Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) XBox (Games)

A Catalog of Lost PS3 Exclusives 95

Posted by Zonk from the wayward-wanderers dept.
Game|Life has a breakdown of the numerous PlayStation 3 exclusives that might have been. The high cost of making games and Sony's slow start out of the game means that titles like Assassin's Creed and Devil May Cry IV, which may have been exclusive to a Sony console at one point, will now be leading a double life on Microsoft's Xbox 360. "Grand Theft Auto IV -- Peter Moore shocked the world at E3 last May when he announced that GTAIV would appear day-and-date on Xbox 360 and PS3. Months later, Newsweek reported that Take Two had wanted to continue its long-standing practice of giving Sony a lengthy timed exclusivity on the game, but they didn't want it. Newsweek says that former Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi's 'radio silence' on the issue left Sony's American execs without the authority to make deals, and nothing happened. Same with ... Assassin's Creed -- Again, Newsweek revealed that Ubisoft had actually gone to Sony with an offer to make the game a PlayStation 3 exclusive. Although Sony did go through the trouble of asking Ubisoft to make it seem as if their multiplatform action game Assassin's Creed was indeed PS3 exclusive , it came out shortly after E3 that it would ship simultaneously on both platforms."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Catalog of Lost PS3 Exclusives More

A Catalog of Lost PS3 Exclusives

Comments Filter:

  • Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wicko ( 977078 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @05:42PM (#19736267)
    If Sony were to lose MGS4 and FFXIII, that might be the proverbial nail in PS3's coffin. I think it would help considerably if Square Enix were to release a remake for FF7 and FF8. Especially since Sony decided to play nasty and show off FF7 as a tech demo, with no remake in sight.
    • While it would still be a considerable amount of work, in my opinion an FF7 remake would be the best thing that could happen to the PS3. The world's already made, the mechanics and balancing already done, and they even recently made Advent Children. Where's the downside to a remake?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Wicko ( 977078 )
        I'd imagine its because they want to release new content (ie FFXIII), but who's stopping them from contracting another company to do it? Like you said, everything is done. All they need is artwork, and that's just an improvement on pre-existing artwork.

    • Re:Ouch (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MikeFM ( 12491 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @08:57PM (#19738301) Homepage Journal
      I'd buy a remake of FF8 for PS3 - which would require I buy a PS3. I want to buy a PS3 because I do think they are the best game console currently available - there just has yet to be any compelling title to give me an excuse to do it. Grant Theft Auto 4 might be a reason if the PS3 version is better enough than 360 versions to be worth it. (Past info about GTA4 made it seem that the 360's weak points were going to result in a lesser version of GTA4 for it.)

      Sony needs to step up. They delivered a kick ass console and since then they've done exactly nothing with it. I need at least half a dozen awesome games that aren't just as good on other consoles before I'll drop $600 on a PS3. What good is buying a Porsche if you can't put gas in it?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Wicko ( 977078 )
        This is true. It sounds like Sony has been using the "we can do it, why can't you?" stance on assisting developers. As opposed to MS, who has usually been there to assist the big developers in their games for their OS and console.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MikeFM ( 12491 )
          It's just stupid for Sony to chase off their own developers. They have the best hardware. They have loyal fans, like myself, waiting to buy a PS3 when given a reason to. Are they going to lose the console war because they didn't feel like getting games produced for their console? Morons.

          Sadly, I think I've bumped the PS3 from my next-to-buy list to a Wii (Worst console name ever and all.) because the Wii actually has games coming out for it that look interesting.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Wicko ( 977078 )
            I will stick with the tried and true PC. I am a big fan of FPS, so it's hard to satisfy me on a console. I own a PS2 for its jRPGs. The only attractive console for me currently is the 360, mainly due to gears of war, assassin's creed, and a handful of others. But that will wait til a price drop occurs. And AFTER I buy a new PC for crysis this summer :)

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by MikeFM ( 12491 )
              The only real reason, IMO, to bother w/ a console at all is the lack of effort needed for installing and running games. I get annoyed at PC gaming because there are always hoops to jump through to get a game installed and running. I have a powerful CPU and video card and IMO I shouldn't have to put up with the kind of BS many games put you through.

              Also, it's more comfortable to sit on the couch and play than to sit at my desk. I do like mind-oriented games like Civ on the PC better though because a keyboard

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Wicko ( 977078 )
                I am a programmer, haha, I am used to sitting at a desk. I have a nice chair and i put my feet up on my subwoofer, and it is relaxing as hell lol. And hoops, yeah I know what you mean. But at the same time I understand, its ridiculous how many different possible set ups you can have. But there are some games that are just terribly buggy, I just don't bother playing them, like the battlefield series. Also, I think developers take advantage of the fact that its much easier to release buggy software and patch
            • Care to list the RPGs you play on the PS2? Id like to check 'em out.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Wicko ( 977078 )
                Hmm, okay. Besides the obvious FF games, I play: Xenosaga 1 2 and 3 Star Ocean 3 Wild Arms 4, Alter Code F (remake of the first PSX version) hah, come to think of it, I don't have very many. Some that my friends play: Disgaea Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 (surprisingly enough these are very good) Breath of Fire DragonQuest There are a lot of good PSX ones as well, if you don't mind the graphics downgrade: Legend of Dragoon Wild Arms 1 and 2 (one of the first 3D rpgs, with respect to the battles) Lunar 1 and 2

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Wicko ( 977078 )
                oops, sorry, i forgot to post as Plain Old Text:

                Xenosaga 1 2 and 3
                Star Ocean 3
                Wild Arms 4, Alter Code F (remake of the first PSX version)

                hah, come to think of it, I don't have very many.

                Some that my friends play:
                Disgaea
                Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 (surprisingly enough these are very good)
                Breath of Fire
                DragonQuest

                There are a lot of good PSX ones as well, if you don't mind the graphics downgrade:
                Legend of Dragoon
                Wild Arms 1 and 2 (one of the first 3D rpgs, with respect to the battles)
                Lunar 1 and 2
                FF Tactics
                Thousand
                • Thats a whole bunch of prospectin' I have to do now. . . Thanks for taking the time to throw that together.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by donaldm ( 919619 )
        If you are willing to look around you can probably do a deal for a PS3 although the same could be said for the Xbox360 and Wii. I got my PS3 (Australian) for AU$499 (approx US$407 at the time) with the trade in of a 5 year old working PS2 plus 10 old (to me) games. So far I have only one PS3 game (Oblivion) but I have over 50 PS2 and over 20 PS1 games and I find since version 1.8 of the firmware video upscaling to 720p (my HDTV) and 1080p (a friend of mine) makes PS2 games look so much better that I have st

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by miro f ( 944325 )
        If you care about these things, the Xbox version is meant to have exclusive downloadable episodic content (for a fee, of course).

        In terms of content, at least, the Xbox 360 version is better. In terms of how the game actually plays, well, no one will know until it comes out, obviously.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MikeFM ( 12491 )
          It was my impression that the 360 version wasn't going to come with us much content ebcause it didn't offer a hdd by default whereas the PS3 has a hdd and more disc space. Maybe that's changed?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by miro f ( 944325 )
            both games will be identical content wise, with the exception of the 360 containing downloadable content

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by MikeFM ( 12491 )
              Sounds as if they decided to wuss out on the design. What a bummer. I was really looking forward to massive worlds to explore and terrorize. :)
          • The whole complaint about the lack of a HDD holding back the game on the 360 was that ALL version of the game were going to be the same (360, PS3 and whatever else) so the technical limitations of any one platform would hold them ALL back.

            MS then paid for exclusive episodic content for the 360 on top of the core game. In terms of content on the disc, level design, etc. it should be identical across all versions.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by MikeFM ( 12491 )
              So the 360 held the game back for ALL systems and then paid to get some extra goodies made available to 360 users so that the 360 appears to be the best system? That sucks.

              That sounds like proof of why Microsoft shouldn't be allowed into the game industry. They already wrecked the PC industry with that kind of tactics. I don't really care if games are released for all available platforms but I'd hope that each variant could live up to their full potential. Otherwise you may as well just get the cheap and cr
              • This is nothing new nearly every cross platform title last generation was held back by the PS2's technical limitations... Cross platform titles are limited by the weakest link on all consoles they're slated for release on. This isn't some "MS Tactic" this is business as usual the way it's worked since video gaming in the 80s.

                As for the content, just because they commissioned the creation of exclusive content doesn't make them evil, it's content that wasn't going to exist in the first place and now it do

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by MikeFM ( 12491 )
                  Reasons to hate Microsoft? I call it almost twenty years in the PC industry. I don't need to look very hard to find their mark of evil anymore. Not that Sony looks like it needs much help to cut it's own throat lately.

                  Still, if you can't see anything wrong with Microsoft's behavior here then you obviously haven't spent much time watching how they dig their claws in and destroy an industry. They'll slide a little bit at a time into a position of control and then abuse the hell out of everyone so long as they
  • Though "exclusives" do boost console sales for individual platforms for some consumers. But for the gamer who cannot afford or refuses to buy every console made for a given generation, having the majority of games on all platforms is a great thing. I have a Wii, a 360 and my trusty PS2 and several of the games listed would have been skipped if not for going cross platform. The market is growing and spreading out enough now that 3rd party platform exclusives will only become more and more rare. The exception may be the Wii just because of the controller but concidering most of the games aimed there are more casual titles I dont think its anything any hardcore gamers are going to worry about.

    • Re:Cross platform is good for everyone but fanboys (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nschubach ( 922175 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @05:52PM (#19736379) Journal

      I dont think its anything any hardcore gamers are going to worry about.
      They should. The world can't handle another industry bought by Microsoft.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Khaed ( 544779 )
        Given that the other alternative is Sony (as Nintendo isn't fighting to be cutting edge), it's a case of rock/hard place. Right now, Sony irks me more than Microsoft, so there's a bit of schadenfreude on my part when Sony gets handed bad news. (Plus, all the Sony fanboys that pissed me off leading up to the PS3 launch.)

        However, I own neither an X-Box 360 nor a PS3, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. If Microsoft and Sony want to wail on each other then that's fine by me.
        • Given that the other alternative is Sony (as Nintendo isn't fighting to be cutting edge)

          I think Nintendo's point is that cutting edge for it's own sake is beside the point of gaming. And I respect them for that, they do seem to have some pretty fun games, the other two platforms seem to be be cutting edge for its own sake. I suppose one might also legitimately say that Nintendo is cutting edge marching to the beat of its own drummer.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Khaed ( 544779 )
            I wasn't denigrating Nintendo there; I have a Wii, because of the three systems, it seemed to offer the most of what I wanted. I liked a lot of Nintendo's older games, so the virtual console is nice (yes, there's emulation -- but the VC games look better, to me, than my emulated games. I'm not sure why, though). The Gamecube backwards compatibility is also nice, as I liked a few games there -- Metroid, Mario Kart: DD.

            But it's nowhere near graphically capable of taking on, say, the 360, and Nintendo has neve

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by LKM ( 227954 )
          I'd tend to Sony simply because they're incompetent. If Microsoft gains control of the console market, they're not going to fuck around and screw it up next gen. They're going to make damn sure they stay in control, and they're going to do whatever it takes, see Windows. Sony, on the other hand, is too disorganized internally.

          If one of them is to win, I want it to be Sony. Not because they're more moral, but because they're more incompetent.

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by Sciros ( 986030 )
        It's fine. Nintendo has a tight grip on the handheld market that MS hasn't a prayer of getting into. For now, the PS2 is selling well enough anyway, hahah ^_^
      • Oh give me a break. Sony has the money to do the same and with many exclusives that have left had the comfort level of prior exclusives to keep many if they wanted. The problem with Sony is more ego than anything, they have been king of the conosole world for two generations and still believe they are indomitable. There is an interesting article at
        http://kotaku.com/gaming/gag-order/scea-prez-we-do nt-buy-exclusivity-274862.php [kotaku.com]

        about how Sony refuses to pay for exclusivity (though that wasnt the case when they were trying to kill Sega and Nintendo two generations ago, look at square), IMHO this will be their downfall. It's amusing that Sony bashes Nintendo's over-dependence on 1st party development yet they are well on their way to the same dependancy. When it comes to product wars you do what you have to do to win, if MS gets the leg up on Sony only Sony will be the blame.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      Almost.

      You forget that making a game cross platform also increases development time while cutting features since they have to write and test on multiple hardware platforms then optimize for the lowest common denominator.

      For instance, if the PS3 is good at X but bad at Y, and the xbox 360 is good at Y but bad at X, then the engine developers generally will develop something that avoids both X and Y.

      Granted this can be mitigated (for instance, a title released for PS3/360 will probably have a better graphics
    • I agree with you to great extent, however, I do want to make a note that developing for multiple consoles is a time-consuming endeavour that can result in some sacrifices to game quality. In the last generation, developing for GC, PS2 and XBox was not as difficult, as the specs of each machine were close enough that properly designed modular code wouldn't need to be changed, just added on to. Yet even then, you would be limited in each area (CPU, memory, graphics, etc.) by the lowest-performing system in the bunch, meaning you might not take advantage of each system's strong points.

      Things have shifted towards rewarding exclusivity. PS3's cell architecture is certainly very powerful, but taking advantage of the cores takes specialized code. Certainly no game that runs on the PS3 or XBox 360 would run well on the Wii without significant changes, regardless of the control scheme. Perhaps it's time that consoles start differentiating even more; I have no doubt that great, innovative games will come out for the Wii that take advantage of its differences. Games will come out for the PS3 that look and feel amazing because they take advantage of its power. Already we see games on the XBox 360 that use XBox Live so successfully that playing it on another system is unsatisfying. Yes, it means gamers have to spend more for systems. But with any luck, we will be rewarded with more interesting games. *crosses fingers*

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )
        I think next gen consoles are easily comparable platforms, just as PS2 / XBox and GC were before. And by next gen I mean XBox 360 and PS3, not Wii which I'll comment on afterwards. Sure there are differences between the 360 & PS3 but there is also a great deal of similarity - the amount of memory, CPU speed, the supported resolutions, the controllers, the network connectivity and so forth. It means all graphic assets, sounds, and a great deal of the game code is going to be identical for either platform
    • Exclusives are good for a platform's health. I bought a PS3 and a Wii, and I'm not going to buy a 360. Currently, there are pretty much no games available for the PS3, and many of those that are are also available (often in superior versions) on the 360. Obviously, the PS3 isn't selling well, so games aren't showing up.

      A few A-list exclusives could changes that. They could give people an incentive to buy a PS3, which would publishers give an incentive to put more effort into their PS3 ports, and create more
  • Damn it, I forgot my Sony bashing hat...

  • We're still looking at some great exclusive games. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tarun713 ( 782737 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @06:05PM (#19736513)
    I disagree that MGS4 and FFXIII will be the only 'big' exclusives on the PS3.

    God of War 3, Kingdom Hearts, White Knight Story - these are just a few of the exclusive games that will still only appear on the Playstation 3.

    A price drop could balance the scales - but there are still exclusives on both sides that could pull a lot of weight.

  • Ken strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @06:29PM (#19736775)
    "Newsweek reported that Take Two had wanted to continue its long-standing practice of giving Sony a lengthy timed exclusivity on the game, but they didn't want it. Newsweek says that former Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi's 'radio silence' on the issue left Sony's American execs without the authority to make deals, and nothing happened. Same with ... Assassin's Creed"

    A lot of people have attributed some of the generally accepted poor decisions in the PS3's design to be Ken Kutaragi's doing, but I wasn't aware that he had anything to do with this. How can you not look at a game such as Grand Theft Auto IV and realize that it will be a major mover on consoles in the North American region. The sales numbers for the game during the PS2 generation were the best for any game on the console. Either he's incredibly stupid or was completly blinded by pride and assumed that consumers would flock to the new console regardless of whether or cost two dollars or two thousand and regardless of whether or not there were any good games on the platform.

    I would have encouraged Take Two not only to release on the PS3 first, but to make the game big enough that it would need to span at least two DVD's, just to rub it in the face of anyone who said you didn't need Blu-Ray. Do you know how pissed off I would be if I had to switch DVDs ever time I drove to a certain part of the map? It doesn't matter if any exclusive they have eventually trickles out onto the Xbox 360, they just need something to create some buzz about and a set of good games that were designed for the PS3 first instead of lazily ported over after the fact.

    What the hell was Ken thinking (or not thinking more likely) when all of this was going down?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by I'll Provide The War ( 1045190 )
      Look at the top selling PS2 games in the US:
      1. GTA:VC
      2. GTA:SA
      4: GTA 3

      Can the fact that these titles sell so poorly in Japan really cause Japanese execs to ignore their importance? Talk about myopic.

      http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&console= PS2&publisher=&sort=America [vgchartz.com]

      Either he's incredibly stupid or was completly blinded by pride and assumed that consumers would flock to the new console regardless of whether or cost two dollars or two thousand and regardless of whether or not there were any good games on the platform.

      Just look at his public statements:

      > PS3 is "for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."

      And statements from other

  • What's with all the anti-PS3 FUD?? A great PS3 exclusive just came out today with Ninja Gaiden Sigma. Right around the corner is Hot Shots Golf, Heavenly Sword, MGS, Gran Turismo, and dozens of other great exclusives.

    Why do Slashdot editors hate the PS3?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Trojan35 ( 910785 )
      Because Sony has once again overpromised on a console that frankly under-delivers. Compare that list of PS3 games (HS, MGS, GT) versus what MS has coming out on the cheaper platform with more games available (BioShock, Halo 3, Mass Effect, Two Worlds, Too Human, Blue Dragon).

      We can debate which is better, but MS is obviously on the same playing field at a cheaper price. This means we don't have to put up with Sony's BS, FUD, and market bullying for a 3rd generation in a row. Honestly, the Sony bullying of d

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Doctor_Jest ( 688315 ) *
        What did they overpromise? I don't think it under-delivers at all. (And yes, I have both the 360 and the PS3) What you're comparing to is 360's 2nd year with Ps3's first year. Look at the first year of the 360... lackluster titles, QC issues (that haven't gone away)... I think Resistance and Motorstorm are solid titles (YMMV)... and no, I'm not in denial and trying to justify my purchase... I look forward to Heavenly Sword, and Lair... I'm one of the few people who couldn't care less about Halo 3.... a
      • Yeah, thank God!

        With Microsoft in control, we can be sure there will be no BS, FUD and market bullying.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LKM ( 227954 )
      Ninja Gaiden Sigma? A port from an Xbox game? I think you just made a point, but not the one you wanted to make.

  • I believe that in a few years to come, Sony's product will be superior in hardware, making it extremely difficult for developers to produce 'up to date' graphics on other systems. From a developers point of view, knowing that every console has a 60 gig hard drive at your disposal, makes it hard to turn away. You will slowly notice a gap in functionality with the systems and the one that's more versatile shall conquer.

    "It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail." -Gore Vidal

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megane ( 129182 )

      I believe that in a few years to come, Sony's product will be superior in hardware

      That doesn't make sense. Either the hardware is superior now or it isn't. The whole point of console systems is that the hardware platform is going to remain stable for 4-6 years.

      It may take a while to use it to the fullest... but only if enough people buy PS3s to justify the extra work of pushing the hardware beyond just filling a Blu-Ray disc with more FMV cutscene crap.

    • I believe that in a few years to come, Sony's product will be superior in hardware, making it extremely difficult for developers to produce 'up to date' graphics on other systems. From a developers point of view, knowing that every console has a 60 gig hard drive at your disposal, makes it hard to turn away. You will slowly notice a gap in functionality with the systems and the one that's more versatile shall conquer.

      If true, it just means Sony's PS3 will remain an expensive 360 alternative. No one is g

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LKM ( 227954 )
      Yeah. The "we will win in 3 years" argument never worked in console gaming. And the PS3 just isn't a much better system than the 360. Even the Genesis/SNES were more different.
  • So this all sounds just like the early years of the PS2. OMG it costs too much, and OMG there are no games. OMG, the xbox looks better. Ya, but look at it now. I'm still playing the games on my PS2 more then the 360 right now, and so what if the 360 has a lead now. It makes sence. Its eazier to program for and its market is already set up. when it comes time for the next gen games like GTAV, and others. They will be on the PS3 first and they will look better then the 360 and in 5 years from now I will stil
    • The PS2 lives on, ie still gets new games, still has an active community, simply because there are millions upon millions of them out there, over 65 million according to vgchartz.com. Developers release new games when they feel they can see a large number of them. God of War 2 on the PS2 is a great example.

      The PS3 is already flagging behind the Xbox 360 quite a way - not only has it sold only 1/3 of the Xbox 360's volume to date, it's also selling fewer week by week. Losing exclusives means there is less

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by miro f ( 944325 )
        actually you'll find VGChartz says PS2 has around 118 million PS2 owners. You're probably using the figures from the "Hardware Comparison" chart which doesn't contain Europe figures.

        Anyway, when most people say "the PS3 is in exactly the same situation the PS2 was in" they fail to mention some pretty important differences:

        The PS2 was released a year and a half earlier than its other main competitors (Not including the Dreamcast) and flew out of the gates, selling in Japan faster than Sony could produce (at

  • Sony is smart to lose some exclusives (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @04:38AM (#19741129)
    Sony would have loved to hang on to GTA but when you consider that Microsoft paid them 50 million dollars just for some downloadable content, is it any surprise that they did not? Imagine how much Take Two must have been demanding from Sony for exclusive rights. It wouldn't surprise me if they were asking 50-100 million at least.

    That is a lot of money, enough in fact for Sony to fund 5-10 1st party titles or maybe 30 PSN store titles. No wonder Sony told TTWO where to stick it.

    Other than that, most of the other exclusives really don't mean much for system sales. Devil May Cry might be a great game but I doubt it sold many consoles. And if it would have cost 10 million to keep it exclusive, perhaps the decision was that the money is better spent elsewhere.

    Sure that means losing exclusives, but it also means that the money goes to making new exclusives. People talk of Sony losing exclusives when they have something like 15-20 games in the works at present, many of which are new exclusives. Think Resistance, Motorstorm, Lair, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword etc.

    At the end of the day, it's not like you can't play GTA or Assasins Creed or Devil May Cry. They're still all there so I really don't see the fuss. If someone asked me if I'd rather your game had 5 great exclusive sequels, or 5 great cross-platform sequels and 10 brand new exclusives (some of which are also great), I know what option I'd choose.

    • Smart? The GTA series (4 games) sold 37 million on the ps2. The top 4 of the best selling ps2 games consists of 3 GTA games. I would say that losing the early lead Sony had with the ps2 could be quite devastating to the ps3.

      You would think that with the kind of numbers GTA manages Sony would be more than willing to pay that 50-100 million.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_ video_games#PlayStation_2 [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )
        Smart? The GTA series (4 games) sold 37 million on the ps2. The top 4 of the best selling ps2 games consists of 3 GTA games. I would say that losing the early lead Sony had with the ps2 could be quite devastating to the ps3.

        Yes smart. GTA IV is still coming to the PS3 so what's the problem? As I said if they can fund 5-10 games for what GTA would have cost to keep exclusive. I'd rather see Sony bulk up with new exclusives rather than pay through the nose to hang onto existing ones.

        And I say that as some

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ivan256 ( 17499 )
        None of the GTA games were Playstation exclusive.

        GTA4 is still going to be on the PS3. $50 million for some downloadable content is just as stupid as paying $350 million for Rare (lauded as the deathblow for Nintendo at the time). But if Microsoft wants to blow more of their cash, I'm all for it. It's $50 million less they have available to use patent trolling.
        • Don't forget the last valuable exclusive Microsoft bought from Rockstar Games, 'table tennis'. Once upon a time Rare was probably worth $350mil (such as when the Goldeneye development team still worked there), but that was what, 1998?

          $50 million for some downloadable content is just as stupid as paying $350 million for Rare (lauded as the deathblow for Nintendo at the time). But if Microsoft wants to blow more of their cash, I'm all for it.
  • I had no idea Kutaragi was arrogant enough to actually turn GTA4 as an exclusive.
    That is, without doubt one of the most stupid things I've ever ever heard - hot jesus that's stupid!

    I hate to admit I'm a rabid fanboy for something, but I would without doubt drop the full 1.1k$ it would cost me (AUD) to purchase a PS3 and GTA4 if it was exclusive - no hesitation.

    No other game do I rate that highly - that man is nuts - bye bye Ken, glad to see you go.
  • That Microsoft PAID for GTA IV, $50,000,000 infact..

    Anyone want yo count the new Exclusives on PS3, to replace the lost old ones? I think they may very well outnumber the lost ones..

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close