The old and unwieldy GTA4 thread*

[betan]

And regardless of the accuracy of the first statement, the conclusion made is sound. i.e. With that amount of money this is a major piece of content.

I hope so. But it's neither a fact nor sound.
This advanced payment is mostly refundable and covers exclusivity rights. So God knows what DLC size will be.
Even ignoring most of those, it may simply be a $10 DLC with expected 5 mega downloads.

There are other issues with big DLCs. For example, a next gen Vice City equivalent may anger retailers if it doesn't show up as disk soon. From Rockstar's point of view too it doesn't seem to be a sound deal at all, since disc iterations have been proven to be very successful, way too hard to skip.

Not to mention all those complaints from 360 owners about Capcom install sizes on PS3.

Again I hope GTA DLC for 360 is significant but that blogger is a plain tool.

 

[DJ12]

Rockstar to go PS3 exclusive

*Rubs chin*

Interesting.......

Not the first time I've heard this. I think it was doing the rounds just before Liepzig last year, now a Rockstar employee seems to be suggesting it's actually true.

 

[Arwin]

It's not really relevant to this thread. What is, however, fairly well known, is that Rockstar is making a PS3 exclusive game for Sony, and that it's their next big project after GTAIV.

 

[DJ12]

There was talk about Rockstars relationship with Sony/MS earlier in the thread and various dot joining about why they deliver content to the 360 when they aren't actually going to have anything long term out of the deal.

The rumour seems to suggest all development work will only be done on PS3, which obviously could mean that they start on PS3 then port to 360, they start on PS3 then send the port to a third party or it could mean that there would be no more Rockstar games on 360.

As a PS3 owner, it's only good news.

 

[JPT]

Please somebody clarify for me, is R* owned by Take Two or are Take Two just the publisher, maybe on an exclusive long deal etc?

 

[AlphaWolf]

Please somebody clarify for me, is R* owned by Take Two or are Take Two just the publisher, maybe on an exclusive long deal etc?

owned.

 

[dobwal]

Rockstar to go PS3 exclusive

*Rubs chin*

Interesting.......

Not the first time I've heard this. I think it was doing the rounds just before Liepzig last year, now a Rockstar employee seems to be suggesting it's actually true.

If Rockstar went Sony exclusive it would have greater implications than this rumor suggests as Rockstar represents about half of Take 2 internal studios.

 

[dobwal]

Please somebody clarify for me, is R* owned by Take Two or are Take Two just the publisher, maybe on an exclusive long deal etc?

I was under impression that RockStar Games is a wholly owned subsidiary of Take Two.

 

[zed]

in reply to my previous question, heres another quote, which i was a bit sceptical about

If you haven’t been in a coma you should know that entire games have been developed for less than $50 million dollars.

i couldnt find any definite figures but the following to me seems to say theres not a plethora of $50million titles

"[Stranglehold cost] around USD 30 million, so it's possibly the most expensive next-generation game in development to date,"
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=27297

what is the most expensive video game ever made? It’s a Sega Dreamcast game called Shenmue. Released in 1999, the project cost over $20 million and took over 7 years to complete.
http://most-expensive.net/video-game

 

[expletive]

Rockstar to go PS3 exclusive

*Rubs chin*

Interesting.......

Not the first time I've heard this. I think it was doing the rounds just before Liepzig last year, now a Rockstar employee seems to be suggesting it's actually true.

So when you follow all the links back to the beginning you get this:

Just received the February 08 issue of Play Magazine (Afro Samurai cover) and tucked away in the GTAIV preview was this line: "The game is both PS3 and 360, but Rockstar has suggested that all further game development is going to be PS3 exclusive."

I doubt Rockstar and Take Two are in a financial position to leave all that Xbox 360 money on the table but maybe they plan to make the PS3 the lead platform going forward.

This is a post by a random user on the cheapassgamer forum. Maybe we could get something with a little more substance before we go too crazy...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

We have already heard about R* making a PS3 exclusive IP. Could it be naff reporting suggesting all future R* efforts are PS3 only? Why would they want to ignore both XB360 and Wii?

 

[expletive]

Well, that could esily boil down to a semantic argument. MS 'paid' $50million, which will be 'repaid' later.

I'm not defending the article, but maybe you're taking things a little too literally.

And regardless of the accuracy of the first statement, the conclusion made is sound. i.e. With that amount of money this is a major piece of content.

What could be happening is a more lucrative split in the revenue of the DLC than is customary. For example, lets say MS usually takes 33% of the revenues from DLC. That would mean R* would have to sell 75 million in DLC to pay MS back. In this instance, MS may be only taking 10%, so in order for R* to pay the $ back, they only need to sell $55 million in DLC. So, in effect, its a discounted loan in what R* would otherwise need to sell on XBLM to net 50 million.

Did that just make sense?

 

[Teasy]

Rockstar to go PS3 exclusive

*Rubs chin*

Interesting.......

Not the first time I've heard this. I think it was doing the rounds just before Liepzig last year, now a Rockstar employee seems to be suggesting it's actually true.

Perhaps they want to finally go out of business, this would be the way to do it IMO.

 

[....]

Perhaps they want to finally go out of business, this would be the way to do it IMO.

Go out of business? The ps3 is headed for 2nd worldwide, and if the wii saturates quickly and expands the market, it is very likely to go to very high numbers.

 

[bRoNx]

Perhaps they want to finally go out of business, this would be the way to do it IMO.

Really? Maybe SONY *loaned* them $60m for the exclusive?! Who knows.

But it seems as though MS are using this exclusive deal to really drive home the viability of DLC as a means for selling games. This can't be that great for R*. I mean, if you live in a country where your internet speeds ain't that great, which version of GTA4 would you buy? The one with the promise of exclusive online content that you probably would never get? Or a PS3 version?

Which would reach a wider audience? DLC or disc based? As it stands, I'd say discs.

 

[AlphaWolf]

But it seems as though MS are using this exclusive deal to really drive home the viability of DLC as a means for selling games. This can't be that great for R*. I mean, if you live in a country where your internet speeds ain't that great, which version of GTA4 would you buy? The one with the promise of exclusive online content that you probably would never get? Or a PS3 version?

Which would reach a wider audience? DLC or disc based? As it stands, I'd say discs.

So you can buy version A that comes on a disc and has the option of extra DLC or you can buy version B that comes on a disc and has no extra DLC. Why would version B be a better option for anyone? It could be the same, but it wouldn't be better.

Internet speeds really aren't that big a factor for DLC, a cost structure (paying per GB) could be prohibitive, but if it takes you 24 hours instead of 24 minutes to download the content, your box really isn't going to care all that much.

There's no doubt that if the xpacs are DLC only it will leave some without the option of getting it, but what's to say they can't sell them on disc later?

 

[bRoNx]

So you can buy version A that comes on a disc and has the option of extra DLC or you can buy version B that comes on a disc and has no extra DLC. Why would version B be a better option for anyone? It could be the same, but it wouldn't be better.

Internet speeds really aren't that big a factor for DLC, a cost structure (paying per GB) could be prohibitive, but if it takes you 24 hours instead of 24 minutes to download the content, your box really isn't going to care all that much.

There's no doubt that if the xpacs are DLC only it will leave some without the option of getting it, but what's to say they can't sell them on disc later?

I was using that example from R*'s perspective. Teasy suggested that going PS3 only would spell their doom, but I'm merely pointing out that going 360 only with their DLC isn't exactly gonna reach the entire 360 fanbase either. Those without internet connections (if there are any!) will automatically be excluded from the possible fanbase to sell the DLC to.

Plus with the speculation that they might go with disc sales later, even the earlier article suggested that the PS3 might then get in on the act. Remember, it's "exclusive DLC" - would that mean that PS3 can't have them as downloadable, but can get them on disc?

PR is sooooo vague!

 

[mister slim]

What could be happening is a more lucrative split in the revenue of the DLC than is customary. For example, lets say MS usually takes 33% of the revenues from DLC. That would mean R* would have to sell 75 million in DLC to pay MS back. In this instance, MS may be only taking 10%, so in order for R* to pay the $ back, they only need to sell $55 million in DLC. So, in effect, its a discounted loan in what R* would otherwise need to sell on XBLM to net 50 million.

Did that just make sense?

Most likely it's a typical advance. MS pays the $50 mil upfront, so T2 can bank that cash. No matter what, T2 has that money. If the DLC sells well, they get more money after the advance is repaid. T2 has erratic management, so the guaranteed cash is worth it.

 

[PARANOiA]

Bugger it, not worth an argument :/

 

[bangalter]

I think R* has a new franschise that is PS3 exclusive, not all their future development.