Hmm, the replies sound much like I expected. I expected people to comment on making money developing for Sony because of its user base, which remains as no secret to anybody. However, having a large user base and selling lots of games means that those developers like to make lots of money and not that they like the actual developing for it. That's like setting ten million dollars inside a circle of fire and telling a person to run through the fire to get it; they will love doing it for the money, but won't love the actual process of doing it.
"Developers have had over two years to get the hang of the PS2's hardware. I very much doubt they're still finding it hard to get results." This would still change nothing. Even if they have lots of experience and skill with it, it doesn't make it less difficult. What I mean is, using another example, it is always going to be harder to leap over a six-foot-high fence than it is to go around it, even if you have gained lots of experience at leaping over it. Even if you get good at leaping the fence, it still requires more out of you, more effort, than going around. Getting familiar and experienced with PS2 hardware doesn't mean that the challenge isn't still there, but that the developers are able to better overcome them. Overcoming challenges does not mean that they do not still exist.
"guys, just because a site states something against the gamecube, doesn't mean it's wrong
ya, so xbox and ps2 got higher. the developers said this themselves, it's not a crap poll or anything like that
simply because nintendo tells you the gamecube is the easiest to develop for, doesn't mean it's true. every console maker has said that
these developers have shown who truly is the easiest to develop for"
Nintendo isn't the ones saying it is easiest to develop for. I read interviews with third parties like Sega, back in the first months of GCN's life, and those developers spoke of how Gamecube is a dream to develop for.