Depends on the kind of moneyhatting

* Gave them a fucktonne of money to make a game for us
* Paid them to port the game to our console
* Paid a fucktonne to promote a game more than our competitors
All of these are fine, they're creating games that would otherwise likely not have been made, increasing the sales of a game that would be releasing anyway, or bringing an existing game to a new platform, thus giving the customer more choice.

* Paid for competitors version of the same product to be delayed/halted
* Paid for competitors version to be inferior on purpose
* Paid to tie a series to one console mid-way through the series
All of these are considered dirty, because you're not paying for content or adding value for the customer, you're paying to handicap or disable the competition

At first, I was actually giving props to MS for what they did for TR. My assumption was that they pulled a TF and rescued TR from cancellation, buying the title (not the IP) for exclusive release on the Xbox. Recent interviews have proven this untrue, however. Admission that it was a simple business transaction (instead of the rescuing of a failing game), vague references using PR-speak of time limits to exclusivity combined with SE initial approach of "little to no information on nature of exclusivity on their press releases" and MS misleading wordings on their initial official press releases, leads me to believe that MS may have decided to implement a new approach on marketing their timed exclusivities. Essentially, a gag clause on the nature of exclusivities in order to create the perception of full exclusivity. Basically, if people don't know something is a timed exclusive, they will most likely assume it is a full exclusive. Which means, if true, (verifiable by ROTTR coming out for PS4 sometime after it comes out for the XB1), whatever trust and goodwill MS was starting to build with me with its past pro-gamer policy changes is now in the crapper once again.

It's not the fact whether or not a company is moneyhatting which is the problem, it is how they go about doing it.

Just let it go buddy.You lost this argument.You have no proof that Sony paid for GTa.Why would they when PS2 was already the bigest console of the generation and GTA was on PSX? So they paid, but did not pay for GTA5? Stop already.You just saying that to argue.Why would Rockstar not want to be associated with the biggest brand in gaming? It's not rocket science.

What other reason would the timed exclusive happen if MS did not pay? Phil just said they paid and you are ignoring it as expected, just to argue.All business contains money.Back to GTA again ...when did Sony ever say they had a deal with GTA to keep it from other consoles? Never.GTA was not even big until GTA3 so Sony had no idea who profitable it would be.You are wrong again.

PS2 made GTA a success, not the other way around.This alt thing does not change that you lost this argument.So you are saying a company Rockstar choosing to do the smart thing buy relasing their games on the biggest console first is the same as Square getting paid to hold off releasing a game thast sells better on the PS in favor of the Xbox has nothing to do with getting paid to do it? Do you even read what you type?

Of course, there is no solid evidence of these supposed "acquisitions" of games from third parties, nothing appears in fiscal reports (Microsoft,Nintendo or Sony), but I also do not need to know that I will burn if I'm messing with fire.
I could get here, and I say that Sony "paid" to third-parties to put their games on PS Plus, do I have a proof? No, but it is something obvious.
I could also get here and I say that Nintendo gave a financial "help" to Capcom to make Monster Hunter exclusive (the main series) to the 3DS, do I have a proof? No, but it is an obvious thing. Some people react to such news as if it were tax evasion. This is a very common practice in this gaming industry.

Because on Sony own website, they only list the 3rd party developer as the developer for the project and not their own studio.  Lets take Bloodborne and The Order.  Out of all the press, demos, statements and interviews, no where do you read anything about Japan Studio or Santa Monica contribution to the project.  I took a decent amount of time looking but I could find nothing.

I will say my statement is more opinion and educated guess then actually any real data.  The fact that both studios are also a publishing arm of Sony would suggest that if they are partnering with 3rd party developers not owned by Sony, they its a publishing contract. 

I'm talking in volume. Out of the big three, what percentage of AAA games are moneyhatted? Nintendo is the least, Sony second and MS almost entirely does it. That's the issue. Nintendo doesn't need to buy ONE single game because their own games are good enough. MS is at the opposite end of that. If they couldn't buy exclusive content and games, they'd have been out of business years ago.

Even if you are right about Bloodborne and The Order, I don't see any problem with it. Assuming you are right it is exactly like Sunset Overdrive. The only thing I have a problem with is stuff like Tomb Raider and I'm only using that as an example because it is the most recent.

I do not see any problem with it at all.  If anything its a great way for developers to secure funding for challenging projects.  You can definitely see that bloodborne and The Order are high quality games so having the freedom to know the check is paid eases development for these companies.  What I am saying is that developers need money and making your game exclusive to a console maker so you can worry about making the game more than securing the paycheck is nothng to frown on.

I believe gamers have this unrealistic view about the games industry.  They totally forget that making games cost a lot of money or the easily forget this point.  As it cost more money to bring games like Bloodborne and The Order to gamers so does the investment and risk.  While its moneyhatting to gamers, I am sure to the developers its an investment in their company as well as their game.  I way I see it, its this selfish entitlement gamers have that blind then to very real needs developers have.  

Do you have any statistics to show that Microsoft pays so much more to devs for exclusive games?

For one, most of the time, there is absolutely no way to tell if any money was truly exchanged. For all we know, Bloodborne could be a moneyhatted title as well. Why aren't you complaining about that?

Moneyhatting is a part of the business. All the console manufacturers do it to a huge degree, whether it be securing entire games or DLC. You can't call one of them out without calling all of them out.

I agree with this but how do you feel about a game like Tomb Raider? It's an established IP with a solid following. I understand the risk of new IPs. Games like Sunset Overdrive, Bloodborne, and The Order are all actually published by MS/Sony. Tomb Raider is a little bit different from these deals. They don't have to worry if people are going to buy their game or not. They somewhat have an idea of what to expect saleswise.