wienergobbler wrote:Games not on the PC are lame and not worth it.
Oh absolutely, which is why we never supported the Xbox 360 version of Star Trek Legacy...... oh wait, we did.
And if you don't want to put faith in Wiki you could always put faith in most reputable game sites that reported Paramount has announced the game for PS3, 360 and PC.
Keeping a game on one console that is in a competetive market is surely a path to self destruction. The odd manufacturer of games have made it but eventually they have gone on to make the game available on more than one platform. Just look at the games of old, once bigger and better consoles came out they shifted to those consoles. Its only natural to branch out once you have fulfilled the maximum sales and what not you can achieve from a console.
Basically, I give that 'PS3 exclusive' sentence til a few months after it is released (Any bets it flops..) they bring it out for multiple platforms.
Your point being? Star Trek isn't very successful in the gaming industry. Developing a game which is likely not going to sell well for multiple systems would be a bad idea.
Whiskers wrote:Your point being? Star Trek isn't very successful in the gaming industry. Developing a game which is likely not going to sell well for multiple systems would be a bad idea.
Excuse me?! Star Trek IS a cash cow waiting to happen, if the dipshits at Activision would just get off their high horse and make BC 2 or if a company had the balls to get the rights from them and make the game, it would be highly profitable, just look at BC today. Yes its dieing a slow and painful death BUT its 10 years old!! And its still alive "if only barely..." a BC2 is a success just waiting to happen
Thing is all Activision does these days is CoD......Damn Activision
Fourth Seat Councillor
First Fleet Executive Officer
Senior Fleet Records Officer
