Slashdot Mirror
PS3 Unreal Tournament 3 Delayed
Dr. Eggman writes "Gamasutra breaks the bad news from over at Midway. Midway states that Epic Games' Unreal Tournament 3 for the PS3 has been delayed into the first quarter of 2008. No official reason has been give for the delay, as only CEO David Zucker of Midway has released information. The PC version is still on track for a November release." Additional details from a Midway Conference call are available on Next Generation.
It keeps getting worse for Sony and the PS3, it seems like all the good games have been delayed until 2008 or later. I won't be buying one until Final Fantasy 13 comes out.
Mark Rein responded to this and said that midway was announcing the delay because "they have an obligation to their shareholders to let them know about the possibility of a delay" but Epic is still trying to get the PS3 version shipped before the end of 2007. He also said that the delay will mean that the PS3 version ships with all the maps that the PC version will have.
http://threespeech.com/blog/?p=604
I wonder if this lends any support to Silicon Knight's claims that the engine wasn't ready for them, and that the PS3 engine build was also way off target when they licensed it. It seems they're still aiming for a December release, but as a public company need to inform shareholders if they may miss that target. On the plus side, they've managed to get every map from the PC version working on the PS3, contrary to their earlier statements.
From TFA:
If you want an update on Midway Games stock, take a look over here.
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
... for a bad PS3 christmas. GTA IV and UT3 were supposed to keep their sales numbers respectable.
Yes, it's currently expensive, and that's fine if you don't want to buy one, but ultimately this delay is nothing to do with its lack of popularity or high price, rather everything to do with getting the engine up to speed on the PS3. It's still coming out before the 360 version, even if that is only to do with the 360 needing extra time to support mods, so it's not like they're leaving the PS3 version until last; if they thought no-one owned a PS3, they wouldn't be making a PS3 version at all.
Did anyone stop to think that the reason they have delayed the release of the PS3 version of the game is that nobody owns a PS3? It's the lowest selling system in the current generation, eclipsed by both the XBOX 360 and the Wii. The primary reason for this is that there is such a high price tag. I think that Sony made a mistake when they decided to go with such high-end hardware for their console. For the price of a PS3, I could buy both a 360 and a Wii. So, would I buy one console, and limit myself to the expensive games released for said console, or would I prefer to buy two consoles, opening up the opportunity to play a wider variety of games with the same quality as that of the more expensive alternative? I think the answer is obvious.
.The PS3 launch price in Canada is within $50 of the PS2 launch price. Sony misjudged which direction the US dollar was going in not the machine as a whole. The machine itself is very nice. Sony might have made a mistake in the price tag, they badly misjudged how the economies of it's two largest markets were going but I think the delays are due to the newness and complexity of the architecture. It's a lot easier to get near optimal results from an API that has many experienced programmers (Dirext X) and universal shaders help (360). The Ps3 takes more work to get juice out. Many have already pointed this out. It likely has a higher maximum performance but takes more tinkering to get there.
No because a low install base doesn't stop you from shipping. Perfect dark wasn't stalled simply because the n64 had low numbers
I got a ps3 and a wii so I got games covered. Casual and pretty/hardcore. The answer isn't so straight forward as most of the games on the 360 have PC peers/superiors. So it's really about how much money you have and what you play.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
*Sigh of relief*
Running any current game on a PC requires relatively high-end hardware which means that consumers have to continue to invest more money for upgrades to continue buying new games. I'm ignoring those that restrict themselves to older releases who can stay with the same hardware for longer.
If this was a case about releasing to the more affordable platform and therefore hit a larger customer base then I question the choice of releasing the PC version when they did. Would the not hit one of the other consoles first if this was the case?
I do agree with your logic from a consumer point of view: I own 2 DS lites and will buy a wii before I consider a PS3 simply due to total package pricing (console plus games).
-- Check out a great indi-band's music and help a girl win a guitar : Art Of Dying
It's still coming out before the 360 version...
Wrong.
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7359&Itemid=2
"These technical issues are now completed at a core level in our engine, and now that we have the systems working, looking ahead to 2008, we expect the PS3 versions of our titles to ship day and date with our other versions," [CEO David Zucker] said.
Why would you buy two consoles and limit yourself to only the games available on those two consoles? If you want the widest possible variety of games, you buy every console every generation.
Frag 'em all...
Ah, fair enough. I had assumed that meant for future titles using the engine, considering Sony apparently had a publishing deal regarding UT3, and the article mentions there's still no release date for the 360 version, so I guess it's just a waiting game to see what gets published and when.
PS3 UT3 allows you to plug in a standard USB keyboard and mouse, if that's what floats your boat. I don't know if that's the case for the 360 release as well, but I can't think why not.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
The PS3 might be a technically nice machine, but it is supposed to be a gaming machine, not a complete home media solution. They shouldn't have used the name Playstation if they wanted to make an all-in-one solution. Looking at the Wii, there is no mistaking that Nintendo makes gaming machines, they don't market their machine to do other things. Do what you do well, don't try to do everything for everyone.
Sure, gamers will buy multiple consoles, but that's what, maybe 10% of the total market? That also doesn't mean you have to buy all the consoles when they're brand new.
Last generation, I bought a PS2 less than 6 months after its US launch. When the Game Cube's price dropped, and there were some nice bundles available, I bought one of those - about 2 years later. The Xbox, on the other hand, wasn't purchased until about a year before the 360 launched. At that point, I'd pretty much finished with the Game Cube, and was finally able to justify buying a Xbox due to its low price and cheap games.
Right now, the order is looking like 360 now, Wii in a year or two, PS3 sometime after that - maybe. There just aren't the exclusives on the PS3 to make it worth buying right now - especially at its high price. Drop it to $300, and show me a good 4 or 5 solid exclusives that I'm interested in, and then I'll consider it. The first solid compelling reason to get a 360 is coming later this month with Ratchet & Clank. Final Fantasy XIII could be another one, but realistically won't come out in the States until 2009.
Also, living in Canada, I see the launch price of the PS3 to be about 2 times higher than the PS2. I remember the PS2 being $299, while the PS3 was $599 and $699. Not sure where your information comes from, but I think its false.
No my information is not false go back and look at the launch price, then adjust for inflation. You'll find the 20gb version is withing $50.
PS2 Release Oct 26, 2000 price : $449 CND ($524.07 CND after inflation)
PS3 20gb launch price: $549 CND
The $299 price was the price of a PS2 2 years after launch.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Well, that's nice. However, if you are a serious FPS fan, you probably have a decent PC, so why would you buy UT for your game console? The PC version will have better graphics, not to mention an active user community generating tons of mods and new maps. I don't think either the PS3 or 360 version will have this sort of open access to user-created material (not to mention, the tools to create them).
I feel sorry for people who derive personal validation from the control scheme they use in their games.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Well
1) Price - not everyone has lots of extra income they want to spend on games. Especially considering the price of current gen games.
2) Space - not everyone has lots of extra space for spare consoles to hang out in. Especially if you are living in limited space (dorm, apartment, room at home).
3) Time - not everyone has lots of extra time to spend playing video games, that they need three consoles worth of games to fill the void. Especially if they watch television, go to movies, read books, or have friends/a real life.
Yeah, sure. Buying all consoles gets you the widest possible variety of games, but you only have X hours a day/week/month to play anyway. Its THOSE hours you need to find games to play. You don't NEED to own all the "best" games of a given generation. Yeah, you might miss a couple, so what? You will either spend more time playing another game you like (you don't have to abandon every game within 8 hours), or else you'll spend the time enjoying another recreational activity.
Either way, you don't need to buy every console of every generation.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Umm
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
According to Mark Rein, posting at the Epic Forums, they still are aiming for a release date of the PS3 version sometime before the end of this year.
http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?p=25003889#post25003889
> Running any current game on a PC requires relatively high-end hardware which means that consumers have to continue to invest more money for upgrades to continue buying new games. I'm ignoring those that restrict themselves to older releases who can stay with the same hardware for longer.
I find PC gaming a lot cheaper but then again I fall into the category you ignore. I don't buy a PC for games. I buy it for my work. I do need/fancy a decent one. I don't factor the basic PC price into cost of gaming. A reasonable graphics card is only $80-$150 to run current games on a very decent 19 inch monitor. My last $60 card (rebates) gave me a mileage of 2 years forward on a 17 inch monitor.
Does console gaming really end up cheaper? At $500 a console and $10 extra per game - it is cheaper for me to buy PC games. Also, I stick to older games. The purchases are usually classics and inexpensive too. I do have a couple of last gen consoles that I bought used. Now there are enough good games for them that don't charge a premium price. This makes more sense for me since I am more of a casual gamer who likes to explore several games than commit to any single one.
As we've seen time and time again, you can not adjust for inflation when it comes to consoles or PCs.
I'm not sure why this is, but there is some weird "stasis bubble" around the price which is why my first console (Atari 2600) and my latest console (Wii) both cost $249.99 (and each came with one game).
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The PS3 will allow a mouse and keyboard.
That's funny, I remember that Epic said the reason why those maps wouldn't be on the PS3 version was "the PS3 lacks the resources to ensure smooth gameplay", now it turns out it's not true?
Go Epic!
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Please don't think I dislike Nintendo because I have a NES, SNES and a Gamecube and I do enjoy some of their games which I can only play on their consoles, but the fact remains from my observation that Gamecube and now Wii game prices remain fairly static (unless the game is a real stinker) over a longer period of time than either Xbox, PS2, PS3 and Xbox360 games. This can actually tip the balance in favor (IMHO) of the more expensive console. Of course some people don't even think along these lines.
I think the bottom line is if you want and can justify a console then pick one that suites your financial situation and lifestyle, remembering to take games and potential games or movies or whatever into account. In other words do some homework.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
And if you're not a "serious" FPS fan with a painfully expensive graphics card, or just like playing on a 42" screen rather than a 17" one, then the console versions will do just fine, thanks.
I'm perfectly prepared to admit I'm not a serious FPS fan, which is why I bought a 360 instead of a whole new PC (my CPU isn't up to much either) when I wanted to play Oblivion; I wanted to play PGR3 and Dead Rising as well. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to play UT3 when it comes out for my platform.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"