Cause they aren't dealing with the mess that was figuring the in and outs of the CELL processor.

the power gap is too big, architectures too similar and resolution easily scales to hardware. That and there is no incentives for the developers to deliberately limit one platform, it's not like in the previous generation where the PS3 was more powerful but required a lot more work to even get the same level of performance as the X360.

I was wondering that too, clearly that would be a solution to make everyone happy?

New gen, new rules. Microsoft isn't in a strong enough position to demand that right now.

This is regarding arcade/indie/etc content, and when they say parity, they say content, as in they wont publish titles that have exclusive content on psn.

parity on content is not parity on resolution of graphical capability.

Because Sony isn't launching late and behind. MS can't demand anything when they'll be behind from the start. E3 was the Red Wedding for MS. Nintendo was the Freys and Sony was Roose Bolton.

Since the consoles are so similar and its easy for the devs to increase the preformance of one I don't see any reason why they would gimp one version because they would use the surperior version for marketing to show how good the game looks.

Clearly it was nobodys job to educate you either, your linked article is in reference to the xbox 360 and two years old, everything else since then has simply been a rumor.

Perhaps rethink your actions next time before you churn out outdated articles with no relation to a topic, then flippantly suggest "googling" when you are quite rightly called out about it.

Maybe moneyhatting a publisher for parity was just not worth it for Microsoft this time, they seem to be relying on the features of their console and their launch lineup: even Xbox fans don't seem to care about the specs or graphical dissimilarities at all.