By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is Moneyhatting so bad?

S.T.A.G.E. on 24 August 2013
zumnupy10 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
zumnupy10 said:
It's not.

Without it some games would even exist. Bayonetta 2 and Quantic Dream games are good exemples of how moneyhat can be good.


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


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


No its just called publishing. Money hatting is paying third parties bolster your ranks.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 24 August 2013
badgenome said:
Machiavellian said:

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.

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!"

Business do it all the time, its called RISK.  The bank does it when it gives you a loan.  Your credit score everything you do is calculated and a number pops up on the amount of risk it will take to offer you money.  Its the same for any business that offer money up front for gains in the future.  So yes, with Jason and Vince track record, I believe EA was willing to take a lot more risk then usual.  Also this is not something new in the game development world.  So yes, I believe that Respawn can and have made deals concerning their IP and game.  They talked it over with EA and all parties came together to iron out the contract.  Who knows what went into it besides MS giving up some money. Also what you just keep ignoring is EA track record.  When has the last time they shopped around for an exclusive deal with a platform holder.  Even new IPs they do not do this so why this one time for only 50 mill.

Also you are acting as if Titanfall is the cumulation of the deal.  It could be a multigame deal like MS had with Mistwalker where they helped fund the development of the studio which required them to make 3 games for the 360.  Mistwalker had full control on what game they made and control on the IP.  Even during this time frame Mistwalker made games on other platforms like IOS and the 3DS.  Hell they even came out with a Wii game and they still owe MS one more game to complete the deal.

The case still stands you do not have enough information to call the developer a liar.  The last link I posted pretty much described why Respawn went with MS and there is no reason to not believe it because everything stated points to what we see today.  You questioned the cloud, they gave you a reason.  You said the Deal is between EA and MS but the link you posted stated its MS, EA and Respawn.  You state that no such contrats can exist and I give you Mistwalker.  I am sure I can dig up more but do not have the time anymore.  



Machiavellian on 24 August 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Scoobes said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Scoobes said:
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.


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.

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.

None of that makes any sense since MS published both Mass Effect and Gears.  Are you just making this up or do you have any proof. There is nothing out there that I could find that Gears of War or Mass Effect was ever in development for the PS3.  MS published the game so by that alone you know it wasn't going to be on any other platform then MS.  If MS published the game and gave the developer money during development wouldn't that be what publishers do.

You would have a much better case with Titanfall than Gears of War and Mass Effect.  Even better the DLC from GTA games or the one month DLC exclusive period.



S.T.A.G.E. on 24 August 2013
Machiavellian said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Scoobes said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Scoobes said:
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.


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 toBayonetta 2 on WiiU.

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.

None of that makes any sense since MS published both Mass Effect and Gears.  Are you just making this up or do you have any proof. There is nothing out there that I could find that Gears of War or Mass Effect was ever in development for the PS3.  MS published the game so by that alone you know it wasn't going to be on any other platform then MS.  If MS published the game and gave the developer money during development wouldn't that be what publishers do.

You would have a much better case with Titanfall than Gears of War andMass Effect.  Even better the DLC from GTA games or the one month DLC exclusive period.


I have played mass effect on the 360 and ps3. The publishing was primarily for exclusivity rights. They kept paying bioware and aiding in their development primarily to bolster their ranks. Ms is the reason so many pc xbox games made an exodus to consoles.



brendude13 on 24 August 2013

It depends how it's done really.



Around the Network
Gamecube on 24 August 2013
landguy1 said:

It seems that most people despise Moneyhatting.  If you despise Microsoft's obvious moneyhatting of AAA titles, why do so many people praise Sony for moneyhatting indie games?  For me, I have no problems with it either way.  I think that the $$$ that Microsoft and Sony are giving publishers is allowing for more games to get made one way or another.  So, is Moneyhatting really so bad?


It's absolutely evil.... if your rival console maker does it:)



brute on 24 August 2013

I don't think moneyhatting is a bad thing, that's why I also wasnt Nintendo to do it aswell .



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

landguy1 on 24 August 2013
Scoobes said:
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.


What I find most interesting from this thread is that everyone has a different view in their mind as to what it is.  I had my thoughts, but it seems clear that mine are different than many others.  Ithink that even if I were to pick a definition for the topic, it wouldn't change their minds on that.  So, best to let them play it out and maybe we can create a definition from the conversation.



J_Allard on 24 August 2013

The rules of moneyhatting on this forum are simple.

Nintendo or MS does it, then its terrible and clearly a result of how weak their support is and how little they care about their audience.

Sony does it and wow, they clearly literally love every single one of us, would fly out to every one of our houses and spoon with us every single night, softly singing Careless Whisper into our ears as we drift into sleep. If they could, they'd give us consoles and games for free.

That is my understanding from reading this forum for a year or so.



Gamecube on 25 August 2013
J_Allard said:
The rules of moneyhatting on this forum are simple.

Nintendo or MS does it, then its terrible and clearly a result of how weak their support is and how little they care about their audience.

Sony does it and wow, they clearly literally love every single one of us, would fly out to every one of our houses and spoon with us every single night, softly singing Careless Whisper into our ears as we drift into sleep. If they could, they'd give us consoles and games for free.

That is my understanding from reading this forum for a year or so.


Careful could could get banned for talk like that. I got a temp ban for saying something about sony and Make.Believe.