motorider420 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Smallo,Thursday, Nov 22 2012, 13:32] That's not proof that's just you saying something.... Saying the obvious, microsoft had to pay 75m just for gta iv to turn into a multiplatform game, it's obviously that or rockstar just prefers the ps3 more, that's why they ended the deal remember the deal was ended somehow. you mean that Microsoft payed 75mil NOT to have GTAIV go multiplatform. Remember, the content came out for Xbox first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlaystationGamer266 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Smallo,Thursday, Nov 22 2012, 13:32] That's not proof that's just you saying something.... Saying the obvious, microsoft had to pay 75m just for gta iv to turn into a multiplatform game, it's obviously that or rockstar just prefers the ps3 more, that's why they ended the deal remember the deal was ended somehow. you mean that Microsoft payed 75mil NOT to have GTAIV go multiplatform. Remember, the content came out for Xbox first. they payed an extra 50m for exclusive dlc, they payed 75m for the game to be multiplatform, talk about buying someones love And like i said, the dlc had to end somehow, plus rockstar has always been pro sony, so they realised gta needed to be on the ps3, but it still doesn't change the fact that the dlc flopped on xbox live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTADrinkandRock Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I recently got the episodes for IV, and was really disappointed at how the timeline is all screwed up. If the original game had the different parts of the city on lockdown from each other, why open up the entire world for a second or third protagonist when it is supposed to be the same exact timeline. I really hope they are smart about this type of thing with V. I can understand some things being one char's forte, while other things being something another character is capable of doing/enjoying/etc but don't make it seem like they live in alternate universes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallo92 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 They payed an extra 50m for exclusive dlc, they payed 75m for the game to be multiplatform, talk about buying someones love And like i said, the dlc had to end somehow, plus rockstar has always been pro sony, so they realised gta needed to be on the ps3, but it still doesn't change the fact that the dlc flopped on xbox live Fanboys really have no idea what they are talking about..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic_Al Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 (edited) The exclusivity was probably timed from the get-go. Remember the GTA3-era games were "exclusively" for the PS2 initially. Until they weren't. What Microsoft really got for its money was not that the DLC was exclusively available for 6 months (14 months for TLAD) but that Microsoft had bragging rights to its exclusive status for almost FOUR YEARS, from the announcement in May 2006 till January 2010 when EFLC was announced for other platforms. The PS3 wasn't even out for most of 2006. Microsoft wants you to buy a 360. Microsoft got a lot of money's worth whether the DLC sold that well or not. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Take-Two Interactive returned the $50 million. Take-Two is a public company. The fact that we know there was $50 million is because Take-Two was required to disclose revenue. If Take-Two had terminated the agreement and returned the money, there would have be some publicly available financial disclosure related to it. If you can't find evidence something happened, you shouldn't say anything happened. Edited November 22, 2012 by Magic_Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlaystationGamer266 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 The exclusivity was probably timed from the get-go. Remember the GTA-era games were "exclusively" for the PS2 initially. Until they weren't. What Microsoft really got for its money was not that the DLC was exclusively available for 6 months (14 months for TLAD) but that Microsoft had bragging rights to its exclusive status for almost FOUR YEARS, from the announcement in May 2006 till January 2010 when EFLC was announced for other platforms. The PS3 wasn't even out for most of 2006. Microsoft wants you to buy a 360. Microsoft got a lot of money's worth whether the DLC sold that well or not. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Take-Two Interactive returned the $50 million. Take-Two is a public company. The fact that we know there was $50 million is because Take-Two was required to disclose revenue. If Take-Two had terminated the agreement and returned the money, there would have be some publicly available financial disclosure related to it. If you can't find evidence something happened, you shouldn't say anything happened. Ok you proved your point, but it shows how low microsoft are really to go, stealing a franchise from another system instead of making your own. Sony was even more annoyed when this whole thing happened, that's why agent is a ps3 exclusive because sony demanded something in return Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Pink Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share Posted November 22, 2012 It's business man. Rockstar don't owe anything to Sony. They are a 3rd party studio. They go where it's more viable to release their content. Microsoft is paying, they are going there. Sony are paying, they are going there. Remember when the PS2 came out there wasn't an Xbox to compete with. The only competition is was PC. By your logic you can say Sony stole it from the PC platform which is dominated by Microsoft...so... MOVING LIKE BERNIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic_Al Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Ok you proved your point, but it shows how low microsoft are really to go, stealing a franchise from another system instead of making your own. Sony was even more annoyed when this whole thing happened, that's why agent is a ps3 exclusive because sony demanded something in return I agree. The fine print in the May 2006 GTA IV announcement, "This title is not yet concept approved by Sony Computer Entertainment of America," suggests Sony was blindsided by GTA IV. The timing and tone of the agreement to make Agent suggests Sony was highly motivated to get Rockstar back in their corner. The timing and tone of Sony exec Jack Tretton's non-confirmation of Agent's exclusivity in 2011 suggests Sony no longer sees Agent as strategic in the console war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlaystationGamer266 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 It's business man. Rockstar don't owe anything to Sony. They are a 3rd party studio. They go where it's more viable to release their content. Microsoft is paying, they are going there. Sony are paying, they are going there. Remember when the PS2 came out there wasn't an Xbox to compete with. The only competition is was PC. By your logic you can say Sony stole it from the PC platform which is dominated by Microsoft...so... Sony made gta big, that's the truth, plus sony at the time stole a small franchise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmfloorpie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Well, I'll give this to Houser, from reading that article, it seems he's really not out to suck GTA fans dry by releasing DLC after DLC like other companies do. And I totally forgot about how Microsoft had an exclusivity deal on the DLCs for IV. That REALLY pissed off a lot of PS3 fans I remember since GTA used to be a PS3 exclusive itself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allrakalla Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 dlc like they had us given for red daed redempion and lol at the idiot who says the dlc for gta 4 done badyl lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonp92 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 We can expect overpriced Multiplayer DLC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Pink Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share Posted November 22, 2012 (edited) It's business man. Rockstar don't owe anything to Sony. They are a 3rd party studio. They go where it's more viable to release their content. Microsoft is paying, they are going there. Sony are paying, they are going there. Remember when the PS2 came out there wasn't an Xbox to compete with. The only competition is was PC. By your logic you can say Sony stole it from the PC platform which is dominated by Microsoft...so... Sony made gta big, that's the truth, plus sony at the time stole a small franchise Sorry, I belive Rockstar made GTA big as did the fans that bought it. Sony didn't persuade me or have any creative input for GTA. Sony provided a platform for GTA to be played on, a great platform mind you but GTA sold itself. And it's not stealing. It's up to the product designers to facilitate for devs. If one product is better for a game, then the devs can go there. It's business. Back on topic.. I hope we see more missions added. If there's an extra character slot, maybe some missions that can suit a custom character slot, would be great. Edited November 22, 2012 by ThePinkFloydSound MOVING LIKE BERNIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlaystationGamer266 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 It's business man. Rockstar don't owe anything to Sony. They are a 3rd party studio. They go where it's more viable to release their content. Microsoft is paying, they are going there. Sony are paying, they are going there. Remember when the PS2 came out there wasn't an Xbox to compete with. The only competition is was PC. By your logic you can say Sony stole it from the PC platform which is dominated by Microsoft...so... Sony made gta big, that's the truth, plus sony at the time stole a small franchise Sorry, I belive Rockstar made GTA big as did the fans that bought it. Sony didn't persuade me or have any creative input for GTA. Sony provided a platform for GTA to be played on, a great platform mind you but GTA sold itself. Back on topic.. I hope we see more missions added. If there's an extra character slot, maybe some missions that can suit a custom character slot, would be great. Putting the game on the best selling platform, then spending millions on advertising I'm pretty sure sony did make gta big, it's pretty much a given Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonp92 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I recently got the episodes for IV, and was really disappointed at how the timeline is all screwed up. If the original game had the different parts of the city on lockdown from each other, why open up the entire world for a second or third protagonist when it is supposed to be the same exact timeline. I think you may have misunderstood something; the reason why Niko couldn't cross to the other islands, was because he was an illegal immigrant, where as Johnny and Luis were American citizens. But that there was no indication of the closing of bridges in TLAD and TBoGT is abit weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeafMetal Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think the reason the episodes performed so badly was the time exclusivity. By the time they released on other platforms, IV was old news. But anyway, I hope we see at least one big DLC (like Undead Nightmare). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonp92 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think the reason the episodes performed so badly was the time exclusivity. By the time they released on other platforms, IV was old news. But anyway, I hope we see at least one big DLC (like Undead Nightmare). Agreed. Most PC and PS3 players had moved on when ELFC finally released in late april 2010. A whopping 2 years after GTA IV released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poiuytrew Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 but the bridges were fully closed due to terrorist threats, not just for immigrants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P33-es-P33 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Well, I'll give this to Houser, from reading that article, it seems he's really not out to suck GTA fans dry by releasing DLC after DLC like other companies do. And I totally forgot about how Microsoft had an exclusivity deal on the DLCs for IV. That REALLY pissed off a lot of PS3 fans I remember since GTA used to be a PS3 exclusive itself! And you believe anything Michael Pachter says? There is no proof whatsoever about GTA IV initially being a PS3-exclusive. Pachter (an analyst) is the only guy that once assumed Microsoft paid $75 million to end the so called PS3-exclusivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Darko Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 (edited) but the bridges were fully closed due to terrorist threats, not just for immigrants Roman mentioned having to have a Visa or something like that, which was a way of proving that you are not an illegal immigrant and thus can cross the bridge. It's a commentary on post-9/11 xenophobia. Since Niko didn't have anything like that, he couldn't "cross the bridges so good". Of course, it would have made more sense for the other protags to have to do a kind of 'border' check at the bridges, but it might have messed with the flow and the open world freedom too much. Edited November 22, 2012 by Mr. Darko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poiuytrew Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 "rusty, oil dripping, american junk" must have been as good a visa as any Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbatron Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 No episodic DLC doesn't necessarily mean no exta story mission that can be bought in the traditional disc form. Perhaps I'm clutching a straws, but for me it doesn't make commercial sense not to. A lot of the investment is in producing the city itself. The only expensive thing as I can see for an extra story is the voice acting - coding new missions I think would be relatively easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMAHAWKS Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I honestly have no f*cking clue what type of DLC we will get this time. I initially thought that we would get the same type of DLC we got with RDR (map packs, new multiplayer characters and game modes, etc.) Hopefully that's what R* is working towards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTADrinkandRock Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think you may have misunderstood something; the reason why Niko couldn't cross to the other islands, was because he was an illegal immigrant, where as Johnny and Luis were American citizens. But that there was no indication of the closing of bridges in TLAD and TBoGT is abit weird. The way I saw it, access was off for EVERYONE. If they (R*) really wanted to make it more like only the protagonist has a problem, then they could have made the closure less complete. I mean, why not show normal traffic going to and from each island, or have like some checkpoint type thing that Niko would have an extremely hard time getting past alive rather than a barricade that doesn't allow ANY traffic to pass. In IV, you get the news broadcasts/online postings talking about the bridge closures and how they're affecting the citizens of the game. So basically when Rockstar came out with TLAD and TBOGT, they put Johnny and Luis in a world where the Bridge Closures didn't happen at all. Because if you pay attention to the TLAD opening, you'll notice Niko walking along in what I seem to recall was the Hove Beach area. By the time the first bridges are open, you're (Niko) already staying away from Hove Beach because of certain denizens who want you to not be alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonp92 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think you may have misunderstood something; the reason why Niko couldn't cross to the other islands, was because he was an illegal immigrant, where as Johnny and Luis were American citizens. But that there was no indication of the closing of bridges in TLAD and TBoGT is abit weird. The way I saw it, access was off for EVERYONE. If they (R*) really wanted to make it more like only the protagonist has a problem, then they could have made the closure less complete. I mean, why not show normal traffic going to and from each island, or have like some checkpoint type thing that Niko would have an extremely hard time getting past alive rather than a barricade that doesn't allow ANY traffic to pass. In IV, you get the news broadcasts/online postings talking about the bridge closures and how they're affecting the citizens of the game. So basically when Rockstar came out with TLAD and TBOGT, they put Johnny and Luis in a world where the Bridge Closures didn't happen at all. Because if you pay attention to the TLAD opening, you'll notice Niko walking along in what I seem to recall was the Hove Beach area. By the time the first bridges are open, you're (Niko) already staying away from Hove Beach because of certain denizens who want you to not be alive. Obviously there's some continuity errors. There's some newscasts which says that people can't get to their workplaces because of the bridges, however it is also stated by Roman that Niko can't cross to Algonquin because he doesn't have a Visa. However Niko walking in the TLAD intro is more of an easter egg. Just like how we see Niko and Johnny in Luis' intro. R* already made errors with how characters got over the bridges in GTA IV. For instance, how did Playboy X get from northwood to Bohan to meet Niko at Elizabetha's for "Blow your Cover" ? But we're getting way off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 7 five 11 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Smallo,Thursday, Nov 22 2012, 13:17] Because the 50m was meant to keep the game exclusive for ever, but rockstar couldn't agree to that, because it flopped so they had to give it back Can you please provide proof of your wild theories? Yeahh, it's called watch microsofts e3 2006 presentation, the dlc was never stated as timed meaning rockstar ended the deal Of course they won't say it is timed, otherwise people won't buy an Xbox to play it, they will just wait the 6 months of exclusivity, the idea was to have a timed exclusive under the impression that it was permanent. You're talking out of your ass with nothing to back yourself up, in my opinion your talking sh*t. Plus you still haven't answered my question as to why they would hand back 50 million just to sell a few more copies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenEightyOne Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Smallo,Thursday, Nov 22 2012, 13:17] Because the 50m was meant to keep the game exclusive for ever, but rockstar couldn't agree to that, because it flopped so they had to give it back Can you please provide proof of your wild theories? Yeahh, it's called watch microsofts e3 2006 presentation, the dlc was never stated as timed meaning rockstar ended the deal Of course they won't say it is timed, otherwise people won't buy an Xbox to play it, they will just wait the 6 months of exclusivity, the idea was to have a timed exclusive under the impression that it was permanent. You're talking out of your ass with nothing to back yourself up, in my opinion your talking sh*t. Plus you still haven't answered my question as to why they would hand back 50 million just to sell a few more copies. I might have tried to put it more politely, but I think that overall you're right. The DLC was never permanently exclusive, R* just maximised sales at every opportunity by not quite stating the full case. That's their job, of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceRay Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Well, there goes the last of the awesome DLCs in the gaming world, just money grabbing bonuses. TLAD is genuinely my favourite GTA so something like that would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonjack Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 (edited) --- Edited November 23, 2012 by Dragonjack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LewisVee Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 This is bad! So we'll have just GTA V for more 5 years?? No, surely we will get Agent and Red Dead 3 in that time at least. Don't forget bully 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now