I don't know about that, there is almost no hype ...

Wow, if that is true then it was a great deal for MS.

So basically it was a $50 million loan with no risk for MS, but a lot of gains in the form of making a few bucks off of the GTA4 DLC revenue and stealing some potential PS3-buyers over to the X360.

It's not if they make their money back, its to attract people to buy a 360 w/ GTA4.

Actually it's not an Advance and Michael Pachter needs to pull his head out of his ass. If it was an advance or basically a loan contingent upon completing a function, Take 2 wouldn't be able to book the revenue as deferred. They cant book it as revenue yet because according to GAAP and FASB the goods must be available for sale. So at the end of FEB they will book 25 mil as rev when the title is released.

If it was an advance or a loan then Take two would have to book it as a LIABILITY.....these are basic accounting functions and auditors wouldn't let something that big or obvious happen.

Its misinformation to say that Take Two owes anybody anything at this point. Look Below and look up how to treat advances and what deferred revenue is.

All throughout 2008 Take Two had zero short term debt and only 44mil in long term debt......Why wouldn't the company take a 50mil line of credit out with somebody or private placement and make it a multiplatform title then? If you say Take Two has to pay anybody back then whats the incentive to take that action? Zero interest for a year?  Don't think so, thats just retarded..... 

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=TTWO

"Take-Two has already recorded the payments in financial filings as deferred revenue, explained Lainie Goldstein, Take-Two's newly appointed CFO, in a conference call with analysts. "

http://texyt.com/Microsoft+pays+$50m+for+GTA+4+episodes+00111

I believe that there is one aspect that is missing in this discussion.

If Microsoft had not paid for the Downloadable Content, would it have gone solely to the PS3, or would it have been shared custody? If it's the former, it might be a good deal, even if they lose money on it. But if it is the latter, they would have had much more profit if they had not payed $50 million in advance.

I mean, I cannot believe that Microsoft would let anyone sell content on their platform without getting a piece of the action. Most likely 30%. So in that case, MS would have paid for profits they would have recieved anyway. And that might not have been such a smart move.

whether or not microsoft paid for it or not the point is it is coming and it has already created a buzz even here on this site,also it is the gamers who want it that will buy it and even some of those here who claim that they don,t want it,we all know microsoft willllllll advertise this to heaven and earth even moreso if they have paid for it like some here say.and also a great point some one pointed out is that the price of gta4 maybe cheaper then or it may even be bundle with the 360 as a special around that time,within itself will help sell more 360s,so no matter what the people that own the other HD system says.

yeah it will b sure win to those still interested in gta4 seeing some posts reading all the negative comments bout gta4 and seeing the huge stacks of gta4 (360) at all my gamestops and ebgames it won't b many

http://www.moneyinstructor.com/doc/deferredrevenue.asp

"Deferred revenue refers to an item that will initially be recorded as a liability, but is expected to become an asset over time and/or through the normal operations of the business.  Deferred revenue is sometimes called unearned revenue, and it is through the use of this term that I believe it makes it easier to understand why it is initially a liability but is later transferred to an asset item."

This goes completely with what Pachter said.  They will have to 'earn it'.

BTW, the price is known, it's 1600 MS point. I didn't know if you had the info ^^

Thats news to me.  I thought it would be more. 1600 is reasonable if the DLC offers 10 hours of game play as suggested in the past.