We'll never know for sure, only Rockstar knows.Ĭould it have been the market conditions such as less (or declining) PC market than the console market that decided to keep these game(s) on the console than PC? Very likely, given companies crying declining PC market for the past several years. Is it monopolistic or an act of collusion among the companies? Depends on your definition of those terms, especially if this was the case with RDR. You make money back on the games, not on the sales of the console. If you just released a console and are selling it at a loss and wanted to get a ROI, then you want a game (or games) that are exclusive to your console to sell more of it over your competitor. You have to remember the consoles make less money on ROI than the games themselves, even in the initial life of the console. I would say it wouldn't surprise me, but at the same time these companies especially Microsoft would pay any amount to keep these games exclusive to their consoles for a set period of time especially to boost sales of their consoles.

However, if Microsoft made an exclusivity agreement with Rockstar on certain games that would last for let's say 6 or 8 years- the typical life of a video game console- then that would be rather unusual since I've never heard of an exclusivity agreement lasting that long. Click to expand.An exclusivity agreement with Sony (GTA V) and Microsoft (GTA V, Red Dead Redemption) is common sometimes, especially for a year at most.

Red dead redemption windows 7 emulator