendo (1991) for $199.99, Jaguar (1993) $249.99, 3DO Interactive Multiplayer (1993) $699.95, SEGA Saturn (1995) $399.99. Nintendo 64 (1996) $199.99, SEGA Dreamcast (1999) $199.99, PlayStation (1995) $299.99, PlayStation 2 (2000) $299.99, Xbox (2001) $299.99, GameCube (2001) $199.99.

Besides three systems, all of the prices has been $250 +/- $50. Hardly all over the map. The three systems that didn't follow this rule didn't do very well.

*(yes, I know there is life outside the US. But I don't know much about their shopping habits.)

Re:I think I know why... (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 6 years ago | (#20849057)

The PS3 might be a technically nice machine, but it is supposed to be a gaming machine, not a complete home media solution.
The PS3 is whatever you want it to be. It can be one of or a combination of gaming, Linux PC, media centre, movie player (DVD, BD and even movie files like mp4), Web browser (not that great but it does work) and it can work well with a PSP (if you have one). The one thing you should get if you are considering buying one or even an Xbox360 is a HDTV and IMHO the bigger the better (depends what you can afford). Even the Wii looks good on most HDTV's 42" and under. If you cannot afford a HDTV (in the US a 32" HDTV can be got for well under US$500) well why are you even considering a PS3, Xbox360 or Wii since game prices are very much on par.

Please don't think I dislike Nintendo because I have a NES, SNES and a Gamecube and I do enjoy some of their games which I can only play on their consoles, but the fact remains from my observation that Gamecube and now Wii game prices remain fairly static (unless the game is a real stinker) over a longer period of time than either Xbox, PS2, PS3 and Xbox360 games. This can actually tip the balance in favor (IMHO) of the more expensive console. Of course some people don't even think along these lines.

I think the bottom line is if you want and can justify a console then pick one that suites your financial situation and lifestyle, remembering to take games and potential games or movies or whatever into account. In other words do some homework.

Re:I think I know why... (1)

tlh1005 (541240) | more than 6 years ago | (#20843349)

No because a low install base doesn't stop you from shipping
Low install base is certainly a reason not to ship. Depending on the current investment a company might choose to go ahead and support a platform and then drop it for the future, or focus on the high volume products which require immediate attention and satisfy the smaller customer base later when the cycle allows time to do so.

Re:I think I know why... (1)

WasteOfAmmo (526018) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838557)

Although I can see your reasoning I question the fact that the PC version is coming out first. What is the order of release to platforms?

Running any current game on a PC requires relatively high-end hardware which means that consumers have to continue to invest more money for upgrades to continue buying new games. I'm ignoring those that restrict themselves to older releases who can stay with the same hardware for longer.

If this was a case about releasing to the more affordable platform and therefore hit a larger customer base then I question the choice of releasing the PC version when they did. Would the not hit one of the other consoles first if this was the case?

I do agree with your logic from a consumer point of view: I own 2 DS lites and will buy a wii before I consider a PS3 simply due to total package pricing (console plus games).

-- Check out a great indi-band's music and help a girl win a guitar : Art Of Dying [worst-decision.com]

Re:I think I know why... (1)

jma05 (897351) | more than 6 years ago | (#20840303)

> Running any current game on a PC requires relatively high-end hardware which means that consumers have to continue to invest more money for upgrades to continue buying new games. I'm ignoring those that restrict themselves to older releases who can stay with the same hardware for longer.

I find PC gaming a lot cheaper but then again I fall into the category you ignore. I don't buy a PC for games. I buy it for my work. I do need/fancy a decent one. I don't factor the basic PC price into cost of gaming. A reasonable graphics card is only $80-$150 to run current games on a very decent 19 inch monitor. My last $60 card (rebates) gave me a mileage of 2 years forward on a 17 inch monitor.

Does console gaming really end up cheaper? At $500 a console and $10 extra per game - it is cheaper for me to buy PC games. Also, I stick to older games. The purchases are usually classics and inexpensive too. I do have a couple of last gen consoles that I bought used. Now there are enough good games for them that don't charge a premium price. This makes more sense for me since I am more of a casual gamer who likes to explore several games than commit to any single one.

That makes sense (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 6 years ago | (#20841169)

I don't buy a PC for games. I buy it for my work. I do need/fancy a decent one. I don't factor the basic PC price into cost of gaming.
I'll just write off the cost of my PS3 as a DVD/Blu-ray player because I need/fancy a decent one. Gotta have a good upconverter for that new HD set!

Also, I stick to older games. The purchases are usually classics and inexpensive too. I do have a couple of last gen consoles that I bought used. Now there are enough good games for them that don't charge a premium price. This makes more sense for me since I am more of a casual gamer who likes to explore several games than commit to any single one.
New games are expensive, so I'm only going to buy the best $5.99 used PS2 games that I missed from the past six years, being a N64/Gamecube owner.

This makes more sense for me since I am more of a casual gamer who likes to explore several games than commit to any single one.
I could build a small house out of all the game boxes I'd have with the money you spent on WTF you're smoking.

Re:That makes sense (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 6 years ago | (#20842093)

I don't buy a PC for games. I buy it for my work. I do need/fancy a decent one. I don't factor the basic PC price into cost of gaming.
I'll just write off the cost of my PS3 as a DVD/Blu-ray player because I need/fancy a decent one. Gotta have a good upconverter for that new HD set!
You need a Blu-Ray player for work? WTF do you do for a living?

Re:I think I know why... (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 6 years ago | (#20842003)

If this was a case about releasing to the more affordable platform and therefore hit a larger customer base then I question the choice of releasing the PC version when they did. Would the not hit one of the other consoles first if this was the case?
Yeah, installed base isn't the only consideration for them. Epic knows that the PC is their base and always has been. UT is a PC franchise, so it would be a pretty big slap in the face to their primary fanbase if they were to release for a console first. Not to mention they have a lot more experience working with the PC than they do with the consoles, so the consoles seem like they would naturally take a bit longer to get working optimally.

Re:I think I know why... (1)

Penguin's Advocate (126803) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838805)

Why would you buy two consoles and limit yourself to only the games available on those two consoles? If you want the widest possible variety of games, you buy every console every generation.

Re:I think I know why... (1)

amuro98 (461673) | more than 6 years ago | (#20839649)

Sure, gamers will buy multiple consoles, but that's what, maybe 10% of the total market? That also doesn't mean you have to buy all the consoles when they're brand new.

Last generation, I bought a PS2 less than 6 months after its US launch. When the Game Cube's price dropped, and there were some nice bundles available, I bought one of those - about 2 years later. The Xbox, on the other hand, wasn't purchased until about a year before the 360 launched. At that point, I'd pretty much finished with the Game Cube, and was finally able to justify buying a Xbox due to its low price and cheap games.

Right now, the order is looking like 360 now, Wii in a year or two, PS3 sometime after that - maybe. There just aren't the exclusives on the PS3 to make it worth buying right now - especially at its high price. Drop it to $300, and show me a good 4 or 5 solid exclusives that I'm interested in, and then I'll consider it. The first solid compelling reason to get a 360 is coming later this month with Ratchet & Clank. Final Fantasy XIII could be another one, but realistically won't come out in the States until 2009.

Re:I think I know why... (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#20840225)

... The first solid compelling reason to get a 360 is coming later this month with Ratchet & Clank. Final Fantasy XIII could be another one ...


Umm ... I'm assuming this is a typo since both those games are coming out exclusively for PS3. ;)

Re:I think I know why... (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#20840159)

Why would you buy two consoles and limit yourself to only the games available on those two consoles? If you want the widest possible variety of games, you buy every console every generation.


Well ... considering I usually only buy one (or maybe two) consoles any generation:

1) Price - not everyone has lots of extra income they want to spend on games. Especially considering the price of current gen games.
2) Space - not everyone has lots of extra space for spare consoles to hang out in. Especially if you are living in limited space (dorm, apartment, room at home).
3) Time - not everyone has lots of extra time to spend playing video games, that they need three consoles worth of games to fill the void. Especially if they watch television, go to movies, read books, or have friends/a real life.

Yeah, sure. Buying all consoles gets you the widest possible variety of games, but you only have X hours a day/week/month to play anyway. Its THOSE hours you need to find games to play. You don't NEED to own all the "best" games of a given generation. Yeah, you might miss a couple, so what? You will either spend more time playing another game you like (you don't have to abandon every game within 8 hours), or else you'll spend the time enjoying another recreational activity.

Either way, you don't need to buy every console of every generation.

Engine readiness (2, Interesting)

SynergyBlades (1004560) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838131)

I wonder if this lends any support to Silicon Knight's claims that the engine wasn't ready for them, and that the PS3 engine build was also way off target when they licensed it. It seems they're still aiming for a December release, but as a public company need to inform shareholders if they may miss that target. On the plus side, they've managed to get every map from the PC version working on the PS3, contrary to their earlier statements.

Re:Engine readiness (1)

provigilman (1044114) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838259)

I don't think so. SK was claiming that EPIC purposefully witheld things so that Gears of War would look better than the competition. UT3 is an EPIC game though. It's their in-house engine... Why would they withold from themselves?

Re:Engine readiness (1)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838817)

This probably won't help SK's lawsuit, and might in fact hurt it. They have two things to prove in their lawsuit - that the engine wasn't ready and that Epic did that intentionally. This proves the engine wasn't up to snuff, but might hurt them because it shows that Epic itself was affected by the engine's preparedness, so why would they do this intentionally? Of course, the conspiracy theorists in the crowd can fire up their argument that Epic is doing this to help deflate the lawsuit. If the lawsuit succeeds, then Epic might be open to even more lawsuits and settlements.

Re:Engine readiness (1)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#20839361)

Actually, I believe SK's main claim is that Epic failed to deliver a working 360 build by the date stipulated in their contract. The whole "they were hoarding it themselves for GOW" is just fluff meant to sensationalize it and maybe up the damages a tad (though it certainly isn't provable in any case). This announcement has no bearing on SK's lawsuit I don't think - after all, it should be clear as day if Epic missed the deadline on the 360.

Re:Engine readiness (1)

kosanovich (678657) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838379)

It appears that it is caused by engine readiness.

According to 1Up, Midways CEO said that there have been technical issues with the Unreal Engine 3.0 which caused delays for Stranglehold and now Area 51 (coming out 3 weeks after the 360 version) and Ut3. However he says that the technical issues have been "ironed out" and after UT3 the PS3 versions of games using the engine will be released at the same time as the 360 versions.

we'll see if that happens.

Here's the link to 1UP http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163346 [1up.com]

Missing the forest for the trees (3, Interesting)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838195)

Holy wrong-point-from-the-article Batman! The big deal is that Midway is having to revise their Q3 reportings because of this, indicating a massive difference in their valuation.

From TFA:

Publisher and developer Midway has announced that it is revising its Q3 estimates due primarily to delays of its headline PlayStation 3 titles

For its third quarter, Midway has revised its sales estimates downward from $50 million to $39 million, and revised full year sales down sharply from $225 million to $170 million

In its conference call with investors, Zucker admitted that the company has "encountered some bumps along the way" in creating its standardized engine technology that it hopes to use for its future titles, but said the the company "continues to believe it's the fastest path to market growth."

If you want an update on Midway Games stock, take a look over here [morningstar.com] .

Re:Missing the forest for the trees (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20839111)

There are rumours that UE3-based Midway home-grown games (eg Stranglehold) may be released on the PS3 before UT3 itself.

That's quite an achievement.

Nail in the coffin... (1, Insightful)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838209)

... for a bad PS3 christmas. GTA IV and UT3 were supposed to keep their sales numbers respectable.

Re:Nail in the coffin... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838443)

When were the sales numbers for the PS3 ever acceptable? With Sony being so confident before release, saying that everyone was going to want one, no matter how much it cost, just because it's a playstation, I would say that there numbers have always been pretty low.

Re:Nail in the coffin... (2, Interesting)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20839169)

When were the sales numbers for the PS3 ever acceptable? With Sony being so confident before release, saying that everyone was going to want one, no matter how much it cost, just because it's a playstation, I would say that there numbers have always been pretty low.

Their at 1/3 of what the 360 is at (4.6 mil sold vs ~12 mil sold; pre halo 3 numbers). They are "catching up" but not int he US market. Mostly Japan and other markets where the 360 doesn't expand as fast. The 360 is doing pitifully in Japan likely due to not having a single clue how to market it there. The iPod example defeats any notion that it's nationalistic pride keeping the 360 down.

Re:Nail in the coffin... (1)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 6 years ago | (#20839731)

The 360 is doing pitifully in Japan likely due to not having a single clue how to market it there.

Or not marketing at all. On launch day there were reports of Japanese gamers seeing the 360 in stores and thinking it was just a white Xbox1.

Re:Nail in the coffin... (1)

amuro98 (461673) | more than 6 years ago | (#20839751)

I don't think Microsoft, or anyone else, seriously expected the 360 to do well in Japan - not after the Xbox, anyways.

However, even in Japan, the PS3 is still struggling because of the Wii. The Wii's been going strong worldwide, but in Japan, it's burying the PS3 (and the 360) by a huge margin. This makes me wonder what the fate of all those JRPGs that were looking to the PS3 as their chosen platform. Will the 360 get more JRPGs this time around? Or will we see them all migrate to the Wii? The 360 already has more RPGs than the PS3 - which is pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Re:Nail in the coffin... (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20840101)

I don't think Microsoft, or anyone else, seriously expected the 360 to do well in Japan - not after the Xbox, anyways.

However, even in Japan, the PS3 is still struggling because of the Wii. The Wii's been going strong worldwide, but in Japan, it's burying the PS3 (and the 360) by a huge margin. This makes me wonder what the fate of all those JRPGs that were looking to the PS3 as their chosen platform. Will the 360 get more JRPGs this time around? Or will we see them all migrate to the Wii? The 360 already has more RPGs than the PS3 - which is pretty pathetic in my opinion.


The 360 has more of everything in general for title due to the year lead. The PS3 is in the first year slump where many studious are still in production with their products. Like the 360 the first gen of titles didn't look that great, trickled in, and lacked variety or polish (in fact the generation winner suffer from the same issues. The existing wii library isn't that great). Give it a year before you call it dead. Right now there is approx. 4.6 million Ps3 out there with 6 million shipped. Which is right about where the 360 was at the same point in it's lifespan. I think we're looking at a two horse race for second and the Wii may get more title but I would greatly prefer if Nintendo didn't force everyone to include a wii mote specific function. I'm getting really sick of shaking that damned thing.

Re:Nail in the coffin... (1)

sunsfan1991 (1114991) | more than 6 years ago | (#20841049)

"This makes me wonder what the fate of all those JRPGs that were looking to the PS3 as their chosen platform." "Or will we see them all migrate to the Wii?" I would love to see the Wii get some good RPG's

Re:Nail in the coffin... (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838515)

when were the sales ever respectable? But yeah not coming out by Christmas is a very, very stupid idea. But do you think maybe someone there with an ounce of common sense will say "hey, let's start selling pre-orders by Christmas" so they can at least redeem some of their Christmas sales?

As long as the PC version is not delayed! (1)

SeeManRun (1040704) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838517)

*Sigh of relief*

Poor, Poor Fanboys... (-1, Flamebait)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838839)

I feel sorry for anyone that has to play a FPS like Unreal on a console. It's simply inhuman to think of those clunky gamepad controls!

Re:Poor, Poor Fanboys... (2, Informative)

iainl (136759) | more than 6 years ago | (#20838955)

PS3 UT3 allows you to plug in a standard USB keyboard and mouse, if that's what floats your boat. I don't know if that's the case for the 360 release as well, but I can't think why not.

Re:Poor, Poor Fanboys... (1)

amuro98 (461673) | more than 6 years ago | (#20839837)

Well, that's nice. However, if you are a serious FPS fan, you probably have a decent PC, so why would you buy UT for your game console? The PC version will have better graphics, not to mention an active user community generating tons of mods and new maps. I don't think either the PS3 or 360 version will have this sort of open access to user-created material (not to mention, the tools to create them).

Better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20840679)

... Better graphics? ROFL. With a video card that costs as much as a PS3 itself, you might be able to get the *SAME* graphics.

Re:Better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20842277)

... Better graphics? ROFL. With a video card that costs as much as a PS3 itself, you might be able to get the *SAME* graphics.
Sorry, but PC graphics start leaving consoles in the dust by the time the console is a year old, if not sooner. Even a $300 vid card will be enough to dust the PS3 by now. I wonder how people use a keyboard/mouse in the living room anyway. People used to argue that they didn't want to plug their PC in to the TV because they didn't want to mess with a keyboard/mouse. Now people claim that PS3 is just as good as a PC b/c you can use the keyboard/mouse. Weird.

Re:Poor, Poor Fanboys... (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 6 years ago | (#20850461)

And if you're not a "serious" FPS fan with a painfully expensive graphics card, or just like playing on a 42" screen rather than a 17" one, then the console versions will do just fine, thanks.

I'm perfectly prepared to admit I'm not a serious FPS fan, which is why I bought a 360 instead of a whole new PC (my CPU isn't up to much either) when I wanted to play Oblivion; I wanted to play PGR3 and Dead Rising as well. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to play UT3 when it comes out for my platform.

Re:Poor, Poor Fanboys... (2, Insightful)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20839985)

I feel sorry for people who derive personal validation from the control scheme they use in their games.

Re:Poor, Poor Fanboys... (1)

Mylakovich (1101285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20841789)

I just feel sory for anyone playing a FPS with a controller.

Re:Poor, Poor Fanboys... (2, Interesting)

TheTick21 (143167) | more than 6 years ago | (#20842759)

The PS3 will allow a mouse and keyboard.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>