Sony publishing Ghostbusters in Europe, PSP version resurrected [update]
by Jem Alexander 
{ May 6th 2009 at 7:50AM } 
Eurogamer has confirmed with Atari that the deal is for timed exclusivity on Sony platforms, with all other versions being released "later in the year." It's certainly a strange move on Atari's part, especially when limiting their potential consumer base is being called "maximizing the launch of the Ghostbusters videogame across Europe" by Atari's VP of Worldwide Marketing. Pushing non-Sony versions further towards or, even worse, into Q4 won't do the 360, Wii and DS versions any favors.
Update: Atari US has clarified its publishing plans for the North American region. The 360, PS3, Wii and DS versions will all be released in the US on June 16, as previously announced. The PSP version will be released worldwide in Autumn.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
mazza_man @ May 6th 2009 7:56AM
This makes no sense whatsoever.
helghast102 (Valkyria Chronicles and the anime OWN!) @ May 6th 2009 9:22AM
it does to sony, its +1 on the region exclusive list
Mazrael @ May 6th 2009 9:25AM
none what so ever.. were they hoping the rerelease of 25th anniversary of Ghostbusters (dvd/bd) could get interest in the game then shift some consoles.. It is in no way a console seller, it'd be nostalgic for those of us who are olde ghostbusters fans.. if it was something special, someone better than Atari would have picked it up first..
I don't remember a PSP version
PR0F3TA @ May 6th 2009 10:12AM
"Pushing non-Sony versions further towards or, even worse, into Q4 won't do the 360, Wii and DS versions any favors."
^this makes 0 sense....
Microsoft has had dozens of "timed exclusive" games but i never read anything by Joystiq claiming that it wont do the PS3 any favors. Guess what, Its a time exclusive, the sam damn game MS has been playing for years now... but when Sony plays it, they automatically have to do the competitors "favors"
i for one +1 Sony for taking control for once.
Killjebus...PSN Killjebus @ May 6th 2009 10:26AM
Awww poor 360 wsm and ds....whats a fanboy to do now....oh I know.....MAKE ANOTHER HATE SONY ARTICLE with clever and witty comments.
Right Griffin?
Jnas @ May 6th 2009 7:58AM
Things are going to get intense here.
DeathroW @ May 6th 2009 7:58AM
Its strange this, because i posted on the EU playstation forums a few months ago saying that sony should of bought up exclusivity to this and had the film release on blu-ray with it.
So to see this, makes me think sony really are snooping around the playstation forum's, stealing idea's.
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ May 6th 2009 9:32AM
damn Death...they are ganking your shit!!!
David Black @ May 6th 2009 9:39AM
I actually hope you are right DeathroW, as there are many good ideas put forth on the Sony Forums that it seems never get the attention from Sony that they deserve.
DeathroW @ May 6th 2009 10:43AM
Yeah it is very unlikely, but it was be pretty funny to find out it actually was my post that sparked this up.
But yeah, it seemed like common sense when i suggested it so i doubt it :p
DeathroW @ May 6th 2009 10:52AM
it would be*
(which it quite obviously wasn't :p)
Kyle Nichol @ May 6th 2009 7:59AM
In the autumn? It's probably part of the PSP Go! release flood then.
lego91994 @ May 6th 2009 8:01AM
Seems pretty strange, but since it's only a timed exclusive it doesn't really seem like that big of a deal. It's wierd they didn't announce this earlier though.
Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ May 6th 2009 8:13AM
Sony doesn't BUY exclusives... but they'll PAY for the disc printing, advertising, distribution, and retail partnerships. But they won't BUY an exclusive.
Mazrael @ May 6th 2009 9:41AM
don't know about any of that ,but working in retail (UK).. Sony pay for display space, - When HD-DVD was winning over here, Blu-ray could have twice the display as HD-DVD.. plus, back when it was about PS2/Xbox/GC. the Shop I work at had 2metres of wall space for games, Sony had paid for one of those metre walls for just PS2 games, the other wall had to have Xbox, PC & PSP games (2 to 3 shelves each).. this gen, WH Smiths are clueless about games, and being we're not a big media seller, are not doing that deal with us)we now have most the space for Wii & DS,, PS3 gets half a metre, then Xbox and PC get a shelf (because we got loads nicked & they must think it'll happen again & won't send us stock for them) we only stocked blu-ray for about 6 months, til head office felt it wasn't selling enough & pulled it out of our store.
Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ May 6th 2009 1:15PM
REALLY?!? Do I have to label all sarcasm with "Warning: This post contains Sarcasm.." so that you vote happy fucktards can riddle this shit out?
For those even now unsure, this means I was MOCKING Sonys stance of "We don't buy exclusives" when in fact this is exactly what they are doing. See the dots? Connect that shit and make a happy puppy. Jesus, with each new day my hope for the next generation of gamers dies a little....
Popfrogs @ May 6th 2009 1:32PM
Longest run-on sentence + head = asplode.
Popfrogs @ May 6th 2009 1:38PM
Yeah dude, we all got it.
There's no lulz in saying that Sony employs Microsoft tactics for once in their life, in a single region no less. When Sony starts shelling out $50m for exclusive DLC on next year's AAA titles, we'll sit down and talk again, because then you'll have a point and more importantly, relevancy.
Whiskey Jak @ May 6th 2009 8:17AM
OK, so what does that mean exactly for North Americans gamers (or any gamer in a non-European territory) ? Same question goes, but this time what about Nintendo and Xbox gamers?
bvhj @ May 6th 2009 8:19AM
I find this really weird... It's not like this game is going to push consoles or anything =/
Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ May 6th 2009 8:30AM
I think the question is more along the lines of "how desperate is Atari for cash?" Taking over development for this game was a strain enough to a company that hasn't had a hit in a long time. Maybe Sony offered to publish initially to fill their coffers enough to finance the real release.
Snowblind @ May 6th 2009 8:30AM
Unless it turns out to be the single greatest game ever, which doesn't seem too likely.. This seems like it's only going to hurt the games sales, especially if the Wii/360 versions are now released around October/November.
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ May 6th 2009 2:23PM
Snowblind
Yes because this has to be the greatest game ever to have people interested in playing it. No one is saying that this game is going to push consoles. But, we know for sure that if someone wants to buy it at launch in Europe it will be on the PS3. So, Sony is certainly going to get some benefits from this timed exclusivity. It was probably done more out of necessity on the part of Atari because they are strapped for cash and couldn't afford to publish it on all platforms. I would also bet an internal Sony studio is doing the PSP version and Sony is paying the development costs.
Besides, your logic applies to every third party title that has some sort of exclusivity. Mass effect would have sold more had it been on the PS3 etc etc and we can go on and on about it.
Jack Tretton @ May 6th 2009 8:30AM
Being the rampart of integrity in reporting and whores for pageviews they are, Kotaku ran this story with one glaring omission: "...in Europe." Led to believe this affects also the U.S., fanboys and F5 fucktards alike have combined for more than 200 comments.
See, Joystiq? That's the kind of chicanery that nets you higher ad rates! :P
Mr Khan @ May 6th 2009 8:58AM
Yes, if only they didn't have those damn scruples, they could rake in
XD
koehler83 @ May 6th 2009 8:47AM
The Ghostbusters IP is wholly owned by Sony Pictures. The fact that the game was EVER slated for multi release is by Sony's good graces. The fact that it has changed to a timed-exclusive remains the best scenario that Xbox and Wii should ever have hoped for under the circumstances.
This is a scenario that happens so often on Xbox, and PS3 fans are told they should buy an Xbox.. for a number of stupid reasons that make no sense. Somehow when Microsoft does it, it's fine. When the tables turn, it's suddenly sin. It's Final Fantasy XIII all over again. We'll remember this at E3, won't we.
Although I have absolutely no benefit whether the game comes out on any platform exclusively, I'm happy to see that Sony is starting to use their own assets to their own benefit, rather than everyone else's. Sony Music and SOE can probably expect a slap to the head soon too.
SpiderMike @ May 6th 2009 10:05AM
+1 and needs to be blue asap.
Totally on the ball, factually. Sony wont secure exclusive DLC but they will secure exclusive new IP's and are damn sure to secure times exclusivity for most existing IP's especially one as beloved as Ghostbusters.
It's a smart move on all fronts, and now the ball in the 360 fanboys court. If you don't want to wait, buy a frackin' PS3.
Now how YOU like THEM apples.
Killjebus...PSN Killjebus @ May 6th 2009 10:28AM
The hypocrisy and double standards of this website are unbelievable.
BPMOmega [gamertag] @ May 6th 2009 12:40PM
With FF13, it isn't like the 360 version will come out first, and then the PS3 version were to come out several months later. That would be what's known as a dick move, and that's NO GOOD. Delaying the 360, Wii, and DS versions in Europe is a dick move, especially this close to the original release date.
I don't care from what company does it, dick moves are uncool, man.
Furthermore, each "branch" of Sony (Pictures, Computer Entertainment, BMG, etc.) are more like self-contained companies that have little to do with each other. So, it's a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing... or more like the left foot not giving a damn what the right hand does.
Need proof? The Spider-Man movie tie-in games. Who owns the movie rights? Sony Pictures. And yet, the games were released across just about all platforms (GBA/DS/PSP might've been exlcuded for some releases). Hell, the Xbox version of the first one had exclusive content that the PS2 and GCN versions didn't have.
Sony Pictures gets money regardless of what system a game is on, so why would they care? SCE only gets money from PlayStation games, so they'll care about exclusives and the like.
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ May 6th 2009 1:49PM
BPM
"Sony Pictures gets money regardless of what system a game is on, so why would they care? SCE only gets money from PlayStation games, so they'll care about exclusives and the like."
You are absolutely correct in everything you just said as it relates to Sony Corp as a whole. However, Stringer said recently amidst the restructuring plan that the company plans to have more synergy and will be working together on projects. Also, Sony bought out Bertelsmann's stake in SONY BMG which now makes them wholly owned and simply SONY Music Entertainment or something of that nature.
The point people are trying to make is that Microsoft does this sort of thing all the time but it doesn't even get a mention. For example, Battle Fantasia was a multiplatform release in every region except North America, Our Run was released multiplatform in every region except North America, Eternal Sonata was a timed exclusive, Bioshock was a timed exclusive, Tales Of Vesperia is a timed exclusive and there are many more examples where that comes from. This notion that it's OK for Microsoft to do but not Sony is whats got people a little upset today.
If this exclusive deal is a "dick move" and "pushing non-Sony versions further towards or, even worse, into Q4 won't do the 360, Wii and DS versions any favors" then why isn't every other 3rd party timed exclusive the same thing? How is it suddenly different?
BPMOmega [gamertag] @ May 6th 2009 2:24PM
The difference is, until today, all versions were set to release in June. All of a sudden, the non-Sony versions are pushed back several months in Europe alone. Preordered the 360 or Wii version? Tough luck, wait six more months.
With games like BioShock, Vesperia, Oblivion, Eternal Sonata, etc... PS3 versions weren't confirmed to exist until AFTER the 360 versions were already on shelves for a while. They weren't in development at the same time as the 360 versions. Whereas Ghostbusters was. And then in some ways, the PS3 version ends up being superior thanks to the delay. Likely the 360 version of Ghostbusters will be identical to the PS3 version despite the delay, since they were being developed at the same time.
Now, things like exclusive DLC (The Lost and the Damned) is a 100%-pure dick move that has no reason to be excluisve (unless the developer has no interest on working on a certain platform, like Valve and PS3's Orange Box... even so, that's still a dick move).
As for OutRun and Battle Fantasia... That's a dick move, too.
Timed exclusives or region-specific exclusivity is foolish for third-parties. They exclude a potential market for their game. Third-parties shouldn't care which platform "succeeds" as long as their game makes money.
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ May 6th 2009 2:54PM
BPM
I think the difference in this instance is that Atari is probably struggling to publish all the releases world wide at the same time. It was probably more out of self preservation and necessity than it was some sort of a last minute dick move. The 360 and Wii versions are still going to be released so it's not like they were canned all together. People who own those consoles will simply have to wait. There are plenty of other examples I could have used like Frontlines where the PS3 version was not only pushed back but later cancelled all together. Both Rock Band games had a timed exclusivity (no one cried foul or questioned it), Lost Planet, Orange Box and a list a mile long consisting of games that fall into this category.
I honestly don't think this was a dick move on anyones part. I don't get the vibe that Atari all of sudden signed a timed exclusivity deal out of spite. Simply put, that wouldn't make any sense. So, I believe that it has something to do with a lack of finances to publish the game.
The game could have been exclusive the entire time but it was announced as multiplatform (still is BTW) so why then would that all of a sudden change unless it was a financial hardship issue? Give me a more plausible scenario than Atari is having problems funding the publishing in Europe. So far all you have given me is that you think it's a dick move.
BPMOmega [gamertag] @ May 6th 2009 2:58PM
Okay, it could be due to Atari's financial situation. Honestly, I never considered that.
But if that's the case, then why are things moving on just as planned in North America? Sony doing the publishing duties only applies to the European release.
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ May 6th 2009 3:28PM
BPM
Thats a good question and maybe the answer is that the North American release has stretched them thin as it is. Myabe they are struggling to push those copies out the door. I would imagine the reason they are choosing to publish it multiplatform in North America is because it's the biggest market and it makes sense that the game will sell the most copies in North America. After all, the franchise is pure Americana and is one of the movies that have defined a generation of people. When I think of the 80's and early 90's I think of movies like Ghostbusters, Karate Kid, Goonies, Weird Science, Golden Child, Weekend At Bernies, Robocop, Labyrinth, Gremlins, Back To The Future, Neverending Story, Summer School, Teen Wolf, The Last Unicorn, Mannequin, Ferris Bueller, Big Trouble In Little China, Top Gun, Stand By Me, The Lost Boys, Young Guns, Breakfast Club, Police Academy, Terminator, Space Balls, Predator, Commando, Rambo, Beverly Hills Cop, Side Out, Harry And The Hendersons, Garbage Pale Kids, The Wizard, and my all time favorite movies Short Circuit. I could go on for days talking about 80's movies. Sorry ... got lost in nostalgia there. I think the reason it's being published multiplatform in North America is probably because thats the region that will buy the most copies AND maybe thats all Atari could afford and thats just barely.
I'm just going to make a random list of my top 10 favorite 80's movies ... Maybe others will do the same!
10. Karate Kid
09. Robo Cop
08. Goonies
07. Weekend At Bernies
06. Commando
05. Space Balls
04. Summer School
03. Gremlins
02. Big Trouble In Little China
01. Short Circuit
jay @ May 6th 2009 8:50AM
Talk about "cockblocking the fun"
Mr Khan @ May 6th 2009 9:01AM
Really don't see the benefit of this, unless it was a choice of "Go with Sony and they can at least have it ready for two of the platforms by this date" or "Have it massively delayed across the board"
Otherwise, its just harmful to sales. Like Rock Band 2's 360 timed exclusivity. Helps no-one but fanboys
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ May 6th 2009 9:30AM
That RB 2 Timed Elusive in the US only helped Fanboys with RB1 equipment already....not those that needed the instruments...lol
drdre74 @ May 6th 2009 9:16AM
Does this mean the game in the US will come out at the same time as the 360 version and its only exclusive in Europe?
Maverick Saturn @ May 6th 2009 9:23AM
Exactly what it means
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ May 6th 2009 9:29AM
I still don't understand why in the HELL Sony sold the rights to the game off years ago anyways....They could REALLY have kept it and used it to their advantage.
Tyler @ May 6th 2009 9:45AM
well... we all know that Sony is not the best at using its assets to help itself. Sony tends to help their competition by giving them their assets. It is a way of life now. If Sony were to ever get a grip on all the stuff they have, movies, music, etc. and use them to benefit itself, then Sony would be in a much better position now.
They are just being stupid.........
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ May 6th 2009 10:06AM
yea I agree....why the HELL they havent incorporated all of that into the PS3 and PSN I don't know. Maybe they are planning to do that in Home with the Music, etc...but they should have BEEN done it....Sony owns the rights to so much stuff its ridiculous...
tenor77 @ May 6th 2009 10:11AM
Sony is a parent company but SCEA and Sony Pictures are two different divisions. They cannot keep a movie tie in from going to multi platform.
No more than MS can keep Windows from going to a VIAO. The laws are in place for a reason.
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ May 6th 2009 10:18AM
Ummmm Sony SOLD the Video Game Rights to Ghostbusters YEARS ago....so they could have EASILY kept said rights and in turn given the rights to SOE or SCE and kept it in the family....the Windows on a Vaio comparison doesnt apply as Windows is an OS and can be purchased by anyone for use.....the Ghostbusters IP is PROPERTY and had it not been sold COULD have been made exclusive PERIOD...
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ May 6th 2009 3:38PM
Chris (Aggie)
The only problem with that logic is it would only benefit the games division. Think about the fact a new movie is releasing and Sony as a whole can make more money and get more interest by making the game available to everyone. You can't think about it as Sony as a whole without looking at the big picture of ... Sony Corp as a whole.
Sony is bigger than the Playstation division. Why do you think Spider Man Web of Shadows was multiplatform? It doesn't make sense to have one of your most appealing Intellectual Properties exclusive to one system and limit the exposure. Lets not forget the entire purpose of the game is to garner interest in the brand for the movie and merchandise release. If Sony were a game company that happend to make a hit movie I could understand it. Sony has a huge footprint and Ghostbusters is a popular movie franchise they are making into a game. For example, if Sony owned a chain of movie theatres would they only want to show the movie in their theatres? same principal.
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ May 6th 2009 4:37PM
Kenny they Don't Own the rights to Spider-man tho dude Marvel does...they OWN the rights to Ghostbusters....thats where the difference comes in....back BEFORE they got into making games they sold those rights off...
Every GhostBusters cartoon went thru Sony Pictures TV....sure they MAY make more money if they put it on more platforms but I'm sure they could have made even MORE money by just pulling an NBA/NFL type thing by licensing it out to people
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ May 6th 2009 10:42PM
Chris (Aggie)
It's the same exact thing. Sony owns/runs "Spiderman merchandising" which is an agreement between Marvel and Sony that gives Sony exclusive world wide publishing rights to the entire Spiderman Intellectual property as it relates to movies. You know those Activision Spider man games released recently? That's because Sony contracted Activision to make those games. Remember how the PS2 came bundled with Spiderman and there was a PS3 movie bundle with the Spiderman Blu-Ray?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/More-Spiderman-Games-From-Activision-13652.shtml
flowtv.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/tom_schatz.pdf (PDF download link)
I understand that Sony owns the Intellectual Property to Ghostbusters but it does make more sense for them to contract the IP rights to the games to another company. The point is to maximize exposure and it makes sense to have the game made by an external company instead of using in house development funds on a multiplatform release.
David Black @ May 6th 2009 9:43AM
So does this mean we will be getting the PSP version in North America as well?
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ May 6th 2009 10:39AM
as of now most likely no....I'd wait until E3 to be certain tho...
bl400 @ May 6th 2009 9:47AM
"Pushing non-Sony versions further towards or, even worse, into Q4 won't do the 360, Wii and DS versions any favors."
I normally just check the site to read the news. I've rarely posted but the tone of this post is too inconsistent. Microsoft has had timed exclusives and exclusives for Bioshock, GTA Lost & the Damned, Star Ocean, Eternal Sonata, Fallout's 3 DLC packs, Overlord, maybe Infinate Undiscovery, etc and yet the author is concerned about the other consoles for Ghostbusters? What about the PS3 for those games? Where was the hurt that they were timed exclusives? What about having a little more consistency between the two consoles? If you're concerned about the other consoles for Ghostbusters you should've been concerned for the PS3 also. What about those folks who bought a 360 to play Tales of Vesperia only to find out that it was a timed exclusive?