Killergran said:
That wouldn't make much sense either. The game cost about $100 million to make, I think is a well documented figure. And they made (again, my own approximation) $175 million on the 360 version alone (plus $125m on the PS3 version). They got $50 million for the DLC, which by your argumentation would mean that they borrowed $50 million from sony in return for losing approx. $175 of revenue from a future 360 version. You're still lacking $125 million for that move to make any sense. What would make sense in that case would be to borrow the money from a bank. At 10% interest, over 3 years of developement time, that would be a cost of $20m (assuming they needed 50m). Much better than $125m.
Apology accepted by the way. :) |
Another assumption you're making is that during the early stages of GTA 4's conception that everyone including take two know that PS3 would not dominate.
If GTA for had been exclusive to PS3 (or 360 or whatever) there would be no HD console war. Not even close. MS was very smart in picking up games that were once exclusive and had made the PS2 dominate so hard.You have this parity because all these blockbusters this gen PS360 have had to share them. Need I remind you that GTA 3 and all it's iterations sold spectacularly on PS2? Even early into PS2's lifecycle before it was the absolute king of the hill. There's no need to throw around that 175 mill number.
The point is- what I'm wondering is- What could have compelled Sony to give up it's biggest ace?
