Everything is a bit of an exaggeration

Is it an exaggeration? Your description of the RSX was more an exaggeration than any of my descriptions. "Anemic"? Not even close. The RSX was only outcalssed by the 360 due to the eDRAM. Other than that, it actually had better performance in many tasks.

And the way games look might be subjective, but 90%+ people would never notice a difference in real life, unlike the 360/PS3 fiasco where PS3 multiplatform games were consistently worse, and blatantly noticeable at that. The vast majority of people don't see the difference between 900p and 1080p, especially if the 900p is upscaled well, but people could easily tell the difference between the 360 and PS3 version, especially in the first 3 or 4 years of last gen. 

So yes, it's subjective, but it's an opinion that the majority of people who just play games for fun share.

Everything is a bit of an exaggeration was a response directed at Shinobi

Who is also the one who described the RSX. Seeing as the performance of PS3 multiplats was generally worse, last gen for the most part I have my evidence, where is your about the Tasks it apparently did better in.

90+ of statistics you find on the internet are made up. You have no claims backing up what different audience notice and do not, so its foolishing making such blanket statements and building rationale off of that.

Its your opinion that its just because the a vast majority won't notice the difference and that because they won't notice it they won't care. That is absolutely silly. If the difference is larger, then it stands to reason that It will be easier to notice, especially if your used to it. Thats how human vision works. Not to mention the advent of 1080p television and gaming means that people are going to get used to new resolutions. Its not a new thing, compare Ps2 games to PS3 games and then to PS4 games, tell me its noticiable.

If you have ever been in a retail environment, let alone one of electronics, Average consumers will want to know the difference between things if they don't have prior biases. Even if they can't see the differences, if they look at the back and it says 1080p and the other copy says 900 p and they both cost the same then, no consumer average or otherwise will not choose the lower resolution. Whether they notice the difference is completely irrelevant, when the differences are magnified.

I think you're making this stuff up about consumers really noticing a difference for the most part, because they don't. Ask any video game player if they notice much of a difference on their One compared to their PS4 and most will say that the difference is marginal at best. Yes, I am basing this off of my own experiences as a college student with friends with multiple consoles, along with threads on this site and others.

For consumers, they'll buy the console that has their favorite game on it, they don't give a damn about 900p upscaled to 1080p vs native 1080p. All they see is that the games look similar, and so they feel comfortable buying their console.

This isn't like a consumer looking at the Wii U vs the PS4/One and noticing a significant difference in visuals. They see that both consoles output games that have very similar looks, and then get the one that has the games they like.

In the end it may be subjective, but let's not pretend that majority consumers make their purchase on whether a game is 900p vs 1080p, because they don't. They'll make the purchase on whichever platform their friends use and the one most appealing to them, confident that the games will look almost exactly the same no matter what console.

Lol the difference last gen was far bigger then the difference this gen. It seems people were forgetting the difference seen in games such as COD games, where the ps3 version had lower resolution , less aa, less detail in textures and more frame drops . Thats just COD. Other games that suffered alot was RDR. The ps3 version was horrible compared ot xbox 360 version in resolution , textures and so on. Same with fallout game, skyrim which had frame drop to single digit and more screen tearing. Then there was bayonetta athat had horrible frame rate , less detail in textures. stright from DF for bayonetta " The resulting game featured washed-out colours, a choppy frame-rate, lengthy load times and control issues.". Not to mention crysis 2 and 3 on ps3 were terrible in all aspects from AA, textures, frame rate and resolution. Compared to this gen at most you have a tiny resolution advantage towards ps4 as most games on xbox one are 900p with the exception of a few which are 720p. The textures most of the tiem are the same . The only next real difference is frame rate . sure 60fps is good but 30 ain't bad and alot payable then the fps from last gen in terms of games being built for ps3. For games like tomb raider definitive edition the frame rate of the ps4 version is all over the place and you can feel it when you play. ( i have the game and nearly finished it) compared with more constant 30fps. in that way i rather prefer constant 30fps then a variable frame rate. So yes in terms of this the difference this gen far smaller then last gen

Again this gen the difference jus comes to resolution. Frame rate not so much unless teh evelopers decides to do 60fps vs 30fps. Yea but last gen they had resolution deffierence, AA differemce, Frame rate difference, Texture detail difference. Thats far bigger  difference then current gen. For me i rather take slightly lower resolution and a stable frame rate then a game  that lower resolution, lower extures, unplayable frame rate and poorer AA.

Also to note even though its 44% more pixels,, you pu tthem on a 50inch tv and most peopel won't be able to tell teh difference in resolution , clearly seen by KZ multiplayer debacle.  Whereas last gen those difference were more pronounced and obvious

I have . i am actually on there atm. Have all multiplatform games on xbox one being stable frame rate?  Was there any game where xbox one ws unstable and hard to play for multiplatform games.  I knwo you will mention games like watch dogs, AC Black flag and i see no difference between the two version an dhardly noticeable.  The games that was  more prnounce in your case would be the early COD game and MGS game where the xbox one not having that cloud simulation is hardly something to cry about lol.  which games are you referring to?

yes i agree things will improve better. But having brothers ho buy same games i do ,, i get the privilage to se eboth in action to see any difference. In terms of last gen, currently my 360 finally got rrod after 7 years so the games i play are on my ps3 and the games  i only play are those that come with ps plus. i have seen dead space 3 on 360 and  i am finishing  it on ps3 and i coudl see the difference. Same goes for crysis 3 on ps3 ( ps plus for europe this month). The difference there are astounding. Same goes for metro last light ( another ps plus game) , i coudl see the difference there . in saying that teh game was awesome to play lol. 

I'm not baiting you. So im not sure about the whole bite comment. Thats unnecessary..again coming from a MOD.

"PS3 was a lot more powerful" Theres really no real world evidence of this. There isnt vast differences between IQ, effects, player count, AI, polygon counts etc. between the PS3's best and the 360's best. Im very certain that all the top PS3 games can be ported to 360 with minimal, if any comprimises (in certain areas like AA it will be stronger) and vice versa. Looking at the actual hardware achitectures of the PS3 and 360 its very difficult to compare, they are different architectures, different memmory setups...just about everything is different. So comparing theoretical performance, in this instance is silly, especially considering that both platforms are mature and devs have had multiple years to take full advantage of the hardware...so we are well aware of whats capable in real world performance. So that statement is indeed factually incorrect. I have not come across a single tech site or tech savvy person who has claimed otherwise except VancelX..who doesnt seem to know tech.

"marginally better components" The PS4 has a total system theoretical performance of ~1.8tfls. X1 is sitting at ~1.3tfls. Thats quite a big difference. And that difference is down almost entirely to the GPU. Effectively the PS4 has 6 more GCN cores in it. Id love to see anyone argue that that is a marginally better component. In real life these two GPU's are in two completely different brackets and are at two different pricepoints. The PS4 also has a much better RAM setup...8gb of GDDR5 ram vs 8gb of DDR3 ram plus esram.I wouldnt call this a better component but better setup, which devs in general, prefer to work with (one pool of ram vs. a split pool of ram). So gain thats an incorrect statement to make.

The other things he said were opinion...so that is fine.

Either way i still think it was unbecomming of a moderator to add the "that ends the thread" comment to a post of that nature. To actively encourage misinformation is the worst thing ive seen a mod do. Did you even research the claim he was making? Do you even know about the topic at hand? Or are you equally misinformed and were led to believe the wrong things?