Shadowrun lands on Xbox and Windows May 29th
by Christopher Grant 
{ May 9th 2007 at 1:59PM }
The Xbox 360 version will retail for $60 while the Vista version will retail for $50. Additionally, cross-platform Live Anywhere play requires an Xbox Live Gold account for both Xbox Live and G4W Live -- Shadowrun Vista users can still enjoy online multiplayer with a Silver account, but will not be able to participate in matchmaking or Live Anywhere play. Are you WASD or gamepad?
Gallery: Shadowrun
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
nonpareil @ May 9th 2007 2:05PM
What's up with the hokey box art and the poor man's Balrog in picture #1?
Virtua Fanboy @ May 9th 2007 2:06PM
No fuckin way am I paying $60 for a game w/out single player. No...fuckin...way.
Judd @ May 9th 2007 2:06PM
Has anyone still managed to justify why PC games(which look a little bit better) are costing $10 less than PS3 or Xbox 360 games? Clearly, the "well, development costs have increased" excuse is bullshit.
jason @ May 9th 2007 2:12PM
Why is MS releasing Shadowrun the same day as Forza 2? That just seems stupid.
Obvious @ May 9th 2007 2:12PM
Seconding #1: Yeah, what's with the separate box art for the two versions? Was that 10 bucks extra spent on having a graphic designer make a different cover for the 360?
Tim @ May 9th 2007 2:17PM
wait wait wait... $60? Good bye.
sheppy @ May 9th 2007 2:19PM
Personally... I'm looking forward to it..'s rental. A promoter used the term "It's like Tribes" and that's the kind of claim I don't take lightly.
Ken @ May 9th 2007 2:21PM
Bah, games for windows...vista?
No thanks. Release something that works without a buggy OS, and I'll jump all over it.
Till then. No thanks!
Ryan de michigan @ May 9th 2007 2:28PM
This game needs a $35 dollar price tag to be even mildly successful. It looks cool, it rewards hardcore players by offering niche characters with special abilities, and looks like a genuinely fun multi-player. The fact that there is no single player is going to be a huge obstacle to overcome. Most of us have never bought a game before that didn't include a campaign. From what I've seen this isn't exactly a pick up and play game, meaning that it takes a bit to get used to the controls and style of play. Cross play between console and pc gamers doesn't even matter, stop selling us on it. Shadowrun could be damn successful at a $35 price point, but at $60, I feel it wont get the attention it deserves
Jake @ May 9th 2007 2:32PM
This game is worthy of my Gamefly account, but not worthy of a purchase. I wished so bad that someone would make a Shadowrun game, but I wanted it to be like the Sega Genesis game in theory only with HD, online, etc. Basically give a sequel one of my absolute favorite games ever, Genesis Shadowrun, the next gen treatment.
Instead, they make some multiplayer only BS that has nothing to do with the Shadowrun world other than some lingo. Megalame.
Anyone remember how awesome Shadowrun on Genesis was? That game kept me up late at night. And then the ending is this small lame-ass bigfoot thing. The SNES version wasn't as good throughout the game, but then had a kickass ending. Both games rocked. But the whole upgrading, doing shadowrunner jobs, hacking, hiring goons, ets. part of the Genesis version was so fun.
FrankTheCrank @ May 9th 2007 2:33PM
Simply amazed that Microsoft is passing up all that FREE money they would have taken in for the XP compatible version. Insane.
Marlos Hill @ May 9th 2007 2:39PM
60 my ass. I thought the pricing schedule was dumb as hell when the 360 first released--and now i feel its even WORSE. i still have played only a handful of games that even SEEMED like they warranted a 10 dollar price hike. ESPECIALLY the multiplatform crap sessions that split resources with the PS2/Xbox versions...
anyway...60 for what ive read/seen with Shadowrun, pretty much made me put my wallet in my pocket and laugh.
im getting to the point where gamefly will be getting about 75% of my gaming money.
HaloBreaker @ May 9th 2007 2:48PM
"Play with Xbox360 gamers!" Wow that's like putting "Get food poisoning!" on the front of a food product.
What a waste of a license. I'm so sad to see shadowrun get this crap. Let's start a pool on when this game will be 10 bucks on Ebay.
Dud @ May 9th 2007 2:43PM
Probably beating a dead horse, but where are the Shadowrun and Battletech RPG games? The 360 needs these more than another lame shooter.
wackychan @ May 9th 2007 2:56PM
Forza 2 demo hits xbox live late tonight and early tomorrow morning depending on your time zone.
wackychan @ May 9th 2007 2:58PM
dont believe me? check out the forza motorsport official forums.
Tim @ May 9th 2007 3:16PM
I don't believe you wackychan.
mastafool @ May 9th 2007 3:07PM
Wow a multiplayer only game. That sounds right up my alley. This is coming from a person that has:
1. "NEVER" played Halo 2's single campaign
2. Still hasn't beaten Gears of war
3. Only played the first mission of GRAW
But I probably clocked hundreds of hours of "Un-Ranked" online multiplayer in these games.
oddly I did beat COD2 and Perfect Dark.
What the hell is wrong with me???
Jim @ May 9th 2007 3:07PM
Disappointing. I was hoping to pick this up for $40 or so considering the lack of single player. This feels like spending $60 just to play Team Fortress 2 without the rest of the Orange Box.
Also, am I not reading right, or do Xbox 360 owners need both Gold Live accounts AND Games For Windows accounts in order to play against PC players? I'm guessing setting up a G4W account is free as long as you have gold, but that still seems like a pain in the ass.
ruben magana @ May 9th 2007 3:09PM
yeah 60 is way to much. especially for this game i mean there is hardly any positive hype for the game. microsoft would have been wise to relase it at 35.00 that way it would be more in impulse buy territory.
sam16 @ May 9th 2007 3:46PM
What's the source for this? Was there a press release? I see the same release date and price listed at IGN and Gamestop, but the page at xbox.com lists "TBA" as the release date. I was hoping the 360 version would be $40, or at the most $50. I played the beta and I won't be dropping $60 on this. I can't imagine it will sell well at that price point.
LongshotX @ May 9th 2007 3:09PM
Vista Ultimate is by far better than XP. I will never go back. And it's not buggy, although it does have some compatibility issues just like XP when it first came out.
aegies @ May 9th 2007 3:12PM
Live Gold accounts work concurrently with both PC and 360 (or it did in the Beta, anyway). And Shadowrun is screwed right and proper at this price. I may have bought it at 40, but as a Beta tester, the game isn't 60 dollars good without a singleplayer campaign. Which is too bad. It could have been something special.
http://eat-sleep-game.com/news
Autocrawler @ May 9th 2007 3:33PM
Unless they radically managed to fix it from the sad state it was beta-ed in, I'm buying neither the PC or the 360 version. Typically I buy every game for my PC, but this time around they managed to screw the PC version totally with everything from dumbed down controls, inaccurate aim, graphical glitches, et cetera. I consider that an insult to PC gamers and thus will not be buying it. To be honest, even disregarding all those flaws, I don't think that the gameplay it has is actually that amusing at all.
baby sea tuna @ May 9th 2007 3:55PM
Sixty bucks?! No effin way. Weren't all 1st party MS games supposed to be $50 anyway?
This game is gonna tank.
JayDiggler @ May 9th 2007 3:45PM
This game looks awesome. There is single player if you count playing against bots...which is about the same level of single player that came with the Unreal Tournament games and people still bought those. It shouldn't be $10 more expensive than the PC version though.
Autocrawler @ May 9th 2007 3:56PM
"It shouldn't be $10 more expensive than the PC version though."
It's called console licensing costs. $60 is the default price for retail console games, $50 is the default price for retail PC games. Why would you expect anything else?
Keif @ May 9th 2007 4:14PM
It's called console licensing costs. $60 is the default price for retail console games, $50 is the default price for retail PC games. Why would you expect anything else?
Because A) its a first party game so its supposed to be 50 dollars. and B) since its a microsoft game they wouldnt have to license it for their own system, and even then licensing doesnt cost that much to justify an extra 10 dollars
ZippyDSMlee @ May 9th 2007 8:47PM
It has a small single player champaign but regardless you need online for it now with this they can make a 1.5 Shadowrun with a full SP champaign but liek someone said this is just a "in name only" game.
Rubang B @ May 9th 2007 4:36PM
At first I was thinking "Wow, the 360 is actually getting an awesome game that I'm really really interested in that isn't just another shooter," and then I found out that they took one of my favorite games and turned it into a shooter. It got XBox-imofied. I'm waiting for the Final Fantasy FPS and the Mortal Kombat FPS on the 360 now.
0ldb0y @ May 9th 2007 5:07PM
I'm goin' a get me both versions so I can play wit myself.
Aex @ May 9th 2007 5:07PM
I want it, but $60 for a multiplayer only game is a bit steep. I'll make my decision after they release a good demo for it.
ZippyDSMlee @ May 11th 2007 5:46AM
Rubang B
I don't mind it being a FPS the trouble is its a short sighted MP based game, they should looked at dues ex 1 and 2 and then evolved a game from that with MP features but it seems to me they did a hollywoodization of shadowrun like the film industry doses odd changes to film adaptations.
Jake @ May 9th 2007 5:42PM
mastafool,
I think I've played with you on Gears before. The name sounds very fimiliar. My gamertag is pokers_____. (I don't want to give the whole name out to everyone)
Jake @ May 9th 2007 5:51PM
I like how everyone here has already dismissed the game as total crap because it doesn't have a single player. What if the multi is amazingly kickass? I don't recall Unreal Tourny having any more of a single player. That game is pretty good, too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not excited about Shadowrun. I will rent it, but not buy it. But totally dismissing it based on lack of single player seems stupid. What if they took the effort that would have went into single player and plugged it into a better multiplayer experience? Oh yeah, they did.
I'm actually just pissed they didn't make something more like the Genesis version.
Mr Khan @ May 9th 2007 6:30PM
Releasing this game on the same day as Forza 2 = sheer stupidity
But i could definitely see this title developing a STRONG niche following, it definitely has potential, but i don't see it going mainstream
Megaqwerty @ May 9th 2007 6:42PM
@35 I concur. The best FPS's on PC (UT, BF, CS, etc.) all lack a true single-player mode. Didn't hurt them any, but probably actually helped them.
From the reviews, this game sounded like an awesome change in the current FPS scene with highly customizable characters and whatnot. It may wholly ignore the potential of a Shadowrun license, but I was going to buy this when it came out. Just now, I saw that "REQUIRES VISTA" line...I mean, I knew that Halo 2 required Vista for whatever reason, but Shadowrun as well? Man, there goes my sale.
Grant @ May 9th 2007 10:04PM
so the vista version is $10 less, and you don't need anything more than a free silver account to play.
sounds like so many people are just going to swarm to play cross platform.
medic @ May 9th 2007 11:23PM
I played the beta from Jan. until the end of last month and it's a very fun and surprisingly innovative FPS. Giving players the option to teleport through walls, floors ceilings opens up possibilities that have never been explored in a shooter to my knowledge. The rest of the gameplay is like CSS on crack, very fast and very tactical. Only downside is that it has a very high learning curve.
It's also sad to see all the rpg fanboys hating on the game, when they know nothing about the game and haven't even played it. If game developers never branched out with new ideas we would've missed out on some great games. OMFG Mario in a focking Kart?? Metroid Prime a FPS??
killr0y @ May 10th 2007 5:52AM
I'd consider myself an MS Diehard, but after beta testing this pile of dog crap and seeing how much they want to charge for a multiplayer-only game in a genre flooded with top-notch games already, they have their head embedded deeply into their bowels. $60 for a 2nd party no single player FPS? Are they out of their minds? They'd be lucky if they could pry $40 out of my hands. Seriously, most of the time I think MS makes a lot of business-savvy choices that don't necessarily have their customers best interests in mind. This is neither.
razer @ May 10th 2007 2:10PM
Wow!
1. Didn't MS say their first party games would be $50?
2. Why the hell is this game $10 more on the 360? Both games are exactly the same! Did it cost more to develope for the controller? I bet we will have to pay for DLC too while the PC version gets it for free..
3. No way will I pay this amount! Especially for a game that has no single player story.
This game is not going to sell very well.