Pachter: Microsoft paid $75 million to stop GTAIV PS3 exclusivity.

BingoBrown

BingoBrown

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
Story up at Gamespot: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6262370.html

The details:

Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter is famous for making bold predictions--not all of which come to pass. However, in an interview with Eurogamer this week, the outspoken analyst shed some light on a major gaming event of the past.

"Microsoft paid Take-Two [Interactive] to make Grand Theft Auto IV non-exclusive," he told the publication. "GTA IV was going to be a PS3 exclusive, but Microsoft paid Rockstar and Take-Two to make it a non-exclusive, and they paid them a lot."

When Microsoft announced that Grand Theft Auto IV would launch simultaneously on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 at its E3 2006 briefing, there were audible gasps in the audience. It was a major coup for the software giant, as the three previous iterations of Rockstar Games' wildly popular open-world crime series had debuted on the PlayStation 2. After several months, Grand Theft Auto III, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas did eventually make their way to the original Xbox and PC.

According to Pachter, Microsoft paid a massive premium to bring Grand Theft Auto, which has sold over 15 million units, to the 360 on day one. "The number I've heard, and I'm sure this is right, is $75 million, and that probably includes the funding for the first DLC packs too," said the analyst. "It's more than the $50 million that people talk about."

http://www.gamespot.com/images/0/1/...+man%2C+according+to+Pachter.&blog=1&cvr=SC6/


The DLC packs Pachter mentions are the two GTAIV expansions, the Lost & Damned and the Ballad of Gay Tony. During a June 2007 conference call with analysts, Take-Two executives revealed that Microsoft had paid them $25 million for each episode to make them 360-exclusive permanently. However, that presumption was dashed when Rockstar announced they were bound for the PC and PS3 in January. The pair launched just last week for the latter two platforms as a la carte DLC or as part of the Episodes from Liberty City compilation (see video review below), which does not require Grand Theft Auto IV to play.

Pachter also shared some second-hand information on Agent, the forthcoming PlayStation 3 exclusive from the GTAIV team at Rockstar North. He explained it thusly: "Sony…said to Take-Two, 'You've got to give us something else,' and the 'something else' was a zombie game that Rockstar wanted to work on. But while Rockstar was in the planning phase, Dead Rising came out and Left 4 Dead was announced. Rockstar realized they were up against a saturated market and said, 'What can we possibly do that will be any better than what Valve's done?' They started again, and that's when they came up with the idea of Agent, [but] nobody actually knows what it is."
Click to expand...
 
Microsoft's strength is that they have almost unlimited money... so yeah... spend, spend, spend... MS has done a great got using their resources to make sure that their customers have great exclusive games. Sony should give some incentives to certain developers to make the PS3 the lead sku. At least, you can make sure that the game will be quality on the PS3.
 
I've been trying to wrap my head around Pachter's analysis, and the only way I can see Microsoft having paid $75 million to keep GTAIV from going non-exclusive is if Take-Two had an offer on the table from Sony for PS3 exclusivity. It must have been a pretty massive offer as well, because Microsoft's $75 million plus the proceeds from sales of the 360 copies would have had to exceed it.
 
[quote name='mtxbass1']It amazes me that people still take Pachter's words seriously.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I agree, take anything Pachter says with a grain of salt. Sometimes take it with a truckload. But even a blind squirrel can find a nut, so I'm guessing that some of his analysis is correct. Hopefully there is an actual source for this information, not idle speculation.
 
It'd make sense though. GTA IV was a Metal-Gear-Solid-esque proportion of a release, and the 360 wouldn't want to miss out on it. Microsoft probably indeed made a hefty little profit from making it a 360 game as well. Imagine all the people who did not get the episodes on clearance at Target, and spent full price MSpoints for them, as well.

C'mon GTA with zombies! (Agent) ... Oh wait, I don't have a PS3 -.-
 
I thought Rockstar got a loan to develop the DLC?

[quote name='Renaissance 2K']I want to see the numbers that Microsoft paid to break Tekken 6 and Final Fantasy XIII exclusivity.[/QUOTE]

You mean how much Sony paid Square enix to have FF13 to be exclusive in Japan
 
[quote name='Renaissance 2K']I want to see the numbers that Microsoft paid to break Tekken 6 and Final Fantasy XIII exclusivity.[/QUOTE]

Presumably Microsoft doesn't have to pay to break exclusivity. All that needs to happen is for anticipated profits from the 360 sales of a game to exceed the amount Sony is offering to make the game exclusive.

So assume, with just totally random figures, that Sony offered Square Enix $100 million to make FF13 exclusive to PS3. But if Square Enix knows that they'll make $150 million more by selling FF13 on the 360, they'd be fools to take the PS3 exclusivity deal.

Obviously these are very basic figures and don't take a lot of additional variables into account (i.e. the cost to produce a multi-plaform game vs. a platform exclusive game), but the point is that an exclusivity deal has to be a more profitable option to the developer, or there's no reason to make the game exclusive.
 
It doesn't even seem like its necessary now. Everyone was still unsure of the 360 back when they first announced GTA4 for it. Not really the case now, since the 360 dominates at least one major market(well, compared to the PS3 at least).
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Microsoft's strength is that they have almost unlimited money... so yeah... spend, spend, spend... MS has done a great got using their resources to make sure that their customers have great exclusive games. Sony should give some incentives to certain developers to make the PS3 the lead sku. At least, you can make sure that the game will be quality on the PS3.[/QUOTE]

According to Wikipedia, MS is worth 77 billion in total assets while Sony is worth 123 billion. That is almost twice as much as MS.
 
kinda interesting this article comes out yesterday and then today everyone finds out about the exclusive content sony is getting with red dead redemption........
 
I wouldn't be surprised if this is blown a little out of proportion, and MS really just paid to have things ported and published on 360, as well as development of the DLC.
 
They made the right choice. Even if it disappointed people it was a hugely important title in market at the time. That, FFXIII, DMC4, and RE5 were all titles that MS had to get on their system, even if they didn't turn out so great. It was more about keeping pace.
 
Brilliant move by Microsoft. They not only removed a feather from Sony's cap but I think a lot of people will now associate GTA with the 360. I'm sure Sony would like to do the same with Halo or Mass Effect.

[quote name='Thomas96']Microsoft's strength is that they have almost unlimited money... so yeah... spend, spend, spend... [/QUOTE]


Unlike Sony, the humble mom and pop organization with limited funds.
 
Well I bought GTA IV for 360 for this very reason and both DLC packs as soon as they came out, so I guess this strategy paid off somewhat. I own both systems and this was the sole reason I decided to get the xbox version.
 
Sony should've gotten Red Dead Redemption's exclusivity in return for Grand Theft Auto IV's non-exclusivity. "You've got to give us something," just sounds retarded.
 
[quote name='62t']You mean how much Sony paid Square enix to have FF13 to be exclusive in Japan[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that I've heard that Sony doesn't pay for exclusivity. Whether that's the truth, an out and out lie, or a thing of the past, I can't say. But it would make sense when you look at how much MS has gained from publishers this console gen compared to how much Sony has stayed the same (or lost, if you include the exclusives). Microsoft has been about the grab just about every high profile action game and RPG that would have been a PS3 exclusive, while all Sony has been about to grab was Ninja Gaiden and eventually Dead Rising. And when you look at the details, neither of them have signs of an outright purchase. Ninja Gaiden was always about being flashy, so it made sense for it to go to the PS3. Plus, NG also made it's way onto the DS, so it's not like Tecmo really cared about it being an MS exclusive. And with Dead Rising, Capcom has opennly said they are going multiplatform for everything. Plus, Chop Til You Drop on the Wii.
 
If Sony expects to keep ANY formerly exclusive titles on their console alone this gen they really need to either buy the developer making the game(s) or pay for it like MS.

If they expect developers to remain loyal to their console just because they're fuckin' deluded.
 
Regardless if it GTA blew or not. This is huge news for video games. Gamers on internet boards and small talk with friends have at least discussed the idea of paying for exclusivity, but just toyed with the idea though never having proof. Now that we know that MS paid $75 million (or for at least they paid something) is that MS did the one thing that everyone knew they had the power to do, buy the market by buying the games for their system. Now the question is what is stopping them from buying everything?
 
[quote name='Chronis']I'm pretty sure that I've heard that Sony doesn't pay for exclusivity. Whether that's the truth, an out and out lie, or a thing of the past, I can't say. But it would make sense when you look at how much MS has gained from publishers this console gen compared to how much Sony has stayed the same (or lost, if you include the exclusives). Microsoft has been about the grab just about every high profile action game and RPG that would have been a PS3 exclusive, while all Sony has been about to grab was Ninja Gaiden and eventually Dead Rising. And when you look at the details, neither of them have signs of an outright purchase. Ninja Gaiden was always about being flashy, so it made sense for it to go to the PS3. Plus, NG also made it's way onto the DS, so it's not like Tecmo really cared about it being an MS exclusive. And with Dead Rising, Capcom has opennly said they are going multiplatform for everything. Plus, Chop Til You Drop on the Wii.[/QUOTE]

Sony paid for exclusive in the past. From Mortal Kombat 3 and crash bandicoot on PSOne to Grand Theft Auto on PS2. MS had to pay for exclusive because Xbox 360 is doing so bad in Japan that they have to give something to the publisher. For the publisher the cost of development for next generation game increased by a lot, and it make sense for them to use the money MS provided for the development. For portable games MS doesnt care, in fact they allow Rare to make Viva Pinata for DS. Now for FF13 it made no sense to miss the Japanese version, when MS was funded Square Enix games like Infinite Undiscovery. Missing FF13 pretty much eliminate the Xbox 360 as a Japanese RPG system.
 
[quote name='jer7583']They made the right choice. Even if it disappointed people it was a hugely important title in market at the time. That, FFXIII, DMC4, and RE5 were all titles that MS had to get on their system, even if they didn't turn out so great. It was more about keeping pace.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much this.

It's a big reason why a lot of my friends went 360 this gen.

"I can get the system cheaper with the franchises I loved on PS2? Sold."
 
[quote name='Serpentor']Eh, games are games, as long as available to the gamers, MS or Sony or Nintendo can play dirty as they want.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but all that bullshit does is punish gamers who dont own a specific console.

Exclusive games made by a systems developers are well and good. I dont expect sony to publish and or create a game and then sell it on the 360 and vice versa.

But 3rd party developers that only publish for one console kind of sucks because if the game is good then they are only going to sell the game to people who own that console. So not only do they miss out on sales to people who dont own that system but they also punish them and in the end only hurt the gamers.

And thats alot of the game industries problems comes from money, to many developers treat games like a business and thats it. Yes I know they are in business to make money but when it becomes the sole driving factor then quality drops overall.
 
i guess it all depends on the gamer, duh.

i used to have problems with timed exclusivity, but as i game on, it doesn't really bother me at all... For one thing, i have all of the systems, for another, i play for trophies/achievements. So, i don't have problems :)

Of course, it pains me to hear MS paid that much for timed exclusivity (they can use that money to do something else), but hey, it's their money...
 
[quote name='Serpentor'] For one thing, i have all of the systems, for another, i play for trophies/achievements. So, i don't have problems :)[/QUOTE]

Playing for trophies/achievements isn't a problem?:razz: Whatever happened to the 'good ol' days' when you just played a game for fun or for your own feeling of achievement when you completed a particularly difficult level or game.:booty:

Some folks are too stuck on the cheesemints and being trophy whores so much so in that they'll gladly pass up a game if it doesn't have them.:roll:
 
[quote name='guyver2077']it was a huge move for microsoft.. and i think it paid off..[/QUOTE]

Depends on the game. For example Tales of Vesperia and Star Ocean on PS3 outsold the Xbox 360 version a year later. This led to people saying Namco used MS money to develop Ps3 games. In Japan the exclusive RPGs help the sale for awhile but people sold their system after finishing the game. Sony also has a policy that requires port to have extra so the PS3 version has more content when it came out later on.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Playing for trophies/achievements isn't a problem?:razz: Whatever happened to the 'good ol' days' when you just played a game for fun or for your own feeling of achievement when you completed a particularly difficult level or game.:booty:

Some folks are too stuck on the cheesemints and being trophy whores so much so in that they'll gladly pass up a game if it doesn't have them.:roll:[/QUOTE]

That's the problem with the old days... you only feel it when you get it, there's no record of it, duh.

I know it's not for everybody, but i have a problem, i'm addicted to trophies/achievements... now, i'm addicted to platinum trophies... there, i said it!

my achievements are way far behind (i play my Xbox offline, several reasons, one of them being, not a Gold member and the other, i rather not say).

i don't compare my stats with other people much and i don't really care for that matter (it's not about e-penis). However, i do check what other people play for platinum trophies and i respect those players with difficult platinum trophies (like Little Big Planet and White Knight Chronicle).

Anyhow, i love MS for coming up with the achievement idea and i love Sony for slightly upgrading it (Platinum trophies and leveling up!).

I hate Nintendo for not coming up with anything :whistle2:(
 
Achievement is fine as long as you are not playing crappy license games (Hannah Montana, Cloudy with a Meatball) to boost your gamepoint
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top