Is Moneyhatting so bad?

[papamudd]

Machiavellian said:

badgenome said:
Depends on what you mean by moneyhatting. If you mean, as in the case of Titanfall, throwing tens of millions of dollars at a third party publisher to stop development of the game for your competitors' consoles... then I think it's a crap practice because it doesn't add to your platform. It merely takes from others'. The moneyhatting of exclusive DLC is in some ways even more reprehensible because it's so utterly stupid and meaningless. No one really gives a shit if the PS3 version of Arkham Origins lets you play as '60s Batman.

But you seem to be confusing moneyhatting with the legitimate functions of a publisher. What Sony does for indies, or what Nintendo is doing for Bayonetta 2, or Microsoft for Sunset Overdrive isn't moneyhatting to me because without the first parties' involvement those games would either not exist at all, or might exist but only in a diminished form.

I know you state it as fact but is that what happen.  Do you know or have any proof that MS paid to have a PS4 version not made or did Respawn come to them and they made a agreement for exclusive rights both companies will do something for the other.  MS give Respawn dedicated servers, money for a year exclusive and Respawn put their game on all of their hardware.  Could this deal end up being like the one between MS and Epic.  A partnership that added greatly to both companies.  By all accounts, the deal between MS and Respawn is legitimate.

No screw respawn I will never buy their game