Epic won't do PS3 exclusive

[Fats]

Epic Games vice president Mark Rein says that the Gears of War developer won't be doing a PlayStation 3-exclusive game, but that it's nothing to do with the system's likelihood of success - which he thinks is enormous.

Asked by our sister site GamesIndustry.biz why he wasn't doing one, Rein said, "I think that bird has flown the coop already on PlayStation 3 - they're not making launch titles any more, and we couldn't just start up a game tomorrow as an exclusive because it takes a few years.

"We are doing games for PS3 - Unreal Tournament - but I think the opportunity to do an exclusive has passed. I don't see Sony offering us a really great deal today to make that ass-kicking PlayStation 3 game, because by the time we finished, there would already be hundreds of great games on the platform. Gran Turismo, Killzone - they'll be on the sequels to those games by the time our game would come out, so it's just a timing thing," he said.

"For the next generation? Anything could happen... But that's five, six, seven, eight, nine years away, nobody even knows that yet."

For more of Rein's thoughts on the console wars, and why he thinks PlayStation 3 has what it takes to etc. and so on, check out the whole GamesIndustry.biz interview.

Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=74415)

[BruceWayneIII]

...wont do any exclusive during this generation.

[indiekid4]

hmmm...ok....what he said makes no since at all. Why not start up a new platform just for PS3. Who cares if Killzone is out or GT5 or whatnot...new franchises are what the PS3 needs.

[Fats]

I don't see Sony offering us a really great deal today to make that ass-kicking PlayStation 3 game...

Dollar signs perhaps?

[VideoGame mania]

To put it simply Sony ain't paying us we won't make exclusives.

[VG Aficionado]

Meh.

[BruceWayneIII]

^^ that's a bit harsh on Sony, isn't it? The longer time a console is on the market, the bigger will the install base will be. Guess what happens to the 'bribing' required to pay for exclusivity? On top of that, put the rising cost of development and it just doesn't make sense to see a large amount of third party exclusives.

This new third-party multiplatform trend really makes all the sense in the world - from a business point of view.

[Fats]

The potential's there in my opinion. It would just seem to me that Sony are in no way interested, as of yet, in agressively coaxing third-party developers to make exclusive software on their system. It's obvious, as it's been stated many times, that they're totally focusing on their first-party titles. Whether or not this pays of will have to be seen.

[masteratt]

Why does he think anyone cares?

I mean, why even mention that you won't make exclusive PS3 games?
Just an idiot or is MS paying these guys.
Epic always seems to make stupid comments.

Not to mention 6+ years of gaming and the only Epic game I played frequently was Unreal Tournament 2003 (I think) and that was down the internet cafe.

[Applefiend]

<*Counts number of PS2 games by Epic on my shelf*>

None

Hang on, I'll do a recount...

None.

[Rip3001]

Well I guess in the eyes of a PC developer, a single console having continous software lasting over three years is odd.

Why should we bother making any games? By the time we finish, some other game will be coming out and probably be better....*sniff*

[BruceWayneIII]

It's quite simple: if it cost $20 million to get an exclusive (you have to redeem the third-party's loss of revenue in the other platforms), wouldn't you start to think if you could spend that amount of money doing a game on your own?

[VonGak]

Mark Rein's words make a lot sense to me.

Also instead of buying 3'rd party exclusives Sony put their money in SCE-WW wich IMHO seems to be a better investment (they get to keep the talent, IP and can keep the engine assets).

[VideoGame mania]

^^ that's a bit harsh on Sony, isn't it? The longer time a console is on the market, the bigger will the install base will be. Guess what happens to the 'bribing' required to pay for exclusivity? On top of that, put the rising cost of development and it just doesn't make sense to see a large amount of third party exclusives.

This new third-party multiplatform trend really makes all the sense in the world - from a business point of view.

Not really, Bribing is required in this gen if you wanna survive.
Who cares if you pay devs, you as a gamer benefit from it.
It sure does make make sense to keep 3rd party exclusives, Gears sold 4+ million
a "little" game made magic for MS last year.
Sony has too many 3rd party exclusives? I dont think so.
There is no such thing as too large amounts of great games.

[dnpmakkah]

Well I guess that means Gears of War 2 will remain exclusive to the 360.

[PSXBatou]

^ they said no exclusives, never know if they may make GeOW multi-platform in order to make even more money off a short gameplay franchise.

[jaxmkii]

To put it simply Sony ain't paying us we won't make exclusives.

Sony likes having meaningfull relationships... http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r246/jaxmkii/cj_26216.jpg

[BruceWayneIII]

VG M: there's no business sense in your post.

[VonGak]

Not really, Bribing is required in this gen if you wanna survive.
Who cares if you pay devs, you as a gamer benefit from it.
It sure does make make sense to keep 3rd party exclusives, Gears sold 4+ million
a "little" game made magic for MS last year.
Sony has too many 3rd party exclusives? I dont think so.
There is no such thing as too large amounts of great games.

But where do you get most quality exclusive titles from, by investing the money in 1'st or 3'rd party titles?

Those 20mill could pretty well be Uncharted.

It's not like they got unlimited resources.

[Rip3001]

By his logic, why bother with Gears 2...Forza 2 would be out by then...

[Applefiend]

The only way Sony can really get games that fully use the PS3, Blu Ray Storage, sixaxis, 1080p/60fps, 7.1 sound,Cell is if they fund them themselves.

Bribing someone to keep a 7.4GB game exclusive for 6 months until it goes to 360 gets you nowhere. You need to fund games that are 100% PS3. Games that show the PS3 advantage. That's what sells consoles.

I understand people think the PS2/XBox/GC model where you bribe someone is right for 360/PS3/Wii, but it's not anymore. A PS2 was like an XBox was like a Gamecube, a game could be ported from one to another as they were so alike. PS3 is very different from a 360 and very different from a Wii. It doesn't work like that now. Getting the best out of them requires building games from the ground up.

By doing this they raise the bar, now when PS3 hits the highs the 3rd parties need to make real PS3 Blu Ray games to compete, 7.4GB won't cut it anymore.

I think what Sony are doing in raising the bar in home entertainment is superb and should be applauded.

[PSXBatou]

The only way Sony can really get games that fully use the PS3, Blu Ray Storage, sixaxis, 1080p/60fps, 7.1 sound, if if they fund them themselves.

Bribing someone to keep a 7.4GB game exclusive for 6 months until it goes to 360 gets you nowhere. You need to fund games that are 100% PS3.

By doing this they raise the bar, now when PS3 hits the highs the 3rd parties need to make real PS3 Blu Ray games to compete, 7.4GB won't cut it anymore.

Maybe Sony should start sending out Free Vaio laptops and PS3's to bloggers in order to buy off some opinions like MS did :flamed:

[curryking1]

Ok.

[VonGak]

Maybe Sony should start sending out Free Vaio laptops and PS3's to bloggers in order to buy off some opinions like MS did :flamed:

My opinion is always up for sale.

[Applefiend]

It's like this. 360 ports are fine, they're very welcome, but it ain't where the action is.

[VG Aficionado]

Maybe Sony should start sending out Free Vaio laptops and PS3's to bloggers in order to buy off some opinions like MS did :flamed:Hmmm, I could use a Vaio for my job. *wink*

[ddaryl]

It sounds like 3rd parties are trying to squeeze nickels out of console builders.

microshaft has show a willingness to pay 3rd parties for exclusives, while Sony seems more interested in finding developers and moving them into their stable of 1st and 2nd party developers and getting exclusives that way.

I'm always going to be a heluva alot fonder of exclusoives and I pretty much will shun 3rd party developers regardless of their efforts. there will be a few exceptions but they will always lose out to a 1st/2nd party exclusive.

I don;t play nearly the amount of video games as some of you's, so only playing 1st and 2nd party exclusives on a single system gives me more then enough gaming entertainment. In fact I'll stil pass up on many games and still have played more then my share.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

I don't really give a damn, what the hell has epic made besides unreal and gears of war this gen? shooters are a dime a dozen, thanks.

[Jay Gee]

The world doesn't revolve around deathmatches.

[jaxmkii]

The world doesn't revolve around deathmatches.

MS thinks so.

[VonGak]

I only got my PS2 for the online deathmatches, in general FPSers.

[SleazyBig slim]

They wont do an exclusive because Sony wont pay, that other stuff he said about it taking too long bla bla is all bullshit. GOW didn't even START development unti like 2.5-3 years into the PS2's life.

[jaxmkii]

I only got my PS2 for the online deathmatches, in general FPSers.

wierd... its like buying a corvett to go off roading but ok whatever floats your boat.

sidenote: displacing 28,950lbs of water is what floats my boat ;)

[VonGak]

wierd... its like buying a corvett to go off roading but ok whatever floats your boat.

sidenote: displacing 28,950lbs of water is what floats my boat ;)

Now that's a big boat (got no clue actually), I wonder if someone is over compensating for something. :-p

[EvilTaru]

The potential's there in my opinion. It would just seem to me that Sony are in no way interested, as of yet, in agressively coaxing third-party developers to make exclusive software on their system. It's obvious, as it's been stated many times, that they're totally focusing on their first-party titles. Whether or not this pays of will have to be seen.

I think at this point is better for them to spend the money on first-party licenses that they will own instead of giving a developer like Epic a huge co-marketing deal and make the game hugely popular then have Epic turn around and make the subsequent games in the series multiplatform or worse yet, give the exclusivity to one of Sony's competitors. It's not that Sony isn't willing to go for exclusivity but I don't think at this point given the close relationship Epic has with MS that Sony can offer enough to make an Epic game exclusive to the PS3, it's not the kind of thing that would benefit Sony or the PS3 userbase in the long run if the money can be invested in improving an internal team and would result in some first-party hits like a Resistance for example.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v500/EvilTaru/Indifferent2.gif

[Nameless]

^ Well said...
If you read between the lines basically Sony does not see the value in paying a 3rd party developer exclusivity $$$ for a new IP. The only known IP from Epic is UT & now Gears (I believe MS owns that IP)
I agree with Evil, that Sony will no longer invest major $$$ in 3rd party exclusives unless they own the IP and most private development houses will not go for that type of deal... Sony just needs to keep all the well known 3rd party IPs exclusive, well only really 2 left MGS & FF, then focus on 1st/2nd party titles and new IPs for the next-gen. It won't pay off in the short term, but in the long run is a sound approach.

I know everyone is saying look Nintendo loss their #1 spot, but Nintendo is profitable and has a huge loyal fan base. If Sony can accomplish this even in 3rd place and turn a nice profit it makes business sense... It's just hard for some Sony fans to see their console not be the #1 seller. I will be interested to see if Microsoft manages to turn a profit this generation, because they are still in the red last time I checked...

[dnpmakkah]

Yep....putting money in 1st party games means the game is yours. Putting money in 3rd party games means it could change at any given day. Just look at Capcom.

[Red_Eyes]

because by the time we finished, there would already be hundreds of great games on the platform. Gran Turismo, Killzone

I see. They won't be making it because they fear that Killzone and GT5 will own them? Of course Killzone will own Gears of War 2, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't at least try.

[tribal24]

of course they wont do any exclusives >.> they are not being money hatted

[cpiasminc]

It seems that with the abolition of E3 in the form of an insane fanfest, Triplet-E Syndrome has shifted to strengthen at the post-GDC cycle. It seems as though dozens have been infected with incalculable stupidity.

How about the fact that they won't do exclusives because their main revenue stream is the sales of Unreal Engine licenses for ALL platforms?!?? For crying out loud, Sony has sublicensing rights for UE3... something nobody else has. If anything, Sony's relationship with Epic is tighter and MORE lucrative for both of them than anybody else's.

You people just have some sort of oral diarrhea that's causing you to spout crap about Gears of War not showing up on the PS3 because Kutaragi didn't give Cliffy B enough blow jobs or something equally absurd. Go play drywall roulette and see if it knocks some sense into you.

[curryking1]

How about the fact that they won't do exclusives because their main revenue stream is the sales of Unreal Engine licenses for ALL platforms?!?? For crying out loud, Sony has sublicensing rights for UE3... something nobody else has. If anything, Sony's relationship with Epic is tighter and MORE lucrative for both of them than anybody else's.

Basically lol. This news is quite... pointless. It's not even news. It's just... nothing lol.

So I'm just going to say this again about the article or announcement.

Ok.

[Smokey]

<*Counts number of PS2 games by Epic on my shelf*>

None

Hang on, I'll do a recount...

None.

LOL

[Zer0-Sum]

I guess Sony does not consider them enough of an asset to pay them off to do an exclusive. Oh well.

UnReal Tournament 3 FTW!!!!!!

[Xerxes]

He knows that his games cannot compete with the likes of Killzone, Final Fantasy, White Knight, Heavenly Sword, Metal Gear Solid 4, God of War and Kingdom Hearts 3. I guess he just gave up. How sad.

[Media]

*enter CPI basically unleashing the dragon*

I love this guy. +rep

[GodMachine_Iridius_Dio]

Honestly, everyone, this makes sense. It made sense to have an exclusive on the 360 - There really wasn't any title that filled the niche that GoW did, to quite the degree that GoW was being pinned to do. On the PS3, by the time Epic could produce an exclusive title that was up to their quality standards, there would be a dozen or more, quality titles already sitting in the same niche they were expecting to fill with their exclusive. What that translates to is producing an incredibly-expensive, high-quality product that hits the market and sells half a million units and completely undershoots monetary expectations, thus screwing the developer. They'd lose millions, due to a crowded market. Do we want that? Nope.

It's not greed, it's smart business.

[frosty]

*enter CPI basically unleashing the dragon*

I love this guy. +rep

Definitely one of our forum's most valuable posters. I think everyone should +rep the guy 10 times for the knowledge he has shared with us. I know I wouldn't know half as much about what goes on behind the scenes of these games I love to play had he not been here to enlighten us.

:cheers: to Cpias!

Godmachine as well! Thanks to the likes of you we maintain a certain amount of sense around here, no matter how much the fanboys try to fuck that up.

[cpiasminc]

Gears of War wasn't exactly slated to be an exclusive from day one. The original demos were running on PC (UE3 itself having been prototyped on PC)... and Microsoft snatched it up and signed them on as a platform-exclusive before anybody else did. If not for that, I seriously doubt Gears would have been an exclusive at all. Epic also probably wouldn't have agreed to make it exclusive if there wasn't a year between PS3's and 360's release, as they wouldn't really have anything much to gain in that instance.

And FWIW, they really had their work cut out for them on the 360 as it was, let alone the PS3. A lot of things I'd heard from a sibling studio using UE3 made it sound doubtful that Gears of War would ever come out (pretty much up until the wire).

[GTShotoKen]

Hey CPI, I've actually been hearing in certain circles that the UE3 engine wasn't built correctly for the console space.

I heard from you awhile ago that Epic is going to focus on UE4 internally after UT3 ships; why is that?

[GodMachine_Iridius_Dio]

They've already got a very small group (Last I heard was just Tim and less than a handful of others) beginning preliminary work (Mostly brainstorming) for UE4, but all early indicators are pointing toward something geared for massively parallel CPUs.

And true, GoW wasn't being designed from the beginning as an exclusive, but it did lend itself well to the role - Timing was key, obviously, niche density was another factor, but my point was simply that it's a little late for Epic to be working on a PS3 exclusive, now, at this point in time. For obvious reasons, too - Release would place any exclusive pretty far out (2009-2010), which would give the niche that Epic commonly goes for, time to crowd, which would lead to lower sales volume, which, if Epic are going to try to meet the standard set by GoW on the 360, is going to cost them quite a bit of money - It'd lose them quite a bit of money.

Dio

[Red_Eyes]

Lol. By the time Gears of War or a game with Gears of War level of graphics is release on the PS3, other PS3 games will totally own it in terms of graphics. That bar for graphics will have been raisen so many times by then by games like God of War 3. So that is why it's not feasilble to do another Gears of War game. They need to do something better and that'll cost money, which Sony isn't willing to pay them.

[cpiasminc]

Hey CPI, I've actually been hearing in certain circles that the UE3 engine was built correctly for the console space.
That sounds completely opposite from anything I've heard or seen about it. UE3 was largely working on PC (in terms of a lot of the core underlying systems) before anybody had ever even heard the name "Xbox360." Hell, when the public first saw the demos, we all still thought the next Xbox would be called "XboxNext" and that PS3 would have 32 "APUs."

It wasn't originally written with multi-threading in mind, and it is very much NOT light on abstraction (nor were any of the previous Unreal engines).

I think what you may have heard is that UE3 is in decent shape now as far as console performance and some limited use of multiprocessing and/or SPE jobs goes. But it is definitely something that was shoe-horned in and took a good while to get there. Either that, or you heard something from someone who doesn't have a clue.

I heard from you awhile ago that Epic is going to focus on UE4 internally after UT3 ships; why is that?
I don't know about specifically after UT3 ships, but yeah, they pretty much are relegating UE3 to support and continuous bugfixes, and putting time towards a new engine that's more specifically built for wide parallelism from the start.

And like Godmachine mentioned, they've been working on it with just a few people for a while. They've also been recruiting to try and fill in some gaps for quite some time.

[GTShotoKen]

Thanks for the info God Machine and CPI. :)

Man I should proof read my posts more. I actually meant to say the UE3 engine wasn't built correctly, but oh well. ;)