PS3 version of Red Alert 3 'put on hold'

by Andrew Yoon { Jun 5th 2008 at 10:30AM }

The forums went abuzz when retailer GameStop removed its PS3 listing for the upcoming Red Alert 3. Some wondered if the PS3 version of the title was in trouble, and it appears that their fears were warranted. Jonathan Goddard, PR Manager for EA, told Strategy Informer: "We can confirm that the development of Red Alert 3 for PS3 has been put on hold. EALA is focusing resources on development for PC and Xbox 360 which will ship simultaneously this autumn."

It's unclear at this moment when production on the PS3 version will resume. Stay tuned for more info.

[Thanks, Kspraydad!]

Tags: red-alert, red-alert-3

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Not a fan of EA @ Jun 5th 2008 10:37AM

I was looking forward to this game. But if they feel they need to allocate their resources to the two other platforms, then I feel I need to allocate my resources away from ever purchasing EA products again in the future.

I feel I bought the console that I would be most happy with. When major companies are not wiling to support one of the three majors console systems....then that is just sad.

adolson @ Jun 5th 2008 10:44AM

They're not supporting Wii either..

Jimbo @ Jun 5th 2008 2:53PM

EA definitely has a very spotty record with PS3 support. I know their board has a lot of MS people on it, but this is just throwing money away! Red Alert has never been one of those titles that is tough on a system's reqs. With the PS3's growing support base, there's never been a better time to offer games to PS3 users.

I'm very sorry to hear this news. It's too bad EA controls so much of the gaming industry. They've states many times they wish there was only one console, and it's clear they wish it was Microsoft's console (which more closely shares their nickle and dime microtransactions approach). EA makes some great games, and I would have bought this game had EA offered it.

Fact is, multiple strong platforms is good for gamers, and bad for those who want to rip gamers off. Sony dominated the industry, and their hands off approach led to a golden age that MS benefited from. We have a glimpse of a future of MS dominance, and clearly, so does EA. They are licking their chops while my wallet is cringing.

Frosty22 @ Jun 5th 2008 11:16AM

Little dramatic, don't ya think Jimbo? The issue probably is that the PS3 is harder to code for. EA is lazy - I don't think its because they intend to rule the world with Microsoft as its co-conspirator.

Seminole @ Jun 5th 2008 1:17PM

+1

I'm not giving my money to lazy ass developers. Didn't EA say the area their games have had the most growth is on the PS3? I guess this is a nice way of repaying all the PS3 owners.

Screw off EA. All your sports games are half assed ports that blow. I'm taking my money elsewhere, to someone that deserves it.

Jimbo @ Jun 5th 2008 1:30PM

frosty22, Microsoft has been convicted of illegal monopolistic practices many times, it's been under investigation many times. It's even been convicted of fraud. Yet you think Microsoft's old board members are now on EA's board. EA has stated a preference for the 360 and has stated it would like to see one console dominate. These are simply facts. They want the PS3 to fail, pure and simple, but are forced to support the PS3 somewhat because not doing so is a breach of fiduciary duty.

EA isn't too lazy to make a PS3 game, that much is dead certain. They simply have to farm the work to another set of anonymous coders. It's a simple equation. A game like this would net at least 25 million dollars.

Microsoft is willing pay money for exclusivity (Sony to this point, this gen, has not been willing to, much to the well documented chagrin of Rockstar). Microsoft is willing to refuse to sign off on dual launch games that are superior on the PS3 version, which is well documented by developers, something Sony just doesn't do as you can see with the PS2/XBOX 1 games.

Microsoft plays a lot rougher than Sony. I'm no Sony fanboy to say this... Sony simply hasn't been convicted of illegal trade practices nearly to the severity that Microsoft has been.

Call me dramatic all day, but it's clear to me that MS is not announcing all the deals it is making, but it is getting a seriously Nintendo-like reputation. Look at what this did to Nintendo, once the dominant third party supported console maker, now a financial joke to everyone but Nintendo. MS could very well buy EA at some point, their goals are so closely aligned.

I don't hate EA for it... it's just business. I think EA makes great games, and clearly this game would have made far more money on the PS3 than it would cost to produce it. Further, EA themselves admitted it is cheaper to port games from PS3 to 360 than vice versa, and are probably going to release this game on the PS3 later on, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out they are making this game for the PS3, just waiting to release it until after MS's exclusivity contract elapses (this is common practice).

I don't see how I'm being dramatic, though. I just know I'd have bought the game, and I recognize it's shame I won't be able to for a while, and I realize that Sony's dominance of the game industry was really quite good for gaming precisely because they don't do this kind of crap. MS makes deals, not innovations. We've seen it with Zune, the 360, windows, Office, et al. They will make as many deals as they can to ensure they get the market share they need to force upgrades on you. Do you really think your 360 will be the supported XBOX in two years?

HAAS599 @ Jun 5th 2008 2:07PM

call me old school but I couldnt care less about red alert 3, but I want c&c red alert for PS1 very badly!!!

Wonderflex @ Jun 5th 2008 2:10PM

The better reason for not buying anything from EA is the fact that they destroyed Westwood. Once they were gone the games started to go way down hill, because IMHO, there won't be a RA game to ever stack up to Red Alert 2.

TheEnd187 @ Jun 15th 2008 12:52AM

Hey you forgot about Emperor: Battle For Dune. I also agreee Westwood was a great Dev.

wonway01 @ Jun 5th 2008 10:37AM

Well that sucks

Steve Childs @ Jun 6th 2008 7:03AM

Well, to be honest its not that much of a surprise. At the end of the day its a port of an PC to 360 game and if there is anything we've learnt its that ports to the PS3 of PC/360 games are more troublesome.

For example, look at Burnout Paradise. Now, this was developed with the PS3 as the lead platform, then ported to the 360. That way really works well. But it appears adapting a 360 game to the PS3 doesn't work well at all.

As the engine for this game started off life on the PC, its really going to need some heavy development work getting it to work well on the PS3 and I suspect we won't see it appear on the PS3 any time soon, unless they take the effort required, which going on EA's history, they won't bother, or if they do, it'll be a half arsed attempt.

However I'd like to think that EALA are one of the better EA developer centres and would actually put the effort in. They've done a stellar job with C&C since they absorbed Westwood (ok, perhaps Generals wasn't great, but C&C3 was and RA3 is looking to be).

But as always, time will tell. I was probably going to end up getting this on the PC anyway, I really do not see consoles as ideal platforms for RTS games.

Brodie-san @ Jun 5th 2008 10:38AM

Appears that they are behind schedule so are shifting resources to platforms that they can get out the door asap.

dabamf @ Jun 5th 2008 10:39AM

I was wondering about this when I watched a 10-minute game demo on IGN; only PC and 360 were mentioned.

Anthony Kristler @ Jun 5th 2008 10:44AM

I guess EA has forgot who made them who they are today. Everytime you look around they are bucking PS3, and making bad versions or ports to our PS3. Come on programmers get with it! Your wolf crying about it being hard are getting very very old, and I for one don't believe you anymore.

adolson @ Jun 5th 2008 10:57AM

At least we actually GOT a port of Orange Box... Valve wasn't going to do it. Crappy port job or not, I'm happy I got to play Portal. Thanks to EA.

adolson @ Jun 5th 2008 10:47AM

At least we actually GOT a port of Orange Box... Valve wasn't going to do it. Bad port job or not, I'm happy I got to play Portal. Thanks to EA.

Sorry if this posted twice, this comment system sucks, and my comment didn't appear the first time (and no email received either).

T-P-M @ Jun 5th 2008 10:43AM

Damn it, EA are terrible...

gumby @ Jun 5th 2008 10:47AM

sigh

True_Darknight @ Jun 5th 2008 11:28AM

Soooo are they just retarded now? Do they not look at the numbers??? Multi-platform games sell way more than the others.. GTA4 is a great example.. heck look at CoD4.. without PS3 it would not be 10 mil.

EA needs to implode.

I'm not getting this game...

Anthony Kristler @ Jun 5th 2008 11:28AM

That is true Adolson, however I am just getting tired of all the crap going on. I mean these programmers are either getting EXTREMELY lazy or they just plain suck anymore. I mean heck it seems like none of them want to learn anymore, just reguritage old crap on the last gen systems, no offense I still love the PS2 and PSP; but enough is enough bring on the games to my new love - the PS3!!!!!

Rygar @ Jun 5th 2008 11:34AM

Why is it always the programmers fault?
While yes, it is getting old, EA aren't the only ones struggling with the PS3.
At least most of the exclusives are worth playing.

Puntachu @ Jun 5th 2008 11:03AM

I don't like the way that EA seems to treat our system, but if you look at things financially, it makes sense.

EA wants to get the quick money, so they want to release a finished product as soon as available. The PC and 360 program in a more familiar way, rather than the PS3's unorthodox method. Unfortunately for us, this means that they'll concentrate on the first two platforms for a faster return on their investment, and then follow up with a release for the PS3 once they have made some of their money back.

They have no incentive to perform a simultaneous release; It costs them more money up front, and delays the products release for other platforms. The only negative in their eyes is the the return treatment that PS3 owners will give them (the "Im not buying EA products if this is how they treat us" attitude) for holding back. There's not nearly enough reason for them, because fans of the series will likely buy anyway, whether they like the company or not.

Rygar @ Jun 5th 2008 11:26AM

Good post Puntachu.
It also means that multiplatform owners that may have been looking at the PS3 version instead of the 360 (or PC) won't wait for the PS3 version to come out, and simply buy it for the other. Doesn't hurt the consumer or EA, just Sony.

Christofer @ Jun 5th 2008 11:38AM

FUCK EA, damn! When are they gonna take PS3 seriously, Skate, Orangebox and so on, always crappy ports! And now this, not even a crappy port!

Kruegmeister @ Jun 5th 2008 11:45AM

Please do not cancel it...

Anthony Kristler @ Jun 5th 2008 12:10PM

Rygar, everytime a company states that the PS3 version is pushed back or cancelled. EVERYONE of them states that the PS3 is soooo hard to program and their programmers are having a hard time. THIS IS GETTING OLD!!!! They said the same thing about the PS2 and look at the games for it, they rock! They said the same thing about the Dreamcast, the Saturn, etc etc and for the most part the games were AWESOME! It is just getting old, very very fast. That is why I single out the programmers, maybe we should single out the publishers and find out the truth, why are you crapping on the PS3?? First you complain that Sony isn't helping you. that was fixed, then you complain that the user base is small, that is becoming a moot point. Now the ball is in your court. Sony has constantly said that the Developer is severly damaging the sales of the PS3 by not making the games fast enough or delaying them constantly. I have been and will always be a Sony person, I make no bones about. but I am def becoming an ANTI-EA person, this is just getting ridicious.

Rygar @ Jun 5th 2008 12:56PM

You've got some pretty good points.
I have a 360 and a PS3 and don't particularly like EA either way...

deaftly @ Jun 5th 2008 1:46PM

and look how the Saturn and Dreamcast turned out.......

AF @ Jun 5th 2008 11:56AM

Man, EA sucks. Ugh.

modelvillage @ Jun 5th 2008 12:37PM

The reason its being halted is the PS3 is a nightmare to code for...its a dust magnet lets be honest now chaps. Im getting rid of my PS3 - ive had enough of waiting for the killer aps that were promised and now this. Its a joke.

Over a year in and how many must have exclusives are there? MGS4, and even thats getting uneven/unnerving reviews...it seems more games are getting cancelled than scheduled.

Popfrogs @ Jun 5th 2008 12:47PM

Good, sell it, maybe we won't see you trolling our forums and you'll go back to making snide comments on X360fanboy. Your post history says it all.

Anthony Kristler @ Jun 5th 2008 1:05PM

Modelvillage,

If you are selling your PS3 then send it my way, I always love the PS3, if you end up selling your XBOX 360 - go ahead and send it to the DUMP. I had one for about.. oh 2 weeks and got extremely tired of it. don't get me wrong, I have an XBOX original and love it, just nothing new on the 360 - just recycled crap from last gen.

a.j. @ Jun 5th 2008 12:54PM

and when it does come out, we should boycott it. want to focus on the 360 and PC? cool...later. if this was last year and the PS3 was still kinda getting it's legs, i'd understand but the PS3 is obviously here to stay at this point. fuck em.

acedoh @ Jun 5th 2008 12:42PM

What's even more funny is that this story came out just a few weeks ago:

http://playstation.joystiq.com/2008/05/13/sony-platforms-dominate-latest-ea-sales-figures/

So why is EA not putting more resources into the PS3? Unless of course Microsoft is paying EA money for them to keep certain games exclusive.... At least for a time period.

Apparently even EA believes the PS3 is becoming the system of choice...

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/04/ea-bets-ps3-will-best-xbox-360-sales-in-2008/

So I am disturbed by this story.

JerJerBinks @ Jun 5th 2008 1:02PM

I am with you on this, I think MS paid for a timed sconsole exclusivity. They are lacking exclusive titles (in comparison to Sony) for the remainder of the year, and I dont doubt for a minute that they would see this a good opportunity do a Bioshock-type exclusivity. It will probably hit PS3's 2nd or 3rd quarter '09.

Organic_Shadow @ Jun 5th 2008 6:55PM

Which is why they haven't CANCELED it for PS3. They pushed it back, knowing that they would usually cancel is, so that they can finish PC/360 versions and then work on PS3.

EA is already aware that the PS3 is profitable for them now, so they are just in that awkward phase they need to get through. Getting their game engines on par and shifting their resources around.

acedoh @ Jun 5th 2008 12:47PM

modelvillage it's people like you who have been lying for nearly two years about the PS3... You don't own one and yet you try and act like it's a doomed system. Despite the fact hit game after is coming out. MGS 4 is a prime example despite the fact you want to make it sound otherwise.... Go someplace and spread your troll wisdom. The PS3 is about to overtake it's main competition and you are like a scared animal hiding in the corner...

modelvillage @ Jun 5th 2008 12:54PM

I have owned one since launch and have several game for the system.

However i feel betrayed by Sony who promise everything but deliver nothing.

Where are the hit games you speak of? There are very few games on PS3 worth playing that arent available on other formats.

It seems that you, my friend, are unable to see the truth from behind the coporate smoke screen that PS3 hasnt delivered on its promises even after over a year of being on the shelves.

Aozora @ Jun 5th 2008 1:33PM

@modelvillage

The 360 library wasn't so popular until Gears of War came out. Also keep in mind that lots of 360 games get released on PC. Most of gamers in Europe don't buy The 360 because it's the most unreliable piece of hardware and most of its best games are on PC.

Devin @ Jun 5th 2008 2:27PM

I love it, MS has how many "good" exclusives on 360 after almost 2 1/2 years? (meaning one's that would've IMO only come out for 360 if PS3 was available at the time?) Let me think: Halo3, GoW, Crackdown (good? maybe) & PGR3/4. What does that make it? Five "good" exclusives for 360 total IMO.

Now let's see what "good" exclusives Sony's put out so far 1 1/3 years since launch: Folklore, GT5:P, Heavenly Sword, Motorstorm, Ratchet & Clank, RFoM, Singstar, Uncharted: DF & Warhawk. That doesn't even include Japanese-only exclusives or downloadable games like PJ:M, PAIN flOw, Everyday Shooter or Echochrome.

With this said, I don't understand what you mean when you say "There are very few games on PS3 worth playing that arent available on other formats."

Where are you coming up with this conclusion?

adolson @ Jun 5th 2008 12:54PM

While everyone is bashing EA here, I figure it'd be a good time to share this. I contacted EA about the PS3 version of Battlefield last week, and this is a reply I received:

Hi,

Thank you for contacting Electronic Arts Customer Support.

We do not have any direct control over which stores are running the promotion and which ones are not. Furthermore at this time Bad Company is only being released on the XBox 360. We do not have any information regarding the potential release on the PS3.

If you need additional assistance or have further questions please reply to this email or visit our self help knowledge base at http://support.ea.com

Thank you,
Samuel
Senior Representative
Electronic Arts Customer Support

I wrote back and told them someone must've stole the source code from DICE, ported the game to PS3, snuck a demo onto the PSN, and are publishing the game pretending to be EA... lol, these guys aren't the brightest, that's for sure.

modelvillage @ Jun 5th 2008 1:00PM

Did PS2 owners not rejoice when EA refused to release sports titles for XBOX1? How the worm hath turned...

Anthony Kristler @ Jun 5th 2008 1:05PM

and the worm is you?? do you like bating people?? If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, then please go to the XBOX 360 forums and bang your head on your 360 for support.

Anthony Kristler @ Jun 5th 2008 1:07PM

LOL!! that is hilarious adolson, yeah I saw that demo too.. not the brightest bunch of coconuts are they.

LiquidJ @ Jun 5th 2008 1:17PM

Just stop buying EA products.

The only reason they aren't releasing it for the PS3 is they know they can make more money by releasing it as a crappy port.

LiquidJ @ Jun 5th 2008 2:12PM

And can people stop complaining about the PS3 being difficult to program for. Most programmers would find it refreshing to write software for a new platform rather than upgrading and maintaining old code. This all boils down to the publisher looking to improve and train their workforce on the cheap. Instead of spending money upfront so that their team is one of the most knowledgable groups in the industry on the PS3 architecture they plan to spend it little by little on ports so that the team can learn under a controlled and uninspired environment. I honestly feel sorry for those EA guys but you reap what you sow. They are basically handing over the top publisher spot to Activision without a fight.

P.S.
This game is a PC game that is being ported to the XBOX. Did you really want a port of a port anyway?

Danie @ Jun 5th 2008 1:48PM

modelvillage. I got both 360 and PS3 there are plenty of good games on PS3. Hey I remember seen you a lot on 360 fan boy. I hate fan boys. they always arguing which console is better.

Ishimaru @ Jun 5th 2008 2:14PM

Why these two bit devlopers/publishers can't take a look at what Isomniac has done, is just beyond me. They've made TWO amazing games for the PS3 in the time *one* publisher has taken to get one game out. If each publisher had a 360 team, a PS3 team, things would be *much* better. None of this port stuff. Make two versions, at the same time, so we don't have any of this "boo hoo it takes too much work to code for the PS3". Your problems are when you port from one system to another. If you just have original game code, it works great. But no, these retarded publishers want more and more and more money to do what with I have no clue. Yet, they'd get even *more* money if they actually put the effort into stop making ports, and actually have dedicated teams making the games. I've worked for EA, they are the laziest, and worst company I've ever worked for. I've boycotted every game they've came out with, which doesn't surprise me as every last one of them suck.

Anthony Kristler @ Jun 5th 2008 2:21PM

AMEN!!!! Sing it brother!!!

Ishimaru @ Jun 5th 2008 2:14PM

Why these two bit devlopers/publishers can't take a look at what Isomniac has done, is just beyond me. They've made *two* amazing games for the PS3 in the time *one* publisher has taken to get one game out. If each publisher had a 360 team, a PS3 team, things would be *much* better. None of this port stuff. Make two versions, at the same time, so we don't have any of this "boo hoo it takes too much work to code for the PS3". Your problems are when you port from one system to another. If you just have original game code, it works great. But no, these retarded publishers want more and more and more money to do what with I have no clue. Yet, they'd get even *more* money if they actually put the effort into stop making ports, and actually have dedicated teams making the games. I've worked for EA, they are the laziest, and worst company I've ever worked for. I've boycotted every game they've came out with, which doesn't surprise me as every last one of them suck.

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 50 Comments