The Parity Clause is dead, long live the Parity Clause!

[Michelasso]

pokoko said:

SWORDF1SH said:

pokoko said:
In all fairness, the "special in some way" thing is a tactic Sony used against them before and quite effectively. When Microsoft was buying up one year exclusives at the beginning of last generation, Sony told developers that they could only release on Playstation if the game was markedly improved over the initial release. Sony fans had to wait a year--and at that time, we didn't know about the limited terms--but the result was a superior game. I can't criticize Microsoft for using the same strategy.

Source?

I know of some games releasing later on PlayStation with added content but thought it was more of the publishers decision. But I also know games that released later on PlayStation with nothing added (Braid, Limbo a few that I've played)

I don't have one, as this was something from the PS3/360 era, but it's been well-known for years.  It's fine if you don't believe it.

It was to combat timed exclusive retail releases, I don't know if they ever applied it to small digital titles--though I do know Microsoft has been doing this with digital titles since the 360.

 

And which PS3 game would have got any benefit from that? Oblivion? Which came out for X360 when the PS3 hadn't even launched and it looked better only because it was ported by an external studio that actually knows how to program (unlike Bethesda, that's it)?

What I heard all the time the last generation is that MS had yet another clause which dictated that games to be certified for X360 had to have at least the same content. This has been well known for years too. Actually, I do have the source as well:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-24-why-microsoft-wont-publish-psn-firsts

"Titles for Xbox 360 must ship at least simultaneously with other video game platform, and must have at least feature and content parity on-disc with the other video game platform versions in all regions where the title is available"