You can tell me a lot of things but without any real proof besides, "I believe this is the deal" then its pretty much opinion.  Basically what you are saying that the 2 men who are responsible for the biggest franchise in gaming history that grossed billions of dollars could not make a deal where a publisher any publisher would be willing to risk a 100 million for exclusive publishing rights.  You really should think about that one because you are acting like Vince and Jason are not highly sought talent that have a consistent proven track record.  If Titanfall is any indication it seems they have not lost their edge.  The problem I really have is not that you have an opinion is that like everyone on the net, always willing to call a developer a lier when you have no shred of proof.  

Well Of couse Respawn cannot take their game to Activision who is a publisher or any other publisher. Why you even make such a statement makes me wonder what point are you arguing.  MS is not publishing the game, they are a platform holder.  Odds are you have no clue if they own the game or not.  As far as the IP, its theirs and if publishing agreements end up being like some of the deals we have seen before, case in point would be MS studios,  Games that were exclusive when published from MS studio still found their way on other platforms.  

I am not comparing Repawn deal to Carmack, instead I used what he stated how EA partners works and is different from your standard game publishing division.  As stated, each deal is custom and developers can pick and choose how much of EA they want in their business.  Next you link an interview that clearly states that Respawn sided with EA partners because one, they help fund their new company and 2 Respawn gets to keep their IP, their business direction and control of their business and games.  Why do you ignore the info you post then just make up your own scenerio.  You ignore Vince and Jason history with EA and with their former boss.  The whole reason they went with EA partners is because they can pick their own adventure.

Last but not least you do not know how much EA funded Respawn or how much they were willing to give up to get that exclusive publishing agreement.  One thing I know being in the middle of a lot of contract meetings at the company I work for.  A lot of business will give up a lot to just get a business.  My company has dones this on many occasions because we feel once we get in the door we can then leverage our software in other parts of the business.  Some times we basically give companies our software and services so we have a large corporation we can say use our software to gain more sales in a particular region.

In order for EA to have landed Jason and Vince after their bad experience with EA a long time ago, you can believe that EA paid a lot to get that exclusive deal in place.  Its not like Vince and Jason wasn't getting a lot of offers and I would not be surprise if MS, Sony and Nintendo wasn't in the mix as well.

Yes, it kills creativity, and independence of developpers to chose the perfect platform to host their game, or to touch greater audience when "Exclusive".

forums are worse and worse everyday.
What moneyhatting are we talking about? The ps4 stuff?
Ludicrous. Giving developers free dev-kits and publishing is a far cry from throwing a hundred mil at a huge franchise name simply because you don't want the other company to have it.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't change the fact that I have explained to you over and over again why their explanations don't add up. But I'm flexible. If "lying" is too ugly a word for your delicate disposition, then let's just call it "dissembling".

I didn't ignore it. I just interpreted it realistically. A contract (even a contract with the magical EA Partners) is not, as you seem to think, a Choose Your Own Adventure book. It is a binding agreement. Sure, Respawn retains control of its business. It retains control by building an IP that will remain an asset to them in the future as opposed to an IP that they will have to check at the door if they part ways with EA. That is what they mean when they talk about freedom and owning their own destiny. They don't mean that they can run around willy nilly getting Microsoft and Square-Enix and Burger King involved with their game against EA's wishes. That would be silly.

Now, why do you ignore what Carmack said and what you yourself have said? "As stated, each deal is custom and developers can pick and choose how much of EA they want in their business." That's right. So Valve and id didn't incur much involvement at all because they weren't asking for much at all. But it stands to reason that Respawn and EA are going to be intimately involved because Respawn asked for and received a lot.

You think it's a given that EA would offer West and Zampella the moon because of who they are, but who they are didn't keep Activision from firing them in the first place. (And it's funny how you can think this while also believing it's plausible that EA would let Respawn run out of money, forcing them to go to MS for additional funding.) No other publisher besides Activision has the cash to compete with EA, so it's not like they faced a lot of serious competition. Who else even was there? Microsoft and Ubi? With how ugly and personal things were getting between Kotick and West/Zampella, I can see Microsoft not wanting to do anything that might cheese off Kotick. Like helping the employees he was spying on and trying to run out of the company set up shop, and then publishing their direct competitor to COD. There was no need when they could always buy exclusivity off of whomever Respawn ended up with. Which they eventually did.

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.

I think the OP needs to define "moneyhatting".

What Sony has done with Indies is to reduce costs and obstacles to development (e.g. free dev kits). That's not moneyhatting.

What Nintendo have done with Bayonetta 2, MS with Gears of War and Sony with Journey, is not moneyhatting. That's simply publishing and investing in a product.

Moneyhatting is specifically payment to remove a game from your rivals lineup and that's the sole benefit. No development, no partnership, just money changing hands to not invest on a rival platform.

Well, the difference is that the indies need that money.
For AAA it's a compensation for having less revenue than going multiplat'

I disagree,  their was a lot of hate about the the chineseroom not releasing their game on pc anymore. Something I can understand because it is a game that has been born and lived on PC, announced a game for its fans, hyped it up and then anfter +10 months announce it will be shifting platform. 

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.

Honestly I just see moneyhatting as an investment, it doesn't really bother me but I understand that people hate it when a announced game will not release anymore on your platform because of it. What I don't understand though is how people get mad because a game gets multiplatform, those haters are just assholes (ugh FFXIII)..

What I am surprised is how much a company sometimes pay to get some games for its consoles. Retroware mentioned that Sony paid 12 million bucks to get mortal kombat 3 or Trilogy 6 months exclusive on PS one.