That sounds like publishing to me. It's no different to what Sony and Nintendo do and the resoning for it is the same in all cases (improving your consoles game library). Both Bioware and Epic could have chosen other 3rd party publishers that would have allowed them to publish on PS3 if they wished it. They had to pitch their game ideas to MS (and probably other publishers) but chose MS for a reason (e.g. better return rates, more development money, allowing them to keep their own IP). MS had to make a significant investment into each games development.

In Bioware's case, they decided to sell to EA which is the sole reason they could bring Mass Effect to PS3. MS were the publisher that made the initial investment though.

In the other cases above (e.g. TitanFall) though, MS made no investment in the games in question. They simply gave the publishers some money and said "give us the games exclusively".

Moneyhatting distorts the publishing paths and decision making process of 3rd party developers and also public opinion of a consoles relative capability.

I dont believe Sony has money hatted indies, in fact the reverse-  they give the free support to allow them to make games for the platform freely.

Overall is halo better because it is not on PS3 or PC ?

No, in fact if it was on both of those Bungie would probably have made more money by now.

monehatting is bad ,it is buying success and stiffling competition and in the end it is just preventing other gamers from gaming.Should be forbidden in the name of competition.
But i can understand that especially people in the us where buying success and stiffling competition is part of culture and maybe even buying partners and friends is part of this.
Right now we have this problem as worst case:the biggest and most influental us software company is 100% ignoring a japanese console manufacturer while they are 100% preferring the us console manufacturer.
Imagine this the opposite way-all those guys who are saying moneyhatting is great would hate moneyhatting

Do you think Mario or Uncharted are better becasue they are not on the 360/PC?

That argument is pointless.  Unless every game is released on every console, by your definition it is moneyhatted. 

To me moneyhatting has become essential to get a number of games released on more systems.  People only seem to look at the short term aspect of moneyhatting - "I didn't get it on my console".  Most games that are moneyhatted are only delayed.  We don't know for sure what is going on in the background at these studios financially.  I would think that a lot of developers have this great idea and start the basic design on a game.  Eventually they shop around for a publisher to help finance it.  IF M$/Sony/Nintendo decide to invest or EA/Activision, they may have decsions to make.  Maybe they are going to get so much $$$ if they want o do 1 system or $$ if they do multiplat.  They can take more up front and focus development on one console and take the $$$ to actually develop it for the other consoles. THIS IS NOT THE CASE ALWAYS, BUT THE MONEY IS GOING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF GAMES SOMEHOW.

I think that most people in these forums conveniently like to think that writing code for 1 vs 2 vs 3 consoles is the same.  There is a cost to it.  Many here like to think the M$ in particular stole IP's from Sony/Niintendo by moneyhatting.  I think that M$ talks to devvelopers at various stages of development and makes an investment that works for both parties.  Sony chose differently and chose to buy a bunch of studios outright over the years and take their games that way.  It's all perspective, IF Sony/M$ really cared about the gamers, they would force every game to be multiplat.  They don't, because they are running a business.

No matter how consumers see it, moneyhatting gives developers upfront money.  It reduces the risk and investment of a game and it puts money in the developers pocket for something they were already doing.  The fact that when the deal is done they can then port the game to other systems is an added benefit because the cost has already been paid.  Even if they cannot port the game, the 2nd or third are now funded because of that upfront money including sales they receive for the previous game.

I believe one of the bigger issues is that gamers always believe that something has to benefit them.  In most cases these development studios take risk all the time and I am sure its great when that risk is reduce. Moneyhatting may not be something that is in the interest of gamers all the time but its definitely in the interest of developers as they do have to run a business.  When you profits is reliant on game sells and you have plenty of things that cut into it, having some extra cash in the bank is never a bad thing.

So yes, Moneyhatting changes the way developers think about releasing a game but then again it should.

Free support is moneyhatting.  Whether its cash or not having to pay something it’s the same thing.  Its no different from MS giving indies a free dev kit to produce content on their system.

As for Halo, who’s to know if it would have been better.  It’s not like Bungie did not have other titles that did not do all that hot before Halo like Myth and Oni.  Concentrating on one platform helps to keep the project focus and not spread a team thin thus producing a better product.  By your own standard then none of these studios should be exclusive as they could definitely make more money if they went multi plat.  So all of the Studios Sony has bought over time would be better off independent.

So, consumers don't like anti-consumer behavior?

No, consumers do not care about anything but for themselves.  They do not care about the business, the companies or their employees.  The only thing they care about is if it makes them happy.   Maybe consumers need to grow up.  No all deals will be about them so best to DEAL WITH IT.

"No, businesses do not care about anything but for themselves.  They do not care about the consumer, the consumer's family, or their fans.  The only thing they care about is if it makes them money.  Maybe businesses need to grow up.  No all deals will be about them so best to DEAL WITH IT."

Consumers are looking out for what is best for them.  Businesses are looking out for what is best for them.  That is perfectly logical.  To suggest that consumers should not look out for themselves to suggest the same for businesses.  Unless you are suggesting that this relationship should be a one-way street with one side holding all the power.

Only suggesting that consumers should not go around feeling entitled.  This is where the balance shift to the wrong side.  There are a lot of gamers out there that has this entitled mindset.  This is the reason we see so much piracy, hate filled comments towards developers and basically calling them everything under the son because they did not add some feature a gamer thought was important.  The gaming business is a tough one because you are only as good as your last game and if you cannot gain enough sales at retail then you could be in a lot of trouble.  With that understanding, developers have to look after the business side just as much as the gaming side.  While games are entertainment for us, its mission critical for a Dev studio and their employees.

So when money is on the table that reduce risk, then its silly as a business to leave it there unless you are already financially set.  We see this with independent studios the most because they need the money.  Sales are never guaranteed at retail.  There have been plenty of games that scored high but sales was not reflected.