Eidos holding out for better PS3 install base

Yes the development costs of making a new game would be to much for them at this point... But I can't imagine it would cost very much to take the X-box 360 versions and port them to PS3.

True, but maybe it's not worth their time to make the port.

The financial gain must be small, otherwise I'm sure you would see a port of Blood money.

You also have to assume that a lot of the early ps3 adaptors were ps2 owners so if they liked those two games probable already bought them and are therefor highly unlikely to buy them again for a slight update in graphics.

It has begun...

FANBOY KOMBAT!!!

Thats priceless...by that time it might be too late and Microsoft or Nintendo will have even tighter hold on the market.

"Sony!"

"Playstation!"

"Microsoft!"

"XBox!"

"Nintendo!"

"Ds Lite!"

"Wii!"

"FANBOY KOMBAT!"

So, what month does Eidos use to start/end their fiscal year? Does "second half of our 2008 financial year" (which I assume means fiscal year) mean January to March of next year or is it some other range?

Well when you need to sell a flaming dog turd like the hitman series you need to have an installed base of at least 10 million so that there will be at least 1 million suckers to buy it.

Release a good game and you'll sell enough even with the current install base...and more as the install base increases.

SDF Assemble!
Theme of Defense: Eidos games suck anyways
Bonus: Home or LittleBigPlanet mention
Result: Less games for PS3 owners to play and a hearty ROFL!

Hey Joystiq, I'm surprised you guys haven't made fun of the fact according to IGN they are looking into REMAKING the first Mortal Kombat movie. Not a sequel, not a prequel... a remake.

Fiscal years start in April. So second half of fiscal years equate to October 2008-March 2009.

Honestly, I wish I could say I'm suprised. But then here is the bitch I have. When Tomb Raider Legend underwent developerment, Xbox 360 had a similar installed base. So pretty much, what they are saying falls into one of two categories...

A. "We learned our lesson with 360." Hardly conclusive considering, from what I recall, both Hitman and Tomb Raider saw decent sales on 360 at a similar time in their cycle.

B. "Sony needs to move more units." Duh, they are working on it, actually. But let's put it this way, Playstation Edge tools make porting easier. And as Activision and EA have proven, you don't HAVE to develop with a consoles strength in mind. Hell, just halfass the porting process and you still get sales. WOOP!

When is the next Eidos game out anyway? I say it's time to see Kain return to consoles...

the first MK movie was kinda fun though... In comparison to the sequels at least.

I liked Tomb Raider 1 and 2, and the latest tomb raider (the ones that had actual tombs instead of sewers, lofts, and museums), the original Deus Ex was ok, and that is truely it.

Its good that you can claim im calling Hitman crappy just beacuse its not comming out for PS3, but thats not the truth. Hitman, Theif, etc...Eidos games are usually too rigid and anal for my tastes.

"Thats priceless...by that time it might be too late and Microsoft or Nintendo will have even tighter hold on the market."

Why would Eidos care? They're in it to make money for themselves, not to enhance the fortunes of any one console. Too late for whom?

I liked the first MK movie, much better than the third, piece of crap.

If any movie needs to be remade it's Street Fighter, without a doubt.

I'm holding out for better games.

It's kind of true. I guess the only thing PS3 owners will be w/out is Battlestations. That's a pretty good game but it'n not like it's a Tomb Raider game and the year is '97. Know what I mean Verne?

There was a THIRD Mortal Kombat movie?! Jesus tap dancing Christ...how did THAT happen? The second one was so awful, it made Power Rangers seems like Broadway.

...the first one was alright, though.
Still, I will not see it..









Oh yeah, and lol@PS3.

Sheppy that is not universally correct - for example where i work the fiscal year starts July 1. That is, essentailly, the first day of 2008 for me. Their 08 fiscal could start any time from April 1 07 to Jan 1 08.

Their fiscal year end is June 30: http://corporate.sci.co.uk/Investor_Relations/KeyDatesInvestor.aspx

The fiscal year is based on the calendar year it ends in (for any company). For example, June 30, 2007 will be the end of their Fiscal 2007. This means their fiscal 2008 is from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Second half of Fiscal 2008 is January 1, 2008 - June 30, 2008.

While normally I would agree with you, Paul, Eidos traditionally annoucnes Fiscal year results in March.

Man... hearing Shagittarius use the words rigid and anal in the same sentence is just too much for me... so... hot...

I mean..

Hitman sucks! Yeah. That's it...

This is such a BAD ATTITUDE from developers, but it's not their fault.

Sony should be watching out for developers who are willing to invest in their platform early. By giving them reduced licensing agreements and co-branding, this would spur developers and give them an incentive to develop for the system early.

When and if platform blooms into a successful platform, developers should be rewarded again.

One hand washes the other.

FrankTheCrank, what you said is exactly right, it's called "developer relations".

unless Microsoft does it, then its called "buying off everybody to monopolize the industry".



.

comtar, no it is not a remake. it is a reboot. they are relaunching the movie series from scratch, just as batman begins was a much needed reboot of the batman series.

So, what, they're going to wait for next week? PS3 Is shattering all sorts of records and selling in droves in Europe. Total installed base and attachment rates are through the roof. If they can keep even a majority share of that increase in the coming months they will be surpassing 360 and Wii within a year to a year and a half.

Sure, nothing is guaranteed. But Eidos is being lazy, pure and simple. It's not about the numbers.

F-eM!

Eidos is still around? Does anyone care?

You guys are nuts. Blood Money and Legends were awesome.

Gamey McGee -> "surpassing 360 and Wii within a year to a year and a half"

That's a good one man! It really made laugh ;)

I'm taking a "wait and see aproach" as to wether or not getting a PS3... Probably "wait and see" if the games don't suck as much as they do now.

Apparently developers are doing the same...

In the meantime, HALO 3, GoW 2 and the new TC batch is coming soon :P

No one is losing sleep over the awful Hitman series ( seriously, how do you make being a Hitman Lame?)And tomb raider has been burnt out for years, now the only Lara Croft feature they push is her cup size.

Its much safer to make a Xbox 360 game than a PS3 game simply based on the attach rates. 360 owners buy more games than PS3 owners, so the publishers know they have a better chance at making a profit.

@ 26

No, the PS3 had a good launch day in Europe. But with the system tanking in Japan (even used PS3's sit on shelves untouched there) and the enormous backstock every store in America seems to have it doesn't stand a chance. Hell, with the system a bust in Australia as well all Sony has is Europe at this point.

There is no way in hell they'll come out on top unless the systems picks up else where in the world.

So does this mean "Kane and Lynch" is going to be on the 360 only? Or maybe it was already an exclusive to the 360 since their page makes no mention of the PS3. Another sweet title only on the 360!

I don't like MS's hardware decisions but they sure do have the best games rolling out!!

Steve Ballmer said it best when he chanted his "Developers! Developers! Developers!" mantra. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8913084255008000794.

We can argue about which hardware (PS3/X360) is better all day, but at the end of the day, if you poll developers who code for both consoles, they will tell you the Xbox 360 is BY FAR has the better development environment. Couple that with easy XBL/online integration and a easy to code for platform = LOWER development costs.

In other words, developing for the Xbox360 is cheaper than the PS3, and in todays age of escalating development costs, this makes a difference.

sheppy,

Fiscal years don't always start in April. At my company, it is August. Companies can have their fiscal years start whenever they want.

This story is bigger than Hitman or Tomb Raider. It is yet another developer saying the PS3 isn't worth supporting at this time. Developers prefer the 360. It is cheaper to make a good game, the install base is higher, and the attachment rates are higher. Eidos brought Hitman and Tomb Raider to the 360 early in its life, and they refuse to bring anything to the PS3 until 2008. Another developer saying the PS3 is not worth it at this time.

Okay, I concede. I thought Eidos fiscal year was March.

@Jake, Playstation Edge tools have dramatically increased the ability to get power out of the PS3 so development costs come down there slightly. BUT development costs are up all across the board. Don't think just because Cell is hard, 360 is a magical fairy land where everything works with no problems. Personally, I feel developers best approach would BE through multiconsole support. After all, PS3s attach rate is hardly a slouch. It was 2.4 in February and I expect March to be a huge leap forward. Likewsie, with PS3s launch, you saw a great attach rate. The attach rate arguement just doesn't hold water anymore. After all, what looks more impressive from a raw numbers standpoint? 186 available games with a 4.7 attach rate or =/- 50 with a 2.4 attach rate?

The PS3s are selling, the attach rate has been on an increase (although accurate numbers will NOT be known until NPD drops their March figures), it's just a matter of time before the userbase cannot be ignored. And in case you missed it, developers with.. well, how do I put it nicely, significance are not ignoring this userbase, merely making sure they aren't relying on it exclusively.

This move by Eidos only really means no Eidos games for a while.... which is happening anyway.

Let me correct an above statement...

Likewise, with PS3s EUROPIAN LAUNCH you saw a great attach rate.

Haha, Eidos thinks theyre cool and that they matter. Cute.

I also think this whole (360 is easier to develop for) nonsense is kinda silly seeing as how it was with the introduction of 360 we saw a $10 dollar leap in game prices for what were essentially shinier versions of standard generation games.

So while 360 may be a bit easier to develop for, it doesnt necessarily mean its a whole lot cheaper, otherwise why would they say the increase in game prices on the 360 reflected the higher costs to produce them? Why ami paying 10 bucks more for a game thats cheaper on a ps2 and essentially the same thing? (lego star wars, gun etc)

That said, would this argument have made since when hitman came out on the 360 last year when its user base was half the size as it is now?

Doesnt make much sense to me, if that was the case who would support the launch of a new console at all? If they want to make money their best bet would be multiconsole, as capcom says "You reach the most customers that way".

Why shut off an avenue to make money?

you can have 1 game available with 1 attach rate. but does it sounds impressive? I bet PS2 has lower attach rate per games available ratio than any other consoles mainly because its game library is freaking huge. yet, it's the most successful console ever.

@JJ

Good point? Why?

*CONSPIRACY THEORY TIME!!!*
MS is paying them off?
Sony killed the CEO's first child?
Eidos only has plans for one or two games they are near finished and 2008 happens to be the next release?
Eidos thinks fanboy wars are funny, so they toss in fuel for the fire?
Eidos is under the control of Satan and wants to put Sony away?
Eidos wants a price drop on the console, so is pushing Sony to do this?

I love conspiracy theory time /swoon

People need to stop comparing ps3 and 360 launch in regards to these sort of developer comments. Just because developers made some games for 360 at their launch, doesn't mean they wanna do it for ps3. It might have been a high risk decision back then, and if it paid off, it's a guarantee to pay off again so they will keep developing for the same system. It's all risk vs reward. If they were heavily rewarded by developing a game for 360, they will continue to do so on 360. PS3 is doing abysmally in North America right now, you really can't blame developers. In a way, I feel bad for sony, it's a vicious cycle that the wii is somewhat experiencing as well. Alot of developers wanted to wait to see how the PS3/Wii did, so they didn't start developing games. Now that the wii is a massive hit, developers are going nuts developing for it, but we won't see these games for another year. The ps3 not doing anywhere near as well, many are "waiting and seeing" to see how it does after it's worldwide launch. If it ever does pick up, 360 will continue getting tons of developer support, and its library will continue to slaughter PS3's, giving more people more incentive to pick 360.

Does anyone know who the developers of the ps3 are and how they feel everything is going??