Are you telling me there is just one standard model.  Are you telling me each publisher deals with each developer the same way.  Because we seem to be arguing in circle.  You made a comment already about what Carmack stated that EA Partners is not a standard publishing agreement but a list of services and options.  You seem to have just dismissed that comment.  Are you telling me that Respawn cannot make other partnerships with other companies. Are you telling me that Respawn does not have enough control to state what platform they want their game published on.

Yes...that rumor caused Gamestops stock to drop.

--- Spam post ---

If it's a game that would've been made otherwise and it's just effectively paying to keep the game off other platforms like Sonic Lost Worlds, then yeah, it's bad.

That said, if it's a game that otherwise wouldn't have been made at all and it's basically just a matter of paying developers to make a game, like Wonderful 101 or Bayonetta 2, then that's good.

So as far as indies go, a lot of them are in pretty dire need of funding, so I don't mind so much even if there are some of the former there too.

I'm telling you it is ludicrous to think that it's literally a loan, as if Respawn went to the Bank of EA and walked out with a wad of cash to the tune of $100 million, and when they burned through all that, they had to go take out another loan at the Bank of Microsoft. EA is making a huge bet on this game, and they are going to see to it that Respawn is going to have the funds necessary to finish it.

And yes. I am telling you that Respawn cannot just take their game over to Activision or whoever and have them publish it, too. Odds are they do not actually own the game, and at least while they are under contract to EA they definitely can't just do whatever they want with it. "Listen up, Mr. Moore! We're Respawn Entertainment, brother! We chart our own course! Wheeeeeeeee!"

You can't compare their arrangement with EA to id's deal for Orcs & Elves, a cheap mobile game. Or Valve's when they just needed a retail distributor. Or even Crytek when they were already an established studio with a hit game under their belt. (And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that, although they own the IP, Crytek can't just put the original Crysis on any platform they want without EA's say so.) Respawn didn't even have a studio until EA set them up, and EA is paying for the entire production of their expensive as hell game. The deal between them is going to reflect that.

Never bothered me. I own multiple platforms because to me, you really cant own just one these days, you'd miss out on too many games.

I have a PS4 on preorder and don't plan on getting an Xbox One yet. I don't believe MS and Nintendo fans should be hypocritical either, but Sony fans allow Sony to get away with a lot more. Nintendo fans at the very least tend to be more critical of the companies actions. Such as Region locking and other things. I maintain a mostly neutral stance. I own a 3DS and a Vita. I own a Wii U and soon to own a PS4. I owned an Xbox 360, a PS3, and a Wii last gen as well as a DS, and PSP. My main system is my gaming PC anyways. I just don't see Nintendo and Microsoft fans whining about moneyhatting nearly as bad as Sony fans do.

It's not.

Without it some games would even exist. Bayonetta 2 and Quantic Dream games are good exemples of how moneyhat can be good.

I m generally against Paying for exclusivity - but subsidizing a game so that it can get made and/or subsiding a game so that t will come to your platform is just good business- Nintendo should have been/be doing it for key 3rd party multli plat games that are/have bypassed the Wii U - If a console owner subsidizes a game so that t can be made- then of course they have the mandate to make it exclusive- I m sure Nintendo could have kept Rayman an exclusive and/or maintained the Spring 2013 release of the Wii U if they have guaranteed a min # of sales- But Nintendo has not believed in the Wi U enough to do that so far

I prefer bookhatting.