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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is Moneyhatting so bad?

Zappykins on 22 August 2013

I think people think it is bad if a company is sponsering a game that you would want to play, or think other will want to play, but it is not a system they own.  They get frustrated cause they don't get to play a game (or might help their most hated console.)

In many ways, it helps games get developed that would possibly not get made, or not be made as well.  So no, it's not all bad.  Many games get made or are better because others are investing in it.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 22 August 2013
badgenome said:
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.


Wow...something I finally agree with you on. This means the end is near....



badgenome on 22 August 2013
Machiavellian said:

I know you state it as fact but is that what happen.  Do you know or have any proof that MS paid to have a PS4 version not made or did Respawn come to them and they made a agreement for exclusive rights both companies will do something for the other.  MS give Respawn dedicated servers, money for a year exclusive and Respawn put their game on all of their hardware.  Could this deal end up being like the one between MS and Epic.  A partnership that added greatly to both companies.  By all accounts, the deal between MS and Respawn is legitimate.

Yeah, I have proof: there is no deal between Respawn and Microsoft. Respawn has no say so in the matter. EA is publishing the game, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they would put it on every system under the sun* unless they were being paid not to. (CBOAT has also confirmed this, and his track record on Microsoft stuff is near 100%.)

The deal between Epic and Microsoft was a deal between a developer and a publisher. The deal between Microsoft and EA is a deal between an publisher and a publisher. Pretty different.

 

* Except for one... U know which one I'm talking about.



ghettoglamour on 22 August 2013
JayWood2010 said:

Depends on how you ask this question.

Example 1: TitanFall Topic - Do you like moneyhatting

MSFT fans say it isnt bad, I get to play it. Buy an xbox one.

Sony fans will say - Grrr, no it is stupid. We will play it in a year in or if it is for PS4 or on PC.

Example 2: Final Fantasy XIV Topic - Do you like money hatting

MSFT Fans. No it is stupid. We will play it on PC or when and if they bring it to X1.

Sony fans -  It is awesome buy the PS4 it is awesome

Moral of the story. People will support their preferred company even though they may or may not be hypocrite. MSFT Fans will stick up for the MSFT games and Sony fans will stick up for the sony games.  Both businesses do it though.  MSFT just has more money so they do it more which is why they are in this conversation more often

This. Double moral. If it's good for your interest, it's ok. If not, it's wrong. Don't be hypocrite. It's a legit business decision if you have the money to do so. I personally think though, that for a term, it's better to invest in your first party studios or make talented studios firsty party ones.



Game of the year 2017 so far:

5. Resident Evil VII
4. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
3. Uncharted: The Lost Legacy
2. Horizon Zero Dawn
1. Super Mario Odyssey

ghettoglamour on 22 August 2013
badgenome said:
Machiavellian said:

I know you state it as fact but is that what happen.  Do you know or have any proof that MS paid to have a PS4 version not made or did Respawn come to them and they made a agreement for exclusive rights both companies will do something for the other.  MS give Respawn dedicated servers, money for a year exclusive and Respawn put their game on all of their hardware.  Could this deal end up being like the one between MS and Epic.  A partnership that added greatly to both companies.  By all accounts, the deal between MS and Respawn is legitimate.

Yeah, I have proof: there is no deal between Respawn and Microsoft. Respawn has no say so in the matter. EA is publishing the game, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they would put it on every system under the sun* unless they were being paid not to. (CBOAT has also confirmed this, and his track record on Microsoft stuff is near 100%.)

The deal between Epic and Microsoft was a deal between a developer and a publisher. The deal between Microsoft and EA is a deal between an publisher and a publisher. Pretty different.

 

* Except for one... U know which one I'm talking about.

U talking about the system EA decided they Wiill Urinate on?



Game of the year 2017 so far:

5. Resident Evil VII
4. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
3. Uncharted: The Lost Legacy
2. Horizon Zero Dawn
1. Super Mario Odyssey

Around the Network
Machiavellian on 22 August 2013
badgenome said:
Machiavellian said:

I know you state it as fact but is that what happen.  Do you know or have any proof that MS paid to have a PS4 version not made or did Respawn come to them and they made a agreement for exclusive rights both companies will do something for the other.  MS give Respawn dedicated servers, money for a year exclusive and Respawn put their game on all of their hardware.  Could this deal end up being like the one between MS and Epic.  A partnership that added greatly to both companies.  By all accounts, the deal between MS and Respawn is legitimate.

Yeah, I have proof: there is no deal between Respawn and Microsoft. Respawn has no say so in the matter. EA is publishing the game, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they would put it on every system under the sun* unless they were being paid not to. (CBOAT has also confirmed this, and his track record on Microsoft stuff is near 100%.)

The deal between Epic and Microsoft was a deal between a developer and a publisher. The deal between Microsoft and EA is a deal between an publisher and a publisher. Pretty different.

 

* Except for one... U know which one I'm talking about.

Actually you are very wrong about EA control on Respawn.  You need to read up on what agreement Respawn signed with EA. Its the EA partner agreement.  Respawn only gave EA rights to publish and distribute their games and thats it.  EA does not tell Respawn, who what or where they can sell their games.  Respawn is free to make any other partnerships they want and they did, they chose MS.

As for CBOAT, well I have not seen this statement from him can you find the link.  Also didn't someone show just how many things he has been wrong when it comes to MS.  Deals like this he could say anything because most of it is behind the scenes and neither company is going to come out and say yea or nay.

To your last point, Respawn is not owned by EA, Respawn own their own IP and they chart their own course.  The deal is a partnership deal for distribution and publishing with EA, so everything you just stated is pretty much conjecture.



Pristine20 on 22 August 2013

No it's not. It's just another way to secure exclusives. If this is just a jab at M$, blame the devs for greed then not M$ for spending.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

badgenome on 22 August 2013
Machiavellian said:

Actually you are very wrong about EA control on Respawn.  You need to read up on what agreement Respawn signed with EA. Its the EA partner agreement.  Respawn only gave EA rights to publish and distribute their games and thats it.  EA does not tell Respawn, who what or where they can sell their games.  Respawn is free to make any other partnerships they want and they did, they chose MS.

As for CBOAT, well I have not seen this statement from him can you find the link.  Also didn't someone show just how many things he has been wrong when it comes to MS.  Deals like this he could say anything because most of it is behind the scenes and neither company is going to come out and say yea or nay.

To your last point, Respawn is not owned by EA, Respawn own their own IP and they chart their own course.  The deal is a partnership deal for distribution and publishing with EA, so everything you just stated is pretty much conjecture.

I don't thnk that's so. EA Partners is a dead program now. Even if Respawn signed up before they killed it, let's face it: how ever desirable it was to be the publisher of Respawn's first game there just aren't many publishers for a game as expensive as Titanfall. Activision is off the table for obvious reasons. None of the Japanese publishers could afford it, and their branding on it would have been the kiss of death anyway. So that leaves basically the first parties, Ubi, and the place you automatically go when you hate Activision: EA.

Can't find the link off hand, but the only thing CBOAT has been wrong with in regards to Microsoft so far as I know was his claim that Mirror's Edge 2 would be at their E3 (and it was at E3, so could have easily been pulled from MS' show at the last minute) and that Prince of Persia would also be there (which some people think was because of the Halo video, but it's also possible that PoP's announcement has just been delayed for whatever reason). His track record on Sony is terrible, but even he admits that.

I never said Respawn is owned by EA. But when you are getting millions upon millions of dollars to make a game, you definitely don't chart your own course. Put it this way: Do you really think EA said, "I know you want to only put this on Xbox One (oh, and PC... oh, and Xbox 360) but you'll have to make a Playstation version, too"? And Respawn said, "No! Fuck you! We love Xbox One and need the cloud computing powerzzzz and dedicated serverzzzz (but we're still porting to PC... and Xbox 360...)"? And then EA said, "Oh, okay"? Because I think that's pretty far fetched.

The fact that they talk about how awesome Xbox One is and how those niceties are why it's "Xbox exclusive" (i.e., not coming to Playstation) and then turn around and make a PC version and outsource a 360 port just goes to show what a line of bullshit it is. Those features may be nice, but that's not why. So, yeah. Money. It might be just conjecture, but it's pretty damned obvious conjecture.

Finally, EA has discussed the deal they made with Microsoft. So again, there is no deal between MS and Respawn.



S.T.A.G.E. on 22 August 2013
Machiavellian said:
badgenome said:
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.

I know you state it as fact but is that what happen.  Do you know or have any proof that MS paid to have a PS4 version not made or did Respawn come to them and they made a agreement for exclusive rights both companies will do something for the other.  MS give Respawn dedicated servers, money for a year exclusive and Respawn put their game on all of their hardware.  Could this deal end up being like the one between MS and Epic.  A partnership that added greatly to both companies.  By all accounts, the deal between MS and Respawn is legitimate.

So essentially moneyhatting and the deal isnt between Microsoft and Respawn its EA and Microsoft. We're not dumb, bro. Microsoft has been paying EA through the teeth to have the edge on Sony Europe and America with the annualized titles and Titan Fall. Microsoft was was also providing EA with the dedicated servers via the cloud servers so EA wouldnt have to pay out of pocket. Last but not least the final deal was screwing gamers and specifically Gamestop with DRM, which is why EA dropped online passes. The needed the online pass to profit off of those who bought used games and thought Microsoft would succeed. I fear that their loss of spreading DRM into next might affect Sonys chances of getting TitanFall but we all know how EA likes to make money and the game is a potential money maker.



Machiavellian on 22 August 2013
badgenome said:
Machiavellian said:

Actually you are very wrong about EA control on Respawn.  You need to read up on what agreement Respawn signed with EA. Its the EA partner agreement.  Respawn only gave EA rights to publish and distribute their games and thats it.  EA does not tell Respawn, who what or where they can sell their games.  Respawn is free to make any other partnerships they want and they did, they chose MS.

As for CBOAT, well I have not seen this statement from him can you find the link.  Also didn't someone show just how many things he has been wrong when it comes to MS.  Deals like this he could say anything because most of it is behind the scenes and neither company is going to come out and say yea or nay.

To your last point, Respawn is not owned by EA, Respawn own their own IP and they chart their own course.  The deal is a partnership deal for distribution and publishing with EA, so everything you just stated is pretty much conjecture.

I don't thnk that's so. EA Partners is a dead program now. Even if Respawn signed up before they killed it, let's face it: how ever desirable it was to be the publisher of Respawn's first game there just aren't many publishers for a game as expensive as Titanfall. Activision is off the table for obvious reasons. None of the Japanese publishers could afford it, and their branding on it would have been the kiss of death anyway. So that leaves basically the first parties, Ubi, and the place you automatically go when you hate Activision: EA.

Can't find the link off hand, but the only thing CBOAT has been wrong with in regards to Microsoft so far as I know was his claim that Mirror's Edge 2 would be at their E3 (and it was at E3, so could have easily been pulled from MS' show at the last minute) and that Prince of Persia would also be there (which some people think was because of the Halo video, but it's also possible that PoP's announcement has just been delayed for whatever reason). His track record on Sony is terrible, but even he admits that.

I never said Respawn is owned by EA. But when you are getting millions upon millions of dollars to make a game, you definitely don't chart your own course. Put it this way: Do you really think EA said, "I know you want to only put this on Xbox One (oh, and PC... oh, and Xbox 360) but you'll have to make a Playstation version, too"? And Respawn said, "No! Fuck you! We love Xbox One and need the cloud computing powerzzzz and dedicated serverzzzz (but we're still porting to PC... and Xbox 360...)"? And then EA said, "Oh, okay"? Because I think that's pretty far fetched.

The fact that they talk about how awesome Xbox One is and how those niceties are why it's "Xbox exclusive" (i.e., not coming to Playstation) and then turn around and make a PC version and outsource a 360 port just goes to show what a line of bullshit it is. Those features may be nice, but that's not why. So, yeah. Money. It might be just conjecture, but it's pretty damned obvious conjecture.

Finally, EA has discussed the deal they made with Microsoft. So again, there is no deal between MS and Respawn.

Here is a quote from the very article you posted

""Titanfall is an example of that. It's a product that came in through our EA Partners group, it's a partnership with Respawn, and there was an opportunity for Microsoft, EA and Respawn to create a tactical opportunity to make Titanfall exclusive to Microsoft."

So yes, if EA is the publisher then they will be in the negotiations that’s  clear but as mentioned Respawn contract is a EA Partners group and thus they do not own, direct or have a say in how Respawn run their business.  EA only publish and distribute their game and you just proved what I said..  In interviews Respawn said they went to Sony and MS and MS was the one that showed the most interest and came back with a plan to allow them to make the game they are making.  You are crying about them making a PC and outsource a 360 game which it seems you are forgetting that its a MS exclusive deal.  Meaning they had a talk about if we are giving you 50 million dollars to go exclusive how else can we benefit from this deal. Is it so hard for you to believe that if a company is paying 50 million dollars that they might want some extra carrots on their plate.