Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on November 02, 2005, 03:52:32 PM
Nintendo fans hoping to get their hands on the upcoming Starcraft: Ghost were met with disappointing news today when a Blizzard employee confessed the following on the Battle.NET message board:
" Unfortunately the GameCube version of the game was decided to be dropped. In order to provide the game envisioned by the console team a set and readily available online solution was needed. Unfortunately the GameCube has no online service and since so much work is going in to the online portion, it would be additional work to release only part of the intended game. Nintendo systems certainly aren't something that we are against supporting. Blizzard in its entirety is based upon earlier games for Nintendo systems. The GameCube and Revolution will still be cosidered for future products, unfortunately Ghost will only be made available on the Xbox and PS2 at this time."
When posters inquired further, citing the GameCube's Broadband Adapter, the same employee had the following to say:
" In any case there are many reasons why the GameCube version was cut, but it all boils down to being able to provide the best game experience possible to our fans."
As a consolation, however, he did also say that support for the GameCube has not been cut off, nor has any other Nintendo console (i.e. Revolution) been given the axe as far as future support.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on November 02, 2005, 03:59:48 PM
Blizzard wanted to get the game out soon (it has been in development forever, after all) and wanted to optomize profit. And so, in the same fashion that's been exploited so many times before, the GameCube version was given the axe. The statement about online doesn't hold much weight - the PS2 version will be played on Battle.NET and there's no reason why the GameCube version wouldn't be able to do the same. However, as #3 in marketshare, Nintendo and its fans are once again given the shaft.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 02, 2005, 04:08:50 PM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on November 02, 2005, 04:10:41 PM
Post by: Sarail on November 02, 2005, 04:16:46 PM
And yes, it is absolutely ridiculous that the GameCube and Nintendo fans are getting treated this way. Hello? Sony doesn't have a "set-in-stone" online plan for their PS2 either. Geez, Blizzard... grow some balls, will ya? I know of a lot of GameCube owners who were extremely excited about this game. But Blizzard decides to give us the shaft instead. I won't be purchasing StarCraft: Ghost for either of the competing systems. Thanks Blizzard. Thanks a lot. You WOULD have had a sell by me for this game... too bad on your part, though.
Post by: JonLeung on November 02, 2005, 05:17:50 PM
I think the DS would be perfect for RTSes of the StarCraft variety, what with the touch-screen and all. I never played StarCraft 64 and think the original StarCraft is overrated, but I think it could actually work on the DS.
Post by: Arrow on November 02, 2005, 05:21:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rachtman
Hello? Sony doesn't have a "set-in-stone" online plan for their PS2 either.
No, but their online network still has a much larger user base than Nintendo's. The Blizzard employee's original comment about Nintendo having no online service, while false, is not that far from the truth. If the game's online components are a large part of the overall package, I think Blizzard didn't have much of a choice in this matter.
Post by: ThePerm on November 02, 2005, 05:59:58 PM
Post by: Grant10k on November 02, 2005, 06:21:07 PM
Post by: Nemo on November 02, 2005, 06:49:59 PM
Post by: Shin Gallon on November 02, 2005, 06:52:09 PM
Post by: Kairon on November 02, 2005, 07:23:53 PM
I'd always assumed it was just the XBox and PS2, *shrug*
Still, I think this game is very interesting because Blizzard is very used to working on a PC timescale. They take a long time to develop their games, and usually they don't push the technological envelope (Starcraft's and Diablo's Sprites, WoW vs. EQ2 graphics). It'll be very interesting to see how Blizzard fares in todays much more rapid, much more competitive console environment.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ShyGuy on November 02, 2005, 08:33:54 PM
Personally, I think online is just being used as an excuse. The real reason is to reduce the costs of porting to a 3rd system with potentialy the lowest sales in an effort to maximize profits on a much delayed game at the end of a generation's life cycle.
Post by: IceCold on November 02, 2005, 08:40:08 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on November 02, 2005, 08:50:40 PM
Post by: Kairon on November 02, 2005, 09:29:26 PM
And this late in the game cycle, in a competitive console environment against next gen systems to boot and STILL without anything truly new (I mean, at first it was a First Person Shooter, now it's a Battlefield 1942 clone)... I don't blame them for dumping the GC, they're already taking a big risk with this game as is.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Nephilim on November 03, 2005, 12:22:21 AM
esp since its mostly baised online
Post by: couchmonkey on November 03, 2005, 04:05:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PGC NewsBot
<small>" In any case there are many reasons why the GameCube version was cut, but it all boils down to being able to provide the best game experience possible to our fans."</small>
Sounds like he's letting the lie out of the bag there... Unless this game has changed completely (possible, I suppose) online is not really a requirement for it. Just like online is not really that important to Burnout 3 - it's a nice bonus, but I've heard you can definitely play the game without it.
Quote
As a consolation, however, he did also say that support for the GameCube has not been cut off, nor has any other Nintendo console (i.e. Revolution) been given the axe as far as future support.
Yeah right. They'll keep supporting the Cube with all 0 games they have announced for it. Yippee!
What really gets me about all this is the online excuse. Maybe they have changed the game to the point where it really needs to be online, and in that case I wouldn't blame them for dumping the Cube, but I think it's just a convenient way to cover up the real motivation: they wanted to save some money on development.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 03, 2005, 05:00:48 AM
Meh, I talk like I had any interest in the game to begin with. Sorry but stealth games aren't my thing.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 03, 2005, 07:34:24 AM
The very reason why I'm always making such a big deal about marketshare. As good as it is financially for Nintendo to consistently make a profit their marketshare is ultimately what affects us gamers. This has become a chronic problem. It's like now if a game is announced for all three consoles I almost assume the Cube version will be cancelled. That's not the sort of thing to be associated with. It's not good for Nintendo to be known as the console maker that has all their third party games cancelled. They have to address this problem and show a serious effort to improve their marketshare.
As a fan why should I stay loyal to a company that doesn't show me that they care about issues like this? What incentive is there to stay when things are always getting worse and the situation never improves or a least stays where it is? Nintendo has to take these questions into account because I've never seen anything from them that suggests to me that they even care about this. It often feels like they're taking our support and loyality for granted.
Post by: Arrow on November 03, 2005, 09:14:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
Yeah right. They'll keep supporting the Cube with all 0 games they have announced for it. Yippee!
Blizzard typically is not a console company. SC: Ghost was somewhat of a rarity in that regard. Historically, Blizzard has released more games for Nintendo consoles than for any of their competitor's consoles (Lost Vikings, Blackthorne, Rock n Roll Racing, StarCraft 64). And aside from SC: Ghost, the only other console game Blizzard is rumored to be working on is World of Warcraft, and there is no chance that would be released on Gamecube. But aside from that (again, a rumor) there haven't been any games announced for any consoles, so Nintendo isn't exactly alone.
Post by: ShyGuy on November 03, 2005, 09:19:42 AM
Quote
As a fan why should I stay loyal to a company that doesn't show me that they care about issues like this?
Ian, you ever think you might be happier if you didn't stay loyal? be a multiconsole owner, take up needlepoint instead, something.
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on November 03, 2005, 09:53:34 AM
Quote
In order to provide the game envisioned by the console team a set and readily available online solution was needed.
I believe he meant the game's going to be nearly unplayable at launch from bugs and will need a patch.
Post by: soracloudtidus on November 03, 2005, 10:22:40 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 03, 2005, 10:37:41 AM
I seriously doubt we'll be missing much.
-SB
Post by: King of Twitch on November 03, 2005, 10:46:17 AM
Post by: Kairon on November 03, 2005, 11:02:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"However, as #3 in marketshare, Nintendo and its fans are once again given the shaft."
The very reason why I'm always making such a big deal about marketshare. As good as it is financially for Nintendo to consistently make a profit their marketshare is ultimately what affects us gamers. This has become a chronic problem. It's like now if a game is announced for all three consoles I almost assume the Cube version will be cancelled. That's not the sort of thing to be associated with. It's not good for Nintendo to be known as the console maker that has all their third party games cancelled. They have to address this problem and show a serious effort to improve their marketshare.
As a fan why should I stay loyal to a company that doesn't show me that they care about issues like this? What incentive is there to stay when things are always getting worse and the situation never improves or a least stays where it is? Nintendo has to take these questions into account because I've never seen anything from them that suggests to me that they even care about this. It often feels like they're taking our support and loyality for granted.
Seriously Ian, stop torturing yourself and buy other consoles. If the only reason you care about Nintendo is the raw number of games you get out of it personally, you should've switched over to the PS2 long ago.
It's NOT a bad thing. My best friend is a multi-console gamer. He's a Halo 2 addict. Heck, he even does a bigger sin in a Nintendo fan's eyes and he steals rather than buys most of his games. (as in steals, I mean uses pirated versions) There is no shame in owning more than one console, lol.
But seriously, Ian, you need to seriously take a close look at what you want out of your videogame experience, and whether it's even possible that one company can give you all that.
As a Nintendo fan, these things don't bother me much because in the final equation, I value what Nintendo brings to the table so much more than what most third parties do. I'd still much rather hold a GC controller in my hands instead of a PS2 controller or XBox controller, even after becoming enamored with GTA 3's game direction and after being in a bunch of Halo Lan Parties. Anyways, if third parties DO do something that's a must have, I have the maturity to go out and buy myself a PS2 or XBox. It's practically elitist snobbery to think that there are no appealing games on other systems.
But I still believe that Nintendo games are among the best games in the world, hand-down. I believe that all the sacrifices I make as a Nintendo Gamer pay off big-time. If you don't believe that, if you don't believe that Nintendo games are worth not getting MGS 2 or FFXII, then you really are deceiving yourself by labeling yourself as a Nintendo Devotee.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Arbok on November 03, 2005, 11:39:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironAnyways, if third parties DO do something that's a must have, I have the maturity to go out and buy myself a PS2 or XBox. It's practically elitist snobbery to think that there are no appealing games on other systems.
Or the expendable revenue to buy more than one console. For some of us it comes down to a equation of economics. Would I rather buy and enjoy games 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', and 'E'... or instead of getting those should I buy a whole new system and just get game 'Z'?
I used to be a multi-system owner, even caved in and got a Dreamcast, but if history has taught me anything it's that my buck will go a lot further if I just focus on one system, or in my case a system and a handheld. Does not buying another system mean that I have locked myself in a room and closed my eyes that there might be some great games available on the other systems? Hardly, in fact there are some titles I would gladly pick up if I had the system (hell, got my free copy of Godzilla: Save the Earth for the Xbox just sitting here, unopened, that Atari sent me for running my site). But, in my eyes, as long as my console of choice continues to release titles that I'm willing to purchase, then I see no need to slap down revenue that would have been spent to purchase more titles for the sake of opening up my choices. It's sad that the release list for the Gamecube is starting to dry up fast, but my DS has been hammering what little money I have to allocate to games that it doesn't really matter at this point in time (I still need to pick up Fire Emblem as well).
In other words, if you have the income to do so where it doesn't effect how many games you will buy, then more power to ya. But for some of us we look at this more on the basis of new hardware vs. new games, and the prospect of acquiring more games to play just wins out.
Post by: PaLaDiN on November 03, 2005, 11:41:22 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 03, 2005, 12:30:37 PM
One company can give me that. Nintendo did ten years ago. And by portable standards they did it with the GBA.
Plus the current situation with the Cube is REALLY bad. I'd be content with a scenario like the Xbox where although there's no where near the amount of third party support the PS2 has, it's still pretty healthy. Multiplatform games are almost always released for it, most third parites give it some dedicated support instead of just one game here and there and nothing else, stuff doesn't get cancelled very often, a whole month doesn't go by with literally no games released, all the exclusives don't get ported, etc. That's a big improvement over what the Cube has and that's from a console that never had a chance of being number one and is a complete dud in a very major market.
Stability would be great. It's hard to make the best of a poor situation when things get worse. The Cube's position in the console wars was never that great but it still would have been way better to presently have the kind of third party support we had when Metroid Prime came out. At least at that point it was okay. It was better than the N64 and there was still hope that things could improve.
With the Rev, regardless of what position it ends up in, I would be incredibly happy if things were better at the end of it's life than at launch.
Post by: Kairon on November 03, 2005, 02:16:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: KaironAnyways, if third parties DO do something that's a must have, I have the maturity to go out and buy myself a PS2 or XBox. It's practically elitist snobbery to think that there are no appealing games on other systems.
Or the expendable revenue to buy more than one console. For some of us it comes down to a equation of economics. Would I rather buy and enjoy games 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', and 'E'... or instead of getting those should I buy a whole new system and just get game 'Z'?
I used to be a multi-system owner, even caved in and got a Dreamcast, but if history has taught me anything it's that my buck will go a lot further if I just focus on one system, or in my case a system and a handheld. Does not buying another system mean that I have locked myself in a room and closed my eyes that there might be some great games available on the other systems? Hardly, in fact there are some titles I would gladly pick up if I had the system (hell, got my free copy of Godzilla: Save the Earth for the Xbox just sitting here, unopened, that Atari sent me for running my site). But, in my eyes, as long as my console of choice continues to release titles that I'm willing to purchase, then I see no need to slap down revenue that would have been spent to purchase more titles for the sake of opening up my choices. It's sad that the release list for the Gamecube is starting to dry up fast, but my DS has been hammering what little money I have to allocate to games that it doesn't really matter at this point in time (I still need to pick up Fire Emblem as well).
In other words, if you have the income to do so where it doesn't effect how many games you will buy, then more power to ya. But for some of us we look at this more on the basis of new hardware vs. new games, and the prospect of acquiring more games to play just wins out.
Well, if you do want more than one console but can't afford more than one, then you should have the sense that you must choose the best console for you overall. Heck, my top 3 favorite games of all time as a kid had THREE RPGs! Two of those were from Squaresoft! I was a Final Fantasy Fanboy back in the oldschool!
But along comes the 32/64 bit generation and I eventually made a choice, and that choice was that in the end I'd rather play the N64 than the PSX. Now, I'm seriously lacking in RPGs and it's a continual frustration that I lack the relevance to converse on my favorite genre of videogames, in fact, the genre whose style I'm most suited to develop in if I were ever to make games. But I don't blame Nintendo for that one bit, it was a personal decision I made when I realized that I couldn't afford more than one console, and that I had to make a choice. I don't regret that decision, nor do I lay any blame for it on anyone... except maybe Squaresoft, lol. j/k!
~Carmine M. Red
Post by: UncleBob on November 03, 2005, 05:50:21 PM
Quote
One company can give me that. Nintendo did ten years ago.
Welcome to 2006.
