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

Forums - Gaming - Why is moneyhatting frowned upon?

Baalzamon on 13 August 2014
DD_Bwest said:

because money hatting is literally paying a company money to make sure other people, who would have got to play it, now wont get to.

Keep in mind these deals are all likely occurring prior to any development occurring on multiple platforms. So that being the case, how is this any different than any company owning the exclusive rights to any product? I would love if my local grocery store was allowed to sell an individualized product called "Cheerios" with the same box, and everything, except it wasn't actually produced by General Mills. It is only fair, because my store doesn't sell General Mills products so they are preventing me from getting their product by not allowing other companies to sell it as well (exaggerated example obviously).

A company has every right to buy a title, and that is exactly what video game companies are doing when this occurs. It is an investment on their behalf.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 13 August 2014
Soundwave said:

Never heard any complaints from Sony fans when Sony used to moneyhat basically every big third party game. MGS2, Final Fantasy X/XI/XII, GTA3, Soul Calibur 3, Kingdom Hearts 1/2, Silent Hill, etc. etc. would've been nice to have on the GameCube for example.

Or when they locked out many third parties from Sega.

They just can't afford to do that these days since they aren't financially anywhere close to the company they used to be.



Sony never locked third parties away from sega, nintendo did that. Sega screwed themselves by rushing their launch window for the saturn when they heard the first playstation was coming and pissed third parties off to the heavens. Sony monyhatte but not on a level of MS. They are quite a self sufficient company but know that sometimes you need outside help. MS has devs and still gives all the good jobs to third parties. Final fantasy went to playstation because of market dominance and also format reasons. Read up your history of nintendos and disagreements with third parties and format.



Aerys on 13 August 2014

Tomb Raider X1 is the perfect example why money hatting is stupid, useless and anti consumer and bad for the industry.

Instead of using 1 billion to create new games, microsoft prefers to use this money to keep the exclusivity for few month -_- , if it was only one game, ok, but they do that for the majority of their "exclusive" library



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

Soundwave on 13 August 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Soundwave said:

Never heard any complaints from Sony fans when Sony used to moneyhat basically every big third party game. MGS2, Final Fantasy X/XI/XII, GTA3, Soul Calibur 3, Kingdom Hearts 1/2, Silent Hill, etc. etc. would've been nice to have on the GameCube for example.

Or when they locked out many third parties from Sega.

They just can't afford to do that these days since they aren't financially anywhere close to the company they used to be.



Sony never locked third parties away from sega, nintendo did that. Sega screwed themselves by rushing their launch window for the saturn when they heard the first playstation was coming and pissed third parties off to the heavens. Sony monyhatte but not on a level of MS. They are quite a self sufficient company but know that sometimes you need outside help. MS has devs and still gives all the good jobs to third parties. Final fantasy went to playstation because of market dominance and also format reasons. Read up your history of nintendos and disagreements with third parties and format.


BS ... Squaresoft had a money based contract with Sony that did not allow them to publish games on other platforms (MONEY HAT HELLO). 

That's why when Nintendo/Square finally made a deal for Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles they had to make a phony "paper company" called Game Dev Studio publisher because otherwise it would violate the Sony/Square contract. 

Sony moneyhatted tons of games in the past, they just can't afford to do so anymore (cry me a river). 

There is no format issue with Nintendo and third parties after the N64, yet GameCube still rountinely got screwed on games, so did Sega, so Microsoft. 

The hypocrisy is so thick here it's laughable.  It's actually thanks to Microsoft largely that most third parties abandoned the concept of making franchises Playstation-only ... like Final Fantasy, MGS, Devil May Cry, Kingdom Hearts, which at one time where all money-hatted and kept under lock and key by Sony. 



Teeqoz on 13 August 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Teeqoz said:

First Party:

  1. Electronic games. Of a video game, developed and published by the manufacturer of the video game's respective platform or its internal developers, as opposed to third-party.                                                                                           There you go, you're plain wrong


There is no disambiguation in that definition. I explained that very definition and extrapolated and even gave you examples. First party doesnt need to be developed by the hardware manufacturer. It could be contracted works. Lost Odyssey wasnt made by a Microsoft studio, but it is first party because MS paid for the IP and it belongs to them. Heavy Rain was made by a second party to Sony but is a first party title for Sony.

Second party don't have to make a first party game, but they can if they are commissioned to. There is a difference. That definition is the quickest and simplest definition possible.

You're only giving the definition of a first party developer, not first party which pretty much means the IP belongs to the studio.


Did you read the definition? Doesn't seem like it because then you would have seen it says "of a VIDEOGAME, DEVELOPED and published by the manufacturer of the video game's respective platform or its INTERNAL DEVELOPERS, as opposed to third party". Sorry for the caps, but it seems like the only way to make you pay attention.

 

if you prefer to use your own definitions instead of the actual one, then okay, it's still wrong though. 



Around the Network
overman1 on 13 August 2014
LudicrousSpeed said:
overman1 said:

Wow...you do know that Bloodborne was made by Sony Japan Studios in collaboration with From Studios, funded by Sony using the Ice engine just like Demon souls was, right? The Ip is owned by Sony too.

The Order1886 is owned and funded by Sony by their SECOND party studio Ready at Dawn in COLLABORATION with their FIRST party studio Santa Monica studios. Just like Halo is for the Xbox....(so you can better understand)

Tomb Raider is an ALWAYS (since 1996) MULTIPLAT game which constently sells better on the PS brand (DV sold 450,000 for the PS4 and 117,000 xbox one) since 1996. There has never been a Tomb Raider game that never came out for the PS and PC. MS didnt buy the IP but pays SE to not release on other consoles. there is a difference...

At least get your freaking facts right before you come here spilling nonesense....

LOL thank you for replying to point #4 and then continuing to confirm that point #4 is 100% correct with your irrelevant hair splitting and excuse making.

Bloodborne is made by From Software. SJS is offering assistance, just like Demon's Souls. And of course Sony owns the IP, that is what they require in exchange for publishing these types of games. Be glad MS differs or Tomb Raider 2015 would really be a sore spot for PS owners.

The Order is being made by a 3rd party company in exchange for money. VGC descriptions of games like Dead Rising 3, Killer Instinct, Titanfall, or even Gears of War tells me this is a moneyhat. But in this case it's Sony paying for the game, so it's rainbows and unicorn farts, I forgot. My bad. Also, Halo has always been first party made by studios actually owned by MS. Bungie, and now 343 Industries. The only exception being the CE remake. Hope that helped.

The bolded part is the funniest as we all learned recently that Sony signed a deal for Tomb Raider in 1997 that prevented Sega and Nintendo gamers from playing the franchise on their console for 3 years. You're going on here about sales on Playstation platforms and this fanbase on Playstation, both are a direct result of a moneyhat deal. And yet, MS signing a deal with that exact same franchise, what... 17 years later, is terrible. Please. And this one won't be anywhere NEAR 3 years long. These PS fans will get it early 2015, right after they tire of Uncharted. It's hilarious.

Please take your own advice regarding facts. I am done in this thread though.

Ready at Dawn is a SECOND PARTY DEVELOPER NOT THIRD PARTY!!!!! the project was also done together with SANTA MONICA STUDIOS A EFFFING FIRST PARTY.  BOTH BLOODBORNE AND THE ORDER ARE SONY OWNED IPS FUNDED AND HELPED DEVELOPED BY SONY FIRST PARTY DEVELOPERS (SJS AND SMS RESPECTIVELY) BUNGIE WAS NEVER A FIRST PARTY STUDIO FOR MS. THEY WERE SECOND PARTY JUST LIKE READY AT DAWN IS TO SONY.  Ready at Dawn WHO HAS NEVER MAKE ANY GAME FOR ANY OTHER SYSTEM BUT THE PS BRAND. where are you getting all these freaking lies? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order:_1886 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodborne

In 1997, many developers (most notably Square Soft) move from Nintendo to Sony BECAUSE OF THE EFFING CD FORMAT WHICH WAS CHEAPER AND EASIER TO CODE FOR THAN NINRENDO'S CARTRIDGE FORMAT FOR THE N64. That is Nintedo's fault not Sony's. maybe you need to go do some serious research before you come here with your lies and overtly baised opinions.

God damn...atleast try to make your bullshit convincing 



Machiavellian on 13 August 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Machiavellian said:
The Fury said:
IamAwsome said:

They opened a dozen new studios over the years. They're working on something. Microsoft also has new stuff like Scalebound, Sunset Overdrive, and Project Spark. There isn't a shortage of new projects at Microsoft Studios. 

The Wii U's first party games aren't enough to power it past the PS4. Microsoft knows you need more than first party games to sell, and this is why they moneyhat. 

Working on something. Nice to know. Shame we don't know what. Scalebound and Sunset Overdrive are not being made by their studios. They are a deal where MS fund development and it appears on MS console, very simple business and not a concern.It's this obvious taking away a game from others that is.

Maybe Wii U first party aren't enough to take it past the PS4 but its enough to have it keep on toe with Xbox One even without this 3rd party support. I want to see MS make big games themselves, not have 3rd parties do it for them. Forza is a great start but so far Xbone's biggest games are all 3rd party. Xbox gamers deserve more than just paying off 3rd parties for exclusives that already existed anyway.

@Bolded:  Neither is Bloodborn, The Order, Deep Down, Wild, HellBlade or a host of other exclusives that are coming out for the PS4.  Pretty much every thread I read, I do not see anyone who is Pro Sony have any problems with those studios making exclusives for Sony.  

Basically people pick and choose how they see 3rd party developers making games for the console of their choice.  We see the list of these games pop up all the time but no real concern they are not Sony studios or for some even exclusives but timed.


Bloodborne is being co developed by sony japan and from software using a similar formula they used to create demon sould. Ready at dawn is second party co developing with first party in sony santa monica. Those are full first party games. They are collaborative efforts.

Both Japan Studio and Santa Monica are basically publishing arms of Sony Worldwide Studios. What you call co-develop is in actuality just another publishing deal. 

Either way, From software a 3rd party developer is contracted to create this game or sign a contract from Sony to develop the game on their platform.  Its pretty much the same thing as Sunset Overdrive.  Developers making deals with platform holders to create games. 



Dannythegamer on 13 August 2014

I do not know why Sony fanboys are so angry with such practice, when in the past Sony also did this, ironically with the same franchise (e.g. Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness)



JazzB1987 on 13 August 2014
TheGoldenBoy said:
JazzB1987 said:
TheGoldenBoy said:
I frankly don't care. It's not like there is a shortage of games. But I can understand fans being upset that they can't play games that they expected to play on their console of choice.

People can just be upset with themselves because they believe that they can "glassball into the future". Its their own fault for being so ignorant.

They were ignorant because they didn't know TR was going to be exclusive after it had been multiplatform for years?


Yes after Final Fantasy going from Nintendo to Sony and then going multiplat or MonsterHunter going NIntendo or the other 1000 examples.
When one buys a console for hypothetical games and then they dont show up  one has no reason to be angry at anyone but oneself.  Buy a  console for the games that are out not for the ones that might come.



zippy on 13 August 2014
darkshadow23 said:
If the only reason you are paying is to keep the game off other platforms, then it is dirty.

Now if the game was going to be canceled or something else like that and you pay money to fund the creation of the game then that is ok.

Thank god for Nintendo, cant wait for Bayonetta 2 :)