PS3 version of Haze is 'currently' the only one in development

by Christopher Grant { Aug 31st 2007 at 12:45PM }

There's been some confusion surrounding the exclusivity status of Free Radical's upcoming shooter, Haze. First, the publisher announced it would be leading on PS3, though the developer confirmed that the game was being built with all platforms in mind. The following month, an Ubisoft release list showed the Xbox 360 and PC versions of Haze following the PS3 version by just one week ... but they later pulled both of those versions from the list entirely stating that the PlayStation 3 was "the only confirmed platform."

Of course, this all sounds a little too much like the mess surrounding Assassin's Creed's exclusivity (also courtesy of Ubisoft). Adding to the mystery today, GameSpot UK writes, "Ubisoft said that currently no other versions [are] in development, and although it was still leaving the door open in the future for 'new partnerships,' currently the game is indeed only planned for the PS3." So, what about the previously planned for Xbox 360 and PC versions? Ubisoft says, "The official statement on PC and Xbox 360 is that these platforms are not confirmed." If they're not confirmed, and not being "currently" developed for (despite what Free Radical may have been doing previously) then it sounds like Haze may be skipping Microsoft's one-two punch for now. How about a straight answer, Ubi?

Gallery: Haze

Tags: FreeRadical, haze, ubisoft

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

Kangstarr @ Aug 31st 2007 12:52PM

"Halo: Spartan Super Suit Design Rejection #2346625"

Shagittarius @ Aug 31st 2007 12:54PM

Is that Cap'n Lou Albano in a mario hat?

Kangstarr @ Aug 31st 2007 12:56PM

Shagittarius: You are correct sir. Very good eye!

SeriousKriss @ Aug 31st 2007 12:54PM

"Microsoft's one-two punch"? The PC isn't a Microsoft platform... Or did I misunderstand?

baby sea tuna @ Aug 31st 2007 12:58PM

Windows is...or at least was, last time I checked.

Also, PS3 exclusive or not, this game looks BORING.

SeriousKriss @ Aug 31st 2007 1:16PM

Windows isn't a "platform", it's an OS. The PC itself doesn't belong to Microsoft. They don't get money from PC games that they don't publish themselves and have no control over PC games' content...

Marty @ Aug 31st 2007 1:35PM

Windows is a gaming platform... and PC's run Windows. Don't be a tool, go argue semantics somewhere else.

Christopher Grant @ Aug 31st 2007 1:45PM

one-two punch = Xbox 360 and Windows

Christopher Grant @ Aug 31st 2007 1:47PM

"Windows isn't a "platform", it's an OS. The PC itself doesn't belong to Microsoft. They don't get money from PC games that they don't publish themselves and have no control over PC games' content..."

Really? This line of reasoning gets you nowhere. So, the millions and millions MS is spending on the Games for Windows initiative is for what? Just to be nice? If they can convince people to play more PC games, they'll buy new PCs, nearly all of which run Windows. Profit.

SeriousKriss @ Aug 31st 2007 2:05PM

It STILL doesn't make the PC a Microsoft platform, not anymore than it is an Intel platform or an Nvidia platform. Hell, if you reason that way the friggin' DREAMCAST would be a Microsoft platform too. That's obviously not the case.

It's not just semantics people. Windows is a software, not a platform, it cannot run games by itself, and Microsoft doesn't have any control over the release of PC games.

Marty @ Aug 31st 2007 2:09PM

Yes it does, because PC's are called PC's because they are running Windows, and Windows is a Microsoft product. I think you're mistaking their use of PC to mean all computers, Macs and Linux boxes included, and that's not what they mean when they write PC as a platform. As a platform, PC = Computer running Windows.

Kazi @ Aug 31st 2007 2:13PM

Seriouskiss, Windows is a platform. Like it or not, Windows is and has always been a platform. That's why there's "Mac Games" and "Windows Games." Windows provides its own code and software for companies to use to execute programs on PCs. That makes it a platform.

Korova @ Aug 31st 2007 2:21PM

And this officially concludes The Dumbest Discussion on Joystiq Evar!

I cannot believe this argument happened. I can believe even less that I read it.

Marty @ Aug 31st 2007 2:25PM

It was never an argument. It was SeriousKiss making an idiotic statement, and the rest of us calling him on it.

Korova @ Aug 31st 2007 2:42PM

ok, I'll play.

a) I did call it a Discussion also

b) I used "argument" in the sense of being a conclusion supported by reasons, although a sense of hostility that is usually associated with arguments was also present in the discussion.

But I know what you mean. Kiss was totally schooled.

Christopher Grant @ Aug 31st 2007 2:44PM

Seriously, SeriousKriss, this argument is beyond stupid. Really. It's just that dumb. I'm actually ashamed I've responded to it three times now.

SeriousKriss @ Aug 31st 2007 3:03PM

OK, then answer this simple question : is the Dreamcast a Microsoft platform or not? According to your logic, it is. If you really think that's the case, then I won't even bother replying anymore.

Slaziman @ Aug 31st 2007 4:15PM

When Chris Grant tells you your argument is stupid, you know it's time to shut up.

SeriousKriss @ Aug 31st 2007 4:54PM

Oh yeah, that's a really compelling reason... You can tell me it's stupid all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft doesn't control the games that come out for Windows the way it does for Xbox games. Hell, I could even buy a PC, install Linux and Wine or CrossOver and still be able to play PC games. Microsoft would have absolutely no say in the matter.

Slaziman @ Aug 31st 2007 6:07PM

You could do that, but that doesn't change the fact that the games are coded for Windows and that only very very very few people will do the things you describe. Result? If a good PC game is released, it will lead to more Windows OS sales first and foremost. As for not controlling games, look for "Games for Windows" on Wikipedia.

SeriousKriss @ Aug 31st 2007 8:34PM

"You could do that, but that doesn't change the fact that the games are coded for Windows and that only very very very few people will do the things you describe."

I don't care if few people would do it, it's still feasible, whereas you sure as hell can't play 360 games without a 360.
You still didn't answer my question though : is the Dreamcast a Microsoft platform or not? It's a very simple yes/no question, really.

"Result? If a good PC game is released, it will lead to more Windows OS sales first and foremost."

Are you seriously implying people are buying an OS for the sole purpose of playing games, just like they would buy a console?

Heck, even Sony and Nintendo contribute to Microsoft's weakth by using their OS, but you sure as hell don't see anyone claiming the Wii or PS3 are Microsoft platforms because of that.

"As for not controlling games, look for "Games for Windows" on Wikipedia."

I know what it is, thank you. It's a viral marketing campaign entirely funded by Microsoft. Developers are completely free to ignore it, and the vast majority of them have been doing so until now. Anyone can still produce PC games freely, and Microsoft has no control over developers/publishers who choose to ignore the Games for Windows brand.

hotnutz @ Aug 31st 2007 11:35PM

Heck, I can't resist.

Doesn't PC mean "Personal Computer"? So if I bought a Personal Computer, could I not install Linux on it?

Based on the logic displayed here, it would seem that Linux is also a Microsoft platform because it is on a PC. ;)

SeriousKriss @ Sep 1st 2007 6:46AM

Thank you hotnutz. I'm surprised no one has replied that "your argument is stupid, durrr!" yet.

Anyway, I'll save Mr. Grant and the above posters the trouble and answer my own question. Every Dreamcast has a little "Windows CE" sticker on the side. Meaning you HAVE to use Windows to run Dreamcast games. Yet Microsoft had no control over the games that came out for it, and they didn't get royalties from game sales either. Thus, the Dreamcast is considered a Sega platform, not a Microsoft platform.

Now replace "Dreamcast" with "PC" and you have essentially the same situation : the PC isn't a Microsoft platform just because you are using a Microsoft OS. No amount of name-calling or sarcasm will change that FACT.

Slaziman @ Sep 1st 2007 8:52AM

So you think they don't get royalties for their DirectX10 and DirectX9 technologies? Or that the games that come out on Windows are not dealbreakers if you are thinking of buying a Mac or a Linux box? Surely you don't think that games run as good with weird emulation programs as they do on a native Windows platform? Yes the Dreamcast had Windows, but it isn't like there was a competition between Windows Dreamcasts and Mac Dreamcasts, or was there?

Ignoring the Games for Windows brand is just lowering your sales, since "casual" people will be looking for it, so you'd better be on board.

Sure a "PC" in it's raw meaning could have any OS installed, but the term has just become another way of saying Windows box, regardless of original meaning.

Nobody said that PC was an Xbox 360, they ARE different, that doesn't mean the PC isn't a Microsoft platform.

Your argument is seriously stupid, what do you want to prove anyway? That having games that run on Windows doesn't benefit Microsoft? Because that's just plain wrong, it does.

SeriousKriss @ Sep 1st 2007 9:42AM

"So you think they don't get royalties for their DirectX10 and DirectX9 technologies?"

They don't. Please go inform yourself. Taken straight from Wikipedia : "Both the DirectX runtime and software development kit are available free of charge."

"Or that the games that come out on Windows are not dealbreakers if you are thinking of buying a Mac or a Linux box?"

Sure, why not. And? Still doesn't make Microsoft able to get control over the games that come out and take direct profit in the form of royalties from game sales like they do on the Xbox.

"Surely you don't think that games run as good with weird emulation programs as they do on a native Windows platform?"

My god. Do you even know what WINE stands for? And it's not even the question. They CAN run without Windows, period.

"Yes the Dreamcast had Windows, but it isn't like there was a competition between Windows Dreamcasts and Mac Dreamcasts, or was there?"

No. And? It does nothing to strenghten the argument that the PC is a Microsoft platform, sorry.

"Ignoring the Games for Windows brand is just lowering your sales, since "casual" people will be looking for it, so you'd better be on board."

Prove it.

"Sure a "PC" in it's raw meaning could have any OS installed, but the term has just become another way of saying Windows box, regardless of original meaning."

And it's still doesn't make it a Microsoft platform. I'll repeat it as many times as necessary.

"Nobody said that PC was an Xbox 360, they ARE different, that doesn't mean the PC isn't a Microsoft platform."

Yes, yes it does. Again, if I buy a game for the PC, Microsoft doesn't get a dime from me. If I buy it on the 360, it is more expensive because of the royalties that Microsoft gets for every single game sold.

"Your argument is seriously stupid, what do you want to prove anyway? That having games that run on Windows doesn't benefit Microsoft? Because that's just plain wrong, it does."

It does, indirectly. So what? As I said before, Sony and Nintendo also contribute to Microsoft's wealth indirectly, but it doesn't make the Wii or PS3 Microsoft platforms.

That was never my argument anyway. My argument is that the PC is a FREE GAMING PLATFORM. It doesn't belong to Microsoft anymore than it does Intel or Nvidia.

Slaziman @ Sep 1st 2007 11:57AM

If for you platform means "control over the games that come out" then it's not Microsoft's platform, but the fact that every PC game says that it's for Windows, the System Requirements say Windows, and NOT Mac, Linux, or whatever the hell you like, make it very much Microsoft's platform for gaming, and it is in their highest interest that good games come out on PC because they will increase PC sales (with Windows installed), so the term "Microsoft's one-two punch" is at place, and that was what we were discussing, right?

Slaziman @ Sep 1st 2007 12:56PM

By the way, I guess the SNES is no longer a Nintendo platform because its games can be played on emulators :'( kinda like WINE :O

SeriousKriss @ Sep 1st 2007 2:24PM

"If for you platform means "control over the games that come out" then it's not Microsoft's platform"

Well of course that's what I mean. How can you say it's their platform if they have no control over it? Developers CHOOSE to develop for Windows because they know they'll reach a much wider audience. They are NOT forced to pay MS money to do it.

(...)"so the term "Microsoft's one-two punch" is at place, and that was what we were discussing, right?"

No because it clearly implies that Microsoft somehow owns the PC the same way it owns the 360. That is not the case. That's it, that's all.

As for your other comment : Wine Is Not an Emulator. It says so in the friggin' NAME. Please inform yourself before you talk about something you know nothing about.

Slaziman @ Sep 1st 2007 2:34PM

If it's not an emulator, then what is it? :rolleyes:

SeriousKriss @ Sep 1st 2007 6:26PM

http://www.winehq.org/site/myths

I'm done with this by the way, so you can have all the space below to get the final word if you please.
Peace.

mccomber @ Aug 31st 2007 12:54PM

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... or something.

mr nimblewick @ Aug 31st 2007 12:59PM

Except in the cases of God and Duke Nukem.

mccomber @ Aug 31st 2007 1:02PM

As we know, there are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns.

That is to say

We know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

h8rain @ Aug 31st 2007 2:50PM

I love Boondocks :) B%@#% love textin' :)

severian00 @ Aug 31st 2007 11:36PM

Mr. Nimblewick, that was great. As for the topic, we all know that Sony would never pay for an exclusive. Through this knowledge we must assume 1 of 2 things: A. Ubi has decided that the install base of PS3's is sufficient for them to can developement on a title that had been previewed for the 360 2 times already. B. Ubi is being controlled by EA and EA has decided to sink Ubi by making them spend millions of dollars for a game on a platform that has no hope of generating enough revenue to recoup the costs.

My choice is C. Sony paid Ubi a ton of money in order to get an exclusive for a title that looks like a run of the mill shooter.

Fernando Rocker @ Aug 31st 2007 12:55PM

So, they are decided in bring FPS after FPS... Sony have a lot of oportunities, and they dont take advantage...

Look Loco Roco... that game will sell a lot more, but no, they have the idea that hardcore gaming just mean kill and blood.

Look for example, Super Monkey Ball, a game that look casual, but try to bet Expert Mode. Its almost impossible, but not frustating...

Thats why Sony will not win this gen... not whith generic FPS that doesnt offer anything new.

Noshino @ Aug 31st 2007 1:37PM

err Fernando, I told you, you are a sad excuse for a Nintendo fan, even Shiggy would karate chop you if he saw you.

"So, they are decided in bring FPS after FPS... Sony have a lot of oportunities, and they dont take advantage..."

Well, if by taking advantage you mean games like , Pokemon whatever-color-there-is-left and Mario Ping-Pong (believe me, they ll get to it), I guess Nintendo is amazing at milking the hell out of their franchises...

"Look Loco Roco... that game will sell a lot more, but no, they have the idea that hardcore gaming just mean kill and blood."

Oh, are you the same guy that said that loves MP3? I didn't know Samus was a pacifist of some kind...

ah, and yah, Sony IS supporting LocoRoco, hence why the 2 LocoRoco games (PS3 and PSP).

almost forgot to add, Sony's main genre is RPG's, sorry to burst your bubble Fernando :(

"Look for example, Super Monkey Ball, a game that look casual, but try to bet Expert Mode. Its almost impossible, but not frustating..."

first of all, that's a third party game, so it has nothing to do with Sony, so I don't know what's your point on mentioning it when Sony isn't even the one developing/publishing Haze...its just that ubisoft picked to publish that game on Sony's console...

"Thats why Sony will not win this gen... not whith generic FPS that doesnt offer anything new."

Fernando, then using that same way of thinking and what you mentioned, how would Nintendo win? by milking franchises, making new pokemon games, more Mario sports games, another Wii sports? Why would you get stuck with one game, why don't you check Sony's whole library? Oh, Im sorry, I forgot you only vow to the "almighty" Wii, haha