I keep hearing people say this, and as an FPS entusiast I wish this were true, but I'm afraid that the vast majority of FPS gamers I know are not into it for the graphics.  If this were true, Halo 2 would not have been that big of a hit as the graphics improvement over Halo 1 was marginal.

No, I'm afraid that the FPS games on the PS3 will never compete head-on with Gears or Halo because MS established the Xbox and 360 early on as the machine to have for FPS/multi-player.  Could Sony cause a shift in the next gen?  Sure, if they really go all out to make the PS4 an FPS/multi-player dream machine (meaning a groundbreaking title in play, not necessarily graphics), and MS falls asleep at the wheel with the next Xbox generation.

I know it's not all about the graphics, but this will look less dated than, say, Resistance FOM which will sit alongside it in the Platinum range. Even if it's not much, it still counts for something.

Agreed.

Sales are important as is attach rates...Sure, 360 has a larger user base than PS3 (which most didn't expect to be the case...at this point), but given the higher cost to produce a ps3 game, as compared to the 360...it's about profit margins. If a developer can make more profit, pumping out a Wii game, than a ps3 or 360 game...guess what?

Let's not have the developers will abandon PS3 stuff again - it's very unlikely at this point.

Look at combined RE5 sales or any of the big selling AAA titles over last 12 months. Given the cost of HD title development, most developers need to support both - the risks of being exclusive to either console are to great.

What we will see, particularly because of the recession, is more titles looking weaker on PS3 from smaller developers, or some developers only delivering a 360/PC version due to cost issues. We've seen this with titles like Velvet Assassin, etc.

But in the case of the above, for the most part you're talking about smaller, niche titles that will probably deliver weak sales anyway.

Both consoles will have exclusives, but for any independent developer/publisher with the current sales levels and attach rates abandoning any HD console is out of the question IMHO.

Without a doubt...the financial model for making games for all 3 platforms are sound business decisions, and develoeprs will contine to support all, unlike last generation.  The swag that we've seen reported by developers is 10% addition cost to make a game multiplat, so looking at nearly all sales to date...if any developer can go multiplat for a title, without a doubt, those without constraint will happily do so.  I think exclusive will only come from a select group of developers in the future.

^^
Totally agree. I suspect for some developers the additional overhead for PS3 is above 10% (those pushing out their first PS3 title, or putting together a new engine like id) but for the big players, with engines already on both and relatively equal, I'd reckon 10% is about right.

For example, I'm expecting to see Batman sell very well on both HD consoles with a slight lead to 360 - no way would the developer want to lose approx 40% of potential sales.

Exclusives will be either first/second party, partly funded or the result of secure expectations - for example Epic can safely go exclusive on 360 or multiplatform if it suits.

No chance this game has made a profit, absolute ZERO!!!
Not saying it won't, but it definitely hasn't yet and would be considered a massive failure internally. Devs don't make games to break even.

^^
I'd be amazed if Sony didn't part fund Killzone 2. In many ways I don't see it as being subject to normal economics of a game.

Sony wanted a big fat FPS with the best graphics on an HD console going, balancing the risk of high cost vs wanting to have a title they felt might help them in US/UK and other 360/FPS centric regions.

With the DLC and it's status it will deliver a profit, and if they get a KZ3 out pretty fast with some improvements and a bit of new stuff (a'la Gears 2) then the cost/return across both titles will likely be fairly acceptable, as KZ3 should cost a lot less than KZ2 with the engine now in place.

In some ways KZ2 is like a loss leader - an expense taken to increase your penetration into a specific market.

Personally I think Sony misjudged the situation for 360 in US, etc. and would be better served focusing on reducing price (which I admit they've done) and getting more titles out that are both in big franchises (they're still working on that with GoW, GT, etc. still to get releases) as well as more titles that are family centric (which I guess they're also working on with Eyepet, the 'Wand' etc.)

Of course, I could be wrong, and GG really covered all costs hoping they would see sales like Epic did with Gears - if anyone has links or knowledge regarding the funding of development I'd be interested to view them.

I understand the argument you're making by saying KZ2 was seen as a loss leader, but I don't see that as being reasonable.

If Sony takes a loss on this game, it's because it didn't sell enough. Ergo, it can't be a loss leader since it didn't serve its function by driving up sales of the PS3 since there wasn't enough interest in the title. For KZ2 to be seen that way, it would mean perspective PS3 buyers were convinced to purchase the system in the US and UK by it's mere existence on the PS3, while not actually bothering to buy the game.