Because 360 has been out for much longer that meaning the dev kits have been out a hell of alot longer then PS3 dev kits. So hard ?

Because 3rd party companies like to make money. If any of these games turn a profit it's going to be from 360 sales.

Ken Kutaragi saying that GTAIV didn't matter and that was followed by Jack Tretton saying that the game will have no impact on the PS3 anyway had a lot to do with Rockstar doing that.

Sony totally disrespected Rockstar and got what they deserved as a result. Sony could have had timed exclusive if they paid up and didn't mouth off..... but no.

That may be true. I do think that rockstar had a genuine affinity for Sony, and that could actually have hurt. Its a bit like Square Enix's fondness for Sony. It's rare to find non-finance based company-to-company loyalty from a US firm, but if anyone of them had it, Rockstar did.

Sony treat Square Enix and Konami WAY better then any other 3rd party company. Atlus and Level 5 are the another companies that Sony are very fond off. Notice they are all Jananese? But I won't go there...

To Sony's credit they did eat some humble pie earlier this year and scored a couple of R* exclusive games. LA Noire and a unannounced new IP game. So I do think Ken Kutaragi had a lot to do with R* and Sony falling out, I mean Ken Kutaragi is an arrogant ***hole, he really is. Jack Tretton is an arrogant ***hole as well, but unfortantely for Jack he is even dumber then Ken.

Phil Harrison had to negioate the games from R* which says it all about Tretton's leadership skills.

leo-j, why don't you save your money for an X360? Don't buy a PS3, it simply isn't so über as you think.

From a development point of view, its a lot easier to develop these games on PC. I wouldn't be surprised if GTA & Assassins Creed both hit the PC in the future as well.

And the 360 architecture is much closer to a PC (if not identical), so it makes sense to lead development on PC/360 - then port (by writing a PS3 engine) to the PS3 during the development process.

You can be assured that the majority of game assets, game code, scripting (etc..) will be identical across all platforms.

Wow last I heard Assassin's creed was slated for the PC same time as console release, but apparently it was pushed back to 2008.

All of the comments make sense for why they are using the 360 as a lead platform.
It will just take time for companies to develop games for the PS3 for many reasons and it all does come back to $$

The thing is, In theory anyways, the PS3 can handle any game that is developed for the 360 where as If a game is developed and optimized for the PS3, it cannot necessarily be ported to the 360 with as much success.

Which really hurts the gamers, but as time progresses, so will the sole development on particular games for the PS3.

How are you people still making ass's of your selfs ? 360 dev kits were out way sooner then PS3 ones, thus common sense = they started working on the 360 version then ported to the PS3.

Funny thing is its easier to make a game on PS3 then port to the 360 but if they go nuts the 360 version will be inferior due to Ps3 power advantage. Some donw want that so DMC is being created equal, exact same thing on both consoles. While PS3 is lead platform for Burnout and the PS3 version is superior to the 360s, even the developers said so. Of course 360 has a bigger install base, and that is why EA said 360 is lead for their game development.

Its a pain in the ass mess.