| kain_kusanagi said: Nobody is holding a gun to Ubisoft and forcing them to release on PS3 an Xbox 360. Ubisoft could have released first on Wii U and then later they could have added a few levels to comply with MS and Sony. But obviously Ubisoft wants to make money and sell on the biggest userbases and choose to delay the game so they can do that. If Nintendo wanted to they could have paid for a timed exclusive. They still have a lot of Wii money in the bank. MS is just looking out for their customers and doesn't want their competitor to get a free ride. I don't see anything wrong with that. It is not Microsoft's job to make sure Nintendo's new console succeeds. It is Microsoft's job to maintain the popularity of their own brand. (Are you talking about the policy in the OP? If so, that's what I'm referring to in my reply, if not ignore that part.) Back in the NES days Nintendo wouldn't allow any 3rd party games on other systems. If a publisher wanted to release an NES game they had to sign a contract saying they can not port that game to any other console. That was a bad policy and frankly was probably illegal. But MS and Sony just have a policy that if a game comes out first on another system it must have extra content added to it when it releases on theirs. In this case Ubisoft has choosen to port at the same time instead of waiting and paying to make more content. Nintendo could have piad Ubisoft for a timed exclusive if they wanted to, but they didn't and Ubisoft wants to sell their game on platforms with larger customer bases. There's nothing wrong with that and there's nothing wrong with MS and Sony looking out for their customers. |
Both of those policies are bad. They aren't "looking out for their customers."
MS, Nintendo, or Sony shouldn't be allowed any type of policy that does that sort of thing. The italics are okay, because it doesn't purposely post-pone a game, but the bolded is not okay. (And MS obviously has more than just that italicized policy.)
