ftfy? Thanks, I typed this when I was tired.

How about M$ paying developers to do so...?? 

i think when theres some type of timed exclusivity or paid to make a game look better, will hurt the companies sales, ie Call of Duty PS4 is getting dlc a month later, for me that means i will not buy the last DLC for sure being it will be out towards the next CoD or in this years case Destiny.  and as for paying developers to make one game look better on said system well thats just dumb cause it could cause people to stay awy from thier future games on the console that got the shaft.

It's always possible to find some studio that will somehow make their game run faster un slower hardware... stranger things happened before, but I would not bet on it.

Uhh, 360 was arguably more powerful than PS3. Some developers have said as much, which definitely means more than you the message board user who is biased towards Sony and knows nothing about game programming. PS3 had Cell, but 360 had a much better GPU. That's why most multiplatforms ran better on 360. I also put Halo 4 up with any PS3 exclusive for graphics, although 360 exclusives tended to lag graphically, it was more because MS does not have many 1st party who push the system. When 343i finally did, the results were equal to anything on PS3. Also many PS3 exclusives have vastly overrated graphics since the vast majority of people on forums prefer Sony. Games like God of War definitely do not look that good as claimed.

You may not agree 360 was more powerful than PS3 (though I think it is) but you at least should realize they were basically equals.

Now for PS4 vs One, who knows. Even the less powerful system usually has some things it is better at. For example here are some specs where XBO is superior to PS4: CPU clock, GPU clock/triangle setup, peak bandwidth.

The best example was PS2 vs Xbox. Xbox was far more powerful than PS2, much more of a difference than PS4 is to XBO, yet PS2 still had a few rare instances where it did something better. The best case I remember was Burnout having more sparks on PS2 thanks to it's high EDRAM bandwidth that Xbox, while being overall more powerful, couldn't match.

Considering XBO is much closer to PS4, we will likely see some instances like that. The most likely candidate I see is bandwidth, the XBO has way more peak bandwidth than PS4, 272 GB/s vs 176 GB/s. If properly used, we could see something from that, something like the "more sparks" example. I could also see the XBO having a slightly better framerate in certain CPU-limited games, or certain areas of games, due to it's faster CPU and 7% more triangle setup ability.

In most cases though multiplatform developers wont take advantage of either system anyway though. That's why already most games are pretty identical on each, with at most a resolution or small framerate improvement on PS4.

im only dealing with this part for right now, the X1 cpu speed is 1.75ghz and the ps4 well truth is nobody really knows, as sony has never confirmed it, the dev kits were running at 1.6 but there has been rumors stating its 1.8 and now 2.0ghz,  as for the gpu well the ps4s is just better the clock speed of the gpu doesnt mean as much as the amount of shaders you have.  Thats been proven time and time again with the nvidia vs amd  int he video card race, amd always has a higher clock speed but the nvidia cards always have more shaders and almost alway out perform amd,  same is true here with xb1 and ps4 gpu clock speed may be slightly faster on xb1 but the extra shaders gives the edge to the ps4, ps4=1152 shaders vs xb1=768 shaders   ps4=1.84 teraflops throughput vs the xb1 1.31 teraflops throughput.  and again we dont know the actual speed of the ps4 gpu as its never been confirmed.

I have never heard of a dev say 360 was more powerful. Could you find a link to something?

Halo 4 is not graphically impressive, almost all the environments in that game are supper blocky and all of the rock textures are flat images. Take Uncharted, the sand is dynamic. This effect takes a lot of processing power, and it's what makes something like Uncharted 3 look better then anything on the 360. Plus look at these screens, see those rocks on the bottom left of Uncharted? They had 3D dimensions, they aren't just hills, round edges, and generic texture patterns like in Halo 4.

Halo 4 is 360's best looking game, and it's not that impressive. There is a difference between PS3/360 in favor of PS3.

As for MP games if you look at the comparision a lot of 360 games do look better, but on average PS3 games look better. 360 had the lead up until 2007 because the PS3 was hard to develop for and still Bathesda's games play better on 360, but on average PS3 games do look better.

As for PS4: http://www.kdramastars.com/articles/14145/20140113/pc-vs-console.htm

Says the GPU is theoretically 50% more powerful on PS4. XBO has a higher theoretical bandwidth, but the highest achieved is only 75% as strong as PS4's. Yet Sony could flip this by overclocking their CPU (which is what XB and WiiU did) and this can easily be done in a console update (which is what how the WiiU did it).

As for clock speed, I read it means nothing without a strong GPU. My 11 year old PC has a 2.8 GHz clock speed, yet it barely plays the original Halo.

As for XB and PS2, actually the difference from PS4 to XBO is much bigger, 50% bigger from what I hear. PS2 had a stronger CPU then the original XB, and a lot of components that actually mattered were more powerful. Heck PS2 even launched a few HD game at the end of its life (GT4).

You're wrong about peak bandwidth on the XBO. The theoretical limit for XBO is 192 GB/s not 276 GB/s, and the highest achieved speed was only 133GB/s (which is about 75% as strong as PS4's). As for your triangle comment, PS4 is actually more powerful because it has the faster and stronger CPU, but I can't find raw specs.