One thing to note, which has literally never happened before, is that the two big players this gen are broadly identical tech-wise - with PS4 having a slight but definitive edge. N64 had more horse power than the PSX but was crippled by cartridges. XB was several orders of magnitude more powerful than the PS2 but came late to the party and lacked Japanese developer support (which actually mattered in those days). PS3 had a more powerful CPU (in theory) than the X360 yet also ran late to the party and had an inferior GPU and was hard to program for. You could never really draw direct hardware comparisons.
However, this gen has two consoles which are very very similar compared to those previous gens. Ironically this means that performance differences are exacerbated rather than nullified. In previous gens I always wished for a super console that combined the best traits of the different products in the market - an N64 with a disk drive or a beefier PS2 with an XBL equivalent. This time the only real differentiating factor is PS4's superior power vs XB1's Kinect which is a novelty rather than a must have.
And why does all this actually matter? It's true when people say that gamers didn't seem to get all into resolutions and frames per second in the old days. That's because there were a lot more exclusives and less opportunities to make direct comparisons with multiplats. I'm completely pulling these figures out of my butt here, but I reckon 15% of games were multiplats in the N64/PSX era, 30-40% in the PS2/XB era and ~60% in last gen. I would not be surprised if this trend continues.
Thus, if multiplats are eating up more and more of the games market, and today's consoles are very similar technologically, I can see raw performance being a big deal and could possibly be determinative in the 'console war'. Speaking from PC experience, a few MHz clock speed can be enough to make one graphics card much more desirable than another even though they are made from the same reference design so I can see console performance being important in what is jow an apples to apples comparison.
This person speaks the truth; the writing is on the wall and its in 1080p for the PS4 and 720p for the XBOX ONE. You can't launch a new console with last gen resolutions and frame rates and expect people to pay you more for it. The Wii-U has more games in 1080p than the XBOX ONE. This generation is a wash.
The Queen of Light took her bow, and then she turned to go. The Prince of Peace embraced the gloom, and walked the night alone.-Battle of Evermore/Zeppelin
I put < greater sign to the more powerful system in that time frame.
N64 was the best console ps2 was the best xbox 360 was the best jury is out on this gen
ps1 was better and 360 is debatable fact
well i guess they are all debatable what you are comparing by but ps1 had a monster library and ps3 and 360 were nearly the same monster....with ps3 having more exclusives and 360 getting better 3rd party versions of games
imo all systems at the end of their cycle had more than enough reason to own them
Depends on how you define "won". The PS3 ended last gen by catching up and surpassing the 360 in sales and gaming library. I think the argument you're trying to make would be better if you said the Wii won last gen with its inferior hardware.