@so_hai:

"I just don't understand why anyone would think that a real world fact disappears whether you value it or not."

- neither do I, that would be stupid.

"The subjectivity is whether its important or not, not whether if its true or not."

- Yes, that's what I was implying. Truths still remain truths, but without value, lose merit.

"As for "And graphics and performance are absolutely what many people care/cared about, first and foremost", then it raises the question on why they meet on a games website to talk about this. They only care because it applies to gaming, not because they are interested in technical specs alone. If they do, then they're engineers or technicians, not gamers."

- largely semantics. Talking about caring solely about graphics and performance from a technical standpoint, vs caring about graphics and performance enough to have it effect which games you play or what platform you buy, still share the same core idea - putting high or even exclusive interest in graphics and performance.

you can have different opinions about things, without it turning into competition fueled by emotion and insults. The scientific community does this all the time, as do a good portion of every-day people, every day.

Despite there being "facts to be known," it still comes down to subjectivity, because as I stated previously, if facts have no merit, they simply don't apply. They don't serve as absolutes in determining a "winner" or not. . You can list a bunch of facts for either console, and if people don't care about them, that is, the facts have no bearing on why they chose a certain console, those facts do nothing. Yes, there are facts, but things still remain subjective. The only thing that could determine a definitive winner or loser is if end goal(s) are set.

And graphics and performance are absolutely what many people care/cared about, first and foremost. This is why we have things like "resolutiongate" and 1080p vs 720p debates, and 30fps vs 60fps, people "demanding" that that every game on next-gen systems should be 1080p/60fps, and finally why the topic was a huge, if no "the" focal point during the launch of the new consoles. Based off observation, it appears many really are that shallow. It's why many people won't play older games, or even new(er) indie games, because they are dated looking.

And that is debatable. Others may suggest that MS defeated itself, with its abysmal reveal and initial introduction of what the Xbox One was going to offer, is what contributed to PS4 being in the position it's in now, and "potential?" Really? People were flocking to the PS4 for what it could, maybe, perhaps do? The Xbox One arguably had as much or more potential with it's initial vision, and fast forward to now, with it's integration with Win 10, it looks to offer, yet again, as much or more potential than that of Sony, but again, it doesn't matter. The PS4 could be the best thing since sliced bread, and still, not everyone is going to like it, and thus, there is and never will be any definitive "winner." - It's all subjective. As dumb as it sounds, the power and potential of the PS4 only matters to those it matters to - it isn't an absolute to applies to everyone. Again, subjective.

And as I stated, it's all subjective. Your claims may be true, but if they hold no value, who cares? Investors and shareholders might care that it's leading in sales, but does the average gamer care? It's the most powerful console in history - but what exclusives does it have? How is the online service? What other features does it offer? Perhaps to some, those are more important than just raw power.

Yeah, it looks really fun, like a more kid friendly TF2.

It's a third person shooter, with 2 primary game modes - Team Vanquish, which is like TDM, and Gardens and Graveyards, which is being described as "a mix between Rush and Conquest from Battlefield." Basically, Zombies always attack, Plants always defend. Whenever Zombies take a point, the Battle is pushed forward. It even has it's own Commander mode from BF4.

Xbox One players will also get 2 exclusive modes - split screen co-op mode, and a Boss Mode, which is like Horde Mode. The game is MP only.

I just did a write up on this - http://www.gamespot.com/profile/blog/titanfall-beta-my-gripes/26053762/

If MS adopted a similar philosophy to digital purchases as Steam, it could benefit them tremendously, and I don't see why they couldn't do this. There's also gonna people who prefer physical copies, and those people can always go to Gamestop or wherever else, and since hey want more (box, manual, disk) they pay more, which would justify MS charging less for DD.

BF4, I bought Powerstroke Golf, and it's not bad, but it has no co-op or vs mode, just single player. On Tuesday, I will have Thief and Garden Warfare to mess with.