dude, as far as I can tell, that's just middleware for character animation. It has nothing to do with rendering, shaders, texturing, etc that make dx10 so powerful.

Please don't link to myspace, it's hard on the eyes...

Hard on the brain too.

 Because they are. Quite simply consoles dont have and never will have the shear oomph of a modern gaming computer. There are several reasons for this, one of them being that gaming PCs are more expensive than consoles another being that they are more easily upgradable and dont need to wait five years to be upgraded but are usually continuously upgraded.  

You mean this?

"...if Crytek 'can' reach that same quality bar on the consoles, then I can't see why they wouldn't release a console version of Crysis for Xbox360 and PS3."

It doesn't mention wasting money. 

You failed to mention the part where they say:

"Crytek have many goals they would like to achieve with Crysis. Some of their goals just can't be achieved on a console."

"It's only a matter of working out how many sacrifices would need to be made to make that achievable."

And of course he mentions specifically about VRAM and RAM - and hard drives:

"...consoles do have their limitations. Crysis is a very detailed game with an enormous view distance. All that information has to be stored in a quick to reach place which is either the video ram, or the system ram. The next best thing is then the hard-drive. Unfortunately, consoles don't have much ram nor do they have a hard-drive ( which are much faster to read from than discs ). We've already seen how the simple environments in gears of war require many loading interruptions. This makes it hard to imagine how a game such as Crysis could run on a machine with so little quick access storage.

Note: As far as I'm aware, the HDD's that come with some consoles aren't used to store game data for increased performance, the majority of the loading is done from the disc."

So there. And about PC gamers thinking the PC is so much more advanced than a 360 or PS3 - well, it may not be elegantly streamlined for gaming as PCs are not specialized machines that are optimized for gaming alone, but in terms of sheer brute force and processing power, the reasons why Crysis may not be ported to consoles due to a console's inherent constraints doesn't tell you anything?

Exactly, this has nothing to do with graphics APIs. It's an animation SDK which is always done in CPU (bar anyone using a Physix card, which even then, it is only the physics part, not other motions).

Looks like it's just an SDK which allows easier animation creation... nothing really special or groundbreaking.

I heard that PS3 has an extra cell processor that games aren't even using right now, because Sony is keeping it under wraps.

The SPU's in the cell chip are little more than a less specialized version of the shaders in graphics card - aka they can't work magic.

Remember how Sony hyped the 200 Gigaflops performance of the PS3? Well, Nvida claims the 8800 hits over 500 Gigaflops. Just compare the RSX against the 8800 or 2900 and you'll see what a joke the PS3 is compared to the raw power of modern computers. Combine this with the fact that current GPUs can do things the RSX will never be able to, such as geometry shaders, and its not hard to see why Crysis looks so damn good.