SCEA wants to encourage, but cannot control third parties Speaking to GamesIndustry.biz at an E3 roundtable, SCEA president Jack Tretton addressed the issue of some games looking better on the 360 than they do on the PS3.
its their creation. your the MAN Jack. bubbles PLEASE PS Fans. help each other out.
Hey PS fans, lets all agree that it is not the fact that the PS3 takes more time and money in development to equal the 360, what with its advanced hardware and all, that causes the problem. Lets all say jackie is right about blaming third parties,(who they need badly).Bad graphics is the price you pay for an advanced machine. Wait, that does'nt make sense now does it? Maybe they should have made it with the idea of playing games instead of blue-ray movies.
I don't think you will ever understand Sony Fan :(
Instead of offering advanced toolsets like your first and second party developers have access to. Do not provide any counseling/funding for these games that require more money/time/labor then on other platforms. No instead you b!tch. I guess thats alot easier to do, since you don't know jack, jack. SCEA President Jack Tretton told PSM in the latest issue: "We have a very different approach to exclusives than some of our competitors. We don't buy exclusivity. We don't fund development. http://www.n4g.com/industry...
well, he is right they can't do nothing more than help them, Sony can't control third party.
He didn't blame third parties. God, that's possibly one of the worst headlines I've seen. Totally malicious. He said they can't control third parties, but they encourage them to make good games. How's that bad? He even said it's in both Sony's and the developer's best interest to create top quality games. I'm not buying a game that's half baked. I'm not buying a game that doesn't look as good on my console as it does on the other consoles. If they don't make my game look good, then why should I even buy the game? I'm trying to get a good game, not a mediocre one. I don't have $60 to blow on every Grade B game. And I definitely don't have money to blow on a game that comes out a tiny bit shinier every year. (i.e. the vast majority of sports games, I'll go play the game in real life instead of on my t.v.) =) Back on track. All he really said was that the games that devs put more time into would pay off far better for them. Look at how much time was put into games like Halo and the massive pay off they have.
i hope they're reading what Tretton said.
he would love to say [email protected] EA! what are you DOING! but then EA may fire back with no more Madden or something. Its like Sony is prisoner to crappy 3rd parties. Don't worrie I'm sure then will pick up the pace after these great first parties git.
Especially when you give them a new hardware architect, that has to be re-thinked all over on how to program efficiently, as if Sony's support and tools, have nothing to do with it? This is not something I would say Jack. so Jack "why do most of the 3rd-party games look lackluster compared to the competitors counterparts? "well, it's the developers, blame them". WTF.. Sony Support and Tools work hand in hand. Just as MS and their tools/support, as well as the wii, which there is no learning curve, whatsoever besides learning to be creative.
It's the fault of the developers being lazy...except Bethesda on Oblivion, EA Chicago on FNR3, and Starbreeze on The Darkness. At least THEY fully utilized the PS3 and put the best versions of the game on there.
Rainbow Six was a good port, Ubisoft just needed to spend some time on it... It's their fault, but Sony can help of course. They just made a deal to improve the Unreal Engine to fit the PS3 hardware, making ports easier.
Consistency is everything to me. If the ports were consistently bad, I'd agree with the argument that Sony's tools and Support is not up to par. The problem is that there is a spectrum of bad->great ports and varies between companies. While some companies take the time to produce a quality product tailored to the system's strengths, others do not. I would like to point Ubisoft and EA games as the developers/publishers that rush the product out versus Team Ninja and Bethsada. Ubisoft did a bad job on Splinter Cell and then delivered a decent port of Rainbow Six. Now, what does a bad port do for the publisher, developer, and Sony? Why even port the game if you are going to do horrible job on it? It ruins your credibility in the eyes of gamers like you and I. This also holds true if a PS3 game is ported to the 360. Technically, despite the variations in architecture, you could produce a 90-100% identical port. The problem is that certain developers/publishers opt to maximize of profit by releasing the game shortly after the timed exclusive period is over or shortly after the game is released on the rival platform. <<EDIT>> If you are going to disagree, at least have the testicles to state your point.
Well yeah I know but you have to remember "Not all Developers are Created Equal" regardless of what this guy has been willing to do or whatever resources this big time developer have over the other. There are so many factors involved, we games don't really hear about or care to know about when it comes to game development. Not every developer is gonna give you a great game. Or have money to spend on a killzone 2 type project. Or will make a game that looks like Gears. Or have 3rd and 4th tiered teams. Or have multiple SDK, and one for each Programmer.SDK=$1300 Wii, $15,000MS, and $30,000 Sony. It's not just the developer sucked, cause of they was always the case then they would always make sucky games. You just can't blame 3rd parties this first year with what or little sony has given them. Sony never been known for great support and tools in the first place. We all know why MS has been, just as we say Sony had good hardware, well MS have very good tools and support. There are some strengths and weaknesses that will become less important over time but this first year, Sony gave developers this Box and said make up great games, and promised great games form the start. They miscalculated their architecture and the learning curve. My thing is, you can't just do that and expect superb results from the getgo. Don't you think Developers are also under pressure?Don't you think Sony wanted those ports?, even 2 really 2 games have stand out. Of course the developers are going to make the ports, while on this learning curve, so why give them sh!t for trying. Plus its not like the games are total sh!t, anyhow.
Can anyone explain to me why the publishers/developers admitted to rush jobs even on the Wii. If the shoddy ports occurred on the Wii, arguably a smaller learning curve than the PS3 and 360, why wouldn't they occur on the PS3 (arguably the highest learning curve). Ubisoft and Activision have admitted to this. Yes, I know that the discussion was PS3 and 360 but the point is to expose development on ports. Ubisoft admitting http://www.next-gen.biz/ind... Activision admitting http://www.nintendowiifanbo...
He did not say that. The title, also, is very misleading. The article's sub-title should have been the one used on this submission. This kind of conflubbering of information is truly what feeds fanboyism. Holy crap it's tiring.
He isn't blaming anyone. But he is saying 3rd parties are responsible for what they put out. If you put out crappy ports people arent going to buy them.
He never said "It's their fault", or somesuch. Just said he can't controll what they put out. F- to the author for the headline.
but the Playstation3s architecture is way different than a PC. With that said games are always developed first on PC then put on their respective dev kits. With 360s architecture being very similar to the PC development is quick and easy. Shorter development time and less money to get good results.(especially with the XNA tools) Practical for third parties bc 360 has the highest install base. For maximization of profits. For PS3 the dev time is longer bc of its architecture and more expensive bc of expensive dev kits plus it has the smaller user base which minimizes profits. To code games from the ground up for PS3 isn't practical for third parties. Maximize investment to minimize profits. The games industry is a business after all. And business is about making money.
Yeah, except this is an unsustainable business strategy, because A. Games like killzone and uncharted will really push the envelope of what is possible, and to neglect investing and developing games for ps3 will no longer be profitable in the long term, as they will not be able to compete with high quality games if they do the easy dx10 -> xbox conversion and B. the entire industry is moving in the direction of heavily multi-core cpu processing. To invest in systems like the ps3 for third party game development is infact an investment into PC games, as it will help optimize multithreaded programming. Next year we will see more 4, perhaps 8 core processors, and they will greatly benefit from ps3 development. The future of gaming technology (i.e. pc, perhaps something like ps4), is perhaps real time raytracing, which best optimized on a many-cored processor arangement. Sure, third party game developers can garner short term heavy profits off of dx10 ported console games (not to say that they cant be inovative on the xbox), but they will have to move past this to prepare to compete with future products.
the cell ONE general purpose core processors and 7 SPEs. xbox has THREE general purpose cores. PC uses general purpose multi-core systems much more like the xbox than the cell (PCs don't use SPEs). The MacPro is already 8 core but again all general purpose. Not sure that SPE code directly translates to the multithread architecture in the PC system that simply. What the cell may illusrate is there is a better processor architecture that PC should consider instead of using multiples of the old processor type. I don't know. Edit for below: I understand your point now. With the cell you may have say six threads of parralel processes at once unlike the 360 which could only have three REAL streams (minus the hyperthreading peudo streams) and this will be more in line with the what the new PC processors will be capable of now.
A key feature to the cell is that the spe's can communicate with eachother on the same die, and that threads are coordinated by the ppu which guides thread execution, in contrast to raw thread execution one at a time. This is more along lines of future desktop processors, like amd phenom for example, in which cores communicate with eachother's cache on the die rather than returning to the l1 cache, even though they are cpu cores rather than spe's. Secondly, particularly for games, the difference between spes and cpus is neglible compared to the quantity available for running threads. Folding home vs. streaming audio might be an example where core type might matter more. In other words, developers must prepare for number and orginaization of thread execution rather than a particular core type, as the CELL processor is more apt for parallel processing--a distinction it shares with next gen processors. Edit: just read your edited post. The power PC processor is a good example, because, where as code difference is great between mac/unix PPC and pc x86 for diverse application types, the code between, say gamecube and xbox is not as vast of a difference because of the type and scope of games(applications). From quote at bottom: Sort of, yeah, although I might replace "real" with single, or front to back, start to finish processing. It's like any xbox cpu can setup, excecute, and send back a thread to memory, the PS3 only has the one unit that can follow all the way through. However, this unit is optimized to send out and coordinate the instructions, and the SPE's are optimized to do all the calcuations. So xbox could stream hi-qual audio really well, because it would just need to alot of simple calculations really quickly from start to finish, but the PS3 can do like folding home very efficiently, because it is geared towards solving larger more, complex problems. So, the quality of the PS3 processing will depend on how it can interpret a game as a larger, more complex problem of which it can use paralell calculations to solve. I don't mean to say that this is the main architecture of future processors, but they will have high level of inter-processor communication, like cell, and this will garner more Gflops for these processors. This is also a great architecture for raytracing, which would be the bees knees for games.
The headline is kind of misleading, in my opinion. He's a lot less accusatory in the actual quote, and you can't really argue with what he says. The power is there, but third parties have to learn it, and they're not putting forth the effort necessary so far(Guerrilla Games, Ninja Theory, Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Epic, Free Radical, Polyphony Digital, and such are proving that the results can be achieved). Is the effort required too much for the potential gain? Perhaps, at this stage of the game. But he points out the potential ramifications of that - the system will not sell, and the game, being on a more expensive platform and looking worse, likely won't recoup costs.
what jack says is kinda true, if the port is crappy it isnt going to sell, who would buy a port that sucks, so what can sony do besides give them tools and help them, which they do
At first, i thought Jack was some corny dude at Sony because he he's so awesome. ive gained lots of respect for Jack after the Sony Press Conference. He's comedic while professional at the same time. He's down to earth and not just some MONEY MONEY MONEY dude and talks like how a normal person should talk. Listen to all the MS executives, talking like robots boasting the 360 24/7.
Just a Mr. Reggie does on the Nintendo Conference yesterday? (ok... Don't flame on me just yet kk, I like Nintendo and I'm soo hungry for Super Smash Brother Brawl and Mario Kart Wii). and by the way I'm so agree with ur opinion. Take a bubble and an agree point.
COP OUT. How about you develop the technology and tools to help developers? That would be more help than slamming them.
And the tools are there. Maybe devs need to be more active about aquiring them, or maybe Sony need to be more active about pushing them on devs, I dont know. Probably every situation is different and some devs prefer there own stuff, not realising the possible benefits. It does seem the devs working closely with Sony (mostly 1st and 2nd party) arent having the problems some of the 3rd parties are having. Maybe thats a clue to let Sony help more or it could just be a symptom of doing a multiplatform game. And also its not about spending $20M or have 130 developers. Yeah that Killzones way and its working, but look at Media Molecule. A handful (literally) of talented guys, with passion and a clear vision of what they want. Someone said (I think maybe Phil) that devs need to start thinking of PS3 and Xbox as 2 separate platforms and developing as such. I agree with this. Is not so much harder as it is, just different.
That is all fony and fony fanyboys do is whine all the time. fony is lucky to have them port it over after making a HUGE mistake that is the ps3. I would rather have options than none at all. With the original ps2 and xbox, xbox was more powerful but got crappy ports of ps2 versions so get over it man.
Please speak in English, or at least in some semblance of a recognizable language.
kind of funny since your whole post is whining about sony fanboys lol.
skyman_1981 sniff sniff whining SONY,,, YOU TOOK MY HOME WITH THAT SONY CENTRE BUILDING THING. Ill have my viral revenge just you watch
http://www.youtube.com/watc... Sorry about this guys, this is live from E3 on a mobile phone showing killzone 2 being played by the developer!!!!!
i agree with Jack, you can't control somebody just encourage, help, assit them. the best way you can. Sony come on,put the money down show these useless monkies what PS3 can IMPEL.
Hmmm... don't know, I think Sony provide the enough tools to the dev . Now, with the new support and buddy buddy alliance with Epic the Epic Engine will be a blast on the PS3 ahrdware.
(I DIDNT READ ANY COMMENTS YET BUT I CANT TELL HOW THEY WILL TURN OUT) OK THERE SAYIN HE BLAMES THIRD PARTIES. HE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES HE DOSNT WANT 2 DISCOURAGE. I KNOW HOW MEDIA CAN TAKE THINGS OUT OF PROPORTION. SO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY ON HERE REALIZES THAT
Jack Trettons words saying so you think that the first party should pick up the slack when the first partys are already doing a good job and have no problems with the PS3 so this journalist is just dumb he already made it clear that he dislikes on what the 3rd partys doing! and the journalist is not even listening and saying so the first party is lacking to and what kind of journalist is not even paying attention to a SCEA VIP in what hes saying!.
Really, the title for this is misleading.
right blame the devs, despite a weak GPU, add the fact that you chose to make your architecture inefficient, the dev tools you offer are a joke, when compared to micro's, therefore it takes going into hiding for 2 yrs of dev time and 30 mil to get a shooter thats on the same level as most nex gen shooters its only hyped as a big sigh of relief that it wasn't 2D by all the sony kids, forget the fact that it falls well shy of the CG trailer. what do they expect from other devs?= JOY
I think you're the new Biggest Wanker in here. Mart and Cyber seem to be in hiding (probably together in a hotelroom somewhere) and most of the other guys have been acting quite reasonable lately. Did you even read the article, or just the misleading headline? Is there something wrong with spending 2 years on a game when the results clearly speak for themselves? Did you know Too Human was originally being made for N64? That how far that game got pushed back, but I think you'll agree its better for it. And stop trying to convince people that PS3 is crap because no one is buying your sh*t and no one ever will. In fact it looks like PS3 made quite a few new friends this week. Hate to use you as a pawn in my anecdote Bladestar but even you are considering a PS3. Hurry JOY, maybe you can win him back before he buys one. You like your Xbox, fine. Fuk off and play it then. You sound more like you're trying to convince yourself than convince us.
dude how can you say the GPU for ps3 is weak... ps3 just offers a list of its components. reporters are the only ones to say the PS3 GPU is similar to some nVidia video card (6700?) if you were actually a ps3 developer than maybe you can say something, but other than that, NO ONE KNOWS CRAP ABOUT THE TRUE CAPABILITIES FOR ANY CONSOLE. so wat if the ps3 GPU is weak or not. what do you get out of saying that?
Now it's 30 million? And since everyone feels compelled to bring up the price of this game, let's compare- 30 Million (you say) for a game 50 Million for extra content Which makes more sense to you?
Yeah, that's why killzone uses multiple spu's to do geometry rendering and lighting effects and lets the gpu chill out whilst pushing great graphics, your gpu centric xbox has it's loud fan blowing while it's gpu frantically hits the ceiling to do render non-evolving graphics
is that the ONLY role the RSX has in the PS3 is to paint a 1080p image, it's not needed for anything else because the cell does the rest. In effect the Cell+RSX combo is ONE GIANT UNIFIED RENDERING SYSTEM. the "xenos" or whatever retarded name it has can't even come close to this. yet xbortions want to compare apples to oranges and have us buy their ignorant BS.
do like the other fanboys did; Disappear. your an annoying child who spends more time on ps3 pages than 360 1's PATHETIC
but it has been said that fight night is better on that stupid xbox
that has owned and played both versions, Fight Night Rd3 for Ps3 leaves a big doo doo stain on the xbox version.
or jack you could do it old skool nintendo style by putting a gun on third party developers heads
companies now pay alot to dev a game - so the less time - less money spent to make a huge profit thats what works for now - look at the 360 but once the PS3 sales start stacking and the 360 sales come to a stop which will be around 14million - their gonna have no chose to work hard for the PS3 and ull see the exculsives all come back to PS3 jokes on ur lol ur a idiot honestly..PS3 is more powerful then the 360..90% of the games coming from 1st party dev cant be done on a 360 - i wonder y that is lol go buy a PS3 and then see for urself and dont worry it wont break on u like ur 360 did on u
I bleed orange. Go UT.
Get a clue Sony tool! The 360 is going to keep on going for a long time with great games like Halo 3 that is going to sell a few million 360s by itself this year. Oh don't forget the price cut later this year for the 360 down to the more mass market price of $299. The new 65nm chipset is going to make the 360 100% reliable and don't forget the PS3 can break too and does all the time. I know a few people had to get a replacement for their PS3 because it broke on them. So Sony fanboys stop dreaming the PS3 is all of sudden going to surpass the 360 it's not going to happen at least in America.
remember the problem the first Xbox had. Last console out and got crappy ports. It happens. So this means Sony has to step it up first party wise. 90% of the games I play are multi-plat games. If I see the 360 version is better i will get it, and I don't care why it is better. We can go on and on about money and dev ease. In the end these guys want to make money. Who the heck is going to spend $20 mill on a 360 version, and $20 mill on a PS3 version. They will spend the most time on the plat that will make them the money and port to the other. It happened to xbox1, and it will happen to the PS3. Once Sony gets their dev support up, user base up, and tie ratio up they will be okay. It will be tuff for 3rd party dev though. In the end those guys have families to feed and bills to pay and they don't give a sh8t about fanboys. If they sale games then they could care less how they sold it. EA is the best example of this.
I'm just wondering what you thought of the KZ2 demo.
so far every game shown at E3 with PS3 being the lead console has been AMAZING! 360 should stop ranting and be happy with ps3 ports. basically every single 360 port except Oblivion was the crap version for ps3.
I thought it was good. I hate the fact that they call it a gameplay/in game trailer. I rather hear about gameplay features and modes and stuff. I want a dev walk through without all the BS on the side. Just show me how the controls are and the game features. I'm a GFX whore and those are some of the best I have seen. Some of the animation were sweet. I'm a FPS freak so Killzone is what I need to get the monkeys off my back. R6V is my favorite FPS right now. I have said it all along look at my post from 06 if they (N4G) have them. "I want Killzone PS3 (E3-05 version)". The game does not come out until 08 right? So I guess we will be watching footage and trailers for 7 months or so. I guess I will also be playing R6V, GTA 4 Halo3, All pro football 08, COD4 and Guitar Hero 3 until then. I don't know why I like Guitar Hero? I can't put it down.
I agree 110% with jack. It does sound like the journalist twisted up a little. But this is correct they do port some bad games. Whoever said Ubisoft was right too. They seem to just hand things over and put anything out if they can.
I can't even think straight right now because of how disappointed I am with PSN. We get all of these great trailers and hear about all the great Sony exclusive games being played at E3, and we get Nucleus? WTF? How the hell can we not get ONE demo? Excuse my irrelevance, but I feel I have to say it somewhere. This is BS. And IMO, Nucleus sucks.
I've been enjoying Blue Dragon, NCAA FB '08, and Ace Combat 6 since Tuesday. I love me some LIVE Marketplace. :)
I would say i'm jealous but i'm not. I don't want any of those games. I want Lair, Heavenly Sword, and Uncharted. BTW, why would you need a demo of a football game? Couldn't you just play last year's version? I wasn't fishing for any comments like these, but I guess I should have known better. God forbid a guy admit a fault in his own console. That's just being too mature for this site I guess.
This guys a loon! The PS3 is to blame and so are you for hiding the hidden power of the Cell! LOL Jack go back to playing your Second Life ripoff.
Sony has been providing some amazing tools, tools that 1st and 2nd party developers traditionally only had access to. It's up to them to work hard and meet our expectations, and Sony's great showing at E3 is definitely going to push 3rd parties to do so.
“But if a game doesn’t showcase our technology, I don’t know that is going to help either of us.” Third parties will hurt themself too..
Am gonna play a little devils advocate. Yeah Sony can't control third party support and the lack of games that comes to the PS3, but they need to come up with better third party Dev tools that allow faster access to the power of the consoles they put out there. All first party titles shown at this E3 were F'n amazing and so were some third party ones. But for those third party titles that did look great they admitted as well as the developer for said game that they worked together to achieve those results. Sony needs to allow more access to their better more accessible dev tools and stop being so selective about it. All in All I know Sony wants to put out the best looking games for their systems but they need to realize that some of their best selling games have come from 3rd party developers so allowing them to have access to the better Dev tools from the start will only help them in the long run. <EDIT> @DJ True, Sometimes it does come down to how much a developer is willing to put into a game that will determine just how great the end result will be. But lets get real for a sec, I believe that the PS3 is the far more powerful machine out there this generation but by the same token You and I and many others out there are not investing 20+ million on any of these games. The end result of all this like any other industry is to make MONEY!! and thats Why products like the Wii and the 360 have been doing great in the sales charts. The Wii tech wise is over 7 years old + a fairly new control scheme so it is fairly cheap to develop for (in relative terms). The 360 is a powerful machine and it's a mix of something new with something old built into the box. the PS3 is a completely new machine all together, the parts that are in the machine have never been used for gaming and that has caused the problems that it has right now. It is very expensive to produce product for the PS3. a game that cost $20 mill on a 360 to produce might cost 30, 40, 50 mill on a PS3 if produced from the ground up. and the other benefit that the development for the 360 has over the PS3 is that once the 360 build is done you pretty much have a PC game as well (with some tweaks here and there). So development cost are not that high when you develop for the 360 cause in the end you get 2 products for the price of 1. While in the long term I am gonna agree with you that some developers need to suck it up and work for their money, but Sony needs to realize that these companies are not gonna flip a huge bill just to make them happy, so in the end they need to come up with some of the best 3rd party tools to make that transition easier and less expensive cause in this world Money speaks louder then any words or actions that are spoken and seen. @Funkytown You speak the truth. While graphics and movies and all the other feature all these console keep shoving in our faces are not necessary they are always good to have and in the end that is what has made gaming what it is today. But at the same time I still find myself plugging in my old NES so I can play Mario 3. or Double dragon if only for a couple of hours. Why? cause that is what made gaming so great before all the DVD playback and CD playback and online play and whatever else these products promise us. So yeah all we should want in the end is to be able to play great games and in some way most of the older gamers like ourselves have lost sight of that and so have most of these gaming companies. But we only have ourselves to blame. We always demand more from these companies and when they try and fail we are always the first ones to point fingers, but like you said all that should matter is the games, but just like I was telling DJ I invested $600 on a new PS3 so I would want the companies out there to make a game that works great on my system if they want my money. So I guess that makes me a hypocrite, but hey I'm only human.
to admit however is that there are a lot of developers who just aren't that good. If you look over at the Beyond3D developers forum, there was a graphics programmer who actually disagreed with Deano of Ninja Theory on how powerful Cell and RSX were. In fact, he even shot himself down by stating that his team hadn't experimented with more than one SPU, and yet expected their games to run better than on the 360. Some developers will live up to the challenge, while others will simply create mediocre content. We saw this with a lot of PS2 titles that were technological failures, but there were even more that made the machine sing beautifully. Sony already provided as many tools as they legally can (that's right, there's legal issues involved with sharing 1st party tech with 3rd party devs). It's a developer's responsibility to put those tools to good use.
GTA is one of the highest selling game franchises. It is not that good from a technical standpoint. games must be fun. If the GFX, physics, and story are good and the game is not fun then it does not matter. That is something we are all forgetting. In the end ppl of all ages want to have fun. I turn on my console(s) to have fun. I can either be amazed visually or mentally. I like a good combination. I think that one problem that some companies are having is that it seems that all dev have to make games to justify either the price of the PS3 or the clams or hardware superiority. Every dev walk through about PS3 games are about cell and blu-ray. I want to know about the f-ing gameplay. That is not fair to every dev. Some ppl have budgets, and time frames for games. If you have $10 mill and 18 months that's all you have. You can spend time fighting code and not doing other things like working on features and game play components then you could have trash. Either you delay or you ship and feed your family. I'm not pointing fingers or justifying anyone but it is what it is. M$ is a software company so dev tools should be their strong point. Sony is a electronics company so hardware is their strong point. It's about hardware, software, and services and I don't care who wins this race I just want to game. I don't want to watch movies, DL movies, do folding, surf the web, get a Mii channel, walk in virtual home, scroll bashboard blades, watch IP TV, or buy picture packs.
...that will INSURE such a trend will continue. Nice going, Jack-ass Tretton. This is why HAZE will only be a TIMED exclusive for the PS3, and will end up being better on the 360 and PC, with the extra dev time. Isn't that what you Sony fangirls always say? :o
Developing a PS3 game is quite an expensive undertaking, especially with each dev kit costing $30,000 (which is ridiculous) so developers must be able to cut costs wherever possible. Since the PP3 install base is very low at this point it is not entirely economically feasible to make a better PS3 version of a cross platform game. Why should EA spend the money to get those 60fps out of the PS3 hardware for madden 2008 when they will not sell enough copies to account for that added cost? Keep in mind that just because the PS3 had "five million" PS3s sold that they will not sell five million copies of even hit games, such as Madden; the sell through rate of each game goes up considerably the bigger the system install base.
Even if he doesn't explicitly state it, it is the 3rd parties' laziness which results in subpar PS3 versions - not like The Darkness, Oblivion, DiRT, R6 Vegas where the PS3 version is better, but like the rest. Sony's first party is completely unrivaled right now. They have the most impressive lineup of games ever seen. Graphically and technically unstoppable. Now Sony can share the tools with 3rd party devs and they can create better games with PS3 as the lead platform, which many will continue to do. It seems it was PS3's architecture, and the easiness of porting from PS3->360 which won this fight. Sorry 360, your time as the lead console, even with more market share, is up. EA's Madden 09 is meant to be PS3 lead. EDIT: I mean PS3 is the lead platform, not Madden is a system seller. Also, the GPU is obviously not underpowered (in response to above) when Sony has Killzone 2 pre-alpha beating everything right up there with R&C, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword and Lair. The top 5 best (and probably beyond) looking games we've seen are 1st party PS3 games. And they're technical marvels - draw distance, animations, same detail at both macro and micro levels etc etc. And people keep saying it's only possible on PS3. I think for sure after E3 even the hardest Xbots will have to accept PS3 is superior, and there IS a difference when the hardware is utilised, even at ~40% like Uncharted. And the scary thing is, these, apart from KZ2, will all be out before PS3 is one year old.