Atari responds to missing multiplayer in Ghostbusters PC
by Richard Mitchell 
{ Jun 17th 2009 at 7:00PM } 
When asked by Big Download for a response, Atari sent along comments from Dan Irish, CEO of Threewave, the game's multiplayer developer. According to Irish, Threewave had intended to create multiplayer for both consoles and the PC, but eventually decided to focus on the console versions in order to keep the quality bar as high as possible. According to Irish, if the company had attempted to develop both the PC and console versions simultaneously, "something would have to suffer."
Probably not the answer PC players were hoping for. Another question that has yet to be answered, according to Big Download, is whether Atari and Threewave have any plans to add multiplayer in the future.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MaliceMajorE15 @ Jun 17th 2009 7:05PM
goes from bad to worse for terminal reality. it could be terminal
Shabooty @ Jun 17th 2009 7:10PM
The game is $30 on Steam. At least it's not full price.
Bootes @ Jun 17th 2009 7:11PM
It's probably better for us this way. The MP would probably have been the normal crappy console MP that console ports usually have. I'd rather get the 50% off than empty boring MP.
Pyjamarama @ Jun 17th 2009 8:15PM
Agree I prefer a 30$ single payer game than 50$ for a game with multi player that i don't use as far as i concerned more games could follow this model, the multi player focused games are more than enough to me
Aguiluz @ Jun 17th 2009 7:09PM
Because PC multiplayer would require a centralized server whereas the consoles have dedicated servers already. (PSN and XBL)
Bootes @ Jun 17th 2009 7:10PM
Most people just pay Gamespy to handle that.
Jelster @ Jun 17th 2009 7:25PM
No you include a dedicated server file and people can run their own servers. More realistic is the cost of developing a game browser along with tweaking gameplay for the PC was probably too high.
I wonder how long until we have a PC FPS that is controller only.
Reader @ Jun 17th 2009 8:25PM
BS. I'm sure a lot of people would want centralized servers, but plenty of PC games do fantastic without them. All you need is for the game to be multiplayer enabled, and the files to setup a server.
Poisoned Al @ Jun 17th 2009 8:30PM
What a load of shit. PCs use dedicated servers becuase they can. It's the fastest and simplest way of doing it. They don't HAVE too, but if you have the option, would you use a dedicated server, or some random moron using a stolen wi-fi connection?
sc00by_y00 @ Jun 17th 2009 9:11PM
Aguiluz neither the ps3 nor the 360 have "centralised servers" like you think.
cod4/5 are peer2peer. on both 360 & ps3. I dont have a 360, but have heard that gears of war 2 is p2p I think halo3 is p2p.
on ps3 they have setup servers to run kz2/resistance2/warhawk , but that doesnt mean that there is some centralised system that multiplayer games use and get access to free hardware and bandwidth to run the server client from. What 3rd parties end up doing is developing some shitty p2p set up with even worse anti lag code..
They have centralised servers where stuff like psn / home / playstation store runs from, not for third party devs to get their games multiplayer servers hosts afaik. Prove me wrong, but cod4/5 proves me right..
Warhawk cluster here:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/11/sony-erects-massive-ps3-server-cluster-for-warhawk-mayhem/
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2007/08/08/behind-the-curtain-the-warhawk-servers/
I dont see terminal reality doing the same sort of thing.. At least on the pc they could release a server program so that anyone could create a pc server.. This must mean they are resorting to some sort of shite p2p network code for the consoles..
Shagittarius @ Jun 17th 2009 7:12PM
I'm glad they didn't attempt multiplayer considering they totally botched the install.
BlackDove @ Jun 17th 2009 7:25PM
Yeah, like your servers when the pirates start playing multiplayer in droves on 0-day.
It was a smart business decision. Too bad it fucks the consumer up the ass.
Sly [PSN SniperChameleon] @ Jun 17th 2009 7:28PM
"something would have to suffer."
like the PC not getting multi or the PS3 version looking bad?
Chief Oddball @ Jun 17th 2009 7:43PM
Yeah, my thought was: "Something already did suffer, and it's the presentation of the PS3 version." :/
9600baud @ Jun 18th 2009 12:04PM
I think what they meant was "we were too lazy to bother, you'll buy it anyways because its f*cking Ghostbusters"
Cosmo @ Jun 17th 2009 7:42PM
I hope that maybe they will add it later on as a patch or some modders will create some unofficial multiplayer and their own servers, but for a not-so-popular title like this, probably not.
Come on now, if the PC is going to get a console port, it needs to be at least as well-featured as the original console version itself at the bare fucking minimum !
Now for Ubisoft, will the PC version ever get the Prince of Persia Epilouge DLC or not? Their reason for shafting PC gamers was even stupider, they won't bring it to PC because of "business reasons". I hope Rockstar will bring GTA4 DLC to PC as well.
Cosmo @ Jun 17th 2009 7:43PM
At least they did make the PC version's official MSRP as $30 vs $60 for the console versions. But I guess this means they never planned for multiplayer or will ever plan for multiplayer in the PC version and so just slashed the price as their way to make amends.
relaxeder @ Jun 17th 2009 8:00PM
"Something would have to suffer"... yeah, like the PC missing multiplayer support?
Mark @ Jun 17th 2009 8:13PM
People wonder out loud why PC gaming gets a bad rap, then they go and shit on it... Fucking idiots.
Wes @ Jun 17th 2009 9:23PM
Nobody here is shitting on PC gaming. In fact, they are quite often stating dedicated servers on pc gaming is the easiest, fastest, more reliable system out there. Everyone IS shitting on development teams cheaping out and not including the same features across all the different platforms. Mainly PC.
If Xbox 360, wii and PC got multiplayer but PS3 didn't, PS3 fanboys would be bitching out and complaining about Atari being lazy just the same. Heck, I think I heard further up some PS3 owners complaining about the poor ps3 presentation.
Reader @ Jun 17th 2009 8:27PM
"Threewave had intended to create multiplayer for both consoles and the PC"
I hate when companies give answers like this... No one gives a shit about your intentions; you're not a fricking child that can use that excuse you're a corporation.
Teph @ Jun 18th 2009 9:44AM
Uhhh, threewave isn't a corporation.
They're a small studio, and they brought CTF to Quake 1, essentially launching the entire clan based online competitive FPS community.
R.E.S.P.E.C.T.
Poisoned Al @ Jun 17th 2009 8:37PM
Okay, I can understand the PS3 version looking pants, due to the fact the PS3 being a pig to develop for, but PC multi-player? The thing the PC does best? You could probably download the code for that off a script-kiddy site for fuck's sake!
RavenLord @ Jun 17th 2009 9:19PM
hmmm......considering how crappy this game actually is its a wonder why anybody even cares if there's multiplayer. I had hoped that the game would actually be better than the scores all the gaming sites gave it in their reviews. Sadly the game is every bit as bland and uninteresting as they said it was and more. Missing multiplayer is the least of Ghostbusters problems. How about some real gameplay? I think it's kind of strange that your character turns like he's a tank. The proton packs do crap and the PKE meter is simply ridiculous to use and feels like it was tacked on. What's worse is that they force you to use it and it's really slow switching from that to normal view for any fire fights you'll have chasing down ghosts. Bottom line....the game isn't even fun solo......why make it worse by adding unnecessary multiplayer?
LaughingTarget @ Jun 17th 2009 9:20PM
Multiplayer on the PC is the easiest part of making a game. Every game released has it, including the low budget crap fests. This isn't acceptable, but then again, I can't imagine a Ghostbusters deathmatch being any good.
jetenginejesus @ Jun 17th 2009 9:55PM
meh, i think Ghostbusters is one of those games that doesn't necessarily need multiplayer...
arisc2 @ Jun 17th 2009 10:21PM
"something would have to suffer." well, that´s true and it looks like it´s going to be the sales for the p.c. version and then will blame piracy, and the old story goes on again....
well, at least i don´t really care of multiplayer a lot, personally i don´t give a damn about it. But the true is that a lot of people likes it, and there´s no doubt that many are going to be upset for this.
FunkyFlyChicken @ Jun 17th 2009 10:23PM
Ghostbusters getting bad scores? I've seen pretty decent scores for it actually. Regardless, the multiplayer really isn't necessary anyhow. Most levels are a single-player, fan service affair. Multiplayer just throws another random person into the level, doesn't really add much to the game. But, it's not a bad game at all. If you ever were a fan of the ghostbusters, this game is essentially playing along to Ghostbusters 1.5 (or Ghostbusters 2, if you (like me) would care to forget that Ghostbusters 2 ever existed).
dark_inchworm (on Steam!) dark inchworm (on XBL!) @ Jun 17th 2009 10:40PM
Obviously, this is part of an elaborate scheme on Microsoft's part to sabotage all versions of the game... except the Xbox 360 version. Soon, all Ghostbusters fans will come to the 360, and the implications are mind-boggling given that everyone on Earth is a fan of Ghostbusters (a fact verified by ongoing census studies). I shudder to think of what villainous scheme Microsoft will concoct next.
For those of you that don't believe me:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d128/dark_inchworm/truth.jpg
zaglis @ Jun 18th 2009 5:09AM
Hmm, it seems Atari is afraid on moniez
John @ Jun 18th 2009 8:21AM
This is as much about what the industry now thinks about PC gaming. The general consensus seem to be they think PC gaming ison the way out.It must be, or why would be get PC gamers getting the crumbs like this so many times nowadays?
By the way, on Play.com. a UK/European web retailer, they are selling Ghostbusters for £34.99, a £5 saving. That, my friends, in Dollars, is $50+!!!
Synfresh @ Jun 18th 2009 11:04AM
Hey John,
Ask Blizzard if they think PC gaming is on the way out.
Mark @ Jun 18th 2009 9:50AM
I was referring to developers who make great console versions of their games and then release stripped down PC versions, aka Ghostbusters without multiplayer.
For that matter, when is microsoft gonna get off its ass and release PC Xbox combined multiplayer.
John @ Jun 18th 2009 11:27AM
Synfresh, I think the fact that Blizzard's Starcraft II, once all three campaigns have been purchased will cost three times more than the original Starcraft, shows they are ripping off PC gamers as much as anybody because they can, especially now that PC gamers are so desperate for product Blizzard know they can do this! That's publisher's and gamers showing they know PC gaming is, unfortunately, on it's last legs, and so PC gamers will pay anything for anything and publisher's like Blizzard will get every penny they can from desperate PC gamers, who have seen 58% fewer PC titles released compared with 5 years ago and have already seen the end of PC only AAA titles, to all intents and purposes!
If PC gaming is doing so great, you tell me why Blizzard is selling each Starcraft 2 campaign separately?! Never mind why Ghostbusters PC has no multiplayer or Dragon Age seems to be written for snotty teenagers with rock music and sex - in other words - console gamers!