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

Forums - Gaming - Why is moneyhatting frowned upon?

Chromeo on 13 August 2014

As has been said, it's frowned upon for various reasons. It is simply paying a company to not allow that game on competing platforms.

Usually it's just an annoyance for the people that can't play the game on the rival console, which is usually the case with new IP's or reboots of a franchise.

In the case of Rise of the Tomb Raider, this is a game that is a direct sequel (prequel) to a version that was completely multiplatform. In fact, they JUST came out with a version of said game months ago. It would be like the next Assassin's Creed game being announced as fully exclusive to PlayStation platforms or the like.



Around the Network
Aerys on 13 August 2014

Because :

 

 

 

and



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

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

 

S.T.A.G.E. on 13 August 2014

Microsoft moneyhats because they cannot naturally compete with Sony. They have to do it. Their greatest asset, weapon, and ally is money. They don't care which community a game was built on elsewhere, they'll just take whatever they want and they are hypocrites. They have a parity policy preventing everyone else from doing exactly what they are doing right now just incase we've misinterpreted their corporate jargon and the game ends up being a timed exclusive until after holiday 2015.

Microsoft has their competition on third party lockdown for parity and third parties know it because they abide by their rules.

They say its "competition" and thats the greatest cop out because its not. Its capitalizing on the the unfair grounds they've created for their competition because they know their competition wouldn't do it to them  (while that policy is up) because it hurts the third parties chances of reaching the broadest audience possible. Microsoft is afraid and desperate and when they get desperate everyone who isnt with them is screwed. This should be a lesson to anyone without an Xbox. MS is like that and moneyhatting is what allows them to even stand next to Nintendo and Sony when it comes to games lists. Internally they aren't up to snuff and its always been that way.

If Microsoft was in the olympics they would be runner with cybernetic enhancements. But of course this is "competition" right?



ICStats on 13 August 2014
VanceIX said:

You live in an ideal world where companies don't do sly moves for money. That's what most corporations do, and SE is at the top of them. They don't have a reputation of "building and preserving" reputation. The biggest companies out there (EA, Activision, SE) all don't, and they all are successful, for right or wrong.

Sony has had a personal relationship with SE for years. SE could easily have released FFX and XII on other platforms, but Sony owned almost 20% of their stock and had a decent amount of say in the partnership. Sony also got GTA III/VC/SA as timed exclusives back then, or did you forget that?

And no, no one will be shamed by this, not in the real world. This will get blown over in a month or two, and the devs will continue working for SE just the way they used to. They don't care about petty "betrayals" that some fans seem to be exaggerating, they care about paychecks and making a living. 

You don't quit your work for small things like that.

Ask MS what it's like to build up your brand to the level 360 reached, and then flush it down the toilet.

People at CD will be fully aware that their product will now sell only a fraction of what it would on multiplatform.  You think that will make them work extra hard to make a better game now?  I don't think you understand that good developers in the SF Peninsula (where CD is based) don't just care about paychecks.



My 8th gen collection

GamingGamer on 13 August 2014
Chromeo said:
As has been said, it's frowned upon for various reasons. It is simply paying a company to not allow that game on competing platforms.

Usually it's just an annoyance for the people that can't play the game on the rival console, which is usually the case with new IP's or reboots of a franchise.

In the case of Rise of the Tomb Raider, this is a game that is a direct sequel (prequel) to a version that was completely multiplatform. In fact, they JUST came out with a version of said game months ago. It would be like the next Assassin's Creed game being announced as fully exclusive to PlayStation platforms or the like.


It irritates me how people ignore this fact.If MS bought it like Gears or funded and published it than that is understandable.Announcing it for other platforms and deciding to hold the games back because MS paid you is trash period.Why is it tht hard to grasp?The game is still in development for PS/PC,but now they will get a delayed release.How can anyone defend that BS tactic? So people should not be upset about a game being announced for multiple platforms and then getting shelved in favor of one?



Around the Network
VanceIX on 13 August 2014
ICStats said:
VanceIX said:

You live in an ideal world where companies don't do sly moves for money. That's what most corporations do, and SE is at the top of them. They don't have a reputation of "building and preserving" reputation. The biggest companies out there (EA, Activision, SE) all don't, and they all are successful, for right or wrong.

Sony has had a personal relationship with SE for years. SE could easily have released FFX and XII on other platforms, but Sony owned almost 20% of their stock and had a decent amount of say in the partnership. Sony also got GTA III/VC/SA as timed exclusives back then, or did you forget that?

And no, no one will be shamed by this, not in the real world. This will get blown over in a month or two, and the devs will continue working for SE just the way they used to. They don't care about petty "betrayals" that some fans seem to be exaggerating, they care about paychecks and making a living. 

You don't quit your work for small things like that.

Ask MS what it's like to build up your brand to the level 360 reached, and then flush it down the toilet.

People at CD will be fully aware that their product will now sell only a fraction of what it would on multiplatform.  You think that will make them work extra hard to make a better game now?  I don't think you understand that good developers in the SF Peninsula (where CD is based) don't just care about paychecks.





                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

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

No, people will be shamed by this.  Skilled and important staff can always find other jobs for a company that doesn't let them down.

You live in an ideal world where companies don't do sly moves for money. That's what most corporations do, and SE is at the top of them. They don't have a reputation of "building and preserving" reputation. The biggest companies out there (EA, Activision, SE) all don't, and they all are successful, for right or wrong.

Sony has had a personal relationship with SE for years. SE could easily have released FFX and XII on other platforms, but Sony owned almost 20% of their stock and had a decent amount of say in the partnership. Sony also got GTA III/VC/SA as timed exclusives back then, or did you forget that?

And no, no one will be shamed by this, not in the real world. This will get blown over in a month or two, and the devs will continue working for SE just the way they used to. They don't care about petty "betrayals" that some fans seem to be exaggerating, they care about paychecks and making a living. 

You don't quit your work for small things like that.


In the 360 era they created the parity policy which prevents third parties from going elsewhere exclusively. Sony for the better part stopped and Nintendo was pretty much in a corner talking to themselves with the Nintendo Wii because as far as gaming was concerned they were never in the same conversation with MS and Sony that gen until motion gaming became a crazy on all three platforms. MS created a fool proof plan that gives them the dirty edge even when they are down.



starcraft on 13 August 2014
VanceIX said:
ICStats said:
VanceIX said:

You live in an ideal world where companies don't do sly moves for money. That's what most corporations do, and SE is at the top of them. They don't have a reputation of "building and preserving" reputation. The biggest companies out there (EA, Activision, SE) all don't, and they all are successful, for right or wrong.

Sony has had a personal relationship with SE for years. SE could easily have released FFX and XII on other platforms, but Sony owned almost 20% of their stock and had a decent amount of say in the partnership. Sony also got GTA III/VC/SA as timed exclusives back then, or did you forget that?

And no, no one will be shamed by this, not in the real world. This will get blown over in a month or two, and the devs will continue working for SE just the way they used to. They don't care about petty "betrayals" that some fans seem to be exaggerating, they care about paychecks and making a living. 

You don't quit your work for small things like that.

Ask MS what it's like to build up your brand to the level 360 reached, and then flush it down the toilet.

People at CD will be fully aware that their product will now sell only a fraction of what it would on multiplatform.  You think that will make them work extra hard to make a better game now?  I don't think you understand that good developers in the SF Peninsula (where CD is based) don't just care about paychecks.



I had so many responses ready to go to that...yours was way better!

OT: Guys, get over it. Sony does it, Nintendo does it. All that is different is Microsoft's bank balance. If you truly think otherwise you're demonstrating astounding (but beautiful) naivity!



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

VXIII on 13 August 2014

"Monyhatting" has different situations, only one of them is bad. As I was saying in some other thread, there is nothing wrong in co-operating with third parties. How it is done is a different story.

First situation: funding a new ip, or/and co-develop it, discover new possibilities (BloodBorne & The Order).

Second situation: funding an ip that was abandoned and would have never existed without that funding (Bayonetta 2).

Third situation: moneyhatting to get exclusivity deal for an ip that was multi-platform before, and the new game was announced to be in development long ago before the exclusivity deal (Tomb Raider). It was clearly meant to be multi-platform, otherwise it would have been announced as an exclusive at E3.

 

Microsoft did what was best for the company, which is understandable. Even though I disagree with the principal (or lack of). 



ICStats on 13 August 2014
VanceIX said:

ICStats said:

Ask MS what it's like to build up your brand to the level 360 reached, and then flush it down the toilet.

People at CD will be fully aware that their product will now sell only a fraction of what it would on multiplatform.  You think that will make them work extra hard to make a better game now?  I don't think you understand that good developers in the SF Peninsula (where CD is based) don't just care about paychecks.




Oh yeah, uhuh.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9242217/Fed_says_tech_skills_demand_outstrips_supply_in_Boston_San_Francisco

43,000 tech job openings, 20% higher than the working population in the area.

https://www.wantedanalytics.com/analysis/posts/hiring-in-the-silicon-valley-isn-t-just-tech-focused



My 8th gen collection