id and Epic were the big ones, in my book, since they've always pushed the envelope. You could include Blizzard as well, since their games are always very technically sound, but they're too big and far too even headed to say something negative about the PS3.

It's also worth noting that less-well-respected developers have been having the same problem: they can't get the PS3 version of a game to be on par with the Xbox 360 version. The most obvious example of this was Madden '08, but it can be seen in a lot of other games also.

The Cell isn't very well suited toward games and that's why devs are complaining, that's why we're seeing crappy ports, and that's why 360 games have typically run better than PS3 games.  I don't understand why so many people are unwilling to accept this fact.

OUCH!

Last I heard, several levels of Unreal Tournamet 3 had to be removed from the PS3 version because the PS3 did not have the resources to run them well.

 Mark rein said that those maps had been put back into the PS3 version.

For all the Sony fan boys, here is a summary of what Gabe said in the interview (and I don't think he hates PS3):

He explained that when he expressed a negative outlook on the 360's architecture everything was about super fast single cores. But as time went on, Intel shifted her focus to multi-core, and the 360 was released. And so learning to use more than one core was important now, because it would not only benefit the 360 but it was applicable to PC gaming going forward. So the months they spent working on 360 was just as beneficial to PC development and future development. Learning to use multi-core CPUs is something that had to be done since Intel and AMD both are pushing in that direction.

On the other hand, he was just as negative about the PS3, the problem is, it does not make business sense for him and his team to take the time to learn how to program games for PS3. They could be working on new games, or doing other things, rather than spending months on end adapting to an architecture that right now and for the foreseeable future is and will only be in the PS3. This is especially true when you consider PS3 install base, and the fact that not all of that small number is PS3 exclusive customers. It is like asking if they want to invest 6 months for 2 million possible customers, or 6 months for 30 million possible customers (PC and 360 development go hand in hand).

I believe they are delaying UT3 for the PS3 and putting the levels back in.

[edit] Saiyar beat me to it :P

The Cell is a great processor, no doubt about that... But is it a great processor for making games with?

That's the question which Sony should have researched better IMO.

Wow, did you guys read what he said?

People need to stop looking at this as some sort of pissing match he has with Sony, its just not the case. He is a vocal guy and he states his opinions flat out. He isn't saying the PS3 is weak or it sucks, he just doesn't feel like investing in its architecture because he focuses his companies current products in areas that will prepare them for what he believes the future architectures will bring.

This is absolutely no different than Epic saying its not worth it to write an engine for the Wii. Basically he is saying that with the PS2 it was worth it to learn the architecture because of the market you tapped into. But with the PS3 the market is not significant enough to warrant another sidetrack to Sony Land. When it boils down to it, their are standards in hardware for a reason and you need to have damn good reasons to go outside of those standards or people are not likely to follow you regardless of how good you think it might be. Companies need to see the benefits of forging this new path with Sony and some see it and some don't. Same damn thing as Epic, just reversed is all.

Sony researched it fine, but they originally intended to give it a dual core CPU in addition to the SPEs. The cost of the PS3 was prohibitive, so they cut whatever they could from the system and they decided that was one thing to be cut. They knew it would be an issue, because the Cell's SPEs are very clearly not suited well toward the majority of algorithms game engines employ (I'm talking AI, phsyics, collusion detection, animation, rendering, etc) -- they do need good floating point performance, but they also need good general CPU powerformance for searches and things like that.

Sony knew the new version of the Cell wouldn't be optimal for games, but they also knew it would be valuable for embedded applications and they could still convince people it was very powerful by showing some theoretical benchmarks or best case nothing-to-do-with-games scenarios.

You have to realize that Sony started development of the Cell with its partners well before the 360 was released. They originally believed that (1) the cell would have more than one general purpose core -- and it still can -- and that (2) the 360 wouldn't be as powerful as it is. Sony is no stranger to esoteric architectures, but this is one where there isn't really a way to win. Factor 5 couldn't find it, after all.

Sony and its partners couldn't very well throw away the billions they spent developing the Cell, could they?  Like a terrible but costly CG scene in a movie (most of King Kong), they leave it in there because they had to justify the cost of it and it would be more difficult to go back and say it was a costly mistake.

exactly, this is nothing new...