Should funding a multiplatform series, to make its sequel an exclusive, be considered moneyhatting?

Looking at street fighter 5, bayoneta I guess. And possibly DMC5 based on the latest leaks/rumors.

At what point does "funding" become "moneyhatting"?

MS is given flak for "moneyhatting" RotT to keep it away from ps4 for a year, but what if the narrative had gone something like, "Microsoft funded RotT and therefore it won't be on ps4 at all"

Would it have made a difference? Or is MS the only one who should be scrutinized for this? Do other consoles get a free pass to do this because the competitors player base is much smaller compared to theirs?

I think it depends on the game.

Some of the games, such as Shenmue and possibly DMC5 might not have been made without backing from Sony.

Games like Tomb Raider and Street Fighter 5 probably would have been made anyway, so yes we should shame since this limits how many people can play.

@Star67: shenmeu is understandable. But a game that's had it's previous iterations on all consoles shouldn't suddenly go exclusive. Games like street fighter, nier, devil may cry, bayoneta, have all been multiplatform till this gen.

By that sense would it be okay for MS to pick any random multiplatform game that's been out of the spotlight for a while, fork some money, and have it's sequel made exclusive?

Microsoft started shady practices at the onset of the first Xbox. The other companies that could, followed suit.

All gamers loose with these practices.

In regards to Shenmue 3, Yu Suzuki approached MS first given that Shenmue 2 was on Xbox. They turned him down.

I can understand if MS, Sony or Nintendo fund a project so it becomes an exclusive, but ROTR is not cool where they just pay money to keep it off from another system after they announce it was multiplats!

@ni6htmare01: okay, so if it wasn't initially announced as a multiplat. And straight Xbox exclusive, would that have been fine?

What shady practices did MS started with the original Xbox?

Nah I don't think so. I don't see what's wrong with it. Funding has to come from somewhere and if a third party publisher won't fund it, or if there funding isn't enough, then I think it's okay for a console manufacturer to jump in and take over.

Regrettably, the end result is an exclusive game. The exact thing happened with Bayonetta 2 - which brought the franchise exclusively to a platform where the original game was open for everyone to play. That is better than the game not existing though.

To me yes.. If MS fund the game than all power to MS like Bayonetta2 which I have to suck it up and bought a WII-U for.

Are you seriously comparing a timed exclusive to Sony and Nintendo paying the devs to make a game?

Its only bad when MS does it. Everyone knows this. There is no bias.

@Pedro: 1. They couldn't be bothered to make first play studios so they bought them outright ensuring they had exclusives. They've money hatted exclusives since the beginning. Halo was originally going to be a PC game until Bungie was bought out.

2. MS has always stuck with the GaaS model. Live was always subscription based.

There are others but these are the two glaring ones.

So purchasing game studio is now shady practices? No console company bought game studios prior to the Xbox? Games as a service is shady and also started on the original Xbox?

I am sorry but none of your claims makes any sense.

Poor Sony, corrupted by evil MS.

I think it depends on how it goes down... on cases like Shenmue it's okay, as the game wouldn't be developed without the funds provided... but with Tomb Raider and Street Fighter it was really not nice to consumers that were used to play on the other platforms, since the game could've been made and be able to profit without the backing.

@Telekill: ps+ is subscription based...... seems your giving a Sony a free pass just cause someone else did it first..... if Sony had kept online free then you would have an argument.

Yup! I agreed 100%

Good question, I honestly dont know....Microsoft exclusivity was just temporary for ROTR, so PS4-only owners could still own it the following year.

The Capcom-Sony partnership completely screwed over Street Fighter fans like me, and still to this day I have not bought it, despite owning a PS4-Pro because I will not buy another Arcade stick for my secondary system, I'll just end up passing on it, no big deal because I played so much Street Fighter in the past anyways, Its nice to indulge in different genres now.

The argument for Sony is the game would never have been made without their support in the first place, so that is the unknown that basically prevents me from Condemning Sony and Capcom. Since I dont know all the details of the business deal, and we don't know what would have happened if Sony had not stepped in, its nothing more than a business deal in an industry where such things are very common. So ultimately, I dont care, and Ill still buy products from either company in the future....SF collection is good enough for me now.

@Pedro:

You didn't have much credibility walking into this thread so I'll just say, I won't vote for you.

@ahmedkhan1994:

Sony doesn't get a free pass from me at all. I'm pissed that I have to pay for online now and I give them tons of crap for their shit stain Vita having left it to die after only two years.

There is a flaw to your DMC example though and that is the fact that DMC used to be a PS exclusive franchise. Not owned by sony, no, but still a franchise connected with playstation nonetheless, just like MGS. I see no problem with a previous multiplatform IP being being exclusive to a brand that used to be connected with. For example, Crash Bandicoot was a multiplatform franchise for quite some time now but the fact it was heavily connected to PS made people not that mad when the NSane trilogy was announced PS exclusive. Was it an xbox or a Nintendo exclusive and people would probably freak out

Depends on what platform it benefits. If Sony does it, "thank you Sony", if MS does it, well, all of NeoGAF and everyone in the press that regurgitates what's posted there will shit on it.

I think the different is "according to" Capcom wasn't going to make Street Fighter 5 at all if Sony wasn't funding it so no one would have see Street Fighter 5 anyway. But ROTR was started out and announce as a multiplat to PS4, Xbox and PC but MS step in and throw money to Square Enix to keep it away for other system so that is why people were piss off..

@ni6htmare01: who's to say that SFV wouldn't have been made? It would have taken more time to make but I'm sure a franchise as big as street fighter could have been produced without the "funding" of Sony.

If I remember correctly, it was Capcom themselves who said that but was it true or not, who knows.. But like I said If someone fund it than I have no problem with it!

Not really. Bayo 2, SFV etc. wouldn't have been made without Ninty and Sony respectively.

Tales of Vesperia was developed for PS3 alongside 360, actually released a complete edition in Japan on PS3, but MS moneyhatted Namco to prevent a PS3 release in NA.

These are different scenarios.

There's a difference between paying for a multiplat to become exclusive, and paying for a sequel to a series that wouldn't exist otherwise. This is, by all accounts, the tale of Bayonetta. In those situations, fans should be happy it exists and not begrudge the exclusivity to the publisher who paid to make the game come to life

First of all, it's business so I understand it from that perspective.

From a player's perspective, I'd hate when this is done with a game that is going to come out no matter what. If it's a game that needs funding or no light of day, that different

It's so funny that people actually think the biggest fighting series wouldn't exist without Sony.

I think platform holders and third parties should be free to put their game on whatever platform they damn well please. If a publisher wants to tank their franchise on an unpopular console for monehatz, it's their prerogative. Alternatively, if a console maker wants to cement their position in the market by using the leverage they have to secure exclusives, that's just how the game goes.

Bayonetta is an odd one to be considering. I think it couldn't be much further removed from it.

If MS had paid Platinum Games they'd have an exclusive game of their own too but they were cheapskates and too intrusive in the games development so they missed out.

Insomniac also came to M$ FIRST to see if they wanted to fund them for Sunset Overdrive 2 development for the xbox but were TURNED DOWN by MS before they went to Sony and started working on SpidermanPS4

Tough shit.

Don't blame companies who offer studios the chance to have their games made by providing support and funding for games not being available on other platforms whose company didn't do shit to aid it's creation.

It's not personal, it's a business plus a gamble. All these companies want to make money. If companies want to let more gamers play their games and make them play together, they let cross-play be an option. Look at the company who almost always deny their gamers cross-play and it shows they're not really for their gamers.

I will never celebrate a studio throwing money at a third party to keep a forthcoming game away from other gamers. It's anti consumer. Like others have said some games wouldnt get made without the backing of Sony Nintendo or Microsoft. Thats fine. But when that doesn't apply, **** that. Never celebrate others not getting a game.

@Shewgenja: by that logic, if EA, Ubisoft, and other third party developers and publishers decided to make their games exclusive to PS4, or simply not to release them on Xbox, because the Xbox is so unpopular, it would be justified?

It's a business tactic, getting more exclusives makes your console look better and with that sell more. A true fan of these games will purchase a console for that game alone.

The example of tomb raider is kinda tricky; since microsoft didn't fund that Tomb Raider game it looked like the kid that arrived early to the game park and thus not letting anyone play until he get bored. Following that same analogy by funding a game is like purchasing a slide for your child and while some other kids want to play with it your child has the right to just play alone or with whom he likes to share.

Also a popular franchise is more prone to have a backlash if made exclusive than a niche game.

Happened to the Dreamcast.

No.

I love how every bad practice M$ made in the past is now coming back to bite them in the ass.

They had it coming.

Karma is a bitch.

Tekken started on PS only, so...

Thing about Bayo is that Nintendo didn't just fund it, they basically produced it. Not only that, it was a dead series before Nintendo swooped in. RoTR was produced by SE, but the additional funding by MS made it timed exclusive.

Yep...

Undoubtedly yes, why lock a popular franchise to your system instead of creating new IPs? because its an established franchise with a large fan base, its pure calculated market targeting, designed to sell system, it has NOTHING to do with saving the franchise or pleasing the fans or even improving the quality of the game.

In other words your claims were baseless.

Do you have links showing that MS some how cheated Platinum Games of funds thus being cheapskates? Also do you have a link validating that Spiderman only exist because MS didn't want to fund Sunset Overdrive 2?

@Pedro: Wow... that's your go to when you have no argument huh? That's pretty much as bad as a political leftist using the race card.

Actually Sony was doing shady practices on console way before MS educate yourself as a Sega gamer I was not able to play the series again until a game in the series was released on the Dreamcast.

As for Shenmue 3, well the majority of the money for the game is coming from Kickstarter, and Sony won't disclose how much money they have gave to the project just that they have "marketing rights" basically money to keep it off rival platforms for a period of time or for good.

@i_p_daily: I'm fully aware of Sony buying exclusivity to Tomb Raider. It was a good thing given that Saturn was already on its death bed in 1998 (a year after the deal). TR2 being on Saturn wouldn't have saved it.

Also, regarding Shenmue 3, $6.7 million is the base for Shenmue 3. Sony is only doing marketing for the PS4 version. Deep Silver is now the deep pockets for the project having added to the project enough to broaden the game into what Suzuki was actually hoping to make. You can bet that they added more than $7 million to the project but we will probably never know how much.

That's a cop out and you know it, this has nothing to do with "saving" a system, it was about Sony paying to keep the series off other platforms. Sony was doing bad shit to gamers long before MS entered the console scene, that is a FACT.

Like I said about Shenmue 3 Sony gave them enough money to keep it off of rival consoles, it pathetic that you attack others for what Sony has been doing for over 2 decades.

Its no surprise at the way you defend Sony, I mean you even accuse MS (in this thread) of buying studios and not creating them when Sony's biggest dev (Naughty Dog) was bought by them.

Yeah we're done here.

All these attempts to avoid backing your claim when called out. Now you trying political nonsense to further deviate from your original point. Avoid making claims you cannot back and save yourself from the embarrassment. :)

They also bought Guerrilla Games. :) He was speaking from his inner fanhood thus the reason he is tripping all over himself.