Jump to content
GTA 5 Forums - iGTA5.com

City of Dis

Members
  • Content Count

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by City of Dis

  1. True. I'm saying that Take-Two (fuck whatever abbreviation I falsely used) expects it come out by March 2013. It could be delayed. Take-Two is notorious for allowing that to happen to so many of its games.
  2. Now wind your fucking neck in and listen to the people who know how things go down around here. You ostrich-like cunt. lol you've got to be kidding me. It is bonafide illegal for a company to tell its shareholders that they expect to make $700 million when they really don't. That is fucking fraud. If they were mistaken, that's different, and that's exactly what your press release is referring to. Sony expected profits in its game division in 2011, but experienced losses because of the unforeseen PSN hack. In fact, it just happened in the case of Facebook. http://www.reuters.c...E84M0RK20120523 You cannot lie about revenue to your shareholders. Dumbass. I think you're taking this way off-topic. Expecting to make a profit is not the same as guaranteeing to make a profit. But anyway, you think investors will be suing T2 if GTA V doesn't come out by March 2013 then? If it comes to light that 2K never intended to make that much money, then yes, the shareholders will sue. This barely ever happens because corporations aren't that stupid; it's not entirely unheard of, as the case of Facebook going public less than a couple of weeks ago. There really isn't any title or combination of titles that can make $700 million. That's over 13 million copies sold. Agent can't do that; it's a new IP, and it's an exclusive (no PS3 game has sold even half the amount 2K is claiming it will make). In fact, historically, the only titles that have been consistently able to sell that much are GTA and Call of Duty (being multiplatform also helps). If GTA V gets delayed internally, that's another thing. But if it's leaked that GTA V was never expected to be ready by March 2013, then that is grounds for the shareholders to sue (assuming they don't make $700 million from some other source, which, you have to admit at this point, can't happen without GTA V). That would be fraud (as I've tried to explain to you for the umpteenth time) because it's shallowly bolstering your own stock; you aren't allowed to create bubbles, for obvious reasons. So I go back to my original point. Either you think 2K is lying, which is really fucking illegal, or 2K expects GTA V to come out before the end of the fiscal year.
  3. Now wind your fucking neck in and listen to the people who know how things go down around here. You ostrich-like cunt. lol you've got to be kidding me. It is bonafide illegal for a company to tell its shareholders that they expect to make $700 million when they really don't. That is fucking fraud. If they were mistaken, that's different, and that's exactly what your press release is referring to. Sony expected profits in its game division in 2011, but experienced losses because of the unforeseen PSN hack. In fact, it just happened in the case of Facebook. http://www.reuters.c...E84M0RK20120523 You cannot lie about revenue to your shareholders. Dumbass.
  4. No, the evidence here is overwhelming. Analysts don't pull stuff out of their ass. There is no way Take-Two could see it's shares jump $2.00 without GTA V. So yes, Take-Two did very much imply that GTA V is coming out before March 2013. Maybe I missed the bit where they implied it was coming before March 2013. Could you listen to the whole conference call then tell me at which point I should listen to it again. Thank you. Q4 2012 Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Earnings Conference Call Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:30 p.m. ET Webcast Presentation Click here for webcast Why is logic so difficult for you? There is not a single thing Take-Two could do to get that much revenue barring the release of GTA V. So either Take-Two is lying, which is fraud, or GTA V is coming out before March 2013. Pick one. I don't want to pick one. I want to know which part you think they're implying 'before March 2013'. Please explain for the audience. Take-Two laid out their expected earnings for the fiscal year. This is everything between now and March 2013. That is the definition of a fiscal year. In these earnings is a whopping $700 million, the source of this revenue undisclosed, something that only big ass games like Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto can ever hope to achieve. It can't be from multiple unannounced games either (Take-Two revealed the expected earnings for their big games, like Bioshock) because they would just cannibalize each other. So either Take-Two has an unannounced big title or combination of titles capable of earning them at least $700 million between now and March 2013 (and if you can think of one, then maybe you can enlighten us), they expect Grand Theft Auto V to release between now and March 2013, or they're lying. If the latter turns out to be true, then the shareholders will sue them to high heaven. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Read what is being said before you offhandedly dismiss anything that isn't an official corporate announcement. You come off as awfully flippant and ignorant. So if March 2013 comes and GTA V hasn't been released it means they lied and the shareholders will sue? Also, I'm sorry if I come off as 'awfully flippant and ignorant' it's just that I don't understand anything when it comes to Rockstar Games or Take-Two Interactive. I feel blessed that you're a member here. Maybe I should ask my mate from the internet, he works for Take-Two. Also, I made the prediction of March 2013 before any analysts did. Does that make me a reliable source? Well, if March 2013 comes around and they haven't made the money they claimed they will and they don't have a good excuse as to why they didn't, then yes, the shareholders will sue. Corporations legally cannot lie about future profits. That is fraud. And if you came up with the March 2013 date without the slightest bit of evidence for it, then it would be baseless. But there is much evidence that GTA V will be released before the end of this fiscal year. It would be virtually impossible for Take-Two to make that amount of money without it. Considering they refuse to divulge exactly where this $700 million will come from... well, you do the math. Understand at least a minimum before commenting.
  5. Say somehow, it is real? Then, that's only the number of vehicles confirmed so far. If you watch the trailer, 3 planes and a huge blimp appear in it... *4 planes Four different planes? Could you point them out for us please? During the windmill scene, there's a seaplane that can be seen briefly. Very easy to miss.
  6. No, the evidence here is overwhelming. Analysts don't pull stuff out of their ass. There is no way Take-Two could see it's shares jump $2.00 without GTA V. So yes, Take-Two did very much imply that GTA V is coming out before March 2013. Maybe I missed the bit where they implied it was coming before March 2013. Could you listen to the whole conference call then tell me at which point I should listen to it again. Thank you. Q4 2012 Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Earnings Conference Call Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:30 p.m. ET Webcast Presentation Click here for webcast Why is logic so difficult for you? There is not a single thing Take-Two could do to get that much revenue barring the release of GTA V. So either Take-Two is lying, which is fraud, or GTA V is coming out before March 2013. Pick one. I don't want to pick one. I want to know which part you think they're implying 'before March 2013'. Please explain for the audience. Take-Two laid out their expected earnings for the fiscal year. This is everything between now and March 2013. That is the definition of a fiscal year. In these earnings is a whopping $700 million, the source of this revenue undisclosed, something that only big ass games like Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto can ever hope to achieve. It can't be from multiple unannounced games either (Take-Two revealed the expected earnings for their big games, like Bioshock) because they would just cannibalize each other. So either Take-Two has an unannounced big title or combination of titles capable of earning them at least $700 million between now and March 2013 (and if you can think of one, then maybe you can enlighten us), they expect Grand Theft Auto V to release between now and March 2013, or they're lying. If the latter turns out to be true, then the shareholders will sue them to high heaven. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Read what is being said before you offhandedly dismiss anything that isn't an official corporate announcement. You come off as awfully flippant and ignorant.
  7. Say somehow, it is real? Then, that's only the number of vehicles confirmed so far. If you watch the trailer, 3 planes and a huge blimp appear in it... *4 planes
  8. No, the evidence here is overwhelming. Analysts don't pull stuff out of their ass. There is no way Take-Two could see it's shares jump $2.00 without GTA V. So yes, Take-Two did very much imply that GTA V is coming out before March 2013. Maybe I missed the bit where they implied it was coming before March 2013. Could you listen to the whole conference call then tell me at which point I should listen to it again. Thank you. Q4 2012 Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Earnings Conference Call Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:30 p.m. ET Webcast Presentation Click here for webcast Why is logic so difficult for you? There is not a single thing Take-Two could do to get that much revenue barring the release of GTA V. So either Take-Two is lying, which is fraud, or GTA V is coming out before March 2013. Pick one.
  9. No, the evidence here is overwhelming. Analysts don't pull stuff out of their ass. There is no way Take-Two could see it's shares jump $2.00 without GTA V. So yes, Take-Two did very much imply that GTA V is coming out before March 2013.
  10. Not happening. Though Take-Two's financial projections are unrealistically optimistic without the game coming out between now and March 2013, barring an improbable multitude of unannounced games.
  11. Well today's May 24th. Happy birthday Sam Houser.
  12. I hadn't considered that. With what little we know, however, I don't think it likely that they would include GTA vehicles in it.
  13. I never said that I was absolutely convinced. It could be for a different future GTA game, or scrapped GTA cars for a past game. I only said that the circumstantial evidence points in the direction that this is a partial list for vehicles that will appear in GTA V or vehicles that were thought to appear in GTA V. I base this assertion primarily on the vehicles relating to snow, because as far as I know snow hasn't appeared in a past GTA game, at least enough to warrant a vehicle for it. I say that this is probably a rough draft of a partial list of vehicles for GTA V. On its own, this isn't very illuminating. But it does reveal some interesting things, like the aforementioned snow and cable cars.
  14. Jesus dude, did you even fucking read what I posted? It's not bullshit, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's not for GTA V, then what else could it possibly be for? Answer that question. Where's the evidence it's from GTA V? Troll.
  15. Jesus dude, did you even fucking read what I posted? It's not bullshit, it's circumstantial evidence. If it's not for GTA V, then what else could it possibly be for? Answer that question.
  16. No, you're missing the point. This must be like the fifth post where I've stated these things, but you've yet to address a single one of them, so I'll put it in list format. For future reference at least. 1. A list of cars appears in Max Payne 3. This has been independently verified. I won't bother showing the links on the Internet, a simple google search will suffice. If the file were a fabrication, that would've come to light already. Other people have found the file. The file exists. 2. The cars are obviously GTA related because it there are names of past GTA cars like Infernus, Burrito, etc. 3. In addition to these cars listed, there are other vehicles listed. 4. Rockstar has been known to include GTA information on other Rockstar products, like Bully and Red Dead. Now I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but you've demonstrated such a stubborn inability to comprehend this simple bit of logic that I'm compelled to spoon feed it to you. The file exists. The file contains cars related to GTA. In addition to these cars are other vehicles, new vehicles, suggesting that this list is for an upcoming GTA game. And to drive the point home, Rockstar has done this before. Apply Occam's Razor. What other thing could this list be? No really, what other thing could it be? Because it seems to me that we've exhausted all other options. Cars scrapped for a past GTA game (then why the snow vehicles?)? Before you respond with, "There is no confirmation that these are in GTA V." Yeah, no shit Sherlock. That's the very definition of a leak. We assess each leak on its merits. If you refuse to consider anything less than Rockstar themselves confirming it, then you're the parallel of all those noobs who believe every leak. Historically, leaks happen. And we have very good cause to believe that this is another instance of a leak.
  17. I'm just pointing out the snow thing, not backing up the bullshit 'GTA V leak'. You've yet to provide a single reason why this is definitively bullshit. Do you believe the entire thing is a fabrication, even though it's been confirmed independently by many different people? Do you believe that Rockstar is just fucking with you? Do you believe that GTA cars appeared in Max Payne 3? You're running out of options.
  18. I'm on the side of Plato, Confucius, Plethon, Hobbes, Friedrich List, Louis-Ferdinand CĂ©line, Kevin B. MacDonald, Francis Parker Yockey, Ramiro Ledesma Ramos and others of similar mind. If you still have faith in your bastardization/abasement of democracy, then allow it to devour you harmoniously. Okay, you are serious. Let's start with your first instance of batshit inanity: Defaulting would cause interest rates to rise considerably. During a liquidity trap, this would be economic hell. Unemployment would rise sharply. The economy would enter recession. You are an absolute idiot if you think that defaulting would be a good idea. Fuck your name dropping of philosophers (a logical fallacy, by the way), every single economist would be against you in this. The very purpose of fiscal responsibility is to avoid defaulting. I'll avoid going into your not even wrong assertion that the debt will never be repaid, you need to understand this very fundamental and very elementary precept of basic economics first. And I don't have the slightest faith in American democracy. I wax cynical about it all the time. America stopped resembling a representative democracy a long time ago (1973 to be precise). But moving even further away from democracy is stupid. Your description of Lincoln as a dictator is cute, but just that. Sure he exceeded the powers granted to him to arguably absurd degrees, but he still yielded to periodic elections. Lincoln wasn't the first to do this. Adams (the first one) was quite totalitarian with the Alien and Sedition Acts. I'm not in the mood to convince you that democracy is better than dictatorship. Usually when I argue with right-wingers, they're like a mixture of Ayn Rand and Ken Ham, not D.H. Lawrence. You don't get too many of those anymore, though a strong sense of misanthropy and a superiority complex are usually the motivations behind such an asinine opinion. But take a look around you. Look at countries with at least a semblance of representative democracy (I consider America the lowest common denominator in this regard, with Scandinavia as probably the highest). Those countries invariably have the lowest rates of unemployment, the highest standards of living, the highest GDP per capita, the highest human rights ranking. I don't care which philosophers of antiquity are on your side. If your best argument is that old white guys from centuries or millenia ago supported the need of a dictator, most of which never actually saw modern democracy. I have empirical evidence on my side. We have enough disenfranchisement as it is. You take away the right to vote to oppress people. (Take note of the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement.) Turning America into a dictatorship would unavoidably take away from what these people fought for. Power would revert back to white men, the disproportionate amount they already control be damned. So not only is your idea of a utopia economically unsound, it's also socially insulting.
  19. So Rockstar put a fake list of GTA cars in Max Payne 3? Also:
  20. Clearly. I haven't played the game, but are there any car models from GTA like the Infernus? And as far as I'm aware, there are no snow levels either.
  21. No shit. But I think our cognitive capacity goes a little beyond spouting truisms. Analyze the evidence behind each leak. Considering this particular leak came from Rockstar, and Rockstar has done this before, I am very much convinced that this is real. BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IT'S ANYTHING TO DO WITH GTA FUCKING V SO IT'S PURE SPECULATION AND HOPE. What else could it be? The vehicles are obviously related to something GTA related because of the inclusion of vehicles previously established in the series, and it features enough unfamiliar names and vehicles suited for environments not yet seen in the series (snowmobiles, etc.) to know that the list is for a future game, so unless there's another GTA game in the works, I see no other alternative. Unless these vehicles were scrapped from a past game? GTA IV was never going to include snow, so San Andreas maybe? So yeah, good reason to believe this is real. Stop with this damn near fundamentalist presumption that anything and everything supposedly leaked is fake. I'm a skeptic too.
  22. No shit. But I think our cognitive capacity goes a little beyond spouting truisms. Analyze the evidence behind each leak. Considering this particular leak came from Rockstar, and Rockstar has done this before, I am very much convinced that this is real.
  23. I don't know why everyone's so inclined to believe this is fake, other than the widespread disposition on this forum that Rockstar is infallible and therefore all leaks are invariably fake. Considering source code for GTA has been found on Bully and Red Dead, I think we have good cause to believe that it's genuine.
×
×
  • Create New...