I don't deny that it was a good thing, I'm happy that Sony stepped in to help them make the game, it's easily my most-hyped game for next year.

But financial support goes hand-in-hand with moneyhatting. You could make the case that "financial support" was what Microsoft gave to Square Enix with Tomb Raider, by helping them with the development, optimization, and advertising of the game. 

If, and a big if (there's no way to truly prove it) Sony demanded that the PS4 version of No Man's Sky be a timed exclusive in exchange for said financial support, it would be an example of moneyhatting.

Right, Sony has more games which they can remaster ;)

Err... no, he said "probably not". And then went on to talk about how they approach indie game developers and can provide financial support. aka a moneyhat. Maybe you didn't read the whole interview? Idk.

True. Sony and Eidos signed a deal back then cause they were BFFs, on the other hand Microsoft and Square Enix signed a deal cause MS is paying them off. How silly was I?

And in 1997 even though it was clear Sony was going to win the generation Sony still needed to completely destroy the N64 and Saturn.

Sony is going to moneyhat an indie game that's going to be released on PC first, in order to keep it off a platform that is absolutely no threat to PS4?

At least think a little bit before you post these accusations. The developers shifted to PS4 for the simple fact that they will get better exposure to a much much bigger audience. And their hope is to bring it at least to Xbox in future too.

They do but are u compraing exclusive DLC to Exclusive full AAA game? really?

VOM

or aka helping fund the game's development? You know....like the whole situation of "if Microsoft didn't come in an help Respawn, Titanfall wouldn't exist" or "if Nintendo didn't help Platinum, Bayonetta 2 wouldn't exist"?

Maybe?? Just maybe??

It makes no sense to say "probably not" then say "yea we do" 2 seconds later.

I read that entire interview, and what I got from it was that in terms of exclusivity, when it came to AAA games, it was "partnerships that worked" (ala Destiny DLC and marketing). Those "partnerships" I believe are moneyhats...but they're for DLC and stuff. Not the entire game. And for indies, it was "we make a platform friendly for indies" with no "silly rules", providing financial support (which I believe means helping with development costs, which MS fans have no problems with via Titanfall), or "having someone on stage at E3"...the end result of which ends with PS exclusivity because the indie devs just find it more appealing to work with PS4.

But no...let's just keep bashing them by saying that he said the exact opposite of the sensationalist clickbait article title. Even though he didn't, and even that "probably not" was about outright exclusivity, which was the belief at the time of the interview because of the Tomb Raider announcement

People really do read too much into things, I mean anyone with a lick of sense can see the Dreamfall thing was their choice not from money from Sony (seriously look at how they had to get funding to make the game to release it on PC to begin with).

What Sony is talking about is long term future relationships with people. They can throw money around all they want (they can't they are broke) but it won't gain you a good relationship with the studio or individuals but talk to them, show interest in what they are developing, support them. Then in the future, when they are a big studio, they might favour you better because of your involvement and help in those early years.

Crystal Dynamics forgot that but then they weren't the ones that actually made Tomb Raider successful, bet you Core Design wouldn't have been so easy to drop a PC version if they were making it.

Yeah, and then he mentions Hello Games separately. You know Hello Games makes No Man's Sky, right