Despite the miniscule-to-none graphical differences we have seen in PlayStation 3 games versus Xbox 360 games thus far, it is a widely accepted fact that the PlayStation 3 is in general a more powerful system (although how much more powerful is up to debate). The general concencus seems to be that the 360 is easier to develop for than the PS3, but once you learn how to develop for the PS3, you can get more out of the machine.

Obviously, if the PlayStation 3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360, then developers will take the time to make their cross-platform games look better on the PS3, right? Well, not necessarily, and it's an issue that could factor into Sony's dominance of the console market in the long run.

But look at it from the developers' point of view: Why should the developer spend the extra time and cash making the PS3 version of a game look better and take better advantage of the hardware, when the developer can just port over the 360 build? Now sure, they'll probably make minor tweaks here and there to make the PS3 version have a more "polished" look to it, but when development costs are reaching the tens of millions of dollars, it really doesn't pay off for the developer to make the PS3 version of a game look better than its 360 counterpart, especially when the PS3 has only a fraction of the install base of the 360 (although the install base of the PS3 versus the 360 may change over time).

Keep in mind I am only talking about cross-platform games here; obviously PS3 exclusives and first-party titles will be sure to take full advantage of the system, as can be seen in games such as Motorstorm and Metal Gear Solid 4. But for third-party's, does it really pay off for them to make the PS3 version stand-out graphics-wise or content-wise? I guess we will have to wait and see in the coming months and years ahead.