coolestguyever said: Rockstar wouldn't even be a company today without Grand Theft Auto's massive success on Playstation consoles (nintendo would never have allowed a game like GTA on the N64 or Cube). Maybe they decided to return the favour. Who the hell knows. |
Rockstar may "owe" some of GTA's success to the Playstation, but the game itself sold a ton of PS2's. The success was mutual, Sony gained a whole lot from GTA.
I can't believe how many people are considering GTA going exclusive to PS3. Unless Sony pays them a truck ton of money, it would be a horrible business decision.
As for the game being about "quality," the PS3 hardly offers anything over the 360. What kind of innovations can they bring that would require more space than a DVD? Also, why are people all of a sudden all for developing games on the most technologically advanced console? Did everyone want Xbox exclusives over the PS2 as well? Developers may as well make only PC exclusive games, that require top-end PC's. Since it isn't about the money, who cares how it sells, right?
@Dgc1808:
Using exclusivity to create a name for a game can really help in sales and bring in figures that it may have not gotten if it was multi-plat. It's arguable that exclusivity can really help a franchise when you think about franchises like Metal Gear Solid on the PS1, Gears on 360, Halo on Xbox1. Resident Evil on PS1. And to a certain extent; GTA3 on PS2 and FFVII on PS1. Both series really took off when these two games came, and as exclusives.
I never had a PS1, so I never bought FF 7-9 / MGS back in the day, though I would have were they on the N64. There's no evidence these games would have sold worse if they went multiplatform, they were simply hugely popular games. I think you're confusing hardware sales with software - exclusives do bring in hardware sales, definitely.