Pachter: Halo 3 could cause GTA IV delay
Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter, in his latest assessment of Take Two, said that the publisher might delay Grand Theft Auto IV so as to move it farther away from Halo 3's September 25 launch. Currently, GTAIV is expected October 16, just three weeks after Master Chief moves in."We believe that a two-week delay would provide a reasonable gap between the launch of Halo 3 and the launch of GTA IV, and would actually help sales of both games," he said.
Indeed, the thought of having to shell out $120 to $220 (that's $90 for GTA special edition and $130 for the Halo's legendary set) in a short amount of time does make us want to hold off on one of the titles until our wallets are happier. But will two weeks make all the difference?
Pachter suggests another reason for a delay that has more to do with business strategy. If Take Two delays GTA IV two weeks, that will put it in their 2008 fiscal year. Though that would most assuredly hurt the publisher's FY 2007 prospects, Pachter said that it's possible they will just "throw in the towel" for the year and give themselves a strong start for FY 2008.
One devious suggestion that we hope doesn't happen: Pachter suggested Take Two keep the special edition on October 16 while moving the "normal SKU" back a few weeks. Good for business, but bad for the impatient gamer. Remember, this is just one analyst's opinion, and Take Two is still officially committed to the October 16 release dates.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
kingofwale @ Jun 1st 2007 3:20PM
I'm speechless.
if you don't think your product can compete with the best of the best. then don't produce them. Don't screw your own consumers by running away from competition.
I just think they are still having problem with xbox version, and just bulls&&&ing us with this garbage reason.
The True Gamer @ Jun 1st 2007 3:21PM
Regular editions for me, please. Only a fucking moron would shell out $90 for GTA.
jason w @ Jun 1st 2007 3:22PM
Im not that interested in GTA this go around.
Would the PS3 version ship the same day or would it be pushed back as well?
Vidikron @ Jun 1st 2007 3:25PM
Being a PSWii60+PC owner my wallet is going to be hurting this fall... two week delay or not will make little difference to me.
Roger @ Jun 1st 2007 3:29PM
thanks alot bungie. go stroke your penises with 100 dollar bills you aholes of a game that is destined to suck just like halo 2
Shagittarius @ Jun 1st 2007 3:31PM
Heres a better idea:
Stop selling all the major games in the Christmas season. I have money all year long and could use some new great games during the lean months.
Matt B @ Jun 1st 2007 3:35PM
Here is the best idea:
Launch it Sept. 25 on the PS3 and then on the 360 early november. Then they can have both a strong finish to 2007 and a good start for FY 2008. I can't believe no one has thought of that.
JonnyBoy2U @ Jun 1st 2007 3:37PM
LOL at kingofwale! Are you actually serious? You're blaming the 360 for this? I mean really whats next sony fanboys? Blame global warming on Microsoft and Nintendo? This is a good business move. Pure and simple. Bottom line is that GTA IV doesn't stand a chance against Halo 3 and if Take Two sees that and wants to start of the new year with great sales its really none of your f^cking business. I don't see how they're screwing the customers. 2 weeks is NOT a big deal. If anything they're helping since I know I'm gonna be shelling out loads on the 360 this fall and it would be nice to have a lil break inbetween so I can save some more money for other purposes.
Basically you're a hater. The 360 is better than the ps3 is so many ways (and I'm not talking technology wise although its pretty close in that department there as well). You have NO EVIDENCE to support your bullshit claims so why make yourself look dumb?
WMain00 @ Jun 1st 2007 3:39PM
Here is the reality:
GTAIV will more than likely be delayed development wise.
brian` @ Jun 1st 2007 3:39PM
release it on ps3 first! problem solved
leland @ Jun 1st 2007 3:41PM
"it's possible they will just "throw in the towel" for the year and give themselves a strong start for FY 2008"
Also called "big bath" behavior for you accounting/finance geeks out there.
kingofwale @ Jun 1st 2007 3:42PM
>You're blaming the 360 for this?
are you retarded? When and where did I ever blame 360 for this?
All I said was. Instead of believing in their OWN products, T2 rather runs away from competition and then whine about the market. That by itself is disappointed and an act of coward.
my advice to Take 2 would be "GROW SOME BALLS"
Vidikron @ Jun 1st 2007 3:42PM
@10
I think that sort of depends on what sort of agreements they have. MS may not want/allow the 360 version to appear after the PS3 version.
quazi @ Jun 1st 2007 3:42PM
nuuuuu doesnt gta know im willing to quit playing halo 3 for gta4?!?! im looking forward to both but ive loved gta since the first game out on pc then later to ps1.im willing to not buy h3 to get gta4 on time if it helps rockstar =D
Vidikron @ Jun 1st 2007 3:43PM
@12
Actually, you seemed to blame the XBox in your final sentence.
deaftly @ Jun 1st 2007 3:44PM
doesnt bother me , ill be getting both anyway, if anything give me more time to enjoy halo3, sucks to be a ps3 owner, it prob got delayed because the ps3 version is so far behind
Neil Christie @ Jun 1st 2007 3:47PM
People might not realise this but Rockstar almost always announce delays to GTA titles by one or two weeks as the game moves towards its release. Look at San Andreas - it came out in the same year as Halo 2 and Half Life 2 and it got delayed, same with Vice City, Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories.
kingofwale @ Jun 1st 2007 3:48PM
>Actually, you seemed to blame the XBox in your final sentence.
my last sentence is straight from the mouth of their OWN CEO. and frankly, it's their OWN bloody fault to not figure out a console. Apparently Epic has no problem with it.
T2 had NOBODY to blame but themselves, and then had to resort to blame Halo 3 for it is JUST LOW.
drock1205 @ Jun 1st 2007 3:50PM
Anyone who knows ANYTHING about game development should be able to figure out a two week delay on a console game for "development troubles with a platform" is as ridiculous as "carts can compete graphically and videowise with CDs." What are they going to do in two weeks on a game in development for over2 years, completely re-write the code once they figure out the problem? Or is it 5 months ahead of time they plan on losing EXACTLY two weeks solving this "problem."
Fanboying can be silly, and this is beyond ludicrous. Like or hate 360, the reason they would move it is because Halo 3 will sell regardless how you feel about it, and at a large clip ordering it for the price of TWO games, a smart business people who actually run international corporations know that it will cut into the profits. Like why Harry Potter is moving their release date up 2 days; it isn't because Dan acted faster and the editors edited fast; it's ECONOMICS STUPID*!
*If you think this is flame, you are officially 12.
sheppy @ Jun 1st 2007 3:52PM
This isn't exactly an uncommon thing, people. Way back on the NES, Nintendo dictated when your games could and could not come out and made sure new Nintendo games didn't have hefty competition. Likewise, Microsoft Live Arcade is currently ruled by the concept of preventing cannibalizing sales. And game companies constantly have to look into these factors when working on games for release. For example, the worst thing that ever happened to Red Faction 2 was coming out when Timesplitters 2 did.
In Take 2's defense, it's a wise move. After all, we KNOW Halo will be the unstoppable sales juggernaut. Why would anyone position themselves next to that release? Doesn't matter if the game is better or not, Halo 3 will have the huge marketing push and game quality never relates to game sales. Otherwise Sipderman 3 wouldn't STILL be burning up the charts.
felixlighter @ Jun 1st 2007 3:56PM
@kingofwale
First of all, they have been demonstrating the game to the press with the Xbox 360 version. If they are having any technical issues currently with a platform it would most likely be the PS3. (If you are referencing the comment made about the lack of guaranteed hard drive or bluray, I think your taking the comment out of context and over blowing it.)
Secondly, Rockstar isn't the source of this information. It's an analyst's prediction. The developer has not even hinted at a delay for any reason. So if the analyst's reasoning behind his prediction turns out to be wrong, it doesn't mean that the game is being delayed for some other mysterious reason. It could just mean the game will not be delayed at all.
sheppy @ Jun 1st 2007 3:57PM
Allow me to clarify before I get jumped.
"Doesn't matter if the game is better or not, Halo 3 will have the huge marketing push and game quality never relates to game sales."
What I meant by this is simple. Let's say a company comes out with a game that is much, much better than Madden. Critics agree, the world all seems deadset on this point. 2K is better. But this doesn't matter because Madden is known, Madden is vg football. So Madden will outsell every time. So releasing 2K on the same day as Madden is destroying your own sales. But shipping slightly before...
XGamerX @ Jun 1st 2007 4:04PM
yea i agree i have a feeling GTAIV is behind development wise as well. That or they just hiding alot of information to build hype.
JeffNLA @ Jun 1st 2007 4:05PM
Yes, a smart move by Take 2. This is business people. Marketing and release dates are part of it.
It's immature to think a software release date is solely based on completion. This is why holiday season seems so many game releases. People are ready to spend a lot then.
Look at the movie industry - they try to calculate release date according to many factors.
Jason @ Jun 1st 2007 4:11PM
It seems like Pachter is getting his opinion heard on just about everything every goddamn week! I'm sick of this guy, and all the analysts... I get better forecasts and provoking ideas from the comments at Joystiq.
Mr Khan @ Jun 1st 2007 4:12PM
This would be understandable if it was a game in the same genre (like Metroid Prime 3, Haze, Crysis, BioShock), but as it is...
Its as stupid as if Nintendo had said they'd delay Super Mario Galaxy to not compete with Halo 3
I agree with Kingofwale though (first time i can say that), if your products can't compete, then don't produce them...
Walking Contradiction @ Jun 1st 2007 4:15PM
"Its as stupid as if Nintendo had said they'd delay Super Mario Galaxy to not compete with Halo 3"
Its a good thing Nintendo don't. They know just like Take Two Halo3 will crush anyother game upon release.
drock1205 @ Jun 1st 2007 4:18PM
Ugh. To all people who would say, "Can't compete, then don't produce." It's called economics.
People don't go, "I'm buying one shooter," they say, "I'm buying one game a month." It's simple supply and demand; people have limited income to spend, and bundling it with somehting else people want will lessen BOTH sales. It's why studios and labels stagger their products, and why TV shows don't run ALL their hit shows on the same night. And bringing up Mario, which is exclusive on one system geared to a different AUDIENCE(not genre-preference but demographic) is silly as well.
Bascially, that argument is like saying, "RETREAT?! IF YOU CAN'T WIN THIS BATTLE WHY BOTHER FIGHTING THE WAR!" while fighting King Phyyhus.
Hirsbrunner @ Jun 1st 2007 4:19PM
Didn't Bill Gates say something about having Halo 3 release the same day the PS3 launched? Or am I remembering that wrong? That obviously didn't happen.
I don't see the big deal. Release 'em both at the same time and let 'em fight it out.
drock1205 @ Jun 1st 2007 4:20PM
Pyrrhus, hastily typed old kings be damned!
theDude @ Jun 1st 2007 4:21PM
This is one of the stupidest analysis' of a situation that I've ever read. The assumption that the analyst appears to be ignoring is that GTA IV is cross-platform and the sale of Halo3 will have no effect on PS3 sales at all.
Grindstone @ Jun 1st 2007 4:22PM
Well, considering my copy of Halo 3 is already bought and paid for (I do this because I can never be totally sure of my finances when the game actually launches), I don't see a problem with the 3 week difference already between the two games.
Besides, it's two different months -- two different paychecks. If they want to push it to the end of October, that's fine. The games are fundamentally different, so the appeal of them will draw a variety of gamers.
kingofwale @ Jun 1st 2007 4:24PM
from a gamer's point of view, I would LOVE nothing more to see Halo 3 go against FFXIII and Mario Galaxy.
If you're a true gamer and this 3 way race doesn't excite you, I have nothing to say.
Sure, there will only be 1 game winning, but it's the excitement that people craves. The fact T2 just openedly admitting defeat, made me lose a lot of respect for them. Even if you're Red-Steel going against Gears of War, you should at least put up a fight and be a man about it.
Walking Contradiction @ Jun 1st 2007 4:26PM
"Its all about the benjamins baby!"
kingofwale @ Jun 1st 2007 4:30PM
>34. "Its all about the benjamins baby!"
just another reason that makes you think... hmm, why should I be loyal to a game franchise when they could care LESS about their own customers?
Hirsbrunner @ Jun 1st 2007 4:39PM
@34. Or, as "Weird Al" sings it..."It's all about the pentiums baby!"
If you haven't heard his version, you should. It's freakin' awesome.
Jason Tyra @ Jun 1st 2007 4:39PM
Man, all of this mayhem just because an analyst made a COMPLETELY FABRICATED ASSUMPTION!!
Calm down, calm down...
Vidikron @ Jun 1st 2007 4:39PM
@kingofwale
Why do you think they should "be a man about it"? What's the point? This is business, not a street fight. Even if Halo 3 sucks (which I doubt), it has huge hype behind it. No game will be able to compete with it on that basis. Even your advertising for the launch would be lost in the sea of hype about Halo 3. That's just throwing away money.
hegemonyhog @ Jun 1st 2007 4:42PM
"The fact T2 just openedly admitting defeat, made me lose a lot of respect for them. Even if you're Red-Steel going against Gears of War, you should at least put up a fight and be a man about it."
Why does a company not wanting to lose money decrease your respect for them? Should they be trying to lose money?
This may be smart for Take Two from a market perspective just for the simple fact that Halo's a proven system-seller. If Halo sells a half-million 360s, that's a half-million new system owners looking for fresh new content.
EvoAnubis @ Jun 1st 2007 4:46PM
Kingofwales, you did see the part where this is just some analyst's opinion, right? You're acting like Rockstar said this. They didn't. The post even says that.
wolliam @ Jun 1st 2007 4:48PM
i want halo 3
wait .... i want gta iv
no no no i want halo....
dam its so hard to make a choice
http://clubvaio.blogspot.com/
kingofwale @ Jun 1st 2007 4:50PM
>Should they be trying to lose money?
I find it funny that people think if Halo sells, no other software will. Need I mention this is GTA series we are talking about? The last iteration of the series that sold 15 million copies vs the 8 million copies Halo 2 sold.
What does this comment from T2 say? Well, they don't think their GTAIV is that good. and frankly, if they don't even think it's good, why should I go buy it? and for that matter, anybody else?
Mike @ Jun 1st 2007 4:51PM
M$ ruins everything
Jason Tyra @ Jun 1st 2007 4:51PM
Ahem, once more I feel the need to clarify one point...
COMPLETELY FABRICATED ASSUMPTION!!!!
kingofwale @ Jun 1st 2007 4:51PM
>You're acting like Rockstar said this.
I know, but considering T2 hasn't released a statement that says "Mr Patcher. F&^*& YOU"
it kinda makes you wonder where T2 really stands on this. Maybe when there's smoke, there's really fire this time?
Davinche @ Jun 1st 2007 4:54PM
Reading this thread you wouldn't realize that every GTA game since Halo inception has outsold the game...badly. In fact San andreas was/is just shy of outselling Halo 2 TWICE over...
Just because thier is not a blitz of marketing and its not posted in joystiq at least twice a day doesn't mean that GTA won't beat Halo in terms of sales. Its one of those game that will sell well regardless.
Please note for some short minded individuals this is not a anti halo stance. I love the game. Purely sales i'm talking about.
Vidikron @ Jun 1st 2007 4:54PM
@42
See, that's where you are mistaken. A move like this would in no way be an admission that their game is inferior. It's simply getting out of the way of the Halo 3 hype. Besides, the GTA has it's own hype machine, and they don't want that being adversly affected by Halo 3. Put a big enough gap between releases to allow the Halo 3 hype to die down and then media will refocus on GTA.
Dan @ Jun 1st 2007 4:57PM
It's not like movies, where the opening weekend means everything. Videogames sell consistently (at least good ones) for months after their release. Let Halo 3 have it's moment for the first few days of release... then 3 weeks later, most people will have beaten it and will want to try something new anyways.
Playing Halo 3 online can always be in addition to another game anyways.
kingofwale @ Jun 1st 2007 4:59PM
>A move like this would in no way be an admission that their game is inferior.
actually, it's a CLEAR backing down from a not-so-direct-challenge. T2 should just stick with it. The hype will ONLY take a game so far, after 2 weeks the sales number ONLY be about the quality of the game.
Vidikron @ Jun 1st 2007 5:06PM
@49
Actually, you need only look as far as movie games to see that more than quality can carry a game for more more than two weeks.
But, again, why would you want your own hype machine (i.e. ADVERTISING) overshadowed by Halo 3's? It has nothing to do with game quality, nothing at all. It's about getting your new game in the public eye, and that's going to be more difficult to do while the Halo 3 hype machine is in full swing.
In the long run both games will likely sell tons, but why risk losing a few sales and wasting advertising dollars just because your pride refused to let you move a game back couple of weeks?