Quake Wars for 360, PS3

By Robert Purchese Published 14 February, 2007

Battle spills onto consoles.

The war between the GDF and Strogg has spilled over into console territory, as Activision has announced Enemy Territory: Quake Wars for PS3 and Xbox 360.

Sony's offering will be developed by Z-Axis, the team behind the X-men: The Official Game; whilst Microsoft's version will be handled by Nerve Software, who has previously worked on Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

They'll join Splash Damage's PC effort when the games are released, which we recently found out will be sometime in Activision's fiscal 2008.

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is an online multiplayer game being described as a faster-paced Battlefield experience.

You'll play as either Human or Strogg, choose from five unique classes, then go at it with up to 16 other players. There will be numerous vehicles to pile into, from alien-walkers to quad-bikes, and you can expect a vast array of weapons to blast about whilst you scream obscenities into your headset.

You can catch-up with our E3 impressions of the game elsewhere on the site.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (27) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • indian23 #1 5 years ago

    PC Gamers OWNED

    Ports are flowing like water!!!!

  • Tejstar #2 5 years ago

    PC for teh win!

  • Fairlane #3 5 years ago

    the 1. on 360 was such a succes.....

  • dog2_99 #4 5 years ago

    not overly surprising this news really!?

  • peak_performance #5 5 years ago

    It's just so id can show gamers how much the PC owns the consoles :)

  • Tyronne #6 5 years ago

    16 players eh...wow is it the year 2000 ?

  • EmiliasHorse #7 5 years ago

    Nope not a suprise at all.
    I would say RTS work better on PC therefore should remain PC based, however the system specs to run this game make a console version very tempting. My age old gripe about PC gaming is the experience of any given game boils down to how powerful your machine is.

  • morriss #8 5 years ago

    PCGameslol

  • SBfistfun #9 5 years ago

    PC Gamers OWNED

    Ports are flowing like water!!!!

    W00t to watered down ports played with a gaystick

  • trevd72 #10 5 years ago

    pleased the 360 version has a good dev team cos the ps3 one could suck. 16 players for this kinda game wtf!

  • lambtron #11 5 years ago

    a "gaystick"?

    Is there a free "gaystick" included with the console versions of the games?

    :D

  • rudedudejude #12 5 years ago

    16 Players roflmaopmsl

    Don't make me laugh...

    16 Players omg.. Painful! Bring on the 64 player maulfests!!!

    pc roolz!

  • skillian #13 5 years ago

    I don't really get why console multiplayer always has less people than the PC version of the same game?

    They use the same internet connections don't they. I know some are slightly short on RAM, but even CS many years ago had more than 16 players back when 512 RAM was unheard of.

    I'm sure there's a reason but what is it?

  • SBfistfun #14 5 years ago

    Is there a free "gaystick" included with the console versions of the games?

    I hope so, may finally tempt me into the NeXt GeN!

  • SBfistfun #15 5 years ago

    I don't really get why console multiplayer always has less people than the PC version of the same game?

    I assume its because the console versions are peer to peer isn't it?

  • skillian #16 5 years ago

    I assume its because the console versions are peer to peer isn't it?

    OK thanks, that makes a lot of sense (though charging for online play under those circumstances makes much less).

  • groovychainsaw #17 5 years ago

    I'm pretty sure that even PC version is down to 24 players now, so its not much of a downgrade...

  • myiagros #18 5 years ago

    resistance does a very nice job of handeling 40 players at once, and i am sure the X360 could also manage these kind of numbers.

    Why just 16??

  • skillian #19 5 years ago

    I think Resistance uses Sony provided servers (for free), whereas 360 games use peer to peer servers (for £8 a month).

  • asphaltcowboy #20 5 years ago

    Now all we need is tri-platform multiplayer gaming! :D

    Who's the best?!

  • asphaltcowboy #21 5 years ago

    "I think Resistance uses Sony provided servers (for free), whereas 360 games use peer to peer servers (for £8 a month)."

    £8 a month? You're not talking about Xbox Live are you?

  • skillian #22 5 years ago

    £8 a month? You're not talking about Xbox Live are you?

    You're right, I'm probably thinking of WoW. Whatever the price, it's more than free so the point still stands.

  • Freek #23 5 years ago

    The point would stand if the rest of Sony Online was as good Live, it isn't. If it does get there, then MS would make free as you can't charge for something you can also get else where for free.

  • AtomicBanana #24 5 years ago

    '16 players eh...wow is it the year 2000 ?'

    Yeah because number of players equals games technical ability, and how much fun it is to play as well!

    Honestly, nonsense. I love 64 player games as much as the next guy, but to think every game needs to have that number of players to work or be fun is pretty laughable.

    EDIT:

    And with regards to resistance having more players. Big fucking deal, that's a much simpler gameplay style that lends itself well to having tonnes of players. Before the game is released, how are we to know what number of players works best in a game like this? Here's a thought, perhaps the developers are aware of this, and have chosen the number of players more appropriately, instead of trying to cram 256 players into a server because a few vocal idiots thought it would be cool.
    Edited by 1 at 14/02/07 @ 19:45

  • asphaltcowboy #25 5 years ago

    "You're right, I'm probably thinking of WoW. Whatever the price, it's more than free so the point still stands."

    Yes, well £8 a month compared to the more realistic £3 is indeed quite a big difference. Frankly, having experienced LIVE, I'm more than happy to pay for it because it is a BRILLIANT service.

  • LFMartins #26 5 years ago

    I can play BF2MC on my PS2 with 20+ players but on a next-gen game i can only play against 15?
    Next-Gen is nothing more than pretty graphics...

  • YourMessageHere #27 5 years ago

    For the way ET appears to play, i.e. Battlefield mod in Quake II/4 universe, the more players the better. 16 player Battlefield is rubbish, 64 player is much better. Then again, a lot of that's due to the naff way BF scales maps, also it may play differently; if it's closer/smaller scale than I'm imagining from all the videos etc, or spawning is better handled than in BF, it might be fine.

    I'd love to see PC/360/PS3 players playing together. That would be fantastic. No way in hell it'll happen though.

    Didn't realise Live didn't even include hosting servers. That sucks.

  • thinktank #28 5 years ago

    I prefer 16 players more chance of team work, also id buy this on x360 even though my pc will run it fine. I can't be arsed with the moding and cheating that goes on with pc games plus all my friends are on live and those are the people you ultimately want to play with.

    not understanding the "consoles are rubbish", "no pc's rubbish" remarks. why would any one give a toss if the game is on more than platform.

    /stops talking to a brick wall