Are you honestly insinuating that John Carmack doesn't know how to develop games on the PS3? From a purely technical stand point he's EASILY one of the world's greatest and most knowledgable when it comes to architecture, resorces, game engines, codeing, etc.  Trust me he knows how to work a PS3 inside and out, its childs play compared to some of the super high end PC programming.

Did you ever think that he just maybe prefers the 360 because he thinks its the better platform?  He's far from the only one just like there's plenty who prefer the PS3.  Its simply his opinion.

This could be the reason

"...the only thing Sony has going for them over the 360, is the data storage on the blu-ray..."

"...the only real advantage that the PS3 has over the 360, from our point of view, is the extra space."

"Yeah, I mean that's our position that it's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is a better platform to develop for. When you get down into actual comparisons on the hardware performance characteristics, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. On almost anything on the strictly graphical side, in terms of pushing vertexes and triangles on there, the 360 hardware is superior to the PS3's RSX on there."

"On the processing side it's a little bit more complicated, where the main processor on the PS3 is roughly equivalent to one of the three processors on the 360. But then you wind up saying, you have to compare two other symmetric processors on the 360 versus the eight quirky cell processors. And that comes down to one of those questions, where if you just look at the raw numbers, the cells are much more powerful. Many more flops on there, in theory you can do a lot more, but that's where you come to the difference between theory and practice. And given an infinite amount of development time on there, you can craft a program that's gonna work more efficiently on the cells there than on two additional processors on the 360. But given a finite amount of development time, it's much-much easier to get things working well on the 360 than it is on the PS3. And that's pretty much the case across the board."

"And the other major difference is the memory partitioning. Where they're both 512mb machines, but on the PS3 it's partitioned into 256mb of video and 256mb of main. And one of the biggest things that Sony does poorly for developers is their system stuff sucks up a lot more resources than it does, than Microsoft's does on the 360. So memory is much more painful on the PS3. We spend a lot more time trying to crunch down the memory for that..."

"...and we're trying to say pretty plainly that this is going to be the one thing that the PS3 version is gonna be better at, and in fact it's almost the worst sort of thing for Microsoft there because we are having to work twice as hard on the PS3 to bring it up to spec. But in the end it's going to be 60fps game, and it's going to wind up looking just like the 360, we just had to sweat lot more for it. And if it winds up getting a benefit because of the blu-ray and having the better compression on there, then it's going to wind up looking like the PS3 was the better machine, even though it really wasn't..."

With Carmack being a PC game God, I think that his preference is only natural.

I thought he preferred OPEN GL

Can't argue with the man. I do wonder how the playing field feels for devs who already have working systems on both consoles i.e those who already have perfectly running engines for both consoles because the ps3 issue seems more like a 1st game/startup issue primarily than a long term one. It can even be seen by monitoring release timeframes of sony's in-house studios as well

He changed after DirectX 10.

He was just being nice.

LOL OP took out the "maybe" in the quote just to have a long thread. Touche dude.

misleading thread title is misleading