Currently Online 
twintail said:
No contradiction mate. because like I have already said, I'm not saying that an exclusive game is like a day 1 gamepass release. As long as a console maker is giving money to a 3rd party for some kind of deal, it's a moneyhat, regardless of whatever that deal ends up being. Were Atlus willingly going to MS to put P3R and P5T onto gamepass? From the sounds of your own words, no. MS dropped some money bags to make it happen, and as far as I'm concerned, that's a moneyhat in it's own right. If you want to make some semantic distinction between 'moneyhatting' and just a 'GP bag' like you did in my original quote of you, then you can. But I think that's just silly, because the action of dropping money for some form of preferential treatment doesn't change regardless of what the outcome is. The end result may be different, and we can all agree that to be true, but how they got there is not as different as you want to frame it to be. But that's just my 2 cents. i honestly don't care either way. MS is doing what they think will help them. Sony is doing what they think will help them. |
Well, I wasn't aware that the definition of what constitutes a moneyhat had changed. It was pretty universally agreed upon and referred to by most that a moneyhat is straight exclusivity, keeping a specific game off of a platform.
If that's the case, we would have to include all the marketing deals made as additional moneyhats. I'll keep that in mind in future discussions then.
On a side note: Amongst all the back and forth discussions about moneyhats and exclusivity deals, Valve is just over here on PC being a monopoly not doing a damn thing other than just existing 
doesn't need any deals of any sort. Didn't even want MS's 10-year offer to bring CoD to Steam. Off-topic but just thought about that.
You called down the thunder, now reap the whirlwind
