goldenpp72
Member
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.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Surfer girl nonsense, resistance and killzone fans go away please
- Thread starter Ashhong
- Start date
Busty said:
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:
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.
Visualante
Member
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 hoursAcosta said:
WrikaWrek 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.
squatingyeti
non-sanctioned troll
J-Rzez 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.
Father_Brain
Banned
Just wondering - what, so far, has he/she been flat-out wrong about?
SRG01 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.
squatingyeti said:
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:
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:
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:
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:
:lol
Right, Sony didn't wanted to do it so they let MS get the scraps :lol
Riiiight
Visualante
Member
I only pay attention to the bigger rumours- and unfortunately with most the jury is still out.Father_Brain said:
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.
J-Rzez 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."
J-Rzez said:
Take Two was having financial troubles, Microsoft gave them an "insured loan" for episodes, Sony got an exclusive game.
solid2snake
Banned
yes, Dead Rising 2 sounds sweet 
solid2snake
Banned
WrikaWrek said:
oh, never mind that gif^^
here is a new avatar for you:
stotch said:
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:
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:
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:
Sorry but i can't. Sega sucks these days.
J-Rzez 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.
WrikaWrek 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.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Mr. Pants!!
SRG01 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.
WrikaWrek said:
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.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Visualante said:
This was in this months Gameinformer.
Chris Michael
Banned
Deacan said:
I seriously hope that's the title of the XBLA game.
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.
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.
Again, just to hold it for future ref.
Resistance 2 @ November
Killzone 2 @ September
Whatever Gamestop and Maxconsole say, they are wrong.
http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=24634
Resistance 2 @ November
Killzone 2 @ September
Whatever Gamestop and Maxconsole say, they are wrong.
http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=24634
What do you mean by "good." I hope it doesn't mean "good products" or else... :lolWrikaWrek said:
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.WrikaWrek said: