Comments on: The PS3 can eat Sam Fisher for Breakfast

By: "Splinter Cell: Conviction will offer a seamless gaming experience? - We Pay Cash for Your Scratched Video Games!

Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:37:13 +0000

[...] PlayStation LifeStyle » The PS3 can eat Sam Fisher for Breakfast [...]

By: Rictor

Rictor — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:22:21 +0000

splinter cell has been going downhill, what was the last one, double agent? did we get that on PS3? I wasn’t even sure if Xbox360 got it.

By: shadowjin

shadowjin — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:50:08 +0000

@ Robotron

exactly dude.. thats why i have no respect for MS they just buy there way into everything instead of adding…example Natal (eyetoy) its like wtf? talk about innovation..

By: The Queef Sisters

The Queef Sisters — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:09:31 +0000

Really no one on PS3 should be mad, I mean if you want to play a stealth action game you have MGS4, with a new one on the way. Splinter Cell’s are fun games but nothing to lose sleep over.

By: SolidCake_

SolidCake_ — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:46:29 +0000

what a weird story, I’m not sure what to think now. ty very much psls, lol.

By: DRCD1

DRCD1 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:41:52 +0000

You know, I think Ubisoft (not sure, though) said that SC was an X-Box franchise, but then I notice that the PS2 version of SC 4 had exclusive levels! I started reaserching and I found out that SC and SC 2 had PS2 exclusive levels! of course this can be because the PS2 version was always released later, but you never know.
I also noticed a strange fact: if microsoft paid Ubisoft to get SC as an exclusive, then why is the game, acording to gamespot, releasing on DS? pheraps we can get SC:C after all

By: shadowjin

shadowjin — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:18:47 +0000

its embarrassing that idiot has my last name.

By: KwietStorm

KwietStorm — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:05:34 +0000

My thoughts? I thought it was absurd to begin with when they said that PS3 could not handle the game’s complexity with physics calculations and such, seeing as how the Cell processor is actually much more capable of handling such tasks. It only makes it more silly to come out now and say they are fully capable of making it happen on PS3. Why say another word?

By: mcx

mcx — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:34:32 +0000

You know what the biggest thing that gets me is that MicroSOFT is by definition is a SOFTWARE company. How many times have they actually created a quality and original piece of SOFTWARE? They don’t really care that much they just want quick hits for there system and buy off developers. Guess you could count all that stuff they have from RARE. Really RARE?? Bungie jumped ship???

By: giese095

giese095 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:44:28 +0000

if their sales on the PS3 didn’t make up for their production costs, then they didn’t make a good enough game. I guarantee that there has been no worth while game in the last two years that lost money trying to sell a PS3 version…this has dirty Microsoft written all over it.

The way I look at it is if Microsoft was confident enough that they could beat Sony without paying off developers for exclusive deals, they wouldn’t. I personally hate the thought of either MS or Sony buying exclusive rights to a game, you should be able to beat your competitor on the battlefield, it shouldn’t depend on how thick your wallet is.

…Actually it says something for Sony for not using the same tactics as MS because you know they have the means to buy off developers too (I’m sure they’ve done it a couple times, but not nearly as often and most of their superb exclusives are made within SCEA). Obviously Sony actually has enough pride and faith in their console that they don’t need to “cheat”

By: Steven Garcia

Steven Garcia — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:39:06 +0000

Considering how Double Agent turned out on the PS3, I’m glad it’s a 360 exclusive.

By: UltimaChocochu

UltimaChocochu — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:19:41 +0000

Read through some of the comments, and it most likely will be out after two years, the other one is yeah it’s hard to say whether or not the company was paid off for exclusivity, but they say it was “business” so that’s enough to say it was.
If it’s not, we all know the original started with XBOX(and perhaps they’re just doing that because they were with XBOX originally at first with this game), but it also spread to PS2 and GameCube so yeah.

By: Robotron

Robotron — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:07:29 +0000

MS is buying the gaming industry and the industry doesn’t care. Really when it comes to cold hard cash most people don’t care either.

By: cornerman8

cornerman8 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:48:40 +0000

Well its too broad a statement to really judge first of all. This game was originally scheduled for release a long time ago. Its known that they had to go back to the drawing board for whatever reason to get the game more up to snuff. Nearly every Ubisoft game has been multiplatform…for this one not to be suggests that they paid for exclusivity (timed or otherwise). If they got paid, who can fault them.

The game looks awesome and I hope it makes it way to the PS3…provided it lives up to what was shown during the MS E3 conference.

By: Jonathan Leack

Jonathan Leack — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:39:50 +0000

They were paid. No doubt about it. Why would they want to miss out on profits from the Playstation 3?