BioShock 2 Confirmed, Extra GTA IV Episodic Content Coming?

Take-Two giving downloadable content a big push, or just ambiguous wording?

Posted by Staff
BioShock 2 Confirmed, Extra GTA IV Episodic Content Coming?
Take-Two has confirmed in its financial report that BioShock 2 is coming, as well as leaving a spot of ambiguity around what we should expect from episodic content for GTA IV.

Of the game, Take-Two's CEO and director, Ben Feder, said in an earnings conference call, "We are very pleased to announce today Bioshock 2, the sequel to our wholly-owned and internally developed from 2K that has sold over 2 million units since its launch in August. The title is being developed by 2K Marin and is planned for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009."

In the announcement of the earnings itself, Feder is also quoted as saying, "We also have significant visibility into fiscal 2009, which includes additional episodic content for Grand Theft Auto IV, Mafia II, Borderlands, BioShock 2, our complete sports lineup, additional Nick Jr. titles under our agreement with Nickelodeon, and several new brands.”

So there's "additional" episodic content coming to GTA IV, eh? While SPOnG would love to proclaim that this means previously unannounced (and possibly non platform-exclusive) downloadable content will be released for GTA IV in fiscal 2009, we remain cautious. Remember the hoohah when Feder said in a previous call, "In fiscal 2009, we’ll also be offering additional episodic content for Grand Theft Auto IV in Xbox 360", but it turned out it was the previously announced content that had slipped? It's all very familiar.

Feder's choice of words in his latest statement means there's further ambiguity over whether several or all of the afore-mentioned titles will get the episodic treatment. Could Mafia II, Borderlands, BioShock 2 and the rest all be getting episodic? While the statement could certainly be interpreted that way, SPOnG reckons Feder's just talking about the release of the games themselves and that the "episodic content" is just in reference to GTA IV. BioShock 2, after all, has only just been announced.

SPOnG has contacted Take-Two for confirmation, but no comment was available at the time of press.

You can read SPOnG's latest GTA IV hands on here and find out what we thought of the first BioShock game here.

Comments

SuperSaiyan4 12 Mar 2008 12:49
1/16
What I find confusing is Microsoft as everyone knows has the rights to 2 exclusive episodic content.

Thats all well and good but what is stopping from Rockstar making further content say I dont know episodic content for the PS3?

That could mean Microsoft was stupid in paying all that money when Sony got their own content for nothing?

Or has Microsoft got an agreement that Sony will not get any episodic content? In that case that means Rockstar could only make add on mission packs for PS3 version.

I think it needs to be clarified further to be honest.
Horatio 12 Mar 2008 12:58
2/16
I think it needs to be clarified further to be honest.


Really? Sounds like a fairly straightforward arrangement to me? Mr Gates' lot asked Rockstar for something exclusive, Rockstar said "sure, give us $x and it's yours"...

Not a very complex deal really?
more comments below our sponsor's message
Daz 12 Mar 2008 17:10
3/16
Horatio wrote:
I think it needs to be clarified further to be honest.


Really? Sounds like a fairly straightforward arrangement to me? Mr Gates' lot asked Rockstar for something exclusive, Rockstar said "sure, give us $x and it's yours"...

Not a very complex deal really?


everyone knows that bit, but what about the PS3? have MS and R* entered an agreement that only 360 can have the episodic content? or can the PS3 version have some just not the same ones? thats what needs to be clarified.

@SS4 to be honest I can't see the content staying exclusive for long, but ya never know.
Horatio 12 Mar 2008 17:41
4/16
Ah, apologies, SS4's post didn't make as much sense to me as it did you Daz :-)

I always thought that the deal was for MS to get exclusive episodic content for a period of time only - eg. the ps3 would get the same or different content in 2009 - but, crucially, the 360 would be the only console getting the content to begin with - hence the money paid?

It is a great deal for MS if this is how it works out but I'm betting Sony will have something up its' sleeve to counter it... R* have been known to be a bit sly with this stuff too ;-)
deleted 12 Mar 2008 21:27
5/16
its very very doubtful that Rockstar would release episodic content exclusive for the ps3, and in fatc any episodic content this year for ps3,

Whats more likely is that GTA4 - episode 2 and 3 (1 being the actual game) will grace 360 consoles this year, then 4,5 etc (if there is going to be that much) will both multi platform) with eventually 2-3 hitting ps3 sometime in the far distance once GTA4 is problaby £9.99 in bargain bin and MS is content that it wont effect 360 marketing, the same thing we saw with the PS2 getting GTA 3, VC and SA some time well before the 360, also the episodic content probably wont be in any continuation and will be able to play out of order for the sake of this.

I personally am not holding much hope for this episodic content i have a feeling its a couple of hours extra and really 360 fans i feel wont benfit much for having it. what MS should of done was put that $50,000,000 in for a timed exclusive that would of sold more consoles and stuck it to sony while quite possibly converting a few PS3 fanboys over to the Green side, also that way the episodic would probably of hit 360 anyway.
Joji 13 Mar 2008 13:42
6/16
Very glad to hear of Bioshock 2. Hope its kept on PC and 360. Don't mess it up. please.
PreciousRoi 13 Mar 2008 14:15
7/16
"of" is not a suitable replacement for "have"

Daz 13 Mar 2008 20:13
8/16
PreciousRoi wrote:
"of" is not a suitable replacement for "have"


it is if what you're saying doesn't need "have" i.e. "i'm very glad to hear have Bioshock 2" doesn't make any sense
PreciousRoi 13 Mar 2008 20:44
9/16
in which case it isn't a replacement at all, and isn't germane to the point, is it?

for clarification, the "of" in question is an odious bastardization of the " 've" contraction.
deleted 13 Mar 2008 21:02
10/16
PreciousRoi wrote:
in which case it isn't a replacement at all, and isn't germane to the point, is it?

for clarification, the "of" in question is an odious bastardization of the " 've" contraction.


funny discussing bioshock and the use of english language! Rubes!
Daz 13 Mar 2008 22:44
11/16
PreciousRoi wrote:
in which case it isn't a replacement at all, and isn't germane to the point, is it?

for clarification, the "of" in question is an odious bastardization of the " 've" contraction.


I have no idea what you've just said
tyrion 14 Mar 2008 09:04
12/16
Daz wrote:
I have no idea what you've just said

If I may.

The phrase "would have", for example, is often contracted to "would've" (wud-uv) when speaking which is often mis-pronounced "would of" (wud ov). This also applies to "could have" and "should have".

You can now often see people who write "would of" instead of "would have". This annoys some of us because it is writing down a mis-pronunciation of a contraction. It's quite obviously not a typo like using "that" instead of "than" ("he's a better player that him") sometimes is.

It's subtle clues like this that some of us use to determine, however subconsciously, the intelligence of the person writing what we read. It's also becoming a common enough trope that normally intelligent people are using it. This is confusing because an "obvious idiot" is writing what appears to make sense, like haritori's "for a timed exclusive that would of sold more consoles".

Please Note: I'm not calling you an idiot haritori, just using you as an example of an intelligent person who has used the trope recently and indeed your post is the one that prompted PreciousRoi to start this conversation.

I hope this clears the matter up. :-)
Tim Smith 14 Mar 2008 09:32
13/16
tyrion wrote:
I hope this clears the matter up. :-)


I love words and all that grammar shenaniganing (see how language evolves?) but if Tyrion's comment hasn't cleared this debate on contractions/concatenations up, can we take it to General Waffle and concentrate on discussing games news here.

I meant that as imperative and not interrogative - but I was being passive-aggressive.

Consequently there is no question mark.

I thank you.

Cheers

Tim
Daz 14 Mar 2008 15:23
14/16
tyrion wrote:
Daz wrote:
I have no idea what you've just said

If I may.

The phrase "would have", for example, is often contracted to "would've" (wud-uv) when speaking which is often mis-pronounced "would of" (wud ov). This also applies to "could have" and "should have".

You can now often see people who write "would of" instead of "would have". This annoys some of us because it is writing down a mis-pronunciation of a contraction. It's quite obviously not a typo like using "that" instead of "than" ("he's a better player that him") sometimes is.

It's subtle clues like this that some of us use to determine, however subconsciously, the intelligence of the person writing what we read. It's also becoming a common enough trope that normally intelligent people are using it. This is confusing because an "obvious idiot" is writing what appears to make sense, like haritori's "for a timed exclusive that would of sold more consoles".

Please Note: I'm not calling you an idiot haritori, just using you as an example of an intelligent person who has used the trope recently and indeed your post is the one that prompted PreciousRoi to start this conversation.

I hope this clears the matter up. :-)


thanks for that mate, that's cleared things up, If he'd quoted what he was reffering to I belive this whole incident could've been avioded.
deleted 14 Mar 2008 18:16
15/16
Daz wrote:

thanks for that mate, that's cleared things up, If he'd quoted what he was reffering to I belive this whole incident could've been avioded.


Could`ve, Would`ve Should`ve!!
PreciousRoi 14 Mar 2008 21:35
16/16
THERE WAS AN INCIDENT?

no one sent me a memo...

*sniffles
Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.