I don’t see why you would rule out the possibility of business dealings being behind the EA frame rate issues. I’m not sure that’s the case, and I’ve never commented on that before, but I see a lot of signs pointing in that direction.

Also, why do you quote the PS3 at $600 rather than $500?

So the company that has the most cut-throat and underhanded tactics can’t be doing something wrong in your eyes.
First you say “Bill Gates and Microsoft are not paying game makers to not make games for the PS3 or to make them subpar.”

Then you admit
“I completely agree that both companies pay for exclusivity”

Although in reality Sony doesn’t pay for exclusivity. How they try and secure exclusives is lowering licensing fees and partner on Marketing. Microsoft does that, but also foot the development costs to keep the game off competitors systems. Nothing wrong with that but it is different. Developers make more money and Microsoft doesn’t make nearly as much on third party hits. Not many companies are willing to throw that kind of money around just to compete. As a business model that’s kinda stupid, but MS wants to beat Sony and has the money to throw away to do it.

On the EA Sports games, If it was really only EA’s incompetence that made the frame rates lower then why would Microsoft be touting that feature nearly a half a year before the games went gold. That says that EA’s goal was never 60fps on PS3. Why would Microsoft partner will EA on marketing the 3 sports games that sell themselves and also happen to be ‘twice as fast’ as the competitors. Nearly all the marketing on Madden this year was paid for by Microsoft. Microsoft gets their logos in the ads, but what does EA do to get their games marketed for nothing this year? Since 360 has (had now since Wii overtook them) the largest install base, it’s pretty obvious that the 360 version would sell the most units this year. You can continue to blame EA and Sony and Santa, everyone but the company that has a track record of handicapping it’s competitors if you want though. But if it’s PS3′s problem why does first part Sony game have no problem playing in higher resolution and framerates if the console is the problem. If it’s EA alone then why did they not have this problem on it’s other games?

I hate these threads but they are always started by 360 owners who lover their system, think Sony can never catch up, want a PS3 but the price is too high. And think that 360 will always have the edge on PS3. It’s getting old.

EA is going to have to fix these issues they have with the PS3 and their products because they will not make their development money back if they keep putting out substandard software. What ever the reason for the frame rate being lower on the PS3 is EA problem (maybe Sony’s as well), but it can’t be laid at the feet of Microsoft.

I honestly want the PS3 to be successful so it’s price can drop and I can add it to my list of electronics. Over time the PS3 games will get better but so will the 360′s. It a simple fact. This holiday season is going to be important to both of them.

Microsoft *does* pay developers not to make games for PS3. They buy exclusivity rights and they do it quite often. Sony does the same thing.

On dev tools: many devs love Microsoft tools, others hate them, and many are in between.

You may be skeptical that the PS3 will provide better technical performance. Only time will tell. There is GT:5, R&C, Drake, and UT3 coming out in the next two months. We shall see…

Microsoft does have hardware issue with the 360. I have yet to see it on mine or anyone that I know, but at least they stepped up and extended the warranty for the unit to manage this massive blunder. NOW if Sony can admit that $600 bucks is too much for a games console and bring the price down to $399 or $459.

Another thing to think about. As much as people love to hate Microsoft (for both valid and invalid reasons) they are a software developer and they know how to build tools to develop on their platforms. I have consistently read that the developement tools for the PS3 although “powerful” are difficult to use. Same thing was said about the PS2 and it took how many years for developers to get good enough at it to make Gods of War.

I do hope that the PS3 does better, but the idea that it is going to completely outstrip the 360 is a prediction that was made before, during and after its release. It has not come to fruition.. why, because a lot of the talk about how much more powerful the PS3 is over the 360 is marketing hype paid for by Sony.. hell if you go back and read some of the reviews of the Cell processor it was claimed to be the most powerful Chip every made.

The 99% of the issues with the sales of the PS3 lay at the feet of Sony. I hope Sony realize that perhaps .. perhaps they will make back more of their investment capital for the PS3 with quantity of units sold and not solely on the cost per unit. If predictions of LCD flat screen prices and sales are even remotely true for this holiday season, Sony could clean up with a Sub $500 price (god forbid a something like $429). Imagine a combo deal of a Samsung 26 or 32 inch LCD tv and a PS3 for $1000.

Hey… what do I know, I am just a 40 year old fart with disposable cash and an opinion.

In the US the 360 base is about 3 times the size as the PS3 so if they can reach 10% on both systems then the 360 will sell more by default.

Although if the TGS rumors hold any truth then we might be in for an interesting time.