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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - GDC: Rockstar should have had more ‘realistic expectations’ for The Lost and Damned, says Pachter

JPL78 on 27 March 2009

not alot of people with 360s are online?? I thought it was the other way around. If they had an issue with that they could have printed an expansion disk for retail stores.

I agree with him about most people waiting till all the DLC is released and its like having a whole new game. The wait on Fallout 3 is killing me but when I do download it all it will be awesome shinny newness.



Around the Network
ChichiriMuyo on 27 March 2009
nightsurge said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
nightsurge said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
And there's absolutely no way it was as front-loaded as something with GTA in the name. That's the sort of product you expect to sell heavily up front, and if it doesn't have great legs R* is in trouble. They really don't make it worth their while unless the two DLC combined sell 5 million copies.

Um, Microsoft PAID RockStar $25 million up front for each DLC ($50 million total).  That's all money straight into RockStar's pocket.  I highly doubt they spent anywhere near 25 million in development per DLC so right off the bat they get profit.  MS is the only one left in the red until the units sell ~3-4 million combined for the two DLC's.

 

The $50 mil was a loan.  They have to pay it back through DLC sales.  They don't get anything until they pass $50mil in revenues between the two, assuming MS counts their usually 30% cut as part of the repayment.

I thought the arrangement was that if the sales did not reach a certain point, then part of that $50 million would have to be returned.  Othewise, if the sales targets were reached the money stayed with Rockstar and Microsoft just kept taking in sales profits.  Anyone know for sure, because I thought it was similar to this?

 

 

So your interpretation is that if R* hits certain sales targets MS will have been repaid the money they gave R* and if they don't they have to repay the difference?  What about that doesn't sound like a loan?  One way or another, MS is getting their money back. They made damn well sure of that.



You do not have the right to never be offended.

City17 on 27 March 2009
ChichiriMuyo said:
nightsurge said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
nightsurge said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
And there's absolutely no way it was as front-loaded as something with GTA in the name. That's the sort of product you expect to sell heavily up front, and if it doesn't have great legs R* is in trouble. They really don't make it worth their while unless the two DLC combined sell 5 million copies.

Um, Microsoft PAID RockStar $25 million up front for each DLC ($50 million total).  That's all money straight into RockStar's pocket.  I highly doubt they spent anywhere near 25 million in development per DLC so right off the bat they get profit.  MS is the only one left in the red until the units sell ~3-4 million combined for the two DLC's.

 

The $50 mil was a loan.  They have to pay it back through DLC sales.  They don't get anything until they pass $50mil in revenues between the two, assuming MS counts their usually 30% cut as part of the repayment.

I thought the arrangement was that if the sales did not reach a certain point, then part of that $50 million would have to be returned.  Othewise, if the sales targets were reached the money stayed with Rockstar and Microsoft just kept taking in sales profits.  Anyone know for sure, because I thought it was similar to this?

 

 

So your interpretation is that if R* hits certain sales targets MS will have been repaid the money they gave R* and if they don't they have to repay the difference?  What about that doesn't sound like a loan?  One way or another, MS is getting their money back. They made damn well sure of that.

Either way GTA4 made MS a fortune and this is probobly not going to chip away at that nugget.  I think that both parties are going to make out fairly in the end.  Additionnal PSN downloads of the content would have benefitted Rockstar more in the end though, IMHO

 



scat398 on 27 March 2009

Patcher was one of the first to say that the DLC was a huge success?



Strategyking92 on 28 March 2009

No hard data, I suppose, but wasn't it the fastest, or highest, or most profitable content the first week it was released?



And that's the only thing I need is *this*. I don't need this or this. Just this PS4... And this gaming PC. - The PS4 and the Gaming PC and that's all I need... And this Xbox 360. - The PS4, the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360, and that's all I need... And these PS3's. - The PS4, and these PS3's, and the Gaming PC, and the Xbox 360... And this Nintendo DS. - The PS4, this Xbox 360, and the Gaming PC, and the PS3's, and that's all *I* need. And that's *all* I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one... I need this. - The Gaming PC and PS4, and Xbox 360, and thePS3's . Well what are you looking at? What do you think I'm some kind of a jerk or something! - And this. That's all I need.

Obligatory dick measuring Gaming Laptop Specs: Sager NP8270-GTX: 17.3" FULL HD (1920X1080) LED Matte LC, nVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, Intel Core i7-4700MQ, 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3, 750GB SATA II 3GB/s 7,200 RPM Hard Drive

Around the Network
scottie on 28 March 2009

"100 percent of GTA IV owners are not hooked up to XBL."

GTA:L&D sold 0 copies confirmed.

There is a huge difference between what he said, and what he meant -
"not 100 percent of GTA IV owners are hooked up to XBL."



City17 on 28 March 2009
scottie said:
"100 percent of GTA IV owners are not hooked up to XBL."

GTA:L&D sold 0 copies confirmed.

There is a huge difference between what he said, and what he meant -
"not 100 percent of GTA IV owners are hooked up to XBL."

Good eye there!

 



scottie on 28 March 2009

Cheers City - quibbling about grammar is what I do best

infact, it's about all I do



Avarice28 on 28 March 2009

I think instead of printing a retraction, pachter is trying to do either a cover up or a bold face lie to save face. I know quite abit of people who have 360's who are not on live due to the fee. The other half of the people I know have live but have already traded GTA4 in for another game, so it makes no since to pay for the game plus 20 bucks for the download. So IMOB I think the DLC came a little to late to really impact DLC revenue that much. Pachter is IMOB full of cow chips, he has been wrong before, and this is not going to change. Take what he said about the 1 million downloads and now not hitting earlier predicts with a grain of salt. It is more in the middle like 19 million 360's are online and the DLC probably only sold like 680k the first week. Do the math and this does "not" add up to 25 million.



City17 on 28 March 2009
scottie said:
Cheers City - quibbling about grammar is what I do best

infact, it's about all I do

I disagree I think you always have something positive to put forth :)