How is continuing a discussion an "argument"?, I was reading through the thread, admittedly a little late but hey, having a job / sleeping / life stuff does that sometimes, you came in to the thread guns blazing to belittle it.

Both attacking the quality of the games by insinuating that the majority do not care at all for a large portion of them, then get on the defencive about the overall quantity too.

Then we have..

It becomes immediately clear that you find issue with people pointing out the disparity in game availability, you then go on to reference older systems with wider libraries, at a point when a console has matured enough to have a stable and wide range of games being released for it, or a substantial catalog, yes, the raw numbers no longer matter, however when a console is still in the early days and the available library is short enough to be listed in a single graphic, pointing out those differences can be helpful, both in analysing the current situation and for people who do not yet own either system and want to make an informed purchased without having to trawl through the internet looking up individual games.

The list does not intrinsically say "lol ps4 has more games buy that" it simple says "heres the games that have been released on both systems each month since the launch", while you may not personally like what has been released on a particular platform (though, your focus almost entirely in this thread has been weighted more towards the games on ps4), that does not mean that those viewing the list wont like those games or be interested in them.

The list also shows the frequency of title releases, and while it may not be a bulletproof method, people could understanably come to the conclusion that they are more likely to receive more frequent game releases or less likely, on a particular platform.

Information is power, and the information presented is factual, so theres no reason to attack it other than ones own agenda, bias or frustration.

From our good friends over at Playstationtrophies.org (formerly ps3trophies)

Second Son completion time...... http://www.playstationtrophies.org/forum/infamous-second-son/229807-infamous-second-son-trophy-guide-roadmap.html

Uncharted 2 completion time.... http://www.playstationtrophies.org/forum/uncharted-2-among-thieves/26162-uncharted-2-among-thieves-trophy-guide-road-map-dlc.html

In some cases only 10 hours? for a platinum? christ, it's worse than i thought when it comes to length.

Actually you were in here earlier posting the exact same time as me and yeah youre trying your hardest to agrue.  As ive repeated numerous times my answer will always be the same.  You can analyze my posts but in the end i will still always answer exactly the same.  There really isnt anything to add to this at this point in time.  You just seem to want to continue to continue arguing as you know there is nothing left to say on the subject

Seems more like you're trying your hardest to convince me/others that its an argument when its a simple discussion.

And no, i was in here pointing out that resorting to "multiplats dont count" is pointless, the people saying that generally do so to discredit the smaller games, so i pointed out that the disparity exists even without them.

My view is simply that both systems have great games, and as someone indifferent to platforms, i see a lot of hypocrisy from both sides over the generation shift.

Of course there is hypocricy from both sides.   You can see me say, if you tell me you like PS4 games more than WiiU/XBO im fine with that.  Its an opinion. That isnt a superiority issue.

And to me, both has a few good games.  I wont say great atm, and nor wil i say they have a huge amount of good games.   Neither list amazing, average at best is more like it.  Ive enjoyed this gen so far but i also know there isnt much to brag about.  Mostly the early adopters that didnt need much convincing will be picking them up and enjoy a few good games now until the bigger games come out later.  That isnt to say you cant enjoy your console(s), ive enjoyed XBO/PS4/WiiU so far, but lets be honest about things. Theyre on their first year(excluding wiiU) and there isnt really a stellar library on any of the big three right now.

Does a game need to be stellar to be worthwhile though?

If it doesn't then I don't even see what your point this whole thread has been.

All of the games, on both systems, regardless of which, are just as appealing as the others to individuals or groups that like them, so belittling the list based on your own perception is just flat out wrong.

Well, we've got two conflicting sources, then. One that took an average of lots of people's playing times and said it takes 20 hours to 100%. And another where a guy says it takes "10-20 hours" (that's quite a fine range we have there) to 100%, with a guide to back it up.

What does this mean to me? That it can be beat in a shorter time, but the average player will take a longer time to play it. Fallout 3 is like a 50+ hour game to a typical gamer, but it can be beat in 30 minutes.

I higly doubt anyone is disputing that the PS4 has more games coming out.  The whole purpose of list wars is to say my system of choice is better than yours because it has more numbers.  What I am pointing out is that its the same pointless argument that in the end has absolutely no real value.  The Xbox fan is no more wrong in saying that the X1 has more games they care about then the PS4 fan saying I have more choices.  Its not more excuses it perference which cannot be measured based on quantity.

In the end just like any fanboy argument, it only matter to fanboys.

On your last point, are you saying that Sales = Quality.  Probably one of the most hugly debated topics on most forums.

Thread should've ended with this post, seriously.

I disagree it should no thave ended with this post because there were lists made like this last gen as well. There were always XB/360 fans that brought up how they continually got all these stellar titles on XBLA and how many more games it gave the 360 over the PS3. And even though I enjoyed the games on PS3 more than I did the 360 I felt that those people were correct. XBLA arcade had some AMAZING games on it. People were just to bias and silly to just accept it and see it.

Even if someone didn't like all those games on XBLA to try and not "count" the games that came to it to fit an agenda was just a way of trying to avoid losing an argument. Just like people are doing now. Everyone talks about all these "retail" AAA multi-million dollar games liek they are all that matter. While they are definitely an important part of a console and game library they are not all that matter. All those indie/arcade games fill gaps, are enjoyable, affordable and sometimes even better than those big budget "retail" AAA games that we always talk about.

So right now it is a case of the "goal posts" shifting on both sides to fit an argument/agenda to not lose an argument. This thread got turned into a war when all the OP did was post an article that showed the difference in games that are currently out for PS4/XB1 and what is coming out. And even went as far as to say that E3 was a chance to see more. But all most posters in here did was go at each other for no reason and cause tension and friction that wasn't needed. This is last gen all over it's just the PS4 is int eh front "right now" and the XB is not. So the roles are just reversed....itis crazy if you ask me how both sides have flip flopped their "arguments" smh.