All systems put out better content further into the lifespan as developers learn the techniques and quirks to make games run/play/look better. This'll be true for all the current consoles. Games ought to get better as the years pass. I don't see why the 360 would be any different.

No he said graphics, Did you read the links

Here is another

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/xbox-three-sixty3.htm

 Oh really? How about you learn2read?

 "PS3 is not as powerful as the 360 in terms of graphics, shader structure, memory allocation and architecture, and utilization of processing power"

 EDIT:

I do not need to read the links... I know all these articles (they all biased one way or the other) but I also know the architectures of both. And like I said, time will prove me right.

You are being ignorant.

The ps3 can do more poly but the 360 will do better with the textures.

It really doesn't matter, this gens big titles will be multiplat.

This same thing occured last generation but in reverse, games could have been tuned specially for the xbox but most developers chose to save time and money and make virtually the same game for both systems.

No way the XBox 360 has reached its full potential, in two years time it will reach its full potential.

 I doubt that we will ever see all of that untapped potential. Just like a quad SLI setup won't be seeing all of the 3-4 Terraflops of shader power. Developers, even for exclusive games go for the low hanging fruit. It doesn't make business sense to spend a disproportionate amount of $$$ on development especially when constrained by limiting yourself to half or less of your potential market. Even making $10 per game, the difference between 3,000,000 and 5,000,000 sales is $20 million in revenue. It would have to be one hell of a cheque to then go and spend MORE to develop a game like that to sell to FEWER people. There are advantages, such as platform specific libraries.. but to do this you have to spend more money designing an engine. The UE3's of this world, even on exclusive games aren't going to get you to where you want to go to pull out that untapped power. Then you have to spend MORE time developing your IP, for fewer customers so your developers aren't going to produce you as many games over a given span of years against cross platform development.  Developers can see COD4, which has sold over 8 million copies between the platforms, compare that to Uncharted/Devil May Cry, consider how many people bought the Wii which has MUCH lower quality graphics and the smart business sense for most publishers without huge name franchises to their name to go generic, identical engine, multi-plat. GT5, FFXIII, MGS4 are exceptions and probably get paid more than Free Radical on Haze to do their exclusives. 

 Big IF here, IF the Xbox360 didn't exist as a viable platform you would have millions of extra potential customers and the engines etc, would be platform specific. Then you could say that the PS3 would reach it's potential. But this isn't the PS2 generation. If you consider the Xbox is constrained by the lack of a HDD on the Arcade SKU, then the PS3; which is constrained by the Xbox to the lower common denominator is also constrained by the Xbox360 arcades' lack of a HDD.

Wow, I don't think you intended this... But it looks like you just praised Microsoft for making a GOOD console!

If they can max it out 3 years after it's been produced then I have to clap my hands together for Microsoft and really SHAKE their hands. They are WAY out ahead of the others still leaving processing power on the table! WHAT A WASTE!

Where does all this @#$% come from? In 5 years time a $25 cpu and $25 GPU will have twice the power of the PS3. If they leave that power on the table for all that time, it's because they did a BAD job. Not something to praise them for. Hell, making the Cell with 2 PPC engines and 4 SPE's (One disabled - maybe) would have been better. It would have been a more balanced and easy to program system, still able to be scaled for the Cell 2 having 2-3 PPC cores and 20+ SPE's. It was an arrogant decision seemingly borne from arrogance that the PS3 would completely dominate this generation. Furthermore all consoles have untapped potential, because there are always compromises to be made. I.E, having 1gb of system ram would be a great way to PULL OUT that untapped potential.

 Edit: Think, what if they had just put in a tri PPC core like Microsoft did and stuck a g80+1gb of ram instead of 512. You'd be playing your games at 1080p and laughing your heads off at the Xbox crowd and their dinky little GPU. 

Considering the constant advances in procedural generation, I dare say we haven't maxed the potential of any gaming system ever created!

Funny how no one's mentioned that, although the Xbox came out a year later than the PS2, its' games uniformly looked INFINITELY better.