Yep, I agree.

I thought that Midway was broken since some years ago... oh wait, that was Acclaim...

Maybe because everyone was expecting so much more from PS3, who knows 

What Fazz said. The PS3 was supposed to dominate, it isn't doing so. Furthermore, its attach rate is noticably lower than the 360's was at this point in its lifespan. However, I do agree that companies like EA are using the PS3 as a scapegoat for poor performance. 

The concern is the 360 didn't have the Wii and er... the 360 around selling 3rd party titles much better. No 3rd party game has even been able to come close to 500,000 units sold on the PS3. That's really scary. If the PS3 can't push any 3rd party titles at all, why would they keep developing games for it?

Killzone3 mentioned up there that the PS3 being bad for 3rd parties made the Wii a disaster, but 3rd party software sales are 3-4 times higher on the Wii. Developers SHOULD be worried about the PS3. It's nearing 4 million consoles sold and they haven't even had their best games break 500,000 units. If I was in charge of these 3rd parties you can bet all my remaining development effort for the generation would be on the 360 and the Wii.

Is it just me or does Killzone 3 seem alot like blue3 to any of you?

On topic: just add this developer to the list.

Well arent you captain obvious. I said it a month ago, but on topic they should be concerned they're the one's making money, and why bother realesing a ps3 version if it sells very bad?

i'm captian semi obvious. if more people believed everyone would be screaming murder by now.

But congratulations on your keen eye.

Why does everyone always say that PS3 is doing good for this point in its life?  It's not.  It is 5.8 M down the Wii and selling significantly worse than the Wii.  And it's 6.4 M down from the 360 and its barely selling better than 360 which is dead in the water in Japan. 

If you look at life in a vaccuum, then yes PS3 isn't selling horrible.  It costs $500, it's only been out 8.5 months, the big games haven't hit yet.  But life isn't in a vaccuum.

 It's competing against the Wii, which has the low price advantage, and a unique selling point with the motion controls.  No way the PS3 will ever catch it.

 It's competing against the 360 with the exact same business plan.  More power equals better games.  But they are a year late to the party, cost too much, and don't have the quantity/quality of games that the 360 does at this point in time. 

The 360 started the nex-gen war by starting a year early and not becoming a failure like the DreamCast.  As such, it gives them a huge advantage with games and price point.  As such, it's an easy business decision.  You can argue that the Wii has different gamers and some games would sell better on the PS3.  But I'd like someone to put a cohesive argument why a high profile game would sell better on the PS3 instead of the Xbox 360. 

I have one requirement, it has to be high profile.  This eliminates Japan only games and the occasional bone game, i.e. Playstation owners have fewer games so they may pick up an average game at a higher rate than 360 owners which have 10 equivalent games to pick from. 

If you're making a NextGen game at a cost of $10-20 million it is difficult to justify not making it available on every platform possible.

Though companies are concerned, I think this will only effect exclusive content and not the major 3rd party games that cost too much to recoup from just one platform.