Streaming game engines would theoretically be possible on either console, but in reality are difficult and costly to implement. Furthermore, please stop for a moment and consider what you just said. You just faulted each and every developer that has questioned the PS3's memory and frame-rate issues. Due to the glorious anonymity of the internet we don't know who you are or what you do, but I supremely doubt that you are in a position to usurp the intelligence of each of these developers with regards to the PS3's technical capabilities (unless of course my Sony-employee joke was actually true, but then we would encounter the issues of bias and credibility).
As for the SPE's, greater numbers of game developers are now questioning their ability to add to a game's technical quality. Common complaints include the extraordinary amount of to and fro that has to go on before data gets to post-processing and the limitation of having only one core processor to co-ordinate the efforts of the SPE's, as opposed to the three Xbox 360 cores working in tandem to create six separate processing threads.
At the end of the day Sony has included two primary products in the PS3 hoping to boost them in markets OTHER than the games industry by increasing their exposure and economies of scale (Blu-Ray and CELL). In doing so, they have created a machine that is not optomised for gaming, with my personal opinion being they thought they'd get away with it due to their previous consoles dominance.
And to address your earlier comment that Blu-Ray allows the streaming of more data than DVD (you were discussing memory, so I assume you meant simultaneously rather than 50gb to 9gb), the Xbox 360's DVD read speed can be optomised to 16X, whereas the PS3's BLu-Ray drive can only be optomised to 2X. It is true that these speeds are measured on different scales, but tests have indicated that actual streaming speeds range from a slight Xbox 360 advantage, to relative comparability.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
