That's a whole lotta speculation.

I could also speculate that Take 2 won't see a dime from GTA4 DLC and in return for saving their ass it has already agreed to make GTA5 Xbox exclusive. Which would mean those 50M$ are a really good investment.

We just don't have enough facts - because of that, the thread will go nowhere. It's like starting a thread about wether angels are male or female.

Yes, I have no idea of the financial relationship between MS and Take Two.  As I have mentioned many times, we know that MS gave Take Two 50 million and does not appear to be a loan as you suggested.  I don't know what you are referring to regarding my post about "possible exclusivity".  If you would like to provide a proper quote, I would be happy to clarify.  Several ardent xbox supporters have called this a loan, I fail to see why they need to misrepresent the arrangement.

I am glad we have come full circle on this issue.  Please source this loan talk.  You may be able to assist in the debate.

These franchises were associated with the playstation brand because it was the dominant brand at the time.  That is no longer the case.  It is inevitable that they will appear on the 360 as well.  As I mentioned previously, GTA was going to the 360 with or without the 50 million dollar payment.

Regarding the bolded part, how many smaller more impressive games could MS have developed for the 50 million they dropped on DLC?  It brings me back to my original question.  Would you rather have exclusive DLC or another exclusive AAA title?  You probably don't need to answer that, judging from your posts I can guess what you would write.  Sony and Microsoft are travelling 2 different paths.  Microsoft is trying to differentiate it's offering with exclusive demos and exclusive DLC.  Sony is trying to differentiate it's offering with exclusive games.  Which do you prefer?

Bold:  Good point.  Italicized:  I don't see that this is nearly as relevant to the argument.  If the Xbox had had a simultaneous release of San Andreas, it would have been an even MORE dramatic coup, because they would have done it in spite of not having market pressure helping open the door. 

Your post is just a few posts upwards and I already quoted it. You can do the grunt work yourself.

edit:  never mind, but you're still a pot calling a kettle black

I like how he says, 'I don't understand this, please clarify' and your response is basically 'screw you, figure it out'. 

Also:   what's your definition of "a few"?   

Hey, final-fan! I see your lower quarters are still hurt so you are now just bandwagoning it?

Lame. I expected better. Ts, ts...

And dbot is perfectly aware of his own speculations. After all, if he can spot mine, he surely can spot his. Or are you implying dbot can only see issues with someone else's talk and is blind as far as his own posts are concerned? I'd be very careful not to disrespect the guy that's pushing the bandwagon I just jumped into.

About your pot, kettle comment... you mean people are supposed to never change positions nevermind the facts? You sure you aren't talking about yourself there? I commented on it as a loan, which is true that i did - then dbot brought interesting facts - the facts are we don't know wether Take 2 will participate in the revenue. Furthermore, we don't even know KZ2's budget.

But hey, I'm sorry if changing my opinions and thoughts as proper information is put upon the table offended you. I guess stubborness should be the way to go? Yeah, right.

I insist; due to the lack of known and factual information that has been disclosed along the course of the thread, the thread has been revealed to be pointless.

What insanity is this? I feel offended that I should be called upon to respond to such silly remarks, but I'll take a stab at it anyway, by paragraphs:

1 & 2. No, too silly.

3. I'm just saying it's bad taste not to at least give a hint when your comment was fairly non-obvious and MUCH more than any reasonable definition of "just a few" posts back.

4. Do you seriously not know the origin of that saying? I think you do, but let me know if I'm wrong. In any case, you were responding to Fei-Hung, not dbot; in my initial response, I had stronger things to say when I thought you were talking to dbot. Much of it focused on the complete insanity of your speculation, as contrasted with the rational outlining of two possibilities on dbot's part.

5. I don't even know what this could possibly be referring to in my posts. No, wait ... you thought I was talking about your opinion that the thread is pointless at this point? I was not. I was referring to the fact that you were deriding someone's speculation and proceeding to make such wild guesses that I hate to even refer to them with the same word given to reasonable interpretation of possibilities. I don't think that the pot/kettle comment is really very applicable to your last comment in that post, which is why I didn't think you thought so.

6. OK.