I'm pretty sure that's not true. MS gave Respawn the X1 specs while Sony did not. MS provided the Azure platform to them. Titanfall almost got canceled because they weren't reaching their project goals so MS stepped in and funded the rest.No Titanfall would have been made without MS. The developers already said that MS moneyhatted it to be console exclusive and if they made a 2nd one they would want it to be on the PS4 as well.
That I can see happening.
I doubt that Remedy will do a bad job.
Forza 5 was great .. it was just lacking content => Should be fixed with 6
Ori looks promising![]()
If a game is moneyhatted or not, I seriously don't care. However, I keep seeing Titanfall come up when it comes to the subject of moneyhatting.
Can someone end the back and forth once and for all for me please?
Was Titanfall really moneyhatted or is it true that Titanfall wouldn't have been made if it weren't for Microsoft's funding?
And is there a distinction here?
So the game wouldn't have been made if it weren't for MS then?
It's slang for twenty three knees. I would give 23k(knees) for the halo. Ms4l (mater chief for love)Why would you tell us what PS4 means but not 23k?
Titanfall almost got canceled because they weren't reaching their project goals so MS stepped in and funded the rest..
No Titanfall would have been made without MS. The developers already said that MS moneyhatted it to be console exclusive and if they made a 2nd one they would want it to be on the PS4 as well.
What incentive would console company A have by saving a game so it can still be ported over to a competitor?
So the story goes. But yea, I have a hard time believing that EA would have killed thier big FPS from the CoD creators. It would have been made regardless, in my opinion.
Something like COD dlc being on xbox first is a good example of money hatting. No technical reasons why it can't be on ps4 at the same time.Arghhh...
This is maddening.
So what's the GAF consensus on what constitutes a moneyhat?
So let's say a game starts development as a multiplatform game. Midway through development, publisher runs into issues and stares down the barrel of outright cancellation. Console company A swoops in and saves game. Console company A gets exclusivity as a result.
Would this still be considered moneyhatting? What incentive would console company A have by saving a game so it can still be ported over to a competitor?
I'm pretty sure that's not true. MS gave Respawn the X1 specs while Sony did not. MS provided the Azure platform to them. Titanfall almost got canceled because they weren't reaching their project goals so MS stepped in and funded the rest.
Well then, guess I got the story wrong then, my fault.
So what's the GAF consensus on what constitutes a moneyhat?
I'm still disgusted to this day about what they tried to pull.
When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, when the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves. Then I would buy one.
Seriously, I see no point in getting a bone. PS4 has better versions of all multiplats and will have a better line up of exclusives as history has proven. Even if you prefer MS exclusives, they are usually not truly exclusive (get them on PC). If you want a secondary console, the Nintendo offering is much better since there is less overlap.
For me it's always been about price. It needs to be below the PS4 to compensate for the performance disparity.
I do believe the main factor in this BS was Don Mattrick. And he sold his idea somehow to the board ...
I don´t think that seeing MS as "all bad" is right.
Also taking into account that since the beginning of 2014 they didn´t make any bad choices.