Is Moneyhatting so bad?

[Machiavellian]

badgenome said:

Scoobes said:

Looking at the list of developer on there, I see Crytek who own the Crysis IP. They apparently had a working versions of CryEngine3 and Crysis 3 on WiiU but the guys at EA shut that down as a "business decision".

Even in the EA partners program, if EA says they don't want it on a set platform, then they have the power to stop that version from being developed (afterall, they're the ones with the money). If MS paid for timed exclusivity as CBOAT has suggested, there's no reason why EA couldn't say the same to Respawn.

This seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? I mean, hypothetically, let's say MS and EA had their little meeting and decided to make it an Xbox One not-quite-exclusive. Then EA breaks the news to Respawn. West and Zampella strenuously object on the grounds that they want the IP on which they're staking their futures to be played by as many people on as many platforms as possible. EA says, "Too bad. We're not paying for a PS4 version. Deal with it, you sucker bitches." What exact recourse does Respawn have when EA is the exclusive publisher of Titanfall? Exactly none.

It's amazing to me that anyone would try to argue the contrary.

Reading this link link it appears it was more that both platform owner and publisher could not come to terms.  As the CEO of Crytek says, since they do not have a publishing agreement with Nintendo there is nothing they could do about it.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/crytek-says-that-its-nintendo-wii-u-version-of-crysis-3-had-to-die/