Is Moneyhatting so bad?

[Scoobes]

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Machiavellian said:

None of that makes any sense since MS published both Mass Effect and Gears.  Are you just making this up or do you have any proof. There is nothing out there that I could find that Gears of War or Mass Effect was ever in development for the PS3.  MS published the game so by that alone you know it wasn't going to be on any other platform then MS.  If MS published the game and gave the developer money during development wouldn't that be what publishers do.

You would have a much better case with Titanfall than Gears of War andMass Effect.  Even better the DLC from GTA games or the one month DLC exclusive period.

I have played mass effect on the 360 and ps3. The publishing was primarily for exclusivity rights. They kept paying bioware and aiding in their development primarily to bolster their ranks. Ms is the reason so many pc xbox games made an exodus to consoles.

That sounds like publishing to me. It's no different to what Sony and Nintendo do and the resoning for it is the same in all cases (improving your consoles game library). Both Bioware and Epic could have chosen other 3rd party publishers that would have allowed them to publish on PS3 if they wished it. They had to pitch their game ideas to MS (and probably other publishers) but chose MS for a reason (e.g. better return rates, more development money, allowing them to keep their own IP). MS had to make a significant investment into each games development.

In Bioware's case, they decided to sell to EA which is the sole reason they could bring Mass Effect to PS3. MS were the publisher that made the initial investment though.

In the other cases above (e.g. TitanFall) though, MS made no investment in the games in question. They simply gave the publishers some money and said "give us the games exclusively".