By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why is moneyhatting frowned upon?

IamAwsome on 12 August 2014
Ka-pi96 said:
Firstly it isn't really any different to the parity clause so yeah...

And it is only complained about when it is to do with gaming, no one ever complains that other non-gaming companies buy exclusive rights to things.

How is it the same as the parity clause? 



Around the Network
Jaywood2010 on 12 August 2014

Basically its dirty if MSFT does it. Anybody else and its ok.

At the end of the day its a business and whether its first, second, or third party that money is used to make their console more appealing to consumers by keeping it off other platforms.  Its smart business and the reactions show it honestly.




       

jigokutamago on 12 August 2014
Landguy said:
DD_Bwest said:

because money hatting is literally paying a company money to make sure other people, who would have got to play it, now wont get to.

vs

Using your money from scratch to build a studio and create a game. this doesnt take anything away from the other side. The game would have never went else where.

 

edit:  and by the way,  healthy competition would be companies creating products and selling them on their own merrits.  Paying other companies in an effort to handi cap the other side, isnt healthy.

What make you think they took something away?  How do you know the Square Enix wasn't going to announce that the game was cancelled?  How do we know that M$ didn't just save the game? 

Maybe because M$ paid for this title, 2 or 3 others are now funded that wouldn't have been.

 

You are only looking at the obvious result and stating that it is the only result.  Nobody here or probably on any gaming website will know all of the facts that went into any Moneyhat situation. 

In that case it would not be moneyhating, but funding, similar to what Nintendo did with Bayonetta 2.



DD_Bwest on 12 August 2014
Landguy said:
DD_Bwest said:

because money hatting is literally paying a company money to make sure other people, who would have got to play it, now wont get to.

vs

Using your money from scratch to build a studio and create a game. this doesnt take anything away from the other side. The game would have never went else where.

 

edit:  and by the way,  healthy competition would be companies creating products and selling them on their own merrits.  Paying other companies in an effort to handi cap the other side, isnt healthy.

What make you think they took something away?  How do you know the Square Enix wasn't going to announce that the game was cancelled?  How do we know that M$ didn't just save the game? 

Maybe because M$ paid for this title, 2 or 3 others are now funded that wouldn't have been.

 

You are only looking at the obvious result and stating that it is the only result.  Nobody here or probably on any gaming website will know all of the facts that went into any Moneyhat situation. 

and you use a hell of alot of maybes in an effort to make it not look so bad lol  its kinda funny

How do you know its not secretly made by an alien race that forced it to be MS exclusive

 

edit:  thought i should add that TR is just a timed exclusive.  If a company paid another to save a game, they would demand full exclusive,  since they are paying for it.



I am Torgo, I take care of the place while the master is away.

"Hes the clown that makes the dark side fun.. Torgo!"

Ha.. i won my bet, but i wasnt around to gloat because im on a better forum!  See ya guys on Viz

Imaginedvl on 12 August 2014
Azerth said:
its only frowned upon if its Microsoft that did the moneyhatting

That ^^



Around the Network
darkshadow23 on 12 August 2014

If the only reason you are paying is to keep the game off other platforms, then it is dirty.

Now if the game was going to be canceled or something else like that and you pay money to fund the creation of the game then that is ok.



Lulz on 12 August 2014
Azerth said:
its only frowned upon if its Microsoft that did the moneyhatting


/thread



Teeqoz on 12 August 2014
Azerth said:
its only frowned upon if its Microsoft that did the moneyhatting


People 'frowned' when Sony money hatted some tiny bits of exclusive content from Destiny. And that is a new IP, that has never released before, and it's only a tiny sliver of the game, not an entire game from an established IP that has sold better on PS consoles from its inception.

Please, cut the crap.



AnthonyW86 on 12 August 2014

Could someone give me an example of Nintendo or Sony moneyhatting an established multi platform franchise to become exclusive? I really can't think of any.

Edit: I just thought of RE4 but that more like an exclusive switching systems.



MoHasanie on 12 August 2014

There's nothing wrong with it. The only people that hate it are people that are angry that some games won't be coming to the system they like.



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54