Venom handling 360 Prey

By Tom Bramwell Published 8 February, 2006

New screenshots to celebrate.

Newcastle-based Venom Games is handling the Xbox 360 port of Prey, 2K Games announced this week, which presumably explains why Prey overlords 3D Realms don't have a devkit.

While the PC one is in development at Human Head Studios, Venom's hard at work porting and doing an eight-player Xbox Live online mode. The game will do all the expected high-definition trickery, too. Both versions ought to be released this year.

2K's also released some screenshots, so you can see how things work on the living ship you're fighting to escape from after it eats your granddad.

We got to take a look at Prey recently, including some time with the multiplayer mode. Check that for more details on how the PC one's shaping up.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (18) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • smoison #1 6 years ago

    Why is it PC shooters can easily have 32 to 64 man servers, but on Live its soo much more limited?

    I thought Live was all ADSL users?
    You even have to pay for it (XB Live), why 8 man MAX?

    I believe even Duke 3D hade more....

  • jack_klugman #2 6 years ago

    Maybe the levels are balanced for only 8 players. Smaller, more intimate deathmatch type affairs.

  • Furbs #3 6 years ago

    Memory - theres no centralised servers with alot Live games so the console itself has to do alot of the work and is stuck with 512mb of shared RAM. Plus alot of people only have 256k upstream.

  • theidiotsarewinning #4 6 years ago

    things the world does not need more of:

    1. first-person shooters

    actually that'll do for a list.

  • Fatfish #5 6 years ago

    Quote: "Maybe the levels are balanced for only 8 players. Smaller, more intimate deathmatch type affairs."

    Now there's a phrase I never thought I'd hear - an 'intimate deathmatch'! Surely a contradiction in terms?!?

    "Why darling, you look positively radiant this evening!"...........blam...blam...blam..........." Eat lead and die bitch!" :)

  • jack_klugman #6 6 years ago

    Arf.

  • Rambaldi #7 6 years ago

    @Smoison

    "You even have to pay for it (XB Live), why 8 man MAX?"

    As someone who clealry does not play on XBLive I'll forgive your ignorance:
    Halo2: 16 player max
    Ridge Racer 6: 14 player max
    (amongst others)

    PC shooters have 64 man servers? Which game? And do you have to fanny around with separate software etc. to get live chat whilst playing or can you sit back on the comfort of your couch and plug a headset into a pad, pull up your friends list and talk to anyone in any game at any time?

  • Freek #8 6 years ago

    Battlefield 2 if i'm not mistaken, and I do believe that has built in voice support as do many games these days.

    And 32 players is pretty standard nowadays.

    But the reason has already been mentioned. Live is a peer to peer system, as opposed to PC games wich mainly use a dedicated server system for multiplayer.

    Edited by 2 at 08/02/06 @ 14:01

  • Furbs #9 6 years ago

    Rambaldi - Joint Ops even had 128 player servers which were surprisingly lag free (and on HUGE maps too). If it hadnt turnt in to a sniperfest, had too many night time maps and had built in voicecomms it would have sunk BF2 before it even arrived.

  • Rambaldi #10 6 years ago

    Ahh.

  • Rambaldi #11 6 years ago

    Begs the question: why does XBLive have to be peer to peer? 64 player Halo would..well...would...make me have babies:)
    Edited by 1 at 08/02/06 @ 14:16

  • smoison #12 6 years ago

    OK, Thx for explanation Furbs.

    Makes cents.


    As for Rambaldi , don't be a hater.


  • Helios #13 6 years ago

    " things the world does not need more of:

    1. first-person shooters

    actually that'll do for a list.

    Any good reasons? Didn't think so. There are just as many games in other genres. Should we get less of them too? Just because you dislike a genre does not mean that we should get rid of it.

  • Rambaldi #14 6 years ago

    I'm not! Your facts were just wrong tis all! Mine were too, so all is well:)

  • dllord #15 6 years ago

    On IGN it says the PC and 360 MP is only 8 player!

  • Freek #16 6 years ago

    I geuse MS figures nobodys interested in having thier X360 used a server and just run all day and night.
    Ofcourse thirdparties setting up servers with more specialised hardware is out of the question since it's a closed system. Wich means MS would have to do it, or the publishers, who no doubt arent all that interested in running servers for their games for the entire world unless it's an MMORPG.

  • zubnut #17 6 years ago

    i'm sure there were some xbox live games where one xbox could 'be' a dedicated server - rainbow 6? i would check, but i can't be bothered to dig it out...

  • Xerx3s #18 6 years ago

    "Why is it PC shooters can easily have 32 to 64 man servers, but on Live its soo much more limited?

    I thought Live was all ADSL users?
    You even have to pay for it (XB Live), why 8 man MAX?

    I believe even Duke 3D hade more...."

    *cough* PD0, 40+? (or what was it?) Huge lvls that take ages to cross on foot? Small lvls usually mean bad ports & rush jobs.