As long as Rockstar is stuffed with Microsoft's money, no. And didn't Microsoft pay Rockstar $50 Million for a reason?

@Munkeh111

From what I understand of loans, and what I understand of the situation this does not qualify. First off the developer didn't directly pay Microsoft back nor did they pay back with interest. That is why the developer went through Microsoft. No collateral was required, and they did not have to pay out interest. Bottom line most definitely not a lone.

What you see there is a product partnership. Microsoft and a developer both sharing resources to create a product. Microsoft then had first rights to profit up until the development investment was covered. From that point on then the developer could take their slice free and clear.

Well long story short partners have rights, and for fifty million dollars I am sure that Microsoft got a lot of rights for their investment and risk. From what I understand if the project didn't cover the development costs it would be Microsoft left holding the bag. There are some possibilities, but I doubt the developer will buy out Microsoft's stake even if Microsoft lets them.

That all said it doesn't mean that the PS3 cannot get its own expansions now. Unless Microsoft decides to enter into another partnership for more expansions. They may very well do that again. Anyway Microsoft doesn't front the entire development cost of timed exclusives. That would be asinine. They aren't in the business of making it easy for Sony.

This was one of the problems with Sony being a heavy loss leader. They didn't have the capitol on hand to take advantage of an opportunity. Microsoft did have the money on hand, and thus they basically got the definitive version of one of the best selling games last generation. This is the price folks for Sony having aggressive price cuts. Third party exclusive content will suffer.

@ dodece, while that may be true, contracts of that type that probably went with that money are just timed rather than full out exclusivity. By next year, pretty much all the benefit that will have been gained from it will be over, they aren't really doing much by continuing to not have it on PS3 (or PC for that matter)

$50 million says no. Ms bought it fairly.

@Munkeh111

I think I made a point about making groundless assumptions. Further more nothing about how this arrangement came about is remotely standard. Even if you believe there is a standard this simply doesn't qualify. Manufacturers do not front fifty million dollars in development costs to third party developers. It just doesn't happen, and to be honest extraordinary actions must irrevocably lead to extraordinary results.

Speaking to your second point you made. It is actually an argument for Microsoft putting as much added content as possible in a permanent death grip. They need to convince PS3 owners that some times Christmas will not be coming. That there is a consequence for not getting a 360, or not getting the game for the 360. That is what exclusives are all about. Give it a year, and after the content doesn't show up on the PS3. It is going to leave a lasting impression on those users especially the ones that are major fans of the series.

Microsoft needs to prove the wait six months longer argument dead wrong. They don't have to do it for all exclusive extra content their console gets. They just have to do it enough for the point to sink in. They want you to think that the only way you can take playing this content for granted is for you to buy their console.

Very true, though actually to my knowledge this has not been confirmed anyway, so there is certainly a lot of assumption here

About them wanting to abolish the 6 month exclusivity, the deal would have been made ages ago so they would not have been aiming to get rid of that thought