Seems to me EA made the proper choice. The game was probably designed for the PC from the ground up and converting a PC centric engine to the PS3 is not easy. It's easier to port one to the Xbox 360, albeit with the usual loss of graphics fidelity (not that I really note such things at the distance I'm sitting from my HDTV).

I'd rather that they didn't release anything over a half-baked port any day.

Besides... It should be rather clear by now that the PS3, while not always easy to develop for, can host stunning games. All in all, it's a bit of a non-issue for me.

"This site is brought to by; PLAY - The UK's longest running PlayStation Magazine "

LOL...

BTW

"And being and "exotic" system to develop for implies the potential of the console itself for the long run. Maybe the "10 year" lifespan of the PS3 might have more validity."

Thats not true, that only says is a not-so-common and hard system to develop for...

I don't think that was disolitude's point. I'm a low poster myself, and yeah, I'had been following the site long before I sign up, BUT, I 'm still careful and aware of who I'm gonna bash and attack. The number of the posts is the most objective yet superficial way for someone to picture how well a user knows the site and its users. There are users who piss me off ALL the time, but I respect the fact that they spend hours and hours more in this site, and the mods tolerate them. So, what exactly is my authority so I can judge them? And furthermore, when their comments or threads have a point and are rational like gebx's. I mean, come on, he states the obvious!

To the console RTS haters. Come on guys... You never tried it, did you? C&C3 and Kanes Wrath are almost masterpieces in their field and the 360 versions, are what a RTS lover with a crappy PC would have dreamed of...

So let me sum up. Most PS3 fans reacted in one or more of the following ways:

1- Attacking gebx.
2- Acting as if this is a compliment to the PS3.
3- Acting as if developers are to blame for the PS3 being a hard architecture.

Geez, this thread went down the crapper really fast.

There are a lot of baseless anti-Sony or anti-PS3 threads made and justly complained about. But you lose credibility in complaining about those when you overreact in harmless threads as many have done here. Frankly I find it interesting to know why we are being denied a version of this game.

The answer seems to be that EALA is incapable of developing on PS3 by their own admission, which suggests they are a developer of weak pedigree.

Do you remember the "PS3 is a monster machine" thread???

"We started to work on Metal Gear Solid 4 four years ago, after finishing Metal Gear Solid 3," said Kojima-san. "At that time we really didn't know what the PS3 was going to be like, so the first two years was all about experimenting, developing and trial and error."

"In the last two years, we've known what the PS3 is capable of, the specifications of it and how we can utilise it," he continued. "PS3 is a monster machine. That's why it took so much time to create Metal Gear Solid 4."

@ FJ-Warez

More cherry picking, I see...  Let's not forget this phrase "and for once better looking than the 360 version" so a PlayStation mag has regconized that there have been better looking 360 multi-platform games. And when the truth is the truth, it doesn't matter who's reporting it, validating my point even further.

That one was also great. Actually that one was even better, since the criticism was much more disguised.

What the hell did you think would happen?

"Damn, talk about breaking news, I had no idea the PS3 was hard to develop for! I guess that means less games/more delays for me. My PS3 is going straight up on ebay!"

Lol, your only way to try to save your poor argument is this??? Choosing a PS mag... keep bring it on the truth about the PS come on...