Obviously, shame they didn't bother optimizing for XB1, oh well at least COD is aspiring for it.

I don't think CoD is aspiring for 1080p, BF is. Either way, CoD and BF are more technically demanding games therefore 900p/60fps makes sense for those titles.

The Halo Collection is apparently 1080p and 60 fps. So go figure.

I personally believe Blizzard does not really care for the console market. Their games are usually late or really crappy when they finally make it over. They also seem to not really try on consoles.
I read the Digital Foundry review of this game across all platforms (360, PS3, PC) and they said the PS3 was the absolute worst to play on. Worst framerate, resolution, (Mind you this game was 6gb bigger on the PS3 vs. the 360. They said the 360 was more comparable to the PC hence the side by side video.
And this makes no sense, because we know the PS3 was more powerful, and is capable of stunning graphics (see first party titles). When I see a games like God of War 3, the Uncharted series, The Last of Us, and then hear how poorly their (Blizzard) games runs on this platform it all points to laziness.
Personally, I find it amazing that anybody that visits these sites hasn't already played this game. Because the counter argument for every game that is available on a console, and PC is "I'll just play it on my PC." This game is not taxing anyone's rig.
These guys did not want to make a Xbox1 version anyway, and originally they were getting a ton of crap because they were not going to offer remote play for the PS4 version, even though Sony said anygame that does not require the camera must have remote play possible. Their excuse at the time was they felt the Vita screen was to small to handle the game, and it would look like crap. It was the backlash they recieved (more likely Sony policy) that it was finally added, and possibly why they added exclusive TLoU PS4 levels to regain good faith from the PS community.

Agree that the port is probably not a huge hit. It's an old game now (like Halo MCC, GTAV, TLOU, etc).

The engine is basically set for dual-core, as evidenced by an i3 + 760 running it basically identically to an i7 + 760. The PS4/XB1 have 8 very slow cores (core for core a Haswell i3 4130 is around 4x faster or more than the 1.6Ghz Jaguar)

Agreed. But we're not developers and have little understanding of the matter. It can't be just because they're lazy developers. There must be a standard amount of work they are willing to put into games like this and the X1 requires a little more work, they're not willing to invest in. This explains the same attitude developers had last gen when dealing with PS3 ports.

What a shocking piece of news this is!

Diablo isn't graphically demanding, I find this very strange it can't hit 1080p

This is the correct answer for this particular situation.

Multi-plats are better for comparing the ease of development for the X1 vs the PS4 rather than their power. It would be true to say the PS4's extra power makes it even easier to work with, but in situations like this the power difference itself is irrelevant.

I'm not calling the developers lazy and its fair to say this game isn't well optimized X1.

Its not a big deal though, 900p and a more stable 60 fps is a nice improvment over 7th gen. But it sucks they didn't put the effort for 1080p on a $60 game with low end graphics.

xbone games can never look better than ps4 games