I'll play it on pc as i always do to multiplats.

I don't know about that. Not all games need to be 60 fps per say, although I do think 1080p should be a standard by now anyways. It's 2013 damn it! FPS seems more like a design choice while resolution is a matter of hardware.

Once the current generation is completely out of the way, maybe we'll get a clearer picture.

That's not good. PC gaming is already starting to expand beyond 1080p and the most powerful next gen console can't run battlefield 4 at that resolution? I played the battlefield 4 beta at 1080p with just a radeon 7850. I know graphics aren't everything, but we haven't really been shown any other tangible improvements over last gen except improved visuals. 

I really think steamboxes might be the future. Yes right now a very powerful steambox will be more expensive than a ps4. But what happens in two years when a $300 steambox is twice as powerful as the ps4. The majority of ps3/360 owners were late adopters and the only thing keeping PC from taking over is accessibility. If valve nails that with their SteamOs there will be no reason to own a nextgen console for the vast majority of console gamers.

Although i agree with you i still think we shouldn't even be having these debates. After all the hype thrown around regarding both of these consoles one can easily be forgiven in thinking that both should be capable of 1080@60 from the launch. 

These consoles use pretty much standard PC components. There is no cell processor to get to grips with, no unfamiliar IBM processor.

Both consoles use architecture that is familiar to any PC developer. The launch games should be awesome and capable of 1080@60 from the launch.

It's 1600x900, and probably it won't be a big deal since it's on PS4.

Battlefield should have never been put on consoles.

I think there is a major difference between the xbone and ps4 when compare to consoles of the past. The consoles of the past used non-standard CPUs or even heavily modified GPUs. Bearing this in mind it stands to intelligent reason that developers will obviously get better in time at manipulating the hardware to produce better results because the architecture is unfamiliar to them at the launch. We always heard of the learning curve.

Please tell me what is so unfamiliar about using what is generally a standard PC CPUs and GPUs - Please don't think I am griping you, I am just asking.  I do not view these as early devices as you stated, but rather as common devices known and familiar to any PC developer. 

The cell on the PS3 was a new device. IBM power PC on the x360 was not common among PC developers. They had an excuse. 

in this gen soon upon us there is the oppurtunity like never before to literally start running without needing to learn to walk.

Ok, so not like The Order 1886 (1920x900 with black bars)

Wow, that is disappointing but expected.

Looking forward to all those retractions from people saying it was 1080p. /not!

They will never be heard from here. Really though games will get better as time goes on "for both".  New hardware takes time to get use to.

As usual my stance is if the game is good then idc.  720-900-1080 doesnt really make a difference to me