I disagree, and I only play on PS consoles.

First, PC is CCP's forte.

Second, developing the game on PC gives them more freedom than developing for the PS4. CCP doesn't need to go through Sony for anything. They could not have pulled off the demo they did as quickly and easily had it been developed on the PS4. They also couldn't use test servers for Dust when coming up with changes, and look how that turned out. Development on the PC allows for test servers to try out changes beforehand, and working out kinks before releases and patches hit the player base.

I do hope that Nova eventually releases for a console, but I think that the best way for that to happen and give the best chances for long term success is to first develop on the PC.

First off, there's way more to dealing with Microsoft or Sony than a "simple inconvenience". Keep in mind that both of those companies require that any hosted game run on their servers, in their ecosystem according to their rules, not CCP's. This is massive issue and reason enough to avoid it even if consoles were somehow on the same performance level that PCs are. Obviously consoles aren't at the same performance levels of PCs either, so that's a second issue.

The biggest reason to avoid consoles in the future, for CCP, is to avoid being held hostage by the walled gardens of providers like Sony and Microsoft.

There are also more subtle issues when dealing with consoles that somewhat defeats the idea that it may be easier to develop for consoles. It's true that when developing for PC, you have to consider a wide variety of hardware performance levels, but all of these differences are handled by standard APIs and libraries. Therefore, a developer doesn't have to account for different target architectures, for the most part, aside from providing a lot of options to the end users to tune graphics levels and other settings.

On the other hand, when dealing with the console world, any updates to a game in the walled garden of Microsoft or Sony has to go through those company's Q&A as well as CCP's own Q&A. Microsoft, at least, also dictates how many updates can be delivered in a given time period and how much data can be delivered.

Once again, it's no mere "minor inconvenience" it's a different environment completely. CCP will do well to simply avoid consoles completely in the future. If they want to try to capture new market revenue, mobile it the way they will probably go since VR isn't really taking off at the moment.

The "very strange" architecture was hardly ever really used properly. Most usually just developed on some other platform then used emulation to cram it into the PS3. The architecture we're talking about, by the way, was the "Cell Broadband Engine" which was actually more of a small neural net than a multiprocessor. Of course, that functionality was far too obscure for most, so they just treated it as an 8-core processor. Very sad, because that same chip was apparently being used in supercomputers where the neural net capability allowed it to vastly improve on a simple multiprocessor.

I liked the fact that every core on the chip knew what every other core on the chip was doing. So each core didn't just do its own job, it could be programmed to be "aware" of the other cores and react. I believe there were very few games that ever used this, and all of them were developed specificly for the PS3 - the ultimate exclusive as those games could never then be ported to a "normal" platform. The PS3 was its own worst enemy - the very architecture which made its processor generations ahead of everything else made it so hard to program for that virtually noone did it. I would have loved to see games that were developed exclusively for PS3 using this functionality. I don't believe Dust ever used it, as it's obvious that the performance was clunky, where it should have been lightning fast. Now we'll never know, of course. The PS3 and what it could have done will be lost to antiquity.

I honestly think the issue is now moot. They'll never again (not anytime soon!) revisit this kind of architecture in a games console, nor for that matter in a PC. It was just too complex for an industry that only wanted multiprocessing. As for the things it was NOT good for, that was probably developers trying to use it for processing that it wasn't designed for. Again, valid, but not necessarily relevant. The fact is, whatever it could have done, the Cell Broadband Processor was largely ignored for its unique capabilities, which by the way were simply activated with appropriate firmware, but you had to program to those functions in order to use them, otherwise it was just going to be emulating some other platform in the same way as the early PS3s could emulate a PS2. Emulation will always result in a slower product, even if the architecture itself is capable of much more.

Anyway, we won't see anything like it again until the whole industry moves towards similar neural net architecture. The problem for the PS3 was it was just too advanced for most to use natively, and too different to support porting from other platforms well enough. When everyone is doing the same thing, that might change.