Yea it seems like they like it more because it's easier ... I would rather fill up 1 DVD disc full instead of a full blue ray= less work
Breh, the size of the disc doesn't have anything to do with the amount of work. If anything, it lets you put more content with less compression on a disc. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the content on blu-ray games is duplicated on disc to cut down on the read/seek times, since the blu-ray drives have slower read speeds.
e G o Maniac said:
Making a console that is easy to develop for doesn't necessarily mean using inferior hardware. It just means that they make it more like traditional PC architectures so they won't have to relearn an entirely new chipset/architecture. Microsoft had inferior hardware with the 360, but it wasn't what allowed them to make a developer-friendly console.
It's all about the architecture. Why do you think the PS3 took way longer to get more games? Developers had to learn the Cell and it is no walk in the park to learn a new architecture, while they were already at home with the Xbox 360 since it was more like a PC. I feel sorry for you thinking that making a developer friendly platform = making inferior hardware, jazzhands.
This. There's a lot of overhead in learning the architecture. Then on top of that, how many people specialize in that architecture to optimally use it? Consider what a Bethesda dev said about that Skyrim fix: the 360 has a shared pool of memory, while the ps3's memory is split between multiple components (I forget which). Having a shared pool of memory lets you allocate it much easier than having to search for it and garbage collect among different components.