|Mr Puggsly said:
Bottom line, we don't know enough about SE and MS's deal. You just wanna assume SE is getting the bad end of the deal. Personally, I dont believe SE would get involved with MS unless they took all the risks. Thats how MS gets exclusives, taking the risks.
Tomb Raider isnt in the same league as GTA, but MS didnt buy exclusivity of a complete GTA game. They bought DLC exclusivity.
I just want to assume? Let's take a look at our initial posts, and see who's making the unsubstantiated assumptions here.
|You: I dont know why people are so worked up about this. The series isnt in danger. MS likely covered the risks financially of going exclusive. Why else would it go exclusive?|
You proclaim that the series isn't in danger, before it even reached the neccesary sales for it to become successful. And then say it's 'likely' that MS took the full risk. Yeah, that's how business usually works. One company takes all the risks, when both have responsibilities for the outcome of the sales. Sure.
Now here's my comment.
|Me: Because they got paid based on a number of factors, and one thing they factored in were expected sales. (Plus some more to make it worthwhile.) These sales however are likely much lower than they imagined. And there's no guarantee that it's going to sell well on PS4 and PC 6-12 months later either.|
Unlike you, I didn't make any claims about whether the series is in danger or not. I've suggested the possibility which you casually dismiss, and why it can happen. And the assumptions I made here are the fairly obvious ones. Without going into any special conditions in the contract besides the norm. Basing the amount of money on various performance factors.
So you proclaiming that the series isn't in danger, and that it's likely that there's a special clause in the contract putting all the risk at MS, and me pointing out the things you're not considering in your posts equals me wanting that to be the case? So anyone correcting your unsubstantiated claims means they want that to happen? You'll have to explain your train of thought here. The only thing I don't like is when people unsubstantially dismiss possibilities, like you did.
And where from my post did you get that this would mean that SE took all the risk? Please point that out, because nowhere did it suggest this. If the game doesn't sell well, that obviously impacts MS negatively as well, regardless. They're paying for this because they hope it'll bring them some profit and benefit over Sony. Whether that be additional consoles sold, or something else. Didn't think I'd have to point out something so obvious.
|Tomb Raider isnt in the same league as GTA, but MS didnt buy exclusivity of a complete GTA game. They bought DLC exclusivity.|
Point being that investing in a franchise that's among the best selling of all time, and that investment being paid back if the DLC has an 11% attach rate, is hardly a good example of taking big risks.
|You think they only need to sell 1.25 million units to make back a 50 million dollar investment? No. It wasnt 60 dollar DLC either.|
I said 'if 1,25 million people bought the DLC on X360', refering to both DLC episodes. $20 for each, meaning $40 for both. 40x1.25 = 50.
That's around 11% of the userbase of the 360 version, according to this site. If that was indeed the deal, then Take Two must have expected more DLC sales than 1,25m. Otherwise there's the risk of them losing any profit.