Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is Moneyhatting so bad?

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?



Around the Network
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.



badgenome said:
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?

Are you telling me there is just one standard model.  Are you telling me each publisher deals with each developer the same way.  Because we seem to be arguing in circle.  You made a comment already about what Carmack stated that EA Partners is not a standard publishing agreement but a list of services and options.  You seem to have just dismissed that comment.  Are you telling me that Respawn cannot make other partnerships with other companies. Are you telling me that Respawn does not have enough control to state what platform they want their game published on.



Machiavellian said:
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.

Yes...that rumor caused Gamestops stock to drop.



--- Spam post ---



Around the Network

If it's a game that would've been made otherwise and it's just effectively paying to keep the game off other platforms like Sonic Lost Worlds, then yeah, it's bad.

That said, if it's a game that otherwise wouldn't have been made at all and it's basically just a matter of paying developers to make a game, like Wonderful 101 or Bayonetta 2, then that's good.

So as far as indies go, a lot of them are in pretty dire need of funding, so I don't mind so much even if there are some of the former there too.



Machiavellian said:

Are you telling me there is just one standard model.  Are you telling me each publisher deals with each developer the same way.  Because we seem to be arguing in circle.  You made a comment already about what Carmack stated that EA Partners is not a standard publishing agreement but a list of services and options.  You seem to have just dismissed that comment.  Are you telling me that Respawn cannot make other partnerships with other companies. Are you telling me that Respawn does not have enough control to state what platform they want their game published on.

I'm telling you it is ludicrous to think that it's literally a loan, as if Respawn went to the Bank of EA and walked out with a wad of cash to the tune of $100 million, and when they burned through all that, they had to go take out another loan at the Bank of Microsoft. EA is making a huge bet on this game, and they are going to see to it that Respawn is going to have the funds necessary to finish it.

And yes. I am telling you that Respawn cannot just take their game over to Activision or whoever and have them publish it, too. Odds are they do not actually own the game, and at least while they are under contract to EA they definitely can't just do whatever they want with it. "Listen up, Mr. Moore! We're Respawn Entertainment, brother! We chart our own course! Wheeeeeeeee!"

You can't compare their arrangement with EA to id's deal for Orcs & Elves, a cheap mobile game. Or Valve's when they just needed a retail distributor. Or even Crytek when they were already an established studio with a hit game under their belt. (And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that, although they own the IP, Crytek can't just put the original Crysis on any platform they want without EA's say so.) Respawn didn't even have a studio until EA set them up, and EA is paying for the entire production of their expensive as hell game. The deal between them is going to reflect that.



Never bothered me. I own multiple platforms because to me, you really cant own just one these days, you'd miss out on too many games.



naruball said:
What's with all the attacks against Sony fans? Following some folks' logic, only ms and ninty fans can criticize. When Sony fans do, it's wrong. When Ms/Ninty fans do, they're right. There're hypocrites from both sides. Let's not kid ourselves, eh?


I have a PS4 on preorder and don't plan on getting an Xbox One yet. I don't believe MS and Nintendo fans should be hypocritical either, but Sony fans allow Sony to get away with a lot more. Nintendo fans at the very least tend to be more critical of the companies actions. Such as Region locking and other things. I maintain a mostly neutral stance. I own a 3DS and a Vita. I own a Wii U and soon to own a PS4. I owned an Xbox 360, a PS3, and a Wii last gen as well as a DS, and PSP. My main system is my gaming PC anyways. I just don't see Nintendo and Microsoft fans whining about moneyhatting nearly as bad as Sony fans do.



It's not.

Without it some games would even exist. Bayonetta 2 and Quantic Dream games are good exemples of how moneyhat can be good.