If the video is running at 30fps, you wouldn't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps unless on version dips much. In fact, framerate differences are more easily "felt" in more responsive controls than they are seen. Very fast paced games like FPS games and racers make this a very huge benefit, but a game like madden will just "seem better" to many gamers if it is running at a higher framerate.

To understand the kinds of tradeoffs they may have made, here is a very simplified version of how a game engine may do things where the time delta is defined as the time from frame to frame:

(1) Process the user input over the time delta 

(2) Calculate the AI for the time delta 

(3) Calculate the physics for the time delta 

(4) Calculate the movements for the time delta 

(5) Calculate the animations for the time Delta

(6)  Perform the rendering path

Certain things must be done before others can be done -- user input must be done before phsyics, physics before movement, movement before animations, all of this before rendering, etc.  You could do many of these calculations while rendering the previous frame if you have enough available CPU cores.  Consider that you often have less than 1/2 time delta to actually perform the rendering itself.  This could be mitigated if you could do the other calculations in advance, but you still have to complete each of those steps, or each series, in less time than the delta.  So if you had enough available CPU threads, you could accomplish all of these things with a (1/2) time delta compared to if you had only one or two CPU threads.  

For a game like Madden it is a far better tradeoff than simplifying the AI or physics so I think EA made the right choice.

 yeah I care I want to kick some cowboys and colts ass with the bears lol

The Wii version of Madden does run at 60fps. In fact the only console version of Madden that runs less than 60fps is the PS3 version. The PS2/XB/GC versions of Madden have been running at 60fps for years. 

Blame the developers, publishers, or whomever all you want, but in the end, it's Sony's fault the majority of multiplatform games don't look as good. Sony should be giving them the means and reason to develop for their platform, whether that's a large userbase, an easy to code platform, or anything else, but 3rd parties are only going to put in as much time and money as it takes to get a return on their investment, and if it takes longer to develop on a platform with a small userbase, you're going to get crappy quality games from 3rd party.

 I have read this sentence "push hardware to the limit" one billion time on Internet.

Would someone care to explain me what it is meaning, precisely ? I can write in 5 mn a piece of code that uses 100% CPU time during 10 years on whatever CPU you want and makes  ... Nothing !

 As most of those who use this sentence don't understand that, how do you want them to understand the practical differences between a general purpose multi-core CPU and a distributed parallel one !!

As a pure genious like Carmack stated years ago, there is a paradygm shift in complexity of coding between mono-thread model programming and multi-thread model one.

 He was reluctant to go in this direction (you have now an idea how it is difficult) but was forced due to the fact that the whole CPU industry was aiming in this direction. Look what he succeeded to provide !

 You have to understand that there is a paradygm shift in complexity between multi-thread model to distributed parallel one !

Are the things more clearer regarding the laziness of programmers on PS3 !?

(i can continue if you want) 

At least Ubi is improving ....their Rainbow Six Vegas and GRAW2 ports are spot-on with the 360 versions .Lets hope EA follows the same path ,after all it took them 2 Madden editions to be able to run it at 60FPS as in this year edition .

In respect to the video ,I am not a great american football fan so I cant comment too much ,probably you are seeing things I dont ,but I dont see too much difference .In my eyes they are virtually the same .

Actually this year's 360 version of Madden is the first version on consoles to have 60fps.

source: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/02/1up-360-football-games-to-run-faster-than-ps3/

 yes please continue it's really interesting and instructive... I4m always up for a pice of knowledge :)

Yes the PS3 is the problem. It takes more time to get the same performance and sports games have a strict release schedule since they release on a yearly basis. They have been working on both versions since they finished up Madden 07. The Wii version of Madden 08 looks significantly better than Madden 07 and still maintains a 60fps framerate because the hardware is easier to develop on. 

As for the Baseball comparsion, its not much better than the basketball one. There are 10 players on the field in a baseball game. The hitter and the 9 players on defense. You can add to that the three umpires, a batter in the on deck circle, the crowd, and the stadium. Because of the slower pace, a baseball game is probably less intensive to render than even a basketball game.  

A simple analogy would be this:

If the 360 lets you get from point A to point B in a straight line, while the PS3 takes strange turns and paths to get from point A to point B, then it simply takes considerably longer to walk from point A to point B on the PS3 than it does on the 360. They can both get there, however.

You can blame the developers for not walking the whole distance, but you can also blame the people who designed the path in such a silly way; that would be Sony.