Microsoft demands content, release date parity for 360 games

In an interview with Eurogamer, European Xbox boss Chris Lewis revealed that per their third-party release guidelines all titles must have content and release date parity or they reserve the right to not publish the game. He also goes on to highlight why he thinks this ensures an "even playing field," even though companies like Sony and Valve will regularly allow Xbox Live-first titles on their platform. 
The specifics of the policy can be seen below, as well as more in the whole article here:  
 
So I ask, is it unreasonable that they ask this or is it a way to throw around their considerable weight to the detriment of people who just like to play games? Certainly explains a lot of screwy release dates and exclusive content deals.

"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 reads.

"If these conditions are not met, Microsoft reserves the right to not allow the content to be released on Xbox 360."

         

One representative from a publisher who wished to remain anonymous told Eurogamer Microsoft's policy blocks developers from taking advantage of other platforms' strengths.

"Microsoft is suggesting that anything but parity will result in them not carrying a title. They may think this is competitive, but it's not. They are killing any creative exposure of titles to make up for their own platform's shortcomings."

Wow, that's fucked up...

Microsoft being douchebags. Nothing new here.

Micro$oft.

Really? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. No one is entitled to release their games on Mircosoft's platform, and if they want to, I think it's reasonable for Microsoft to ensure that they are not getting a gimped version of the game. I would have no problem with anyone having this policy.

Don't Sony have some similar policy where they demand that late PS3 ports have bonus content?

This is way harsher though. But I suppose it won't affect many games.

Seems pretty fair to me, console exclusive crap is bullshit. That goes both ways.

@Slaker117 said:

Really? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. No one is entitled to release there games on Mircosoft's platform, and if they want to, I think it's reasonable for Microsoft to ensure that they are not getting a gimped version of the game. I would have no problem with anyone having this policy.

thats not what the policy is for, its meant to keep developers who have a PS3 game ready to go but the 360 version is 6 months off they can't release on PS3 first and then the 360 because MS will refuse sighting not release parity. i don't think it has anything to do with gimped products.

@DeanoXD said:

thats not what the policy is for, its meant to keep developers who have a PS3 game ready to go but the 360 version is 6 months off they can't release on PS3 first and then the 360 because MS will refuse sighting not release parity. i don't think it has anything to do with gimped products.

I think it is about stopping delayed releases. But I think it is also to try and stop things like LA Noir and its PS3 exclusive case. Or Batman: Arkham Asylum and its Joker challenge maps.

Of course, the solution to that is online redemption codes. Note the policy talks about "on-disc content" parity.

@Icemael said:

Don't Sony have some similar policy where they demand that late PS3 ports have bonus content?This is way harsher though. But I suppose it won't affect many games.

The PSP certainly had a stipulation like this, any game ported to it had to have extra content. That's why so many early PSP games had pointless minigame features tacked on.

Wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 has similar policies.

I can't say that I'm opposed to this. I'm apparently in the minority here, but I love stereoscopic 3D. I'm sick of having to choose between stereoscopic 3D on PS3 or playing online with my friends on 360 (the lion's share of my friends are anti-Sony) because Sony slipped the developer a little extra cash for exclusive features.
 
Honestly, that's what I'm really sick of: bribes for special treatment. If you want exclusive content, then make it yourself or find something exclusive to publish. If this policy makes it harder for both Microsoft and Sony to bribe their way into getting exclusive content (or temporarily exclusive content for that matter) then some good came out of it.

@Slaker117 said:

@DeanoXD: The specific quote pulled in the OP demands context and feature parity. I would call a game lacking context and features another version has "gimped". Even ignoring that, the same reasoning still applies. Microsoft doesn't want to be anyone's backup date, and they are attractive enough to ensure that they aren't. This is well within their rights, and you can't blame them for trying to protect their own interests.

it sounds to me as MS using a policy because of sour grapes, why is it bad that Sony was able secure exclusive content that yes some might think the games are not on par with each other, but MS is much more guilty of this, with the GTA 4 exclusive content, all of the Call of duty content. So i agree they can do whatever they want, but if a competitor is able to wrangle some exclusive content on their platform and it won't ever make it to the 360 tough shit for MS and if they tell a dev that they won't let their game come out on their platform because of it, well MS is just a bunch of fucking cry babies.

and for the record i play 98% of my games on my 360.

I'd certainly have more pity for Microsoft about this if they didn't spend so much of their own money snagging timed exclusives and other such.

It's a fine idea, yeah, but this is a bit rich coming from them.

@DeanoXD: Another way to look at this is that Microsoft was smart enough to include this in their guidelines, while Sony wasn't. It has nothing to do with being "a bunch of fucking cry babies". It is simply a shrewd bussiness move.

@Slaker117 said:

@DeanoXD: I see how it could make them look a bit fussy, but I guess I'm just saying I don't care about that. From a business standpoint it's legitimate and understandable, so I take no issue with it. I also have no problems with exclusive content on any platform, that's also "just business".

agreed, i could really care less either let MS do whatever they want, but the story does make them look petty in my opinion.

MS being MS.

@Devoid said:

I'd certainly have more pity for Microsoft about this if they didn't spend so much of their own money snagging timed exclusives and other such.

It's a fine idea, yeah, but this is a bit rich coming from them.

Perhaps it's because I haven't been paying attention to too many 360 games lately, but I thought Sony's been a lot worse for this lately.

Everything made sense as soon as I read Microsoft...

@thehexeditor said:

Micro$oft.

Witty.

I don't see this mattering in the long run. Let's say Assassin's Creed: Revelations had one extra on-disc mission for the PS3, I think Microsoft knows they'd be making a mistake turning that game away. Even if the example were a smaller game, I don't think Microsoft would be stupid enough to force exclusivity to a competing console because of this policy.

I don't see this mattering in the long run. Let's say Assassin's Creed: Revelations had one extra on-disc mission for the PS3, I think Microsoft knows they'd be making a mistake turning that game away. Even if the example were a smaller game, I don't think Microsoft would be stupid enough to force exclusivity to a competing console because of this policy.

I don't see this mattering in the long run. Let's say Assassin's Creed: Revelations had one extra on-disc mission for the PS3, I think Microsoft knows they'd be making a mistake turning that game away. Even if the example were a smaller game, I don't think Microsoft would be stupid enough to force exclusivity to a competing console because of this policy.

They're a business. Why is anyone shocked?

@lebkin said:

@DeanoXD said:

thats not what the policy is for, its meant to keep developers who have a PS3 game ready to go but the 360 version is 6 months off they can't release on PS3 first and then the 360 because MS will refuse sighting not release parity. i don't think it has anything to do with gimped products.

I think it is about stopping delayed releases. But I think it is also to try and stop things like LA Noir and its PS3 exclusive case. Or Batman: Arkham Asylum and its Joker challenge maps.

Of course, the solution to that is online redemption codes. Note the policy talks about "on-disc content" parity.

Then it's even worse. I can't even think of a conference where MS hasn't bragged about their timed exclusivity of COD DLC, and there's the whole "Better with Kinect" crap they're bolting on to upcoming releases like ME3.