Slashdot Mirror


Starcraft Ghost Off The Cube

Gamespot has the news that Blizzard's upcoming action/stealth title Starcraft: Ghost is officially no longer in production for the Gamecube. From the article: "Speaking to GameSpot, a Blizzard staffer confirmed that the game is now only being released for the Xbox and PlayStation 2, meaning the previously announced GameCube edition has been canceled ... Unfortunately the GameCube has no online service and since so much work is going in to the online portion, it would be additional work to release only part of the intended game."

97 comments

  1. So the Revolution is NOW? by MindStalker · · Score: 1

    So that means it IS comming out for the Revolution.. Right??

    1. Re:So the Revolution is NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Keep dreamin' fanboi

    2. Re:So the Revolution is NOW? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

      With that sort of insider knowledge, I can only assume you work for Blizzard. It's the only thing that makes sense. And given the wording of your post, (mocking the man, rather than just saying no...) Do you work for Blizzard's marketting department?

  2. This is an understandable move. by Rowan_u · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When Ghost was in early development the focus was on the single player experience. Now, with the information and playable versions released at Blizcon, it seems that the game is shaping up to have a considerable multiplayer portion. In light of this new focus, it makes sense to drop costly support for the Gamecube version.

    If you look at the PS2 version of the game, I'm sure this already requires extensive extra work to the multiplayer portion as well. Its going to be a big difference between putting a game up on Xbox live, and creating a complete multiplayer service like you have to do with PS2 online games.

    I wonder if the Ps2 version will contain features like matchmaking, buddy lists, and playlists. With Blizzards previous excellent multiplayer track record on battlenet, it seems unlikely they would expect anything less from developers taken under there wing. Could such extensive online support be the killer-app for the PS2 Ethernet adapter?

    --
    only one everything
    1. Re:This is an understandable move. by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Still, they make it sound like the game is worthless without the online mode so if I was planning to buy it that would be a definite reason not to as I don't use my PS2 for online.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:This is an understandable move. by kinglink · · Score: 1

      Sadly this move from single player to Multiplayer might turn off some fans, personally I don't play many multiplayer games on the consoles, because when I play games I like to give a little taunt, or just relax. I don't see many games on the consoles(though tony hawk has been fun to play multiplayer most games are less then stellar, especially EA's fare (SSX 3 was dead)) that are worth playing multiplayer.

      Personally I'm more likely to skip a multiplayer heavy game and likely I'll do the same for this one.

      But don't worry about their features, I'm sure they'll program in the blizzard usuals using the battle net they already have in place tweaked for PS2 and Xbox systems and it should be enjoyable enough.

    3. Re:This is an understandable move. by SetupWeasel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would make sense if the Gamecube didn't have a broadband adaptor. Oddly enough, it does. So Blizzard is lying. Not that I care at this point, but to make this decision 3 years after the game was announced is a bit slimy.

      Good luck selling any copies on the previous-gen Xbox, wankers.

    4. Re:This is an understandable move. by rogabean · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That was my first thought as well. The Gamecube has a broadband adapter (i've sadly never gotten to use mine... but I have it.)

      If they are cancelling the Gamecube version just because they have no central online service then would not the Playstation 2 version be cancelled as they have no central online service. XBox has the Live service so that qualifies as a central online service... but as far as I know Playstation 2 does not. Didn't we just have an article yesterday about how Sony isn't going to have one for the Playstation 3 as well? They are going to be running their own servers AFAIK...

      so the whole argument of why they are dropping Gamecube support sounds like crap to me. Now if they had just said "Most Gamecube owners do not have the broadband adapter. We don't want to make our customers purchase this hardware just to play our game." I might see the argument as a little more valid... Hell I might accept "We just don't feel like doing it."

      --
      "why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
    5. Re:This is an understandable move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a LAN adapter too.

      They're not with it by default though, so people would need to go out and buy extras just to play the game.

    6. Re:This is an understandable move. by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And how many games make use of it? How many consumers are likely to own one? How does the market penetration compare to X-Box Live and the PS2's online services?

      While it's technically wrong to say that the Cube has no online services, in any serious business decision, you cannot include the Cube's network adaptor as a factor. It's sold far too few and it's not going to start selling them now, so late in the cycle.

      Blizzard's decision makes perfect sense and I doubt most people outside of slashdot games will even notice.

    7. Re:This is an understandable move. by valintin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is far more consoles that do not have online than there are that do. It makes perfect sense to sell more games to more users to make more money. If the game was any good they would come out with a robust single player to sell to the majority of console users. This shows their lack of confidence in the game over all and in the single player mode.

      The single player mode is not good enough to sell the game to enough Gamecube owners to make it profitable for that platform. That says much about the game for any console owner.

    8. Re:This is an understandable move. by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes the GameCube has a broadband adaptor. But Nintendo show absolutley no interest in it at all. There are two whole online games availible in Europe (PSOI&II, PSOIII), and another two games that support LAN play (Mario Kart and Kirby Air Ride). Compared to Sony, who have managed to get a fair selection of online games, and intergrated it into newer consoles. The PS2 doesn't have a unified online service, but Sony support online game development for it (they've actually developed some online games themselves for one thing).

      So you'd be trying to sell an online (action) game on a platform who's manufacturer couldn't give a fuck about online, and whoes current online portfolio consists of a couple of RPGs.

      Plus, the GameCube is practically dead, at least in the UK, and AFAIK it's in 3rd place in North America as well. Considering the game is probably aimed at the "western" markets, it makes sense to concentrate on the #1 and #2 systems in the markets, not the #3, especially one that doesn't have any kind of online user base (barring PSO players), and is loosing steam (and shelf space). They probably just decided it would'nt be worth putting any more money in on the GameCube version as they wouldn't get enough sales to justify it.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    9. Re:This is an understandable move. by bynary · · Score: 1

      THere is not such thing as "PS2 Online Services" unless by that you mean "It has an ethernet port". Sony has made it very clear that each game developer is responsible for developing and maintaining their own system for making their games talk to each other. A previous post hit the nail on the head with the response that Blizzard's reasoning doesn't make sense.

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    10. Re:This is an understandable move. by Clock+Nova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unless this game is entirely multiplayer-dependant, with no single-player component, this decision makes no sense. Cube owners are just as able to buy the broadband adapter as PS2 owners, and are just as able to connect to Battle.net through it. If the content is good enough, I guarantee Cube owners will buy the adapter. And without it, there should still be a rich, single-player experience to be had. Personally, I was really looking forward to playing this game by myself, and had no intention of playing online. This whole thing stinks of... something. Not sure what. But the logic presented by Blizzard doesn't seem to follow.

      Hey, I've got an idea: why not go ahead and release it for the Cube as is, with on-line content present, but dependent on the adapter. Then, when the Rev is available, gamers can play Ghost with online content, and even use the Cube controller to do it. Aren't they doing something similar with XBox and the 360?

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    11. Re:This is an understandable move. by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      The Xbox IS dead. Microsoft's contract with NVIDIA has run out. There wil be no new Xboxes. Like I said, good lick selling to a dead system. Hope the dev costs pay off.

    12. Re:This is an understandable move. by pnice · · Score: 1

      I agree with you but anyone that owns an older version of the PS2 would still have to go out and buy the Sony Network Adapter to get their PS2 online. Or I guess they could pay for a whole new console (or maybe their old one is broken, etc, etc)

    13. Re:This is an understandable move. by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      Well, considering it's sucessor is just about to launch, I'm not surprised Microsoft are dropping the Xbox 1, it's famously made at a loss, and they can't easily redesign it to be cheaper, so it's getting dropped. A contract running out would be as good a point to stop as any (I hadn't heard that however, do you have a source?).

      However I doubt it'll kill the Xbox 1 software market dead overnight, there's generally some overlap between generations, the software will still sell. There's still a fair amount of Xbox 1 titles in development. Not everyone will immediatley stop buying previous generation games as soon as the new systems are out, although I'd imagine after about six months they'd perhaps start having problems.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    14. Re:This is an understandable move. by VRisaMetaphor · · Score: 1

      I, for one, would have bought an online adapter for this game.

    15. Re:This is an understandable move. by krypt0s · · Score: 1

      There is far more consoles that do not have online than there are that do. It makes perfect sense to sell more games to more users to make more money. If the game was any good they would come out with a robust single player to sell to the majority of console users. This shows their lack of confidence in the game over all and in the single player mode.

      The single player mode is not good enough to sell the game to enough Gamecube owners to make it profitable for that platform. That says much about the game for any console owner.


      So, how long have you had your Gamecube?

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
    16. Re:This is an understandable move. by valintin · · Score: 1

      Since Decemeber of last year. I got it because it was a cheaper option to upgrading my son's computer to play games. I guess I'm a Nintendo fan because I think it's the best game system for kids and adults together.

      We still play Starcraft on his PC and if the next gen of consoles end up being PC like, I will skip them and build a new PC for him. I'm interested in the next gen game systems, not PCs for dumb people.

    17. Re:This is an understandable move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how long have you had your Gamecube?

      Ahh, good move. Ignore the point and attack the poster's motives instead. I was wondering how someone would respond to his argument. I wasn't counting on such skill though. You manage to deftly sidestep the entire post. Color me impressed.

    18. Re:This is an understandable move. by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      Well, I could find nothing definate. There is rumor and speculation caused by an NVIDIA converence call that was reported by Spong and others as fact.

      Here is the Gamespot Rumor Control on the subject.

      Sorry, my info may not have been as solid as I thought.

  3. OH NOES! by Inoshiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering when it was announced years ago, you have to wonder a bit. Does this matter? It's like saying that Duke Nukem Forever won't come out on the GameCube -- it's sure as shit not coming out on anything else, either!

    After 3 years, it's not going to live up to expectations anyways. The edge of gameplay is further out, and whatever monetary hit they took developing a game in 2002 and 2003 is 100% wasted money. Some of the code and art may transfer, but the gameplay and graphics standard have been raised in the meantime. Anything over 18 months is wasted money in game development.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:OH NOES! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Yeah,

      WOW was a complete waste for Blizzard.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:OH NOES! by urbaer · · Score: 1

      It's like saying that Duke Nukem Forever won't come out on the GameCube

      What?? Duke Nukem Forever isn't coming out ont the gamecube.... damn... I had money saved up for that one.

  4. PS2 has no online service either by MayonakaHa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So why are they dropping it just for the GameCube? By their logic they should be dropping the PS2 version also since all it has is an internet adapter. X-Box is the only console with an online service.

    1. Re:PS2 has no online service either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then the gamecube has the network(well online) adapters as well (both broadband and modem).

      Although the number of games I have that support that is: 1 (Mario Kart DoubleDash, which lets you go up to 4 consoles, 8 cars running, 16 players (the 2 people 1 cart stuff)).

      So the network support is on the console, just not enough people have it....
      (As far as I can recall, about the only games that use internet on the gamecube seem to be the PSO games, there maybe more but I haven't looked)

    2. Re:PS2 has no online service either by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I wouldn't be too suprised if money was exchanging hands behind the scenes of this.

    3. Re:PS2 has no online service either by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the PS2 has enough marketshare to make the extra work worthwhile.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    4. Re:PS2 has no online service either by numbski · · Score: 1

      Actually, Sony does have an online system, it's just bare-bones by comparison to XBox Live. It's called DNAS (not to be confused with DNS). Every game that goes online on the PS2 goes through a set of basic DNAS tests, then you're allowed online.

      I preferred this over the Live method because your online play time was free, and it gave more freedom to the developers. What I've found now, however, is that the developers really don't WANT that freedom, because now they have to develop network game backends, whereas in a Live-type environment you plug into an existing API and just worry about coding the game.

      The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online. I play VERY sporatically, so I'd wind up paying $15/1 game session of football online if I only get to play once per month. Far too expensive for my tastes. :\

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    5. Re:PS2 has no online service either by dtfarmer · · Score: 1

      The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online. I play VERY sporatically, [sic] so I'd wind up paying $15/1 game session of football online if I only get to play once per month. Far too expensive for my tastes. :\

      Is someone actually charging a monthly fee to play football online on the PS2, or are you crying wolf here? Please back up your claim...

      Otherwise, I agree with you - Heck, even at $5/mo for 1 year of Live, it's too expensive for as sporadically as I play online.

    6. Re:PS2 has no online service either by ZakuSage · · Score: 1

      Must just be poorly worded. Who actually owns a GCN internet adapter anyway? For just PSO, there can't be too many people with it.

    7. Re:PS2 has no online service either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP post is talking about Xbox Live service costing a monthly fee. Work on your reading comprehension a bit.

    8. Re:PS2 has no online service either by eurenix · · Score: 1

      I do...

    9. Re:PS2 has no online service either by dtfarmer · · Score: 1

      GP post is talking about Xbox Live service costing a monthly fee. Work on your reading comprehension a bit.

      I'm sure you're right. My mistake. When the OP said "The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online." it was not clear (to me) which prior point this was the end result of. I thought he meant it was the end result of developers having to write their own networking code, while he probably did mean it was the end result of having someone else (Live) handle the networking code for you. The OP threw me off with the $15/mo reference. Since I know Live doesn't cost that, I figured he was try to say (hypothetically) EA would be charging for Madden play ($15/mo for football) since they have to spend extra money to develop their own networking code on the PS3 - and he considered that to expensive. I also never generally think of Live as a monthy service since it is a yearly fee (which will change with the 360 - there will be monthly terms available at higher rates at that point.)

      My bad. Sorry for any confusion.

    10. Re:PS2 has no online service either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Market share is a funny thing; having more people own your system doesn't mean that more people will buy a particular game for your system.

      The best example of this that I can think of is soul calibur 2. Inspite of every PS2 and XBox fanboy saying that 'The Gamecube controller is bad for fighting games' the Gamecube's verson outsold both the XBox and PS2 versions for one simple reason, the Gamecube's version had Link.

      The truth of the matter is that most third parties do not understand Nintendo fans, they attempt to attract them using the same strategies that they use for Sony or Microsoft fan. Nintendo fans are pretty predictable, they have little tolerance for average (or below average) games and they are not really attracted towards the supposed 'Matureness' of a game; A game like Turok (which I pitty the person who bought or rented it) sold far better on both the PS2 and XBox than it did on the Gamecube, not something that either platform should be proud of.

      Personally, I don't know what Blizzard's reason for dropping the Gamecube version. I suspect that they have hit the point where any further delay of this game would mean that it would make it (mostly) pointless to release it on any current generation system; the Gamecube version was probably dropped so that they could focus whatever resources they had on the XBox and PS2 versions. If I were a betting man I would lay all of my money on an announcement at E3 next year which put Starcraft: Ghost as a title to be released on the PS3, XBox 360 and (quite possibly) the Revolution.

    11. Re:PS2 has no online service either by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      I've never SEEN one in a store. And I've looked for it too.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    12. Re:PS2 has no online service either by MayonakaHa · · Score: 1

      The OP actually said $15/1, meaning $15 for 1 time playing Madden online. Of course that means the OP only plays 3.333 repeating times per year, but you get the gist of what he meant.

    13. Re:PS2 has no online service either by Danse · · Score: 1

      If I were a betting man I would lay all of my money on an announcement at E3 next year which put Starcraft: Ghost as a title to be released on the PS3, XBox 360 and (quite possibly) the Revolution.

      Yeah, announced at E3 2006 and released around 2010 or so... :-/

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    14. Re:PS2 has no online service either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own and regularly use several GCN broadband adapters. Back in the early days of GameCube homebrew, the combo of the original release of PSO 1&2 and a broadband adapter were the only way to load unsigned software onto the GameCube. Plus, LAN-play Mario Kart is extremely fun, as is PSO itself. (For a long time, GameCube was the premium platform for PSO, and it's still the only platform with PSO 3.)

    15. Re:PS2 has no online service either by dtfarmer · · Score: 1

      The OP actually said $15/1, meaning $15 for 1 time playing Madden online. Of course that means the OP only plays 3.333 repeating times per year, ...

      Hate to beat the horse even more, but the OP actually did say $15/mo. Here's the line again: "I play VERY sporatically, [sic] so I'd wind up paying $15/1 game session of football online if I only get to play once per month." He didn't say once every three months, as your calculations imply, which would be the $5/mo of Live, capice?

      ... but you get the gist of what he meant.

      Yeah, I do. His post makes much more sense if "the end result" in the line "The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online." refers to the result of developers using Live rather than the (future/hypothetical) result of developers coding their own networking back end that I had assumed originally. But as above, and in my previous post, I still maintain it is not perfectly clear - which is why I was confused at first. But I'm not confused now - I was just explaining what in his post caused me to come up with the wrong initial conclusion.

      Anyway, it's much like reading the line "I helped my uncle jack off the horse." and being confused until someone tells you the J in jack should have been capitalized so you understand what was really meant by the phrase - It could have been clearer. (And by no means do I think my posts are any better than the OP's - I know I often skip thoughts in my head as I type, and end up confusing my point because of a missing leap, an unclear preposition or most often a run-on sentence - I'm human after all.)

    16. Re:PS2 has no online service either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG dude, let it go.

    17. Re:PS2 has no online service either by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Right now there is one game that uses the adapter (Phantasy Star Online). Not everyone plays it, so it's not in big demand.

      Sounds kinda familiar to the 1 game on PS2 that uses the hard drive (Final Fantasy XI), doesn't it?

    18. Re:PS2 has no online service either by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Right now there is one game that uses the adapter (Phantasy Star Online). Not everyone plays it, so it's not in big demand.

      Actually there are seven games that use the adapter. 3 of them are PSO games, but 1080 Avalanche, Kirby Air Ride, Mario Kart: Double Dash, and Mario Power Tennis all use the adapter.

      --
      MORTAR COMBAT!
    19. Re:PS2 has no online service either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I preferred this over the Live method because your online play time was free, and it gave more freedom to the developers. What I've found now, however, is that the developers really don't WANT that freedom, because now they have to develop network game backends, whereas in a Live-type environment you plug into an existing API and just worry about coding the game."

      This is probably the only reason GameSpy is still in business.

  5. So... by steveo777 · · Score: 1

    Taking into consideration all the delays that we've been put through.... it's not coming out for any system. I mean, come on! It was supposed to be out summer '04

    --
    This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  6. Wake up people! by fujiman · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I think we've all seen enough press releases to read between the lines on this one. Either: (1) Someone figured out it wouldn't sell that well on GC, or (2) Blizzard had some falling-out with Nintendo about something.

    Either way, I guarantee it has nothing to do with online multiplayer. *Every* console game is sold on the strength of the single-player experience. Only PC games (BF2, CS) can be sold as primariliy multiplayer. Sure, Halo grew into a MP juggernaut, but everyone played the SP first.

    Why PS2 and not GC? well... look at the numbers and the fanbase.

    What really ticks me off is that these companies try to spin *everything* and think we believe all their crap. Note to PR departments (especially Blizzard's): WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU.

    1. Re:Wake up people! by knight37 · · Score: 1

      Either way, I guarantee it has nothing to do with online multiplayer. *Every* console game is sold on the strength of the single-player experience. Only PC games (BF2, CS) can be sold as primariliy multiplayer. Sure, Halo grew into a MP juggernaut, but everyone played the SP first.

      Wrong. Everquest Online Adventures (PS2) has no single player mode at all. Same for Final Fantasy XI (PS2). And a LOT of games are sold on the strength of their multiplayer. Also multiplayer doesn't have to mean ONLINE. You wouldn't call Mario Party a single player game?

      --
      Knight37 - Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer
    2. Re:Wake up people! by SuperMog2002 · · Score: 1

      So you're telling me the appeal of Smash Brothers is single player and multiplayer is just a nice extra? Sorry, but you're wrong. Single player is the nice extra. Off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen or so people I know who have played mutliplayer Smash Brothers but have never touched (or care about) single player. And I've played multiplayer Halo but not single player.

      --
      Sunwalker Dezco for Warchief in 2016
    3. Re:Wake up people! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      *Every* console game is sold on the strength of the single-player experience.

      Next time I'm playing Counter-Strike on Xbox, I'll remember reading your post and laugh and laugh...

      You would have been right a few years ago, though.

    4. Re:Wake up people! by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      *Every* console game is sold on the strength of the single-player experience. Only PC games (BF2, CS) can be sold as primariliy multiplayer. Sure, Halo grew into a MP juggernaut, but everyone played the SP first.

      Every? That's funny, because EQOA and FFXI for the PS2 have no single player and are played online. Also, people aren't buying the Star Wars Battlefront games (the first is a greatest hit) for the single player. Same goes for the SOCOM games. Can't forget SOE's Norrath based Diablo clones

    5. Re:Wake up people! by fujiman · · Score: 1

      Oh. So YOU'RE the one who bought CS for XBox? Don't worry I'm sure someone else will buy it soon! :)

  7. Wait a minute, only M$ has a service. by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
    I smell BS here. Both the PS2 AND the GQ use a online adapter, there is no service other than the maker themselves supporting a service. So if they do go through with the PS2 version, it means Blizzard pulled bullshit out of their ass to justify not completing a game like they where supposed to and to just rush it out because they changed it last minute. If they dont release a GQ OR a PS2 version, it means Blizzard is yet another in the long line of gamemakers who sell out to Microsoft for the money.

    Either way this looks really really bad for a company that prided its self for working for the gamers because they are either selling out, or they are lying.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    1. Re:Wait a minute, only M$ has a service. by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      The current shipping PS2 has an ethernet port out of the box. The adapter is no longer a seperate purchase.

      I have all three consoles, (and bought a broadband adapter for my older PS2) but never found a compelling reason to buy the broadband adapter for the GC. Heck I've seen better reasons to try to find one for my Dreamcast. Having multiple consoles, the GC would not be the first choice for me if a game was available for all three consoles. It's far better suited for the games Nintendo puts out, that are unavailable elsewhere anyhow.

      The available market (that would be the subset of GC gamers who have the Broadband adapter for it) is almost certainly too small to justify the expense.

      I think the spokesweasel mis-spoke anyhow. They were probably equating integrated Ethernet with having "a service". Marketing folks aren't usually the brightest bulb on the tree anyhow. They don't have to be.

      BTW: Given how late it is, I hardly thing SC:Ghost could be characterized as "rushed out the door".

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    2. Re:Wait a minute, only M$ has a service. by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Probably they decided that it just wouldn't sell many copies on the GC, a system that:

      Doesn't have many owners with the network adapter.

      That doesn't have a strong base of fans of third person shooters with online capabilites (that don't already own a PS2 or Xbox)

    3. Re:Wait a minute, only M$ has a service. by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      well that may be true, but they said no online support. The gamecube might not have a service, but so doesnt Sony, and both use a online adapter.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    4. Re:Wait a minute, only M$ has a service. by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      Well, in Sony's case their broadband adaptor has a far higher market penetration than the Gamecube one, especially as new PS2s have it built in. Bringing an online-aimed game to the Gamecube is stupid, as Nintendo frankly have given no support to online gaming on the 'cube, and therefore few 3rd parties have either.

      I think the "service" claim is a bit of bullshit from Blizzrd though, it's really a case of the fact that Microsoft and Sony actively support online games, Nintendo don't.

      I do wonder about the online support of the Revolution, as Sony and Microsoft will have a massive lead. It's OK to say they can see what they did wrong, buy Sony and Microsoft got to see what Sega ded wrong before them, they may be getting to the party rather late, especially after their brilliant show of support to online games on the 'cube.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    5. Re:Wait a minute, only M$ has a service. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Probably they decided that it just wouldn't sell many copies on the GC, a system that:

      Doesn't have many owners with the network adapter.

      That doesn't have a strong base of fans of third person shooters with online capabilites (that don't already own a PS2 or Xbox)"

      Sure, your point about online is correct, but don't characterise cube owners as not being into third person shooters. Any real Resident Evil fan is likely to have a gamecube.

  8. Coming out too late anyway? by stpitner · · Score: 1

    I found it funny when looking the /. original posting of Blizzard's annoucement and the post of Blizzards FAQ about the game. Taken from that FAQ:

    "We expect to ship StarCraft: Ghost in late 2003."

    lol. Yes blizzard has added a lot and changed a lot, but by the time this game is ready to ship to PS2 and XBox it's going to be playing on a system that's already replaced by the next gen systems. I know this is Blizzard's first attempt at a video game system, but I think they are going to learn a lot of lessons about how you can't take a long to get a video game out as you can for PC game. Either that, or Blizzard needs to 1) not announce the stupid thing so early (marketing can be a developers nightmare), or 2) they need to be making the Starcraft: Ghost version for PS3 and XBox 360 right NOW instead of still trying to release something for the current systems (although I still want them to release this for PS2!)

    1. Re:Coming out too late anyway? by BushCheney08 · · Score: 1

      I know this is Blizzard's first attempt at a video game system...

      Ahhh, you need to read up on Blizzard's history. They originally started out making games for the SNES, but they used a different name (Silicon & Synapse). They moved on to making PC games in the mid 90s. Although, IIRC, Ghost is being developed by someone else entirely anyways.

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    2. Re:Coming out too late anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Blizzard has made console games before, including the excellent Blackthorne and Lost Vikings titles.

    3. Re:Coming out too late anyway? by stpitner · · Score: 1

      yeah, I know... you're right. I forgot. See note that I posted above. But the rest of my post I still think has some validity. They either need more people working on putting this game out, or they need to work on getting the game out faster. My recommendation would have been to make sure that they are far enough along towards releasing (although I know how hard this is to do because I work in software) is to not start marketing until maybe a year before release. It starts to get a little boring after waiting for 3 years (maybe not to some though)

    4. Re:Coming out too late anyway? by GuyWithAccount · · Score: 1

      I don't see how Blizzard could possibly release this game for the current generation of consoles. Blizzard's official stance is that the game is planned to be released in the first half of 2006, but it could be delayed if it doesn't meet the standards of a Blizzard game. If they release it for the current generation, Xbox 360 will already be out and PS3 will also probably be out, so everyone will be playing a current generation game on a next generation console, and it would have to be a really good game for people to like it. It seems like the only thing that makes sense is for Blizzard to release it for the next generation. It also sounds like Blizzard would be more likely to do this to have the best game possible with the current technology.

      If they do that, they will probably also release it for Revolution (probably using the regular controller shell) because the Blizzard representative said in the article that Blizzard isn't against Nintendo; they just don't think there are enough Gamecube owners with the online adapter. So you could also see this announcement as saying that Blizzard won't release Starcraft: Ghost on a console that doesn't have many online players.

      --
      Worker bees can leave
      Even drones can fly away
      The queen is their slave
    5. Re:Coming out too late anyway? by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

      That is the only scenario that makes any sense to me at all. Most people who buy this game are going to spend more time playing it on next-gen consoles than current gen consoles, anyway. Why not just make Ghost a Rev title and be done with it, rather than waste all of that effort? They don't even have to take the time to develop it for the Rev's unique controller (though I think it would be a fantastic match.) They can either use the shell or require a Cube controller, since initial development was on the Cube. Of course, if they have any sense at all, they'll take the extra time to take advantage of the Rev's features. I for one don't mind waiting a little longer if it means getting a better game.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    6. Re:Coming out too late anyway? by Hard_Rock_2 · · Score: 1

      I blieve ghost was being sent to a third party to work on and then blizzard bought the company so they could work on it.(which is why its still not out yet)

  9. Oh well.. by Kuku_monroe · · Score: 1

    At times like this im glad i still have my copy of Starcraft 64. Take that Xbox owners!

    --
    //WR
  10. BS on a stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is just utter bulls**t. The PS2 and Gamecube have identical online capabilities, and both lack central services. To try to use that excuse is just utter crap. Someone needs to be shot in the f***in head for this.

    Here's somethin' interesting:
    Bring SC:G back to the GC Petition

    Didn't take long, did it? It's got an interesting little set of questions along with the petition too...

    1. Re:BS on a stick by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it is bullshit. The real reason is it wouldn't sell well enough on the Gamecube (it's not dead, it's just pining for the Fjords![1]), especially if it's an online focused game (what with Nintendo's great online support).

      [1] OK, so it's not that quite bad, Nintendo do have enough money from their portable cash cows to keep on propping it up with new software if you've got a system, but very few third party developers (at least western ones) seem to think it's worthwile nowadays. A solid 3rd place in the west isn't a good place to be, even if they can claim 2nd place worldwide due to the Xbox's complete failure in Japan.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    2. Re:BS on a stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check the figures. They've not been able to claim 2nd place worldwide for over a year now, as the X-Box has stomped them in the late-cycle. Currently over a million units behind the X-Box worldwide. It's a dire place to be for them.

    3. Re:BS on a stick by nmaster64 · · Score: 1
      "Check the figures. They've not been able to claim 2nd place worldwide for over a year now, as the X-Box has stomped them in the late-cycle. Currently over a million units behind the X-Box worldwide."

      I'm not sure who gave you those figures, but that's not true. The exact sales numbers worldwide are not currently known for either system. It is speculated that the two are within a million units of each other, but to try to speculate to an exact number is ridiculous. It's such a small margin, that could easily sway either way with the release of a big game, and most just consider it even.

      And it wouldn't surprise me if Twilight Princess alone moves over a million 'Cubes...

    4. Re:BS on a stick by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      You can probably make a fair guess at worldwide share by adding up the figures for known markets though.

      Anyway, it's moot anyway as "second place Worldwide" is rather meaningless apart from as a second rate pissing contest between manufacturers. How the console does in each induvidual market is probably more relavant for most things, like if you can actually buy it. Actual retail stuff (like say, whever high street shops in the UK stock Gamecubes) they'd only really look at performance on a more local level (which is why you can't buy Gamecube stuff in most UK high street shop).

      Developers may be less likley to develop for a system if it isn't doing well in their target market(s), it may be better to concentrate resources on the ones that are doing better. (Although who buys what console in what market is another thing to complicate a choice of target platform).

      I personally think Twilight Princess will be a great seller software wise, but I don't think it'll shift many more consoles, I think it might be too late.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    5. Re:BS on a stick by nmaster64 · · Score: 1
      "I personally think Twilight Princess will be a great seller software wise, but I don't think it'll shift many more consoles, I think it might be too late."

      That's where your wrong. It'll shift quite a few Nintendo consoles, how many of them are Gamecube is a different story...

  11. what a waste by space_jake · · Score: 1

    3 years ago it was a toss up on getting a game system. Metriod Prime looked cool but that wasnt enough for me to get a console, figured hey Ghost is coming out too. Bought a GC and have been waiting since, sigh.....oh and NERF SHAMANS!

  12. It's official!! by Vvornth · · Score: 1

    ...Ghost is the new Duke Nukem Forever!

  13. More Like HL2 by csscmaster3 · · Score: 1

    The new starcraft ghost is more like hl2. Hl2 was supposed to be released years ago, but they continued to delay the game to keep up with the newer games coimg out. Like the final delay that they made, to compete with Doom 3. Instead of dropping the game from just gamecube, they should drop it from all the current consoles and release it for xbox 360 and ps3, where as there will still be the online multiplayer.

    1. Re:More Like HL2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that this may still happen; the game is being released too close to the end of the entire generation for any platform to really have the impact that it would in the height of a console's popularity; I suspect any further delay would push it to the next generation of platforms.

      Lets face it, a good looking game does far better at the marketplace because it is so much easier to hype; look at these screen shots, look at this video, etc. By releasing near (or after) the XBox 360, PS3 and Revolution launches they're only hurting their own abilty to hype their game.

    2. Re:More Like HL2 by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's kind of misleading. As far as I know they were off by a year and a few months. They kept their mouthes quiet for a while so nobody knew for certain they were working on it (just speculating). Then they released a teaser screenshot of the infamous crowbar and the world went ape.

      Yeh, that September release didn't exactly go as planned, they missed it by over 12 months. But they were hardly years behind.

      Team Fortress on the other hand, eck. They sent press releases and screenshots out a few months after Half-Life 1 came out. Prey is sort of an example of Ghost, as they started writing it in 1998 and 1999.

  14. Harsh but true by MMaestro · · Score: 1
    Anything over 18 months is wasted money in game development.

    I wouldn't really say that, but given the fact that the game was supposed to come out late '03, early '04, you really have to question just how much money was wasted after all this time. Other than nailing down the gameplay, everything else is more or less rearranged for them. (Just mimic the art from Starcraft, copy and paste Starcraft units and characters, stealth based games have been done already so build on those and the storyline for Starcraft: Ghost was more or less laid down years ago.)

    Other than the fact that Blizzard hasn't made a FPS or third-person shooter before, theres no reason why this game should be in development for so long. This isn't even Diablo 2 where you could justify the delays with new items and improving on the netcode.

    1. Re:Harsh but true by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      iirc, it isn't being made by Blizzard anyways. Which is why I'm confused about people caring abou this title - I mean, don't they remember what happens to a franchise when some other development team makes a sequel/spin-off? Star Control 3? OMF: Battlegrounds? This is going to be just another standard fare stealth-shooter that happens to be in the StarCraft universe. It won't be the perfectly polished gameplay (with just enough creativity to make it fresh) and beautiful artwork that Blizzard is known for.

    2. Re:Harsh but true by snuf23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "iirc, it isn't being made by Blizzard anyways"

      Well, actually now it is, sort of. Originally it was being developed by Nihilistic Software:

      "During the summer of 2002, the entire Nihilistic Software development team, the original developer of the game, quit en masse after an internal power struggle with Blizzard Entertainment. At the time, Slashdot and Penny Arcade reported that the team had already completed more than 85% of the game engine and 40% of all level design." Wikipedia Starcraft Ghost

      So now Blizzard has purchased Swinging Ape studios and integrated them into Blizzard as their console division. This is the team that is working on SC Ghost and now they are a part of Blizzard. So you can expect a greater degree of Blizzard influence on the game, it's been brought into the fold.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    3. Re:Harsh but true by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      This is going to be just another standard fare stealth-shooter that happens to be in the StarCraft universe.

      Thats my whole point. How long does it take to create a stealth/shooter in a universe like Starcraft? Other than a making new game engine/licensing a FPS geared engine, porting the graphics and designing the gameplay, it shouldn't take more than 4 years.

      Building new game engine, 2~3 years. If using licensed one, 1~2 years.
      porting graphics, 6~18 months.
      Implementing and testing gameplay, 6~12 months. Less if they decide to just mimic a previous style of stealth-shooter gameplay (Splinter Cell, MGS, Thief...)
      Time to completition: 2~5.5 years.

      Given the fact that they're now starting to push into their FIFTH year, you really have to question whats going on in the development. (They development started around 2001.)

    4. Re:Harsh but true by Meagermanx · · Score: 1

      But Blizzard is taking responsibility for it. Blizzard would not take responsibility for the game unless it was going to be a good game.
      Now, I'm not a Blizzard advocate. I didn't even like Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 that much, but I recognize their goodness as games, and I trust blizzard to kick out another excellent game.
       
      They have eared my trust, and the trust of a lot of people, that when we buy their games, we're getting the cream of the crop, and I doubt they would blow it on a shooter, of all things.
       
      Blackthorne, Rock 'N Roll Racing, the Lost Vikings... All excellent games.
      Sure there's the Death and Return of Superman, but we all mess up once or twice, right?

  15. PC by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 1

    However, they still lack a reasonable explanation why they aren't releasing it for the PC.

    The reason can't be technical, as everyone knows the Xbox IS a (crippled) PC.

    --
    For great justice.
    1. Re:PC by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      Could be any number of reasons here. I suspect the most likely issue are concerns about the expense of getting it to work on a decent spread of PC hardware. With console development, you know the exact hardware yur customers are going to use. For PC games, you've got to make sure your game will run on umpteen billion different combinations of hardware. Even after extensive testing, most developers don't actually maange this, which usually results in bad publicity and noisy forums.

      It's not surprising that, with PC sales being relatively small next to PS2 and X-Box sales, Blizzard would decide not to bother in this case.

  16. Of course that could also mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that it is crap and Nintendo didn't approve it to be released on GC. :-) Anyway, the online argument is weak, the whole idea with Ghost was, that it is a single player game in the Star Craft universe, isn't it?

  17. The slim PS2 and DVD-ROM by tepples · · Score: 1

    Both the PS2 AND the GQ use a online adapter

    The slim PS2 has built-in Ethernet. If you'd believe some people's numbers, there are probably more PS2 units with Ethernet (whether through an adapter or through the slim PS2) than GameCube units period.

    So if they do go through with the PS2 version, it means Blizzard pulled bullshit out of their ass to justify not completing a game like they where supposed to

    Or it could mean that the game design required more than 1.35 gigabytes of space. Unlike PS2 and Xbox discs which go up to 8 GB, GameCube discs are only 1.35 GB.

  18. So, let's see here... by Txiasaeia · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Ghost was announced in 2001 as being developed by Nihilistic Software. Then it changed hands from Nihilistic to Swingin' Ape Studios. Nihilistic had completed 85% of the engine and 40% of level design, but Ape scrapped most of this (according to an interview earlier this year) in favour of a new engine(?) and entirely different story. Now they've changed it to a PS2 and XBox-title only, and four years after production began, they're shifting the focus from single-player to multi-player. I'm taking bets that the game is going to merge productions with Duke Nukem Forever, and the resulting unholy union will only be playable on the Infinium Labs Phantom.

    --
    Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
  19. Gamecube online by David+Nabbit · · Score: 1
    I remember hearing a while back that Sega was offering its software to developers wanting to take Gamecube games online. I'm not aware that anyone took them up on that offer.

    In any case, designing a non-MMORPG console game solely around the online experience seems rather narrow-sighted. Sure online console gaming is growing, but it's not the way most people play.

    I suppose the bright side is that now I'll have one less game to not have time to play.

    --
    "Her idea of wit is nothing more than an incisive observation humorously phrased and delivered with impeccable timing."
  20. WTS GCN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok so now I have a gamecube for sale.

    1. Re:WTS GCN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seriously bought a GameCube solely for SC Ghost and have held on to it for this long, without ANY other reason to keep it at this point? What, did you think it was going to be a GCN exclusive or something?

      I wonder how many people bought gaming-quality PCs * to play Duke Nukem Forever when it was announced, before actual release. Those people are in the same boat as you - pretty stupid, eh?

      Nope, somehow I doubt you even own a GameCube to sell. I have had one since a month after launch, and there's no way I'd get rid of it just because this game isn't coming out for it. I would have purchased it for Cube, since it offers better graphics and a more comfortable controller than my PS2, but now that I can see that Blizzard themselves are not confident in its ability to sell well based on any kind of strong single-player experience, I'm not even going to bother buying it for PS2.

      (* This would have meant a Pentium II-233 with a Voodoo 1 or Riva 128 and 128 MB of PC-100 RAM at the time, mind you.)

  21. not a big deal by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

    I was excited when I first heard about SC: Ghost and even more excited when I heard that Swinging Ape studio took over development, since I loved Metal Arms. But to be honest, I had completely forgotten about this game. Is it possible that this is some strange means to garner some buzz before it's released?

  22. Bodes ill for the game by Guppy06 · · Score: 1
    I personally find myself agreeing with Nintendorks' take on it:
    Apparently a big part of StarCraft: Ghost is a subpar online mode where everyone stealths around while trying to capture a base or some crap. That certainly sounds more exciting than the single player story mode full of StarCraft lore that we've been waiting 3 years for.
    Seriously, if there's going to be so much of a focus on online gameplay that they don't think releasing the game for the GCN makes sense, it sounds like Ghost will become yet another online game with little more than chicks dressed in tight/revealing outfits going for it, just like half the games released in the past 3 years or so. Been there, done that.

    I was looking for a new game to expand the StarCraft universe, but if all it's going to give me is "ZOMG! It's a Zergling! Shiney!" I have other games to spend money on.
    1. Re:Bodes ill for the game by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. I own an X-Box so I wont be out of the loop for this game but that doesnt mean crap if they are going to throw this thing out as a big online game.

      As a single player game I could see such massive possibilities the missions and story in such a great universe could be nothing less than epic. Now the single player appears to be stuck on to the far easier option of make a handful of levels plug in some generic AI and let people take care of the gameplay themselves in the same multiplayer experience they have had time after time after time.

      I wouldnt mind quite so much but looking through there own site each screen I went to managed to drain a little more hope out of me. You have 4 characters which are essentially heavy medium light and stealth troopers. No alien races no attempt at something interesting like Alien Vs Predator.

      Look at Vehicles and youve got fairly standard affair here as well the only vehicle that even begins to stand out is the siege tank which appears to be a poor mans Leviathan from Unreal Tournament ( http://www.unrealtournament.com/ut2004/vehicles.ph p ) Admitedly UT probably stole the idea from Starcraft in the first place but Starcraft has a multitude of units. Think SCV for repairing the other units in combat or any of the flying vehicles. If theyd gone to the other races it could have gotten really interesting.

      Look at the psi abilities and you have a set of abilities that have been around since Doom. Nothing like the range of abilities Unreal Tournament has let alone Unreal Championship 2 which has numerous different powers for each of its dozen characters.

      The weapons are equally lack luster the lockdown gun being the only thing of interest and its no stake gun from painkiller or gravity gun from Half Life 2.

      Even the modes offer nothing. They have a handful of typical modes and only one expansion to these called capture the base which sounds like a cross between your normal capture and hold on to a base game and capture the flag. It could be interesting but a single additional mode of play is no where near enough.

      I dont know if it will be a terrible game or a great game Ive not got a copy of it and itd be foolish to just assume. Blizzard have pulled off some of the best games around there isnt a single line of theres that I have not enjoyed, but I can safetly say all of my anticipation for this game has drained away. On the plus side if it does turn out great it will take me by surprise and be all the better for it.

  23. well fuck you too, blizzard by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 0

    no text.

    --
    MORTAR COMBAT!
  24. WHO CARES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously who the hell cares?
    That's like making an article titled:
    "Super Mario not coming out for Xbox 360!!!!"

    1. Re:WHO CARES. by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 1

      Seriously who the hell cares? That's like making an article titled: "Super Mario not coming out for Xbox 360!!!!"

      yeah, just like that.

      except Super Mario was never announced or even rumoured for Xbox 360, of course.

      --
      MORTAR COMBAT!