Microsoft Shells Out $50 Million For GTA IV Content

Ars Technica is reporting on the highly-anticipated downloadable content for GTA IV mentioned by Microsoft at last year's E3. It appears that, first off, that content is only coming to the Xbox 360. Secondly, Microsoft paid some $50 Million for the privilege. This is from a financials conference call held by Take Two, and a question about a deferred payment from Microsoft reveals the general release schedule for the content. "The first 25 [million] is for the first episodic content package that's supposed to go out and that is in March of '08. That's why it moved into current because it's in the next 12 months. The second 25 [million] will be for the second episodic, the episode, and that will be later in fiscal '08."

This isn't new

[svendsen (1029716)]

Companies paying off game developers for exclusive only content/games/accessories has been going on for along time.

You can bet it will be paid content

[Murrdox (601048)]

Expect to shell out at least $15 a piece for each of these "episodic" updates. I suppose this is really good news for GTA addicts who have X-Box 360's. Personally, I find it a disturbing trend that Microsoft is throwing money at developers to make them develop custom content for the 360. Nintendo and Sony don't have the treasure coffers of a Operating System monopoly to get that kind of money and do likewise. Even though this relationship seems like a win-win-win for Rockstar, Microsoft, and GTA players... I still don't like the idea of Microsoft influencing how my games are made. Imagine if Microsoft paid Irrational Games $100 million for the next Bioshock game. Microsoft could say "We want you to end the game on a huge cliffhanger. Then we want the last 10 hours of the game to be an X-Box only expansion." As a PC gamer, I'd be really freaking pissed off. But if MS threw enough money at Irrational, could I blame them for not doing it? I don't like where this is going.

Re:You can bet it will be paid content

[DaveCBio (659840)]

If you think no money has changed hands between Sony, Nintendo and publishers to get exclusives for their respective systems then you must also believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. You might be interested in a bridge I have as well.

Re:

[radish (98371)]

But that's exactly what publishers do already, they provide the funding for a game and in exchange get to decide which platforms will be most profitable, choose game features, styling, etc etc. All that is happening here is that Microsoft is adding an additional layer on top by paying to directly influence the publisher, who in turn influences the developer. And it's not new - the vast majority of major console exclusives are bought by the manufacturer in one way or another, it's just interesting in this ca

Re:

[Khuffie (818093)]

You say that as if Sony is a teensy weensy company. Except for the fact that Sony is also one of the largest media congolmerates, and according to wikipedia it's annual profit is greater than Microsoft's.

That exactly what Sony did.

[Higaran (835598)]

HA HA, that funny, but I'm that anyone is suprised by this, Sony had Rockstar by the balls with the GTA series, that the games had to be released on the PS2 first and anything else months later. Now that over, and MS decided to do the smart thing and steal one of the PS biggest franchised right out from under them, with this extra content, does anyone here even think that Rockstar gives a krap what system their game sells on, if the console maker is throwing money at them, and the game is sure to sell on it.

Re:

[Shados (741919)]

You're right. Sony, Nintendo...they all did things like this. Its -common practice- even. Maybe not as blunt as straight out paying for exclusivity, but waving royalties in exchange for exclusivity wasn't uncommon.

And well, during the PS era, Sony -mendated- that most multi-platform games had something exclusive on the playstation, or go to hell. They didn't even pay for it, they just used their influence, most of the time. Thats how console gaming business work, hehe.

Hackers should be able to liberate this content

[TheBishop613 (454798)]

If they couldn't keep the content of the "Hot Coffee" fiasco hidden I'm sure it won't be too difficult for someone to liberate this XBOX 360 only content and slide it over to at least the PC version. Heck, for the chance to mess with an XBOX 360 exclusive I may look into the idea myself.

Re:

[dave562 (969951)]

You're missing one key piece of the puzzle. The Hot Coffee content was on the original disc but Rockstar coded around the Hot Coffee code so that the content couldn't be accessed. "Hackers" found the content and released the Game Shark codes to access it.

The content being talked about here is DOWNLOADED. There isn't anything to hack... unless you're going to hack Xbox Live or whatever Microsoft's online service is called.

So its ok for Sony to bail out square...but...

[grapeape (137008)]

So its all ok that Sony bailed out Square when they got in over there heads with the final fantasy movie, but if MS does the same to help Rockstar (who has had financial problems for over a year) they are evil? It was a smart move for Sony back in 2001 and its a smart move for MS now. Just as Sony saved Square from the possibility of bankrupcy Microsoft has helped assure Take Two and Rockstar of making it through the coming fiscal year so that GTA IV can actually get published.

http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/200 7/03/FF_160_rockstar?currentPage=1 [wired.com]

That gives some insight into what has happened over the past couple years at Take-Two, its an interesting read, and most will agree after reading whats been going on that if anything the Sony fanboys complaining should be thanking MS since its likely that their favorite franchise may not have even made it to the shelf otherwise.

I'd take 50 million dollars

[tjstork (137384)]

Hey, if someone wants to pay me 50 million bucks, I'd write for any platform they want. Don't see anything wrong with that at all!

Is it legal?

[phorm (591458)]

Going with the whole monopoly thing, if your money is coming from a monopoly in one area, are you allow to start paying people out in other areas to exclude the competition?

Anyone know the legal issues around this, or is it acceptable?

Re:

[beavis88 (25983)]

I'm sure they'd make the argument that they're paying to be included - the fact that other platforms are excluded is just an unavoidable consequence of their inclusion being exclusive.

Man, I shoulda been a lawyer - what an awful sentence... :)

Re:

[MBraynard (653724)]

Er. Maybe if you weren't a moron you might recognize that this is looks like a loss-leader but probably isn't. They recoup that with the sale of 2.5 million downloads at $10 each. Or they may charge even more for the content - like $15 - and break even after selling 1.6 million downloads.

Why anyone would think anything unusual about a Console Maker paying to develop content for ITS OWN console is mindboggling.

But thanks for trying to run the People's Court right here on Slashdot, Judge Whopner.

Re:

[calbanese (169547)]

Its legal.

Illegal tying requires tying two products from two seperate markets together. There is nothing preventing Microsoft from using its resources gained from Windows to buy its way into the Games/Console market under US law (EU law is much more strict, though I don't know the answer in that case). Of course, if Microsoft becomes a monopoly in the game console market, this practice could be seen as anticompetitive and a violation of the Sherman Act, but it still wouldn't be tying, as consoles and g

Re:

[dave562 (969951)]

How is it different in spirit than when one of the fighting games (I think it was Tekken maybe) made different end of game characters for different platforms? On the Nintendo system you got Link. On the Microsoft system you got Venom from Spiderman. There was one other bad guy for the Playstation.

Or on another train of thought, Microsoft wants to provide content. Content doesn't come about for free. They have to pay for it. So they buy the content from Take Two and then resell it to Xbox 360 owners.

Re:

[dabraun (626287)]

Going with the whole monopoly thing, if your money is coming from a monopoly in one area, are you allow to start paying people out in other areas to exclude the competition?

Anyone know the legal issues around this, or is it acceptable?

You simply could not compete at all in the console marketplace if you were not allowed to buy exclusivity. Every console maker does it, has done it for a long time, and will continue to do it.

Re:This sort of behavior used to be a punchline...

[MooseMuffin (799896)]

This is a perfectly logical move for them. Sure the price seems high, but GTA4 is guaranteed to get some undecided people onto the next-gen bandwagon. If Microsoft can make it seem like the 360 version will be the definitive and most complete version, all the 360s it would sell could give MS an overwhelming installed base advantage over the ps3, making moves like this unnecessary in the future. They're hoping for a killing blow, but I think this downloadable content would need to be pretty major to actua

Re:This sort of behavior used to be a punchline...

[Samedi1971 (194079)]

I don't remember any big outcry when Sony used the same tactic with the same franchise against Microsoft. Sony signed exclusivity deals for GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas when the Xbox was the new kid in the game. The difference being that they were timed-exclusives. I don't think the value of the deal was ever made public, but I'm sure it was much less.

Is this karma, irony, or both? I bought a PS2 for GTA 3, and now I'll buy a 360 for GTA 4 (among other things).

Re:This sort of behavior used to be a punchline...

[RexRhino (769423)]

Sony paid Rockstar for exclusivity for the GTA franchise for years. That kind of thing is not uncommon with console games.

In this case, GTA4 will be available on several platforms (Windows, PS3, 360), and only the downloadable content will be exlusive. And even then, Sony doesn't really have a proper online marketplace to sell downloadable content the way Microsoft does, so the "exclusivity" is pretty much academic.

In any case, this deal is far less exclusive or restrictive than previous deals Rockstar has

Re:This sort of behavior used to be a punchline...

[Ryan Amos (16972)]

More likely, what happened was Take Two went to Microsoft and Sony, and said "We're doing GTA4 on both systems, but only one gets downloadable content. So people who buy a system for this game will buy the system that has downloadable content. Shall we start the bids at $10 million?"

Seeing as GTA is a system seller for a lot of people, the argument makes sense. That $50 million will sell more consoles than $50 million in advertising, so they still probably come out ahead.

Re:This sort of behavior used to be a punchline...

[Simon80 (874052)]

First thing that pops into my head upon seeing this news is a punchline [penny-arcade.com]

Re:

[orta (786013)]

Can we please refrain from using the term next gen to refer to the current generation of gaming hardware. Thanks

Precondition

[SuperKendall (25149)]

Can we please refrain from using the term next gen to refer to the current generation of gaming hardware. Thanks

Sure - right after the sales of either the PS3 or 360 can exceed last get hardware (specifically the PS2) for at least three months.

Re:

[xero314 (722674)]

So you point out that the Wii has Outsold the PS2 for one month, event though the GGP stated it would need to be 3 months (probably meaning consecutive). I'm not even debating what is or isn't next gen, just that your link doesn't satisfy the proposed conditions.

Re:

[olddotter (638430)]

How much do games like GTA cost to develop? Seems like you could produce a full blown game, and then for $50M sell a stripped down version on the 360- with future episodic downloads....

What did I miss?

Re:

[Scottoest (1081663)]

Is the flamethrower off yet? Okay, here goes:

IT WAS ROCKSTAR'S DECISION TO RELEASE GTA IV FOR XBOX 360.

1) This article deals with the arrangement for the chaptered content to follow, not the actual development of the core game itself.
2) Rockstar "dumbing down" the graphics of the title is both:
i) premature judgement, as you HAVENT PLAYED THE GAME YET, and
ii) a conscious decision by Rockstar to sell more games, as the 360 has 12 million

Re:

[Endo13 (1000782)]

Nevermind the fact that the PC by and large is a DVD-only medium too

Which is absolutely irrelevant. Have you ever looked at system requirements on a PC game?

Re:

[metroid composite (710698)]

So now Rockstar is forced to gimp GTA IV not once, but in three areas:

1) Graphics - the PS3 and PC versions are both now gimped down to the weaker 360 graphics hardware

2) World size - the PS3 and PC versions are both now gimped down to 7 gigs - half of that in reality due to the massive seek penalty for going across one layer to another on DVDs

3) World size again - with the game being forced to be designed around the worst case streaming system - the harddrive less Core.

1) Graphics: umm...given that all rep

Re:

[twistedsymphony (956982)]

First of all: do you have any source links about how the game has been "gimped" claims are useless pile of mush without backbone.

Second: How is this any different then last generation where the Xbox crowd got titles gimped due to the PS2's shortcomings? Games are developed for the lowest common denominator. They're not in it to make the highest quality game possible, they're in it to make money by selling to the largest market possible.

If MS had included HD-DVD and a hard drive standard they might not

Re:

[Altus (1034)]

they don't seem to be screwing up my enjoyment of my Wii at all.

But yea, I can see where you are coming from. It is a bit surprising that the 360 has many of these limitations. No hard drive, small disks and such, but when it comes to the graphics it was always going to be limited by the 360. There just aren't enough PS3s out there, the Xbox 360 had to be the target platform because it is the one with the most installed consoles. If you want to sell a ton of games, thats the machine you target, at least

Re:

[DrDitto (962751)]

Sorry, you don't have a clue. The PS3 GPU actually under-performs the Xbox360 GPU.

Re:

[woodhouse (625329)]

>Graphics - the PS3 and PC versions are both now gimped down to the weaker 360 graphics hardware

You have no idea what you're talking about. RSX is a crippled piece of tech and is half a generation behind the X360 hardware.

Re:

[Runefox (905204)]

Wouldn't it be fairly trivial to build a high-res texture set, and a high-poly model set, use those for the high end and just scale down? What of compression? Even audio could be compressed down on the lower-end. What's there to worry about? Didn't they already do something very similar to this between the PSP and PS2 with the Liberty/Vice City Stories games?

Why are so many people saying that this move will result in a crappier game? It won't. There have always been different versions of the same game, and

Re:

[dave562 (969951)]

Is all of this complaining happening because Microsoft is "sticking users" with the weaker system? The last video game system I bought was a PS2. Most of my friends purchased the Xbox. I can tell you that I sure felt a bit ripped off when the XBox version of the GTA games had better graphics than what I got on my PS2. I didn't freak out and curse Sony for putting out a "weak" system though.

Re:

[Runefox (905204)]

I also seem to recall the PS2 version of Call of Duty 3 being rather lackluster (and with a TERRIBLE framerate for the graphics being presented), and I blame this on the hardware limitations of the PS2, being the least powerful of the prior-gen consoles, and having only the median in terms of disc space (4.7GB). I would hazard to guess that it was impossible to port directly what was seen on the X-Box (being the most powerful of the three) over to such hardware, as almost all games that were ported from the

Re:

[Runefox (905204)]

Yes, I know, this is a troll, and an AC. I'll bite anyway, since the stupidity here is astounding.

* Some pc developer crying about how he is completely lost and none of his x86 or directx code will work

Call of Duty 2 was considered by many to be at its finest on the X-Box 360, it being the overall best-looking, best-performing, and best-playing version of the game. The X-Box 360 uses in no way any sort of x86 code, and even its implementation of DirectX is different than that of the PC.

* Some pc game that w

Re:

[tompaulco (629533)]

Not me. I don't buy content. I've already bought the game. If they come out with a deluxe version with all the content included for an extra $20, I'd probably buy it, but I won't shell out $100 two dollars at a time for extra content.
Obviously, I'd never make it as a WoW player.

Re:

[brouski (827510)]

There have been reports of hardware trouble, but other than that I find the 360 to be a generally kickass system, from the dashboard to the controllers to the games. What exactly do you "loathe" about it?

Re:Too bad...

[MeanderingMind (884641)]

We're talking about the 360. You're talking about the original Xbox.

4 years ago is back that way.

Re:

[brkello (642429)]

Of course a lot has changed. You can bash the Wii because you hated the Gamecube. By far, the PS2 had the worst graphics of the generation since it was the weakest system. Things are very different now. If all your arguments are based on the original Xbox...then you don't really have an argument.

Re:

[Control Group (105494)]

Your post is one of the most spectacularly ignorant I've ever read, and I've been reading slashdot for a long time.

It's big
Compared to the Wii, yes. Compared to the PS3, no. Compared to the original PS2, no. Lose one point.

It's loud
The DVD drive is fairly loud. Gain one point.

You have to buy a (shitty) remote control for playing DVD's
This is just plain false. You don't need a remote control, shitty or otherwise, for playing DVDs on the 360. Or, for that matter, for playing video or audio from a PC. Or iPod.

Re:

[PixelScuba (686633)]

I call bullshit. Most of your claims are flat-out false.

The girlfriend part should have tipped you off immediately!

Re:Revenue maybe not all from MS; what about gamer

[SydShamino (547793)]

You can't recognize revenue for a service that has not yet been provided. Regulators will be all over your ass.

Heck, you can't even recognize revenue that you've already received for a service that has not yet been provided. If you sell something with a service contract attached, for example, you have to recognize the revenue for the service contract over the life of the contract, not at the time of sale, even though you collected all the revenue at the time of the sale.

That's why, when something is sold

Re:Revenue maybe not all from MS; what about gamer

[Red Flayer (890720)]

Apparently you haven't read the statement at all, let alone looked at the financials closely. Either that or your understanding of accounting is at a very basic level.

but couldn't part or all of the $50 million in deferred revenue also account for end-user payments for the downloadable content?

No. end-user payments are MS revenue, not T2 revenue. It doesn't matter to T2 where MS gets the cash from.

and they estimate a chunk of downloads, they might just be recognizing that deferred revenue now?

Perhaps

Re:

[Amouth (879122)]

+1 - need to clean the monitor now......

Re:

[HTTP Error 403 403.9 (628865)]

You're mixing your Soviets with your Underpants Gnomes.

Which one has the laser beams attached to its frickin' heads?

Re:Why Microsoft was forced to pay for extra conte

[sycomonkey (666153)]

No developer actually needs that much space, Dual-layer DVD is actually complete overkill when you consider large, immersive games like Zelda:TP, the Metroid Prime series, FF:CC, Price of Persia, etc, etc, etc, were released on disks that held only 1.5GB. Bluray on the PS3 was an enormous mistake, there is absolutely no excuse for a gaming being more than 8GB other than deliberate bloat.

Parent makes no sense whatsoever.

[BenJeremy (181303)]

That makes no sense.

The 360 game disc format is a Dual Layer DVD, 7GB... but honestly, with more and more cinematics moving to the game engine, that's not a limitation. I really don't understand what you are trying to say with your nonsensical quotation of "Storage" that has no basis in reality.

Want to know what's going on here?

Microsoft can't get the exclusive on GTA IV, so they are going for an exclusive on the expansion - a very smart thing to do. It has NOTHING to do with disc capacity, understand? Microsoft will make a mint on the Content downloads, and 360 owners will be happy that they get additional content not available on any other platform.

Content is intended for owners with a hard drive (20GB or 120GB drives) and a broadband Live connection. What's new about this? Sony required a hard drive for some games on the PS2... GTA fanatics will gladly pony up the cash for an Elite or replace their Premium 20GB drive with a 120GB drive.

I honestly can't understand why people bitch about Microsoft's downloadable content charges (or Sony's for that matter), unless the costs are excessive for the user. Reasonably priced Live downloads are good business, and until it gets cracked, it's a very solid model for everybody.

Re:

[Kalriath (849904)]

It was already sold out. If you don't believe Sony was doing the exact same thing previously, you're a complete idiot.

Just because it's Microsoft, it doesn't make it inherently "selling out" or "evil".