That's what I've heard from quite a few devs

Well in terms of the thread's topic, FPS, there will be a big difference from PC to Consoles.

I usually see a huge difference in fps from 24-30 to 60~ on my PC. Just alot more fluid.

One thing is for shure, I'm buying PC, since my newly bought PC...But the PS3 version should use it's 25Gb Blu Ray disc to it's maximum capacity...at least.

No, they have 4+ years experience with the Cell processor.

But they have mediocre porting experience, from what I remember...

Well from what I understand the consoles will run this at what? 30 frames per second? To me, that sounds pretty damn low.

usually 30 average, sometimes dips to 20-25 if huge battles.

Does that ever get choppy? I thought the eye could recognize fluent motion after (i think) 8 frames per second.

Rarely choppy, just feels weird/sluggish at an average of 30 since I play alot of pc games at 50-60 fps or higher.

I think that's why it just sounds low to me then. I'm so used to the higher frame rate.

Sony did not decide to make their system more difficult to program for. The reality is they couldn't use hardware or software that mirrored the 360 to any degree, cuz MS would have stopped the PS3 from launch & delayed it with court battles as long as possible.

Because Microsoft have any kind of ownership over modern computer design? Oh wait, no, they don't.

Sony didn't decide to make their system more difficult to program for, that's just a side effect. Theoretically, the PS3 is quite the number cruncher - they took a gamble that people would use that to do cool things, like more complex physics or AI. They didn't.

So, YES, it does fall on the developers to actually learn to make the games for both consoles for a multiplatform release.

Have fun never playing a multiplatform game again. Most multiplatform games look slightly better (sometimes play better) on the xbox 360. It's just easier for developers to develop on the 360 and then port it to the ps3.

They're call patents & copyrights, look it up.

You really think microsoft has patented general purpose processors?

Yes because last I checked there are never similar cpu and gpu designs on the market. :facepalm:

i liek duh pe es free and der exbox freesixtah and duh pee cee

Microsoft would definitely have held back PS3 release for years if it had any architecture that could be argued as resembling the 360. We're talking about rival companies, not friendly acquaintances. So, yes, Sony couldn't afford to give even the slightest opportunity for that event to take place. They were already releasing the PS3 post 360, putting them at a disadvantage right from the start.

I found this to be very entertaining

They do not have the ability, nor legal right, to do anything of the sort, or anything resembling that.

A pointless lawsuit that would have gone nowhere that microsoft probably wouldn't have even filed in the first place. That would be like AMD trying to sue Intel because they both make processors. I'm sure sony was working on the architecture long before they had the full details of what was in the 360. They wanted to make it the way they did. Like someone earlier posted, they took a gamble and lost. On the flipside, their exclusives are best looking console games around because of it.

No idea what's been said but I think the PS3 is technically a bit more powerful than the 360. Better processor or something I think. Don't think it will have problems with FPS.

Hence the software differences between the consoles as well.
I recognize the advantages of both, but ultimately the PS3 has more power & capacity for growth & development in terms of titles ( ex-Multiple disc 360 titles). Developers are really starting to put it to good use. I was decided by game comparisons such as Infamous vs. Prototype. Big difference in graphical quality and effects, easily distinguished. And aside from the game details, basically the same thing- open world sandbox with superpowered main character. Just one of a ever growing number of examples.
Can't control the choices the devs make short of choice of system & whether to purchase the software. I prefer to go with a product because of it's quality, not it's popularity. If it's a superior piece of tech it will show that in the end. The debate is a matter of semantics & opinion at this point.
Nuff said, haters will be haters.

Well said, with the exception of the part about gambling and losing. The final determination won't be seen until the end of this console generation.
Initial dev favoritism towards 360 because it's easier is just that, initial. It's not a surprise, it's human nature to take the easier path of least resistance. At least until you see someone else put in more effort & get a bigger return for it. I'm sure Sony saw that going in.