Sure, money is important, I just don't think, given the near 5 million existing MGS customers on the PS3, that the potential money pile in front of the 360 is bigger than the pile in front of the PS3.
Doesn't have to be "bigger" than the pile in frontof the PS3. Exclusive DLC just has to pay enough to be worth doing.
GTA4 is not comparable at all. The DLC deal was made before any version of GTA4 had been released. Had it already come out on the PS3 and sold 5 million units with performance on the 360 being a complete unknown Take 2 would be crazy to make such a deal, no matter how big the exclusive payout.
You have some very wierd business sense there.
Take 2 would be crazy NOT to make such a deal, if the payout is big enough. Simply economics. How much can you potentially gain by selling this DLC to the PS3 crowd? (Discounted by risk ofcourse). How much is Ms willing to pay? As long as MS offer is as large (or larger than) as the discounted potential gain, you have to be a retard in order to not accept such an offer.
The reason for why take 2 would be retards in this scenario is because unless they take up the offer, they willingly loose money.
I mean in the sense of an amount that won't result in a severe negative reaction from shareholders.
So are we. Such a deal would not require any obscene amounts of money, and shareholders reaction will be positive as long as they feel the gains outweight the cost of the capital. And obviously, acting rational, MS will only offer amounts where the net result (doesn't have to be in direct monetary sense) is positive.
Thing is, the amount of money such DLC bring in, are not all that big. If these DLCs also would substantially increase software sales on a platform if made exclusive, DLCs made exclusive can bring in a lot of money for the console manufaturer. After all they get a licence fee for software sales. 5-10$ per sold game, any increases in software sales instantly adds to their pocket.
The deal with Take 2 for GTA4 DLC, for example, was actually just a loan, not free money.
Again, wierd economic business sense going around. The deal for DLC was indeed a loan of $50 million.
The loan was agreed to be payed back from potential profits (meaning that this is free money, because you take no investment risk). No profits, no repayment of loan. If there where no profits, then Ms would not get any money back.
Such a deal is worth much more money than you think. Aspecially if Take 2 had liquidity problems.
If we could estimate the risk of this project, i could easily present you with an exact monetary value of such a loan deal.
In your earlier post, you mentioned that MS shareholders would get upset if MS spend to much money. I think your next post is somewhat amusing because of this:
And publishers and developers may turn down lucrative deals if they think it will diminish the brand. I don't care how big the check is, I can't imagine Konami and Kojima crapping all over their millions of avid fans, many of whom specifically spent hundreds of dollars on a PS3 just for MGS, for a short term cash grab.
Konami is a public company. Konami management is just as much subject to pleasing their shareholders as Microsoft is. If Konami shareholders think the deal is a good one, Konomi management will comply, or start looking for new jobs.
Shareholders dont care about fanbase for some game, they care about making money. If the deals presented would make them more money than other potential projects, (ofcourse this includes any losses from diminishing your brand\whatever), deal will be accepted. While the developer may care about his fans, the publisher cares first and foremost about making money, and since they hold the money bag, its ultimately their decision.