its only bad when its not on your system of choice

I don't mind it in most instances, but there are time where the only ones that really suffer are gamers.

When the games wouldn't exist without the cash from Sony/MS/Ninty, then it's only a great thing. The hardware developer gets a good game (bayonetta 2, Sony's indie titles, etc.) and the studio is able to make another game. There are times where the studio needs zero financial backing and tries to sell features or timed exclusivity for greed, where no one benefits from it outside of the hardware manufacturer.

 You have no ideal how much EA wanted these guys and what they were willing to pay to get them, and you have no ideal what Jason and Vince would settle for when they had offers from everyone in the business.  Since Jason and Vince have to pay EA back anyway its not like they couldn't take their services to someone else.   I am pretty sure after Jason and Vince left EA with bad blood the first time, it would take a damn good deal for them to partner up with EA again.  Depending on the deal, who knows what other deals Respawn can work on or accept.  Exclusive publishing means no other publishers they can go to but it does not mean they could not work out a deal with MS for some extra cash on going exclusive.  EA would need to be involved because the deal would also involve them and contracts are needed between all parties.  

Lets think this through a little. This is EA, when have the last time they sold a game for just one console.  Do you really think 50 million dollars is enough to stop a PS3 and PS4 version of the game which would easily be more profitable for EA.  Thats what does not make since.  It does not make sense period for EA to go exclusive with MS or any other platform because thats not their business and 50 million is what MS pays for exclusive DLC content not a full game that will be bringing in 100s of millions of dollars.

Yes, I do believe EA would give them the moon if you are looking at their track record.  Of course Activision can fire them now because they already builted the Billion dollar busines and the franchise.  That alone will make COD bring in bilions for a good amount of years if they just keep doing what they do now.  

Are you denying that Jason and Vince has not created a franchise that consistently brings in Billions of dollars.  Yes I  think that EA gave them a damn good deal to see if lighting can strike again.  Basically what you are saying is that these guys are just your average developers with no proven record or history of being able to run a successful business and produce products that make billions of dollars.  What you are saying is that EA was the only game in town and that Jason and West had to go to EA.  You are completly ignoring what these 2 have done in their career where just offering a standard publishing deal that takes away these guys control which I am very sure is something they would never go back to again is an options.  You seem to ignore that Respawn is an independant developer that now has to chart their own course and make their own decisions.  EA is just the publishers, they do not run Respawn and they do not control their IP which has been stated more than enough. I believe every publisher, platform owner and even dev studios were after them.  I believe that they had enough offers that they could have chosen pretty much anything they wanted.  I believe EA offered the best deal that allow them to get funded and also control how they run their business and I believe EA gave a lot up because of the bad blood between them from years ago.

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/

That's fine that you believe that. But if you are going to work yourself into a lather because I don't believe developers' PR speak (how dare I?) and slam my deductions as baseless speculation, you should probably refrain from your own baseless speculations or at least bring a better supporting argument than "life is a highway, and Vince Zampella drives it all night long, baby".

Since you can't, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. The bottom line is that the game was going to be made without Microsoft's involvement. It was coming to the Xbox One without Microsoft's involvement. Microsoft's involvement is solely to keep the game from showing up on the competition's platform in a timely manner. That is a moneyhat.

Not really the same situation since EA was certainly not paid by MS and Sony to kill the Wii U version. They just didn't see it as worth doing. It doesn't mean that Crytek could have just decided to self publish it without EA's okay if they were a licensed Nintendo publisher. All we can conclude from this is that they aren't a Nintendo publisher and didn't see it as worthwhile to become one, so the story ends there.

If we're agreeing that EA has the exclusive right to publish Titanfall, then not only does that preclude Respawn from signing a deal for Activision or anyone else to publish it, too... it would also prevent Respawn from self publishing a version to directly compete with EA's release. (In other words, bank on Titanfall being an Origin exclusive on PC and not seeing a Respawn published Steam release.)

Actually I use that link to show that publishing deals are complicated.  Crytek stated they could not release a Wii U version because they do not have a license to publish games on the Wii U.  The Crytek boss made that pretty clear and I am sure its not worth his company time to invest in getting a publishing license with Nintendo when they have already signed something with EA.

Yes, Respawn gave EA exclusive rights to publish their games for a certain time period. We do not know the nature or complexity of the agreement. Is it five years, 2 years, is there a buyout you name it.  We do not know after the deal is done what Respawn can and cannot do.  With both MS, Sony and Nintendo both having online indie friendly infrastructure, who's to say they could not go that route after their deal with EA is done.  You only have to look to MS to see that once deals are done, developers are free to do whatever they like.  Is it so hard to believe that Respawn negotiated similar deal.

My major problem is that there is a lot of unknowns but you are quick to call the developers liars without knowing anything about their business, deals and how they manage their business.  The complexity of developing games alone require developers to be smart and not take on more than they can handle.  Just because you did not like their answer to a very complex problem doesn't mean they have to lie to you or anyone else.  Instead I am believe that Jason and Vince, veterans of this industry know what they are doing and will do what they cannot to make sure they are successful.  The thought that EA would make some deal with MS, then come to Vince and Jason and say "We made this deal so you have to live with it" after the stuff they went through with EA before and then Activision, Yeah, I am really not buying that angle.

I remember a Japanese developer talking about the money MS was shopping around for Japanese developers to make games for the 360 or even make them exclusive for a time period.  Basically the guy stated that they were fine in taking MS money because they were only locked in making the game exclusive for a year and the money MS fronted allowed them to produce their PS3 version of the game including extra content.

The way I look at it, if the time period is short, then the money the developers got basically paid for development of the game which eliminated the risk that goes with development and allows the developer to still bring the game to other platforms or improve it when the exclusive period ends.

No, it's not at all difficult to believe. You may need to brush up on your reading comprehension because that's exactly what I've been saying. But the deal isn't done, and until it is Respawn is deeply in hock to EA.

A contract for a game isn't a loan in the way you think it's a loan. EA didn't just dump a pile of money on Respawn and say, "Okay, good luck with that game thing. Pay us back one day, alright?" EA is going to get its money back through revenues from the game. Under a typical publishing deal, Respawn won't see a dime until EA makes its money back, at which point they'll begin collecting royalties. This being the case, EA isn't going to leave things up to chance and let Respawn run around striking deals to nix or add platforms for the game without their consent. It's EA's deal, and Microsoft has no business directly dealing with Respawn.

As for whether or not Respawn was consulted, it's likely they were but completely beside the point unless they were promised they'd be allowed to do a PS4 version in the contract. If EA collects - again, let's say $50 million - off of the exclusivity deal, that is $50 million less that Respawn "owes" EA before they begin collecting royalties. So they don't really have to be cut in on the deal.

This is the last time I'm explaining it to you because I've said it too many times already: I don't believe them because their answers make no sense. Respawn did not have to develop the PS4 version if they couldn't handle it. EA would have outsourced the port. So that's not why. Respawn is making the game for platforms without cloud and dedicated servers. So that's not why, either. I don't care how much they like the cloud, or dedicated servers, or the Xbox controller, or the Xbox logo, or the shape of Steve Ballmer's head. EA's "tactical partnership" with Microsoft is the only reason why there is no day and date release for a PS4 version.

Finally, I never claimed EA did tell them to suck it up, just that as the publisher they could have because unless going Xbox semi-exclusive violated EA's end of the agreement, Respawn had no recourse either way since EA has exclusive publishing rights to their game and thus has them by the balls until the contract is completed.

@bolded

Unknowns.  You have no ideal what EA was willing or not willing to do.  You state EA could just outsource the PS4 port but who is to say they wanted to take the risk with a new IP.  Who is to say that Respawn wanted to take the risk with a new IP.  They stated they have PC and 360 experience.  Even for a port, somoeone will have to direct how it goes.  Small team, limited resources.  Its not like every deal is an open check book to EA, thats a bad assumption and even EA doesn't fully fund their EA Partners.  Its one of the reason why they were about to cancel it.  Actually besides Titan fall, EA Partners is suspended as EA concentrate on their internal projects.

As far as the cloud thing goes, here is a quote from Respawn on the subject.  I will post the link again just in case you missed something

"However, the Xbox Live cloud isn't simply a super-sized cluster of dedicated servers - Microsoft's infrastructure and global presence give it a distinct advantage. "We can upload new programs for them to run and they handle the deployment for us. And they'll host our game servers for other platforms, too!"."

http://www.oxm.co.uk/56981/respawn-on-titanfall-microsoft-wont-nickel-and-dime-devs-with-xbox-ones-cloud-support/

So it appears that MS server can and will be used for other platforms besides just the X1.  I am sure there will  be advantages being hosted on the X1 because of the cloud compute stuff but just general hosting can be done for any platform.

As to the last bolded point.  I am telling you if Respawn only wanted to go one platform then they probably have the capability to do so.  Your statement make it seem like Respawn cannot go to MS and say, we only do a Xbox game and you shorten our deal with EA.  It clearly shows within the link I posted, they went to MS and Sony and MS was the one who came back with want they asked for.

As stated, way to many knowns to call anyone a liar without any understanding of the deal in place between EA and Respawn.  What it sounds like is MS showed interest.  They gave Respawn exactly what they were looking for with no strings and MS was rewarded with a year exclusive for their efforts.

So what doesn't make sense to you is all cool, but what I am saying is that you need to come more correct than "It doesn't make sense to me" without any proof to back up your opinion.

But then again I am probaly wasting my time.  Thats want you get in forums.  People making statements without any proof. Calling developers all types of names because they did not bring a game or feature to their platform.  Its that entitlement mentality gamers have.  Gamers forget that making games is still a business and developers need to be careful how they run their business.