A Catalog of Lost PS3 Exclusives

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."

Comments

Ouch

[Wicko]

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.

Re:Ouch

[MikeFM]

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?

Cross platform is good for everyone but fanboys

[grapeape]

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

[nschubach]

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:Cross platform is good for everyone but fanboys

[grapeape]

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

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:Cross platform is good for everyone but fanboys

[jythie]

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 set then a Wii but little else different) but this method comes at the cost of complexity, code space, and testing time.

So cross platform ends up hurting everyone a little, while single platform hurts everyone who doesn't have that console quite a bit but skips a lot of the mess for the people who DO have them.

Re:Cross platform is good for everyone but fanboys

[dj_tla]

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*

We're still looking at some great exclusive games.

[tarun713]

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.

Re:We're still looking at some great exclusive gam

[metroid composite]

God of War 3: hasn't been announced (in fact the next two god of war games are for the PSP and mobile). Sony owns the God of War franchise, though, so it'll probably happen eventually I'll grant you.

Kingdom Hearts: Last I checked there hasn't been a PS3 version announced. A quick google search turned up "Kingdom Hearts not necessarily on PS3". Kingdom Hearts being one of the less photorealistic of Square's franchises actually seems to be an obvious switch to the Wii (much like Dragon Quest makes sense on the DS due to its cartoony style).

White Knight Story: Absolutely. Don't delude yourself into thinking that it's a high-profile game (I doubt it'll surpass the sales of, say, Valkyrie Profile: Silmeria, which is under 1 million worldwide) but it's certainly a PS3 game I'm hyped about.

Ken strikes again

[alvinrod]

"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:Ken strikes again

[I'll Provide The War]

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

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 Sony execs:

> "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even [if] it didn't have games"

Re:PS3 Going Strong

[Trojan35]

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 developers during the PSone and PS2 days was despicable. I say, stick it to Sony.

Re:PS3 Going Strong

[Doctor_Jest]

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.... and no, it's not because I hate Microsoft... it's because it's yet another FPS... (like Resistance... but Resistance has a story... I am guessing Halo 3 will be all about multiplayer... Halo 2 was sorta devoid of story as well... focus shifted to multiplayer. That's fine... just not my cup of tea.)

Consider this... this is the same boat the PS2 was in during its launch... people complained it was hard to program for, that it under-delivered (it actually did... didn't make the hype)... turned out to be the best-selling console (and still selling) of that generation. So, counting them out... "sticking it to them" for whatever reason is entirely too fanboyish... even for Slashdot. What did Sony do to you personally? Kill your dog? Rape your mom?

MS can't keep consoles running, won't admit they have a flaw, and has a failure rate that makes the PsOne's problems seem tiny... yet no one is giving them shit about it... well, besides the people who have to return their console a 2nd or 3rd time for the "red rings of death".

Am I saying that for Fanboy points? No. Just for some perspective. Sony's not all bad, and MS is not all good. They both have their strengths... and having them both competing for your entertainment dollar makes for a better experience... add the Wii as a wildcard and we all win. :)

Stomp and run Sony out of town with pitchforks and torches serves only to divide... We are talking about faceless corporations here. :) Not Ma and Pa organizations "fighting the man."

And just for the record: More games != better games. I would rather have 3 great titles than 30 mediocre ones.

Sony is smart to lose some exclusives

[DrXym]

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.