Sony paid money for them to get it on the PS3? Are you joking.

Some one is a bit delirious.

Or did you miss that?

They seem to pay for their own first party AAA titles & Dev versus investing 50 million into multiplatform games that sell just as well on their more expensive less attach rate console.

Again, MS with their invisible lineup, DLC and timed exclusives. 2008 & 2009 is just a terrible year. Just WAIT till e3! the floodgates will open. Dozens of titles like "You're in the movies" will be announced for the first time.

Timed exclusivity means:

PC & 360 versions released at the same time. Multiplatform. PS3 version shows up later.

The only difference is that the PS3 owners don't have to hold their breath for games until a new multiplatform shows up. Theres tons of games landing that actually have dates and coverage. Its important to be seen as exclusive when none of your games have hit AAA this year, and less than the PS3 last year.

Bioshock was fine and all, but Yahztee summed it up perfectly..

I'd hate to be in the boat where the only reason you own a console is to play a version of a multiplat & buy maps that should have been included in the full release & pay to download & play free peer to peer. And the only hopes you have of seeing anything close to crysis on your console is an old multiplatform 2005 tech demo from 1994 running on a PC.

@1.3 Sony's no Saint but compared to the devil known as Microsoft? I definitely see them as the lesser of two evils.

AIAS 2007 GOTY: COD4
Damn near every site including gamespot, 2007 GOTY: Super Mario Galaxy

anyway, PS3 will get Bioshock 2.

it was already confirmed that it will be released on both platforms simultaneously?

-I don't understand why ps3 gamers think they have a right to any particular 3rd party title on their console? If micro thinks buying any exclusive rights to any particular game is in their best interest then thats what they should do, if that hurts the feelings of the competition owners then so be it, they owe ps3 owners nothing, their only responsibilty is to provide exclusive content for current 360 owners and potential 360 owners. Saying micro should "make their own games" is naive at best since both companies have brought talent/games from studios sources...sony chooses to buy or own more studio's, while micro chooses to buy specific games and content from independent studios, the end result= make games for your platform....again there are obvious pro's and con's of both strategies.

I doubt very seriously that this game will be either time or truly exclusive....its such a great game and will will sell really well for both, its just funny how some of you think.

JOY

All I know is MS needs to do something about their holiday lineup. I hope it is like the Rock band exclusive, where it is like 2 weeks early on 360. But either way I will have my hands full for a long time just with the Spring and Summer releases, not really thinking about the fall.

JokesonYou... indeed it's a bad mentality, but one I've seen perpetrated by BOTH sides of the "fanboy wars." How many times have you seen the MGS4 argument brought up? I've seen people argue, whine, and complain about THAT situation over and over... not for the good of the franchise, but because it "should" be on the 360 because either a) its all they own b)"ps3 sucks" or c) that'll teach PSfanboys. The sense of false entitlement this generation is horrid, and one every fanboy is guilty of regardless of affiliation.

I'm not going to argue Bioshock 2, because until its got screenshots or on store shelves, I'm always wary. Odd business this is. All I know is, ignoring 21 - 22 million customers for ANY amount of time is foolish for a third party team to do. Don't we want MORE gamers enjoying games?

shame the author didn't do his homework. 2K Games HAVE confirmed Bioshock 2 for the PS3 already. There is no denial.

http://www.computerandvideo...

The game was pretty much annouched on Ps3 with the trailer on Ps3 versions bioshock. Ill say that it wont really improve the image of the company in eyes of Ps3 gamers.
Also theres already plenty of Ps3 owners out there, plenty too much to just ignore with popular IP like bioshock.

so I doubt it will happen, but we dont know untill we see the box on the shelves.

Actually, someone from T2 explained the exclusivity for Bioshock 1 not too far back. They said that they were originally planning it multiplatform, but MS offered them money so they thought they'd make the game and be able to work everything out for PS3 later on. The way they put it in the article sounded like they basically took money to throw it into dev on the game that would really be multiplatform in the end anyways.
I don't know what you're talking about.

I can confirm without a shadow of a doubt that Bioshock 2 will be multiplatform and released simultaneously for PS3 and 360 or very near the same date. Wayne Brady has both celebrity copies right here. Let's not be foolish fellas!

I cant believe that ps3 fanboys are actually stupid enough to believe that sony doesnt pay for exclusives. Hell they probably have to pay more then MS at this point. Companies know they can make game quicker and cheaper on the 360. Plus the 360 has a much larger install base and to top that off 360 gamers buy more games. Plus it a well known fact that sony invested mass amount of money in Square. At one point they owned something like 20% of square. God only knows how much they paid Konami to keep mgs4 exclsuive and that was on top of giving Konami their 1st born.

anyways back to the top I dont see why ps3 fanboy want bioshock 2 as a day one release for the ps3. After sony paid take two 100 million dollars for a port it sucked. Seriously did the ps3 fanboys forget about how awful the Bioshock 1 port to the ps3 was ? They spent an extra year working on that to think of how bad it will be with out that extra time to work on.

Bioshock one was amazing but to be honest I doubt bioshock 2 will be that great. I just dont know how take two is going to recapture the magic they had in bioshock 1

http://talkplaystation.com/...

"Shuhei Yoshida says this year will be the year for big exclusive titles for the PlayStation 3. Some of them being Killzone 2, MAG, God of War 3, and the list goes on. He also says there are other exclusive titles that haven’t even been announced yet."

"Seriously did the ps3 fanboys forget about how awful the Bioshock 1 port to the ps3 was ?"

Yes, Bioshock was SO horrible on PS3 it 'only' got a 94 on metacritic.

What a dreadful port that was.

Blademask: Sony says lots of things that aren't true. I think I am wasting my time here because it seems you people take whatever Sony tells you as gospel.

There was little incentive to release the game on the PS3 and if you look at the sales of the title they weren't unfounded. Sony and the PS3 was late to the Bioshock party and there was very little there for 2K to want to spend the time to recode the game for the PS3. Again, like I said before you think the developers have some "OMG it's Sony we have to do it" mentality?? Sony doesn't have the influence it once had and the PS3 is costly to develope for. In all the sales of Bioshock the PS3 made very little in that and I think Sony paid some $$$ so they would have the game on their platform.

Of course I can't prove any of it just like any of you cannot prove that MS paid for most of the things they are accused of.

Dillusional are the people thinking that any of these companies are looking out for YOUR best interest or that they do things for free because they like Sony.

It's all about the $$$$$ first.

Personally, I suspect something is up because if it was day and date on all systems they would of announced at least the 360/PS3/PC platforms.

It also has to be weighed out that MS themselves are in the middle of a fire sale. They chopped down ACES, they dumped Ensemble to take a tax loss, Vista tanked and now there are heavy questions over Office, the French Military dropped MS with other countries starting to eye Ubuntu, it looks like the Elite is getting the axe, etc etc etc. It is only going to get worse for MS and they have to protect their core business. Guess what? It isn't games.

MS is not going to be shelling out another 50 million or any such figure with the 360 sales showing the earmarks that the price cut boom is dying and the DLC for GTAIV not even being close to what they had hoped both in sales and in impact of GTA sales. When you have a larger number of consoles on the market (supposedly) and promises of DLC and the PS3 keeps pace with your sales then you have some explaining to do. What was it? Did MS lie about the actual number of consoles out there by counting refurbs as sales or did they just make a poor marketing decision?

Either way, Sony is the company showing gathering strength and if anything they are more likely to pull the rug out from under MS rather than the other way around. Sony is a lot deeper in bed with Take 2 than MS can afford.

Doesnt matter what it scored on the ps3 the game looked like crap when compared to the 360

http://www.gameplayer.com.a...

http://www.2kgames.com/cult...

I'm going to side with sony in this instance. Because they have yet to Secure any DLC for a multiplatform version of a game. Oh you know like spending 50 million dollars for DLC.... or Tombraider.. or any other DLC.

Don't try to spin this into believing what anyone says. MS has paid for DLC for MULTIPLATS. Sony hasn't. They are too busy pushing out AAA games instead that have realease dates.

Keep trying to make everyone think that your lame response has anything to do with MS buying DLC, and Sony making AAA games. Sony never had to rely on multiplats for success, only MS. Thats why MS advertises all multiplatforms as exclusives.

Nobody denies the PS3 market is very attractive for any developer. However, a well negotiated deal can make an exclusive more profitable than a multiplatform. Just check the GTA IV 2 episodes of exclusive downloadable content for a good example.

Bioshock 2 being exclusive on any platform would boost its lineup to almost unmatchable levels considering both Microsoft and Sony potentially have a lot of material already.

...hasn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the FIRST Bioshock 2 video shown on the PS3 version of Bioshock? There's no point in putting the video on the disk if it's not coming to the system.

So this argument is all ready dead.

"There was little incentive to release the game on the PS3 and if you look at the sales of the title they weren't unfounded. Sony and the PS3 was late to the Bioshock party and there was very little there for 2K to want to spend the time to recode the game for the PS3. Again, like I said before you think the developers have some "OMG it's Sony we have to do it" mentality?? Sony doesn't have the influence it once had and the PS3 is costly to develope for. In all the sales of Bioshock the PS3 made very little in that and I think Sony paid some $$$ so they would have the game on their platform."
----------------------------- ---------------------------

What a load of tosh. I'm sorry, but there was plenty of incentive for 2K to want to 'port' (let's not forget this isn't ground up game development, but a small team adapting code) Bioshock to the PS3. One, the platform has an install base of 21 million. Two, it might be late but the game has scored and sold very well over its lifetime - sales of course are an unknown pre-release on any system (duh!), but of the delayed releases this one would have looked easily worth the risk. And three, what better way to ensure a smooth runway for a sequel to the game (where the real money is re:ps3 version) than making sure those tens of millions of customers you're lining up first have access to the original to dilute any potential historical bad blood out of the transaction.

The logic of having to 'pay' to get this sort of a title 'onto' their system just doesn't add up. It's not impossible, but the incentive is as big or bigger through natural market forces - just as, to throw you a bone, would be the incentive for Konami to port MGS4 onto the Xbox360 if/when they can.

The only logic behind 'not' wanting to tap into one or the other 20+million part of a fragmented market (or to delay titles etc) is either technical limitations, fear of fan backlash if it's traditionally tied to one particular system (which is a minimal thing, really), or because you're being funded to keep it exclusive/timed exclusive.

There doesn't need any 'incentive' to put things on systems, only to keep them off. You seem to have that bit jumbled in your head.

I really enjoyed the first one and can't wait to check this one out. I was hoping for a true sequel but a prequel allowing you to play as a citizen of rapture prior to the fall of the city would be cool too.

"I'm not going to argue Bioshock 2, because until its got screenshots or on store shelves, I'm always wary. Odd business this is. All I know is, ignoring 21 - 22 million customers for ANY amount of time is foolish for a third party team to do. Don't we want MORE gamers enjoying games?"

It goes both ways. Except 360 owners don't cry about certain companies not making 360 games(Insomniac, Konami).

Hypocrisy at it finest here on N4G.

Insomniac is a bit of an odd choice.. They're existence basically owes to Sony's assistance and funding.

Konami, fair enough, but Insomniac doesn't really make sense. It's like saying Gears of War or a Rare title or whatever - designed and funded ground up for the Xbox360 in coalition with Microsoft - aught to be on the PS3. Doesn't really have much to do with the topic - timed exclusives of originally multiplatform intended titles diverted to one platform or off another.

And can't say i agree with this revisionism regarding MSG4 and XBox360 owners. They've b-tched with the best of them. Both fanboys are as bad as each other.

during the ps2 era they did it a lot. I think the reason microsoft gets so much heat is because they do it more often and are unable to keep secrets. Sony and microsoft both do it. just because you don't see them do it doesn't mean they aren't. I can't see air but it is out there.

You do not understand Insomniac because you only think about money. Insomniac appreciates loyalty. Sony backed them when no one else would.

Unlike many other game development studios, they treat their workers as partners. There is a daycare, gym, and a mini commissary on site. They offer weekly massages and they pay above industry rate. Higher ups earn less and spread the money amongst the workers.

Insomniac also likes to remove their limits and the PS3 allows them to do this.

And the idea of MS having 29 million consoles out there is a joke and everyone knows it. MS remains tight lipped about the fact that refurbs are being included in MS numbers.

And Insomniac knows the 360 is now a has been console whose best days have come and gone. They are an also ran rapidly heading for 3rd place. Price cuts can't stay ahead of faulty outdated hardware, no next gen disc medium, and zero vision.

anyway I played the first in pc and hope the second one is in pc as well

This is barely even a rumor. So stop getting on each other about being fanboys.

For now we'll stick with what we know, and that the Bioshock 2 is multiplatform.

Theres no need to get stupid over a weak ass rumor. This is the kind of crap that brings N4G down.

Well, I told MS they can't buy love. They told me they aren't trying to buy love, they are just trying to make sure their competition has a hell of a time getting love...lol!

Anyway... Bioshock 2 will be a multiplat or a timed exclusive if anything. They already released the first one on Ps3, so it would be stupid not to make the sequel multiplat as well.

Insomniac is independant, 3rd party, with no ties to Sony and they will eventually develop for xbox in my opinion.

At the same time, if they want to make exclusives then why not but please don't cry about other developers doing the same(why ignore 21 million fanbase yada yada). That's all I'm saying. Try sucking it up when it happens xbox fans do.

Insomniac may be an independent developer, but their status and freedoms and technological sophistication and access to resources (all the things which makes you now want them developing multi-platform) comes from their close affliation with Sony and early access on a quid pro quo basis to Sony technology (including logically, at least case by case, ground up funding.)

It's just a poor choice to bring up, period - no amount of ironing the corners makes it relevant. Like i said, it's akin to bringing up a Bungie, or a game funded/published by Microsoft (Gears of War, Fable etc) and saying 'PS3 owners don't complain about these guys, what's with you?!' Insomniac's games, Microsoft's funded ground up or shared technology games etc. have nothing to do with the ethics or non-ethics of paying people to withhold/delay ground up multiplaform developed titles (well into development) off of other platforms.

The attempt at equivalency makes no sense. Whether Insomniac decides at some point they want to develop something ground up to be multiplatform, presumably without the benefits that would come from taking a proposal direct to Sony/sharing more closely on tech etc - or whether a company with similar affiliations to Microsoft - has pretty much nothing to do with the costs of fried eggs in Africa.

The fact that you'd contort the two to be equivalents pretty much makes you a fanboy, i'm afraid - if your pesky myopic taunting didn't already confirm it.

@Gwave

Hi Gwave. Amongst my reading list I've read a lot of the Official PlayStation Magazine UK, it was the source of much of the 'Bioshock on PS3' stories. Originally Bioshock was labelled as a multiplatform game then Xbox exclusive. Ken Levine then said a lot of things to back this up. However, when Bioshock was officially announced as being released for the PS3 last year, there was an article by the OPM-UK editorial team that said there was some meat to this story(I will try and source it)...

Please note, this is not me but the OPM team who said this:- what OPM UK said was that they had months before at a trade show been told by Take Two that Bioshock was definitely coming to PS3. Then Microsoft paid for a timed-exclusive. The deal was that Microsoft would cover all promotion and ads for the game in return Take Two must never even hint at a PS3 version else the deal would be void and MS would seek the return of advertising costs. When OPM UK kept printing hints, they were sent a legal letter from Bioshock to stop printing 'unfounded' information. Time later showed it was because their news could jeopardise the deal they had with Microsoft.

The original Bioshock box had the 'exclusive on Xbox 360' label at the top. Think about it. How could Microsoft conceivably put that label on if there wasnt some deal in place?! Either way. It's a great game on 360 and PS3 and I cant wait for the sequel!

During the ps1 days sony would buy any exclusive they could get their hands on.Now MS starts doing it and they are a big evil corporation lol. Dont hate on MS for doing what works.

But I think big daddy are the most bad ass creatures / things out there and should be used in every game.

Can you imagine playing kill zone and you are taken cover behind a wall and all of a sudden a big daddy taps you on your shoulder.
Can you imagine if you are underground with your buddy's in Gears of war 2 and you reach a dead end, only to turn back around and see a Berserker and a Big daddy waiting on you you, might as well chainsaw your self.

The only thing more BAD A$$ that a BIG DADDY is KRATOS, Kratos is so bad that he has a big daddy as a pet.

And the only person more bad a$$ thatn Kratos is Chuck Norris Duh. Chuck Norris is so bad A$$ that he wanted the control aiming in killzone 2 to be changed and they did it.

@ morganfell

Question where you are getting all this info from? Do you work at insomniac or MS? you talk like your opinions are facts.

On topic,

This game will be multi from day one.

"GEC, uh no. Sony declared they will never pay for exclusive content or rights from multiplatform games."

Riiiiiiiiight.. I bet you believe Everything that Sony says, huh?

@morganfell - You're so full of it.. Lol.

There were many games being released at the same time. It didn't do amazing on the Xbox either.

huh,.... huh.....
yeah.... we know you are rich, and if you are so rich, why do you still want to tap into the video game industry? to make more money or just to make a point?

sincerely,

serious gamer

I dont get the logic there if T2 needs more money. It seems to me that it be better for them to take what ever money they can get for making it timed exclusive. It might sell a few less copies on the ps3 if it take 6 months to a year to come out but the money for making it timed exclusive would more then cover that.

Seriously, you're going to use a game that was released a year or so after it's release on 360 as a barometer of Take Two's success on PS3 and NOT the fact that sales for GTA4 sold "50/50" on both 360 and PS3 DESPITE PS3 having a smaller install base and a heavier price tag? Umm....wow.

Why not say Capcom bombed on PS3 with Lost Planet regardless of the fact that sales for SF4 are actually leading on PS3. Spinning is an art form for some.

That is only proving my point. Bioshock sold worse on PS3 because it came out long after. Many had played it already and there were other newer games coming out.

Now it's a different story. The PS3 user base is much larger and I don't think MS can offer enough to make exclusivity a better option...

bioshock came out when PS3 owners were a rarity to find, but now the PS3 has a solid base and owners are buying games, enough for many major developers to report more gaining on PS3 vs 360. Leaving the PS3 out of launch date would be pretty dumb.

is that they were charging full price for a game that was a year old. they should have known better. Gamers move on quickly and the only way to pull them back is with price.

It was well over a year old when they finished porting it to the ps3. So it did not even sale a million copies. One the xbox360 it sold over 3 million. You cant tell how much a company can afford until you know how much profit they are passing up AND how much Microsoft is paying them for a exclusive. You don't know either! You can make a guess on how much they are passing up. way less than 500,000 copies where sold on PS3. They company knows how much they are losing and gaining there is a REASON they are payed the amount that they except.

1. It was not an opinion. It was a fact. BioShock did not even reach 1 million copies. In fact, it did not even reach 500,000.

2. The only console I have been playing recently IS my PS3. In fact, I bet I've accomplished more on my PS3 than you have, rofl.

3. You have broken the rules of the gaming zone. For that, I will report your comment and I will take your bubbles.

Arnon, why did you even bother and try to deny it? Anyone can read your comment history.

Just because you own two systems doesn't mean you're exempt from your own stereotypes.

That would make you a hypocrite, as anyone can read YOUR comments, rofl.

Oh, it's nice that you're going through my comments to hit a disagree on them. It's obvious that you can not back up a single thing.

Oh, but look! I seem to have been right on the 2 things that we were arguing about. And yet, you try to change it.

Fail.