So the rules are still in place, but they just aren't referring to it as a "parity clause". Um..ok.

It's not that I don't believe you, I actually wouldn't mind reading something about it if it's true. Plus I would be gullible to believe everything on the internet.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony did have some sort of parity clause, but it seems that Sony give developers more freedom to do what they want and how they handle their own products. I suppose I'd be naive to judge something from the outside.

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"

It's fair in a business sense. Whn I'm thinking about the former MS exclusives coming to Sony while adding new stuff to it. I bet that proposal came from Sony as well.

Still, trying to spin it as if you do this for the developer's benefit is just plain dishonest.

I love how on GAF MS is getting eviscerated for this idea that their version should be special if their audience has to wait a year for the game, yet the same people whining about how wrong and misguided it is, are people posting in Tomb Raider threads about how they'll wait for the PS4 version with all the DLC included LOL.

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

Mass Effect 2 was released a year later with NO additions at full price so, i would like to know where people are getting this from

I didn't say it happened with everything, but many games esp. in Japan, for example, were released with extras.  

Except it did... It came out with all the dlc included as well as an exclusive comic intro that let playstation players go through the story of the first game and make all the major choices.  

I used to think it was some MS anti-competition BS, and it's had some atrocious PR (from Phil Spencer included).

But then I read up on what it actually was. It's to stop devs getting free dev kits for a port of a game they've released on all other platforms already, UNLESS they can prove it was impossible for them in terms of finances and manpower to release on Xbox 1 at the same time as other platforms.

Nothing really restrictive, it's mainly to stop abuse by some devs.

Imo ID@Xbox is in a fairly good place atm, but the program and it's games need better discoverability and promotion, that's where Sony and PS4 in paticular have the edge still. And ID@Xbox could do with one massive title like No Man's Sky, WiLD ,etc.

Also worth mentioning is Game Preview, which shows promise, mainly because of the mandatory free trial which should act as a crap filter.The lowest price guarantee is great as well. However it has yet to build on the two games it initially offered, so we'll have to wait and see on that one.