I doubt this 100m is real - but if it is, this is conclusive proof that this business model plain out sucks. Nintendo would never do this - here is why:
1/ Take the "100m" cost
2/ Average cost of a PS3/360 unit sold to a retailer - say $30US / unit
3/ Average cost of manufacturing + shipping - say $7 / unit
4/ Hence, average "profit" per unit sold for TakeTwo - $23US
Number of units to break even: 100m / 23 = 4.3m units
...
Lets say the title sells 15m lifetime. So about 11m creating "profit" for TakeTwo.
11m x $23 = 250m US "profit"
...
Now - here is the real kicker.
Development resources are scarce. You can't get as much as you want - its limited. If the 100m is real, development could suck up 500-1000 developers for 2 years (or 250-500 for 4 years).
During this time (and for the same cost) - Nintendo could create 10-15 'convential' games. Including Brain Training, Zelda, Nintendogs, Galaxy, Brawl, Mario Kart...
Each of these titles (say 5 of them, 5 of them are "failures" - and don't sell) sell around 10m each. Total sales of around 50m units.
Profit per unit may be lower (lower retail cost), but then its Ninty - manufacturing cost is basically free (just shipping costs).
...
Regardless - my point is this:
During the time that TakeTwo can create GTA, which sells 15m units (and costs 4m units to make) - Nintendo would create 5 titles that sell 10m units each (and costs 500k units for each 10 titles - 5 success, 5 failures).
TakeTwo - 10m units profit, Ninty - 45m units profit. No contest.
The risk is that if GTA "only" sells 10m units - TakeTwo "effective" profit halves to only 5m units.
(reminds me of the Matrix fiasco, that basically sunk Atari - "having" to sell 4m units to break even)
Currently Online 
