I don't think there are any other games that are PS3 or 360 exclusive. Infact EA seems to hit up every console(or just about) with each of their games. Which makes it even dumber for them to put the blame on the failures of the PS3. My point was that it gave no exclusive support or content to the PS3, which makes one wonder about their comment of picking PS3 to be in first, yet showing absolutely no special treatment to back up such a comment.  I agree the games I chose were not the best examples but they are the only thing that really differentiates EA's support between the PS3 and the 360. I do agree that porting the Orange box is a sign of supporting the PS3, but really it's just a half assed catch up job to try to balance out an advantage that the 360 already had from Valve. 

With being the publisher of big 360 exclusives, regardless of who controls the IP, it would seem they have more eggs in the MS basket than the PS3. Yet they still blame the PS3. Also the quote may be admitting some guilt but if you pay attention to it what it's really saying is "we made a mistake, but it really wasnt our fault, the PS3 fucked up worse and it's their fault" Instead of saying "we failed to realize the potential of the Wii" they chose to say "We failed cuz the PS3 failed"

Edit: the guy's actual quotes really arent that bad. I guess reading the posts after it kind of painted a different picture in my head. He is actually right for the most part. Though the 360 may be just as much as a failure as the PS3 in terms of EA developed games, the fact that they probably didnt bank on the 360 being that much of a winner to begin with didn't hurt them as much. Infact the 360 probably exceeded their expectations from what they were before this generation got started. So that is probably why they mentioned only the PS3's failure and the Wii's surpirse dominance and don't mention the 360 as part of the reason. Either way I still stand by my opinion that the majority of the reason why they failed is not because of the consoles they chose but because of the games they developed for them. 

Lol, thanks for that extremely shallow and hateful reply. Really added much insight to this topic.

Ofcrouse you were like 2 when Sega was at its prime so what would you know? Not much as demonstrated by this post...

Well the way their CEO is speaking there seems like Sony is to blame for EA losses. Since they cut off sega due to their losses with the saturn, it would be logical for the crappy publisher to start cutting off the sony resources that are so precious to their revenue statements.

EA are a bunch of wankers if you ask me...

Normally I'd agree, but since their games this gen have actually been worthy of a purchase (!!!), I gotta disagree.

Sorry old timer, can't change when I was born. All I can do is look back at the history and see how poorly Sega did. Playstation 1 sold more units then all Sega consoles combined, that's gotta tell ya something.