apoc06

track7games responds to erroneous article

PS3land.com wrote an erroneous article on June 29, 2006 regarding track7games and our upcoming game, "Theseis".

track7games would like to clarify that we never cancelled something that did not exist in the first place. We plan to develop "Theseis" for PC and Xbox360 in the near future. As for the PS3, we simply made a strategic decision to not move ahead because we deemed it not probable at this time.

Did anyone read my post? the companies very own website says that they never planned to develop the game on ps3 in the first place. They just thought it over...

www.track7games.com

Well first of all, the blu-ray media isnt going to add that much more expense to the cost of games.

Secondly, according to their site, they are making a pc game. Period. They "possibly" wished to bring the game to next gen consoles. Simple, you can afford to make a PC game; that was your initial plan anyways. Next you have to throw down cash to buy devkits for both next gen systems. Sounds like they may have found themselves a bit too short on the cash for two devkits. Since the x360 is already on the market and already has its established userbase, it makes more sense to port it to the x360 if they couldnt afford a couple thousand dollars for two devkits.

How far along were they in development of the ps3 version? Thats the question I have for them. In general, once the initial game is built for one platform its not exactly easy, but its alot "cheaper" to port it to ps3 and x360. It sounds like their game was too expensive to start with; planning to release it across three platforms was way too ambitious for a tiny developer anyways.

EDIT: While typing one of my trademark lengthy messages, I was doing background research to make sure I didn't write anything wrong, and according to the track7games.com website, there was never a ps3 version. They never cancelled the game because they never intended to create it in the first place, they never started working on it.

WTF did I stumble upon? Am I the only person that read the article? The guy said he basically wants pricing to stay competitive with pricing for new games on a launch console: $59. He basically said to NOT expect games to be higher than that, but he gave himself wiggle room [I think they are trying to do some PR backdooring, here actually]. by saying not to be mad it the prices were a bit more than $59. He said NOT to expect games to be $100, like some people have been implying.

As for the blu-ray talk, yes the disc is slightly more expensive to manufacture than dvd. Don't expect blu-ray to affect pricing. When the cost is spread across say a 500,000 print run of a game, it comes out to pennies extra per game. Just because retail blank blu-ray discs cost $25 doesnt mean that it will add $25 to the cost of your games.

These are all arbitrary numbers, but here is an example of how costs are decided.

If it costs a company something like a million dollars to print a game that ships gold on blu-ray. You divide that cost into the number of discs printed. In this case 500,000 copies. You end up with games costing $2 extra. Lets say the upgrade of your dvd printing plant to blu-ray costs $50,000,000 to build. That means that you only need to sell 50 "gold" games to full make back your investment on machinery. Many printing companies are contract companies, so a facility is not always solely devoted to one companies games unless they are large publishers like maybe an EA or a Ubisoft. In that case, they also take print jobs for other blu-ray media as well. so you have the same plant pressing movie discs and game disks, or games for several different publishers. Money would be made back on the investment quickly.

Truth is, just as with the consoles themselves, that initial price from the investment is factored into the discs lifetime pricing. So instead of paying that $2 premium for the first couple of months, you are actually paying fractions of a cent overall during the life of blu-ray.

The blu-ray technology isn't what is going to drive up game prices this generation. Blame the need for more artists, programmers, etc... Don't be surprised to find x360 and ps3 titles to be priced similarly. Matter of fact, don't quote me here [because I don't think its true], but I've read that there is precedence for ps3 titles to be cheaper than x360 titles since games dont require as much time to "squeeze" and cut back titles to fit on DVD-9.

True, they are quoting the 7,000 figure as the complete ps1 backcatalog.

However, they mention several titles: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Final Fantasy VII, Silent Hill and Tomb Raider. We have already shown ridge racer, and we can assume first party games are already in the bag.

basically in a nutshell you have: [square, enix, EA], namco, eidos, and konami. If capcom jumps on board, and I'm sure they will... you have a majority of the major publishers for the ps1 backing this.

I understand the wii comparisons, but until they announce which third party companies are supporting the virtual console idea, we have less of an idea there.

OUCH! @ refined sugar. that brings up a good point.

any news about when this is going on the backwards compatibility list for xbox 360? if this turns out to be a solid title, im sure that if MS sticks this on the BC list right at release, that would definitely help sales for both vivendi and MS.

it definitely looks alot better than the first time i saw it previewed.

heres to solid titles coming at the end of the generation: tiding us over while the rest of us are waiting on the first xbox 360 and ps3 pricedrops. =)

#20 The Shizzlenit:

My comment was pertaining to the two SONY platforms the original document referenced. If sony bought the exclusive rights to the assassins' creed franchise, why wouldn't they announce it coming to both platforms and lock MS out; both platforms being the psp and the ps3, which would thereby both be covered in an exclusive agreement?

The 1up piece lists the leaked document as saying one set of information, but when you follow his links to the original document, you find conflicting information.

For example, the PC version he mentions was not referenced in the original leaked document. That's the point I was trying to make. For something he claims as "legit", why is his version not consistent with the original?

As much as I despise getting into these juvenile debates, let me clarify.

If you read my initial comment, I said that my intuition tells me to believe that the game will actually see release on both consoles eventually. As of now... i doubt the validity of the referenced journalism. [see my above comments as to why...]

Joystiq may be a games blog, but they are referencing journalistic efforts. There are far too many stories that go: "My cousin who knows someone that knows someone who works for a competitive company said such and such derogatory comment". That's not journalism by any stretch of the imagination. Don't take everything said as truth, you have to learn to read things with a grain of salt sometimes.

As for the game running on a x360, it's possible. I don't deny that. However, I expect more solid facts to support the claim, other than an anonymous representative from a competitive company. That's the very definition of FUD; whether the claim is true or not.

Repeating unsourced articles and claims lacking someone willing to go on the record doesn't do anything except make you look foolish. Even joystiq [a blog] avoids intentionally stating things are true, when there are no solid facts supporting the rumor. If you are a six-seven figure Ubisoft executive, I'm sure you have better things to do than clarify every single rumor posting on the internet. Everything that doesn't get commented about is not true, just as everything that does get refuted doesnt necessarily mean its not.

If a console has solid games and you can reasonably afford it, I feel you should buy it. Why bother having any specific loyalty to any company that doesn't cut you a check? Blindly serving a company means that you are by and large ignoring many great experiences in gaming. If a company's products are not to your liking, move on to the companies that are. There's no need to incite riots about a company that you dont have a vested interest in the first place, right?

Assassin's creed was not demoed on a x360 at e3. That's a rumor too. lol. Think about it, if that were true, you would see photos of it all over the net. You can't believe everything you hear.

Here is one of the original source articles that started that rumor: http://gcnaddict.com/mirror/708431p1.html

"Microsoft sources who asked not to be mentioned by name, claimed the demo, hidden behind closed doors at E3, was running on an Xbox 360 using a third-party USB PlayStation controller. The game system was hidden in a stand covered by a sheet."

A rumor started by anonymous "microsoft" reps? It's amazing what gets claimed as fact and as news on the internet. No one besides the MS reps saw this with their own eyes?

http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/xbox/topic.asp?fid=13022&tid=1899042&p=1
second comment, yet another "factual" account. according to /this/ guy, you were playing the game using an x360 controller! Also interesting is that the devs were quick to tell random gamers that AC was being developed for x360, but they didnt mention that to any of the major publications at e3, and still won't come out and say such.

After reading the last few posts, I love how everyone says that the x360 is comparable to a console that has not been released yet. =) Who knows? when its released the x360 could be "better". It's not done yet, so who can state an opinion yet? To take things even a step further, has ANYONE seen ANY cross platform titles shown in a side-by-side comparison? Even most developers can't truly give an unbiased opinion.

--

That said, FTA... this guy goes on to say: "when this all sorts itself out, we're expecting to see Assassin's Creed on the Xbox 360 and we're expecting to see it at the same time as it ships for the PS3." That's a truly serious /opinion/ to nearly state as fact. If the title was shipping for both platforms, why is it not announced for both? Why has there been no footage or publicity? Why is there no scan of this "legit leaked document"? If you look at the same document as listed by kotaku you notice glaring ommissions from the 1up version of the list. Ones that would debunk the "legit" claim he seems to make.
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/ubisoft/ubisoft-denies-leaked-schedule-160283.php

psp version of GR:AW? game 5/ Haze discrepancies? The original list doesnt even mention a pc version of assassin's creed, while his does. Where is he pulling this list from?

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63228



The article isn't journalism, it's not even a "true" editorial [since this is his personal opinion and not 1up's]. It's basically an opinion piece that he is passing off as fact.