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

Forums - Gaming - Why is moneyhatting frowned upon?

0815user on 14 August 2014

It's like camping in videogames. Even it's the least risky tactic to succsess and therefore considered smart by some people, it's still a coward move. Especially you have money and manpower to create something on your own.



Around the Network
darkknightkryta on 14 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.

Metal Gear Solid 2 came out for the Xbox and PC.  Silent HIll 2 and 3 both came out for PC and Silent HIll 4 also came out on the Xbox.  GTA 3 also came out for PC and Xbox a year later.  Final Fantasy X was funded by Sony.  Final Fantasy XI came out on PC.  Not sure what happened with Soul Caliber 3, but I'll assume they focused on the PS2 as a rush job (Soul Caliber uses a PS2 arcade board if I'm correct, it's why most Namco arcade games were exclusive to PS) since it came out so quickly after the second.



Machiavellian on 14 August 2014
darkshadow23 said:
Machiavellian said:
darkshadow23 said:
 


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.  

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.

From my understanding, TR was not a sales success for CD or SE.  It appears that SE invested in the reboot heavily and did not get the sales they thought they would.  SE as a publisher isn't hitting their numbers so they have to start to look for investements that decrease the amount of risk they need for costly high profile games.  If the game is only timed exclusive then I see nothing wrong with it.  It means the risk has dropped big time for the franchise.  It allows the developer to concentrate on one platform and hopfully make a better product and it probably will also bring more investment in the next game on multiple platforms.  The way I see it is that it helps the franchise as a whole because the developer gets paid and they get another shot at hitting a home run.



Danman27 on 15 August 2014

Money is being spent and no value is netted for gamers. As a matter of fact, money hatting actually makes a game's value decrease. Money is being spent to keep content away rather than create new content. That's not valuable.



LudicrousSpeed on 15 August 2014
Danman27 said:
Money is being spent and no value is netted for gamers. As a matter of fact, money hatting actually makes a game's value decrease. Money is being spent to keep content away rather than create new content. That's not valuable.

By that logic there will now be less Xbone games since MS spent this money on TR instead of a new game or two, thus TR's value increases.

Also, focusing more on one platform can easily make a game better. Look at games like Quantum Break or The Order compared to the multiplat stuff we've seen so far.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 15 August 2014
Danman27 said:
Money is being spent and no value is netted for gamers. As a matter of fact, money hatting actually makes a game's value decrease. Money is being spent to keep content away rather than create new content. That's not valuable.

Why does it alway have to be about gamers.  There is more to developing a game then value for the gamer.  This is really a very selfish way to look at the situation.  The value is to the development studio who now can feel at ease that their is an upfront investment in their game.  New content is risky.  The whole games business is very risky.  Even for games with high production value and high review scores, if the game doesn't resonate with gamers the game can still be unsuccessful.  Case in point is the last TR.  New content.  New studios, New games are all risky and any smart company will spread that risk in multiple ventures so one or 2 faliures doesn'[t cost them the company.  You might have a few risky projects along with safe bets or extablished franchises.



Danman27 on 15 August 2014
LudicrousSpeed said:
Danman27 said:
Money is being spent and no value is netted for gamers. As a matter of fact, money hatting actually makes a game's value decrease. Money is being spent to keep content away rather than create new content. That's not valuable.

By that logic there will now be less Xbone games since MS spent this money on TR instead of a new game or two, thus TR's value increases.

Also, focusing more on one platform can easily make a game better. Look at games like Quantum Break or The Order compared to the multiplat stuff we've seen so far.

TR's value to microsoft has increased, but it's value hasn't increased to the consumer. 



prayformojo on 15 August 2014
VanceIX said:
prayformojo said:
VanceIX said:

So by that definition Sony is a fraud for moneyhatting the entire GTA franchise during the PS2/Xbox era? 

C'mon, let's not pretend Sony or Nintendo is an angel. They are all guilty of moneyhatting, it helps them compete. How many more PS2s were sold simply because GTA came out a year or more on that console before Xbox/PC?


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.

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 can single out MS because they're the worst of the worst. And all manufactureres do it to a "huge" degree? Nintendo's biggest game is MK8 which was developed IN HOUSE. It wasn't created by a studio Nintendo bought. It wasn't created by a third party and then moneyhatted. It was created by Nintendo's own team that was built BY the company from the ground up years and years ago.

What is MS biggest franchise? Halo. And you know who created Halo? Bungie, not MS. MS moneyhatted and then bought that IP. They didn't create it. That's the different between them and the other two. They can't do it by themselves.



Machiavellian on 15 August 2014
prayformojo said:
VanceIX said:
prayformojo said:
VanceIX said:

So by that definition Sony is a fraud for moneyhatting the entire GTA franchise during the PS2/Xbox era? 

C'mon, let's not pretend Sony or Nintendo is an angel. They are all guilty of moneyhatting, it helps them compete. How many more PS2s were sold simply because GTA came out a year or more on that console before Xbox/PC?


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.

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 can single out MS because they're the worst of the worst. And all manufactureres do it to a "huge" degree? Nintendo's biggest game is MK8 which was developed IN HOUSE. It wasn't created by a studio Nintendo bought. It wasn't created by a third party and then moneyhatted. It was created by Nintendo's own team that was built BY the company from the ground up years and years ago.

What is MS biggest franchise? Halo. And you know who created Halo? Bungie, not MS. MS moneyhatted and then bought that IP. They didn't create it. That's the different between them and the other two. They can't do it by themselves.

@Bolded: You really should do your homework before making such statements.  Whats the biggest and best received Franchise from Sony.  Hmmm Could it be Naughty Dog.  Is Naughty Dog an in house Sony development studio???  Exactly how many studios did Sony purchase during the PS1/2 days when they were going toe to toe with Nintendo and then MS.  Really, if you are going to prefer one corporation over another, its best to structure your argument where it doesn't have so many holes.



LudicrousSpeed on 15 August 2014
Danman27 said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Danman27 said:
Money is being spent and no value is netted for gamers. As a matter of fact, money hatting actually makes a game's value decrease. Money is being spent to keep content away rather than create new content. That's not valuable.

By that logic there will now be less Xbone games since MS spent this money on TR instead of a new game or two, thus TR's value increases.

Also, focusing more on one platform can easily make a game better. Look at games like Quantum Break or The Order compared to the multiplat stuff we've seen so far.

TR's value to microsoft has increased, but it's value hasn't increased to the consumer. 

TR's value increases to consumers if:

1. Your theory is right and the money spent on this deal forces MS to create less new content.

2. The deal allows Crystal to focus on one platform and makes it a better game.