So how have you come to that conclusion 2-3 months into this gen?

So which maths did you use to work that out??? Xbox was never 2 to 4 times more powerful than the PS2.

By the way, a few years later on mobile devices ;)

Yes the difference was night and day. Absolutely huge unlike the X1 and PS4

You can play these games at 360FPS and 8K resolution on a NASA super computer so i find comparing framterates and resolutions pointless

You must not have said it right. Say it lovingly. I'm sure they'll respond postively :)

NASA computers run proprietary OS's, so games can't be played on those.

I think YOU have missed the point. If such a "massive" power difference makes so little impact to the player, then is it really of value? Ever heard of "diminishing returns"? It's kind of like how you can buy a good computer for $1000, a really good computer for $2000, an even better computer for $4000... but the difference between what you'll get for $10,000 and $20,000 is actually rather small, certainly not of the same scale as the difference between $1000 and $2000.

It happens with most things. The difference between 480p and 720p is about the same in technical terms as the difference between 720p and 1080p... but the latter difference seems a lot smaller to the viewer/player. An in-game draw distance of 20 m will seem dramatically different from a draw distance of 40 m, but the difference between 1 km and 2 km won't be nearly as noticeable. Doubling the polygons in a model of a face from 300 to 600 will make a noticeable difference, doubling from 10,000 to 20,000 will make very little difference. A game with 2 modes will seem to have a lot more variety than a game with just 1 mode, while a game with 200 modes will not seem like it has any more variation than a game with 100 modes.

The "massive" power difference is having less of an effect, because of this. The difference between PS2 and PS3 seems a lot bigger than the difference between PS3 and PS4... despite the differences being fairly comparable. We have entered the realm in which the art matters more than the graphical technology, where intelligent design of AI matters more than sheer AI computational power, where attention to detail means making things react just right rather than making sure that the surface has a high enough level of visual detail. We were beginning to enter it with PS3 and 360. With the Wii U, it has completed the process, and now the PS4 and XBO are deep into that realm.

That's why the most visually appealing titles of 2013 include a Wii U title, a Vita title, a current-gen multiplatform title (Wii U, PS3, X360, Vita), two PS3 titles, and a PS3/360/PC title, to name a few, despite the release of the PS4 and XBO. It's why the highest-rated title of the year for this generation was a Wii U game (unless you count the PS4 port of flower - and that's only because very few sites have reviewed it), and why none of those beat the top PS3 or 360 title of the year.

When it comes down to it, the only way you're really going to notice the difference between XBO and PS4 once a bit of optimisation for each platform is done is by comparing them side-by-side. And when you have to do that to notice the difference, most people aren't going to notice it at all. This is why Nintendo changed their approach, and whether the new approach is working well or poorly, one thing you can honestly say is that you can tell the difference - playing Wii U is a different experience from playing XBO or PS4, or X360 or PS3 (I make no value judgment - no call as to which is better, just noting the different-ness), and the difference isn't due to power (as the 360/PS3 to Wii U comparison makes clear).

Im pretty sure you can run anything  on a NASA PC if you really want to

Yes, especially if a vastly more powerfull system is 100$ cheaper. Also, 100% difference (30 to 60) in framerate IS easly noticable, and it directly effects the gameplay