The moneyhatted monsterhunter and it didn't affect vita sales in japan. oh wait...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gamasutra: If MS moneyhatted an exclusive next-gen version of GTA5, they'd kill Sony
- Thread starter QaaQer
- Start date
The moneyhatted monsterhunter and it didn't affect vita sales in japan. oh wait...
funkystudent
Member
I bet MS get a exclusive next gen version of whatever COD is out in 2013 for Durango but GTA? LOL
SimpleGamer
Member
This.
Can Crusher
Banned
The chances of this happening are so slim they don't even register.
BruiserBear
Banned
A timed exclusive for a next gen console seems plausible to me.
Even if it's just a month.
In other words, it still comes out on the 360 and PS3, but if you want to play it in on a next gen machine, the new Xbox has it first for a short while.
Even if it's just a month.
In other words, it still comes out on the 360 and PS3, but if you want to play it in on a next gen machine, the new Xbox has it first for a short while.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
How the mighty have fallen.
I think that their only opportunity for this was to buy CoD, which they could've got Activision in that big sale that Vivendi had a while ago and basically killed Sony that way. It was super expensive though, not nearing Rare expensive, but pretty expensive. Though we've all seen what they did to Rare and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, even the creators of Call of Duty
Don't be crazy. You're basically saying the same thing as the Gamasutra writer but for CoD instead.
GTAIV only sold 25,000,000 copies.
It's going to very comfortably sell ten million copies this year.
JohnnytheFuture
Member
Nah, son.
Wet dreams don't work like that.
Read the threadtitle and thought another insanely dumb article this time, sadly, by Gamasutra.
Then i read the entire article and the op's thread title "Gamasutra: If MS moneyhatted an exclusive next-gen version of GTA5, they'd kill Sony" is nowhere to be found ...
... i fear im going blind
Then i read the entire article and the op's thread title "Gamasutra: If MS moneyhatted an exclusive next-gen version of GTA5, they'd kill Sony" is nowhere to be found ...
... i fear im going blind
funkystudent
Member
I dont expect it to be a real next gen game or anything.
Ir would basically be a 1080p port up.... and MS will brag like hell about it.
We probably wont see real next gen COD until 2014.
I kinda hope this really does happen, because I think this is the year that CoD, and maybe even GTA, take a big dive in significance.
I think Battlefield is planning for the future, with 64 player matches, now going 60FPS on the newer consoles, and lots of other improvements. I don't think Activision and what's left of Infinity Ward have anywhere near the brains to make any ballsy, necessary changes to CoD to keep up. I'm not saying CoD won't sell ten million this year, but I wouldn't be surprised if it sells under 20 for the next title, which will be the beginning of it losing its importance.
Meanwhile, it's about time people realize how shitty Rockstar is. They don't make fun games anymore, and again, in comparison to other open world games that have come out since GTA IV, I expect GTA V to land with a little bit of a thud. I'm less confident about this than CoD, but a man can dream.
It'd be great to see Microsoft be so arrogant, like Sony was with the PS3, to think they can get away with not changing their awful Live formula because they moneyhatted GTA and CoD, only to see that all go to waste. Mmm... yes, please.
I think Battlefield is planning for the future, with 64 player matches, now going 60FPS on the newer consoles, and lots of other improvements. I don't think Activision and what's left of Infinity Ward have anywhere near the brains to make any ballsy, necessary changes to CoD to keep up. I'm not saying CoD won't sell ten million this year, but I wouldn't be surprised if it sells under 20 for the next title, which will be the beginning of it losing its importance.
Meanwhile, it's about time people realize how shitty Rockstar is. They don't make fun games anymore, and again, in comparison to other open world games that have come out since GTA IV, I expect GTA V to land with a little bit of a thud. I'm less confident about this than CoD, but a man can dream.
It'd be great to see Microsoft be so arrogant, like Sony was with the PS3, to think they can get away with not changing their awful Live formula because they moneyhatted GTA and CoD, only to see that all go to waste. Mmm... yes, please.
I could see them securing an exclusive next gen spinoff title, developed by one of Activion's three dozen Call of Duty studios.
Nope. Sleeping Dogs and Just Cause 2 destroyed GTA IV in sales and GTA V is going to be the last GTA due to Rockstar shutting down.
2/10
I don't really like CoD that much either, but it's "significance" isn't going to be lost due to Battlefield 4. Next gen Call of duty if done right will be just as successful as before.
soulassssns
Banned
Can Crusher
Banned
Rare cost 350 million. COD IP alone would probably cost a billion.
All the GTA games were ported to the Xbox 1. However Xbox 1 was a giant net loss for Microsoft. Their gaming division never had a profitable year until around 2007.
Strangely, the Xbox 1 and Gamecube sold around the same number of consoles, yet Nintendo profited comfortably that entire generation.
10/10. Well done.
It's not strange. It costs money to break into a cuthroat industry as a serious competitor.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Mandoric said:
Exactly. The premise comes from a "system warrior" mindset, not a business one. At best, they are only going to be buying a short-term period of exclusivity, or some DLC. Which is an expensive way of maybe gaining a little advantage, there's always the danger of underperformance and/or the competition releasing something more popular.
Essentially its s a better "dick" move, than a piece of business strategy. Compensating Rockstar sufficiently that they'd even contemplate it... would be very expensive, too expensive, especially when these two new platforms apparently share so many technical similarities.
90TilInfinity
Member
Way more than that. That's literally the sale of one game after 2 weeks, lol. There aren't even many film franchises that are more lucrative than Call of Duty.
AgentChris
Member
What a joke article.
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
I posted practically this exact same premise two weeks ago. If MS gets COD next-gen as a 3 or 6 month exclusive, shows Destiny as a 6-month exclusive and shows a teaser w/ concept next-gen gameplay of Halo 5 at their E3 event, then it's pretty much game over since that first year is everything.
It basically comes down to MS forking over like $200 mil+ to get COD and seal the deal. They're "ruthless" enough to do it.
It basically comes down to MS forking over like $200 mil+ to get COD and seal the deal. They're "ruthless" enough to do it.
I'm saying its surprising for two companies to have vastly different bottom lines, despite selling the same amount of hardware. People look at the low sales of the Gamecube and assume Nintendo lost money on the platform, when in reality it pulled more profit for them than the N64 and maybe the SNES.
But Nintendo and Sony struck success on their first attempts. Arguably, Sega did too. Few companies have the desire (or deep pockets) to push an entire hardware generation as a loss-leader. Sony held the same approach with the PS3 when they really didn't need to.
Second place in...consoles sold? Net profit?
No, it's really not. Sony didn't even have a HD system for the first year of the 360, and they're still going to finish up in second place.
1/10
I used to love CoD. It's already losing some of its importance, albeit slowly, and the remnants of Infinity Ward trying to make another one amidst the excitement of new consoles and a DICE team able to finally match what they've already planned for on PC with Battlefield 3 will be enough to finally have CoD start to die.
djplaeskool
Member
SolidSnakex
Member
Do you really think 200m is enough to buy exclusivity for something like CoD? I'm pretty sure that Activision is one of the few game companies that has no debt. A big part of that is because they put their games on every console possible to make as much money as they can. So for them not to do that then someone is going to have to fork over a hell of a lot more than 200m.
Clay Davis
Member
Sales were disappointing? Source?
Call of Duty lifetime sales are over 6 billion. If MS wanted to lock the whole franchise down they would have to pay half + probably a risk factor on top of that, so 3,5 billion.
Locking down 1 Call of Duty title would probably cost half a billion at least. So no never ever gonna happen.
http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2012-06-04/call-of-duty-lifetime-revenues-reach-6-billion
Same thing with GTA: GTA launched pretty early in the gen and amassed lifetime sales of 25 million. Locking that down would cost an enormous amount of money with no guarantee PS4 will sell less because of it.
Locking down 1 Call of Duty title would probably cost half a billion at least. So no never ever gonna happen.
http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2012-06-04/call-of-duty-lifetime-revenues-reach-6-billion
Same thing with GTA: GTA launched pretty early in the gen and amassed lifetime sales of 25 million. Locking that down would cost an enormous amount of money with no guarantee PS4 will sell less because of it.
0/10
CoD could die in it's current form, a yearly release thing might be hard to keep up for the next 50 years, but the series isn't going anywhere. Once significant decline happens, Activision will make sure whatever developer gets the call of duty will get a bigger budget and more time to develop something new.
Activision must have a gigantic war chest built up now, they'll use it once something gets close to dethroning their success.
You mean other than all those Nintendo franchises that shit on IV in sales.
NegativeI'mmockingthisstupidmeme/10
Because throwing money at things always fixes them.
Pristine_Condition
Member
Lots of reasons why this is stupid fantasy writing, but here's the first three points that instantly spring to mind:
--With the kind of money it would take to score exclusives on both franchises, (I'm guessing a cool $1B at least) Microsoft could just drop the price on their first 20m consoles (the most expensive ones they make) by $50, which would be a whole lot more effective if the goal is moving consoles and putting the hurt on the competition.
--Also, and perhaps most importantly, why would third-parties WANT a major player/system dead? A healthy market with lots of competition and lots of consoles secures third-parties from having one monolithic entity controlling their market--what they can charge for games and services, ect. No, a big developer would be stupid to do the above, because they don't want to hurt the current landscape--that there are multiple big console manufacturers competing and making the market larger for their products.
--And third, no third-party would do that with a flagship title that had a long history of being previously multi-plat, unless they got paid ridiculous money, because doing so would alienate all the Sony fanboys for years, hurting their ability to sell the many other titles they'd like to sell to that market.
--Also, and perhaps most importantly, why would third-parties WANT a major player/system dead? A healthy market with lots of competition and lots of consoles secures third-parties from having one monolithic entity controlling their market--what they can charge for games and services, ect. No, a big developer would be stupid to do the above, because they don't want to hurt the current landscape--that there are multiple big console manufacturers competing and making the market larger for their products.
--And third, no third-party would do that with a flagship title that had a long history of being previously multi-plat, unless they got paid ridiculous money, because doing so would alienate all the Sony fanboys for years, hurting their ability to sell the many other titles they'd like to sell to that market.
Unknown One
Member
If the rumors is true, Battlefield on Next-gen consoles will be good. 64 players at 60 fps in 64 player maps I think.
I'm not so sure about that. PC gamers update their rig to play their games library with better graphics/performance, movie fans rebuy their collection on Blu-Ray, etc. I think even a suped-up port would be something of a system seller.
And unlike some of these annualized games being mentioned (CoD) it'll probably be years before a true next-gen GTA is released.
It's not really throwing money at them, CoD has been using the same assets and engine for many years now. The actual budget without marketing dollars for CoD is probably extremely cheap, if Activision let the series cool off for just a few years, the developers they have would probably do something different with the time and extra resources at least.
MR BLACKMAGIK
Member
I was with the OP for bit there, but then you threw in COD. Well if MS gets COD/GTA/Destiny/Madden/Fifa then they will also win!
The rest of the world doesn't give a shit about Madden. It's a pussy sport.
Similar threads
- Poll