Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

TeamXbox: Factor 5 Drops Xbox 360 Support in Favor of PS3

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:14:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Factor 5 Drops Xbox 360 Support in Favor of PS3

May. 22nd, 2005 1:57 pm
According to a story on C|Net, Julian Eggebrecht, president of Factor 5,
has confirmed that the company will no longer support the Xbox 360 and
instead it will create games exclusively for the PlayStation 3. The
following paragraph is an extract from the article:

The choice boiled down to performance, Eggebrecht said at E3 in Los
Angeles. His company has worked with Microsoft's Xbox 360, but found
PlayStation 3's 3.2GHz Cell chip offered more processing power. The
additional performance allows the gang at Factor 5 to more easily
simulate the real world for a better game experience, he said.

The San Rafael, California-based game developer and middleware provider
is better known for the development of two titles of the Rogue Squadron
series.

This announcement comes as a bit of a surprise because Factor 5 was one
of the early supporters of the XNA development tools, as this page shows.

We were unable to contact Mr. Eggebrecht for further comment but we’ll
have more on Factor 5’s switch to PlayStation 3 development as it develops.


-----

Hmmm...not the publicity MS needs...

Alexander
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:14:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Well, their loss. They are fools for doing something like that anyway, and I
don't respect fools.


"Alexander de Mol" <alexander-verwijdereninclusiefstreepjes-@dvd.nl> wrote
in message news:4290f642$0$52267$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Factor 5 Drops Xbox 360 Support in Favor of PS3
>
> May. 22nd, 2005 1:57 pm
> According to a story on C|Net, Julian Eggebrecht, president of Factor 5,
> has confirmed that the company will no longer support the Xbox 360 and
> instead it will create games exclusively for the PlayStation 3. The
> following paragraph is an extract from the article:
>
> The choice boiled down to performance, Eggebrecht said at E3 in Los
> Angeles. His company has worked with Microsoft's Xbox 360, but found
> PlayStation 3's 3.2GHz Cell chip offered more processing power. The
> additional performance allows the gang at Factor 5 to more easily
> simulate the real world for a better game experience, he said.
>
> The San Rafael, California-based game developer and middleware provider
> is better known for the development of two titles of the Rogue Squadron
> series.
>
> This announcement comes as a bit of a surprise because Factor 5 was one
> of the early supporters of the XNA development tools, as this page shows.
>
> We were unable to contact Mr. Eggebrecht for further comment but we’ll
> have more on Factor 5’s switch to PlayStation 3 development as it
develops.
>
>
> -----
>
> Hmmm...not the publicity MS needs...
>
> Alexander
May 23, 2005 3:14:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Alexander de Mol <alexander-verwijdereninclusiefstreepjes-@dvd.nl> wrote
in news:4290f642$0$52267$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl:

> Factor 5 Drops Xbox 360 Support in Favor of PS3

$ony's hype is a succes again.
Related resources
May 23, 2005 3:14:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Alexander de Mol" <alexander-verwijdereninclusiefstreepjes-@dvd.nl> wrote
in message news:4290f642$0$52267$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Factor 5 Drops Xbox 360 Support in Favor of PS3

Sort of like how Team Ninja dropped support for the PS2 in favor of the Xbox
in this generation? I'm willing to bet MS still has more developers signed
on for 360 titles than Sony does for PS3 titles.
>
> Hmmm...not the publicity MS needs...
>

Not including Star Wars games, what else has Factor 5 done?
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:14:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Translation: Sony gave us a bunch of money to make exclusive games,
and told us what to say.

I believe Sony is running the ol' 'DreamCast" play.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:14:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> [Factor 5] has worked with Microsoft's Xbox 360,
> but found PlayStation 3's 3.2GHz Cell chip offered
> more processing power.

Yes, and we all know how that translates into superior games. (See Tao
Feng, Iron Phoenix, et al.)

> The additional performance allows the gang at Factor
> 5 to more easily simulate the real world for a better
> game experience...

"The real world"...now there's three words every game developer and
publisher has crocheted on a throw pillow in their living rooms.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:14:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"AJC" <benny@abba.se> wrote in message
news:4290fded$0$701$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
> Alexander de Mol <alexander-verwijdereninclusiefstreepjes-@dvd.nl> wrote
> in news:4290f642$0$52267$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
>> Factor 5 Drops Xbox 360 Support in Favor of PS3
>
> $ony's hype is a succes again.
>

How is that hype changing something?? You're an idiot if you think so. I'm
sure they did some research and actually had a unit in-house to find out
that it was better than 360. I would hate to think that a development team
would switch production on games based on a press conference.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:14:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"emolsen" <emolsen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wYKdnZNASeBkjQzfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
> Translation: Sony gave us a bunch of money to make exclusive games,
> and told us what to say.

Sony doesnt have a bunch of money to give. And even if they did, MS could
easily double that.


>
> I believe Sony is running the ol' 'DreamCast" play.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:14:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> Sony doesnt have a bunch of money to give. And even if they did, MS could
> easily double that.

Undoubtedly, but for whatever reason, M$ didn't.

A developer makes an exclusive game for one of two reasons. 1) They are
owned by either M$, Sony, or Nintendo. Bungie, for example. 2) The console
maker pays them.

Its that simple.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 9:42:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"emolsen" <emolsen@comcast.net> wrote in message news:JOKdnXai7cbR3gzfRVn-

> A developer makes an exclusive game for one of two reasons. 1) They are
> owned by either M$, Sony, or Nintendo. Bungie, for example. 2) The console
> maker pays them.
>
> Its that simple.


No it isn't. There are plenty of reasons to make an exclusive game. For
example, there are lots of developers out there who don't have the resources
to make a game cross-platform. They work on one game at a time. Factor 5
is one of those.
There are studios that don't bother supporting any console other than the
market leader. They're not being paid, they just dont' bother.
There are studios that support multiple consoles, but still don't make
cross-platform games, therefore ending up with exclusives on each system.
They're not getting money for exclusivity, they just prefer to use their
development resources on original games, not ports.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 1:48:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Leon Dexter <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"emolsen" <emolsen@comcast.net> wrote in message news:JOKdnXai7cbR3gzfRVn-
>
>> A developer makes an exclusive game for one of two reasons. 1) They are
>> owned by either M$, Sony, or Nintendo. Bungie, for example. 2) The console
>> maker pays them.
>>
>> Its that simple.
>
>
>No it isn't. There are plenty of reasons to make an exclusive game. For
>example, there are lots of developers out there who don't have the resources
>to make a game cross-platform. They work on one game at a time. Factor 5
>is one of those.

One game at a time doesn't mean it has to be one SKU at a time.
The added costs of going multiplatform tend to be lower than the benefits
of increased sales. You can share a lot of game art and code and design
across the SKUs, after all.

--
In fact, I've got considerable sympathy for the Red Chinese despite the
fact that if my dog were a member of the American crew Jiang Zemin would
have eaten him by now.
-- from the National Review, a magazine that drips with class. or something.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 1:56:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
> >No it isn't. There are plenty of reasons to make an exclusive game.
For
> >example, there are lots of developers out there who don't have the
resources
> >to make a game cross-platform. They work on one game at a time.
Factor 5
> >is one of those.
>
> One game at a time doesn't mean it has to be one SKU at a time.
> The added costs of going multiplatform tend to be lower than the
benefits
> of increased sales. You can share a lot of game art and code and
design
> across the SKUs, after all.

are you taking into consideration the concept of Opportunity Cost?

also.. Multiplatform has never been the preferred business model of
Japanese developers. That's something I figured you would've known
about.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:14:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

> also.. Multiplatform has never been the preferred business model of
> Japanese developers.

With regard to the Japanese developers lack of support for the xbox,
that has more to do with their xenophobia then anything else.

As someone else mentioned, the cost of porting the code cross-platform
is small compared to the initial cost of development. The number of sales
on the other platform will more then make up for that cost - assuming
a quality title.

Anyway, I don't know for certain whether or not Factor 5 signed an
exclusive deal (thus getting paid by Sony), or whether they just
"like" the PS3 better. If it's the latter - then my hat is off to them. If
it
the former, then the console comparison was just hype.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 11:07:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Andrew Ryan Chang" <archang@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:D 6s8sp$q20

> One game at a time doesn't mean it has to be one SKU at a time.
> The added costs of going multiplatform tend to be lower than the benefits
> of increased sales. You can share a lot of game art and code and design
> across the SKUs, after all.

That's up to them. I was just pointing out that exclusive games exist for a
lot of reasons, not just because somebody sold out.
May 24, 2005 12:37:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Leon Dexter" <leondexterNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KRpke.4924$X92.1356@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Andrew Ryan Chang" <archang@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:D 6s8sp$q20
>
>> One game at a time doesn't mean it has to be one SKU at a time.
>> The added costs of going multiplatform tend to be lower than the benefits
>> of increased sales. You can share a lot of game art and code and design
>> across the SKUs, after all.
>
> That's up to them. I was just pointing out that exclusive games exist for
> a
> lot of reasons, not just because somebody sold out.
>

Well I think that they painted themselves into a corner. Now they (factor
5) MUST deliver a great gaming experience. Take a look at EA, they develop
for all platforms and make the best games possible without saying this one
is better than that one..
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 1:24:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Eiji Hayashi <linm@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
>> One game at a time doesn't mean it has to be one SKU at a time.
>> The added costs of going multiplatform tend to be lower than the benefits
>> of increased sales. You can share a lot of game art and code and design
>> across the SKUs, after all.
>
>are you taking into consideration the concept of Opportunity Cost?

What opportunity cost are you talking about here?

As far as I know, the marginal cost of going multiplatform (not
after-the-fact ports!) is low compared to the initial costs of producing a
game in the first place.

--
"Testing every slaughtered cow [for 'mad cow disease'] would cost about six
cents per pound." - USA TODAY editorial, March 25 2004.
(Right now, Canada and the US plan to increase test coverage by a
factor of ten -- which will still test less than 1% of all cattle.)
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 9:21:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
> Eiji Hayashi <linm@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> >Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
> >> One game at a time doesn't mean it has to be one SKU at a time.
> >> The added costs of going multiplatform tend to be lower than the
benefits
> >> of increased sales. You can share a lot of game art and code and
design
> >> across the SKUs, after all.
> >
> >are you taking into consideration the concept of Opportunity Cost?
>
> What opportunity cost are you talking about here?
>
> As far as I know, the marginal cost of going multiplatform (not
> after-the-fact ports!) is low compared to the initial costs of
producing a
> game in the first place.

Opportunity cost is a "conceptual cost" in cost accounting (which
unfortunately I had to take because I took an MBA). In a nutshell it's
the cost of opportunity MISSED had you taken another action. ie: If you
had to choose between having to do a certain job in house which takes
100 man hours at $30 an hour for a total cost of $3000, as oppose to
outsourcing it completely at $5000. While you had to pay more up front,
the 100 man hours you saved by outsourcing could have been used towards
another project and you could've been half way through another project
already. That time and effort lost is opportunity cost. It's a real
cost in cost accounting that should always be considered in business
decisions. Yes, it doesn't take the developers as much time to port the
games, but the time it takes for them to port a game they could have
been using to work towards another game.

Traditionally Japanese companies uses this model to make mostly
exclusives, that's why they could turn out games faster. It's different
than porting the same game and get as much revenue for the work model,
that most NA developers use. Overall, I think if you take into
consideration all costs and the time value of money, porting might be
slightly more profitable, but I like the exclusive model since I get to
play more games.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 3:41:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
> Eiji Hayashi <linm@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> Yes, but really: c'mon. The additional costs of going
> multiplatform are very small -- too small to drag another team out
of.
> I'd say the opportunity cost balance sheet goes the other way -
working on
> a separate title probably has a lower return than using all those
> resources on getting every other title multiplatform.

That's a very NA developer way of thinking and no it's not always true.
Japan especially is a very polarized game market. Traditionally one
player is dominant, and the cost of bringing the game to the other
platforms often outweighs the revenue that a new game will bring to the
dominant console. NA is obviously a bit more different, but most
Japanese developer's core market is still Japan, so they will consider
that first.

> Aside from maybe From software (which reportedly gets there by
> overwork, not single-platform development), I'm not aware of any
Japanese
> developers with faster dev times than the Western dev teams. Hell,
EA
> cranks out sequels on a yearly basis.

you will need to compare companies of equal manpower. There is not a
single Japanese developer that has more personnel than EA. Konami is
the biggest and it doesn't have nearly the manpower of EA. Another
thing to consider is that most titles EA pushes out are mostly it's
sports titles, which requires minimal amount of work from year to year
(as are Konami's music games), just extended rosters and a few more
features.

Most Japanese developers tend to be small. But if you compare companies
of equal size and productivity, I think you'll find that Japanese
developers in general are more productive, and this is not because they
work any harder or smarter or anything but simply because they don't
have to worry about porting.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 9:33:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Eiji Hayashi <linm@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
>> What opportunity cost are you talking about here?
>>
>> As far as I know, the marginal cost of going multiplatform (not
>> after-the-fact ports!) is low compared to the initial costs of
>producing a
>> game in the first place.

>decisions. Yes, it doesn't take the developers as much time to port the
>games, but the time it takes for them to port a game they could have
>been using to work towards another game.

Yes, but really: c'mon. The additional costs of going
multiplatform are very small -- too small to drag another team out of.
I'd say the opportunity cost balance sheet goes the other way - working on
a separate title probably has a lower return than using all those
resources on getting every other title multiplatform.

>Traditionally Japanese companies uses this model to make mostly
>exclusives, that's why they could turn out games faster. It's different

Aside from maybe From software (which reportedly gets there by
overwork, not single-platform development), I'm not aware of any Japanese
developers with faster dev times than the Western dev teams. Hell, EA
cranks out sequels on a yearly basis.

--
And we read of [George W. Bush's] insistence on the importance of individual
achievement and personal responsibility -- in a ghost-written autobiography.

-- Lars-Erik Nelson (http://www.bartcop.com/lnelson.htm)
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 12:57:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
> Eiji Hayashi <linm@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> >Most Japanese developers tend to be small. But if you compare companies
> >of equal size and productivity, I think you'll find that Japanese
> >developers in general are more productive, and this is not because they
> >work any harder or smarter or anything but simply because they don't
> >have to worry about porting.
>
> I dunno, I've skimmed the credits lists of Japanese games
> (including single-platform games) and haven't found them notably smaller,
> nor the dev times notably shorter (as far as I know, based on reports of
> how long the games took to make).

ok.. let's look at an example.

Ubisoft - staff ~3000
# of developed games for PS2: 26

NAMCO - staff ~2500
# of developed games for PS2: 39

(source: gamefaqs)
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 2:50:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Eiji Hayashi <linm@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>Most Japanese developers tend to be small. But if you compare companies
>of equal size and productivity, I think you'll find that Japanese
>developers in general are more productive, and this is not because they
>work any harder or smarter or anything but simply because they don't
>have to worry about porting.

I dunno, I've skimmed the credits lists of Japanese games
(including single-platform games) and haven't found them notably smaller,
nor the dev times notably shorter (as far as I know, based on reports of
how long the games took to make).


--
Weinstein: Uh, a dog? Isn't that a tad predictable?
Lady: In your dreams. We're talking the original dog from hell.
Oakley: You mean Cerberus?
-- "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show"
!