The people running their mouths about "moneyhatting" were suggesting that MS bought exclusivity for Titanfall by paying EA to ensure the game didn't appear on Sony platforms.
*I* never made any statements how evil and corrupt and vicious and devious MS was for money hatting/funding anyone or anything, hence my reply to the user. This is where you barged in with your hit n post
Keighley's piece makes it clear that Sony wasn't interested in the game and that whilst MS did give EA money, it was solely for funding continued development as opposed to a sweetener to keep the game away from Sony.
Thus people in this thread were completely correct to post that the piece contradicts the "moneyhat" angle but for some reason you're continuing to fuck the "but MS DID pay so they were technically correct!" chicken.
Chicken what?! Are you on your cellphone and it autocorrected it? Are you calling me a chicken? What?
But anyways, "moneyhat" is not exactly a hat with money in it, its ways to incite a publisher to give you exclusivity and it can be done through various ways, such as supporting them with a marketing budget + campaign (Sony -> Final Fantasy 7), in addition to having CD roms, or allowing third parties to take a bigger cut off sales (PSX) i already mentioned this. TF had troubled development, MS saw value in the title and supported them. ..thats great?!
Nobody is saying that MS didn't fund Titanfall's development. They're saying that they didn't pay money specifically to keep it away from Sony.
No what they were saying was "Ha see, no moneyhat involved!", when in fact money was involved.
You are being obtuse and trying argue semantics here, money left Microsoft, and that
money went to Respawn. Period. Out of that a game popped out, that is exclusive on Xbox platforms.
Why do you think a PS3 version of this game does not exist? Cannot use the "Sony did not give Respawn PS4 information" here, so what is the reason? Perhaps the reason is that MS did fund the game, thus was not interested in funding the PS3 version? Makes sense to me.
You're arguing against a position nobody's taking mate.
No "mate" i am arguing against making a proclamation that i clearly never made.
As ninja said, it's a stupid, nebulous term but either you don't understand what people mean when they use it or you're being ignorant.
If you got a problem what someone *****else***** said about the so called Evil Microsoft with their devious tactics, you address them. I have no problem with any of this, and i am thrilled that MS helped with their money to get this title released, as its quite a good game. I am not going to argue for them, or even take the stance they have. Again for the 9384th time, i have no problem with MS funding this game, and securing its exclusivity.
TLDR: Money left Microsoft, and the same money got this game made, which in turn resulted in MS getting exclusivity for the game on their platforms (which is a rather fair tradeoff). That is it.