It's Ubisoft's decision. They want to release on xbox, they play ball. Nobody's forcing them into anything.

I've not heard of the policy the are refering to, but if it exists, I stand corrected.

Nintendo clearly doesn't, based on the fact that there are plenty of titles that third parties happily released on Nintendo systems late, with lacking features.

Mind you, third parties quite happily go "see, that's why we don't bother releasing on Nintendo platforms" when the delayed, incomplete versions sell worse than the other versions.

Personally, I think such policies might come to bite MS on the arse, if feature sets for the new Sony and MS consoles don't match up neatly.

There's this poster here who loves Microsoft so much I think he might be going on a date with his Xbox 360 on Valentine's Day.

User was warned for this post - Kantor

The game is finished. It is already advertised. A demo was released. How much impact you think will have the demo from January in September?

Yes poor sales are the reason for going multiplat and I wouldn't mind. Everyone should get games, exclusives are bad for gamers. But delaying an already complete gameis worse.

See, dor example: I'm happy that Resident Evil Revelations is coming to nearly every console. Because it is a great game and gamers deserve to play this game. But it would be horrible, if they had delayed the 3DS-version for it.

Well, AC III and Darksiders II weren't delayed for release on WiiU. So probably Nintendo doesn't have a similar policy.

If this is true, Microsoft is really doing something fucked up because they were doing that to Sony all gen. I know about their policy but its fucked up to to hurt a brand new system that needs Rayman when their new Xbox isn't even out yet and your other one is doing just fine without Rayman. They do timed exclusives, but when someone puts out a game early on another console they want to act like babies cut having the game on their console. Total hypocrites.

That might be so from a business perspective but its a really unfair thing thats happening in the industry. Microsoft can pay to keep games away from their rival for x amount of time, but no one else can. Sony has a policy that is similar with third parties, but it involves not paying for third party exclusives in this current gen. Nintendo to my recollection doesn't have a policy on late games, as you can see they didnt bitch about the Wii U.

Nobody knows the details of these license contracts, but I have never heard anything about MS paying to make a publisher delay a game. I've heard of paid exclusives, but that's common practice on all sides. Nintendo paid for Bayonetta 2. Microsoft paid for Gears of War. Sony paid for Demon Souls. If a 3rd party game gets delayed to land on more platforms it is because the publisher wants to sell more copies.

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.

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.

Microsoft is to blame for almost everything.