I wrote about this on the Xbox Forums and you will see a HUGE diffrence in companies staying with just one system because of the price of development going up. A company like UbiSoft will have to come out on mulitiple platforms so they can make a profit. This will hurt the PS3 because you will be able to get a game with the same grapichs but for 200.00 less(Xbox 360)

Boo to more confusion in the gaming industry!

IN the spirit of the World Cup and the previous post on the Netherlands/Portugal game: Red Card!

I'm asking this quesiton a lot these days of many people: What, exactly, will the PS3 offer me that I cannot already get today and for a cheaper price?

"What, exactly, will the PS3 offer me that I cannot already get today and for a cheaper price?"

Final Fantasy XIII and Grand Theft Auto 4. (Of course, the X360 will also offer the latter.)

The bottom line is if you want to play any new games in 2-3 years, you will need a new console. It's all well and good to say "these newfangled systems don't offer me anything I can't get today" when both the new and old systems are still on the market and are still having games released for them. But over time, games for the old systems will dry up, and if you want to play anything new, you will need to pony up.

And there's nothing wrong with just sitting a generation out, or even giving up the rat race entirely and devoting your life to nostalgia gaming. But you can't say "there's nothing these new consoles offer that I can't get for cheaper", because the fact of the matter is that it isn't true. All of the new games they play will only be available on these new systems; in 2009 and 2010, good luck finding new releases for your PS2, GameCube or original Xbox.

We all know the console war is going to be different in the next generation as it relates to exclusivity. We also all know Ubisoft isn't one for exclusive titles. The thing is, MS owns so many developers now that no matter what development costs are, you can guarantee certain great titles will only be coming to 360. And because exclusive 3rd party titles were Sony's only chance in the last generation, wonder what'll happen to them this one. Give me Assasins Creed and UT2007 on 360 and everything's cool.

UbiSoft's practice (GRAW) of selling an incomplete game for full price, and then releasing bits and pieces at $15 each... well let's just say I have lost interest in anything that Ubi had in the works.

*by incomplete game, I am referring to the fact that you can't get 1000 gamer points in GRAW with just the store bough version.

The worst part of the download, IMO, is the fact that you can't sell it down the road. They basically want to charge us the $15 for the right to play their 4 maps... if you sell your game to your friend then you are still stuck with the 'right' and your friend will be stuck having to buy the download as well.

2¢

Jeff, he means he can get it today for a cheaper price on the 360, not the Xbox and PS3.

Thanks Mosquito, you're exactly right.

As far as I know, the 360 is "next gen" and very comparable to the PS3. While I'll probably never own a 360 either, I do know what's on it and coming out soon. I realize Jeff was trying to make a point, but by using my quote he led me to believe he was going to relate his answer to what I wrote...but it didn't. Since he has 10 stars however, it leads me to believe that perhaps this is the best approach to use when posting to Joystiq. So, in that vein, I will post something too:

I love pink elephants.

Oops, I meant PS2 in my reply.


The PS3 offers me little. I don't care about MGS or Gran Turismo. Assassin's Creed looks great, but other than that, the 360 offers everything I want and nothing I don't (BluRay.)

I wouldn't have a 360 now if someone else didn't buy it. And I haven't touched it in a few weeks, since I got bored of Burnout and Table Tennis. But, when games come out, I've enjoyed it. Oblivion cost me 70 hours, although I would have purchased it for the PC I actually think it's one of the only first person games to be better on consoles.

I think you meant "whittles"

First of all this article is misleading. It seems like Assassin's Creed /is/ coming to the xbox360. Its a ps3 game, period.

There /are/ rumors and the likelihood that it will be released on x360 as well. Given that Ubisoft has set a precedent for multiplatform games, I can see why this rumor keeps proliferating. Until someone goes on the record saying that it will show up on the x360, it will not. I don't see the big deal. I'm pretty sure it will get released on both consoles in time. For now its hard to call a rumor gospel like the article does.

His rumor comes with saying that it stems from a "leaked" internal memo, he claims is 100% legit. The memo says that it will come to two sony platforms. If that were the case and sony has grabbed the exclusivity rights to the game, why would they not announce it for the PSP also? If the memo were legit [keep in mind that we are just blindly taking this guys word as to the docs legitimacy] who is to say that they haven't changed their minds? Release schedules and company priorities change almost daily.

"First of all this article is misleading. It seems like Assassin's Creed /is/ coming to the xbox360. Its a ps3 game, period. "

The list is not the sole (or main) origin of the rumour.

It was demoed at E3 on a 360. THAT is the main cause of all the rumours, and why it's believe to be one of the worst kept secrets in the games industry at the moment. The release list (which personally i believe is inaccurate - as far as PSP & Wii are concerned) only goes to lend more weight to the rumour.

After reading the last few posts, I love how everyone says that the x360 is comparable to a console that has not been released yet. =) Who knows? when its released the x360 could be "better". It's not done yet, so who can state an opinion yet? To take things even a step further, has ANYONE seen ANY cross platform titles shown in a side-by-side comparison? Even most developers can't truly give an unbiased opinion.

--

That said, FTA... this guy goes on to say: "when this all sorts itself out, we're expecting to see Assassin's Creed on the Xbox 360 and we're expecting to see it at the same time as it ships for the PS3." That's a truly serious /opinion/ to nearly state as fact. If the title was shipping for both platforms, why is it not announced for both? Why has there been no footage or publicity? Why is there no scan of this "legit leaked document"? If you look at the same document as listed by kotaku you notice glaring ommissions from the 1up version of the list. Ones that would debunk the "legit" claim he seems to make.
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/ubisoft/ubisoft-denies-leaked-schedule-160283.php

psp version of GR:AW? game 5/ Haze discrepancies? The original list doesnt even mention a pc version of assassin's creed, while his does. Where is he pulling this list from?

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63228



The article isn't journalism, it's not even a "true" editorial [since this is his personal opinion and not 1up's]. It's basically an opinion piece that he is passing off as fact.

Assassin's creed was not demoed on a x360 at e3. That's a rumor too. lol. Think about it, if that were true, you would see photos of it all over the net. You can't believe everything you hear.

Here is one of the original source articles that started that rumor: http://gcnaddict.com/mirror/708431p1.html

"Microsoft sources who asked not to be mentioned by name, claimed the demo, hidden behind closed doors at E3, was running on an Xbox 360 using a third-party USB PlayStation controller. The game system was hidden in a stand covered by a sheet."

A rumor started by anonymous "microsoft" reps? It's amazing what gets claimed as fact and as news on the internet. No one besides the MS reps saw this with their own eyes?

http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/xbox/topic.asp?fid=13022&tid=1899042&p=1
second comment, yet another "factual" account. according to /this/ guy, you were playing the game using an x360 controller! Also interesting is that the devs were quick to tell random gamers that AC was being developed for x360, but they didnt mention that to any of the major publications at e3, and still won't come out and say such.

ubi anouncved the game as project assasin at x05 a microsft game show back in 2005. thats where the weight to the rumor starts. it was shown at the xbox game show. look it up aint going to link common knowledge. any true gamer would have a;ready known about the game from the x05 game show. look it up and refute the fact the game was shown at a microsft game show a year ago. funny if its noty going to be on the 360 don't ya think

ok so i guess i will help u out cause i am nice

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/gearsofwar/news.html?sid=6134969

oct 2005 game shown by ubi as a 360 game in develoopment called project assasin. its common knowledge project assasin was the code name for assasins creed. i guess microsft faked the game show back in oct? itys going to be multiplatform and will make the 360 oh so much better. gears of war, lord of the rings, halo 3, assasins creed.

love that 360

and incase ur 2 lazy to read the article hear is the quote from x05

"Singling out Ubisoft for praise, Moore also revealed that two PlayStation 3 games from the publisher would also be coming to the Xbox 360: Gearbox-developed WWII shooter Brothers in Arms 3 (tentative), and the still-mysterious Project Assassin, which looks like a bloodier version of Thief. He also offered the first glimpse of Splinter Cell 4 via a trailer that promised that the game is coming "online and offline in 2006."

once again oct 2005 and here is the link
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/gearsofwar/news.html?sid=6134969

and i want some stars for all the ownage i just dished out. refute that fanboys lol.

Well they sure as heck are not saying that it will be exclusive or that it will not ever come out on the 360. For petes sake the game has been demoed on the 360 at E3. It will definately be coming to the 360. Funny thing is, I bet the 360 is this games native platform for development...which would explain why this game looks so polished compared to everything else that was shown for the PS3.

oh so because peter moore said its comin to xbox360 it will ?

condemned was also announced for playstation 3 it got canceled...

Its just this back then in 2005 assassins creed got announced for xbox360 but after a while when the first ps3 devkits got released the ubi devs noticed the lack of power vs the ps3 and decided to drop the xbox360 version and fully utilize the ps3 potential....

just read the 10 page playstation magazine

1 of the many quotes from the ps magazine

WE WANT TO PUSH THE CELL PROCESSOR THROUHG THE ROOF

number 18

this was in oct 2005. it was shown at x05 and was already in development for a 360 version. because u donlt want to belive it is you. i provided accurate infor from someone who would know more than me. part if the reason the condemded for ps3 got scrapped was ps3 got delayed and the next game will be on ps3. instead of sopending money to port it they will amke the next game for the ps3 not that hard. lil diff when a system is out and many of those in the industry know ubi does not make exclusivesd and ac will be on the 360. to say ubi got the ps3 dev kits and flipped out over the cell is just dumb. ubi is about money and since there will not be more than 6 million if that ps3's worldwide a single copnsole launch of a game that had a high productrion cost would be insane. the game will not sell to every ps3 so developers are forced to go multiplatform. but go ahead and think what you want. i provided you facts. belive them or not but they are fact. not my thoughts but fact. next i will inform you i am getting a ps3 as i already have a 360 so either way i will be playing halo 3 and assains creed. either way gamers win right? lol fanboys only hurt themselves lol

"If the title was shipping for both platforms, why is it not announced for both?" -apoc6
----------------
"So why the secrecy? Considering their comments and their history as a multiplatform publisher, Smith whittles it down to one of two things:

* Timed exclusivity: With the loss of timed exclusivity of the money-printing GTA series, Sony might be angling to fill their stable with some more exclusive content, if only for a little while (6 months?).

* Exclusive rights: That means Sony put up the cash to keep Assassin's Creed out of Microsoft's grubby, GTA-fondling mitts (and off Peter Moore's other other bicep)." -from the article that apoc6 commented on

Before you start throwing fanboy spit all over you comments, at least read the article you are commenting on.

Just to throw some history on y'all, the EXACT SAME thing happened to Splinter Cell 1 for the Xbox 1. It was only announced for the Xbox, stayed on the Xbox for 6 months, and was then announced and released on the PS2. What company made Splinter Cell?

UBISOFT.

number 19

We all know porting from xbox360 to ps3 or the other way wil take almost 2 years ''when fully utilize a system'' do you know how many money that will cost ?

just buy the playstation magazine number 57 and read

And he really flipped over the cell processor

quote:

the cell is a revolutionair piece of technoligy.
Its a supercomputer on a chip.
The cell is inconceivable
1080P is easy to do on ps3 we gonna boost the graphics even higher

and

our focus is 100% on blu-ray
the disk is awesome
the capacity is immense the data stream is much higher then we used to and thats the only way to push the next gen games to the limit..

you wanna read FACTS buy playstation magazine and dont waste your time on speculations

dude what else would u expect him to say in an interview with a playstation magazine? many other games are going to be multi platform and it does not take 2 years to port a game to one system or the next. 2 years are u serious?. i gave you a statment made by peter moore at a confrence for the media. ubi never stated moore was wrong and that sta,mnet has been loss in all the hubbub about the ps3 since than. rumors like the version was playing on a 360 and ,any other thangs have faded that oct 2005 confrence and statement. i expect devs to fully speak up a consoles abilities when interviewd for that console. why? becasue if playstation had no consoles than no one would buys correct? ubi has no exclusives and seem to have no problem in some of its 360 releases and some of its futre games for the 360 nor has other multi platforming developers. this generation it will be aboput first party exclusives because many developers will be going multiplatform. its called round 2. if u donlt want to know about it thats too bad. gamers win and games are what matter. if u want toa rgue my link than find a statment from ub

As much as I despise getting into these juvenile debates, let me clarify.

If you read my initial comment, I said that my intuition tells me to believe that the game will actually see release on both consoles eventually. As of now... i doubt the validity of the referenced journalism. [see my above comments as to why...]

Joystiq may be a games blog, but they are referencing journalistic efforts. There are far too many stories that go: "My cousin who knows someone that knows someone who works for a competitive company said such and such derogatory comment". That's not journalism by any stretch of the imagination. Don't take everything said as truth, you have to learn to read things with a grain of salt sometimes.

As for the game running on a x360, it's possible. I don't deny that. However, I expect more solid facts to support the claim, other than an anonymous representative from a competitive company. That's the very definition of FUD; whether the claim is true or not.

Repeating unsourced articles and claims lacking someone willing to go on the record doesn't do anything except make you look foolish. Even joystiq [a blog] avoids intentionally stating things are true, when there are no solid facts supporting the rumor. If you are a six-seven figure Ubisoft executive, I'm sure you have better things to do than clarify every single rumor posting on the internet. Everything that doesn't get commented about is not true, just as everything that does get refuted doesnt necessarily mean its not.

If a console has solid games and you can reasonably afford it, I feel you should buy it. Why bother having any specific loyalty to any company that doesn't cut you a check? Blindly serving a company means that you are by and large ignoring many great experiences in gaming. If a company's products are not to your liking, move on to the companies that are. There's no need to incite riots about a company that you dont have a vested interest in the first place, right?

#20 The Shizzlenit:

My comment was pertaining to the two SONY platforms the original document referenced. If sony bought the exclusive rights to the assassins' creed franchise, why wouldn't they announce it coming to both platforms and lock MS out; both platforms being the psp and the ps3, which would thereby both be covered in an exclusive agreement?

The 1up piece lists the leaked document as saying one set of information, but when you follow his links to the original document, you find conflicting information.

For example, the PC version he mentions was not referenced in the original leaked document. That's the point I was trying to make. For something he claims as "legit", why is his version not consistent with the original?

numnber 22

The Xbox 360 operating system shares enough similarities with Windows, he said, so that porting the Windows version of FFXI to the 360 was a fairly quick task. A PS3 version of FFXI, on the other hand, would require redeveloping the game almost from scratch, a process that Tanaka estimated would take two or three years.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=452561&page=

and

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/15/xbox-360-dev-ps3-ports-to-be-reasonably-difficult/

and ubi soft gonna use the cell in mind so dont expect assassins creed within 3 years IF it comes to xbox360 wich i doubt...they can use the 3 years for assasins part 2

some of you are thick as shít. you really are. especially the narrow minded fanboys. do you really think a big company like Microsoft would release a console far less powerful than their main comeptitior? not a chance.emtec, that is a load of rubbish. rubbish. i am sick of fanboys, they are idiots of the highest order. get girlfriends you prats!!

number 27

The ps2 was also far less powerfull then xbox whats your point ?

anyway IBM made both cpus and they know what they are talking about

http://www.mc.com/cell/media/medium.cfm

well given it came out a year before... its hard to go back and up the specs coxy. It's a simple fact that given time, all systems will get stronger, just a fact of technology.

Now is the PS3 leagues above the 360? Well i cant tell ya, it hasn't been out for 7 months, but on sheet you ARE getting a more technologically advanced console in terms of options and doodads.
That's the risk ANY company takes when it tries to get itself first to market.
AS big a company as MS is... it cant travel through time and upgrade the 360 every 6 months, that would be a dumb business move. Its not like they can magically upgrade the hardware of the system. Software, yes, hardware no.

Most devs, and analysts have stated that the difference between the two major consoles will be less this generation than last. The ps3, being slightly more powerful CPU wise, and 360 being slightly more powerful GPU wise.

It might boil down to development, i mean the 360 has XNA and DirectX10, while the PS3 has nothing. Sony hasnt provided any tools for coding for it yet!

I think it will be almost equal, im not going to buy a PS3, which will have the same Multi platform titles (including Assasins Creed) and that isnt more powerful in any major way then Xbox360. If only people could pull their heads out of their asses and stop believing everything KK says, its not a supercomputer, its a game system thats too expensive!

to 26...

Given the differences in arcitecture, i`m sure the reports of porting PS3 code to xbox 360 being a difficult task are true, but that certainly doesn`t mean that the same is true the other way round. Quite the opposite, infact.
If the Xbox 360 proves itself to be the easiest (read for that - cheapest) console platform to code for (remember that its the worlds biggest software company that makes it), then it logically stands that multi platform publishers will conclude that it makes fiancial sense to use the 360/PC as the primary development platform and port code to the PS3 from there.
Microsoft have invested a massive amount of resouce in giving developers the best environment possible, and this strategy should pay big dividends.

to 26...

Given the differences in arcitecture, i`m sure the reports of porting PS3 code to xbox 360 being a difficult task are true, but that certainly doesn`t mean that the same is true the other way round. Quite the opposite, infact.
If the Xbox 360 proves itself to be the easiest (read for that - cheapest) console platform to code for (remember that its the worlds biggest software company that makes it), then it logically stands that multi platform publishers will conclude that it makes fiancial sense to use the 360/PC as the primary development platform and port code to the PS3 from there.
Microsoft have invested a massive amount of resouce in giving developers the best environment possible, and this strategy should pay big dividends.

As far as the 'time to port' comments, most are correct. Even a MS 360 game engineer said it'd be a pain in the ass.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/mattlee.ars/1

He also said he doesn't think the cell is really right for game development, due to the cell's lack of branch prediction.

"I don't think the Cell is as well designed for game development as Sony would have you believe. Some aspects of the SPEs, such as the lack of branch prediction, make them particularly unsuited to running most game code, which contains a lot of branches."

Now of course, what can you expect from a xbox man. Nothing less, right? Well I agree. You are going to point out your competitors flaws when possible.

So no matter which way you stand with his comment- either you believe it or you don't- is your stance the opposite on say, what emtac way saying is printed in the playstation magazine? How is any information in that magazine not tilted as well?

The facts are simple, so some of you need to get over it. Assassins Creed was oringinally slated for the 360. Now all we've heard officially is the game's presence on the ps3... but it hasn't been denied to be on the 360. Ubisoft is notorious for multi-platform releases. How does all of this make it impossible for it to be on the 360??
Some of you say that they would've said so if it was gonna be. How's that any different then them staying quiet on the rumors that it is? That's the beauty of silence. It proves nothing, and leaves way to anything. IF WE HAD TO ASSUME, there's more data to say this will likely come out on the 360 then that it won't. Bottom line.

And the article says this, so why all the bitching? Apoc06 thinks the article is trying to make an end statement that it WILL come out for the 360. Well, he kinda does, unless the following things happen: Timed exclusivity, or a Sony buy out for Complete exclusivity. This is an intelligent theory based on facts. But I don't get a feeling of 'It will be on the 360. It a is fact' at all from the article.

I think people need to start reading articles as if a human is writing them, because in fact... well, a human IS writing them. Most articles are just anaylists' opinion stacked upon known facts. That's all. Come down to earth and use your brain and good judgement. Not every article is a personal attack on your fanboyism.

I have to say that I think you guys are really full of it (it being bulls**t). The PS3 and the Xbox360 are two very different architectures with some similarities. Being that different, code being ported from one machine to the other is going to be very different and will require major changes in almost every aspect. Code on consoles are tuned as close as possible to the metal, and these codes may not be compatible across platforms. Furthermore, one platform is using OpenGL and the other is using DirectX. How different can that be ? Sony licenses softwares and solutions that are basically Open Standards in the industry for their PS3. Whereas Microsoft's solutions are basically propriatary to their platform, and no other. You say MS has invested a massive amount of resource in giving developers the best environment to work with, how sure are you that Sony is not doing the same. Granted that they may be stumbling and such but they are making an effort to ease the pains that developers are facing. IBM is also working to come out with a compiler that will ease the burden of the developers. They are making an effort, and this effort is a huge undertaking seeing as the Cell is a new architecture that will allow them to reap the benefits in the future if they know how to take advantage of it. Saying that, the only possibility for games to take full advantage of a said platform, will be those games that are exclusive and catering only to that platform. ie. Halo3 for the xbox360, and perhaps in this case, Assassin's Creed for the PS3.

tell me this, fluffy.

John Carmack, long time proprietor of using open standards (ie, OpenGL) says he's more impressed with the format Microsoft has provided with the xbox verus Sony's Playstation. He didn't say that sony sucks, or even that he wasn't going to develop for the PS3 as well (as they are, in fact developing for both for their next IP), he just said MS's environment is better.
I'm not saying that what you said about 'Sony making an effort to make their platform better to work with' isn't true, I'm just saying the highest-reguarded technology developer has named his preference, and it's not Sony. That senitiment MUST, in some degree, lie with other game developers as well.

"Granted that they may be stumbling and such but they are making an effort to ease the pains that developers are facing."

See, this is the point of the whole debate. The pains developers face with Playstation development are UNNECESSARY. The cell is a great processor, but its too young, and not suited for gaming. Not yet. Sony's forcing tech we need to be using in 2012 in 2007, and its hurting the devs and the market. Development costs are shooting through the roof as it is, and we don't need Sony's pain-in-the-ass platform to make them worse. They should've created the cell w/ IBM and put them through stress testing and then in other commercial venues, like server markets and specialty markets, like multimedia applications, where it MAKES SENSE. Let the cell grow up with an OS together, so costs actually make sense, then give it to the pc and console market. They'd still make millions on it, they would've just introduced to the industry at a pace that makes sense. The cell doesn't make sense in the PC market right now, why does it in the console market?
I think people have heard the buzz about the 'cell', seen some theoretical numbers, and reigned it king. The cell has died before, and they're trying to make it's comeback in the wrong way.

Sony makes good technology, good standards, and then chokes them with their arrogance and greed till they're dead.

It's really getting old.

I'm not trying to sound like I want to stifle the industry's growth. Pushing the limit is good for everyone. But the way those limits are applied in the public space is what matters.

Timing is everything, as they say. And Sony does't have it.

Hey, to #18, Condemned wasnt going to ever be on PS3. People assumed it and when PS3 wasnt released at the same as 360, Sega didnt bring it to PS3, because who wants to play a game from a year ago, re-released? Also, why wouldnt you belive Peter Moore? He wouldnt lie at some media infested game show. You cant even compare the release/announcement of Condemned to Assassins Creed. It most likely will be on 360 as well as PS3. With development costs today, Ubisoft would be stupid not to release it on 360, theyd lose millions. And to all you fanboys, PS3 is not as ultra powerful as Sony would have you belive, it might be a bit more powerful than 360, but if you look at todays 360 games, they are only using 1 of 3 cores the 360 offers. The systems are close in terms of power. The 360 does have the edge in ease of development, if John freakin Carmack said its easier to develop on 360, its true. That guy is smart as hell. The other games that people also think are exclusive are Mercenaries 2, Unreal Tournament 2007. These will likely head over to the 360, Mercenaries 2 doesnt even have a publisher yet. Also, Crysis will likely be PS3 and 360 bound, I know they could handle it.