I'd look at this another way. Devs have always grumbled at lack of HDD on 360. While they've gumbled about Cell etc. too they've always praised HDD on PS3.
Developers like idea of installing. The bottom line is that most would seem to se an install as the best option for performance (over streaming from physical media). With PS3 as Sony does not require them to make installs optional or set a limit of how much can be installed, they are free to take the install option if they want, avoid having to optimise data storage on the disk and claim faster load times. Sound like DMC4 on PS3 anyone?
For DMC4 on 360 they had to stream as the console denied them the install option. I have no doubt looking at Uncharted that DMC4 could run without install on PS3 as well, assuming the data was optimised on the BR Disk, with only fairly minor slowdown of loads (probably in line with 360).
Many see a console game as being plug and play - so using installs on PS3 has not been overall popular with gamers. And the HDD in PS3 is too small to cater to a lot of 5 to 6 GB installs. So I do see a problem here. It's not PS3 specifically (as fanboys would like to target) so much as developers having a choice that suits them and taking it.
I think Sony needs to set an upper limit on installs or even set a locked limit for temporary caches - i.e. the OS keeps say 2GB (should be plenty for most games) free for games to cache to as you play them then deletes cache when you stop playing - either that or admit that there's probably little real cost (given HDD prices today) jumping the standard HDD up to 120 GB and offering consumers with older HDDs a trade in.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
