Who probably spent their $50 million better: Microsoft or Sony?

[dbot]

Jereel Hunter said:

Well, considering GTA was a PlayStation franchise, I hardly think it pushed "a couple extra".

Also, you're acting like MS made the choice to fund the DLC in lieu of other projects, as if they have limited funds at their disposal. Obviously a AAA game, in theory, beats AAA DLC. But lets keep 2 things in mind:

1) KZ2's actual development cost was reported at over $60m as of months ago, so it's not even a fair 1-1 comparision at this point.

2) A set of AAA DLC for a massive proven franchise can very well be a more worthy investment than a sequel to a very underwhelming game.

If I was making the choice a couple years ago, I would have made the one MS did. Claim dominance over one of Sony's longtime franchises, or roll the dice on a massive budget game in an uphill battle.

Besdies which, KZ2 is first and foremost a tech demo. It is sacrificing several really cool options in order to be an unequalled graphics powerhouse. Sony wanted this game to show what the PS3 could do graphically, if a dev studio is willing to risk a ridiculously bloated budget on a game. MS took the safe route, knowing that they don't need to prove anything.

My question was designed with what is best for the gamer?  Would you rather have GTA and GTA DLC or GTA and Killzone 2?  If you read the original post, you would understand why I framed it as I did.  Basically, the op asked what is best for each company, and I am asking what is best for the gamer.

1) Killzone 2's budget was reported to be 60 million dollars by a forum poster named Surfer Girl.  He made up a lot of stuff, not just Killzone's buget.  Usually, publishers don't disclose their game bugets to the general population.  

2) Killzone 2 is a AAA title, go check metacritic or gamerankings.  If you want to view this in the context of the original post, and want to pretend that Killzone cost 50 million dollars, then would you spend the money to be able to market content to at most 24% of your installed userbase (GTA DLC), or do you spend the money to be able to market content to 100% of your userbase (Killzone 2). 

GTA is no more one of Sony's franchises, then Final Fantasy, or Metal Gear Solid.  These are IPs owned by unrelated entities, they should and can market content on whatever platform they desire.  The 360 was getting GTA4 without the DLC and due to its significantly larger install base, was bound to outsell the PS3 version.

The fact that you refer to Killzone 2 as a tech demo is laughable at best, and it really makes it difficult to respond to your other points in a serious manner.  Tech demos don't average 90+ in reviews, and judging by the game demo and beta response, Sony sacrificed nothing in the making of this game.