Red Dead "sucked oxygen", says Feder

By Ellie Gibson Published 29 June, 2010

But BioShock 2 not a huge success.

Take-Two chief executive Ben Feder has been crowing about the success of Red Dead Redemption - but admitting that BioShock 2 wasn't quite as big a success as the company might have hoped.

"One thing we saw with Red Dead Redemption was that there wasn’t much room in the market for anything but Red Dead," Feder told Venturebeat. "It works in a good way and a bad way. We sucked the oxygen out of the room with Red Dead."

Full sales figures aren't out yet, but Feder reckons RDR will have captured a healthy market share. Seems likely, seeing as 5 million copies of the game were shipped within a few weeks of release.

What about Take-Two's other recent titles though, like BioShock 2? "We are in the business of creating huge franchises and launching hits," Feder said.

"Even BioShock 2 is profitable for the company and is a great success. The franchise is viable and has a lasting impact on consumers. It was ultimately successful, but not hugely successful. We are also looking forward to other hits coming this year."

That won't include Max Payne 3, however, which was recently delayed until 2011. "We serve no wine before its time," said Feder. "Red Dead taught us that it is important to give the game the time that it needs. Rushing a game to market has never ever been a successful strategy for anybody in this business."

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (54) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • MiniAmin #1 2 years ago

    Or maybe Bioshock 2 wasn't as successful as expected because of its tacked on multiplayer?

  • Pastici #2 2 years ago

    For some reason I find it odd that Rockstar use Take Two as a publisher, not sure why though. You'd think that Rockstar could publish their own games?

  • Geordiemp #3 2 years ago

    Did not buy RDR, yet.

    I got sucked into the GTA IV hype and only played 1 hour and still not picked it up again.

    My gut tells me Rockstar, auto aim, rinse and repeat, dont buy, but not sure.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 09:32

  • darkmorgado #4 2 years ago

    Rushing a game to market has never ever been a successful strategy for anybody in this business.

    Try telling that to Activision.

  • andywilkie35 #5 2 years ago

    Finally getting round to giving RDR some love recently, its an awesome game. Not feeling it as much as GTAIV though (which is an absolute masterpiece) but its absolutely immense.

    Need to finish Bioshock 2 actually now I think about it.

  • geeza2020 #6 2 years ago

    Wow, a suit who seems to talk sense! Good on him though, RDR is a fantastic game, much better than the "seen it all before" of gta4 IMO.

  • deadmonkeyuk #7 2 years ago

    Picked up Bioshock 2 a month ago for £15, had lots of fun with it. Multiplayer was a waste of everyone's time (including mine)

    If they make Bioshock 3, I would like to see a coop campaign, combining plasmids could be great.

  • muscleblade #8 2 years ago

    "That won't include Max Payne 3, however, which was recently delayed until 2010"

    It should be 2011 methinks.

  • sjmlondon #9 2 years ago

    In my opinion Bioshock 2 offered nothing of value over the original game. I found the campaign turgid and repetitve and, don't get me started on the awful multiplayer. No wonder, once word of mouth got out, sales didn't go stellar.

    The original Bioshock was a classic of it's time and didn't require a sequel.

  • NewbieZilla #10 2 years ago

    I'm guessing LA Noire will be delayed till at least January. The more time passes and nothing has really come forward on the game... And they'd want it to have less competition when its released. I hate this strategy for marketing games to show a game, and then show virtually nothing for 3 or more years.

  • vyseofhr #11 2 years ago

    I ordered the Bioshock Collector's Edition for £25 last week and it arrived only yesterday, and it's definitely the best special edition I've ever laid eyes on. It's worth £25 just for the stuff. I'm playing through the first at the moment, it's a brilliant game. Even if the second game isn't brilliant I'm glad I got that collector's edition. It's sexual, baby.

  • bad09 #12 2 years ago

    Well I didn't buy BS2 at launch because the PC team deemed the windows controller not important anymore. I'd play 2 with a controller like BS1 and my Mrs, who really enjoyed BS1 to, could not play it K&M anyway.

    I still might get it on one of the consoles but in no rush after they messed that up TBH.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 10:15

  • JDFreeman #13 2 years ago

    @Geordiemp I hated GTAIV, I thought the main characters personality was disgusting and he was just a thug and I didnt want to know about any of the characters. But at the end of the day it just wasnt as Fun as Vice city.

    Red Dead- I love, Marsden is possibly the best computergame hero I have ever encountered. The characters he encounters are pure funny, evil, or Brilliant. as for the combat system you can turn auto target off on single player and multiplayer will be receiving "no auto target zones"

  • kar #14 2 years ago

    Bioshock 2 was a pretty big failure in my eyes.

  • brseg #15 2 years ago

    Not sure I agree with this idea that 1 great game 'sucks the oxygen' away from others. Aside from RDR there wasnt anything else I'd touch with a bargepole.

    Bioshock2 looked like a Bioshock1 update/DLC to me, which is fine if you're a big fan, but wont perk up any interest from me.

    Perhaps rockstar should just make GTA5 and done with it. Pour everything they have into it. Def got my eye on mafiaII though.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 10:24

  • bad09 #16 2 years ago

    Also I think having Bomberman on the front didn't help BS2 :)

    Go ahead go look at it, the post I read somewhere on that said "once you see it you can't unsee it". They were right....

  • Monkey_Puncher #17 2 years ago

    Judging by the early shots of Max Payne 3, I think it would be best if they delayed it indefinitely.

  • menage #18 2 years ago

    Some fucking people are like records stuck on repeat. I enjoyed Bioshock 2 , as a game (controls, gun play, strategy) it was even superior to 1. Fuck the haters.

    I can't see why games like MGS, Resi, CoD (really, NONE of those games required sequels), etc can churn out sequel after sequel and getting a free pass but this game get's so much hate. I know 1 was a classic, so were a lot of games which spawned tons of sequels.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 10:50

  • Eraysor #19 2 years ago

    The problem with Bioshock 2 was that nobody wanted multiplayer; it made the game feel more like a pointless cash-in. However, I actually enjoyed it more than the original.

  • Essien #20 2 years ago

    Anybody else have problems with RDR. I bought it after the 1.02 patch was released, and I could barely get the thing to run for 30 minutes without crashing.

  • menage #21 2 years ago

    Uncharted 2 didn't need MP, didn't affect the main game in the slightest. Hell, any decent shooter has freaking MP these days. What's the big deal? It might not need it, but does that mean that the SP sucks just because it's there? Idiots I say.

    Some people are just so fucking scared that their not getting their money's worth it's pathetic. (not talking to anyone in particular here). Oh noes, 5 bucks of my 50 spend is going to MP, this game sucks!!

  • TRUTH #22 2 years ago

    Because Bioshock II was waaaaaay to similar to the 1st!....It was much better then the 1st (too samey and actually a simplistic fps which was quiet simple too!). BS II improved many features from the, it still lost impact, loosing it's appeal as you become all to familiar with the enemies, environments, gamelpay, little sisters and characters. Bioshock II just evolved the gameplay in small doses that should have been done in the 1st Bishock (a bit overrated).
    Edited by 2 at 29/06/10 @ 11:05

  • DonnieDarko333 #23 2 years ago

    So Bioshock 2 for £12.99 may not be worth it!!?

  • Ryze #24 2 years ago

    Bioshock was released at the wrong time, and wasn't as well marketed as the original.

    Also NOTHING was as heavily marketed as Red Dead. My god. That game has had more marketing presence than the PS3 and Wii combined over their whole lifetime, I'm sure.

  • menage #25 2 years ago

    @Thruth

    Tons of games are similar. How about Zelda, people can't seem to wait till they can swing another boomerang through a water temple time after time. Can name tons of games which work like that.

    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 11:23

  • green_nifta #26 2 years ago

    @pastici

    Rockstar is just one of Take2's 'labels'. It's solely owned by Take2 and always has been. Rockstar=Take2.

  • sneetch #27 2 years ago

    @DonnieDarko333
    So Bioshock 2 for £12.99 may not be worth it!!?

    I think it's worth it if you liked the first one and haven't already decided it's not worth it. :)

  • Chazmeister #28 2 years ago

    I found Bioshock 1 to be a little bit on the dull side, and had the sequal take things that much further and perhaps risen the city from the depths or created a strange city shaped out of the sea and sand itself, as alluded to in the teaser trailer, then it would of made things much more interesting. As it was they just gave us more of the same, and whilst with some games that's OK, I didn't think the first one was strong enough to deliver just another dollop of the same. As for the addition of multiplayer, that was pretty pointless and unneeded.

  • Pulsar_t #29 2 years ago

    GTA4 is definitely NOT a masterpiece, but hey you keep on thinking that way. RDR on the other hand was much better, but still a cliched story and the tired GTA mechanics didn't really help.

  • Darren #30 2 years ago

    BioShock 2 was nowhere as good as the original IMHO as it felt like a retread of the first game, only completely lacking in the surprises and most of the excitement because I knew what to expect. Got bored of it two-thirds of the way through so the last stretch to the end was a bit of a drag. I was glad when it was over really, totally the opposite of the first game which I didn't want to end! It was still a good game but I'm really not eager to play BioShock 3 unless they do something completely different with it so it feels fresh all over again.

    Red Dead Redemption was beyond excellent though and is currently my favourite game of 2010. Its success was well deserved if you ask me. If only every game was as entertaining, atmospheric and well-made. It's certainly the most movie-like game experience I've had to date. Love it. Never even played it online either (don't have a Gold subscription anymore).

  • Rubarack #31 2 years ago

    Kind of a shame even in the rare situation that we see a new product outselling a sequel the publishers are only interested in setting up a franchise.

    Still maybe this shows that there's mileage in ArcticShock, DesertShock, LunarShock et al if a transposed successor to a game outperforms a direct sequel.

  • makeamazing #32 2 years ago

    Yeah, still trying to get through Bioshock 2 (perhaps i shouldnt play it on hard setting)... its just too familiar, didnt have as much of an impact start, and so far feels like BS1. Also MP... played it on day of release ,and then realised what a waste of my time that was.

    Start BS3 on a boat... sink the boat... have some X-Com underwater adventures (not necessarily rapture), and mix in some other elements, and i might be happy.

  • alcides #33 2 years ago

    Huge success was the one thing not already on Bioshock 2's disc, sadly.

  • actionfitz #34 2 years ago

    "Rushing a game to market has never ever been a successful strategy for anybody in this business."

    hehe. fun to read that straight after the Age of Conan Expansion re-review :)

  • Machiavellian #35 2 years ago

    Bioshock is one of those games where if someone says it becomes repetitive then I wonder about their creativity. The reason I say this is that the fun I have with Bioshock2 was the fact that I could approach every situation differently. I had fun changing up the plasmids and trying different combination.

    I wonder if the reason games like this get boring for people is because they play the same way no matter how many tools and different ways a game gives the player to experience or is it the games fault for not showing the gamer different ways to play the game.

    Bioshock2 definitely was not anything groundbreaking over the original but I thought the gameplay was still fun to experience and the story was very solid.

  • peterfll #36 2 years ago

    Well I really liked both Bioshock 1 & 2.

  • geeza2020 #37 2 years ago

    Bioshock 2 was alright technically, it was a well built game. Its just that the story of the original didnt need a sequel. It was a closed story, and when it finished, that should have been that.

  • Pulsar_t #38 2 years ago

    LOL @ GTA4 cunty fanboys.

  • TRUTH #39 2 years ago

    It doesn't really matter to most people the way you use the weapons/plasmoids - you're gonna use the best one, so most become redundant. A soldier doesn't experiment with weapons, he/she uses the best of what they have. Don't see the point of dumbing yourself down to make the game more interesting!

  • TRUTH #40 2 years ago

    Bioshock environment was the most interesting. The rest was just a fps and using the same methods to dispose enemies in most cases. Fairly liner too!...Hardly any puzzle, adventuring, or real skill needed. The characters story got boring (if you cared about it!) as listening to messages on cassettes/disk got repetitive.

    I personally scored the 1st game 7/10. Not a classic in any real sense, other then the setting (which started to look to samey by mid way).
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/10 @ 15:49

  • menage #41 2 years ago

    @Truth

    Maybe soldiers need to go play CoD then. So people who are going to want to have fun toying around with a GAME that isn't spoon fed right up their arse can enjoy this. What the hell do we care what other people do.

    Dumbing yourself down is only using the same freaking shotgun lightning bolt combo in the game. You don't go driving the same car in a racing game for 40 hours do you? Experimentation opens up new stuff to fuck around with in a game like this. It's not about rushing through it to see the end as quickly as possible with some of us. No wonder others aren' t having fun .





  • TRUTH #42 2 years ago

    If you have the best weapons, you don't want to pretend it's not there and purposely make the game harder!!!!...your just tricking yourself in pretending that the game is more experimental then it really is. Most of the time I just froze and electrified enemies - why would I pretend that this game is harder, by dumbing itself to get a more challenging experince - switching techniques and weapons should be integrated into the game naturally by the developer (like Demon's Soul, Halo, Boarderlands) , where one skill is not a sure winner - as Bioshock did do!!

    I know I can complete the game, don't want to purposely make myself play it again to challenge myself simply to make the game more challenging; esp when the results are the same, but just a slower challenge.

  • JayKwon #43 2 years ago

    I thought Bioshock 2's sp was superb (as well)! Maybe because I had totally no hope for the sequel because it felt tagged on no matter what way I looked at it after completing the first game. I'd rather seen a prequel. Also this time around we had another devloper, multiplayer was tagged on done by even another developer and you are a big daddie. My oh my, I thought it would become rubbish. But it just didn't! I had just as much fun with the sequel. The story was great again! The plasmids and weapons gave enough options for you as a player to totally controll and own the place. And the soundtrack, artistic level of design and graphics were real nice as well! Oké, maybe it was a bit more lineair, and the mp had ugglier graphics, lots of glitches and lag and was overall absolutely not polished and felt tagged on. But overall seen, with all the audio diaries and stuff, Bioshock 2 had still more atmosphere than most games do. And I got sucked into Rapture again.

    But now a prequel please, when the technology allows it to recreate a proper Rapture with all his inmates:).
    Edited by 2 at 29/06/10 @ 16:43

  • menage #44 2 years ago

    Must have been playing a different game then, cause my beeswarm, turret, speargun combo caused the splicer apocalypse. from where I was standing.

    There really isn't a "best"| weapon. and It really didn't make it harder. Just more diverse.


    Edited by 2 at 29/06/10 @ 16:44

  • SilentNinja92 #45 2 years ago

    I didnt like GTA4 much really. I dont know maybe it just felt samey but the story didnt grip me and i got bored of free roam quickly.

    iIlove red dead though. Its the new setting for sure, it just breaths life into the gameplay. Plus having the animals to hunt, side missions which pop up instead of having to goto them, its really good and whilst GTA4 shoehorned police and ambulance missions (why is a gangster saving lives???) all the side missions in red dead feel right, from helping people out to looking for wanted people.

  • BabyJesus #46 2 years ago

    Take 2 make mostly good games, glad they've got another hit under their belts, they desperately needed breathing room with investors this year.

  • Xeopuppy #47 2 years ago

    Get in on the PC then...

  • Pirotic #48 2 years ago

    Won't stop them making bioshock 3 and 4 unfortunately.

  • Lukus #49 2 years ago

    Geordiemp
    29/06/10 @ 09:31
    Did not buy RDR, yet.
    I got sucked into the GTA IV hype and only played 1 hour and still not picked it up again.
    My gut tells me Rockstar, auto aim, rinse and repeat, dont buy, but not sure
    Pretty fucking stupid to judge an open world sand box game like GTA after a measly one hour of play time.

  • smelly #50 2 years ago

    RDR - reasonably good, well polished title.
    Bioshock 2 - more of the same, but with a worse story than the original (which was the only thing which made the original half good)

    No real surprise on sales figures then

  • smelly #51 2 years ago

    >Get in on the PC then...

    If the game is already selling really well.. why would they want to risk that by making a pc version?

  • arcam #52 2 years ago

    The same reason so many other games do? Or did they all get it wrong?

  • menage #53 2 years ago

    @smelly

    Good yes, polished, the bugs say otherwise, must be on of the buggiest games since F3.

  • metallicorphan #54 2 years ago

    loved both games

    i even loved Bioshock 2 mulitplayer,even though i was expecting not to,i ranked to 50 within the first week i was on it for that long,and loved the story to the multiplayer,setting it before Bioshock 1,and the plane falling onto your apartment at the end when you reached 50...cool stuff

    not sure why everyone hated the MP,maybe because there was a lot of lag at times


    RDR was a great game also,but didn't get into Multiplayer as much as i thought i would