BioWare Hopes To Finish Mass Effect Series On 360

In an interview with the folks at Games Radar, BioWare's co-founder and president Dr. Greg Zeschuk discussed their hopes for Mass Effect . Zeschuk commented that the team expects to finish the planned trilogy of games on the Xbox 360 - this is, before this generation of consoles has played out. "Zeschuk: Certainly out intent is to have all three iterations or installments of Mass Effect to be on Xbox 360. That's the goal. GamesRadar: Exclusively to 360 all the way? Zeschuk: Can't really comment on that aspect yet, it's too far into the future. Thinking a year in to the future is a big challenge these days. The law we can't control is the length of the console cycle. I hope, I hope, I hope that this cycle is longer than the last one. We kind of just got started last cycle and it kind of ended when our second game came out. Downloadable content could also bridge the gap by giving you new little islands of story between the big game releases."

Comments

1 a year then?

[Aladrin]

So, 1 a year then, eh? Sony's been saying the 360's lifespan is about 5 years, since that's how the original XBox went. If they're correct (and I think they probably are) then there's 4 years left to produce 3 games... Pretty tight, if you plan to actually make changes to the engine. Not so bad if you just plan to change the levels and plot.

Re:1 a year then?

[Aladrin]

No, I tempered that with facts... Microsoft does typically have a lifecycle of a few years on their products. Also, most of their games work on 360 and PC both, and it won't be long before the PC's most basic video cards out-do the 360's. MS is going to have to figure out how to keep their console alive when that happens. One option (and maybe the only viable one) is to release a new console.

I admit it. I'm a sucker, and I'll buy the next MS Console when it comes out, whether it be 4 years or 10. I resisted the 360 for about a year, and I resisted the PS3 for about 6 months. (Getting the PS3 used and super cheap had a lot to do with that, though.)

I'm not yet convinced that Mass Effect is the next Halo, though... They've been advertising it as an RPG and it's extremely hard to get a long-running RPG series. Planning to have 3 of them before they even start reminds me a lot of Advent Rising... AR even got Orson Scott Card to write the plot, and where's the second game? I haven't even heard anything about it.

Anyhow, I think they'll need a LOT of luck to manage to get all 3 Mass Effect games to market before the 360 goes the way of the coelacanth. (Extinct, but with a few copies that didn't know they should be dead.)

Re:1 a year then?

[Pojut]

As far as PC's outdoing the 360...well I mean that's par for the course, isn't it? Typically when a console is released, it offers better graphics and more power than it's computer counterparts....generally within a couple months (and in some cases, before the console even launches) the pc has already surpassed it's abilities...Oblivion in 1080P still doesn't look nearly as good as it does on the PC in the same resolution. This isn't a new development, this is just how things have generally worked for a long time.

And you know what? So long as PC gaming requires upgrades every 6 months-1 year (and expensive upgrades at that), the market will NEVER be as big as console gaming.

Mass Effect won't be the next Halo, because they are entirely different games...I know this doesn't necessarily apply to EVERYONE, but generally the people that I see that are Halo-obsessed are what I refer to as "Madden Gamers"...I highly doubt I really need to explain that one to you...

Mass Effect is being developed by Bioware, and if their track record is any indication it's going to be an amazing game.

Re:1 a year then?

[Kelbear]

Heh, well so long as the Xbox360 gets itself into enough hands before a new console completely destroys it's appeal, they can still reap profit from releasing on the Xbox360 instead of the next-gen console(that's right, I'm calling the Wii, Xbox360, PS3 current-gen now). The Xbox360 doesn't need to be better than the new consoles to sell more copies, since although the new consoles will undoubtedly have neat features going for it, the new consoles will also need a good userbase and rate of adoption while the Xbox360 may have already established itself.

The PS2 is an extreme example(and I seriously doubt the Xbox360 will do as well), but it does show that a console can potentially hang in there to survive against the following generation for a while.

Still, it does seem a little optimistic to declare the hardware you'll release the 3rd game on before even the 1st is gold. Poor Advent Rising...they blew their budget and didn't leave enough to strain out all those horrendous bugs. It was a pretty fun game otherwise, I wish it could have done better.

Re:1 a year then?

[brkello]

That's not really a fact. There is no typical with the Xbox considering we are just on its second iteration.

Re:1 a year then?

[Grave]

The 360 will live longer than five years - Microsoft has already alluded to this. They have also said that the 360 will stick around and be supported even after the next generation launches. However, I don't see them continuing to support the 360 as substantially as Sony is supporting the PS2. A lot of early 360 adopters were people who had XBOXs and saw that if they wanted more new games, they either had to buy a 360 or jump sideways into a PS2. Now, I'm not saying PS2 owners would go for the PS3 if the PS2 new game well were dried up, but I have to think that more of them would do so. The PS2 is a bit unusual, because it is really outselling the PS3. Did the PS1 continue to outsell the PS2 10 months after the PS2 released? The PS2 was/is an immensely successful console, but it is probably being helped out now by the fact that the PS3 is prohibitively expensive and lacks many games. There are plenty of casual gamers who aren't interested in the 360 or Wii, as they've grown up on PS1 and then PS2, so getting the PS3 just makes sense, but not until a price drop that means something.

Either way, it's almost certain that the next generation of consoles will start with Microsoft or Nintendo (or both), and not with Sony. The PS3 was designed to be around for awhile, and unless things change big-time, it does not appear that it will not be financially possible to release a new console for Sony for awhile.

Re:1 a year then?

[ivan256]

Now, I'm not saying PS2 owners would go for the PS3 if the PS2 new game well were dried up, but I have to think that more of them would do so. The PS2 is a bit unusual, because it is really outselling the PS3. Did the PS1 continue to outsell the PS2 10 months after the PS2 released?

The PSOne didn't actually come out until months after the PS2 came out, so PlayStation sales were pretty flat for a while, but they pulled even for a good long while, and stayed fairly strong for over a year after the PS2 came out. The PS2 didn't gain week-to-week ground until FFX came out. Supporting the previous generation strongly isn't new to the PS2 for Sony though. There was an additional hardware rev, new accessories, and continued new releases on the PS1 for a long time, years, after the PS2 came out.

As for Sony and the PS3 financially, expect Sony to be turning a profit on the hardware by Q408, even with price cuts. Microsoft should be turning a profit already on the 360, and I suspect they would have been if not for the hardware issues and warranty extension.

Re:1 every other year more likely.

[PhoenixOne]

"The question is do you want that 3rd one to be one of the Swan songs of the platform (Like God of War II) or one of the Launch titles for the new one and use the new tech available?"

I'd like to see Mass Effect 3 squeeze every last drop from the XBox360 and make us question why we need a new system when this old one can still rock.

Then I would love to see Bioware release a totally new game series on the new platform that makes us forget all about the 360. :)