Wow, so PS4 900p? I guess devs are hitting the limit already on the PS4's power?

PC gamer logic: games run bad on console, console is weak. Game runs bad on PC, it's an unoptimized port.

Please, clarify what's your 4 year old GPU.

Seriously?! I played the beta on PS4 and thought it looks rubbish, PS3 games did better. I cannot believe how bad it looks on PS3 as well.

No, it's because some people understand technology and business. Go on any tech knowledgeable site like AnandTech, LinusTechTips, TechReport, TechSpot, and you can start any thread and in each forum you will fail to find any PC gamer who could have put together a faster console for $380 than PS4 around Summer of 2013. Considering HD7970M/780M were the best of the best in a 100W TDP envelope and NV charges an arm an a leg, Sony didn't exactly have many options. Since NV doesn't have a good x86 CPU, it would have meant going dual chips and sourcing power hungry FX or expensive Core i5. Since Intel has 60% margins and NV has 55%, do you think NV would sell you a 680MX/780M for a price similar to a 7970M? Ya right! That's why Sony had no choice but to use Pitcairn (HD7970M derivative) for the GPU inside PS4. It was the fastest AMD chip at 100W TDP. They disabled 2 compute units to increase yields which is why the APU is 1024 shaders instead of 1280. 

MS's shareholders would rather MS spin-off Xbox division since so far XBox has lost money since the original. That's right -- Xbox division is a losing business. Sony didn't do much better as even 3 years since PS3 launched they were still losing money. It was decided by both firms that such strategies were not sustainable. Why run a business if you can't break-even over the console's life?! MS lost $4 billion on the original Xbox alone. 

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/09/26/forbes-xbox-lost-microsoft-4-billion-and-counting/

I don't want to sound harsh but a lot of console gamers need to start reading The Economist, Forbes, learn some basic finance and read up on how business works. We can't just expect Sony, Nintendo and MS to give us an uber-specked console priced only at $399 when companies like AMD sell a single R9 290 at $549 and NV sold 780Ti for $699. It's not as if Sony/MS/Nintendo can just buy the components at cost from these suppliers. It was only a matter of time before these consoles started suffering. Still, Hardline is an unoptimized garbage even on high end PC rigs. The graphics are junk and performance is awful even on $500 cards. Uncharted 4 or Project CARS or Witcher 3 will blow the graphics away on PS4. Sure, while we would always want the consoles to be more powerful, a lot of modern games like AC Unity or Hardline seem to strike an awful balance of technical graphics vs. Hardware required to run them well. 2014 has been a terrible year for gaming. Let's hope 2nd and 3rd wave of console games brings something interesting to play. 

I mean look at Ryse Son of Rome or The Order 1886. Much more Beautiful looking games compared to BF hardline. I wouldn't exactly use Ubisoft's or EA's games as a measuring stick of PS4's max capability. 

I'm not always pissed by low resolutions, but this is kinda.. too low.

i can honestly say i havent seen a single person excited for this game.

It looks like a mod for BF4. Anyway, BF3 was my first game in the series and also the last.

Yeah, I remember them saying both versions would be 1080p.  It doesn't make any sense that they are not imo.  Lowering other settings is almost always worth it to play at a higher native resolution.

I agree that a solid 60fps is more important.

While I generally agree that this should be what is aimed for in multiplayer FPS games this game looks terrible graphically. EA must have made this on a shoestring budget or a really short dev period for it to look that average and require so much hardware power lol