Rockstar Games has announced, by way of its financial statement, its intentions regarding the ‘secret’ Xbox version of the recent violence-a-thon that is Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
The rework is slated to launch alongside the PC offering in June of next year and will no doubt sell furiously again, unless of course, it’s been banned by then.
Rockstar declined to offer any further details on the Xbox edition, though some sort of content rethink is considered likely. As to whether the development team will see fit to implement the long-overdue and heavily rumoured on-line functionality remains to be seen.
Keep an eye out for updates and scurrilous rumour in the coming weeks.
The rework is slated to launch alongside the PC offering in June of next year and will no doubt sell furiously again, unless of course, it’s been banned by then.
Rockstar declined to offer any further details on the Xbox edition, though some sort of content rethink is considered likely. As to whether the development team will see fit to implement the long-overdue and heavily rumoured on-line functionality remains to be seen.
Keep an eye out for updates and scurrilous rumour in the coming weeks.
Read More Like This
Comments
scanman 17 Dec 2004 17:45
1/11
that headline is being ironic yeah???
everyone knows that gtasa will be released for xbox ... it would be stupid of rockstar not to
everyone knows that gtasa will be released for xbox ... it would be stupid of rockstar not to
LUPOS 17 Dec 2004 18:00
2/11
considering how long it took for xbox to get the first two i am very suprised they are getting this out so quick.
on a personal note i dont really care for the game very much but, any good news for xbox is good news for me.... WOOT!
on a personal note i dont really care for the game very much but, any good news for xbox is good news for me.... WOOT!
more comments below our sponsor's message
Autobot 17 Dec 2004 18:10
3/11
If you play GTA:SA you can tell that the game was not ment for the PS2 at all. The system struggles to play at points, it almost feels like a port of a more powerful game. I'm sure the streaming technology they used was ment for a hard drive and the fact that most of the textures were very bland makes me think that the sysetm's low ram was the culperate for it. The XBOX can handle way more textures so the game can have high res without a problem. Also the 2 play co op feels like something more was going to happen. I have a feeling that the 2 player co op will be either live enabled or system link so that each player can roam around the digital world and cause double the havoc.
saurian 17 Dec 2004 20:38
4/11
scanman wrote:
that headline is being ironic yeah???
I am in shock - I expected the announcement to come after Xmas.
everyone knows that gtasa will be released for xbox ... it would be stupid of rockstar not to
I am in shock - I expected the announcement to come after Xmas.
everyone knows that gtasa will be released for xbox ... it would be stupid of rockstar not to
I agree - The ageing PS2 is hardly a showcase for a top game. Lets hope Rockstar don't just do a straight port to cash in, but use the machines obvious superiority to good effect. ( online would be nice )
SPInGSPOnG 18 Dec 2004 07:56
5/11
saurian wrote:
I agree - The ageing PS2 is hardly a showcase for a top game.
The Xbox is hardly a platform in the first bloom of youth. In fact, I was surprised that they were taking San An to it just months before Xbox2 comes out.
Obviously, there is a reasonable installed user base. And Rockstar would show their ass in Woolworth's window for money (their shareholders require it). So the conversion was hardly a surprise.
But we have to assume that GTA4 will not be out until the PS3 hits the shelves.
but use the machines obvious superiority to good effect. ( online would be nice )
On-line aside, the machine's superiority is only "obvious" to hardcore gamers, nerds and dweebs.
To the average 30 year old casual-gaming guy, there is no discernible difference. OK, if you put the two side by side and pointed out the difference... they could see it. But if they are forced to compare by visiting three mates houses, and playing GT3 at their PS2-owning mate's house, Halo 2 at their Xbox-owning mate's house and Pikmin 2 at their GameCube-owning mate's house, they are going to be far more influenced by whether they like killing prostitutes, spacemen or seedling nurseries than any "obvious" graphical differences.
The current machines are in the same graphical playing filed, you can get you rocks of looking a texture crumpling, frame rates and pop-up - and those characteristics of the machines wil help them sell to 1.5% of the gaming market. But to the average gamer, they look the same.
saurian 18 Dec 2004 16:25
6/11
Rod Todd wrote:
On-line aside, the machine's superiority is only "obvious" to hardcore gamers, nerds and dweebs.
Sorry, but I dont think 'online aside' is the way to deal with what is likely to be the crux of who wins or loses the next round of the console war. I think that Online is going to be the biggest growth area.
Sony should be competing, not just sitting at the back complacently, thinking that their massive user base will blindly put up with a console that seems to be getting no support. Are you expecting that PS3 will compete online? Do you think they will come up with anything new or just do a 'clone' of Xbox live ? I am beginning to wonder.
Your comment about no decernable difference, also does not stand up. If you put the same game on all three consoles.(assuming you can find one that is on the Cube!) The PS2 version looks the poor relation 75% of the time.
Even a games mag like Gamesmaster, who are very pro PS2 have to admit this month ' This game is prettier and smoother to play on non PS2 consoles.'
( Call of Duty )
The fact that the Xbox is a more powerful console is not an opinion, it is a fact. But besides being more powerful, it also has a hard drive, you do not have to buy endless memory cards. (you dont need any) I have been saving games on mine for well over a year and still have over 50,000 blocks free.
Pandaman 18 Dec 2004 20:41
7/11
The funny thing is that the game is more likely to go to the N-Gage than it would be the Gamecube.
saurian 19 Dec 2004 12:13
8/11
Alan Is my first name wrote:
The funny thing is that the game is more likely to go to the N-Gage than it would be the Gamecube.
Funny but very sad. Gamecube would give a good account of itself with most games but just does not get the chance. Considering the installed user base it must have the smallest console to games bought ratio since 3DO.
zerocool 20 Dec 2004 07:10
9/11
lol cus it has the smallest games to console ratio of the three
SPInGSPOnG 20 Dec 2004 16:36
10/11
saurian wrote:
Sorry, but I dont think 'online aside' is the way to deal with what is likely to be the crux of who wins or loses the next round of the console war.
Agreed. But that's irrelevant to the camparative visual capabilities of the current generation.
I think that Online is going to be the biggest growth area.
THat's onlyt because it is growing from nothing. If it doubles in size it will stil be pitifully marginal.
Sony should be competing, not just sitting at the back complacently
Again, I agree.
Your comment about no decernable difference, also does not stand up. If you put the same game on all three consoles.(assuming you can find one that is on the Cube!) The PS2 version looks the poor relation 75% of the time.
Did you read my posting? That was my EXACT point... people don't see all three side-by-side playing the same game. THey see them days and miles apart, playing different games. And althoug the Xbox is better, it's not so much better that, with the time and distance apart, people go "f*ck me, that knoocks the PS2 into a cocked hat".
The fact that the Xbox is a more powerful console is not an opinion, it is a fact.
Again you seem to have missed my point. I wasn;t saying that Xbox was not more powerful. I wasn't saying that it was a matter of opinion. I was saying that the difference is only important to nerds. The average gamers sees the difference as small enough not to care about.
We're talking Megadrive/SNES difference, not Megadrive/PS1 difference.
But besides being more powerful, it also has a hard drive, you do not have to buy endless memory cards.
No one has to buy "endless" memory cards. For any gamer, there is a finite positive integer of memory cards that will be sufficient.
But you are talking about hardcore camers again. For the average gamer, the 8Mb PS2 Memory card is adequate.
The hard drive could have been a major selling point, if it had been used as anything more than a big game save memory card - but largely it hasn't.
saurian 27 Dec 2004 18:02
11/11
Ron Todd:
The hard drive could have been a major selling point, if it had been used as anything more than a big game save memory card - but largely it hasn't.[/quote wrote:
The hard drive could have been a major selling point, if it had been used as anything more than a big game save memory card - but largely it hasn't.[/quote wrote:
Sorry, I disaree. What about the over 200 content downloads that are free ??? ( Extra levels,cars, weapons etc.)
What about the Live updates to stop the cheating that has all but killed PS2 online ( along with Sony's lack of interest)
The hard drive is one of the main reasons Xbox is superior, and sets it apart from the other consoles.
There are also around a dozen that you have to pay for as well. The most expensive of these is £3.99