Surfer girl nonsense, resistance and killzone fans go away please

DR should be an obvious sequel considering the game still sells a bit today, sure it flopped in japan but it did well everywhere else. A ps3/360 version would make sure it sells at least adequate in japan and great everywhere else.
 
I don´t accept a Wing Commander without Chris Roberts (are you hearing me EA? one of your millions of potential consumers is shaking his fits while writing in a internet forum! listen my demands!).
 
harSon said:
I'm starting to doubt Surfer Girl more and more. I was under the impression that Dead Rising 2 was not in development at all.
Click to expand...

She needs to be proven accurate at least until her Mother thing bears out.
 
Busty said:
A 360 price drop to coincide with the GTA4 ad campaign heavily (but not exclusively) centered around the 360 could, I IMHO, shift more units than HALO3.

I suppose the DLC will take care of itself as a perhaps part of a 360/GTA4 pack in released for Spring 09 which would see users having to get to online to download the episodes.
Click to expand...

Yeah i think so too. I believe that there are a really large amount of people that have been waiting for GTA to be released before they buy a next gen system.

And if the marketing is aggressive, there's a price drop, and they let people know that the 360 version will have exclusive content, i think GTAIV will become a 360 system seller even bigger than Halo 3.

Of course...it would be funny if nothing happened :lol And gta ended up not doing much for next gen consoles.
 
theBishop said:
can't play it up or down without seeing it.

however, i do wonder if 50mil wouldn't be better spent on another game.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, this is not including whatever they're going to shell out for the advertising of the game. I think this money could have been used much better, elsewhere, as in funding of another, or hell, 2+ more games. I dunno how big this DLC is, but I doubt it's going to be equal to another full-fledged title or 2 like they could've funded. Hell, they should've locked in Dead Rising 2 maybe or something.
 
the money would have been better spent actually getting full exclusive. this is microsoft we're talking about, 100mill, 200 mill means nothing to them. this DLC isnt gonna shit
 
Acosta said:
I don´t accept a Wing Commander without Chris Roberts (are you hearing me EA? one of your millions of potential consumers is shaking his fits while writing in a internet forum! listen my demands!).
Click to expand...
Leave it on the comments of the Surfer Girl blog. More likely to be read and taken seriously than on here. Riccitiello will definitely be reading in the next few hours
 
justjohn said:
the money would have been better spent actually getting full exclusive. this is microsoft we're talking about, 100mill, 200 mill means nothing to them. this DLC isnt gonna shit
Click to expand...

Even with a proposal like that, it's still up to Take Two to accept it. I don't think Take Two would want to soil their relationship with Sony, especially since it was the PS2 platform that got them out of financial trouble.
 
J-Rzez said:
Pretty much, this is not including whatever they're going to shell out for the advertising of the game. I think this money could have been used much better, elsewhere, as in funding of another, or hell, 2+ more games. I dunno how big this DLC is, but I doubt it's going to be equal to another full-fledged title or 2 like they could've funded. Hell, they should've locked in Dead Rising 2 maybe or something.
Click to expand...

See, but GTA guarantees sales. If their sales go up...well i think only good things come from it.

It's a smart move, business wise, no way around it.
 
WrikaWrek said:
See, but GTA guarantees sales. If their sales go up...well i think only good things come from it.

It's a smart move, business wise, no way around it.
Click to expand...

I would say it is more of a ruthless move than anything else. Being associated with a company that has infinite money does have its perks. :lol

But really, MS really does have GTA4 locked in. $50 million advance for exclusive DLC + subsidized marketing pretty much guarantee CoD4/AC platform ratios. Hell, subsidized marketing is more than enough.
 
J-Rzez said:
Pretty much, this is not including whatever they're going to shell out for the advertising of the game. I think this money could have been used much better, elsewhere, as in funding of another, or hell, 2+ more games. I dunno how big this DLC is, but I doubt it's going to be equal to another full-fledged title or 2 like they could've funded. Hell, they should've locked in Dead Rising 2 maybe or something.
Click to expand...

For the love of god, they didn't just lose that money. MS could still use 50M to fund whatever games or buy whatever exclusives they wanted to. The 50M they gave to R* was pretty much a LOAN. It WILL be repaid one way or the other. So, knowing it will be repaid, MS could easily take 50M and put it towards whatever they want. 50M isn't going to hurt them and they WILL get the money back from R*. I'm so tired of people going on like they just handed 50M over and they're getting exclusive DLC out of it. If you don't know how this is working, quit fucking talking about it.
 
justjohn said:
the money would have been better spent actually getting full exclusive. this is microsoft we're talking about, 100mill, 200 mill means nothing to them. this DLC isnt gonna shit
Click to expand...


just keeping saying that until GTA4's npd numbers come out...
 
SRG01 said:
I would say it is more of a ruthless move than anything else. Being associated with a company that has infinite money does have its perks. :lol

But really, MS really does have GTA4 locked in. $50 million advance for exclusive DLC + subsidized marketing pretty much guarantee CoD4/AC platform ratios. Hell, subsidized marketing is more than enough.
Click to expand...

Heh, i don't see how this ruthless, the game itself isn't even exclusive. Had they made the game exclusive then yeah i could see how MS simply decided to say "f it" and just storm in with the cash and buy the damn exclusive.

This harmless when compared to when these companies get exclusives, like MGS4 or Splinter cell conviction.

Sony had the whole marketing gig locked down for COD4 and AC, don't see how it's any different now, seems to me that MS decided to go after the big fish.

Even with Sony doing that COD4 sold between 2|3:1.

And ram talks about Europe, well, doesn't mean MS is just gonna quit, the PS was supposed to be leading in the U.S too, so it seems to me that it's always worth a try. Obviously MS did the wrong decision in going after Japan when they should've gone after Europe, but at least they were able to grab a big market here, the UK.

squatingyeti said:
For the love of god, they didn't just lose that money. MS could still use 50M to fund whatever games or buy whatever exclusives they wanted to. The 50M they gave to R* was pretty much a LOAN. It WILL be repaid one way or the other. So, knowing it will be repaid, MS could easily take 50M and put it towards whatever they want. 50M isn't going to hurt them and they WILL get the money back from R*. I'm so tired of people going on like they just handed 50M over and they're getting exclusive DLC out of it. If you don't know how this is working, quit fucking talking about it.
Click to expand...

Obviously, nobody here is truly worried about 50 spent that way when they could've been spent this or that way. Cmon...you know what's being said here.
 
WrikaWrek said:
Heh, i don't see how this ruthless, the game itself isn't even exclusive. Had they made the game exclusive then yeah i could see how MS simply decided to say "f it" and just storm in with the cash and buy the damn exclusive.

This harmless when compared to when these companies get exclusives, like MGS4 or Splinter cell conviction.

Sony had the whole marketing gig locked down for COD4 and AC, don't see how it's any different now, seems to me that MS decided to go after the big fish.

Even with Sony doing that COD4 sold between 2|3:1.

And ram talks about Europe, well, doesn't mean MS is just gonna quit, the PS was supposed to be leading in the U.S too, so it seems to me that it's always worth a try. Obviously MS did the wrong decision in going after Japan when they should've gone after Europe, but at least they were able to grab a big market here, the UK.
Click to expand...

It's the way modern monopolies -- think MS and Intel -- work. Instead of buying a business outright, they'll "subsidize" certain costs of business whether it be PR, buying product at a lower price, and so forth. This is why certain vendors carry MS and Intel products at a higher volume, or why certain business are more apt to do business with them.

Of course, MS isn't a monopoly in the game space yet, but I would not doubt for a moment that this is what they're intending to go for.

As for the CoD4 anomaly, it comes down to audience. The 360 userbase buys more games more often. Was PS3 CoD4 a success? Yes. But would it realistically beat the sales of a console that has around 11+ million users? No.
 
squatingyeti said:
For the love of god, they didn't just lose that money. MS could still use 50M to fund whatever games or buy whatever exclusives they wanted to. The 50M they gave to R* was pretty much a LOAN. It WILL be repaid one way or the other. So, knowing it will be repaid, MS could easily take 50M and put it towards whatever they want. 50M isn't going to hurt them and they WILL get the money back from R*. I'm so tired of people going on like they just handed 50M over and they're getting exclusive DLC out of it. If you don't know how this is working, quit fucking talking about it.
Click to expand...

Ok big guy, don't get so heated. A loan as in what? That they're going to make ALL of their money back on DLC and system sales? Are you sure about that? How much is this DLC going to be? How many installments for sure? They don't know they'll get that money back, they just know they locked up a "1up" on the competition at the moment, and use it as marketing ammo.

What's wrong with thinking they should've put that money into a full-fledged exclusive title? Sony obviously didn't see the vested interest in it, instead, iirc they have R* working on some new IP exclusively for them. I'm saying because I think something like locking up DR2 would've been smarter. They have the money, why aren't they doing it then? Why aren't they putting the money towards XBL which desperately needs it now? Looking at their 2008 line up at the moment, I think more games would've been more beneficial IMHO as a consumer and owner of the system, I want my money's worth from the machine. Right now, the competition has them in that segment, the money should've went to combat that.

Such nasty language for no reason, relax.
 
SRG01 said:
It's the way modern monopolies -- think MS and Intel -- work. Instead of buying a business outright, they'll "subsidize" certain costs of business whether it be PR, buying product at a lower price, and so forth. This is why certain vendors carry MS and Intel products at a higher volume, or why certain business are more apt to do business with them.

Of course, MS isn't a monopoly in the game space yet, but I would not doubt for a moment that this is what they're intending to go for.

As for the CoD4 anomaly, it comes down to audience. The 360 userbase buys more games more often. Was PS3 CoD4 a success? Yes. But would it realistically beat the sales of a console that has around 11+ million users? No.
Click to expand...

Every big company wants to create a "monopoly" as you call it, of their own.

Sony does the same thing. And there's no need to bring up excuses for the COd4 and AC cases, fact is Sony payed the $ for how the games would be advertised, and it was part of their big marketing campaign for Christmas that even involved the showing of games that aren't coming until later this year.

This "That company is less bad than that, that one wants to do this bad thing" and so on and so on is playing favorites when nobody is playing the role of the nice guy.

Let's stop pretending.

J-Rzez said:
What's wrong with thinking they should've put that money into a full-fledged exclusive title? Sony obviously didn't see the vested interest in it, instead, iirc they have R* working on some new IP exclusively for them. I'm saying because I think something like locking up DR2 would've been smarter. They have the money, why aren't they doing it then? Why aren't they putting the money towards XBL which desperately needs it now? Looking at their 2008 line up at the moment, I think more games would've been more beneficial IMHO as a consumer and owner of the system, I want my money's worth from the machine. Right now, the competition has them in that segment, the money should've went to combat that.

Such nasty language for no reason, relax.
Click to expand...

:lol

Right, Sony didn't wanted to do it so they let MS get the scraps :lol

Riiiight
 
Father_Brain said:
Just wondering - what, so far, has he/she been flat-out wrong about?
Click to expand...
I only pay attention to the bigger rumours- and unfortunately with most the jury is still out.
Nothing outright false springs to mind, but a few big things like Mother 3 in NA, EA's LMNO and Beyond Good and Evil 2 could be.

Remember most of these are details from games that are in production, things change in the final product announcement. Plus you can always tell from the tone of the piece whether it is more certain or not.
 
WrikaWrek said:
Every big company wants to create a "monopoly" as you call it, of their own.

Sony does the same thing. And there's no need to bring up excuses for the COd4 and AC cases, fact is Sony payed the $ for how the games would be advertised, and it was part of their big marketing campaign for Christmas that even involved the showing of games that aren't coming until later this year.

This "That company is less bad than that, that one wants to do this bad thing" and so on and so on is playing favorites when nobody is playing the role of the nice guy.

Let's stop pretending.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not defending Sony or lampooning MS for either of their tactics.
 
Blimblim said:
GTA IV will be marketed only for the 360, just like AC and Burnout Paradise are only marketed only for PS3.
And from what I heard it will be a *very* big marketing push, think Halo 3 there.
Click to expand...
Pretty much what I've been expecting concerning GTA IV's marketing.

Probably will also have some sort of message at the end of the commercials saying "Xbox 360 now starting at $249" or whatever price they drop the Arcade to.
 
J-Rzez said:
A loan as in what?
Click to expand...

from next gen biz

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6023&Itemid=2

"Microsoft basically said that it's happy to pay [Take-Two] in advance $50 million in revenue that [Take-Two] is going to receive from GTA IV downloads...If revenues don't meet that figure, Take-Two will have to return some of the advance, according to Pachter. But he said that there's no reason to believe Take-Two would actually miss that revenue target."

J-Rzez said:
What's wrong with thinking they should've put that money into a full-fledged exclusive title? Sony obviously didn't see the vested interest in it, instead, iirc they have R* working on some new IP exclusively for them.
Click to expand...

Take Two was having financial troubles, Microsoft gave them an "insured loan" for episodes, Sony got an exclusive game.
 
SRG01 said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not defending Sony or lampooning MS for either of their tactics.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying it's pointless to point out how MS tactics are based on creating a monopoly on the industry when that's exactly what any big company wants to do.
 
WrikaWrek said:
I'm just saying it's pointless to point out how MS tactics are based on creating a monopoly on the industry when that's exactly what any big company wants to do.
Click to expand...

The difference is that MS is already a monopoly in one area and using its power to try and create another. This is a fact, not a subjective comment.
 
WrikaWrek said:
Oh and i hate you, you got me banned with that humping dog crap

edit: Nice avatar. I like your style.
Click to expand...

oh, never mind that gif^^

here is a new avatar for you:

29y5lkn.gif
 
stotch said:
from next gen biz

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6023&Itemid=2

"Microsoft basically said that it's happy to pay [Take-Two] in advance $50 million in revenue that [Take-Two] is going to receive from GTA IV downloads...If revenues don't meet that figure, Take-Two will have to return some of the advance, according to Pachter. But he said that there's no reason to believe Take-Two would actually miss that revenue target."

Take Two was having financial troubles, Microsoft gave them an "insured loan" for episodes, Sony got an exclusive game.
Click to expand...

Well, if such is the case (which is very strange), then I have a feeling R* is probably going to have to pay back some change, unless the dlc is spectacular, which I hope it is.

WrikaWrek said:
Right, Sony didn't wanted to do it so they let MS get the scraps

Riiiight
Click to expand...

What's so funny about that? How's it hard to see that they may have passed up on the DLC option to help out/secure a 1up, for a full fledged new IP? I don't blame them, unless this DLC is epic enough to be considered another full title, I'd think another full fledged new IP was the better route. I think it's something MS should've done too then. Fund a new IP from R* under a same clause as their "loan".
 
SRG01 said:
The difference is that MS is already a monopoly in one area and using its power to try and create another. This is a fact, not a subjective comment.
Click to expand...

And? Seriously, who cares. If it wasn't MS it would be APPLe, there's choice, if you are so upset about it, don't be part of the problem.

Doesn't change the fact that they aren't doing anything wrong in the gaming industry, and stating that they have monopolistic sense of business over and over really doesn't add anything, and only makes the person saying that sound bitter.

If MS had come down guns blazing, bought EA, and started paying for exclusives left and right, like FF and MGS, then yeah holy shit it wouldn't be fair, but they aren't doing anything that the others aren't.

solid2snake said:
oh, never mind that gif^^

here is a new avatar for you:

29y5lkn.gif
Click to expand...

Sorry but i can't. Sega sucks these days.

J-Rzez said:
What's so funny about that? How's it hard to see that they may have passed up on the DLC option to help out/secure a 1up, for a full fledged new IP? I don't blame them, unless this DLC is epic enough to be considered another full title, I'd think another full fledged new IP was the better route. I think it's something MS should've done too then. Fund a new IP from R* under a same clause as their "loan".
Click to expand...

It's funny because you would make it seem that Sony passed on the chance to do it when nothing points to it. Obviously you wouldn't think that both wanted to do this but MS had the upper hand, no you simply assume that Sony knew better.

And that is funny of course. And while a new IP from rockstar might sound awesome, Manhunt was a piece of crap in my book, and just because they have this huge seller in GTA doesn't mean that they will be successful in making another high profile IP.

From a business standpoint, i think it's a better decision to bank on GTA4 to sell systems.
 
WrikaWrek said:
And? Seriously, who cares. If it wasn't MS it would be APPLe, there's choice, if you are so upset about it, don't be part of the problem.

Doesn't change the fact that they aren't doing anything wrong in the gaming industry, and stating that they have monopolistic sense of business over and over really doesn't add anything, and only makes the person saying that sound bitter.

If MS had come down guns blazing, bought EA, and started paying for exclusives left and right, like FF and MGS, then yeah holy shit it wouldn't be fair, but they aren't doing anything that the others aren't.
Click to expand...

Uh what? Upset? I'm just relaying the realities of their business strategy. :lol MS and Intel's strategies are well known in the CE business.

And no, MS cannot go in 'guns blazing' because antitrust investigations would be all over them. Hence why modern monopolies do not do acquisitions anymore.
 
SRG01 said:
Uh what? Upset? I'm just relaying the realities of their business strategy. :lol MS and Intel's strategies are well known in the CE business.

And no, MS cannot go in 'guns blazing' because antitrust investigations would be all over them. Hence why modern monopolies do not do acquisitions anymore.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So why worry? These days a monopoly is only achieved if you make the best business decision after another and another and another, until you distance yourself so much from the competition that it eventually becomes a monopoly.

But to create that monopoly....you gotta be good. It's not like there's not huge competition either, this is the gaming industry.

But if it doesn't affect you then ok, it's just that people always use that to bring this or that company down.

Well consumers, you did your part, now suck it. There are other options out there.
 
WrikaWrek said:
It's funny because you would make it seem that Sony passed on the chance to do it when nothing points to it. Obviously you wouldn't think that both wanted to do this but MS had the upper hand, no you simply assume that Sony knew better.

And that is funny of course. And while a new IP from rockstar might sound awesome, Manhunt was a piece of crap in my book, and just because they have this huge seller in GTA doesn't mean that they will be successful in making another high profile IP.

From a business standpoint, i think it's a better decision to bank on GTA4 to sell systems.
Click to expand...

DLC with potential > New IP with Potential? I dunno about that. Obviously they saw something and went with the new IP? I'm not sure, but I'd think a full fledged title would be more worthy of an investment. Remember, they took the shot with R* on the PS2 when no one else would cause they saw something. Let's see how it all pans out, but me personally, I would've made them produce a new IP for me. Who knows, maybe it'll work out for the both of them and everyone wins.
 
3) Yes, Onimusha 5 is coming out next year for PS360. So are Dead Rising 2 and Lost Planet 2.

DEAD RISING 2 :o
LOST PLANET 2 :O
ONIMUSHA 5 :O x infinity
 
Visualante said:
2) Is Microsoft working on their own version of Home?
They were...six years ago. Back in 2002, there was a small team inside Microsoft working on an "application" called LiveUniverse for the Xbox, which was more or less Home, it was slated for release around the launch of Xbox Live, but the project got canceled when work on Xbox Live fell behind.
Click to expand...

I suppose Microsoft Bob precedes even that.

3) Yes, Onimusha 5 is coming out next year for PS360. So are Dead Rising 2 and Lost Planet 2.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Dead Rising 2 already denied by Inafune? I'd love it to be true, but if it's not developed by his team I don't know how eager I'd be to see a sequel.
 
Hey Mark get your ass to 1up!

For those of you who think MS should have spent the 50 million to make 1st party games, well maybe they should. It probably cost Sony less than that to fund Lair+HS+Uncharted.

However MS has a weird faith in "online community gaming." They think that's "teh future" for console video gaming. Everything they do revolve around this concept. For example, Shadowrun, was nothing but a big "cross-platform gaming" experiment. Gears and Halo both focus heavily on multiplayer. In the case of GTA4 DLC they probably thought it was worth it because it promo online gaming and a new gaming experience. I said it was "weird" beccause DLC required a HDD, which was not standard on the Xbox. It's as if Microsoft only did one thing (Xbox Live) right on the Xbox1, and they now think its the most important thing.

BTW, MS never was a big spender, especially not recently. Otherwise they wouldn't let google scoop youtube and doubleclick under their nose.

As for Rockstar's exclusive game with Sony, I ll bet money to doughnut its going to be very edgy, as in causing controversy. Because that's what R* does. I hope its a pimp simulatiion game. :D
 
WrikaWrek said:
Exactly. So why worry? These days a monopoly is only achieved if you make the best business decision after another and another and another, until you distance yourself so much from the competition that it eventually becomes a monopoly.

But to create that monopoly....you gotta be good. It's not like there's not huge competition either, this is the gaming industry.

But if it doesn't affect you then ok, it's just that people always use that to bring this or that company down.

Well consumers, you did your part, now suck it. There are other options out there.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "good." I hope it doesn't mean "good products" or else... :lol

WrikaWrek said:
I'm just saying it's pointless to point out how MS tactics are based on creating a monopoly on the industry when that's exactly what any big company wants to do.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Businesses try to gain as much market share as possible without becoming a monopoly. They even go so far as to keep the competition alive if they get too dangerously close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

If Xbox Gamepass goes away….does that mean PS + will go away as well?
2
80
5K
Kvally replied
RTTP - Resistance: Fall of Man
19
925
AutumnLeaves replied
It’s Time for Sony to Bring Back Killzone and Resistance - IGN
2 3 4
187
12K
mdkirby replied
Killzone 2
RTTP  2
86
5K
havoc00 replied
Helldivers 2 and Killzone crossover 23rd December
2 3
137
8K
The Fartist replied
Top Bottom