so... that doesn't seem to really affect consumers though.  that is more of a developer issue.  sure, you can say it will delay the game, but like you said, that is a developer choice.  It certainly doesn't take any choices away from the consumer.

Now, is the parity clause crap for indie developers?  definitely!!  I just don't see it as a big consumer issue like you are making it out to be.  

Cool. I've found some from Nintendo too.

Iwata says Wii will avoid major droughts that plagued GameCube. (March 2007)

“When we launched GameCube, the initial sales were good, and all the hardware we manufactured at that time were sold through. However, after this period, we could not provide the market with strong software titles in a timely fashion. As a result we could not leverage the initial launch time momentum, and sales of GameCube slowed down. To avoid repeating this with Wii, we have been intensifying the software development, both internally at Nintendo and at developers outside the company, in order to prepare aggressive software lineup for Wii at and after the launch.” says Iwata. He then says, ”We believe it is important to provide the market with strong software without a long interval in order to keep the launch time momentum.”

Source: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/libr...0607qa/02.html

Iwata promises that 3DS will avoid major droughts that plagued Wii and DS. (January 2011)

“It’s important that you be able to supply software with no pause,” said Iwata. “With the DS and Wii, following the titles that were released at launch, the momentum dropped when there was a gap in software releases. We’re making plans so that this type of thing won’t happen.”

Source: http://www.vg247.com/2011/01/10/iwat...ware-with-3ds/

Iwata promises that Wii U will avoid major droughts that plagued 3DS and Wii. (October 2011)

“ As we learned a bitter lesson with the launch of the Nintendo 3DS, we are trying to take every possible measure so that the Wii U will have a successful launch.”
“The company was unable to launch much-anticipated first-party titles for the Wii nor for the Nintendo 3DS in a timely fashion in the first half of the term. In the game platform business, creating momentum is very important, but the momentum was once lost, and it has had a large negative effect on our sales and profits.”

Source: http://www.computerandvideogames.com...on-iwata-vows/

Iwata apologizes for Wii U drought in January and February. (January 2013)

“I apologize to those supporting Wii U about the lack of titles in January and February.”

Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...ftware-drought

BONUS COMBO BREAKER - Reggie promises no drought in 2014

“The way we’re going to be different is, we’re gonna certainly have a steadier pace of games – both for Wii U and for 3DS.”
“The marketing activity is going to be constant throughout the entire year. You tease me a little bit that ‘boy the first half [of 2013] was a little quiet,’ and y’know what, you look back and it was. We’re not going to be making that same mistake in 2014.”

__________________________________________________________
Via Emily Rogers: http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2013...stern-culture/

I shouldn't derail this thread.

It does because not all indies have the resources to develop multiple versions of a game simultaneously.

Its why some indies are on xbox and not on other systems yet, and why some indies launched on PS and have claimed they dont want to work with xbox. Either way gamers on both sides have lost out. Without the policy the indie games would have made it to both systems.

There is no reason why the policy should exist. The way I see it is MS are just throwing a tantrum because they got beaten at their own timed exclusivity game which they started.

Also this is exactly the point of my original post. You have no reason to defend the policy, it is of no use or no benefit to anyone, yet you still defend it.

It does because not all indies have the resources to develop multiple versions of a game simultaneously.

Its why some indies are on xbox and not on other systems yet, and why some indies launched on PS and have claimed they dont want to work with xbox. Either way gamers on both sides have lost out. Without the policy the indie games would have made it to both systems.

There is no reason why the policy should exist. The way I see it is MS are just throwing a tantrum because they got beaten at their own timed exclusivity game which they started.

Also this is exactly the point of my original post. You have no reason to defend the policy, it is of no use or no benefit to anyone, yet you still defend it.

You know what's great. My TA's bought an XB360 Arcade for our lounge. They even bought a game and the OG kinect. Unfortunately, without XBL we couldn't even use the Kinect because it required an update, and the 360 was smart enough to know that the Kinect needed an update. Unfortunately, XBL was required to download the update, and without the update the Kinect was literally useless. Not to mention the lack of hdd meant I couldn't store the update or even save games with out a thumbdrive.

Talk about a great value.

You're right. The $400.00 system was called the "pro" console, I forgot.

Other than bullshitting with timed exclusivity instead of actually exclusives, and losing some of its games by puting them on PC (Thus reducing 360's overall value), I disagree with the points made here.

They were EASILY more expensive if you wanted the 360 to do what PS3 did.

$400.00 for the core system

$60.00 for the wireless adaptor

$20.00 for play and charge kit

$60.00 to play online

$200.00 for HDDVD add on

Total? Without taxes, around $740.00 US. And even spending THAT much, you still ended up with a HDD that was 40GB smaller and no HDMI.