Yes, the differences in both systems architectures will demand the development is approached differently. Thats all well and good. But I don't get what you are really saying here. 

Ok, so lets go with what you said "data doesn't care about specs" That basically means that how the data on either platform is handled will end up determining just which platfomr has an edge or not. But my problem is this, why should specs not matter only seem to work in favor of the XB1. Cause I find it hard to believe that the CPU is so limiting on the PS4 that it basically makes all the PS4s GPU and memory advantages useless to such a degree that we will see no obvious performance gains.

Anyways, time will tell. 

Easy, it doesn't only work in favor of xb1.

I found it interesting they said a console compared to PC specs that consoles are roughly 2X more powerful than a PC with exact some specs, something to keep in mind.

"Counting pixel output probably isn't the best way to measure the difference between them though. There are plenty of other (and more important factors) that affect image quality besides resolution. We may push 40 per cent more pixels per frame on PS4, but it's not 40 per cent better as a result... your own eyes can tell you that."

Any more thoughts?

That was interesting.

What really kind of shocks me is the fact that, simply put, the PS4 shipped with better overall engineering than the Xbox One.  That doesn't seem like something that should happen.  This is Microsoft, a company with some of the best technical people in the world.  It makes me wonder if they had too many suits making decisions.  That, and Sony actually did a great job from that standpoint for a change.

That Microsoft was capable of better from the start is made even more obvious by how quickly they're improving their XDKs.  Perhaps it just shows that they weren't ready to launch the Xbox One.  Those DX11 work-arounds should have been there from the first--that, or DX11 should not have been there at all.  Maybe they thought DX12 would be ready sooner.

It's just odd to me that Microsoft bungled in so many areas at launch when they are clearly capable of better.

Also, something I think many people really need to get into their heads is this:

"Well obviously they aren't packing the bleeding edge hardware you can buy for PC (albeit for insane amounts of money) today. But they are relatively well-balanced pieces of hardware that are well above what most people have right now, performance-wise. And let's not forget that programming close to the metal will usually mean that we can get 2x performance gain over the equivalent PC spec."

Anyone out there who thinks that most PC gamers have machines that blow away the XO/PS4, they need to read that.

Games like video are a collection of moving images. Unlike video where these images are already made and stored and just played back at a certain framerate with games every image is basically created in realtime as required based on user input.

Now what makes up each image? Forget polygons, physics, lighting, animation and textures. What makes up the actual image we play are nothing more than pixels and their colour values. Everything that a game engine does, ends up being things that are associated to particular pixels that make up a screen at any given time.

So if you are trying to make a 1080p game, it means that you are rendering 2.07M pixels per frame. Think of this as a picture. Every single pixel takes up space.All those pixels together can be say (just examples here) 8MB. Now if you are adding colour and using say 16bit color, that number picture goes up from 8MB to say 20MB. Now adding post processing effects, which are things you typically (in the case of deferred rendering)do to the picture after its complete (eg AA) that number can easily go up to 28MB.

Now if you want to be able to run your game at 30fps, you basically need enough bandwidth to move that 28MB 30 times every second.

The problem though, is that with modern render engines, a looooot of stuff is done on that final picture before you see it. so that 28MB can in reality end up being as high as 60MB.

Bottom line: this game is not good.
I could not stand 30 minutes of it on PS3. and it have nothing to do with the console, the game just isn´t good or fun. Same with Crysis 3.
Many Fps developers lost their touch to game design, simple concepts like: learning curve, grabbing the gamer atention, FUN, and things like that are simply alien to them.

The main problem is history. more and more they hire writers that have no idea how to creat a videogame narrative, and those douchebags think thei are BETTER then real video game writer. video game narrative should be total subservient to the game itself, to the mechanics, to the spirit of the game.

Like in MGS4, crazy as it is, the history is all about going around the game and pumping it up, which is great. Or, to say nice things about a western dev, FALLOUT 3, the narrative is all about grabbing you in with grace and gentleness, not stupid fast pace explosions and muscle action, like in crysis 3 and many other FPSs...

This is possibly as clear as it gets, and not just on paper. Everytime I have read about a developer claiming the difference isn't much it has been a third party developer. First party developers, or exclusive games, will always be more optimized to really show what the hardware is capable of. Removing any form of customizations (in other words, yes generalize), these developers claim a 260 and 270 are vitually on par, when real world performance show they are not. On that note, if we look at how games are performing, only multiplatform games seem to show a minor difference where as exclusives, in particular Infamous, have shown why it is not minor but clearly better. Why third party games show a minor difference is a topic that looks to go on a tangent.

That's true, and even those of us that do often find them somewhat wasted with poor ports or games that lack graphical ambition. The things that do take decent advantage of my hardware make it worth it for me, but I'm also going to keep playing on consoles too. I'll never understand people who dismiss PCs or dismiss all consoles out of hand. 

You're one to talk.  You quoted everything that could be seen as downplaying the PS4 in a later comment.  But that seems the usual whenever you post anything Digital Foundry. 

Here's one thing in the interview you should have quoted.  Something that shows that the consoles aren't as weak as people think they are rather than cherry picking quotes that could be read to make the Xbox One look good. 

"Oles Shishkovstov: Well obviously they aren't packing the bleeding edge hardware you can buy for PC (albeit for insane amounts of money) today. But they are relatively well-balanced pieces of hardware that are well above what most people have right now, performance-wise. And let's not forget that programming close to the metal will usually mean that we can get 2x performance gain over the equivalent PC spec. Practically achieving that performance takes some time, though!"