[QUOTE="donwoogie"]they're keping relatively quiet about it which says to me that they are unsure as to whether the DLC could be used as a trump. Jandurin
To me, it indicates a refreshing Nintendo-esque approach. Either they know exactly what it'll be and want it to be a surprise, or they're not opening their mouths about what it is before they find out exactly what it is.Either way, 50 million dollars doesn't come cheap.
Rofl, this is MS we're talking about, they would exploit the DLC at every opportunity they could, forget surprises and this would be their biggest chance since this is the launch of one of the best selling franchises of all time.
[QUOTE="donwoogie"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="donwoogie"]Well, tbf, they wouldn't just be getting missions, they would also be guaranteed that Sony wouldn't get any DLC until at least Q2 2009.
Zeliard9
Yes, obviously part of it is exclusivity. But it's $50 million. You don't pay $50 million just for exclusivity unless that DLC is worth making exclusive. Sub-missions aren't, especially not when the core game is already so massive.
True, 50mil is a lot of money. Probably enough to start up a whole new IP, but they don't know what they bought and they aren't exactly flaunting it. I have a lot of friends who are just casuals but love GTA and a lot of them didn't even know it was coming to the Xbox 360, let alone knowing it will have DLC. If MS new ahead of time that the DLC would be massive, in that, it would be a new chunk of the city, they would take every opportunity they had they show it off, but instead, they're keping relatively quiet about it which says to me that they are unsure as to whether the DLC could be used as a trump.
I agree that Microsoft doesn't know exactly what they bought, but I do think they and Rockstar came up with some lawyerly "expected level of depth" for the DLC's content. I don't think they would've made it arbitrary.
Microsoft may have not known exactly what they were signing up for in terms of actual content, but I do think they have an idea of the amount of content. And what Microsoft has publicly said is that each DLC (there are supposed to be two) would take at least 10 hours to finish. It would take a lot missions to reach that amount of hours, so that could be what it is: a lot of missions. But it would have to be quite a few, or each would have to be pretty packed. 10 hours is as long as most single-player campaigns in other games.
Now yes, a new city is a big stretch and is very unlikely. But Burnout Paradise is showing it's perfectly feasible to add new areas to the map via DLC, even actual islands. So that could be what it is. A new area on the map, with new missions, that have you going back and forth between it and the other boroughs and such. That seems more likely to take up that many hours, and be worth $50 million to keep exclusive (and create).
Sub-Missions take a long time to complete :P
But yeh, I suppose it is very probable that a new portion of the city could be dropped in, but I assumed that the city drumping DLCs would simple take the place of the next installments of the GTAIV franchise, much in the same way Vice ctiy and San Andreas were simply improved versions of GTA3's engine. And, assuming that is Rockstar's intention which they have expressed on occasion, I just don't think they would alienate a consumer base for it. Then again, this could be the case and we could very well end up with a repeat of what happened with the other GTA3 games, in that, they are exclusive, then a year later, they just magically appear on competing formats.
Personally, I think, from an economical standpoint, MS have wasted their money. I would buy the DLC if it was available on the PS3, but the vast majority of people who play GTA are casuals who strugle to complete the game because all they really want to do is much mess around in the city and who will not bother laying down $15-20 (complete guess) for the extra content, that is unless of course, MS make it very cheap, in which case I'm not sure they would make a profit.
Log in to comment