Yeah, I'd go for PS4 still. Xbox One does not have the Japanese games I enjoy and I learned from my 360 that Microsoft can never compete in that area with Sony's Playstation. I don't care much for brand loyalty, but I will go to the console that offers me the most games I want and right now, power or not, that is the PS4.

Its all about game preference. I prefer Xbox games and others would prefer PS games. There's never a clear winner because both other great experiences. I would suggest PC gaming over both anyway ;)

Where JRPGs go. I follow. lol!

If the situation were switched then I would multiplat on XB1, exclusive on both. I also would've already bought an XB1 by now.

No difference, I'm on PSN for the games. It certainly would have made this gen a bit more interesting, though - sure XB1 was $500 and had kinect packed in...but it's a bit more powerful!

Games are the highest priority for me when I'm choosing a console. Graphics are just a nice touch for me. I would have still chosen a PS4 over Xbone. There isn't a single xbone exclusive that interests me, while there are a few PS4 exclusives that do. That's also why I chose the Wii U first, because it has my favorite games between the three consoles even though it has the worst graphics. Games > everything else.

I have always believed that PS4 exclusives target a more mature audience and that's what I like about them.

A good example, is the "Heavy Rain story behind the story". There is an interview out there in which David Cage is asked about the PS3 exclusivity. He explains that he actually asked Microsoft to fund the project before asking Sony.

He assures that the response Microsoft gave him was negative and that they wanted him to change the plot, because the script that he gave them was "too dark", the link for the article is below:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/4/4692996/david-cage-says-microsoft-was-scared-to-publish-heavy-rain

To wrap up, I will not change PlayStation exclusives for anything, even if the console was weaker.

The reason resolution (amongst other performance metrics) became a big deal is because last gen, PS3 was chided heavily for having "inferior multiplats" so the 360 was the better console because it was "the best place to play multiplatform games". And then, when this gen came around, when those advantages came to PlayStation and left the Xbox, those same people were saying the differences "didn't matter", all of a sudden. So, I'll admit, it was a "how's the taste of your own medicine?" type of deal, when discussing multiplatform games.

But in reality, they really "didn't matter", at the end of the day. The only reason these things became an issue ("resolutiongate" for example) is because of blatant hypocrisy from many in the MS crowd, downplaying the performance differences now, but blasting the PS3 last gen. And even worse, some people must have had short term memory loss, because when it's brought up that MS fans were on Playstation's ass last gen about not being equal to the Xbox versions of games, some said such activities never happened, as a means to further the agenda of "these differences don't matter" (as in, they say PS3 was never shat on, so why do such differences matter this gen?)

TL;DR performance differences being an issue is because of hypocrisy.

It would be like last gen... Xbox would be my main console, while PS4 would be the secondary console if things were reversed.

I played on PS3 last generation despite most multi-platform titles being superior on 360. I generally prefer Sony's first party titles, long console-life dedication and most business decisions tending to favor gamers(ie making the PS3 region free, being opposed to always-online, not prohibiting second hand games etc).