Ubisoft is to blame.

Microsoft has some harsh policy's, pay for online, multiplats must be released simultaneously, developers must pay royalty's for games released on their system and if i remember correctly multiplats must be of equal quality and never superior on a rivals platform.

It clearly works and makes Microsoft a lot of money the question is will Sony and Nintendo adopt the same policy?
Personally i think Microsoft will change a lot of its ways next generation or suffer some bad relations with publishers

Except there are PS3 third party games with exclusive content, so I doubt this is the case. Otherwise MS could do the same for Lego City Stories too.

More likely Ubi Soft's suits looked at the Wii U's sell through and it was lower than what they expected. It was lower than what Nintendo expected too, slashing their 5.5 million forecast to just 4 million.

Probably as well, Zombi U may not have sold as well as they expected.

if this is the reason ubi made a big mistake. legends would sell more now as a WiiU timed exclusive to ps3 later than all 3 coming that late

A few.

Bully, NBA Jam, Goldeneye 007, Unreal Tournament 3, Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge (debatable, as the original NG3 was on 360), and Resident Evil Revelations come to mind.

Anyway, even if MS's policy is why Ubisoft did it, Ubisoft is still the one that is to blame. MS would not have rejected an offer to have an upgraded version of the game released for 360 (and PS3 and Wii U) in November, after the original launched on Wii U in February. Heck, MS could probably have paid for the upgraded version to be a timed exclusive.

And Rayman titles haven't done well on the 360; if their concern was MS's policy, they could alternatively have released it on Wii U now, and then PS3 (or PS4, for that matter) later in the year, and let MS whinge about not getting a version - heck, if they told MS ahead of time, MS would probably say "OK, we'll waive the rule for this game" - not that they wouldn't waive it for other games, I don't think MS would actually try to tell a publisher "sorry, but you've already released this game on another console, so we're not going to let you release it on ours". And if they did, Ubisoft would be able to go to the media and go "Microsoft are being unreasonable, so we're releasing it on PS3 and Wii U".

Instead, Ubisoft decided to delay a completed game, for whatever reason, so that it would be a simultaneous release across the three platforms. And then they decided to announce a release in September, putting it up against major game releases.

Not to mention that Ubisoft had another option - decide to make it multiplatform earlier, and have it release on all three platforms in March or April, giving it real opportunity. The only way that this situation makes sense is if Ubisoft decided some time in January to make it multiplatform... which is just an idiotic time to do it, when you've announced a release date in February; either make the decision earlier, make it more intelligently, or don't do it at all.

Ubisoft decided to be stupid and late. They are to blame, plain and simple.

So that's why you don't see late releases with exclusive content like on PS3.

So, just like Sony requires extra content if the game releases later on the ps3?

Can't really say blame. I'm sure Ubi wanted to do multiplatform after seeing the poorly the Wii U was selling.

If this was about Sony you would not have posted this for sure.

My thoughts. Would have been "silly" than.