The cases basis explains BF4 on PS4 at 900p at day one; Dice is powerfull, even within EA, Microsoft didn't want to alienate both Dice and EA and then Dice could get a "no-parity pass". While COD and AC4 were imposed resolution parity at least for the review version for in SP COD, enough for the pre-reviews to contain only 720p SP video. Remember that we never really got MP 1080p direct feed footage of MP in COD in pre-reviews, only Single Player stuff, what a coincidence.

Really, all the stories with COD 720p -> 1080p patched and AC4 900p -> 1080p while some publishers could avoid this parity stuff is explained by this interview.

The whole story with the final (predictable) confirmed imposed parity on multiplats released on X1 is shameful from Microsoft, unecessary and will have even negative effects to X1 multiplats games.

Now, thanks to all those free articles on the Internet about 1080p or 900p resolutions only for PS4, gamers know more than ever which console has the best version of multiplats!

Free ad for Sony!

I accept that, but trust that I'll PM your post to you to throw it in your face once the next PS4 game coincidentally matches yet another Xbox One titles resolution and has an early release patch to hit 1080p.  It's a shame you can't see to huge coincidences and a confirmation pointing it out pretty much.

How exactly does it read quite differently?  You cant have release date parity on a timed exclusive which is why microsoft said it would work on a case by case basis.  Their standard agreement requires same day release, or parity, with other systems.  So, if there is a game that microsoft wants on their platform, but released on another first, they are willing to work with the developers to make it happen.  It is pretty straitforward...

This article and its quotes seem to be only talking about release dates, nothing to do with graphics or content.  Plus, it is only talking about indie games, has there ever been an indie game that has come close to using the full potential of a console?

I'm also surprised,because there are some people here who simply don't have the ability to understand certain things and therefore act that way ,but he is definitivly one of the smarter guys here and exactly knows what's going on.Not that i'm really concerned because this is just about gaming and therefore pretty irrellevant,but ruling people in politics&corporations with such a strange loyalty(=perversion of integrity) can cause lots of problems for society and somehow i start to think that there are lots of them in top positions.

Because they don't bring up same day release date once.  They mention parity between consoles and then say "in instances that it's a timed exclusive."  Coming right off talking about parity, that means they are still talking about parity, not something else.

And people wonder why Sony fans rage when an exclusive PS game goes multiplat. :p

...are you reading the same article?  they said they dont require exclusive agreements anymore, but ask for parity (as in same day release).  The author included clarifying paragraphs before the quotes.  Since you dont hear the actual question asked, that is the only reference we have to the subject being discussed.

So, in your mind, they go from talking about games being required to be released exclusively to their console in the first part of the sentence, to then talking about content in the second part instead of it saying at least the same day.  then pivot back in the next sentence to games that have released exclusively on other systems being considered on a case by case basis with the hidden meaning that only if they can run on the system the same as the competing platform.  Am I getting that right?

however you are reading it, it is certainly some interesting reading juditisu that seems to ignore the subject at hand, as well as the clarifying paragraphs before and after the quotes that the author put in.  To each their own though, believe what you may.

Are you a fanboy of a different system, or do dislike consumers? They require developers give them a decent product. How is this a bad thing? They are saying, if you want to release an inferior version on our hardware - don't bother. Giving them an inferior product IS a middle finger. "Hey indies, MS won't let you give them the middle finger... SO GIVE THEM THE MIDDLE FINGER"

Explain to me how they could find 125% more raw GPU power for COD in a few weeks? or 44% more for AC4?

Do you realise that those games are already multiplats development games and that just changing the resolution is as easy as changing one line of code in a .INI file? Yes, it is that easy, we are talking about games realeased on lots of supports.

When they make a game, they know the resolution of the game very early and they code the game accordingly, they don't by mistake put 720p instead of 1080p in .INI file after the game is released. Increase of resolution by patch have occured old gen. but it was to gain like 5%-ish in resolution, far from 125% or 44%.

Finally the fact that those weard facts appeared twice is already too much for a coincidence. Except if you talking of the probability of winning the big lotery.

It is possible to win the big lotery is similar to "they may have mistaken 720p for 1080p" twice in 2 different companies.

It is far more probable that Microsoft imposed some resolution parity.

Have you already seen such a mistake (50% at least difference in resolution) occurred in any past game console release? Not one but 2 similar errors, for a consoles launch by 2 different companies? When at the same time the day one parity imposing company (Microsoft) admits that they have "parity day one" clauses?

Woow, this is a new low for you.