From what I understand MS has a policy that multiplatform games can not release on another system prior to the 360 or have exclusive content on another system. There is obviously some discrepancies like AC3 on the PS3 and any titles that get ported on a later date, which might be part of a Sony policy as some have mentioned to include extra content if a game isn't released day and date.

Notice those two policies are not the same, if that is indeed what their policies are. Sure Sony might require extra content, but that is only when the game won't release on the same day as another system already. Microsoft on the other hand requires that the game can't be released on another system first, forcing the publisher to delay or forfeit their release on the 360, which means they would be out of a lot of potential customers.

This MS policy, if true, is not a benefit to the consumer and would prevent a game like Rayman Legends from releasing on the Wii U until it is released on the 360. It might even require that the game include a certain level of asynchronous gameplay in order to release on the 360, but that might be wavered. In fact I wonder how a policy like this has effected 3rd party support on the Wii, though there are obvious other difficulties with multiplats on Wii.

I've never heard that. I've only heard that MS requires extra content for previously released games. Publishers just usualy choose to delay rather than wait and spend money on more content. Sony and MS have the same policy. They want the games ont he same day or else more content. Sometimes they pay for exclusive content or timed exclusives, but that's a different topic. To my knowledge I am not aware of any game that MS has forced a publisher to delay and port.

Publishers want to sell their game on Xbox 360 so they comply with the same content and time requirements that Sony has. I would not be surprised to find out that Nintendo has a similar policy. It's just good business.

That's a pathetic policy. No company should have this, it shouldn't be allowed.

With that said, it's Ubisoft's fault (for not defending their stance) and MS's fault (for having this ridiculous policy, if it is true.)

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.

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.

No its Ubisofts fault for announcing it as a WiiU exclusive in the first place. It took them this long to figure out how bad of an idea that was. If they released it at launch as originally planned it would have been crushed by direct competition with NSMB U. If they release it in February they can't charge $60 on PS360 later without significant additional content that Wii U owners would miss out on or have to pay for as DLC.

Rayman Legends is much better of as a PS3, Wii U, 360 multiplat. I bet before all is said and done it will reach the Vita and the PS4 and nextbox.

It kind of is like putting a gun to Ubisofts head when you know that they need your fanbase to increase the sales potential of the title and you give them a contratual ultimatum.

Yupp... they sure stole away the iPod's thunder with the Zune

OT: doubt that it would be the case. Contant parity was not allways the case with 360/PS3 releases.

Even if that policy is true, the decision for going multiplatform was made by Ubisoft, not Microsoft. So no.

If Ubisoft had never anounced it as a Wii U exclusive we wouldn't be having this conversation.Sony and MS are not holding contract guns to Ubisoft's head. Ubisoft wants this. Ubisoft made the right choice to go multiplatform and is agreeing to Sony and MS liscensing just like the rest of the industry. Ubisoft could have released it on Wii U first and then later built a few bonus levels and alternet outfits for the PS3 an Xbox 360. But instead everyone is getting the game at the same time. How is that bad?

This is only "bad" news for people who only own a Wii U and want the game NOW. It's good news for everyone with PS3's and Xbox 360's. Sony and MS are just looking out for their users. I see nothing wrong with that.

Yes. I was just thinking about that earlier today. I dont understand why the game industry allows microsoft to bully them...