Take-Two CEO on Red Dead's Reception, BioShock 2 sales, and another Max Payne 3 delay

16
In an interview with Venture Beat, Take-Two chief executive officer Ben Feder discussed the strong sales of Rockstar Games' long-in-development western Red Dead Redemption, calling the "iconic" image of protagonist John Marston an important element to game's marketing message. "That image is designed to be seared into your mind," Feder told Venture Beat's Dean Takahashi. Feder also discussed the commercial success of BioShock 2, calling the title "ultimately successful, but not hugely successful."

"BioShock 2 is profitable for the company and is a great success. The franchise is viable and has a lasting impact on consumers," Feder said. Although critical reception for the highly-anticipated sequel to the 2007 smash-hit was high and initial sales were strong, BioShock 2 quickly slipped off charts faster than expected.

First teased in a 2005 trailer promoting the PlayStation 3 console, Red Dead Redemption's wagon hit more than a few development bumps before it was released in May 2010. Ultimately, Feder says, the "big bet" has so far "paid off" for the western sandbox title. The same wait until it's finished philosophy is being thrust upon Max Payne 3, which has been delayed numerous times since it was first announced. "Rushing a game to market has never ever been a successful strategy for anybody in this business," Feder concluded.
From The Chatty
  • reply
    June 28, 2010 1:33 PM

    Bioshock 2 isn't as successful mostly because I think that as time has passed, people are realizing that Bioshock 1 was overrated by pundits and consumers alike. It was a good game with an amazing atmosphere but ended being incredibly repetitive IMO.

    • reply
      June 28, 2010 1:40 PM

      Disagree. I think most people who enjoyed Bioshock 1 passed on 2 because playing the Big Daddy at the end of BioShock 1 was more than enough time in that role. A whole game like that? I dunno. Plus it was a game that didn't need a sequel or a prequel, or MP for that matter. It wasn't as big of a draw to play for me like BioShock 1 was.

      • reply
        June 28, 2010 1:42 PM

        The multiplayer is definitely the biggest head scratcher for me.

      • reply
        June 28, 2010 1:52 PM

        Agree. I absolutely loved BS1, but as soon as I heard that you play as a Big Daddy in BS2, I was very disappointed at how they milk this cash-cow and abuse the first game, which pwned.

        And, true to my prejudice, the second title is very crappy, and not recommendable even to hardcore fans of Rapture. It drowned in the first game, so stop digging stuff up.

    • reply
      June 28, 2010 1:43 PM

      I picked up Bioshock 1 for like $5 and was still kinda eh at it for that price. It just wasn't that great and I felt it was extremely overrated. I agree about the atmosphere being great, but the gameplay just seemed to drag on.

    • reply
      June 28, 2010 1:52 PM

      Exactly. The reason it did as well as it did was because it launched during a huge PC drought, and had a cool style. Gameplay was lame, they didn't even take the time to get the mouse look right.

    • reply
      June 28, 2010 2:01 PM

      Yeah, im in the same boat at you. I bought what I thought was the spiritual successor to System Shock 2 and what I got was a dumbed down remake in an interesting but repetitive atmosphere. Even the major "twist" fell on deaf ears here, didn't do anything for me. It would've pulled itself off if you could replay the game knowing that and make different decisions but you can't.

      Bioshock 2 on the other hand was a pleasant surprise. It made the combat A LOT better. It added some nice extra depth. The story was handled well and how they integrated your role as a big daddy was great. I highly reccomend it to anyone if they have a chance to play it. Should be getting cheap quick. I will add though that it seems if you thought the first was overrated, you'll like it but if you absolutely adored the first, then you'll hate it.

    • reply
      June 28, 2010 2:56 PM

      Feder obviously doesn't care about much of anything beyond initial sales. No indication there of whether Bioshock 3 (oh yes, there will be a Bioshock 3) will have more substance, will be a much better game to play, instead of just title number 3 in the series to massively overhype, deliver incomplete, and then pump out DLC packs every three weeks.

      • reply
        June 28, 2010 4:07 PM

        I thought you said you didn't play Bioshock 2? I would argue that, from a gameplay perspective, it actually did have more substance than the first game. people's major complaint about the first one was that it become repetitive and the second one had a lot of weapons and ammo types. I thought the gameplay was pretty enjoyable. I don't think it did a story as well as the first game, but that's a tough thing to follow and given everything I still enjoyed it. It did start rather slow though.

        • reply
          June 28, 2010 4:08 PM

          also there are only two DLC packs for the game out right now, both of them new MP content, so I'm not sure why you think they're pumping out stuff every three weeks, but whatever

    • reply
      June 28, 2010 3:06 PM

      no its because the end of bioshock 1 was just that .. the end ,.. no reason to go back there

      • reply
        June 28, 2010 3:18 PM

        Bioshock 1 did have an excellent ending, and that's getting far more rare in games these days, thanks to planned sequels and trilogies.

        • reply
          June 28, 2010 3:41 PM

          I completely agree about the ending. I seriously don't understand some people who say it was terrible. I totally didn't get that from either ending, really.

      • reply
        June 28, 2010 6:45 PM

        I liked Bioshock 1 so much I knew I wasn't going to like a sequel by different people.

Hello, Meet Lola