By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Michelasso on 19 July 2015
Edit Thread
pokoko said:
Michelasso said:

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"

Which games?  Off the top of my head, Bioshock, Eternal Sonata, Star Ocean, and Vesperia.  Pretty sure Mass Effect 2, as well.  


Ok, you have got few games. But some of them just had the whole DLCs added. Ever occured to think that it happened because the large BR drive made it possible and not because of a policy which has never been disclosed by anyone?

The X360 DVD drive killed half of the games in the 7th generation and that is exactly why MS introduced that clause. Indeed look at what it happened in the rare cases where MS had to beg to get the games developed for PS3 ported to X360, like with FF XIII. The 39.4GB of the PS3 game had to be squeezed in 3 DVDs, for a total of 18.3GB. With the cutscenes (at 1080p on PS3) an other graphical assets getting heavily compressed as it has been measured after the game launched.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ffxiii-360-less-than-half-the-size-of-ps3-game-blog-entry