I was expecting good arguments because they could have said what they said and backed it up with proper arguments, instead they resorted to talking about resolutions, which don't matter that much in the big picture.

Even with the errors or odd comments in the article the author has a point. There does seem to be double standards at play; last gen Sony and the PS3 were ridiculed in the media for being more expensive and suffering more problems in third party software. Now the X1 is suffering to an even larger degree with 50-100% differences in resolution and most of the gaming media shrug it off as a minor point.

Then again, what do you expect from video games "journalism".

Xbox one is categorized as an entertainment system, the kinect doesn't have to join in on the video game part of it much to be a contributer.

“The PS4 may have a technical lead out the gate, but it's too early to hand it the decisive victory. The PS3 at launch faced a similar deficit against the Xbox 360, but the differences eroded with time.”

But the ps3 was considered more powerful from the start. This time around it's different, PS4 is considered more powerful and easier to develop for.

it is minor......the stronest consoles are on a serious loosing streak in sales so obviously power doesn't equal the end result being victory. We will always here double standard arguments from blind supporters that don't like to shut up, but unless they them selves plan on buying 10 consoles each, they really aren't affecting anything. 

It's pretty significant compared to the difference last gen, and the difference between 720P and 1080P is pretty obvious to anyone that's played on PC.

And I'm not sure what sales have to do with anything, this is about the gaming media's response.

This is VG chartz it always boils down to sales. Rants like this is an attemt to swade potential buyers from one thing by throwing his opinions of the matter about it. Some of the people saying it IS a big deal are some of the same people (sense ps2 is sony I;m sure it's most of them) That said it wasn't a big deal when ps2 was the weakest system. The double standard goes both ways. Just like some that saying it doesn't matter were pushing the power of the original xbox in the faces of sony fans. 

That kind of fandom never ends, it's a cycle of hypocrisy. 

Not every conversation is about sales on VGChartz, just look at the threads.

Again, this is about media response (not console fans on one side or the other). There is a noticeable difference in the visuals between the two consoles, same as their was on PS2 vs GC/XB, same as their was last gen with Wii vs 360/PS3. Will it matter in sales terms? probably not (it hasn't in the past), but the media shouldn't act like the difference isn't noticeable. Last gen, media outlets were actually quite vocal about the differences between the PS3/360, even though the differences were less than the upcoming consoles.

That's fine if resolution doesn't matter to you. But does that mean media outlets should downplay the obvious discrepancies in output from these machines? To what end? If it doesn't matter to you then the truth wouldn't affect your decision anyways. But to whitewash it could affect the decisions of those to whom this does matter. That's what the author is trying to get across.

And while there are definitely other details outside of graphic prowess to compare the point is they aren't even bringing those points into the argument. The author is accusing them of downplaying the differences or outright glossing them over to appear impartial or protect their access to the developers.

Ofc there is double standard. Everyone bashes the wii u for its graphics, but the same people become apologists for Microsoft