Before you can tell us we are making a mistake, you first have to tell us what make this gen different from last.  So far things have been going pretty much the same as last gen for 3rd party developers.  Even now 3rd party developers are looking for parity more than expanding the features or advantages of one platform over another.  Even the platform holders are doing similar things like they did last gen.  My question to you is what has changed for a 3rd party developer.

LMFAO no. I don't even own an Xbox One and Ryse looks better than both. Second Son and Killzone are better games, but Ryse has them both beat in the graphics department.

Look no further than this very thread.

Please stop stating your opinion as fact and stay on topic. Ryse has nothing to do with this thread nor does ISS or Killzone.

lol, you're right. So sad. I can understand saying that the difference doesn't matter any more than it did last gen, but to deny it outright is just ridiculous, at this point.

OK, where to start...the PS3 vs. Xbox 360 battle was defined by multiplayer gaming.  XBL and cross game chat made the Xbox THE place to play multiplayer games.  This gen, Sony has improved their server infrastructure and has added cross-game chat, so on that, the playing field has leveled.

Next, there was VERY little difference between the multiplatform games...they ran at the same resolution, and the difference in frame rate was negligable.  Sometimes there were bugs in one version and not the other...but for the most part, games played IDENTICALLY on the 360 vs. the PS3...aside from the factors I mentioned in the beginning.

This generation, we are seeing a fairly dramatic difference in the games.  Most Xbox games run at 900p or less, and most PS4 games run at 1080p.  Some games, like Tomb Raider or Sniper Elite 3 have 1080p resolution on both platforms, but then the frame rate suffers on the XB1.  These are NOT subtle differences!  They are obvious to anyone playing!  If your framerate drops below 30fps, it's noticable!  If your screen tears because they have vsync disabled, it's noticable!  In comparison after comparison, news article after news article, the XB1 comes up short.  Fans of MS try to minimize these shortcomings, but they are there, and people ARE paying attention...as reflected by sales.

The other mistake people make is to say "well the PS3 came up from behind, so the XB1 will also!".  This couldn't be more wrong.  The PS3 was able to come up from behind due to the strength of the Sony brand (especially internationally), the number of exclusives on the PS3 that were NEVER available on the 360, and the fact that many bought it strictly for use as a blu-ray player.  Last gen, it was common for gamers to buy both platforms...the PS3 for the exclusive titles, and the Xbox 360 for multiplayer gaming.  THIS generation, the LESS POWERFUL console with FEWER GAMES is the "underdog".  There is not a good reason this gen to own both consoles, either, as the multiplayer experience is just as good on the PS4 as the XB1 and the number (and quality) of the Xbox One exclusives are just not there to justify owning one.

Make no mistake, we are in agreement. If given a choice I know devs will always follow the road most travelled. They will not spend extra time making one version of a game better than the other. Thre are two things that should be considered though.

1. The PS4 is easier to develop for and more powerful; if devs keep using it as the lead platform then whatever they have on the PS4 running stably will not run as well on the XB1 without some serious work to the code and memory management. So even if devs are using 1080p@30fps as a standard this gen, if they can hit that on the PS4 then without a lot of work they will not be able to get the same code running on the XB1 without making some concessions. Hence the whole 900p and lower rez textures we see with BX1 versions currently.
2. If the devs decide to make the XB1 the lead platform with the notion that anything they can get to be stable on the XB1 will run flawlessly on the PS4, then it brings us to a new kinda problem. The PS4s architecture is better than the XB1s in every single way. Not just talking about GPU, ram and everything else. There is not one single area that the XB1 offers better options or advantages to the devs.
   
   What this means is that by simply taking you "stable" game over from the XB1 and running it on PS4 hardware, you instantly automatically have a better running game. Something will be better; it may be resoultion, framerates, AA, texture detail, loading times...etc. The only way you end up with a game that is not in some way (weather its noticeable is left to be seen) better is if you actually put more work into the PS4 version to make it worse.
   
   And another thing about devs and lead platforms, if the PS4 keeps selling the way it is now. By this time next year it could very well have a 2:1 global lead over the XB1. Tht gives very little incentive for devs to make the XB1 the lead platform.

The Cell had the clear advantage in Floating Point performance thanks to it's SPUs. It lagged significantly behind the 360's CPU for general purpose processing. Also the Cell was a single core Power PC based CPU with 8 SPUs. One of those SPUs was disabled to improve yields. The other was dedicated to the OS. So there were 6 for gaming. The Main Core of the Cell was actually stripped down version of the same core that powered the 360's Tri-Core CPU. It was not completely superior to the 360 CPU but it's unique architecture allowed it to take on some GPU tasks. 

So Captain_Tom was on-topic when he posted that SS obliterates Ryse?

And this is very much on-topic, since I'm pointing out that the system percieved to have the weakest hardware has the best looking game. It may not be "fact", but it is an opinion that enough people share. When you are comparing hardware capabilities of a game console, why would you not mention the way the games look on it? The games are what show the IRL performance capabilities of the console, after all. 

The unique architecture gave it a distinct advantage for games dedicated to the PS3. Games like TLOU and GoW 3 showed the prowess of the PS3 compared to the 360. You are correct about one SPU being disabled and one being dedicated to the OS, but even the 360 had to have tasks/threads dedicated to the OS, even if an entire core wasn't dedicated to it. And the GPUs were actually not that different, the PS3 actually had a better GPU when it game to general performance, but the 360's eDRAM allowed it to work more efficiently. The PS3 also had much faster and efficient RAM, just like how the PS4 does compared to the One.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/08/26/xbox-360-vs-playstation-3-the-hardware-throwdown

I am wondering how many games are being made to run at 30fps simply because the XB1 can't handle 60!