[QUOTE="room420"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] um - thats from back when they though the DLC was 2 extra missions, heh. like my link - this is old and pretty unreliable.
cakeorrdeath
How does the age of the article make it unreliable. The blatant dismissal of the information presented without any facts to back it up is in poor style. The article presents information on the financial transaction between MS and R*, as far as I know there have been no statements from a reliable source released that contradict this, If there are please feel free to post them. I am more than happy to be proved wrong, but without evidence in opposition the article retains its relevance regardless of its age.
I believe the word "significant" has been used dozens of times by MS and rockstar reps since.
On a side note 3picuri3 was the first person to bring up the fact PS3 would be getting some sort of DLC content. Which speaks volumes.
"Significant " is a subjective term, and in no way indicates the size or content of the DLC. Considering there has not been any DLC released for previous console GTA's, "any" DLC can be considered "significant". I should have edited out my speculation on the size of the DLC in my original post. The point of my post was to clarify the financial transaction. MS did not pay 50 mil for two episodes, if this article is correct. The conclusions one would draw from this information falls under speculation, however these details coupled with R*'s history concerning exclusivity make an interesting argument. Once again I ask for evidence to the contrary.
On a side note- How does that speak volumes?
3picuri3,
I agree that Patchers speculation on the content and the specific terms of exclusivity are just that, "speculation". His explanation of the financial transaction, given his position, however I can find no reason not to believe.
Log in to comment