The short answer is yes.

Long answer is quite complex and it'll end up with pages of off topic talk but I'll try for you.  The 360 architecture design is still very similar to that of a PC which makes development quite simple.  The PS3 architecture is different because a large amount of its power is contained within the Cell and not the GPU.  Most game engines are built with the PC style balanced architecture in mind so they put the graphics load on the GPU and all other threads such as AI, physics, etc are handled by the CPU.  The problem with this method is on the PS3 you end up with a CPU that isn't being taxed at all and a GPU that is getting bogged down because it cannot process as fast as the 360 or PC versions.  This ends up with sacrifices being made usually to get the PS3 version "good enough" (as happened to the 360 version of FFXIII).

Instead of rewriting game engines to offset graphical work to the SPE's (very costly), most developers save their budgets and compromise the quality of the PS3 version.  Easy ways to increase performance are to drop resolution, reduce texture quality (saves memory bandwidth), reduce AA quality (or disbale it), remove some effects.

As I said its quite a complex answer to such a simple question and I could probably write pages upon the subject.  If you look at the PS3 exclusives we know the hardware is at least as good, probably more powerful than the 360 as a whole.  If we look at multiplatform games then in general the 360 looks the stronger machine.  Having the 360 as  lead platform usually ends up with the 360 looking noticably better, when the PS3 is lead they look identical or the PS3 marginally better (FFXIII is the big exception here).  I don't like the term lazy devs people use on here as it doesn't take into consideration why developers do not have the tools to improve the PS3 developments.

Actually their problems were more fundamental than that. There was no winning solution for this generation because Sony never really knew how to maintain their position. Hindsight is golden with regards to simple simulations because if you change one factor then the other factors fall in line, say, had you crossed the street 2 seconds before you wouldn't have broken your leg. With more complicated solutions its impossible to say that had they done X differently to factor in Y that a new factor Z would not have bitten them in the butt even more.

My suspicion is that Sony were clueless as to how to maintain a console business. They thought they knew, but success only reinforced the problematic beliefs they had and they only way they would have learnt from these mistakes is to get a bloody nose. What they know now that the Wii etc has kicked them onto their butt is a different story from what they knew back in 2004. The fundamental combination of arrogance and ignorance would not have changed without Sony first experiencing defeat. This horse cannot come before the cart.

Btw they spent several billion dollars on the Cell and their fabrication facilities to get them up to snuff before selling them for a pittance to Toshiba. They Cell has definately not been good to them.

Hilarious thread. Sony would have definitely made it out better, though I don't agree with the 360 part. The remaining HD console would still be in a healthy position today.

There's no doubt that the PS3 has influenced the 360 in terms of game development, however most of its hit games today would have still seen releases. If there was no PS3, this would simply mean that they'd be PC / X360 titles. Games like Bioshock, Fallout, and Oblivion would never arrive on a Sony console. Multiplats like Madden, Fifa and PES would quickly see its highest sales on the 360, due to XBL and HD graphics.

Oh, of course. There's also Modern Warfare 1 & 2. These games would have murdered the PS2.

Although some games' existence come into question in this scenario (Assassin's Creed, GTAIV, RE5, FFXIII, etc), no matter how I see it, Sony would have needed a new console by 2009 at the latest. I guess it would have released in time for Modern Warfare 2, and alongside the Move (as they would have the freedom to react quicker to the Wii). Since the console would actually release with good games, motion controls (I know.), competitive online, and at a reasonable price, it would have launched to respectable sales.

That's what I'm saying!  I think...

They read the market wrong and didn't know how best to proceed themselves, getting overly focused in the tech of the Cell and BR rather than really looking at trends and what was changing in the industry.  I think it didn't help they also ended up confused around how to market and position the PS3 either.  I think Ken knew what he was delivering in his mind, but the company clearly wasn't sure how to translate that.  Games console?  Multi-media entertainment hub?  Blu Ray player?  What was it?  The Wii and 360 both benefited I felt from a clear strategy and clarity of marketing.

Wii went Blue Ocean but knowingly so.  360 went after online and capturing more PC orientated players while courting third party developers big time.