Well, most developers have had at least an extra year of experience on the more traditional architecture of the 360. It's hard to see how they wouldn't have an easier time developing for it.

"Games where we led development on the PS3 platform, like Burnout, which is doing very well on the market today, we had no issue at all."

Seems like they figured out how to fix the problem right there. Are they fucking idiots?

Just FYI, both the PS3 and 360 had issues that delayed GTA IV. Not just one, both.

And I agree with bruce, developers just aren't trying to code for the PS3, they're trying to code for the 360/PC on the PS3. Bethesda, Naughty Dog, and Insomniac Games have all actually coded for the PS3 with excellent results, there's no reason a company like EA couldn't hire programmers who can't do the same thing. None whatsoever.

Just ask Naughty Dog...

Tsk tsk

"who's confident enough that Sony's console is going to give them the return on their investment that they are looking for"

I'll wager that is the lead reason.

they act like its an EVA and they can't find Shinji to pilot it... wait i thought i was on japanator

EA's got some 'splaining to do. i like the egghead idea.

they won't figure it out even with the answer in their mouths, they are lazy. and making reasons why they can blame a games delay. i personally like the architecture of the ps3. it means to make a good game they have to "learn that architecture" making them work harder busting a sweat on a keyboard whilst me and the rest of america bust a sweat on a roof with a hammer. fncking loser as EA, i wonder what new feature will be in the next madden? they've hired all the jocks and maddenites to make their games and not the super-geeks, or do they just call geek squad? either way, EA is going to fall, and it's a long way to bottom unless you're a bottomfeedingtrendcopyingNFLmonopolisingconglomerate like EA.

Sony should have made it easier to develop for, DUMBAZZES!

"Games where we led development on the PS3 platform, like Burnout, which is doing very well on the market today, we had no issue at all."

Well this is really obvious if one platform is harder to code for than the other and you make the harder one lead then the other system's version gets equally delayed. So the Developing on PS3 as lead is a BandAid solution.

The PS2 got all the love as the main devlopment platform last gen cause it was the most popular hardware. This did mean that cross platform games on xbox and cube in many cases were limited by the limitations of the PS2 (4 MB of texture memory WTH Sony the Dreamcast had more). I personally want to see both versions take advantages of their respective systems strengths but unfortionatly often sacrifices are made for multiplatform releases.

COD4 is a great game on all platforms but they put the best people on the PS3 version so both performed fairly equally but PS3 got larger online play. But at the end of the day the 360 version sold more. So they made the better version for less people, its about like taking a shit on the 360 owners faces just so you can fit it with the PS3 crowd. How much better could the 360 version have been with those same talented people.

I personnaly have no issue if they make a game on the best performing machine and scalling in down on the others. But I have yet to be convinced that the PS3 is that better performing hardware. I also see the merit in hardware being made easier to develop on so that games can be better because they can spend more time on making the game than just trying to get it done. The 360 does have its issues mainly reliability and MS deserves a good ammount of grief for all those issue. I love my PS3 too but It just rubs me the wrong way so people think devs owe Sony something.

Well, here's an idea I've been working on: How's about making the PS3 the lead platform, ya f'n morons! Criterion figured it out really well; use the PS3 as the lead, and you get better games on both platforms.

Don't give up, EA.