What exactly are you basing your opinion on.  Sony had this policy since the PS3.  Just because you do not know about something does not mean it's not still in place.

What I find funny is that MS just adopted Sony policy but really did not change their that much and the knee jerk reaction is this thread.

This is really great news!!! There are so many awesome indies out there it was a real shame the Xbox fanbase was excluded due to these stupid controling rules. MS is beginning to realise they need to relinquish control to the gamer and thing will work out a little better for them. Brovo MS. Dont Fuck it up

Crasher Crashers, came to PS3 2 years after its 360 release and it didn't come with anything exclusive to the PS3 version. Same with Minecraft, a year after the 360 version but it didn't come with anything new. I could probably name a lot more. So I'm still not sure where you got the idea where Sony had this policy of only allowing games that came first to other consoles that they had to had something exclusive to PS3. Again I'm sure Sony doesn't care if games came first other consoles they let them publish it. It sure as hell wasn't like Microsoft's policy of just down right now allowing games on 360 if they came to PS3 first.

Also IamAwesome, this proves Sony did not have this policy.

NobleTeam360 said: I like how the title says MS does another 180 as if it's a bad thing

The title doesn't say another 180 is a bad thing. It just states the fact that it is another 180 in their previously rigid policies. If you bothered to read a not so lengthy OP, I actually write that it is a good thing.

And it is good for everyone:

- XBox owners will be able to have access to more indie games

- Developers will be allowed to release the game without being rushed

- Microsoft will be able to earn royalties on more games

Everybody wins.

As for people claiming that parity clause still exists, please note that the rule of extra content applies to games released "significantly later". A vague term, but surely meaning at least more than 6 months after initial release. This should give any developer ample time to add an extra map, extra level or some cosmetic DLCs, which should not present a problem. Nothing is preventing them from bringing that extra content to other platforms as well. A small effort to make in order to reach a large potential new audience.

Wasn't this already the case, though? Games like Outlast came to the One much later. I guess now, it's official.

Except that with indie games you're dealing with small teams that could finally choose to not release on XB1 because they haven't got the budget or time to develop the famous required enhancement

Sony used to (still does?) do it for AAA timed exclusives when they are on the receving end, I don't think it's the case for indies though. But normally that means some existing DLC is included either on disc or as a free download, not creating extra content not available to Xbox / Nintendo players. But it's pretty rare for indies to do DLC for their games, so this means they have to programme in some extra content. Of course the other thing is how much extra content will be demanded? If the indie has to create entirely new parts to the game that's a fair amount of work for them. If it's just a free dynamic theme, or something peripheral that wouldn't be such an issue.

Burek said: NobleTeam360 said: I like how the title says MS does another 180 as if it's a bad thing The title doesn't say another 180 is a bad thing. It just states the fact that it is another 180 in their previously rigid policies. If you bothered to read a not so lengthy OP, I actually write that it is a good thing. And it is good for everyone: - XBox owners will be able to have access to more indie games - Developers will be allowed to release the game without being rushed - Microsoft will be able to earn royalties on more games Everybody wins.   As for people claiming that parity clause still exists, please note that the rule of extra content applies to games released "significantly later". A vague term, but surely meaning at least more than 6 months after initial release. This should give any developer ample time to add an extra map, extra level or some cosmetic DLCs, which should not present a problem. Nothing is preventing them from bringing that extra content to other platforms as well. A small effort to make in order to reach a large potential new audience.

I did read the OP, I choose to comment about the title though, don't presume that I didn't. The way I read the title tries to make MS changing policies seem like a bad thing. 

So, basically, the problem is with you, not with the title. 

Sony never had this rule.

Directly from Adam Boyes, Sony's VP of developer relations:

In the interest of transparency, I want to share our Dev clause that lists which platforms you cannot release on. pic.twitter.com/cJD46rFKcl

— ᴀᴅᴀᴍ ʙᴏʏᴇs (@amboyes) March 12, 2014