Bioshock still runs better on the Xbox 360, and you got it one year sooner as well.

I know, im tired of it.

generally rushed games i think you mean.

thats likely microsoft pushing strings, i really don't thing L4d 2 is needed less than a year after one game hit but 360 needed games.

Well I agree with you 100%.(except about the orage box)Especially about Vesperia.Maybe it isnt logical I guess,but its just pisses me off I bought Vesperia loved everyminute of it and did just about everything in the game just to get terrible news.I thought wow if there was just anything else to do,then bam...the ps3 version hits with a new character and twice the plot(or was it twice the quests and new costumes?).I think I might be the only that agrees with you cuz most of the games is either a small change or its a game that ppl dont really care for,or they have the mentality that "oh we got it a year early so it dont matter".Before anyone says i hate the ps3 or somethng that isnt the case,its just all games if ported should 100% equal.

The question is loaded with incorrect terminology. Beta testing is definitely not post production. It is a process that takes place near the end of production, and it is to test for coding errors, and to afford a developer feedback on product. Now if you want to see a company that actually charges for beta testing their games look no further then Sony. Their online gaming division is notorious for releasing broken products and charging for them while they promise to repair them. Thankfully this does not happen in console gaming. Say what you will about console gamers, but they have no tolerance for these shenanigans.

The correct question is are you upset with the 360 getting the first run of a game. While the PS3 gets it months or years later with some additional content. To that question I give a emphatic no.
I abhor waiting in lines, and if the extra time results in a moderately better product. I will confess I would rather have the minimally less refined product now rather then wait a year. To me the added tenth of a point in the review is not something I am willing to put my gaming pallet on a year long hold for.

While the next guy gets a modestly better game. I will get the next game that is getting its own first run. The real difference is that I am getting more, and waiting less. I am a first in line kind of guy, and as far as gaming to me more is usually better. I know some want to spin the delay as some kind of positive, but the delay is just not worth it. Perhaps if a eighty hour game suddenly becomes a one hundred and fifty hour game. Then yeah I could see the argument, but a few more hours. Honestly I am just not that hard up.

Speaking to the PS3 it has been a real nut buster, and I have seen it busting nuts all over these forums for years. The problem being that the PS3 has lagged in library for so long that the wait really is leaving the player hard up. Would be a different matter if there were ample offerings, but there weren't. I think everyone concerned would have preferred a first day Bioshock to waiting a year, and making due with Haze. When you need waiting just isn't a option.

This.  It's got nothing to do with the 360 being a 'beta' system.  When they decide to make a new version of a game later on, they need new content or features in the hopes of selling again to people who've already bought it and not looking like a cheap port.

i only agree with your assertion regarding Eternal Sonata. im not really sure that the 10 people that bought it mind though.

Read my answer on the bottom of the first page.

I... I'm nonplussed.

BioShock? The Orange Box?  This is a joke, right?

Have you seen all the quotes from developers who say the PS3 is harder to program for?  Hell, just check out the quote from the Sony dude in my sig.

If the "finished product" is on the PS3, why do all the comparisons by sites like Eurogamer say the 360 has the better version?  And that's the case for almost every multiplatform console game.