Jump to content

New Article


leftnutmystery

Recommended Posts

Sorry, but all of these articles are crap that read like they were written by a first grader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

baguvix_wanrltw

More analysts coming out of the woodwork?

 

Well, I can at least sympathize with their opinion; R* should really step it up... or it'll be a subdivision of one of the big 3 sooner than any of us (or them) would like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnny Playert

Wooow that's pretty bold man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

baguvix_wanrltw

Hm, how come it's so silent in here? I mean, this is, sort of, more or less, basically, "real" news.

 

Do you all agree with the analysts or are you just holding your ears shut and going "no no no no no"? tounge.gif

 

I think R*'s future is pretty worthy of discussion. So who has the numbers to prove/disprove this? I for once don't feel like doing the legwork myself right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The artical is not so much about R* and TTWO but saving the industry itself with the few blockbuster games that are going to be released. They are right about GTA V not being able to get the poor sales numbers up when it comes to an entire industry.

 

TTWO will get a good bump in stock price though. It is under valued right now. GTA V will get it back to normal, it's correct price, but that still doesn't completely save TTWO in the long run if another GTA is 5-6 years away. Whether or not R* wants to - they are going to need to step up and release GTA's a little quicker.

Edited by DarrinPA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

baguvix_wanrltw

The article is indeed about the future of the games industry in general TOO, but if I may quote the part about everyone's favorite analyst:

 

 

Wedbush Securities man Michael Pachter believes the game could generate as much as $700 million, but even that would be 'less than 10 percent of the expected overall software sales this year', and not enough to boost sales back up to par.

 

That's the part I was referring to when talking about "the numbers".

 

I agree on the "more GTAs quicker" part though; that seems inevitable to me the way things seem to be heading. I hope they don't do yearly installments but I could live with a new one every 2-3 years.

Edited by baguvix_wanrltw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

baguvix_wanrltw - I see now. That part is sort of true. The sales expected for GTA V will put TTWO's stock price at about $16-$18. The current price is $9.40 which is terrible, but going up to $18 will double the worth. But that still falls short of where the stock should be. It's under valued in most people's eyes BUT the value really is dependent on one thing - more GTA's being released more often.

 

People and analysts see potential in this stock but can't quite figure out why this company [TTWO] won't do the one thing needed to raise more money. TTWO is being very kind to R* and letting them be the artists that they are not worry about the value, but that may change if TTWO is in risk financially, or a takeover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

baguvix_wanrltw

Exactly.

 

I don't want to see R*/T2 take the same path so many others of my (ex-)favorite devs and publishers took. Pump out a sequel every 2-3 years, maintain quality as much as possible but keep room to breathe financially. Otherwise... dark times ahead, imho.

 

I'm aware Pachter is usually wrong - and I haven't looked into the numbers he claimed - but I think he might not be too far off with the point he's trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why people hate Pachter is because he makes guess that aren't based on numbers when he has no clue. He doesn't know anything until financial reports are released, which doesn't matter much because this board now has a few people here quite familiar with reading and understanding financial jibberish.

 

 

Here is a chart that shows what's happening now that R*'s other games failed to sell as much as they should have, putting all the pressure on GTA to pick up the slack. GTA V can dig them out of the hole but can't get them into a more comfortable spot beyond that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that, in order for TTWO to stay viable, they will need to lean on R* a little harder and push them for quicker GTA releases. However, I'm afraid the "uniqueness" between each title would greatly diminish. I don't want it to feel like I'm playing the same game, just rehashed, like C.O.D. I still buy and play the C.O.D. franchise, but each game feels like the one before it, if that makes sense. Not sure about everyone else, but I do not get the same feeling when I play each GTA. It seems different with every release. I'm afraid if they push them to release a GTA every 2-3 years, that may go away from the series. The only way they could combat this, IMO, is to hire on a few more R* studios and have simultaneous development on multiple GTA's. I guess that's possible provided they could absorb the up front costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think R* is capable of it. Maybe you guys are a little younger but GTA III, Vice City, and San Andreas all came out within a relatively short amount of time. GTA III - October 22 2001, Vice City - October 27 2002, San Andreas - October 26 2004.

 

 

That's only THREE YEARS and four days. And they were all QUALITY games. Now don't say those games aren't advanced, they were pushing the limits of technology and it the counsoles and the time of their releases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am old enough to remember. However, you can't argue that it's just as easy to develop a game today as it was then? I think it has to be more difficult to develop games today, but this is coming from someone who doesn't develop games icon14.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerry was right about you, Michael Pachter. Your parents must have been twins to produce a kid as dumb as you. I'm surprised you ain't got three eyes, no balls, and a club foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

baguvix_wanrltw

 

Maybe you guys are a little younger but GTA III, Vice City, and San Andreas all came out within a relatively short amount of time.

Trust me, I remember wink.gif Still have the originals I bought back then, like most people on GTAF should.

 

I personally wouldn't mind a new GTA every year or two, IF it was still as big a "leap" as III/VC/SA were.

 

But today games with yearly release cycles (like COD and AC) usually seem to be 90% identical to their respective versions from a year before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am old enough to remember. However, you can't argue that it's just as easy to develop a game today as it was then? I think it has to be more difficult to develop games today, but this is coming from someone who doesn't develop games  icon14.gif

I agree - I think new games are taking much longer and need much more manpower, due to the massive amount of virtual world design, game functional design (physics and all kinds of interactions, rules and constraints in a sandbox game) scripting, storyline, and testing.

 

Ha, when I first clicked on the story link, I saw the repeated sound byte, "Given the current momentum of the market," and I thought of a tanker truck barreling out of control down Mt Chilead colgate.gif that kind of momentum .... that's the way it's looking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assassin's Creed is another. I do play them all, but it feels like the same game. Would GTA interest you guys if they figured out a way to connect the cities from each successive game? Let's say they come out with GTA VI, then 2 years later they release GTA VII. I think it would be great of they could link the cities (or maps) from each game. Maybe even have some of the new missions take place on the previous map. Then the multiplayer can take place on both maps. Again, I am not a game developer and have no idea how much of an undertaking that would be. They could then support the game for the life of the consoles (so to speak) and end up with a GTA World. Granted, it would probably be better to start with the next generation consoles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yearly would be a little too much, a 24-36 month release schedule would be better imo. But it all comes down whether or not TTWO is going to trust R* and give them more leeway to create and release more game like MNC, RDR, LAN, and MP again in hope of profits while putting GTA 6 on the back burner. My guess is that TTWO will limit the extra games [like listed before] to maybe two in between the next GTA release.

 

Desiel311- Yeah, neither one of us can argue that fact without knowledge of developing a game in this gen and last gen. [edit] that's a reply to your previous reply a few posts back.

Edited by DarrinPA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Looking at it from the outside, and thinking about S.A. to GTA IV, it would appear that there is much more going on in IV and I would think it would take longer to build something like that. On the other hand, I guess if your development team increases parallel to technology (probably not possible and very difficult to gauge the advancement of tech), development time could remain the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's acceptable to have a break of quite a few years for GTA II to III, and also GTA SA to IV. I think the fans, investors, analysts are stumped when it comes down to the fact that it's a same gen game but with enough time for a new gen update. I've been tempted to buy TTWO stock but I just can't pull the trigger until there is more info. Despite them releasing a financial report that looks positive their stock is on a steady decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the very least, you would think thet if you jumped in now, you could expect to double your money, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, if R* doesn't miss the release date*. If they do miss it like they did with Max Payne 3, their stocks will sink even lower. Which means if I buy in at 9.5 and it drops, I've just lost money and I can't make as much money once the game is released because I've lost the abilility to buy in lower. If I don't buy yet and the stock drops, I can buy in at a lower rate. GTA V can only bump up TTWO stock so much, I need a good start, not a half lose /half win situation.

 

*The release date I'm referring to is the last possible day of selling GTA within this financial quarter that they forecasted a gain.

 

R* isn't great at meeting deadlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and by the way, this analyst isn't really making sense. Does he really think that Take-Two is concerned about the market as a whole? As long as they sell enough games to make a profit, they couldn't give two sh*t's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, if R* doesn't miss the release date*. If they do miss it like they did with Max Payne 3, their stocks will sink even lower. Which means if I buy in at 9.5 and it drops, I've just lost money and I can't make as much money once the game is released because I've lost the abilility to buy in lower. If I don't buy yet and the stock drops, I can buy in at a lower rate. GTA V can only bump up TTWO stock so much, I need a good start, not a half lose /half win situation.

 

*The release date I'm referring to is the last possible day of selling GTA within this financial quarter that they forecasted a gain.

 

R* isn't great at meeting deadlines.

Point taken. You can guess by my previous reply that I do not dabble in the stock market. icon14.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shreddy Krueger

Not going to read every post, but in short: The article is talking about the gaming industry as a whole, not just a lack of R* sales.

 

TTWO should be coming out with a financial update in the next few months (at the latest). If no GTAV info has been released prior, then a better picture will emerge whether or not GTAV is coming out in Fiscal 2013 for TTWO once the updated financials come through.

 

Right now, the industry (consoles being hit the hardest) sucks for 2 main reasons:

 

1) The economy in general, and worldwide, still sucks

 

2) we're at the end of a generation of current consoles. Less and less new IPs are being generated. We're seeing the final wave of good, decent, profitable games come through on the xbox 360, PS3 and Wii. It's definitely a temporary thing, in the next 1.5 - 2 years there will be articles about how the gaming industry is flourishing and has never been better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.