# Any games to get excited about in 2009?



## Felon (Dec 27, 2008)

Well, the big game deluge has come and gone, with some games living up to the most hyper of hype and others being sorry disappointments. Looking to the future, what's coming down the line in 2009? Anything worth getting worked up about?


----------



## Mallus (Dec 27, 2008)

Dragon Quest IX, Infinite Space, and the Studio Ghibli RPG for the DS. 

After that, I don't know... Killzone 2? Dragon Age?


----------



## Pants (Dec 27, 2008)

_Dragon Age: Origins _by Bioware looks to be a return to BG-style games.

_Borderlands _looks to be a neat combination between Co-op FPS and RPG with some Diablo elements.

_Aliens: Colonial Marines _looks pretty cool, though I haven't heard much about it lately. Co-op alien killing!

_Brutal Legend _looks awesome. A game built upon the cliches of heavy metal, with Ronnie James Dio, Lemmy Kilmeister, and Rob Halford doing voicework. There is no fail here.

_Guitar Hero: Metallica _looks fun.

_StarCraft 2_... assuming it gets released in 2009 *crosses fingers*

I think there's a new Deus Ex coming out in 2009, but I'm not sure.

_Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2_.  CoD 4 was awesome, so I have high hopes for this, unlike _World at War_.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 27, 2008)

StarCraft 2
Diablo 3
Battleforge
Dawn of War 2
Mirror's Edge

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 27, 2008)

Thanee said:


> StarCraft 2
> Diablo 3
> Battleforge
> Dawn of War 2
> ...




Except Battleforge (don't know the title yet) and Diablo 3 (probably not a game for me), I agree. They look tempting.


----------



## Asmo (Dec 27, 2008)

Duels of the Planeswalkers, a Magic:the Gathering game.
I wont touch Magic Online, but this seems like a nice alternative.

Asmo


----------



## stevelabny (Dec 27, 2008)

God of War 3 - (PS3) because Kratos is probably the best video game character ever. Because his vengeance is everything. Because this mauling of Greek mythology at least captures the epicness of it all. Because Kratos is a bad-asses bad-ass who actually has an origin story for being a bad-ass besides just being a marketing tool. Although its because a lot of the others don't talk.  

Bioshock 2 - (may have Xbox exclusive launch window) - Would you kindly sprinkle in a few more baddies but keep all of that atmosphere for me to drown in? 

Resident Evil 5 - (cross platform) because 4 was really good? 

Uncharted 2 - (PS3)  I had borrowed the first one and played 1/4 or 1/3 of it and liked it a lot, now I just got if for Xmas. First one is very pretty. And Sony needs to turn in another franchise.

Ghostbusters - (cross platform) the other game along with Brutal Legend that got a lot of press because it needed to find a new publisher.  I'm guessing both have some problems that we, the fanboys, don't want to know about, because why else would you abandon two games that look sweet?

Mario Luigi RPG 3 -  (DS) because the Mario RPG series has been one of the best franchises (well, until the awful Paper Mario for Wii) 

Mad World (Wii) stole Sin City's look and put ulta-violence on the Wii. Normally, I would roll my eyes but since the last Wii game of any note was Smash Brothers, it probably has to get  a mention. (The Nintendo Wii: sells 7 trillion systems and will go an entire year without realeasing an actual game) 

The Beatles game - (cross platform) because money can't buy you love, but it can pay for a really expensive license. 

DC Universe Online - (PS3/PC?) may come out in 2009 (but don't count on it) - will probably fail miserably, but they're trying to a super hero MMO that actually takes place in the same living universe as the comics. (Having a Durlan invasion in a comics crossover = having a Durlan invasion in the game = problem! Durlan invasion in game lasts 6 months)

the Agency - (PS3/PC?) an action based MMO? I smell danger, but its worth checking out. 

so after a few years of Microsoft eating PS3's babies...is this the year PS3 finally plays the better hand in exclusive titles? Will Nintendo announce over the summer that a Zelda game will come out in 2010 just to prevent people from selling their Wii dust collectors?


----------



## stevelabny (Dec 28, 2008)

oh, and

Batman: Arkham Asylum - it looks like Bioshock with Batman. and the best rogues gallery of any hero.


----------



## Felon (Dec 28, 2008)

stevelabny said:


> oh, and
> 
> Batman: Arkham Asylum - it looks like Bioshock with Batman. and the best rogues gallery of any hero.




This is about the only thing that's raised an eyebrow from me in this thread.

And I guess I'll mention Alpha Protocol as being the other game on my list.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Dec 28, 2008)

_Dragon Age_ is the biggie for me.

It is not clear that it will be released in 2009, but there is a reasonable chance that _Star Wars: The Old Republic _might make it under the Xmas Tree for 2009 as well.

_Starcraft 2 _would obvioiusly be huge for those who like RTS. (I'm not a fan, personally). I expect this one to be released this year.

_Diablo 3_ will be a monster whenever released, but I am not expecting it in 2009.  

For those who enjoy Diabloesque games (and I am a fan of these), I highly recommend _Sacred 2_, which has just been released.  Uneven voice acting and some install issues aside, the game itself is extremely well done and a fusion of _Diablo_ meets _Elder Scrolls_ in terms of the open ended nature of the game.  Lots of innovation here that makes it well worth picking up.


----------



## fba827 (Dec 28, 2008)

Not that I will necessarily get to play these, but the ones I am most excited to see are ...

(That I know of, I can't account for ones that I don't know about.. and, I don't follow news on this stuff so I may be missing a lot)

Batman: Arkham Asylum
Dragon Age: origins
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2: Fusion  (not because i expect it to be the greatest game in the world, but rather because my friends and I had fun playing the first one together so it's more a 'group game')


----------



## Thanee (Dec 29, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Except Battleforge (don't know the title yet)




The new game from the Spellforce makers. Online strategy game, that looks - at least - interesting.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Dec 29, 2008)

Well here is my list for 2009:

-Empire: Total War
-Dragon Age: Origins
-Starcraft 2
-Dawn of War II
-Diablo III
-Mirror's Edge (PC version comes out in early 2009)
-Fable II (hopefully PC version in 2009)

That is what I can think of right now, probably think of more later.


----------



## Blackrat (Dec 29, 2008)

_Street Fighter IV_ looks like something to be excited about.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Dec 29, 2008)

Street Fighter IV
Starcraft 2
Ghostbusters (if it ever comes out  )
Batman Arkham Asylum


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 29, 2008)

Loads of stuff I'm looking forward to in 2009:

PS3: Killzone 2, GoW3, Uncharted 2, White Knight Chronicles, FF13 & FFV13 (yeah yeah, I know - we'll believe it when we see it), Gran Turismo 5 (yeah, another maybe)

X360: Star Ocean 4

Cross-Platform: Resident Evil 5, CoD:MW2, Bioshock 2

PSP: Dissidia Final Fantasy, LocoRoco 2, Patapon 2, Resistance Retribution (and who knows if we'll get KH:Birth by Sleep, FF Agito XIII, and/or Parasite Eve: The 3rd Birthday in '09)

DS: Dragon Quest 5, Dragon Quest 6, Dragon Quest 9, Valkyrie Profile:CotP, Suikoden Tierkreis, Blue Dragon Plus, FFCC: Echoes of Time (and maybe KH:358/2 Days?)




stevelabny said:


> so after a few years of Microsoft eating PS3's babies...is this the year PS3 finally plays the better hand in exclusive titles?



Already happened in 2008, AFAIC.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Dec 29, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Already happened in 2008, AFAIC.




Yeah, but XBox and Wii are still killing PS3 in sales.


----------



## JDragon (Dec 29, 2008)

xBox 360: 
Halo Wars (1st QT); 

Halo: ODST "Recon" (4th QT)


A CoD5 Modern Warfare II would be cool.

JD


----------



## Felon (Dec 30, 2008)

stevelabny said:


> so after a few years of Microsoft eating PS3's babies...is this the year PS3 finally plays the better hand in exclusive titles?



Pretty unlikely to ever happen. MS would have to really get lax to match PS3"s laxness. PS3 didn't even give us a price cut this holiday season. They're hanging a bit too much on the whole blue-ray thing, as players are getting pretty cheap now.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Dec 30, 2008)

Um.... let me think.  YES!!!!

1) Dawn of War 2
2) Diablo 3
3) Starcraft 2 (it just might be out in 2009 according to XPlay on G4)


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 30, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:


> Yeah, but XBox and Wii are still killing PS3 in sales.



I was clearly talking about the "exclusive titles".


----------



## Steel_Wind (Dec 30, 2008)

Felon said:


> Pretty unlikely to ever happen. MS would have to really get lax to match PS3"s laxness. PS3 didn't even give us a price cut this holiday season. They're hanging a bit too much on the whole blue-ray thing, as players are getting pretty cheap now.




The whole concept of exclusive titles has essentially died. It was always a concept that occurred in the past more due to happenstance than by clever design or any real marketing inititative.  If you think otherwise, well... for the most part, it just looked that way.

Games simply cost too much to make. As a game developer, the only way to rationally recover your investment is to multi-sku your game across as many platforms as you can afford to implement the game on. 

There were exclusive titles earlier in this Next generation batch of titles, but that was principally due to the fact that the PS3's release was delayed. Now? If you can do the game for 360 as well as PS3 - it makes sense to do it that way. For the PC and Wii? Sure - that too if your game concept extends across those hardware brands as well.

That's just good business sense, that's all. 

On a separate but closely related topic, our household finally got a PS3 for Xmas this year.  We have not even opened it yet though. It's literally still sitting in a box in the living room.

Pretty odd way to treat a major Xmas giftie you say? True enough. The reason for this is because we already have a 360 and my oldest son also got a gaming PC for Xmas as well. So... there has been no pressing need to open it yet.  When we do open it, my guess is that its first use will be as a Blu Ray player - not as a game console. But we'll get to that today or tomorrow.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the 360. I think Xbox Live, in particular, is especially well done and my older son enjoys it a lot.  But the one thing that annoys me most about our XBox 360 is that it is an original release version model of the system. It's been a trooper, and never a Red Ring of Death to be seen...

But it still sounds like a Harrier Jump Jet when it is on and frankly - that drives me nuts.  The sound the thing makes when it is on is pretty hard to tolerate.  (Yes, they have improved the design in  subsequent models and you can install your game to the drive to improve the sound on even the original release model if you want to reduce the sound issue. But it's a release model, with a 20 gig drive so it makes a lot of noise and there's not a lot of HD space to install to in any event after you take the demands of XBox Live DLC into account.)

So... to return to the topic at hand:  if there are simultaneous releases of some major new games this year that we are going to get, due to the WHINING ENGINE sound aspect of the 360 -  I am going to give the PS3 version of the game a try first.  

And then we'll see if the PS3 is a preferable platform to play it on vs the 360.  I am anticipating that there will be no significant difference between the two  - other than the noise factor - and that this will favour in the long run my preference for getting games for the PS3 over our particular model of the 360. If I can use a mouse and keyboard on the PS3 version of the game to play it? Then that will definitely mean the PS3 version of the game will out in our home.

And yes, for the record, we have a Wii as well. The 360 (and eventually the PS3) are in the living room - hooked up to a  1080p.  The Wii is in the basement hooked up to an old standard Def TV. My three year old plays on it but the rest of the family does not bother with it.  Despite its strong sales among casual gamers, that would not describe my family. The Wii has simply been exiled off of our island.  The games  - and the interest - just isn't there.  If there is a cool driving game or other title pitched at a very young player and my youngest son might enjoy it? We'll pick up one or two games for it over the course of the year, but otherwise, the Wii has lost the battle for console dominance in our home.


----------



## Felon (Dec 30, 2008)

Steel_Wind said:


> The whole concept of exclusive titles has essentially died. It was always a concept that occurred in the past more due to happenstance than by clever design or any real marketing inititative.  If you think otherwise, well... for the most part, it just looked that way.



Don't know where you're getting this intel from. Exclusive titles are often aggressively pursued, at least in Microsoft's case. Mass Effect, Halo, Gears of War, and Fable are franchises they intend to pay to keep. Sony has recently spoken up and said they aren't going in that direction anymore. 



> Games simply cost too much to make. As a game developer, the only way to rationally recover your investment is to multi-sku your game across as many platforms as you can afford to implement the game on.



Indeed, games cost a lot to make, and they get more expensive when you design for multiple platforms. If a company steps up and offers you a million to design a game just for them, there's a reasonable incentive to take it. The PS3 has something of a rep for being hard to design games for. Saints Row spent a long time in development for the PS3 before they finally gave up and said "forget it--wait for the sequel". MS has the edge in that developing for the PC means you have a good foot in the door to develop for the Xbox.

The main issue with maintaining exclusive titles is saturation. Is it meaningful to be the platform that has an exclusive AAA FPS like Halo when there are so many FPS titles floating around for both consoles? Sales would seem to indicate that the answer is yes. Is it meaningful to have an exclusive suite of RPG's, like Fable and Mass Effect? That's a title MS has sought but can't be so sure of. Can the competitor just make do with the remaining cross-platform games, or will they just cancel out the edge by getting their own exclusive titles? At this point, MS may feel they have sufficient lead to get lazy, or they may want to try to keep forcing Sony to up the ante.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 30, 2008)

Felon said:


> ...and they get much more expensive when you design for multiple platforms.



I'm fairly sure that isn't true.


----------



## Felon (Dec 30, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I'm fairly sure that isn't true.



/shrug

At some point, it pretty much gets down to "says you". I'm "fairly sure" I'm right, else I wouldn't have said it.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 30, 2008)

Felon said:


> At some point, it pretty much gets down to "says you". I'm "fairly sure" I'm right, else I wouldn't have said it.



I don't do that kind of programming, but... a big part of any software project is design work that's largely hardware-independent, many of the actual in-game assets are, (largely, again) hardware-independent, like the art assets, and really, it's not _that_ hard to get code written for one machine to work on another (though getting it to run well is another story).

Of course multi-platform development adds to your costs, just not as significantly as you're indicating, particularly, which, curiously enough, helps explain the trend towards multi-platform development. If multi-platform development was profitable, why do it? Charity? 

There are real game industry people on ENWorld, aren't there? Help me out here. I'm fairly sure (though not _certain_) that I'm not talking out my *ss.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 30, 2008)

Mallus said:


> and really, it's not _that_ hard to get code written for one machine to work on another (though getting it to run well is another story).




First of all, yes, getting code to run cross-platform can be a big issue, depending on what technologies you've used.  But, even if it wasn't - you yourself note that getting it to run well is another story.  But you can't go shipping a game that doesn't run well.  That "other story" is inescapable.



> Of course multi-platform development adds to your costs, just not as significantly as you're indicating, particularly, which, curiously enough, helps explain the trend towards multi-platform development. If multi-platform development was profitable, why do it? Charity?




How costly cross-platform development is depends upon the technologies you are using.

Also, note that the question of it being profitable is complicated.  For example, there's the question of resources - how many people that you don't currently have will you need to get on the staff?  How quickly can you get them, and are they good enough? Can you cover the extra overhead they represent for the short term to reap the long-term costs?...

And, it is not enough to make a profit.  You have to make a _big enough_ profit.  The bigwigs compare their investments.  I can spend $X on cross-platform development, and that'll earn me $Y.  I could spend that $X on seventeen other projects, each of which will make some other amount.  If that other amount is larger than $Y, I probably don't do the cross-platform development.

If I recall correctly, Macs currently have something like a 10% to 13% share of the overall home computer market, depending whose estimates you read.  That means that if you have a windows-app that you want to take cross-platform, if the extra development cost is not less than 10% of your total development costs, it probably isn't economically worth porting.


----------



## Felon (Dec 30, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Of course multi-platform development adds to your costs, just not as significantly as you're indicating, particularly, which, curiously enough, helps explain the trend towards multi-platform development. If multi-platform development was profitable, why do it? Charity?



"As significantly as I'm indicating"? My language was pretty vague. Development costs vary. Clearly, those cross-platform development costs are unlikely to be so high as to prohibit profitability. However, if someone is willing to write you a big, fat check to develop a title exclusively for their console, then it's certainly worth consideration. A bird in the hand versus two in the bush.


----------



## Pants (Dec 31, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Already happened in 2008, AFAIC.



With what games? MGS4, Little Big Planet, and... there was some other exclusive 'big name' title in 2008, but I can't remember it.

The 2008 'big name' exclusives definitely do close the gap between the X-Box and the PS3, but they haven't eclipsed the 360 yet.


----------



## Woas (Dec 31, 2008)

Pretty much just Hearts of Iron 3.


I have a very love/hate relationship with video games.


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 31, 2008)

Pants said:


> With what games?



You mostly got 'em.

Highest-scoring exclusives:
PS3: LBP, MGS4, Resistance 2, Valkyria Chronicles
360: GoW2, Fable 2

And (_again_, AFAIC): LBP/MGS4/R2/VC > GoW2/F2 (I own 'em all)

IGN's Analysis:
IGN: Aussie Console Showdown 08: PS3 vs. Wii vs. 360, Part 1

IGN: Aussie Console Showdown 08: PS3 vs. Wii vs. 360


----------



## Felon (Dec 31, 2008)

Well, to each their own. MGS4 was the only PS3 exclusive that looked interesting to me, and hearing about half-hour long cutscenes was enough to turn me off.


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 31, 2008)

Yep. You either like the MGS series, or you don't.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Dec 31, 2008)

*NOT* looking forward to Sims 3.


----------



## Pants (Dec 31, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> You mostly got 'em.
> 
> Highest-scoring exclusives:
> PS3: LBP, MGS4, Resistance 2, Valkyria Chronicles
> ...



LBP's the only one that looks good out of that list. In fact, were I rich, I'd prolly get a PS3 just to play it. 

The others? Meh, 'specially on MGS4


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 1, 2009)

Dragon Age
Dawn of War 2
Starcraft 2

Those are the titles that I'll buy at full price, sight unseen in 2009. I've got my eye on a lot of other titles, but i'll wait until they are in the 5-20 euro range (depending on how much i want the title).


----------



## TwistedBishop (Jan 1, 2009)

Cergorach said:


> Dawn of War 2
> Starcraft 2




My two most anticipated titles as well.  Also Halo Wars and Demigod in Feb/March.  2009 is going to be an amazing year for RTS fans.

For the rest of the year:

Halo: ODST
Resident Evil 5
Killzone 2
Uncharted 2
God of War 3?  (not confirmed but seems possible)

I'm keeping an eye on FEAR 2 and Dragon Age still.  Aside from the pedigree of the developers, neither has sold me on the games themselves.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2009)

Just finished Mass Effect between christmas and today. If Dragon Age is anywhere close to the greatness of that game (apart from the somewhat repetitive side missions, an all around awesome game), it certainly gets on the list as well. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 1, 2009)

Hmmm...

Wii: Muramasa the Demon Blade, Little King's Story, possibly many more. I have a feeling we will see more good titles for this one soon. Certainly I will get several more Virtual Console titles.

XBOX 360: Probably a few things, now that I got one for Christmas. Nothing immediately comes to mind, though... Star Ocean 4, possibly.

PS3: White Knight Chronicles and Valkyria Chronicles. I know the latter is out, but I am waiting for the former before I bother to get the console.

DS: Suikoden Tierkries, Avalon Code, and Fire Emblem Shadow Dragon, and that is just for the next few months. Probably many more as more stuff starts coming out, like Dragon Quest 5 and 6.

Mac: Starcraft II. I hope my computer can run this, since this is the only PC/Mac game I will want for the next few years...


----------



## Sytonis (Jan 3, 2009)

Killzone 2. I don't think I will look at another game until I've had my fill of it. I really enjoyed Uncharted, so Uncharted 2 looks like a must too. Other than that, I am looking forward to the DLC for Burnout Paradise - Paradise Island. There's no game on my PS3 thats had more game time than Burnout Paradise. Absolutely fantastic game.


Sytonis


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 3, 2009)

_Dragon Age_ is the big one I'm looking forward to.  I'm hoping it comes out by June, so I can nab it before finishing my thesis.

_Starcraft II _I'm looking forward to, but only as a single player game.  I'll probably play multiplayer with my friends, but I'm not terribly interested in Battle.net and random people.

_Diablo III_ will be fun, but like others here I don't think it will come out this year.

Those are the big three that I'm interested in.  I'll probably pick up _Sacred 2_ on Steel_Wind's suggestion (we seem to have similar tastes... in games at least ), but seeing as how I still haven't gotten to Mass Effect, let alone cleared out my list of games to finish... I don't know when I'd get to that.



Steel_Wind said:


> The whole concept of exclusive titles has essentially died. It was always a concept that occurred in the past more due to happenstance than by clever design or any real marketing inititative.  If you think otherwise, well... for the most part, it just looked that way.




I'm not sure it's totally happenstance so much as a combination of:

1) While the general coding was the same, hardware was quite different as you go back in console generations.  This is especially true when you go back to the cart vs. CD days.  The only people that bothered were shovelware producers.

2) In general today there's been a convergence of hardware specs fueled by the influence of PCs, and specifically the emergence of only a few dedicated processor developers (AMD, Intel).

I totally agree about the economic detriment of exclusive titles.  There is absolutely no natural stimulus for game developers to stay exclusive - you want as many people as possible buying your game.  Only large payments by the console developers keep this happening at all... and even now they're generally windows of exclusivity (see: Mass Effect) rather than true exclusive titles.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 5, 2009)

Pants said:


> The others? Meh, 'specially on MGS4



Yeah, that's what I thought about the meager 360 exclusives after I tried 'em.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 14, 2009)

Felon said:


> Don't know where you're getting this intel from. Exclusive titles are often aggressively pursued, at least in Microsoft's case. Mass Effect, Halo, Gears of War, and Fable are franchises they intend to pay to keep. Sony has recently spoken up and said they aren't going in that direction anymore.




I get my intel from the game industry: reading it, watching it, contracting in it for both my own game development company and on behalf of clients in the game industry.

BTW, from the above list? Not a single title you listed as an "exclusive" was, in fact, "exclusive":

_Mass Effect_ Not an exclusive. It skipped the PS3 due to engine issues and dev specs. ME went to PC within months of release for the 360.

This is being repeated with Dragon Age: Origins, except in reverse. It's out for PC first, 360 and PS3 for November 2009.

_Gears of War_? Same story. Indeed, the PC version included bonus content.

_Fable:_ Ditto. The PC version also included bonus content.

_Halo_? Same story - though in that case Microsoft bought the company to ensure it would go console first, PC second, and PS2/3, never.

Exclusives simply make little sense in an age where the dev costs of games is so astronomically high.


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 14, 2009)

I do not know if it will be released in 2009, but Elemental: War of Magic, Stardock's new fantasy 4X game is gunning for a public beta beginning in June. 

There are a lot of games I am looking forward to more than that one, but I anticipate it being really good, and I am not sure how many folks would have heard of it already.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Jan 14, 2009)

Steel_Wind said:


> BTW, from the above list? Not a single title you listed as an "exclusive" was, in fact, "exclusive":




They're absolutely exclusives.  They might be Microsoft exclusives rather than simply Xbox 360, but exclusives nonetheless.  Either way a deal is made which restricts content to a certain company, and keeps it away from others.

However, I would disagree that Sony avoids a similar practice.  They might be on record stating they don't "buy exclusivity" -- which might be semantically correct in reference to huge titles like Final Fantasy or GTA -- but they have locked down third-party games in publishing arrangements just like Microsoft.


----------



## Felon (Jan 16, 2009)

TwistedBishop said:


> They're absolutely exclusives.  They might be Microsoft exclusives rather than simply Xbox 360, but exclusives nonetheless.  Either way a deal is made which restricts content to a certain company, and keeps it away from others.



Exactly. Steel Wind's retort puzzles the heck out of me. Someone who's informed about the industry probably knows that the company that makes Windows is also the company that makes the Xbox. The Xbox was conceived as a way to take advantage of folks developing games for Windows, by expanding the market to gamers who prefer to play with a controller in front of their TV's. 

Thus, a game that's available only on Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Xbox is, of course, a Microsoft exclusive. The rapport between the two is a feature, not a flaw.


----------



## AJCarrington (Jan 17, 2009)

Kaodi said:


> I do not know if it will be released in 2009, but Elemental: War of Magic, Stardock's new fantasy 4X game is gunning for a public beta beginning in June.




I'd completely missed this one.  If it's on par with GalCivII, then I'll be picking it up pretty quickly.

AJC


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 17, 2009)

TwistedBishop said:


> They're absolutely exclusives.  They might be Microsoft exclusives rather than simply Xbox 360, but exclusives nonetheless.




A Microsoft exclusive? Are you saying that with a straight face?

Let me help your analysis out a little: One of those titles earns Micrsoft a royalty; the other does not.

Your expansive definition of "exclusive" would have been greatly appreciated by EA/BioWare, when it had to explain to its fans in Jan 08 that its 360 "exclusive" Mass Effect  released in November 07 was due to be released in February 08 for the PC. (As events transpired, it didn't get released till about May 08 for the PC).

There were few fans at that time who understood "exclusive" to mean "not on PS3".

Not even EA PR in full flight was trying to spin that as an "exclusive".  The best they could say was that their marketing claims that _Mass Effect_ was an "exclusive" were true...at the time it was initally released. 

Because when it's available on more than one platform, it is no longer "exclusive". That's the common meaning of the word in the english language. And *nobody* in the game industry suggests that a title on a console and PC meets the definition of "exclusive". 

Halo 3? 360 *only*. That's an exclusive. 

Well, for now at any rate.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Jan 17, 2009)

Steel_Wind said:


> There were few fans at that time who understood "exclusive" to mean "not on PS3".





By the time Mass Effect came out, you'd have to be willfully ignorant to believe Xbox games don't get ported to the PC.  Halo, Halo 2, Fable, Gears of War, Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire, all big Xbox or Xbox 360 exclusives and more importantly all of Bioware's recent efforts, were already ported to the PC. It's no secret Microsoft has such a practice.

It's also no secret the size of the console industry dwarfs the size of the hardcore PC gaming crowd, and the gap has only widened since consoles started taking on genres and features which used to be exclusive to PC gaming.  While a good number of people who own gaming PCs probably own consoles, the inverse of a majority of console owners maintaining gaming PCs is not true, for some very understandable reasons of expense and convenience.  To say that Gears of War didn't move, and continues to move, Xbox 360 consoles because of a PC version being available?  No one would rightly believe such a thing.  And that's the function of exclusivity.


----------



## Felon (Jan 19, 2009)

Steel_Wind said:


> There were few fans at that time who understood "exclusive" to mean "not on PS3".
> 
> Not even EA PR in full flight was trying to spin that as an "exclusive". The best they could say was that their marketing claims that Mass Effect was an "exclusive" were true...at the time it was initally released.
> 
> Because when it's available on more than one platform, it is no longer "exclusive". That's the common meaning of the word in the english language. And *nobody* in the game industry suggests that a title on a console and PC meets the definition of "exclusive".



Steel Wind, come on, man. You are not the voice of the entire gaming industry. In the sense that "exclusive" means exclusive to Microsoft platforms, the word works fine. Or one prefers, it can be called a console exclusive, which it should, as a PC is an entirely different animal from a console. 

To reiterate, the rationale that PS3 outnumbers 360's exclusives because 360 titles get ported to the PC--and vice versa--is of dubious merit, because the Xbox's foothold into PC gaming is a strength of the 360, not a weakness.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 19, 2009)

TwistedBishop said:


> They're absolutely exclusives.  They might be Microsoft exclusives rather than simply Xbox 360, but exclusives nonetheless.



This doesn't make any sense, as it is, of course, irrelevent when discussing what 'system' a person might buy (which is the point of discussing exclusives, unless we have some amateur market analysts here making stock trading decisons. No? That's what I thought).

If someone can play GoW or Mass Effect without buying a 360, then it's not an exclusive in any relevant sense to the consumer.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Or one prefers, it can be called a console exclusive, which it should, as a PC is an entirely different animal from a console.
> 
> ... the Xbox's foothold into PC gaming is a strength of the 360, not a weakness.



Gonna have to simply disagree here. I've seen enough discussion as to "what system should I buy if I want to play x" - with the PC as a system choice - to know that the above is an inaccurate statement, AFAIC.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Jan 20, 2009)

Arnwyn said:


> If someone can play GoW or Mass Effect without buying a 360, then it's not an exclusive in any relevant sense to the consumer.




To most of those consumers, hardcore PC gaming may as well not exist.  They're choosing between consoles and the Xbox has those titles while the PS3 doesn't.  It's that simple.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 20, 2009)

TwistedBishop said:


> To most of those consumers, ... PC gaming may as well not exist.  They're choosing between consoles and the Xbox has those titles while the PS3 doesn't.  It's that simple.



*shrug* Sorry - I'm not with you.

PC is a system choice to play GoW or Mass Effect. It's that simple.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 20, 2009)

I'm not the biggest shooter fan, but I find myself growing more interested in Killzone 2. Perhaps it's the ineffable allure of the chance to shoot space Nazis.

I'm also intrigued by the new trilogy of Dragon Quest remakes for the DS. Now if I could only get Amazon to sell me the time to play them...


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 20, 2009)

Dragon Quest V and Dragon Quest VI - the only DQs never before seen in North America. Woo!


----------



## Felon (Jan 21, 2009)

Arnwyn said:


> If someone can play GoW or Mass Effect without buying a 360, then it's not an exclusive in any relevant sense to the consumer.



It's highly relevant for that someone wants to play a big gorgeous spectacle game on their big-screen HDTV. 



> *shrug* Sorry - I'm not with you.
> 
> PC is a system choice to play GoW or Mass Effect. It's that simple.



See above. If I'm playing a PC game, I'm sitting at a desk with a monitor a foot or so from my face, clicking a keyboard and/or sliding a mouse around. The experience is very different from what I get sitting in the middle of the room in front of my 62-incher. Might as well throw DS's and PSP's into the discussion. 

If a person's dedicated to playing games on a PC, then they're not in the market for a console to begin with. They're not the target audience for exclusives. There's no allure. They don't want to play an FPS on with a controller. For them, the option to play Halo or GoW on their computer in the only option they care about. Of course, the fact that MS has that market helps them to afford exclusives in the first place.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 21, 2009)

Felon said:


> If I'm playing a PC game, I'm sitting at a desk with a monitor a foot or so from my face, clicking a keyboard and/or sliding a mouse around. The experience is very different from what I get sitting in the middle of the room in front of my 62-incher.



You _could_ just hook your PC up to your big HDTV. Some friends of mine do that --oddly, not the married ones.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 21, 2009)

Felon said:


> It's highly relevant for that someone wants to play a big gorgeous spectacle game on their big-screen HDTV.



And so is the PS3 and PC having free online and the 360 a great for-pay service. And the controllers are all different. And how avatars are used is different. And the peripherals are different. Blah blah blah.

All wonderful factors to take into account when considering what system to buy a game on. Doesn't have anything to do with exclusive games, though.

Like I said: if I can buy GoW/etc on the PC and/or the 360 and/or other machines, it's not exclusive. Beyond that, the choice is up to the individual consumer based on a myriad of factors important to them - and they actually _have_ that choice... therefore, not exclusive. (I'm sure other "definitions" of 'exclusive' are great and fascinating and all that - but I'm not on board with them.)



> Might as well throw DS's and PSP's into the discussion.



Absolutely, if the same GoW/Mass Effect/whatever are on those systems. Let me know when that happens, so we can "throw (them) into the discussion".


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 21, 2009)

Felon said:


> If a person's dedicated to playing games on a PC, then they're not in the market for a console to begin with.




I see.

So. I have six gaming PCs. I ALSO have a Wii, A 360 and a PS3.

In addition  to playing games on a PC, I run a company that makes PC Games as well.

Just exaclty how "dedicated" to playing games on a PC do I have to be before I'm "not in the market for a console"? Could you explain to me in what manner my dedication is lacking so I can get to work on fixing that?

Or perhaps a more accurate way of putting it is this: when you say "they" and "them", in fact, you mean something else entirely. You really mean: "*me, and people who think like me*". 

That would be a far cry from citing the wants of the nameless and faceless "they" and "them" to somehow convince *somebody else* of the patent and obvious correctness of your view.


----------



## Felon (Jan 22, 2009)

Steel_Wind said:


> I see.
> 
> So. I have six gaming PCs. I ALSO have a Wii, A 360 and a PS3.
> 
> ...



Three words, buddy: pot, kettle, black. Given your own grandiose assertions about what everyone in the gaming industry does or doesn't think, you ought to spare me your accusations of hubris. Reality check: if you're gaming on every console and six different PC's, you're pretty much an aberration, not part of a demographic. So, unless you wish to contend that your Batcavesque setup is representative of the norm, what good does presenting it really do in terms of contradicting anything I've said?

Kindly accept that most people do have preferences of some kind. Maybe there are some guys who own an Xbox 360 but would rather wait for GoW2 to be ported to PC, but they're a negligible bunch. And they're windmill-tilters to boot, because no PC port for GoW2 is forthcoming--it's exclusive even by your standards. But if there was a port in coming in six more months, the 360 owners are by and large not going to wait, and that's borne out by how badly the PC port of GoW1 sold.



Arnwyn said:


> (I'm sure other "definitions" of 'exclusive' are great and fascinating and all that - but I'm not on board with them.)



And there you go, right at the heart of the matter: you're dug into your position and aren't going to budge an inch. What've we got left to discuss in this little threadjack? The size of the chips on people's shoulders?


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 22, 2009)

Felon said:
			
		

> And there you go, right at the heart of the matter: you're dug into your position and aren't going to budge an inch. What've we got left to discuss in this little threadjack?



Yeah, pretty much. I don't think there's anything to discuss on the matter. AFAIC, the meaning of "exclusive" is self-evident.

I'm more interested in the original thread subject. It was unfortunate this little sidetrack even happened.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 23, 2009)

Alpha Protocol....PC and XBox...not sure about PS3...

It's a single player RPG set not in a fantasy world....but on Earth, in the espionage genre.  How cool is that?

It's being produced by Obsidian.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 23, 2009)

Felon said:


> Three words, buddy: pot, kettle, black. Given your own grandiose assertions about what everyone in the gaming industry does or doesn't think, you ought to spare me your accusations of hubris. Reality check: if you're gaming on every console and six different PC's, you're pretty much an aberration, not part of a demographic. So, unless you wish to contend that your Batcavesque setup is representative of the norm, what good does presenting it really do in terms of contradicting anything I've said?
> 
> Kindly accept that most people do have preferences of some kind. Maybe there are some guys who own an Xbox 360 but would rather wait for GoW2 to be ported to PC, but they're a negligible bunch. And they're windmill-tilters to boot, because no PC port for GoW2 is forthcoming--it's exclusive even by your standards. But if there was a port in coming in six more months, the 360 owners are by and large not going to wait, and that's borne out by how badly the PC port of GoW1 sold.




I *think* that GoW1 on PC was supposed to have been really, really buggy at release, and that may have contributed to low sales.  Further, I'd suspect that the majority of people who were in the market for that game likely got it on 360, long before it came out on PC.

I've got the 360, PC, PS3, and PSP, and frankly, the only one that gets much use is the 360, and I used to be an avid PC gamer.  I've rather grown to like sitting in front of a 50" TV, with full surround sound, instead of in my office in a business chair 

Maybe what people are getting hung up is what exclusive means.

Does it mean that a game is only on a single platform?  Or does it mean that a game is only available on a single *console*?

There are still lots of games that are on one or the other.  But it seems to me that PS3 is losing them faster.  Could that be related to lower sales of that console?

Banshee


----------



## Pants (Jan 27, 2009)

Banshee16 said:


> I *think* that GoW1 on PC was supposed to have been really, really buggy at release, and that may have contributed to low sales.  Further, I'd suspect that the majority of people who were in the market for that game likely got it on 360, long before it came out on PC.



Also GoW1, Halo, and Halo 2 all came out years after the originals were released on their respective platforms, basically throwing a bone to the PC crowd and nothing more. 

Additionally, though I've only played the Halo port, each was supposedly considered a substandard port. I know the Halo port looked like crap compared to the original X-Box version and supposedly so did GoW. Mass Effect also, supposedly had pretty ridiculous system requirements, but it's all hearsay.

I think a compelling argument could be made either way.


----------



## Phaezen (Feb 5, 2009)

Looks like the PC Dragon Age has been dropped to a 4th quarter 2009 release to sync with the console releases 

Phaezen


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Feb 5, 2009)

Anyone know when the Ghostbusters game is going to be released and if it'll be available for the PS3?


----------



## Orius (Feb 6, 2009)

Don't know about release date but the game should be on the PS3 and 360.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 6, 2009)

Top of my head, I'm looking the most forward to Uncharted 2 and God of War 3.  I'm sure there are others, especially RPGs, that I'm missing but I'm a little out of the loop on future releases right now.  Actually, the only game I've been "following" has been FFXIII.

Oh yeah, just thought of another one: Resident Evil 5.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 6, 2009)

Pants said:


> Mass Effect also, supposedly had pretty ridiculous system requirements, but it's all hearsay.



I can vouch for the fact Mass Effect's requirements aren't _that_ bad. It runs fine, after some setting adjustment, on my non-gaming laptop (it does have a 8600M gfx card, tho).

Also, my excited for Killzone 2 has increased to the point I pre-ordered from Amazon (thanks, in part, to some gifts cards that were crying out for redemption).


----------



## Felon (Feb 6, 2009)

Reveille said:


> Anyone know when the Ghostbusters game is going to be released and if it'll be available for the PS3?



The current release date is June for PS3, 360, and PC. 

Interesting that folks are getting excited about this one, as info about the actual nature of the gameplay is just starting to trickle in. I guess the license has some appeal for older gamers, but the thing is movie-license games have a longstanding tradition of being sub-par.

For me, Godfather II and Alpha Protocol are the games I'm really looking forward to. I always wanted to play a crimelord game where you actually have to make decisions like a boss. And Alpha Protocol seems to have a nice variety of weapons, and god how I love games where you can customize weapons!


----------



## Thanee (Feb 6, 2009)

Pants said:


> Mass Effect also, supposedly had pretty ridiculous system requirements, but it's all hearsay.




Well, I only played Mass Effect from the ones you listed, but it surely isn't just a bone thrown at the PC crowd. They have taken the time to work on the controls to make them PC worthy (i.e. good mouse/keyboard controls) and AFAIK they also made a few other improvements, which probably weren't possible like that on the weaker console technology.

System Requirements are modest.

2.4/2.0 GHz Single/Double Core CPU 
1 GB RAM
256 MB Video Card

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2009)

Yes, the PC version of Mass Effect featured improvements over the console. Honestly, while it's a good game, there's a lot of bugs and, worse, unfulfilled promises in ME. 

Man, when this game was in development, Biohazard told us we'd get regular doses of DLC that would continue to expand the game's universe. Instead, we got one download. Just can't trust game developers these days.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, you know that it is a first part of a trilogy? There surely is more to come, but it takes time to develop such things (especially if they are also working on their MMO project).

Speaking of which, I havn't even looked at the downloadable content yet. 

I found only minimal bugs, when I played the game. Some annoying crashes being the worst, but only few.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2009)

The regular injections of DLC was supposed to fill the space between the sequels. They've just officially announced the ME sequel last week, and in all likelyhood no more DLC is forthcoming. It was just a plain old case of blowing their product up to be the Next Big Step Forward and then not delivering. ME was good, it just wasn't the evolutionary experience they claimed it would be.


----------



## Agamon (Feb 13, 2009)

I'm looking forward to Resident Evil 5, Dragon Age: Origins and Blood Bowl.  Maybe Batman: Arkham Asylum.  Not a lot else.


----------



## Hammerhead (Feb 13, 2009)

Felon said:


> The regular injections of DLC was supposed to fill the space between the sequels. They've just officially announced the ME sequel last week, and in all likelyhood no more DLC is forthcoming. It was just a plain old case of blowing their product up to be the Next Big Step Forward and then not delivering. ME was good, it just wasn't the evolutionary experience they claimed it would be.




Yeah, Mass Effect was good when they actually bothered to make a game experience; unfortunately, most of my time playing the game was spent on lifeless, generally hostile worlds driving around in a tank that weighs about twenty pounds and shooting evil robots without another soul in sight. Sometimes I would go into structures filled with boxes that all looked the same, and shoot people inside.

I have my worries about Dragon Age as well, since they're going with a similar setup for your character's role in the world. The Grey Guards seem, basically, to be exactly the same as the Spectres, only they use swords instead of guns. Making a character part of some elite military force seems to destroy the illusion of player choice and remove personal involvement. And I had thought that DA was going to be a PC exclusive, except now it isn't. So now I'm a little hesitant about DA:O, although playing through your origin story does sound pretty awesome.

Also, Batman: Arkham Asylum looks pretty sweet.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Feb 14, 2009)

Felon said:


> Interesting that folks are getting excited about this one, as info about the actual nature of the gameplay is just starting to trickle in. I guess the license has some appeal for older gamers, but the thing is movie-license games have a longstanding tradition of being sub-par.




I played the demo at NYCC, and it was a lot of fun.  That says nothing for the game as a whole, but for what anecdotal statements it is worth, I thought it was good.


----------

