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?
Reader Comments (147)
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:52PM (Unverified) said
"Halo: Spartan Super Suit Design Rejection #2346625"
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:56PM (Unverified) said
Shagittarius: You are correct sir. Very good eye!
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:54PM Serious Kriss said
"Microsoft's one-two punch"? The PC isn't a Microsoft platform... Or did I misunderstand?
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:58PM baby sea tuna said
Windows is...or at least was, last time I checked.
Also, PS3 exclusive or not, this game looks BORING.
Reply
Also, PS3 exclusive or not, this game looks BORING.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:16PM Serious Kriss said
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...
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:35PM FredFredrickson said
Windows is a gaming platform... and PC's run Windows. Don't be a tool, go argue semantics somewhere else.
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:47PM chrisgrant said
"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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:05PM Serious Kriss said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:09PM FredFredrickson said
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.
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:13PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:21PM Korova Pamplona said
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.
Reply
I cannot believe this argument happened. I can believe even less that I read it.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:25PM FredFredrickson said
It was never an argument. It was SeriousKiss making an idiotic statement, and the rest of us calling him on it.
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:42PM Korova Pamplona said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:44PM chrisgrant said
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.
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 3:03PM Serious Kriss said
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.
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 4:54PM Serious Kriss said
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.
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 6:07PM Slaziman said
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.
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 8:34PM Serious Kriss said
"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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 11:35PM (Unverified) said
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. ;)
Reply
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. ;)
Posted: Sep 1st 2007 6:46AM Serious Kriss said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Sep 1st 2007 8:52AM Slaziman said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Sep 1st 2007 9:42AM Serious Kriss said
"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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Sep 1st 2007 11:57AM Slaziman said
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?
Reply
Posted: Sep 1st 2007 2:24PM Serious Kriss said
"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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Sep 1st 2007 6:26PM Serious Kriss said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:54PM (Unverified) said
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... or something.
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:02PM (Unverified) said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 11:36PM severian00 said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:55PM Fernando Rocker said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:37PM (Unverified) said
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
Reply
"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
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:12PM (Unverified) said
No Fernando, you do not want to incite my wrath as well. I'm already on Curmeo-duty.
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:55PM (Unverified) said
Thats ok. I got the scoop of all scoops. This just in MGS4 confirmed pic on the 360.
http://www.n4g.com/ViewComImages.aspx?CID=414956&BackUrl=%2fNewsCom-64129.aspx
Reply
http://www.n4g.com/ViewComImages.aspx?CID=414956&BackUrl=%2fNewsCom-64129.aspx
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:12PM Fernando Rocker said
jaja... what a moron... you cant even hide correctly.
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:14PM (Unverified) said
So because I cut and pasted a comment from another site, I automatically assume that posters identity?
Whatever you want to believe is your business. I do not see the relevance in it but whatever makes you happy dude.
Reply
Whatever you want to believe is your business. I do not see the relevance in it but whatever makes you happy dude.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:15PM Fernando Rocker said
I hope God forgive you for lying about your abscene (oh, and for not believe in Him, the Almighty, King of Kings)
Reply
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:17PM (Unverified) said
Fernando,
Dude this is a videogame blog. If you want to preach go to a church.
Reply
Dude this is a videogame blog. If you want to preach go to a church.
Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:18PM (Unverified) said
Word on the street. Forgive my ignorance, what is SW forums?
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
Dark Side 'Cause It Looks Cool: The Failings of Moral Choice in Games
Posted on Feb 10th 2012 7:45PM
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 221 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 155 comments
- Blizzard taking Valve to court over 'DOTA' trademark 112 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 107 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments










