The difference being, SE and Capcom are huge publishers, Bloober and Ember Labs (Ones doing Kena) are not. These are my personal feelings towards "moneyhatting". Big Publishers should be above this

Bloober is Polish so that's 300m PLN which converts to $86m.

Two issues with using market cap, Polish companies do tend to be valued highly from what I can see, we all saw how massively overvalued CDPR was, then 1 title which still sold amazing took billions off their market cap, the stock market is fickle, Lol. I also hear wages are pretty low in Poland which makes the costs low, which I assume drives up company prices.

Public companies tend to be valued higher than private ones either way, but that's just one part of the picture, we don't know their cash balance, cost of operating, income, etc, one flop could easily significantly hurt a company the size of Bloober, could it kill them? Probably not but it ain't worth the risk though.

A lot of indies need to work contract to contract, Bloober's next title is published by someone other than Microsoft, they frankly need the support, I know Microsoft didn't publish it but they still did a lot such as marketing and paid for it to be in Game Pass, likely covered their costs.

A lot of this stuff, these major publishers really don't need, their titles tend to get marketed by the console manufacturers anyway, Lol, they literally buy the marketing rights, a flop or two they can easily survive, a lot of these titles won't flop either way because they have the massive brand recognition of a publisher or the IP itself, a luxury that many indie developers don't have.

Certain Affinity had to work doing contract work for 10 years before they could afford to do their own original self-published IP, and then they had to scrap it, Lol. It's a tough market out there for indie developers.

Unless it's a Pringles can. 👀

I definitely don't think that Microsoft's 3rd party hats, if they are even hats, are even remotely comparable to Sony's hats:

1. Most of Microsoft's 3rd party exclusives are either indies, AA's, or new IP's. Phil said that he would stop moneyhatting established AAA IP exclusives after Tomb Raider, and thus far he has stayed true to his word. STALKER 2- AA, The Gunk- New IP single A/AA, The Medium and Blair Witch from Bloober- AA, Scorn-AA, Hello Neighbor 2- single A, etc.. On the other hand, most of Sony's hats have been AAA's, and many of the confirmed and rumored Sony hats are established IP's as well. 
2. Many of the 3rd party studios that Microsoft has hatted games from are smaller devs which were struggling financially, whereas most of Sony's hats are from big 3rd party publishers which are well off financially.
3. MS offers additional benefits to developers other than just pure money. For instance, the Scorn devs say that they chose Xbox for console exclusivity because it gave them (a small indie studio) free exposure on a big stage with the May Xbox show reveal, access to Microsoft development resources, the wide reach of Gamepass, and more. They also said that Microsoft didn't ask for the rights to the IP or any degree of creative input in the game's direction, which was very important to them to not have a publisher sticking it's big nose into their business. 
4. Most of Microsoft's timed hats are short duration, with 3-6 months being far more common than the 1-2 year exclusivity deals we often see from Sony. 

As for Microsoft acquiring studios and publishers, I don't see that as hatting. Hatting requires no responsibility or risk on the part of the hatter, it's just the passing of money in exchange for exclusivity. Acquiring a whole publisher or studio comes with great financial risk, as Microsoft has to take responsibility for that publisher and everything they produce. There is also the fact that many of the studios Microsoft has acquired were in a risky place financially and could have easily gone bankrupt with just a 1 or 2 more underperforming game releases, Microsoft offered them much needed financially security by acquiring them, whereas Sony's hats are mainly from financially well-off publishers. 

I definitely don't think that Microsoft's 3rd party hats, if they are even hats, are even remotely comparable to Sony's hats:

1. Microsoft's 3rd party exclusives are pretty much all either indies, AA's, or new IP's. Phil said that he would stop moneyhatting established AAA IP exclusives after Tomb Raider, and thus far he has stayed true to his word. STALKER 2- AA, The Gunk- New IP single A/AA, Warhammer- AA, The Medium and Blair Witch from Bloober- AA, Scorn-AA, Hello Neighbor 2- single A, etc.. On the other hand, most of Sony's hats have been AAA's, and many of the confirmed and rumored Sony hats are established IP's as well. 
2. Many of the 3rd party studios that Microsoft has hatted games from are smaller devs which were struggling financially, whereas most of Sony's hats are from big 3rd party publishers which are well off financially.
3. MS offers additional benefits to developers other than just pure money. For instance, the Scorn devs say that they chose Xbox for console exclusivity because it gave them (a small indie studio) free exposure on a big stage with the May Xbox show reveal, access to Microsoft development resources, the wide reach of Gamepass, and more. They also said that Microsoft didn't ask for the rights to the IP or any degree of creative input in the game's direction, which was very important to them to not have a publisher sticking it's big nose into their business. 
4. Most of Microsoft's timed hats are shorter duration, with 3-6 months being far more common than the 1-2 year exclusivity deals we often see from Sony. 

As for Microsoft acquiring studios and publishers, I don't see that as hatting. Hatting requires no responsibility or risk on the part of the hatter, it's just the passing of money in exchange for exclusivity. Acquiring a whole publisher or studio comes with great financial risk, as Microsoft has to take responsibility for that publisher and everything they produce. There is also the fact that many of the studios Microsoft has acquired were in a risky place financially and could have easily gone bankrupt with just a 1 or 2 more underperforming game releases, Microsoft offered them much needed financially security by acquiring them, whereas Sony's hats are mainly from financially well-off publishers. 

There is no point in such comparisons really. Because once again, in business, everything goes that helps you reach your goals that is within the laws. Sony simply understands the importance of throwing a lot of money to secure exclusivity for big games early in the gen because this will form the view on your platform against the competition in the first few years. Once they get far ahead, publishers themselves would be willing to get such deals for cheaper throughout the whole generation. This is what happened with PS4 when in second half of the gen, some devs just simply started skipping Xbox because it's user base wasn't big enough to make it crucial to support this platform for the game to succeed. Obviously, right now Sony is trying to do the same because why change something that works. We can have a long discussion here on how this anti-consumer but in the end, the majority of gamers that have Playstation don't see any issue here because they are not the ones who lose something.