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

Forums - Gaming - Is Moneyhatting so bad?

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

Why don't you go read the article before making comments.  Do you people actually read the links you post 

""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."

MS pays anyone who will take their money on any time of exclusive deal they can manage.  Its not just EA as UBi just signed someting, Capcom and a host of others.  Big deal, 

As for screwing gamestop, so what. I rather have a steam setup for consoles where game prices dropped then purchase another game from gamestop or any retail store.  I am sure one of the partners for resell of digital content would have been gamestop but thats neither here or there and now the whole issue has been turned to fuel edge fanboys swords which missinformation.


Microsoft doesn't just throw their money at EA, they know Sony and EA have a good business relationship. They know there will be big repercussions with Sony if Sony's launch goes  off without a hitch. Chances are the majority gamers will only respond to price. MS knows who they are throwing money at and why. 

What does Steam have to do with this? Why does Steam have to be brought into anything dealing with consoles? Theres no missinformation in this shit, Microsoft was going to use the Azure cloud system to set up a paywall on used gams for the Xbone in the very beginning. It was  going to give a cut of the profits to Microsoft and EA and whatever participating third party wanted to participate in it. That all came from a leak and fans complained because it  disrupts their way to get good pricing on console games. The speculation on the issue was  that if MS was goingto go through with this Gamestop would specifically raise the prices of used games, until used games on the Xbox One were no longer desirable. The PS4 would've been fine but everyone was up in arms because this affects potential Xbox One owners.



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

Also EA did not PAY Respawn to make a Titan fall, they payed for exclusive rights to PUBLISH Respawn games for a certain time period.  Really, can you just go and research this stuff instead of just making guesses.  Paying to publish a company games is not PAYING FOR THE GAME and EA has no SAY ON WHAT Respawn makes.  They have no control of the IP or anything. 

So you don't think that EA is funding the development of Titanfall? They're just paying for the privilege of having their name on the box? Oookay...

Well, maybe you'll listen to Respawn when they tell you otherwise:

Q: Where has the finance come from to form and run Respawn Entertainment?

Jason West: It's part of the EA Partners deal, they've provided us with capital and a publishing deal and money to start hiring and get our team together.

So no EA deal = no Respawn = no Titanfall. Whatever other offers they might have gotten, EA was really the only viable alternative to Activision and so had all the leverage in this deal. So if Microsoft slapped down $50 million to kill the Playstation version, it didn't matter what Respawn thought about it. For what it's worth, I'm sure Respawn is genuinely as happy as they profess to be about being able to focus on just two three one platforms for their first game as a studio. But that has absolutely nothing to do with why they're not making Titanfall for PS4.

And once again, we are not talking about the Titanfall IP. We are talking about one specific game called "Titanfall". It is entirely possible for EA to own that game but not the IP.

Which is entirely beside the point. EA took Microsoft's money, and now Titanfall is a "Microsoft exclusive". That is a moneyhat. I think it's a bad practice for gamers. Period. End of discussion.

Well if you are going to quote one part of that interview I will do as well

"Jason West: We looked at the deals and opportunities that we had and the EA Partners deal really seemed like it would allow us the freedom and independence to do whatever we wanted. They respect the culture we want to create, and we would own our own IP and control our own destiny and remain completely independent."

ALso, Respawn has to pay EA back the funded money.  Its not a gift its a loan.

Here is another quote from the EA guy during the interview

"David DeMartini: Certainly the Partners programme was in existence eight years but we've evolved quite a bit in the last eight years. Obviously we've evolved in a good way because we've been able to attract Crytek, Valve, id, Starbreeze and lot of other partners. Quality begats quality, and I think when people evaluate partners and people they can hook up with, they look at the other best independent game developers in the world and they've all selected to be part of the EA Partners programme. There are specific reasons for that, and the most important reason is they're allowed to maintain their independence and we're not fighting over the steering wheel. We're in the back seat advising when asked, we're not necessarily in the front seat grabbing at the wheel trying to make life more difficult. That's one of the key differences, we have taken more of a back seat to allow these developers to stay fiercely independent."

As I have stated, the EA partner pub is much different then EA regular pub.  You are applying old EA practices to a program they do not do those types of things anymore.  Its a totally different setup.



badgenome on 22 August 2013

Machiavellian said:

The Dev make the game and is required to pay EA back the funded money (with some sauce on it like a loan).  Here is a quote from Carmack when they used EA to publish their game

It would appear you don't know what publishing is, because that's not unique to EA Partners at all. That's how most publishing deals work. The publisher typically makes all of their money back before the developer starts seeing any royalties. The difference is that EA Partners is a program for external developers that allows those developers to retain ownership of the IP. But in the event that EA is funding the actual development of the game (as they are in this case) odds are that they have ownership of the games created under the contract. As opposed to, say, Valve's games for EA Partners which really were just a retail distribution deal and left EA with no ownership of anything.



Machiavellian on 22 August 2013
badgenome said:

Machiavellian said:

The Dev make the game and is required to pay EA back the funded money (with some sauce on it like a loan).  Here is a quote from Carmack when they used EA to publish their game

It would appear you don't know what publishing is, because that's not unique to EA Partners at all. That's how most publishing deals work. The publisher typically makes all of their money back before the developer starts seeing any royalties. The difference is that EA Partners is a program for external developers that allows those developers to retain ownership of the IP. But in the event that EA is funding the actual development of the game (as they are in this case) odds are that they have ownership of the games created under the contract. As opposed to, say, Valve's games for EA Partners which really were just a retail distribution deal and left EA with no ownership of anything.

Never said it was unique to EA, just stating what the deal is.  Its you that is making some wild guess as to what happen.  You are the one saying that EA would not do this or that but you act as if Respawn does not have a say, role or direction for their game.  You nor I know the full details of EA deal with Respawn.  EA gave them money but thats as far as we know.  At the time when Vince and company left, they were a very hot commodity.  Its like an NFL player that is a free agent.  If you are RGB 3rd, your contract going to be damn good because teams will want you more than trying to control you.

Anyway we can argue this point forever.  The only thing I am saying is that you are stating your opinion as fact which they are not.  Its a wild guess on something you really have no clue about besides money changed hands.  All the pieces inbetween could be anything.  Most of what I have stated is based on what the developer has said.  I have no reason to believe they are lying because I have no opinion about the deal to support.



badgenome on 22 August 2013
Machiavellian said:

ALso, Respawn has to pay EA back the funded money.  Its not a gift its a loan.

Well knock me down with a feather! Not a gift you say! Why, that's almost like... they're publishing a game or something!

Did you notice, btw, that Starbreeze's Syndicate was an EA Partners game? You know who owns that IP? EA. You know who therefore owns the game? EA. Like Carmack says, it's a range of options. And some of those options are going to be pretty straight publishing deals, particularly when EA is footing the entire bill.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 23 August 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Machiavellian said:

Why don't you go read the article before making comments.  Do you people actually read the links you post 

""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."

MS pays anyone who will take their money on any time of exclusive deal they can manage.  Its not just EA as UBi just signed someting, Capcom and a host of others.  Big deal, 

As for screwing gamestop, so what. I rather have a steam setup for consoles where game prices dropped then purchase another game from gamestop or any retail store.  I am sure one of the partners for resell of digital content would have been gamestop but thats neither here or there and now the whole issue has been turned to fuel edge fanboys swords which missinformation.


Microsoft doesn't just throw their money at EA, they know Sony and EA have a good business relationship. They know there will be big repercussions with Sony if Sony's launch goes  off without a hitch. Chances are the majority gamers will only respond to price. MS knows who they are throwing money at and why. 

What does Steam have to do with this? Why does Steam have to be brought into anything dealing with consoles? Theres no missinformation in this shit, Microsoft was going to use the Azure cloud system to set up a paywall on used gams for the Xbone in the very beginning. It was  going to give a cut of the profits to Microsoft and EA and whatever participating third party wanted to participate in it. That all came from a leak and fans complained because it  disrupts their way to get good pricing on console games. The speculation on the issue was  that if MS was goingto go through with this Gamestop would specifically raise the prices of used games, until used games on the Xbox One were no longer desirable. The PS4 would've been fine but everyone was up in arms because this affects potential Xbox One owners.

Noticed I said Steam type of service.  Meaning the great dicounts you get on Steam, I would have like to see in the console space.   PC games are not tied to retail stores like console games and thus we see great deals on that side.  Once console games are not tied to retail stores then we will see the same.

As for what MS was going to do, I have no clue because they dropped it all before it was finalize.  You say they were going to put it behind a pay wall with azure but there is nothing supporting that theory since this is the last statement they made before dropping the whole online bit.

"Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games."

So I am not sure where you are getting your info, I just grab that one from this link  http://www.gizmag.com/xbox-one-always-online-used-games-block/27829/



badgenome on 23 August 2013
Machiavellian said:

I have no reason to believe they are lying because I have no opinion about the deal to support.

Well, I do have reason to believe they are telling very obvious lies of omission because when asked about the game's exclusivity they invariably start yammering on about things that don't add up. Who buys this nonsense about the cloud when the game is being made for PC and 360, neither of which will benefit from the cloud? Who cares about the size of your studio when EA could and would pay for an outsourced PS4 port if it came to that just like they're paying for an outsourced 360 port... unless they were being paid not to? Same goes for their gushing about dedicated servers and everything else. Their answers are all a smokescreen since they (quite understandably) can't really just say, "Yeah, Microsoft paid off our publisher."



Machiavellian on 23 August 2013
badgenome said:
Machiavellian said:

ALso, Respawn has to pay EA back the funded money.  Its not a gift its a loan.

Well knock me down with a feather! Not a gift you say! Why, that's almost like... they're publishing a game or something!

Did you notice, btw, that Starbreeze's Syndicate was an EA Partners game? You know who owns that IP? EA. You know who therefore owns the game? EA. Like Carmack says, it's a range of options. And some of those options are going to be pretty straight publishing deals, particularly when EA is footing the entire bill.

It seemed like you did not know what a pub is and you definitely seemed like you did not know how EA Partners work.  I thought I had to break it down to you.

Did you just totally not read the interview you linked.  Because it clearly stated that Respawn was not giving up any control of their work.  I still have to ask the question do you read the whole links you post or do you just look for one piece of info to support your opinion.



Zappykins on 23 August 2013
Machiavellian said:

Well if you are going to quote one part of that interview I will do as well

"Jason West: We looked at the deals and opportunities that we had and the EA Partners deal really seemed like it would allow us the freedom and independence to do whatever we wanted. They respect the culture we want to create, and we would own our own IP and control our own destiny and remain completely independent."

ALso, Respawn has to pay EA back the funded money.  Its not a gift its a loan.

Here is another quote from the EA guy during the interview

"David DeMartini: Certainly the Partners programme was in existence eight years but we've evolved quite a bit in the last eight years. Obviously we've evolved in a good way because we've been able to attract Crytek, Valve, id, Starbreeze and lot of other partners. Quality begats quality, and I think when people evaluate partners and people they can hook up with, they look at the other best independent game developers in the world and they've all selected to be part of the EA Partners programme. There are specific reasons for that, and the most important reason is they're allowed to maintain their independence and we're not fighting over the steering wheel. We're in the back seat advising when asked, we're not necessarily in the front seat grabbing at the wheel trying to make life more difficult. That's one of the key differences, we have taken more of a back seat to allow these developers to stay fiercely independent."

As I have stated, the EA partner pub is much different then EA regular pub.  You are applying old EA practices to a program they do not do those types of things anymore.  Its a totally different setup.

Reminds me of the good ol EA Company.  The one that make great games.  Inspired developers making great games and was a general good guy.  Could some of that old Electronic Arts still be in there? Back when their logo looked like this:



 

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!
Machiavellian on 23 August 2013
badgenome said:
Machiavellian said:

I have no reason to believe they are lying because I have no opinion about the deal to support.

Well, I do have reason to believe they are telling very obvious lies of omission because when asked about the game's exclusivity they invariably start yammering on about things that don't add up. Who buys this nonsense about the cloud when the game is being made for PC and 360, neither of which will benefit from the cloud? Who cares about the size of your studio when EA could and would pay for an outsourced PS4 port if it came to that just like they're paying for an outsourced 360 port... unless they were being paid not to? Same goes for their gushing about dedicated servers and everything else. Their answers are all a smokescreen since they (quite understandably) can't really just say, "Yeah, Microsoft paid off our publisher."

I guess thats the difference between our argument.  You are only looking for something to support your opinion where I really have none.  I see no reason to call anyone a lyer when I cannot prove it.  I have not played either the PC, 360 or X1 version so do not know what benefit or none benefit MS cloud services will have.  On the net its common for people to call developers liers with not a shread of proof one way or the other.

Next you make assumtions without knowing how the deal between EA and Respawn is setup.  You state that EA would pay for an outsourced PS4 game but who is paying for it.  Meaning that is EA footing the whole bill or is this something else Respawn gets a bill for.  The developer stated that their people are experience with 360 and PC.  Respawn said they did not want to take on to much for the first project and there are benefits concentrating on one platform on release.  There is no reason to believe they are lying because all of that is true.

What you are basically stating is that you want MS to be the bad guy here instead of just another company looking for content and providing cash and services to make it happen.