Two 360 Titles Lose Their Exclusivity

While for the most part we've been hearing about formerly PS3-exclusive games heading to Microsoft's console, as the PS3 begins to get some momentum up in the marketplace we'll start to see the opposite happening. The first converts are the titles Kane & Lynch (a stealth shooter), and Crossfire (a co-op military shooter). Both are now slated to launch on the PlayStation 3, as well as the Xbox 360. Opposable Thumbs reports: "'[SCi Entertainment's] Board believes that a release of these products simultaneously on all three platforms (PS3, Xbox 360 and PC) including the two next generation platforms will benefit the long term revenue potential for these two strong franchises rather than releasing different versions at different times.' It's hard to say that this move is all that surprising. We've said time and time again the high development costs of current generation software are going to lead to an increase in the number of cross-platform software, as extending the possible player-base for a title is crucial for profit. From the looks of these two games, this is a solid win for the PS3: two more quality games to add to the growing list of the PS3's star software."

Comments

What can you say

[GrayCalx]

Personally it doesn't seem like these games carry the same weight as the PS3 exclusives that made it to the 360, but still good for Sony taking something back.

Re:What can you say

[Kelbear]

I visit game news sites daily, and have never even heard of these two games.

Re:What can you say

[suv4x4]

I visit game news sites daily, and have never even heard of these two games.

Now you know the reason this article exists. On the surface it's an article about XBOX360 games losing exclusivity. However, on second read:

"IO Interactive's Kane & Lynch is a strange and mysterious action game that focuses on the relationship between two men on opposite sides of a deal gone wrong. The developer is best known for the Hitman series, so stealth and careful gunplay are likely to be the order of the day. As for Crossfire, information is somewhat scarce, but the Pivotal Games-developed title is a two-player co-op FPS that revolves around two government agents on a mission behind enemy lines." ... "From the looks of these two games, this is a solid win for the PS3: two more quality games to add to the growing list of the PS3's star software."

What actually happened is you were introduced to two games you never heard of, and they were placed as "two quality games" to add to the "growing list of PS3's star software".

Ninja advertisement at its best.

Re:What can you say

[MaXMC]

I've waited for these games some time myself.

If you've played the Hitman games you're bound to keep a lookout for what they are going to do next. Since the good games rarely get the publicity they need to be popular games.

Re:What can you say

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with Gray Calx with his initial response. Kane & Lynch and Crossfire are virtual unknowns in the gaming world. The only reason I know about Kane & Lynch is via OXM and how they state that it could be a promising title for the 360. As for the article written, this is the only place I've heard of Kane & Lynch plus Crossfire being converted to a multiplatform title. Honestly, there is no victory here for Sony, because a PC release is likely too. Believe me when I say that PC vs PS3 is an automatic failure. PC pwns PS3, and usually Xbox 360, but at least the 360 shares many quality traits with PC gaming. Anyways, according to Kane & Lynch's official site, no mention of the PS3 is on there, but apprently in the news people are saying so. Will they be simultaneous releases is the question. My vote is no, because an Xbox 360 and PC versionw were confirmed and in the works long before anything of the PS3 version were even hinted at. Perhaps the developers had plans all along, or perhaps they figured out how to code for the PS3 (cause it's so dang hard which is why developers curse the PS3 left and right).

Victory for Sony? Nay. Snag Halo 3 and that'd be a victory, but too bad it could never happen even if Microsoft went under. They'd just make it a PC only title.

Ooops!

[avp0]

I thought it said '360 titties'. My bad.

This would be big news...

[Red Samurai]

If the games in question weren't generic shooters. They come a dime a dozen these days, so it's not exactly a big loss for Microsoft.

All 3 Platforms?

[Anonymous Coward]

One might have thought they meant the Wii.

Oh well, guess it just means Sony is trying to do something to make sure the PS3 has more than two good games.

Re:All 3 Platforms?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wii's not a next-gen platform. It's a modified, over clocked GameCube. Even Iwata and Miyamoto recognize this.

Re:All 3 Platforms?

[HTH NE1]

One might have thought they meant the Wii.

"What kind of music do you usually have here?"
"Oh, we got both kinds. We got country and western."

Re:All 3 Platforms?

[Perseid]

How many times do I need to read that statement? Generation has nothing to do with system capabilities. Nothing. The Wii is the system Nintendo made after making the Gamecube which means it is the next generation after the Gamecube. This would be true even if it had a 1Mhz 6502.

Re:All 3 Platforms?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the Wii is certainly a next-gen platform. These just aren't next-gen games. Boring shooters belong back in 1999.

Re:All 3 Platforms?

[DrXym]

One might have thought they meant the Wii.

Porting most titles from the 360 to the PC or the PS3 is probably a straightforward exercise. There are issues of course, but all three platforms can obviously share the majority of their code and other assets like graphics.

The same is not true of the Wii. The reason there are so many crappy PS2 ports going to the Wii is because it has no peer. It is underpowered in memory, CPU and graphics compared to the 360 or PS3, making it difficult or downright impossible to downport things to it. Thus it gets a lot of sloppy seconds from the PS2. I don't really see the situation changing for the forseeable future. Once the PS2 starts to wane, the Wii is going to have to overly rely on exclusives which many 3rd parties may consider to be suicidally risky when Nintendo has dominated sales for exclusives.

Re:All 3 Platforms?

[bicho]

Yeah. I don't see the situation changing for the forseeable future either

Re:All 3 Platforms?

[Maxwell]

Wow, that looks *worse* than a GameCube/PS2 port game! ugh!

The 360 trailer right beneath it shows how nice the true next gen systems look...without all the wonky arm flailing. (imagine a couple of hours of that at a time?!?!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki8DfkdHa74&NR=1

JON

Re:All 3 Platforms?

[bicho]

Trying to show me differences in video quality with youtube to convince the wii is not worth it?
Besides, the original point was the lack of original content for the wii (mostly ports from the ps2).
And to sum things up, look up the definition for next-gen, for God's sake!

Re:All 3 Platforms?

[DrXym]

Yeah. I don't see the situation changing for the forseeable future either

Activision are producing the game for every console. It doesn't mean all consoles are equal though, or as IGN puts it - "Although we didn't see the PS2, PSP, or Wii versions running, Activision has told us that they will still have a large, streaming world only with weaker graphics. To you and me, that means a lower resolution and less draw distance. All of the versions will have 10 storylines, though the PS2, PSP, and Wii iterations will have two different ones when compared to the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions and will feature some different characters never before seen in a Spider-Man movie game. The last difference is that the low resolution versions of Spider-Man 3 will allow the player to switch more easily between the black and red suits."

It seems pretty clear what tier the Wii is on for this game. Which demonstrates my point.

if they were smart...

[ILuvRamen]

If they were smart, they'd look down two articles and release them for the Wii

Still No Dead Rising

[bym051d]

I still can't believe that one's exclusive.

Kane&Lynch

[jdonnis]

K&L is not a 'stealth' shooter. It is a shooter alright, but with more gameplay in common with IO Interactive's Freedom Fighters than the Hitman series.

Meh.

[TrickFred]

Oh boy, more military shooters! There certainly aren't enough of those out on the market!

Re:Meh.

[cnotes999]

wow shooters big deal

Wow, what a sea change

[Control Group]

Let's see, the PS3 loses Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto IV to multiplatform releases.

The 360 loses two games I've already forgotten the names of to multiplatform releases.

Yep, the tide is definitely turning.

Re:Wow, what a sea change

[Trent Hawkins]

yeah I'm not impressed with a man biting a dog, but it is "news"

Re:Wow, what a sea change

[mgabrys_sf]

GTA4 isn't exclusive like GTA3, Vice City or San Andreas?!!! OMG! Oh wait - those came out for Xbox and computers. I forgot - what's the fucking point here?

Re:Wow, what a sea change

[badasscat]

Let's see, the PS3 loses Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto IV to multiplatform releases.

GTA4 was never a PS3 exclusive. I'm not sure why the assumption would even be made, as GTA1, GTA2, GTA3, GTA:VC and GTA:SA were never exclusives either.

I think people need to make a distinction between "exclusive" and "coming out on one platform six months before being ported to another". They are not the same thing, and never have been. This notion of a "timed exclusive" is one of those either meaningless or wrongly-applied industry buzzwords that really needs to go. There is no such thing as a "timed exclusive" - a game is either exclusive or it isn't.

Assassin's Creed I don't know about, but GTA4 was always multi-platform. The only difference in GTA4's case is the simultaneous release. Losing six months of "exclusivity" isn't losing exclusivity, it's losing six months. Again, not the same.

Re:Wow, what a sea change

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"I think people need to make a distinction between "exclusive" and "coming out on one platform six months before being ported to another". They are not the same thing, and never have been. This notion of a "timed exclusive" is one of those either meaningless or wrongly-applied industry buzzwords that really needs to go. There is no such thing as a "timed exclusive" - a game is either exclusive or it isn't."

There is a difference between "exclusive" and "timed exclusive" (for lack of a better term) but I think your disregard for the difference between a timed exclusive and a multi-platform release is overstated. When GTA 3 was out exclusively for the PS2, with no mention of it coming out on Xbox, that was clearly a feather in Sony's cap.

"The only difference in GTA4's case is the simultaneous release. Losing six months of "exclusivity" isn't losing exclusivity, it's losing six months. Again, not the same."

People are impatient. Six months can mean a real difference given the right game. I agree that it's not the same as real exclusivity but I do think those exclusive windows can have a real impact.

Re:Wow, what a sea change

[Babbster]

Here's the problem with your thesis that timed exclusives don't mean anything: If a company releases an exceedingly popular game for one console and refuses to (or contractually cannot) confirm development and eventual release for another console then the "timed exclusive" status can mean quite a lot. There were Xbox owners who bought PS2s in order to play GTA3 and Vice City because they couldn't be certain that an Xbox version was ever going to come (Rockstar and Sony repeatedly denied it would happen, right up until the moment that Rockstar announced the Xbox versions). On the flip side, Splinter Cell managed to sell Xboxes during its first holiday season at least in part because Ubisoft delayed announcement of PS2 and Gamecube ports until early the following year (again, Ubisoft repeatedly said Splinter Cell was an Xbox exclusive until they announced the ports were "coming soon").

So, "timed exclusivity" is a phrase that can indeed have meaning if properly used. All it takes is either obfuscation or outright lies to make gamers question whether or not a port will actually come. If it's announced well ahead of release then, yes, it becomes meaningless to most gamers - besides the ones who absolutely have to play on day one, of course.

Re:Wow, what a sea change

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the same or worse in this case as both consoles are early on in their lifespan the PS3 really needed something like GTA4 to be exclusive for 6 months because then the rabid GTA fans would have to rush out for a PS3 as to not be left behind. You see that is the way exclusivity really works its useful at the release so the hype can push a particular system so no 6 month lead = less PS3 impulse buys by GTA4 fans.

You could work for sony, OP. "Uhh well It wasn't 'Really' exclusive anyways, ya know... So we didn't lose anything, yeah."

Re:Wow, what a sea change

[Anonymous Coward]

Well "Sonic the Hedgehog" was an "exclusive" for the Sega Genesis. But now Nintendo owners can play it on the Wii :-) Timing matters!

Re:Wow, what a sea change

[fistfullast33l]

I'm going to agree - a month advantage isn't going to do much, but I think there was almost a year between the releases of the Xbox and PS2 versions of GTA3 and later, Vice City.

Re:Wow, what a sea change

[Babbster]

It was longer than that. GTA3 and Vice City arrived on the Xbox simultaneously (and were packaged together), almost exactly - likely due to contractual obligation to Sony - a year after the latter made its PS2 debut. I owned both on PS2 (and later bought the Xbox versions) because I had no idea that they would come out for Xbox. With San Andreas, on the other hand, I went ahead and waited the 7-8 months for the Xbox release because, thanks to the previous release, I was certain the port was being made.

What and What Now?

[AbsoluteXyro]

I am not familiar with these games. The impact is lessened considerably.

Strong Franchise?

[hidannik]

It's not a franchise until two games in the series are released (i.e. there's at least one sequel).

It's not strong until it sells well.

Both of these titles are new properties, unreleased and without sequels. Therefore they are neither franchises nor strong. Calling them so is merely wishful marketing.

Hans

Just an FYI....

[Anonymous Coward]

My mommy looks like Jim-Bob Hawley!

How about the Wii?

[HalAtWork]

The Wii is the system creaming the competition, how about offering this on the Wii? The article states: "...a release of these products simultaneously on all three platforms (PS3, Xbox 360 and PC) including the two next generation platforms..." -- That's a pretty curious omission of the Wii... It's definitely possible to scale down the graphics and offer the same exact game on the Wii, a system even more powerful than the original XBox, which could handle Half Life 2.

Re:How about the Wii?

[Dan Ost]

It's possible that the Wii's lack of processing power makes it unsuitable for these games.

As developers learn to take advantage of the 360 and the PS3(!), expect this to happen more and more often.

Re:How about the Wii?

[revlayle]

As much as i like the Wii.... i would have to completely agree with the above statement. Point: I want to get a 360 for games like Mass Effect or Bioshock. I just don't ever expect them to be ported to Wii... EVER. Wii is fun for other games, however.

Re:How about the Wii?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny, whenever anyone posts that they don't want a Wii but instead want a 360/PS3 then there is almost always a response that they are not the target consumer Nintendo is going after. This is a case where the developers of these games looked at the consumers on the 3 consoles and decided that the Wii market was not what it wanted to go after. Why can people see it one way but not the other?

You can argue that the Wii market is growing so quickly that it's soon going to be the leader of the current gen systems, but then if install base was all that mattered they would also release it for the PS2 (much like Mercenaries 2 is doing). Just accept that people market to different groups, just like Vanguard: Saga of Heroes didn't go after the typical WoW player, these games don't go after the typical Wii player. Most people with a Wii who want to play these games will also have a 360/PS3.

Re:How about the Wii?

[Jubetas]

By the same token, there are going to be some awesome games for the Wii that could never work on the 360 or PS3 by nature of design. Here's to hoping for an epic Jedi game and/or Castlevania or Indiana Jones.

Re:How about the Wii?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't really argue that either...
-- revlayle

Re:How about the Wii?

[spanishfrogg]

Just because a system has more processing power for the GPU and CPU does not mean that the internals are similar or capable of outputting the same graphics. It should be noted that the XBOX has more advanced pixel shaders and lighting capabilities than the Wii, so just because the Wii's CPU and GPU have higher clock speeds doesn't mean they can magically replicate what the XBOX could. Think of replacing your old P4 1.7 Ghz processor with a new Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66 Ghz but still keeping your old nvidia MX 2 GPU. There are lots of other reasons but this shall suffice for now.

Re:How about the Wii?

[king-manic]

The Wii is "on par" with the Xbox. With a slight bit more memory no HD and slightly more horse power on paper. Not much better. Although it's hard to compare from nothing more then the specs. I'd think it's more capable but not by that much.

Re:How about the Wii?

[suv4x4]

It's possible that the Wii's lack of processing power makes it unsuitable for these games.

As developers learn to take advantage of the 360 and the PS3(!), expect this to happen more and more often.

Lack of processing power, didn't stop high energy games like Need for Speed Underground to be ported (and successfully) to any platform under the Sun, including Nintendo DS and PSP.

Wii has enough power to transfer the feel and gameplay of any high-end PS3 game. All it takes is cutting few effects and reducing the number of polygons here and there.

It's more an issue of market: will Wii users by some brutal World War II shooter (for ex.) as well as it'll sell on PS3? Their marketing research says no, at least not welll enough so they break even on such a port. So they didn't do it.

Re:How about the Wii?

[MikeBabcock]

"High energy" is not equivalent to requiring lots of CPU power. Just look at the Burnout series on the PS2 (or Xbox). However, having intelligent AI systems, good physics processing and some goodies like accurate dynamic 3D sound are out of reach on the Wii. Lots of games will be lots of fun without those things, but designers who want to go for gusto in those areas will not be making their games on the Wii.

Re:How about the Wii?

[IrquiM]

Hmmm.... you say what?

Just make a new controller that cost anoter 50-60$ and you've got the same function on 360 and PS3, with better hardware...

Re:How about the Wii?

[BeerCur]

Almost everyone agrees that the controller for the WII is a leap forward in terms of interacting with a game. Why has a similar product from MSFT or Sony not been released? Figure it would have been done by now. Are there patent issues? ~Matthew

Re:How about the Wii?

[drawfour]

It's definitely possible to scale down the graphics and offer the same exact game on the Wii...

And why exactly would anyone want to buy the same game with much worse graphics?

Re:How about the Wii?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how any modern system could be considered unsuitable for any game. The Wii can certainly play any type of game... it doesn't matter if it has graphics like Katamari if it's fun enough. Even Virtua Fighter 5 could be ported to the Wii. Yes, it wouldn't have the same graphics, but it would be the same game because the gameplay would be intact, even if it has to use the classic controller. Logistically, the Wii should be able to handle any type of game unless an extra perhiperal is needed to interact with the game, but one could be fabricated to fit into the wiimote.

Re:How about the Wii?

[cttforsale]

Parent posters Dan and Rev... I agree too. But I do think the wii can have some good hardcore games. Afterall, we are talking about a system that is twice as powerful as the system that brought us Metroid Prime. I feel the real problem is the Wii will lose on the cross platform staples. Games like Burnout were pretty much the same on all previous gen systems, but now, with the hardware disparity, Wii is the odd console out, since it can't match the muscle. I do hope above all else that the UBIs and EAs try though. I really enjoyed, for example, Prince of Persia on the cube.

Re:How about the Wii?

[trdrstv]

Almost everyone agrees that the controller for the Wii is a leap forward in terms of interacting with a game. Why has a similar product from MSFT or Sony not been released? Figure it would have been done by now. Are there patent issues? ~Matthew

Actually they both have respective patents for thier own Wiimote solution, the issue is now 'Default configuration' vs 'Mee-Too add on'. Developers can make games for the limited owners of that periferial (like making games for the Eye Toy) or they can make it compatible with the 'Default equiptment' that came with the system.

Sony and MS will likley go the Wiimote route with their next systems but at that point it's still too late. People are looking for the Wii, not a 'Motion controller' much in the same way that people shop for an 'iPod' not an 'MP3 player'. Conversely, Nintendo can carry over all their 'new casual customers' with a 'Wii HD' in the future.

Re:How about the Wii?

[trdrstv]

By the same token, there are going to be some awesome games for the Wii that could never work on the 360 or PS3 by nature of design.

Unfortunately, that won't prevent developers from trying. Rayman Raving Rabbits is now multiplatform, and for the life of me I can't imagine how that would work with a "regular controler".

Wait, people give a shit about this?

[RichPowers]

Let's say I own a 360. A videogame I really want will also be released for the PS3 and PC. So what? I still can purchase a 360 copy.

People who bought a console for just one game (ya, such people exist) might be upset if a title's exclusivity is lost. But why should anyone else care? These "OMG UR CONSOLE DOESNT HAVE EXCLUSIVES!1" pissing contests represent videogame geekery at its worst.

Would this even be a story if the headline read: "Videogame publishers increasing profits"? Because that's exactly what they're doing by releasing a game on multiple platforms.

And as far as I know, Kane & Lynch was never totally exclusive; a PC launch was planned from the beginning.

Re:Wait, people give a shit about this?

[Lovedumplingx]

Right on point. Why is this news? I hadn't heard of either game and my choice of purchasing a console definitely wouldn't hinge on one game. I guess the PS3 is just hard-up for any compliments at this point.

Re:Wait, people give a shit about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

And as far as I know, Kane & Lynch was never totally exclusive; a PC launch was planned from the beginning. It is great, finally someone on the board has heard of one of the games.

Re:Wait, people give a shit about this?

[drinkypoo]

This would be news if they were A-list games, because Sony has lost two A-list exclusives in recent days, and it would indicate that influential publishers are deciding not to be exclusive and not just that influential developers are deciding not to be Sony-exclusive. They are B-list games at best, and so no one actually cares, and it doesn't mean anything.

Re:Wait, people give a shit about this?

[Grave]

There was a big spread on Kane & Lynch in Game Informer several months ago. I could've sworn it listed PS3 as one of the target platforms, but I can't seem to locate the issue now. Either way, it's not a big title. The only time exclusivity matters is if the game in question is a potential system seller. Gears of War moved some systems. So did Blue Dragon (in Japan). God of War II definitely sold some PS2s, and definitely kept some PS2s around (quite a few people traded in their PS2 after beating GoW2 and are upgrading to 360s and PS3s). Halo 3 will certainly be a huge system mover.

But the titles that are most troubling for Sony/MS to potentially lose are Final Fantasy XIII (S/E is refusing to confirm that it is PS3 only) and Devil May Cry 4 (which is now 360/PC). There have been rumors of Metal Gear Solid 4's exclusivity being up in the air, but nothing confirmed yet.

The number of exclusives on either platform is going to be small this time around. In fact, only the Wii will have a lot of exclusives, simply by nature of the control scheme and the difficulty in properly porting games between the Wii and anything else.

Some have commented that the "three platforms" should be Wii/360/PS3. This is simply not the case. The Wii is not the same sort of platform as the 360/PS3/PC. Games cannot easily and should not be ported to the Wii. Games must be redesigned from the ground up to work well on the Wii, because as the handful of games out so far have shown, generic ports don't work right on the Wii - they need to fully embrace the new control scheme. The PSP is a fine example of what happens when you don't develop specifically for the platform and instead port simply because you can - you wind up with a lackluster library of games.

Re:Wait, people give a shit about this?

[Chris Burke]

Obviously it doesn't matter at all if you already own a console that the game was originally targetted for and still is, except of course for the fanbois and their pissing contests. It does matter if you own a console that the game wasn't targetted for but is now.

The important part, though, is for people who don't own a console but want one and are deciding which to get. That's the whole reason why exclusives are important, as it gives a reason to buy that console instead of another. At least theoretically this means that a person interested in a PS3, but drawn to the Xbox360 due to its exclusives, may end up deciding to go with a PS3 instead of xbox.

In practice, I highly doubt the loss of either of these titles is going to drive anyone away from the xbox.

Good for everyone

[Perseid]

Exclusivity sucks. The more even the 3 systems are in sales the more even the game releases get. If we can all just buy one system and get all the games we want, even if one version is slightly better, this is good.

I expect to see more of this, too. It really has little to do with the success or failure of any one system. It has more to do with the insane development costs games are amassing. If you're spending $20mil on a game is it really that bad to spend another couple mil to port it?

Translation

[EveryNickIsTaken]

SCi Entertainment's Board believes that a release of these shitty products merely on the 360 would deprive PS3 and PC owners of the absolute crapfest that is to come. So, we're releasing them on all platforms with the hope against hopes that we'll be able to make our money back and won't be forced to file Chapter 11.

Bigger News - Beautiful Katamari 360

[Alzheimers]

From a recent NAMBCO/BANDAI press release:

"Leading video games publisher and developer NAMCO BANDAI Games America Inc. announced that The King of All Cosmos, everyone's favorite pint-sized Prince, and the whole wacky and wild Katamari crew will be making their hilarious next generation debut in Beautiful Katamari for the PLAYSTATION 3 computer entertainment system and Xbox 360 video game and entertainment system from Microsoft later this year."

Still no compelling reason to invest in a PS3 if you've already got the Wii60.

No Brainer

[dunezone]

Like the article states its more profitable to go cross-platform then exclusive. The days of staying on one platform is over for the 3rd party companies, theres no incentive to stay exclusive unless your being paid by the big dogs(Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft).

Fanboy logic

[Keeper]

Fanboys use exclusives to demonstrate their superiority over people who were not "smart" enough to buy the same console as themselves. A bit of a "haha, I have x and you don't." Rather childish really...

This is news?

[Is0m0rph]

I've never even heard of those two games before. Who cares...

Not a chance.

[pragma_x]

Ninja advertisement at its best.

If it really was ninja advertising, none of us would realize it - kind of like the GP. Plus it would have been delivered on the shaft of an arrow, or tactfully placed with a shuriken, killing the would-be submitter instantly. Ninja are sneaky like that.

Re:Not a chance.

[Caffeinate]

Barely related video link: A Ninja Pays Half My Rent. If you have not watched, you must.

On a more related note - I think this really is a publicity move: I did see a preview of Kane & Lynch in OXM a while back but it's not getting the press it needs to garner any sales; if the PS3 fanboys (no offense) still have their backs up about the lost DMC they might jump all over this just to convince themselves it's not that bad.

Not entirely

[phorm]

It also depends on the cost of portability. While the 360 and PS3 are similar in capabilities, the Wii might lack a bit in power for some games. Alternately, WiiMote games wouldn't port well to Xbox/PS3

In theory, a game heavily optimized for either the 360 or PS3 might also be a little time (and time==$$$) consuming to port.

To me...

[Pojut]

this is a good thing. Neither of these titles are as big as say Mass Effect or Final Fantasy (although the exclusivity of FF13 is in question)...I actually want to see smaller lesser known titles such as these on multiple systems just to get their exposure increased (even though prior to the comments above, I didn't realize that Kane was a lesser known title...then again, I had never heard of the other one so ::shrug:: whatever)

kane and lynch was never an xb360 exclusive

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try..but K and L was always a cross platform release from the day it was mentioned. and I've never even heard of crossfire. not exactly the same as DMC4 and MGS4 coming to 360.

Good news for gamers

[d_jedi]

There's no advantage (from the gamer's POV) to exclusives.
I hope PS3 owners enjoy these games as much as we 360 owners will.. and hope some PS3-exclusive devs will give us 360 gamers some lovin' by releasing their game for our consoles..

Lame

[axia777]

It is nice to see that several people here are dumping on two games that in fact may be very great. Sure we have not played them, but is that any reason to dismiss them out of hand just because they have not been published yet? Let's all be reasonable and logical and wait for the games to come out so we can judge them on their merits. I know that sounds crazy, but in reality, it the correct thing to do. If they suck, then yes, it is not a big loss for the 360. But if the do in fact kick major ass, then the loss may be more significant then previously thought. Just my 2 cents adjusted for inflation.....

Re:Lame

[Bugs42]

Let's all be reasonable and logical New to /., are we?

Oh noes....

[grapeape]

SCi's biggest hit was Conflict Desert Storm which was found in bargain bins weeks after release. While I understand the desire for something positive for the ps3 fanboy crowd, they may want to skip the bravado over this crapfest.

Here's a list of all of SCi's accomplishments to date, look at all the hits...

Alfreds Adventure
Aqua Aqua
Battlestations:Midway
Carmageddon
Carmageddon II: Carpocalypse Now
Carmageddon TDR 2000
Conflict: Desert Storm
Conflict: Desert Storm 2 (a.k.a. Back to Baghdad)
Conflict: Global Terror
Conflict: Vietnam
Constantine
Cool Bricks
Cyberwar
Futurama
Galleon
Gender Wars
Gumball 3000
Kingdom O' Magic
Live Wire
Mille Migla
Rally Championship
Rally Championship Xtreme
Richard Burns Rally
Rolling
Spellcross
SWIV
The Great Escape
The Italian Job
The Lawnmower man
Thunderbirds
Total Overdose

LOL Xbots

[Anonymous Coward]

I just love this, when it happens to Sony commenter go screaming over it and saying Sony is doomed, but when it happens to the Xbox 360 they go "who cares?"

Even funnier is hearing them speculate about what games the PS3 might lose next, and creaming their pants about it even if they don't care for the game at all.

What games were those again?

[__aailob1448]

No, seriously. I can see why you titled this "Two 360 titles" instead of giving the names of the actual games. Nobody would have recognized them of course because they are obscure and by no means AAA titles. This, in turn, means that this "news story" has no value whatsoever and I suspect the only reason it got approved is because it falls in the "bad news for m$" category.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:What games were those again?

[axia777]

How do any of us know if these are or are not AAA titles? Because in all reality, we don't. They could be great. For example. Remember when GTA was top down? No one really saw GTAIII coming nor imagined it's impact. Any game coming out at any time could have a similar impact. But we don't know until it is reviewed and comes out.

News Laundering?

[SuperCharlie]

Its funny how we get an ARS link to some nobody link (http://www.pro-g.co.uk/ps3/crossfire/news-5307.ht ml) to a story about some exclusives moving and none of those pages has a Sony source link. Im sure its in the bowels of Sony somewhere.. I just find it interesting that the breadcrumbs dont lead to the house I guess..