Thats not what I was getting at...

The argument that gets tossed around when people mention that the PS3 is hard to program for is that its somehow a good thing. That this will mean only the best programmers will make PS3 games - as though this somehow ensures that the system only has good games.

Just because a game is mediocre in programming does not mean they'll make mediocre games. Take katamari, for instance; hardly a technical masterpiece, but a brilliant piece of gameplay. On the other hand, look at Factor 5 and Lair; a technical showpiece, but an awful game.

You can try to spin it to make it seem like this isn't an issue, but it is. An easy to program system allows the great developers could spend their time better by focusing on refining the engine instead of grappling with the hardware, and the less technically proficient, but highly original and creative devs can put out a decent game.

So, I think what I posted is quite relavent. The same song and dance went on during the saturn years. People tried to claim that only capable devs could program for the system, so all its games would be good. Ultimatly, it was the simpler PS that saw a larger library of quality titles, despite some of the Saturns power advantages and its higher barrier of entry that would prevent "crap" games.

@sieaner

Ive seen you bash the ps3 before, and sony itself, but you have to stop. Its only a gaming machine not the devil. Nothing on pc or xbox 360 or ps3 or wii looks better than ratchet and clank. What does that say?

Whats my point? You constantly try to make the xbox 360 look and seem to be the better system for gaming, I have to agree it is for now. I own all 3 and enjoy the 360 the most(halo 3..), but programmers and developers all alike have confirmed and stated the ps3 is better hardware. Please dont spin this into more of your B$ bashing. Ive had enough sony bashing for a day.

Also that statement "Best system loses, weakest system wins" Is wrong, dreamcast was weaker than ps2, and it was wiped out by the ps2, Playstation has always won, that has nothing to do with its weak it wins statement, we all like good graphics.

Wii is winning because its an innovative sucess.

The PS3 IS more powerful. But it is not in anyway optimized for games. Most of what he said is perfectly true. The PS3 is great for applications like Folding@home, its just not a games-related architecture. IT may eventually look better than the 360, but it will be extremely marginal.

@ZackBlue
lol, in the last two days both the Assassin's Creed devs and the World in Conflict devs have stated they are struggling with the PS3's insufficient memory. I don't know where your getting this idea that all Devs are "confirming" the PS3 is the better hardware. All Sony devs maybe.

1. The devil doesn't exist, and I dont think the PS3 would be it if he did.

2. Where did I mention the 360 here, or make it sound superior to the PS3?

3. Where did I state that the PS3 was bad hardware? I only said it was more difficult to program for, which I hardly consider B$

3. How was I bashing Sony? He seemed to be stating that the difficulty to program for wasn't much of a problem, and may even be a benefit. I think thats a very bad argument and I refuted it. Sorry if you thought that was needless Sony bashing.

4. I've said in other threads that the "strongest system always wins" is just a funny coincidence, and nothing to make predictions off of.

Clock speed and raster operators are only two measurements. especially since many of the maximum numbers on spec sheets are theoretical maximums. Basically it's actual gaming performance that dictates which has the best fill rate, so we can't see which is the best based on spec sheets.

I'm not claiming the RSX is weaker, just that the things you pointed doesn't refute his claim. 

More difficult to program for?  More difficult than what?  That statement implies that you are comparing it to something else. 

Even though you didn't explicitly mention the 360, it was certaintly implied.

Wrong. There is no Multi-Core processor on any market that will just automatically split it's work load. Hyperthreading was about the closest thing to what your saying (The PPC cores don't have it) and it was basically the exact opposite. It used two threads per core and balanced the workload more efficiently for threads that were performing intense calculations while limiting the CPU time to idle threads and threads in wait states.

The catch to the SPU is that it uses a different call format than the standard pthreads or createthread methods used on today's processors. (There are some other things to allocate memory to the SPU, but it's essentially the same thing, just a different name so you know what your doing.) If an engine used the older methods to distribute physics calculations or something else, it would not use the SPU because of the different method name.

Not many engines use multithreading anyway (as it is) for complex calculation. In fact, many of the big name studios expected multi-core machines to be a fad and didn't plan for it up until the most recent iterations. Of course, Microsoft is the one cashing in on a good chunk of it claiming that DX10 is what makes these new engines possible when in fact it's the developers adjusting to the market. Timing.

Add all that to the fact that some of these dev teams either bought the engine they use or they made one in house and the lead programmer no longer works there. Since they can't seamlessly transfer the engine, they start cutting parts form the game or reduce the framerate.

But thanks to the Internet(!), we get to listen to people bashing company A and Console B because they think it's cool and the advertising money the site owner will get for people coming to their site to argue about it makes them happy.

Blogs have turned the world into marketters. You thought companies were competitive before? They have rules they need to follow. The internet has no rules.

edit: some clarification 

Man, you guys sure know your stuff - I'm learning a lot, but still confused.
Bottom line: Sony is definitely more powerful but dev. are either not capable of working on PS3 programs or not cost effective enough.
Will we see major differences between PS3 and Xbox soon? (Will we be able to see the difference when a game comes out for both consoles?)
Thank you for the infos though. You guys are well informed.

Eventually yes Coca-Cola. There will eventually be marginally better looking games on the PS3. It could take a couple of years and the difference will be nowhere near what sony wants you to believe. It could also take a long time before 360-PS3 ports are up to scratch on the PS3 machine. The Cell is very powerful, but it is not optimized for gaming. Additionally, the 360 has more memory and is better suited to things like AI because of its architecture.