When we're talking about moneyhatting, we're usually talking about major publishers.  Activision and EA don't need money from Microsoft to keep going, for example.  In those instances, it's just pure greed.  The publisher gains, the platform holder gains, gamers lose.  It's the act of taking away.

Sony, as far as I know, doesn't pay for exclusives.  The developer for The Witness, for example, said that he hadn't been paid a cent to be exclusive.  What they typically do instead is to request additional content for the Playstation version?  Is this just as bad?  Perhaps, but maybe not--if that content wasn't going to be there in the first place, then it's taking nothing away from gamers who play on other brands.

I think generalizations are pretty darn bad. Take me for example. I consider myself a Sony fan.

When Ninty monyhatted for monster hunter exclusivity, I was very pissed, but at Sony, not Ninty. I actually applauded Ninty and lost respect for Sony in terms of marketing.

Similarly, with the whole Fifa 14 deal, I think it's a great move from MS. They have the money and putting it into good use.

Then there are timed exclusives. I detest those. Don't care if it's MS, Sony or Ninty (?). If you have that much money lying around, Ms, use that to make more first party games. If Sony has truly monyehatted indie developers for ps4, they're nothing but fools (in that regard). But I do think that instead they have some kind of deal (more promo, exposure at important events, etc).

I didn't like Tekken, FF and other similar big names going multiplat, but you know what? My hat off to MS for making it happen. I'm sure it was money well spent (still remember the meltdowns).

Everyone does it, part of the business.

We know that M$ generally does a LOT more than anyone.  But, their business culture has them outsourcing game development in all of their divisions.  So, they believe that they are just waiting to get the right titles/developers that are willing to accept the $$$ to give them their games.  Even though we think we know when they "bought" certain titles, it might have happened semi early in the process before a lot of the multi plat work has been done.  But, because the developer had originally intended to make it multiplat, people tend to complain about what might have been.

I wish Nintendo would pull a couple of strategic money hats. GTAV and Bethesda games are big ones to lose out on.

yes, yes it is! I remember COD W@W where I was able to be among the first to figure out secrets on Nazi Zombie DLC, but after that game I wasn't able to do that and it mattered less to search those things out.

Exclusive content I don't mind as much, but still not a good thing overall.

For true exclusives I don't mind, but for DLC and timed exclusive tiles instead of creating new games with that money .... yea.

Still curiuous as to why people on the internet misuse this poor word like that :/ And almost always with capslock. 

Well if MS could've published a game they would've done it (and they have). If they moneyhatted a game they just paid for some form of exclusivity to keep it away from Sony like Titan Fall, Dead Rising, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Gears....and the list goes on and on.

Depends on what you mean by moneyhatting. If you mean, as in the case of Titanfall, throwing tens of millions of dollars at a third party publisher to stop development of the game for your competitors' consoles... then I think it's a crap practice because it doesn't add to your platform. It merely takes from others'. The moneyhatting of exclusive DLC is in some ways even more reprehensible because it's so utterly stupid and meaningless. No one really gives a shit if the PS3 version of Arkham Origins lets you play as '60s Batman.

But you seem to be confusing moneyhatting with the legitimate functions of a publisher. What Sony does for indies, or what Nintendo is doing for Bayonetta 2, or Microsoft for Sunset Overdrive isn't moneyhatting to me because without the first parties' involvement those games would either not exist at all, or might exist but only in a diminished form.