Many thanks to dbot. I had the same understanding but neglected to talk about it, only putting "loan" in quotes as an (easily missed in hindsight) implication that I didn't agree with that term.

So: sorry I was lazy, and thanks, dbot. You also probably made a stronger case than I would have.

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.

MS more bang for the corp buck.

"KZ2 is first and foremost a tech demo"

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.

We don't know how much KZ 2 costs. It could be more and it could be less.

You don't even know wether Take 2 will participate in the revenue, as per your previous post. Thus, you can't speculate wether this is an exclusivity deal or not since all we know is that those liabilities will be removed once they deliver the content, MS might have just struck a second-party deal with Take 2, like Sony did with Level 5 to develop White Knight Chronicles.

As for who's speculating or not, you have a post up there talking about a possible exclusivity. I might be good at speculating, but you are no slouch neither.

edit: and outlawaron made a very good comment, we don't even know KZ2's budget. It might be below or above 50M$. The whole thread is bollocks.

guys, are you telling me that gta4 dlc is bigger and better then RE5, SF4 and Halo Wars? Are you serious? Then on march 29th (I think), 360 may have another AAA that people have been going crazy over called Ninja Blade.

as for the $60million kz2 budget, the rumour was started by a a neogaf blogger called SURFERGIRL who has no credibilty whatsoever in the gaming industry. This person has made all sorts of BS rumours which the individual claims to be inside information. Google it and you will find plenty.

Point being made is, chances are it didn't cost $60million or $50million, but possibly and more likely around $40million which is $10million over budget still.

The dlc is more worth it. It advertises the superiority over psn loud and clear to those that are undecided.