By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How much do you think MS paid for Gear of War?

 

How much do you think MS paid for Gear of War?

$100m 27 33.33%
 
$200m 12 14.81%
 
$300m 10 12.35%
 
$400m 2 2.47%
 
$500m 5 6.17%
 
$600m 2 2.47%
 
$720m 0 0%
 
$1 Billion 6 7.41%
 
On a contract - Epic get ... 6 7.41%
 
Other (post) 11 13.58%
 
Total:81
jlmurph2 on 28 January 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:
kowenicki said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
kowenicki said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

Sooner or later, rumours will be flying around....and one day it might even be revealed.

Until then, predict how much you think MS bought it for.

 

"The Gears franchise includes four games and has been an Xbox exclusive since it’s debut in 2006. Spencer said 22 million units of the first-person shooters have been sold, earning Epic over a billion dollars in revenue to this point."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/gaming/microsoft-buys-gears-of-war-franchise-vancouver-studio-made-lead-developer/article16498932/

 

A billion in revenue only on xbox and the first one on PC. If this went multiplatform imagine how much Epic would have made.

The development costs were not that high either for Epic, so they would have profited a lot from this.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/10/5516/

 

I think they must have paid atleast $500m for it and even if they dont profit from this, they still need it as a selling point for the XB1.

 

Edit:

According to Pachter, its $100m or less. Does he think Epic are stupid?

http://www.gamepur.com/news/13474-microsoft-bought-gears-war-ip-epic-games-100-million-or-less-no-more-pachte.html

I said less than $100m before I read all of your post.  I would agree with pachter.

Revenue does not equal profit, far from it in this case and they seemed unlikely to develop any more Gears games anyway. 

Your guess of half a billion dollars is insane.


I know revenue is not profit, thats why I added in development costs which are low compared to other games.

Even if you say each gears of war game took $100m to make (even though its no-where near that amount), they still made over half a billion in profit from it so far.

Nonsense.  Half a billion profit!?  Nowhere near.

My understanding is that the publisher was Microsoft, the platform was microsoft. The vast majority of the money went to Microsoft.

Epic were just the developers and may have been paid a fee to do it, or perhaps were paid a percentage of the revenue.  But 50% of the revenue as profit for the developer is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

 


Sorry, I assumed it was revenue for epic.

But still...even if that chart is correct, Epic's share would be ~$500m and take away the reported development costs, they still would have have made hundreds of millions from this.

Furthermore, thats just games revenue, you also have to factor in either the money MS were paying them for exclusivity, or the money they would have gained by going multiplatform. Those two options would have made them more than $100m easily.


You don't have to specifically pay much for exclusivity if you put in all the money to make the game itself. Its not like Titanfall since MS had to pay EA and then EA publishes it. With Gears they were skipping the middle man.



Around the Network
fps_d0minat0r on 28 January 2014
kowenicki said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
kowenicki said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
kowenicki said:
 

I said less than $100m before I read all of your post.  I would agree with pachter.

Revenue does not equal profit, far from it in this case and they seemed unlikely to develop any more Gears games anyway. 

Your guess of half a billion dollars is insane.


I know revenue is not profit, thats why I added in development costs which are low compared to other games.

Even if you say each gears of war game took $100m to make (even though its no-where near that amount), they still made over half a billion in profit from it so far.

Nonsense.  Half a billion profit!?  Nowhere near.

My understanding is that the publisher was Microsoft, the platform was microsoft. The vast majority of the money went to Microsoft.

Epic were just the developers and may have been paid a fee to do it, or perhaps were paid a percentage of the revenue.  But 50% of the revenue as profit for the developer is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

 


Sorry, I assumed it was revenue for epic.

But still...even if that chart is correct, Epic's share would be ~$500m and take away the reported development costs, they still would have have made hundreds of millions from this.

Furthermore, thats just games revenue, you also have to factor in either the money MS were paying them for exclusivity, or the money they would have gained by going multiplatform. Those two options would have made them more than $100m easily.


How would epic share be $500m in revenue?

They arent the publisher.  Microsoft is.

Microsft would get the publisher part and the platform part.  Gears owned the IP and will have been paid a fee plus perhaps a small percentage of revenue generated.

So your saying all Epic made from each game was $7?

Sorry I dont belive that.



fps_d0minat0r on 28 January 2014
jlmurph2 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
kowenicki said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
kowenicki said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

Sooner or later, rumours will be flying around....and one day it might even be revealed.

Until then, predict how much you think MS bought it for.

 

"The Gears franchise includes four games and has been an Xbox exclusive since it’s debut in 2006. Spencer said 22 million units of the first-person shooters have been sold, earning Epic over a billion dollars in revenue to this point."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/gaming/microsoft-buys-gears-of-war-franchise-vancouver-studio-made-lead-developer/article16498932/

 

A billion in revenue only on xbox and the first one on PC. If this went multiplatform imagine how much Epic would have made.

The development costs were not that high either for Epic, so they would have profited a lot from this.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/10/5516/

 

I think they must have paid atleast $500m for it and even if they dont profit from this, they still need it as a selling point for the XB1.

 

Edit:

According to Pachter, its $100m or less. Does he think Epic are stupid?

http://www.gamepur.com/news/13474-microsoft-bought-gears-war-ip-epic-games-100-million-or-less-no-more-pachte.html

I said less than $100m before I read all of your post.  I would agree with pachter.

Revenue does not equal profit, far from it in this case and they seemed unlikely to develop any more Gears games anyway. 

Your guess of half a billion dollars is insane.


I know revenue is not profit, thats why I added in development costs which are low compared to other games.

Even if you say each gears of war game took $100m to make (even though its no-where near that amount), they still made over half a billion in profit from it so far.

Nonsense.  Half a billion profit!?  Nowhere near.

My understanding is that the publisher was Microsoft, the platform was microsoft. The vast majority of the money went to Microsoft.

Epic were just the developers and may have been paid a fee to do it, or perhaps were paid a percentage of the revenue.  But 50% of the revenue as profit for the developer is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

 


Sorry, I assumed it was revenue for epic.

But still...even if that chart is correct, Epic's share would be ~$500m and take away the reported development costs, they still would have have made hundreds of millions from this.

Furthermore, thats just games revenue, you also have to factor in either the money MS were paying them for exclusivity, or the money they would have gained by going multiplatform. Those two options would have made them more than $100m easily.


You don't have to specifically pay much for exclusivity if you put in all the money to make the game itself. Its not like Titanfall since MS had to pay EA and then EA publishes it. With Gears they were skipping the middle man.


Im sure epic could afford the $10m development cost. They would have lauched it on all platforms for more money, the only reason they didnt is because they could earn more from the exclusivity deal MS offered them whcih covered the income they would have generated from other systems.



jlmurph2 on 28 January 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:

So your saying all Epic made from each game was $7?

Sorry I dont belive that.


That would be $189 million dollars just from the games, not including DLC and Season Passes. so yeah I can believe it.



Imaginedvl on 28 January 2014

It is less than 100k. The options are way too high :)



Around the Network
fps_d0minat0r on 28 January 2014
jlmurph2 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

So your saying all Epic made from each game was $7?

Sorry I dont belive that.


That would be $189 million dollars just from the games, not including DLC and Season Passes. so yeah I can believe it.


even assuming the developer earned less than half of what the publisher did (just wouldnt happen in the real world) and taking your value for $189m....why would you think Epic would sell it for almost half that amount?



jlmurph2 on 28 January 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:
jlmurph2 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

So your saying all Epic made from each game was $7?

Sorry I dont belive that.


That would be $189 million dollars just from the games, not including DLC and Season Passes. so yeah I can believe it.


even assuming the developer earned less than half of what the publisher did (just wouldnt happen in the real world) and taking your value for $189m....why would you think Epic would sell it for almost half that amount?


I'm just saying that's how much $7 would be, idk how much Epic ended up getting.



NobleTeam360 on 28 January 2014

None of those numbers in your poll, they bought a single IP not the whole studio.



vivster on 28 January 2014

Less than 100m. Epic was obviously not interested in the IP anymore and wanting to work on something new.
I think that the IP is gone now is a weight from their chest and the money is bonus. They were not doing anything with it anymore so it wouldn't have made them any money just lying around. Also people wouldn't stop pestering them with Gears games while they were trying to work on something else.
I think 50m would be a good deal, 100m a very good deal.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

SxyxS on 28 January 2014

Either 200Million or
100 mio+ participating with 15% on all following gears profits.

I'm pretty sure Epic is 100% aware of the games potential and i'm pretty sure if they'd been offered just 50mio by MS
Epic would have contacted Sony to push the price and 50-70mio is a price Sony can and would have paid for a potential system seller+the enourmous PR(former xbox king now ps4 exclusive is big big PR +reputation win).

Epic also knows that one single Gears has the potential to sell without problems 5mio(retail)+1.5mio digital:That means

5mio x 25dollar=125 mio,+1.5mio x 45dollar=67mio=192mio overall profit.

There is zero chance to give such a strong franchise away for half the money it could generate with one single release(without merchandising)

Ask yourself how much you'd have to pay eg for God of War(a similar strong franchise-lower sales,- FPS appeal for US market)

You won't get God of war below 200m.

 

There also have been rumours about how much MS has paid to Square to get ff13(not as exclusive! and without japan).The numbers were pretty high-bit as i don't know wether these numbers have been confirmed or not i won't use them