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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is Moneyhatting so bad?

Ssenkahdavic on 23 August 2013

It is part of the industry. It might be bad for the consumer, but it obviously isnt for Publishers (or they would have stopped doing it).

Im not a big fan of Timed Exclusives or Timed DLC. Keep the Exclusives where they are to give the gamer more of a choice between the Systems.

They should just admit that they were "Money Hatted" (this should be an Official new Word). All the nonsense of "We could never have done this on X System, without Y Technology" is BS. Just say "We could never have done this without Z Company to pay W $$$$, for us to develop the game on X System using Y Technology"



 

  

The Only True Next Gen Game - Hero-U

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein

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

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/05/24/microsoft-and-game-publishers-will-reportedly-take-a-cut-of-xbox-one-used-game-sales/



Machiavellian on 23 August 2013
Zappykins said:
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:

Actually I thought thats why EA started the Partner fund.  Before they were getting a lot of hate because they were purchasing smaller studios and changing them into something else.  The Partner fund was develop to leave these companies alone but give them a chance to get their games made.  As the years progressed, EA made the Partner fund into a group of pub services which benefited developer as they can pretty much talor their agreement to what they want.



badgenome on 23 August 2013
Machiavellian said:

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.

Wasn't that just precious when in the end, it was I who had to break it down for you?

Machiavellian said:

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.

A better question would be, did you read it? Or did you just not read what I've been posting? Because I have been saying exactly what the interview says: Respawn owns the IP. Again: Respawn owns the IP. Once more: Respawn owns the goddamned IP.

That's what is meant by controlling their own destiny. Some studios like Insomniac spend their entire existence working on franchises owned by other people and when their publishing deal falls through or they want to move on, they do so with nothing much to show for it. That's why Insomniac is so desperately trying to create IP that it will actually own.

But news flash: when West said "we can do whatever he want", he doesn't mean that as literally as you seem to be taking it. There is not a multi-multi-million dollar deal on Earth that will allow you to do absolutely whatever you want to do. He means they're comfortable with the fact that EA will let them make the game they want to make (and why wouldn't they? the ex-IW guys know what they're doing when it comes to making blockbuster shooters) and that at the end of the deal they walk away owning the IP.



Serious_frusting on 23 August 2013

The only thing i have never really liked is how a version of a multiplat game gets delayed because another company has moneyhatted.
That money should have been put to use in creating other games, not penalising the gamers from the competing console. Who does it benefit really? Certainly not the consumers from either side.



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

Around the Network
badgenome on 23 August 2013
Machiavellian said:

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.

Only I've given you a great deal of evidence that they are not being up front. But that is a pretty good summart of events: I am supporting my opinion with arguments while you profess to have no opinion but keep arguing anyway.

Machiavellian said:

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.

It would be profitable either way, so who cares who's paying for it? Who cares, anyway, because porting costs are not the reason that a PS4 port isn't happening? This "tactical partnership" with Microsoft('s wallet) is why.

The part about having experience with 360 and PC is also bogus. The Xbox One doesn't have the same architecture as the 360. That's why the Xbox One has no backwards compatibility. And Respawn aren't internally doing the 360 port, so why does their 360 experience factor into it at all?

Machiavellian said:

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.

No, what I am basically stating is that I think moneyhatting is a terrible practice because we wind up with situations like this one where, instead of taking $50 million and greenlighting some interesting new projects that are in need of a publisher, Microsoft takes a shine to a game that already has a publisher, and which is already coming out on their console anyway, and they spend that $50 million to make the version of that game for their competitors' console go away. So Xbox owners don't have any more games to show for it, and Playstation owners only have one fewer game available for their system. Nothing new was created.

That might be a fine strategy for a company, but it's bad for gamers. And I don't care what company does it.



S.T.A.G.E. on 23 August 2013
Serious_frusting said:
The only thing i have never really liked is how a version of a multiplat game gets delayed because another company has moneyhatted.
That money should have been put to use in creating other games, not penalising the gamers from the competing console. Who does it benefit really? Certainly not the consumers from either side.


MS couldn't beat Sonys first party head to head. Take away the third party and games and their launch to window is not hot at all. 



Machiavellian on 23 August 2013
badgenome said:

Machiavellian said:

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.

No, what I am basically stating is that I think moneyhatting is a terrible practice because we wind up with situations like this one where, instead of taking $50 million and greenlighting some interesting new projects that are in need of a publisher, Microsoft takes a shine to a game that already has a publisher, and which is already coming out on their console anyway, and they spend that $50 million to make the version of that game for their competitors' console go away. So Xbox owners don't have any more games to show for it, and Playstation owners only have one fewer game available for their system. Nothing new was created.

That might be a fine strategy for a company, but it's bad for gamers. And I don't care what company does it.

This is my point, the only evidence you have given is that money changed hands.  Thats not enough to suggest anything more about a deal than that.  The developer stated their case, you choose to be believe something else but it doesn't make your rendition any more true.  You have no clue how the deal was made who asked who or what.  It could easily been Respawn looking for more funding for their game and they went to MS.  In the interview it pretty much stated they went to Sony and MS.  It doesn't matter who the publisher of the game is as Respawn charts their own course.  Why would MS turn down an opportunity to get a exclusive game from a proven developer if the option is on the table.  That sounds like very bad business and from the love Titanfall is getting, it looks like very smart business that MS made the deal.



badgenome on 23 August 2013
Machiavellian said:

This is my point, the only evidence you have given is that money changed hands.  Thats not enough to suggest anything more about a deal than that.  The developer stated their case, you choose to be believe something else but it doesn't make your rendition any more true.  You have no clue how the deal was made who asked who or what.  It could easily been Respawn looking for more funding for their game and they went to MS.  In the interview it pretty much stated they went to Sony and MS.  It doesn't matter who the publisher of the game is as Respawn charts their own course.  Why would MS turn down an opportunity to get a exclusive game from a proven developer if the option is on the table.  That sounds like very bad business and from the love Titanfall is getting, it looks like very smart business that MS made the deal.

Can you not understand how publishing works, or do you refuse to understand how publishing works?



Machiavellian on 23 August 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Machiavellian said:
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/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/05/24/microsoft-and-game-publishers-will-reportedly-take-a-cut-of-xbox-one-used-game-sales/

Here is the difference between your link and mine.  Yours is from rumors, mind is directly stated by MS on the policy.  Also the articles the main link and the link to where Forbes are basing their article is from may while the one I linked is the official response in June.  Even so, the MCV article has quotes from MS stating the rumors are false.