It's a stupid concept. I want games to be multiplatform as possible. It's up to first party to make the exclusives with IPs that they own. I'm an xbox user, but I've always found the 1 month DLC cod agreement to be equally stupid. It's not fair to other people who pay the same amount as us and get a port to begin with.

Paying for the development of a game and expecting exclusivity in return? Fine with me.

Paying to limit an externally funded game to the own platform? Disgusting

Why would somebody dislike 'moneyhatting'? It can only be because they think that doing so provides an unfair advantage to the 'moneyhatter'. Of course it doesn't. This is essentially the same argument that people use when they say Wal-Mart can afford to sell goods at a lower cost than what they pay, in some locales, in order to drive their competitors out of the market. The idea is that because Wal-Mart has so much money, they can absorb those additional costs. This is a fallacy; as soon as their competitor is driven out of the market, in order for Wal-Mart to make a profit they must of course raise their prices to a profitable level. Then their competitor can just enter the market again. If Wal-Mart persists in such activities Wal-Mart will no longer be able to afford to charge such low prices. Remember that as a corporation their sole motive is for profit.

The idea is translated into this situation by equating Wal-Mart with one of the 'big three' and saying that they are subsidizing entry into their respect console's market by giving a firm money to develop exclusive games for their console. One must take into account that the game-developers would have developed games regardless, but now they are being compensated for their necessary loss in developing an exclusive game. For if developing an exclusive game for this specific console would have maximized their profit they would have done it anyways. Therefore the moneyhatting firm is absorbing a loss in the moneyhatting activity. The competing firm, which did not moneyhat, absorbs no such loss. Therefore, while they may lose market share in the short term, they will have earned greater profits than the one who captured the market share.

Now the firm who moneyhats would only do so if they expected greater profits to arise from the activity. And so when the other firm loses market share, it can be expected that the moneyhatting activity would cease, because they are making below-market-average profit levels in doing so, and a firm who consistently makes profits lower than the market average will obviously not succeed. But when the moneyhatting ceases, firms will again rationally choose to develop for whichever company will reap them the greatest profits, and so market shares will tend back toward the level they would naturally have taken within the moneyhatting expenditure.

IN CONCLUSION, in order to maintain an unnaturally large markets-hare through the moneyhatting activity, the company must continue to do so indefinitely, but in doing so, they will necessarily reap lesser profits than their competition, which will force the firm to cease their moneyhatting activities, causing the market to shift again away from their product and toward the competition, but the firm which had previously engaged in this activity will have reaped lesser profits than its competition, meaning that the moneyhatting activity only served to harm the company which engaged in it, rather than help it. That being said, there is nothing anti-competitive about moneyhatting, which is why no U.S. court would ever rule moneyhatting to be against anti-trust law (the body of law which serves to promote competition and outlaw all anticompetitive behavior).

So this thread is a load of garbage.

(source: my economics degree)

Funding is good, moneyhatting is bad.

What really doesn't make any sense to me is that you actually believe EA would give Respawn a massive amount of money (although apparently not enough to actually finish their game) without any guarantees that they will ever see a return on that money. That you think the deliverables in the contract are simply a game called Titanfall, to be published by EA on unspecified platforms. And that you believe Respawn can run around making deals behind EA's back if they so choose, adding or nixing platforms as they see fit.

EA: "Hey guys. How is Titanfall going?"

Respawn: "Pretty good! We've moved it to the TI-84! It should be ready to ship by lunch time!"

Bayonetta 2 and beyond were not money hatted. They are being fully published. Sony owns the ip to beyond.

Gears of war by definition was moneyhatted. Ms paid epic to keep the game awau from sony. Bayonetta and journey were not moneyhatted. Sony co-developed journey and nintendo paid to publish bayonetta. If it wasnt for them that franchise would be dead.

MS published the game(s) so I don't see how that is moneyhatting, they've at least made an investment in the marketing and distribution of the franchise. Epic would have needed a different publisher if they wanted to release it elsewhere. I don't see how the situation is any different to Bayonetta 2 on WiiU.

Isn't giving ownership of an IP to other company in order to get your game funded and Published moneyhatting ?

Microsoft turned the franchise from a timed exclusive third party to second party. Again the business started out as a moneyhat. Ms owns zero rights to it. It is equivalent to how they moneyhatted mass effect.

Bayonetta 2 is second party because otherwise the franchise wouldve stayed dead. Gears didnt need to be exclusive to ms ms subsidized the lost pc and ps3 sales.