Japan has betrayed me... as far as video games are concerned they are dead to me. I'll still take their cartoons and women however.
No need for either the PS3 or 360 to cut prices, sales are healthy and the consoles are turning profits, why fuck that up?
GTA 4 wasn't going to change anything console war wise being multiplatform. If any company suffered it would have to be MS in my opinion becuase of the massive money hats they gave out for DLC and advertising advantages only to see the sales of GTA4 fall pretty much into userbase differences. Their version will outsell the PS3 version but any kid with a basic grasp of elementary school math could have told you that.
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
No need for either the PS3 or 360 to cut prices, sales are healthy and the consoles are turning profits, why fuck that up?
GTA 4 wasn't going to change anything console war wise being multiplatform.
Pachter thought GTA would sell a lot of PS3s, and some sane people even thought that it might change the balance of power between the Wii and the HD consoles.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
No need for either the PS3 or 360 to cut prices, sales are healthy and the consoles are turning profits, why fuck that up?
GTA 4 wasn't going to change anything console war wise being multiplatform.
Pachter thought GTA would sell a lot of PS3s, and some sane people even thought that it might change the balance of power between the Wii and the HD consoles.
1.I'm fairly certain the the game did sell a lot of PS3's... I don't know how much you we're expecting though.
2. As for balance of power changes, i'm fairly certain nothing will change, but the game has been out for what... two weeks now? You guys are already calling it?
And last time I checked, the balance of power was still in the HD consoles side as the install base for the for the PS3/360 was larger and it sells more software. Alot more. I know combining the two is chickenshit but you brought up the "HD consoles" side as if the PS3/360 was one entity.
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
Sony not putting out a triumphant press release loudly crowing that GTA4 helped them sell more systems/copies of the game on their system in the U.S. is a pretty big hint as to how things went down. Especially since they did so in other territories where the spread was a lot closer.
Edit: And yes, preliminary numbers are floating out there in the industry, based on how quickly Pachter changed his prediction for April.
Sony not putting out a triumphant press release loudly crowing that GTA4 helped them sell more systems/copies of the game on their system in the U.S. is a pretty big hint as to how things went down. Especially since they did so in other territories where the spread was a lot closer.
*massages temples*
What do you expect? The 360 has a larger base. They have about a 6 million world wide userbase advantage. Not to mention the console has a reputation for moving massive amounts of software.
The fact that the PS3 can even maintain such a close ratio is a small victory on its own. Lest we forget that this console has no gaemz and is only bought for blu-rays olololol.
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
No need for either the PS3 or 360 to cut prices, sales are healthy and the consoles are turning profits, why fuck that up?
GTA 4 wasn't going to change anything console war wise being multiplatform.
Pachter thought GTA would sell a lot of PS3s, and some sane people even thought that it might change the balance of power between the Wii and the HD consoles.
1.I'm fairly certain the the game did sell a lot of PS3's... I don't know how much you we're expecting though.
2. As for balance of power changes, i'm fairly certain nothing will change, but the game has been out for what... two weeks now? You guys are already calling it?
And last time I checked, the balance of power was still in the HD consoles side as the install base for the for the PS3/360 was larger and it sells more software. Alot more. I know combining the two is chickenshit but you brought up the "HD consoles" side as if the PS3/360 was one entity.
Combining the two is not chickenshit. Most games released for one will be on the other.
It's not too late to make a predictin on that PS3 number.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Fella, fellas! What part of "Wait until MGS" don't you understand?!
MGS will be the PS3s Halo.
Everyone who wants that game already bought the console by the very nature of that demographic.
It is not a mass market game, despite the levels of hype it has been receiving. Your average consumer does not want a ten hour mind fuck from Kojima, they just want to shoot shit and stab people.
Sony not putting out a triumphant press release loudly crowing that GTA4 helped them sell more systems/copies of the game on their system in the U.S. is a pretty big hint as to how things went down. Especially since they did so in other territories where the spread was a lot closer.
*massages temples*
What do you expect? The 360 has a larger base. They have about a 6 million world wide userbase advantage. Not to mention the console has a reputation for moving massive amounts of software.
The fact that the PS3 can even maintain such a close ratio is a small victory on its own. Lest we forget that this console has no gaemz and is only bought for blu-rays olololol.
So.... you gripe at people for calling the results now and then you gripe at my comments because the results are self-evident? Buh?
Also, you could seriously make the case that the PS3 is being used more as a Blu-ray player considering how its attach rate keeps falling farther and farther behind the other two. Hey, you randomly brought it up. :P
Sony not putting out a triumphant press release loudly crowing that GTA4 helped them sell more systems/copies of the game on their system in the U.S. is a pretty big hint as to how things went down. Especially since they did so in other territories where the spread was a lot closer.
*massages temples*
What do you expect? The 360 has a larger base. They have about a 6 million world wide userbase advantage. Not to mention the console has a reputation for moving massive amounts of software.
The fact that the PS3 can even maintain such a close ratio is a small victory on its own. Lest we forget that this console has no gaemz and is only bought for blu-rays olololol.
So.... you gripe at people for calling the results now and then you gripe at my comments because the results are self-evident? Buh?
Also, you could seriously make the case that the PS3 is being used more as a Blu-ray player considering how its attach rate keeps falling farther and farther behind the other two. Hey, you randomly brought it up. :P
My "gripe" was in regards to the battle that people think is being waged between the Wii and the HD consoles (you know... the nonexistant one?) not in regards to the PS3 vs. 360.
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
My "gripe" was in regards to the battle that people think is being waged between the Wii and the HD consoles (you know... the nonexistant one?) not in regards to the PS3 vs. 360.
Actually, considering the fact that VERY few people own more than one system, and the fact that many new people who never played before are suddenly buying game systems (specifically, the non-HD one at the same time more "traditional" gamers are guying the HD consoles), I'd say there is a very existent battle between the Wii vs. the HD consoles as well as the battle between the PS3 and the 360. You gotta admit the environment is very shaken up from last gen.
GTA 4 wasn't going to change anything console war wise being multiplatform. If any company suffered it would have to be MS in my opinion becuase of the massive money hats they gave out for DLC and advertising advantages only to see the sales of GTA4 fall pretty much into userbase differences. Their version will outsell the PS3 version but any kid with a basic grasp of elementary school math could have told you that.
Except that the money MS payed is more of a loan or an advance. It's a $50 million advance on the profits made from online content exclusive to the 360.
My "gripe" was in regards to the battle that people think is being waged between the Wii and the HD consoles (you know... the nonexistant one?) not in regards to the PS3 vs. 360.
Actually, considering the fact that VERY few people own more than one system, and the fact that many new people who never played before are suddenly buying game systems (specifically, the non-HD one at the same time more "traditional" gamers are guying the HD consoles), I'd say there is a very existent battle between the Wii vs. the HD consoles as well as the battle between the PS3 and the 360. You gotta admit the environment is very shaken up from last gen.
People dont own more than one system, but the Wii has brought in so many people that probably wouldnt have bought a console at all. The very makeup of the Wii makes direct competition difficult such as the exclusive titles jostling we see with its HD counterparts. MS and Sony pretty much wrote off first place a long time ago, and are smarter for it. Trying to price match the Wii and still offer all of the extras they do would ruin both of them.
Except that the money MS payed is more of a loan or an advance. It's a $50 million advance on the profits made from online content exclusive to the 360.
Sure but the sales dont seem to be panning out as they planned. They expected to completely dominate the sales. Why else would they make such an expensive gamble? Can they possibly make that 50 million back now? They can if they make the DLC ridiculously expensive.
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
0
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
MS and Sony's competition with each other is the exact thing that is causing a loss of branding.
When developers and consumers consider the HD consoles to largely be interchangeable, that is a problem. Having them try to match each other on every bullet point makes the situation worse, not better.
My "gripe" was in regards to the battle that people think is being waged between the Wii and the HD consoles (you know... the nonexistant one?) not in regards to the PS3 vs. 360.
Actually, considering the fact that VERY few people own more than one system, and the fact that many new people who never played before are suddenly buying game systems (specifically, the non-HD one at the same time more "traditional" gamers are guying the HD consoles), I'd say there is a very existent battle between the Wii vs. the HD consoles as well as the battle between the PS3 and the 360. You gotta admit the environment is very shaken up from last gen.
People dont own more than one system, but the Wii has brought in so many people that probably wouldnt have bought a console at all. The very makeup of the Wii makes direct competition difficult such as the exclusive titles jostling we see with its HD counterparts. MS and Sony pretty much wrote off first place a long time ago, and are smarter for it. Trying to price match the Wii and still offer all of the extras they do would ruin both of them.
That's a good point, neither Sony or Microsoft have tried anything drastic to catch up with the Wii, and it's been evident that's where things have been headed for a while. Obviously they can't price-match the Wii, though it has been interesting at how little they've been interested in price cuts in general. I still say that both the PS3 and 360 would sell better if they dropped prices a bit -- since both consoles are profitable now, they have room to do it -- but they haven't.
Except that the money MS payed is more of a loan or an advance. It's a $50 million advance on the profits made from online content exclusive to the 360.
Sure but the sales dont seem to be panning out as they planned. They expected to completely dominate the sales. Why else would they make such an expensive gamble? Can they possibly make that 50 million back now? They can if they make the DLC ridiculously expensive.
Ehh? What makes you think they expected to completely dominate sales? Is that from a quote somewhere?
And you don't seem to understand what "loan" means. Rockstar is expected to pay MS back the $50 million, regardless of how the DLC sells. It's looking like that probably won't be a problem. It seems like a very smart move on MS's part. Loan out $50 million to score an exclusive DLC deal, and get it back at a later date. Seems smart to me?
Except that the money MS payed is more of a loan or an advance. It's a $50 million advance on the profits made from online content exclusive to the 360.
Sure but the sales dont seem to be panning out as they planned. They expected to completely dominate the sales. Why else would they make such an expensive gamble? Can they possibly make that 50 million back now? They can if they make the DLC ridiculously expensive.
Ehh? What makes you think they expected to completely dominate sales? Is that from a quote somewhere?
Their emphasis on the game in their PR, the DLC deal, the advertising advantages...
and isnt that the goal of a company in a capitalistic system anyways?
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
Except that the money MS payed is more of a loan or an advance. It's a $50 million advance on the profits made from online content exclusive to the 360.
Sure but the sales dont seem to be panning out as they planned. They expected to completely dominate the sales. Why else would they make such an expensive gamble? Can they possibly make that 50 million back now? They can if they make the DLC ridiculously expensive.
Ehh? What makes you think they expected to completely dominate sales? Is that from a quote somewhere?
Their emphasis on the game in their PR, the DLC deal, the advertising advantages...
and isnt that the goal of a company in a capitalistic system anyways?
The point remains they never said they would "dominate" sales. For all we know the internal goal may have just been to remove the thought that GTA is a "Sony" franchise and get more folks buying it on the 360. It was a big investment, but then again GTA is a big game. If the spread between the 360 and the PS3 is still just 1.8:1 as people are predicting, that's STILL a hell of a lot of money spent on the 360 side that's not going to the PS3.
Now whether they made the investment wisely, or even had to make the investment at all, is another matter.
Except that the money MS payed is more of a loan or an advance. It's a $50 million advance on the profits made from online content exclusive to the 360.
Sure but the sales dont seem to be panning out as they planned. They expected to completely dominate the sales. Why else would they make such an expensive gamble? Can they possibly make that 50 million back now? They can if they make the DLC ridiculously expensive.
Ehh? What makes you think they expected to completely dominate sales? Is that from a quote somewhere?
Their emphasis on the game in their PR, the DLC deal, the advertising advantages...
and isnt that the goal of a company in a capitalistic system anyways?
No. The goal is to make money. "Dominate sales" may be one way to do it, but you if you're selling your product for $1 a piece and it costs $50 a unit to make, sure you may dominate sales but you're definitely not making money.
The emphasis has been that GTA is no longer a timed exclusive on a Sony console. And in fact, a non-Sony console has exclusive content. That's a pretty big difference than in the past, and the result has been in great sales. These are sales that wouldn't have existed at all in the past. That's definitely notable. A complete domination of sales overall certainly would have been nice, but that seems completely pie in the sky.
Except that the money MS payed is more of a loan or an advance. It's a $50 million advance on the profits made from online content exclusive to the 360.
Sure but the sales dont seem to be panning out as they planned. They expected to completely dominate the sales. Why else would they make such an expensive gamble? Can they possibly make that 50 million back now? They can if they make the DLC ridiculously expensive.
Ehh? What makes you think they expected to completely dominate sales? Is that from a quote somewhere?
And you don't seem to understand what "loan" means. Rockstar is expected to pay MS back the $50 million, regardless of how the DLC sells. It's looking like that probably won't be a problem. It seems like a very smart move on MS's part. Loan out $50 million to score an exclusive DLC deal, and get it back at a later date. Seems smart to me?
Is it a loan? I never saw that anywhere? I thought MS just paid them the money to make the content. Both would profit (somewhat) if it sold well. Yay for everyone!
Except that the money MS payed is more of a loan or an advance. It's a $50 million advance on the profits made from online content exclusive to the 360.
Sure but the sales dont seem to be panning out as they planned. They expected to completely dominate the sales. Why else would they make such an expensive gamble? Can they possibly make that 50 million back now? They can if they make the DLC ridiculously expensive.
Ehh? What makes you think they expected to completely dominate sales? Is that from a quote somewhere?
And you don't seem to understand what "loan" means. Rockstar is expected to pay MS back the $50 million, regardless of how the DLC sells. It's looking like that probably won't be a problem. It seems like a very smart move on MS's part. Loan out $50 million to score an exclusive DLC deal, and get it back at a later date. Seems smart to me?
Is it a loan? I never saw that anywhere? I thought MS just paid them the money to make the content. Both would profit (somewhat) if it sold well. Yay for everyone!
To be honest, I thought that was the case as well, but was reading reports saying it was a loan. And other people keep repeating it. I tried searching for it a few days ago, but couldn't find the article.
Except that the money MS payed is more of a loan or an advance. It's a $50 million advance on the profits made from online content exclusive to the 360.
Sure but the sales dont seem to be panning out as they planned. They expected to completely dominate the sales. Why else would they make such an expensive gamble? Can they possibly make that 50 million back now? They can if they make the DLC ridiculously expensive.
Ehh? What makes you think they expected to completely dominate sales? Is that from a quote somewhere?
And you don't seem to understand what "loan" means. Rockstar is expected to pay MS back the $50 million, regardless of how the DLC sells. It's looking like that probably won't be a problem. It seems like a very smart move on MS's part. Loan out $50 million to score an exclusive DLC deal, and get it back at a later date. Seems smart to me?
Is it a loan? I never saw that anywhere? I thought MS just paid them the money to make the content. Both would profit (somewhat) if it sold well. Yay for everyone!
To be honest, I thought that was the case as well, but was reading reports saying it was a loan. And other people keep repeating it. I tried searching for it a few days ago, but couldn't find the article.
Its not a loan. It is an advance payment. Two separate $25 million deals for DLC.
This buys Microsoft two things. Exclusivity on the DLC and also a share of the profits from the DLC.
Why did Rockstar take the deal. GTA4 is the most expensive game ever made ($100 million plus confirmed) and well having half of that paid off before the game ships helps development and publishing a lot.
Why did Microsoft offer the deal? Huge boon to their console, exclusive GTA content. Also, a share of the GTA profits.
Also, though this part is unconfirmed, there was speculation the 50mil payment was a goodwill gesture when Take Two was on the rocks. It has, despite GTA, been in financial mess for many years. A microsoft purchase was on the table at one point.
Now it looks like EA will grab them inevitably (probably in a month or so) so Microsoft has lost a little there.
Except that the money MS payed is more of a loan or an advance. It's a $50 million advance on the profits made from online content exclusive to the 360.
Sure but the sales dont seem to be panning out as they planned. They expected to completely dominate the sales. Why else would they make such an expensive gamble? Can they possibly make that 50 million back now? They can if they make the DLC ridiculously expensive.
Ehh? What makes you think they expected to completely dominate sales? Is that from a quote somewhere?
Their emphasis on the game in their PR, the DLC deal, the advertising advantages...
and isnt that the goal of a company in a capitalistic system anyways?
No. The goal is to make money. "Dominate sales" may be one way to do it, but you if you're selling your product for $1 a piece and it costs $50 a unit to make, sure you may dominate sales but you're definitely not making money.
The emphasis has been that GTA is no longer a timed exclusive on a Sony console. And in fact, a non-Sony console has exclusive content. That's a pretty big difference than in the past, and the result has been in great sales. These are sales that wouldn't have existed at all in the past. That's definitely notable. A complete domination of sales overall certainly would have been nice, but that seems completely pie in the sky.
Seriously, last gen, Grand Theft Auto was so totally tied in with the PS2 in the eyes of consumers the success of both kinda went hand in hand.
This time around, all that is different. Microsoft are ahead of Sony with GTA4, which, despite having a lower install base than last gen, is still one of the biggest gaming launches of all time (and the most successful, here in the UK). This switcharoo is a pretty big deal, which is why all those Microsoft and Sony PR folk keep putting their spin on everything.
Highlights for the Year (comparisons are to the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007)
�� In fiscal 2008, EA was the number one publisher across all platforms in North
America with 19 percent share and in Europe with 20 percent share.
�� On the Wii™, EA was the number one third-party publisher in Europe in fiscal
2008 with 15 percent share -- up eight points from a year ago; in North America, EA
had 11 percent share -- up one point from a year ago.
�� EA Partners posted its strongest year ever driven by Rock Band and Half Life® 2:
Orange Box.
�� EA had 15 double platinum (sold over 2 million copies) titles in the year – up from
ten a year ago.
�� The Sims™ franchise sold over 100 million copies life to date.
�� EA strengthened its wholly-owned portfolio – by launching six new games –
MySims™, ARMY OF TWO, SKATE, Boogie™, EA Playground™ and Smarty Pants™.
�� Burnout Paradise, ARMY OF TWO and the recently launched Boom Blox™ debuted
with strong quality ratings from critics.
�� Pogo™ has surpassed the $100 million mark in revenue – growing 41 percent yearover-
year.
�� EA signed an agreement with Hasbro for the exclusive rights to create digital games
based upon intellectual properties including MONOPOLY, SCRABBLE, YAHTZEE,
NERF, TONKA and LITTLEST PET SHOP.
�� EA acquired BioWare Corp.™ and Pandemic™ Studios in January 2008, adding
strong development talent and ten new franchises.
�� EA’s December 2007 employee satisfaction survey showed significant
improvement over the last in 2004. Results included a double-digit gain in
employee engagement.
Anyone else find it surprising EA made more money on the ps3 than the xbox in Q4 2008? What happened in Q4? (Xbox software sales destroyed ps3 sales in the two quarters preceding that)
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
What games were released for both systems in Quarter 4?
They lost millions of dollars.
I'm wondering if a big multi plat launch went out on time on the 360 but got delayed on the ps3 and pushed it into q4. Hmm like maybe Orange Box, that was published by EA right? And they only lost millions of dollars because they bought bioware and stuff. Its not really a loss and more of an investment.
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
I was talking about revenue only, which is increased a lot.
Also, their losses are what I would call 'acceptable'. To do with their restructuring, financing and accounting etc. I dont fully understand it but I am told reliably this is all good news for EA.
Regardless, Im not too sure now I am happy seeing BioWare and Pandemic being reduced to a bullet point in a financial report. Seems that the merger (buyout whatever) should be more significant. I mean 800 million dollars. Thats like their entire losses right there? What about the supposed 1 billion loan to buy T2.
They lost $450 million, which is just about half what they paid for Bioware/Pandemic. They didn't really lose money but simply made large long term investments.
Rakai on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
The PS2 brought in the most revenue for EA in home consoles, the PS3 for current gen consoles and the PSP brought in the most revenue for handhelds....
lolsony
MistaCreepy on
PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
Posts
No need for either the PS3 or 360 to cut prices, sales are healthy and the consoles are turning profits, why fuck that up?
GTA 4 wasn't going to change anything console war wise being multiplatform. If any company suffered it would have to be MS in my opinion becuase of the massive money hats they gave out for DLC and advertising advantages only to see the sales of GTA4 fall pretty much into userbase differences. Their version will outsell the PS3 version but any kid with a basic grasp of elementary school math could have told you that.
Pachter thought GTA would sell a lot of PS3s, and some sane people even thought that it might change the balance of power between the Wii and the HD consoles.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
1.I'm fairly certain the the game did sell a lot of PS3's... I don't know how much you we're expecting though.
2. As for balance of power changes, i'm fairly certain nothing will change, but the game has been out for what... two weeks now? You guys are already calling it?
And last time I checked, the balance of power was still in the HD consoles side as the install base for the for the PS3/360 was larger and it sells more software. Alot more. I know combining the two is chickenshit but you brought up the "HD consoles" side as if the PS3/360 was one entity.
Edit: And yes, preliminary numbers are floating out there in the industry, based on how quickly Pachter changed his prediction for April.
*massages temples*
What do you expect? The 360 has a larger base. They have about a 6 million world wide userbase advantage. Not to mention the console has a reputation for moving massive amounts of software.
The fact that the PS3 can even maintain such a close ratio is a small victory on its own. Lest we forget that this console has no gaemz and is only bought for blu-rays olololol.
Metal Gear?
Combining the two is not chickenshit. Most games released for one will be on the other.
It's not too late to make a predictin on that PS3 number.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
MGS will be the PS3s Halo.
Everyone who wants that game already bought the console by the very nature of that demographic.
It is not a mass market game, despite the levels of hype it has been receiving. Your average consumer does not want a ten hour mind fuck from Kojima, they just want to shoot shit and stab people.
Man what are you talking about?
So.... you gripe at people for calling the results now and then you gripe at my comments because the results are self-evident? Buh?
Also, you could seriously make the case that the PS3 is being used more as a Blu-ray player considering how its attach rate keeps falling farther and farther behind the other two. Hey, you randomly brought it up. :P
Fixed.
My "gripe" was in regards to the battle that people think is being waged between the Wii and the HD consoles (you know... the nonexistant one?) not in regards to the PS3 vs. 360.
Actually, considering the fact that VERY few people own more than one system, and the fact that many new people who never played before are suddenly buying game systems (specifically, the non-HD one at the same time more "traditional" gamers are guying the HD consoles), I'd say there is a very existent battle between the Wii vs. the HD consoles as well as the battle between the PS3 and the 360. You gotta admit the environment is very shaken up from last gen.
Except that the money MS payed is more of a loan or an advance. It's a $50 million advance on the profits made from online content exclusive to the 360.
People dont own more than one system, but the Wii has brought in so many people that probably wouldnt have bought a console at all. The very makeup of the Wii makes direct competition difficult such as the exclusive titles jostling we see with its HD counterparts. MS and Sony pretty much wrote off first place a long time ago, and are smarter for it. Trying to price match the Wii and still offer all of the extras they do would ruin both of them.
Sure but the sales dont seem to be panning out as they planned. They expected to completely dominate the sales. Why else would they make such an expensive gamble? Can they possibly make that 50 million back now? They can if they make the DLC ridiculously expensive.
When developers and consumers consider the HD consoles to largely be interchangeable, that is a problem. Having them try to match each other on every bullet point makes the situation worse, not better.
That's a good point, neither Sony or Microsoft have tried anything drastic to catch up with the Wii, and it's been evident that's where things have been headed for a while. Obviously they can't price-match the Wii, though it has been interesting at how little they've been interested in price cuts in general. I still say that both the PS3 and 360 would sell better if they dropped prices a bit -- since both consoles are profitable now, they have room to do it -- but they haven't.
Ehh? What makes you think they expected to completely dominate sales? Is that from a quote somewhere?
And you don't seem to understand what "loan" means. Rockstar is expected to pay MS back the $50 million, regardless of how the DLC sells. It's looking like that probably won't be a problem. It seems like a very smart move on MS's part. Loan out $50 million to score an exclusive DLC deal, and get it back at a later date. Seems smart to me?
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Their emphasis on the game in their PR, the DLC deal, the advertising advantages...
and isnt that the goal of a company in a capitalistic system anyways?
The point remains they never said they would "dominate" sales. For all we know the internal goal may have just been to remove the thought that GTA is a "Sony" franchise and get more folks buying it on the 360. It was a big investment, but then again GTA is a big game. If the spread between the 360 and the PS3 is still just 1.8:1 as people are predicting, that's STILL a hell of a lot of money spent on the 360 side that's not going to the PS3.
Now whether they made the investment wisely, or even had to make the investment at all, is another matter.
No. The goal is to make money. "Dominate sales" may be one way to do it, but you if you're selling your product for $1 a piece and it costs $50 a unit to make, sure you may dominate sales but you're definitely not making money.
The emphasis has been that GTA is no longer a timed exclusive on a Sony console. And in fact, a non-Sony console has exclusive content. That's a pretty big difference than in the past, and the result has been in great sales. These are sales that wouldn't have existed at all in the past. That's definitely notable. A complete domination of sales overall certainly would have been nice, but that seems completely pie in the sky.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
To be honest, I thought that was the case as well, but was reading reports saying it was a loan. And other people keep repeating it. I tried searching for it a few days ago, but couldn't find the article.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
It should be in the thread somewhere.
This buys Microsoft two things. Exclusivity on the DLC and also a share of the profits from the DLC.
Why did Rockstar take the deal. GTA4 is the most expensive game ever made ($100 million plus confirmed) and well having half of that paid off before the game ships helps development and publishing a lot.
Why did Microsoft offer the deal? Huge boon to their console, exclusive GTA content. Also, a share of the GTA profits.
Also, though this part is unconfirmed, there was speculation the 50mil payment was a goodwill gesture when Take Two was on the rocks. It has, despite GTA, been in financial mess for many years. A microsoft purchase was on the table at one point.
Now it looks like EA will grab them inevitably (probably in a month or so) so Microsoft has lost a little there.
Only if they were still planning on buying them. They'll still get all of the perks contractually promised to them.
Seriously, last gen, Grand Theft Auto was so totally tied in with the PS2 in the eyes of consumers the success of both kinda went hand in hand.
This time around, all that is different. Microsoft are ahead of Sony with GTA4, which, despite having a lower install base than last gen, is still one of the biggest gaming launches of all time (and the most successful, here in the UK). This switcharoo is a pretty big deal, which is why all those Microsoft and Sony PR folk keep putting their spin on everything.
It's not inevitable, but the DLC deal was made before EA announced to the world they were seeking TT. So there's that.
Hell, the DLC deal may have been the main reason TT was able to keep afloat until GTA4 came out.
See thread title. :P
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
They lost millions of dollars.
I'm wondering if a big multi plat launch went out on time on the 360 but got delayed on the ps3 and pushed it into q4. Hmm like maybe Orange Box, that was published by EA right? And they only lost millions of dollars because they bought bioware and stuff. Its not really a loss and more of an investment.
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
I was talking about revenue only, which is increased a lot.
Also, their losses are what I would call 'acceptable'. To do with their restructuring, financing and accounting etc. I dont fully understand it but I am told reliably this is all good news for EA.
Regardless, Im not too sure now I am happy seeing BioWare and Pandemic being reduced to a bullet point in a financial report. Seems that the merger (buyout whatever) should be more significant. I mean 800 million dollars. Thats like their entire losses right there? What about the supposed 1 billion loan to buy T2.
lolsony