How is does this "show" -- being lead on the 360, it would, of course, have a good framerate on the 360... Are you saying the PS3 version shows a better framerate, because it was developed on the 360 as a lead?  Your comment makes no sense in the context of the OP. 

Squilliam...  are you so desparate to flail at something that worries you, to make illogical comments like this one?

EA's choosing the PS3 will be interesting.  The 360's (and PS3, obviously, as lead platform) game framerates may very well be even better off, starting from the more rigid architecture that the PS3 requires.  Its a great thing for everyone -- 360 owners, PS3 owners, EA's review scores, ...everyone but maybe some of the lazier devs who don't want to make their game engines the best they can be.

Man is this old, August 4th, jeez. And Gamerblorge, trash.

Huh? 360 lead, 360 more stable frame-rate. Do you want other examples of 360 lead projects with better frame-rates or are you happy to leave it at that?

I was just correcting a small error thats all.

You know why though?

Because the PS3 is hard to develop for. If the develop on the PC and port, the PS3 version would require tons of extra work to get the frame-rate, and textures up to par.

If you develop on the PS3 first, it's easy to port to the more user-friendly systems.

Anyone claiming they develop on the PS3 first because of profits or favoritism is ignorant and/or lying. Even if EA said it.

nope ps3 lead means better games for all systems

Yep, we heard you the first time.

PS3 lead platform must mean PS3 version is the best.

On the contrary, profit is exactly the reason, and you outlined that in your post.  Profit is (gross - expense), if you recall.  Dev costs/time is one of those expenses... one of the larger ones, for that matter.

The truth is that the PS3 is way too popular to ignore as a platform, and EA knows that.  The same situation plagues the Wii, with its effective cross-platform rival, the PS2.  If the PS2 didn't exist, or the Wii's numbers dwarfed it enough, Wii games would be much better (because 3rd parties could afford to make them Wii exclusive).  Its more efficient to develop on the more restrictive platform, and port to the easy one, as long as the money keeps rolling in from both.

In the PS3-lead's case, many veteran engineers have stated that adhering to the more rigid architecture of the PS3 forces a game engine down a more effective/efficient path for either platform, and makes it much easier to port (or cross-develop), to boot.

In the PS2-lead's case, its just plain easier to shovel a PS2 game onto the more powerful Wii, than the reverse -- as long as the money is there with the PS2, the Wii will suffer for it.

Oh boy another thread...But he was saying that the 360 was lead platform as it was more advanced than the PS3 version..

Ah, so true. I actually meant the argument that since PS3 makes more money for EA, they get the "privilege" of being lead platform, which is just an ignorant argument.