And you really don't have the ability to tell the difference between the company who made UE3 being able to use it better than another company that has no experience using it? 

There's a disturbing trend of people using very poor logic on this site.  I'm calling BS that you could be naive enough to even think what you said made any bit of sense.     

Thank you Deviation.

Unreal 3 (the game) uses Unreal engine, correct? There's no problem with it, dev team is just lazy sometimes.

I wouldn't say they are lazy neccessarily. GI had a blurb recently about Epic being sued by third party developers over their lack of support. Basically Epic can optimize the hell out of UE3 for their own purposes and leaves the third parties hanging which is upsetting some developers.

I applaud you sir.  I wanted to quote this and bold part of it so that people could see the flaws in their logic, but then I'd really have to bold the whole thing.

So I guess I'll just leave this in bold: Epic has previously been served lawsuits for not providing support to the licensees of Unreal Engine. 

It is their fault that a number of games are being hung up in development because they don't provide the services they are contractually obligated to and they keep their best software developments to themselves until their own games use it, thus preventing anyone else from making nearly as good of a game for at least another 12 months.

Epic is not only making it difficult to use their engine (a process which is supposed to make it easier to build a game) but they are also ensuring that their competition produces lower quality games.  In essence, they are robbing their corporate customers and the gaming community as a whole.

Why does saying that make me naive about anything?  If it was the fault of a poorly-made engine, there wouldn't be dozens off games out (both now and in future) that use it without a hitch.  As is common knowledge, Epic licenses their Unreal Engines to dozens of developers.  Gears of War uses it (yes, I know that was made by Epic also), many of the recent Tom Clancy games use it, as do many others, and most of them are highly acclaimed.  Hell, even an unnannounced Wii game is going to be using it, so devs shouldn't have ANY problem getting it to run on the mighty PS3.

Silicon Knights and THQ are the only two complaining, so I stand by my statement of "I'm calling BS on that because UT3 uses the UE3 (lol) and runs perfectly smoothly on PS3."

By the way, I'm not a Sony fanboy.  If anything, you can call me the exact opposite.

@ChichiriMuyo: Answer me this, then: Why is the game running fine on the 360 and PC but not PS3?  I'm assuming they're using the same engine...

I didn't know it was just for the ps3 engine. Didn't Silicon Knights have a lot of trouble with the UE3, causing too human to be delayed?

And herein lies your problem.  The version of Unreal Engine that Epic used for UT3 on PS3 was not made available to the licensees until very recently, meaning the game in question is not very likely at all to be running on the same engine.  In fact, given the past lawsuit against them (assuming they haven't changed their ways) it's almost guarenteed that the version Epic used and the version they licensed to THQ are worlds apart in functionality.

I could be wrong but isn't Turok a licensed UE3 game? It came out, though its not doing so good with the critics, currently a 71% rating but it mostly because of its bad story and shallow gameplay.

I don't understand why people keep implying developers are "lazy". Game dev is one of the hardest industries to get into, meaning in general they are more talented and driven than other devs, not less.

I'd like to see all you people calling them lazy last through even one project with the schedule those people keeep.