You are.

EDIT; Ok, i was joking, don't get wet

IQ is not limited to, but is directly proportional to an increase in resolution, you can throw all the texture detail in the world in to a game but if the resolution isn't high enough to show them it won't look good, of course the next generation consoles will see an increase in IQ - more system memory means larger textures, higher resolutions means displaying those textures more clearly, anti aliasing means an end to jaggies - but an increase in IQ doesn't in itself warrant a new generation.

But regarding the pc to ps3 versions of battlefield 3, the difference is actually more profound than just bumping the res, lighting is more accurate, physics is calculated much more accurately (this part does effect gameplay), transparencies that are garbled messes on consoles are not an issue - particle effects either toned down or missing on the console versions are there and properly rendered, denser foliage thanks to higher memory pools, higher poly models and a bunch of other post processing effects lacking or missing on the console versions - while most of it may not effect gameplay it does limit the overall image quality, it won't be anywhere near as much of an issue for the new generation of consoles but it won't magically look better than current PC titles - the end result is going to be that PS4/720 games start looking more and more like PC titles, lacking only in resolution (1080p is pretty much a bog-standard pc resolution, has been for years), texture filtering and higher AA levels

@Tachikoma

I don't have an issue regarding the fact that top end gaming rigs are ahead and will remain well ahead of consoles in terms of graphical power even with the overhead. The problem I have is that you are focusing on a minority of PC owners which own high end gaming rigs that developers can't take into consideration when designing games. Bottom line is that they must design games that can be accessed by as many potential customers as possible.

Therefore while you are right in a sense you are also ignoring certain important factors in order to suit your argument.

What argument? my statement is simply that people used to high end hardware and games won't be impressed by the first crop of next gen console games.

If you genuinely think that high end PC gaming is such a minority, you are very wrongly, and amusingly mistaken, and if you think developers set out to make PC titles and delibrately gimp the level of graphical quality 'for the people with lower spec hardware' you are also, painfully mistaken - that, my dear friend, is why games ship with adjustable settings, with the highest of said settings aiming to make full use of the best hardware available at the time of shipping - and in some cases, releasing updates later on (crysis 2 tesselation, texture pack and DX11 update, as an example, but several other titles receving dx updates, patches enabling 64bit processor support and so on.

I urge you to go googling for sales data for high end pc hardware - or for pc gaming communities such as hardocp, tomshardware or any of the futuremark discussion forums - people have this stupid notion that the 'average' desktop pc is sat there running winxp and barely able to play quake 2, when it hasnt been the case for a long, long time.

And while we're at it, lets look at piracy.

1. Crysis 2 - 3.92 million copies illegally downloaded, released in March 2011
2. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - 3.65 M, Nov. 2011
3. Battlefield 3 - 3.51 M, Oct. 2011

Clearly, quite a lot of people have a computer that they believe is able to run these demanding games - and this is just the TRACKED torrents, this doesn't cover the millions downloaded from newsgroups, or the actual retail copies sold.

I swear if i hear someone refer to high end pc gaming as a small market i will go insane.

why should developers look at piracy numbers or at numbers of people with high end pcs when they develop games? as long as the sales numbers of those games are not that high on pc  it doesn't help the developers that some hundred million people have a high end pc. and if crysis 2 would have 100 million downloads on pc, the money crytek made with it will be still the same.

his point is probably that if someone is developing let's say metro for pc and console, you get a better looking metro on pc but the game itself will be the same on pc and console. they don't develop two totally different metro games with different architecture, level structure and a.i. of the enemies. battlefiled 3 is at least an exception but that was still developed also with consoles in mind and not a game which is a totally different game on pc as on console because they made the game as good as possible for high end pcs. yes you can play the game on ultra but the levels will be still the same as with medium settings, you don't get another game on ultra and you don't get a smarter a.i. or whatever because the basic game is developed to run on pc and console.

only with a new console generation developers have the potential market to develop games which will have stuff the pc versions of games also available on console don't have yet because they are still only pc+console games with better anti-aliaising, fps and resolution on pc (and tesselation and stuff)

there just isn't a game like uncharted 3 on pc or only very few. uncharted 3 on pc would have no jaggies anymore and higher res/fps but if you forget that, uncharted 3 has so much detail pc games don't have. with a new console gen i expect more multiplat games looking like uncharted if it comes to those details in the games and with that, pc games will also look much better then. then they won't only have high res and fps, then they will also have the levels full of awesome details like uncharted games.

@Tachikoma

Not saying it's a small market but that it's a minority of PC owners that have high end gaming rigs. And when a developer makes a game they are forced to scale it back. Games can only be made scalable to a certain point and unless people upgrade or purchase new PCs eventually they will not be able to play new games even on the lowest settings.
You correctly point out that games like Crysis 2 come with updates including high res textures, tesselation etc but how many games on PC are given that level of support?

Also while I can't speak for anyone but myself, I tend to mainly play RTS and FPS games on PC so when I play the next Gran Turismo game on the PS4 I will be awed because my only point of refernce for that genre is on the PS3 and it will be a generational leap.

Regarding what you said about launch games I fully agree with you. They will not be an indication of how good games will be later on. Where you have me a bit confused is that in the OP you never specified as far as I can tell that you were referring to launch games. You seemed to be implying that we should not expect to be impressed period. If you want to clarify I would appreciate it.

In any case even if you are 100% right it won't matter as those that do the majority if not all of their gaming on consoles are the ones that Microsoft/Sony are aiming to impress.

And just to illustrate how much of a constraint on PC games the consoles are you only need to look at the sales of games like COD. They regularly sell over 20 million combined across PS3/360 and anywhere from 10-20% of that on PC according to sales charts so in this case it is in Activision's interest not to make the PC version seperately and instead they make it multi platform to minimise developer costs and maximise profits.

So as much as I wish I could enjoy the full potential from my gaming rig I have accepted that I likely never will with the exception of games that are PC exclusive.

@crissindahouse

You understood what I was trying to say exactly. While it would be great to make seperate version on PC that could take proper advantage of high end PC hardware it's just cheaper to make a single multi platform game.

From what I have observed it is mainly developers of gaming engines that will add extra features like Crytek adding the high res pack and DX11 support for Crysis 2. Makes sense because they want to showcase their Cry Engine.

You can't use torrent numbers as an indication of people's PC rigs. I myself, for example, am in the tracked torrent numbers. I use torrented PC games as nothing more than demos. And I have a mid capability 3,0 Ghz i5 with a 7770 HD.

Calling high end pc gaming a small market is relevant; does it compare to the 360 + PS3 numbers ? How big would that market be in a pie chart ?

 Those adjustable settings  don't make full use of the latest tech, they simply want to push consumers buy a better gpu or more ram.

And I'm saying that because saying making full use means taking advantage of the hardware in its fullest, maxing out its potential, being efficient as possible.

Adjustable settings don't make full use, they just make use.

Yes.

Because the PS4 will run different engines and different engines provide more than simply better res.