Why is moneyhatting frowned upon?

[LogicMaster]

VanceIX said:

LogicMaster said:

VanceIX said:

LogicMaster said:

You keep saying that, but don't have proof that Sony payed to keep anything off the Xbox. It is just a weak tactic you keep using to defend this obvious crappy move by MS.That is a fact that MS paid to keep this game from releasing same time on PS.There are no facts that Sony paid to keep anything off the Xbox, just because the games released forst on PS2 (which was way bigger than the Xbox) and it made sense for developers to put games exclusively on PS2.Also GTA had no association with Xbox the way TR has with PS.So it would not be the same if they did pay for it, as MS paid for Bioshock, ME, Gears,Dead Rising and many more which were never released on PS and no one complained. The fact is that you lost this argument and can not admit that.Let it go.

So, uh, do have any concrete proof that Microsoft paid SE to keep TR off the PS4?

Exactly. 

Anyway, there's lierally 0 substance to the argument of an alt. Later.

Are you serious? Phil Spencer just said it in his interview.

"It’s a deal between us and the partner. People ask me how much did we pay. There are certain things I’m just not going to talk about because it’s a business deal between us and then. Obviously the deal does have a duration."
Read more at http://gematsu.com/2014/08/rise-tomb-raider-xbox-exclusivity-duration-xbox-boss-confirms#Lv9Rt9fAOkdswBGZ.99

 

LOL! Obviously MS paid for it since it was announced for PS/PC.Stop being delerious. I should not have to explain logic to you.There is no other reason to announce the game for PS/PC and then say it's exclusive for the launch to xbox systems.A business deal means money exchanged hands.End of discussion.What's an alt anyway?

If you honestly believe Rockstar only released GTA first on PS2 out of goodwill, you'd be sadly and horribly mistaken.

And a business deal doen't have to be money based (it almost certainly was, but there is no proof). GTA III/VC/SA releasing first on Playstation was essentially a business deal as well, was it not?

Why am I even arguing with an alt? Lol

Just let it go buddy.You lost this argument.You have no proof that Sony paid for GTa.Why would they when PS2 was already the bigest console of the generation and GTA was on PSX? So they paid, but did not pay for GTA5? Stop already.You just saying that to argue.Why would Rockstar not want to be associated with the biggest brand in gaming? It's not rocket science.

What other reason would the timed exclusive happen if MS did not pay? Phil just said they paid and you are ignoring it as expected, just to argue.All business contains money.Back to GTA again ...when did Sony ever say they had a deal with GTA to keep it from other consoles? Never.GTA was not even big until GTA3 so Sony had no idea who profitable it would be.You are wrong again.

PS2 made GTA a success, not the other way around.This alt thing does not change that you lost this argument.So you are saying a company Rockstar choosing to do the smart thing buy relasing their games on the biggest console first is the same as Square getting paid to hold off releasing a game thast sells better on the PS in favor of the Xbox has nothing to do with getting paid to do it? Do you even read what you type?