@SPartanFX

wow....I didn't know that

I guess EU & their Football madness & NFS madness helped!

@starcraft
I menioned EA's earning cause this game is published by EA,,,so they are less likely to scrap their revenue on one of 'their' top game selling consoles

their last quarter top revenue on the consoles:

1-PS2 - 166 million

2-PS3- 152million

3-360-128million

4-wii- 75 million

5-PSP- 69 million

MS should have locked this junk up way back in the day. ME 1 will never, eva see the light of day on the PS3 though.

@madskillz

it might ,,,just go and see who published ME1 on PC ,,,,yea ,it's EA not MS,,,which means ME is not owned by MS

Don't get it twisted, when EA does something full heartidly their developers can express some insane talent, they don't get enough credit for this.

But yea EA sucks over all as the franchises they do market suck so freakn hard.

If they stopped releasing so many darn games and refined their unique games, that rep they have developed could be killed... it's not like EA is as bad as Sega is... where some people wish they could forget that they exist... or are still making games.

I personally don't mind Sega game cases... but I automatically don't buy them if it sais Sega on it... I learned my lesson well with NiGHTs.

But do those figures take account of the fact that in many parts of the world (like here in Australia for instance), PS3 games are generally more expensive than Xbox 360 games.

Do those figures factor in profit?  Something that is diminished on the PS3 due to high development costs?  Somehow I doubt it. 

But thats just it.  Microsoft DID have the publishing rights to ME on PC.  Now do you honestly think they gave them up for nothing?

Or do you realize its more likely they got something in return.........

 Porting the game would have little impact on development costs (I've heard 10-20% added costs, or something like that), so I don't really see how they'd make less on each ps3 version sold.

In the end asset creation, gameplay design, etc. would cost the same as it did originally, but the costs would be divided between development on two systems instead of one.