A certain corner of the game-focused Internet has been busy counting pixels this week, scrutinizing statements, screenshots, and videos for evidence that either the PlayStation 4 or Xbox One is providing a clearly superior graphical experience at launch. After examining all the available evidence, it seems clear that the PlayStation 4 versions of launch games like Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty: Ghosts enjoy a slight graphical advantage over their Xbox One cousins. It also seems equally clear, to me, that the difference just isn't that big a deal—unless you plan on playing games while looking through a magnifying glass.

The brouhaha really got going on Tuesday, when Digital Foundry posted an analysis of the footage it captured from the PC, PS4, and Xbox One versions of Battlefield 4 during a recent review event. Their capture setup determined that the Xbox One version was running at 1280×720, compared to a 1600×900 resolution for the PS4 version, both at 60 frames per second. While these weren't the final release candidate versions of the game being tested, the resolutions are likely to be consistent in the final games despite an earlier promise by DICE to target "equal performance" on both consoles.

(Members of the PC master race will be happy to know that the Windows version of the game ran at 1920×1080 resolution on "Ultra" settings, besting both consoles handily. The console versions were most comparable to the PC game running at the PC's "High" graphics quality, Digital Foundry said.)

The next volley in the resolution wars came yesterday, when Infinity Ward's Mark Rubin confirmed over Twitter that the Xbox One version of Call of Duty: Ghosts will be running at "1080p upscaled from 720p," compared to a "native 1080p" resolution of the PlayStation 4. These tidbits seem to have a small but loud corner of the Internet convinced that Microsoft's system is overpriced and underpowered, incapable of keeping up with the PlayStation 4.

The reports certainly sound like a big deal, with Sony's system pushing 50 to 100+ percent more native pixels than Microsoft's on identical launch games. Try as I might, though, I can't get too worked up over what seems like an incredibly minor difference in practical graphical output.

Before we continue, you should probably watch the direct Battlefield 4 comparison video Digital Foundry posted (embedded above). Make sure you push it to full screen and full resolution to get an accurate comparison. It should be clear that you can make out differences in the two images if you're looking for them, especially if you get up close to your monitor and focus on the edges of certain objects.

Examining the video a foot or two away from a PC monitor doesn't really mimic the way console gamers play games, though. For that, you're going to have to back up from your monitor at least a couple of long paces. Watch the video again from this farther vantage point. Can you still make out the differences? Even if you can, are they as significant?

Whether a gain in output resolution is noticeable to the human eye depends on three things: the pixel count, the screen size, and, crucially, the distance from the screen. The value of an increase in raw pixels goes down as the screen size gets smaller and as you get farther from the display.

Digital Trends has calculated the distances and screen sizes where various resolutions actually matter. If your living room TV is 10 feet away from your seat, you need a TV a bit larger than 50 inches to notice the difference between 720p and 1080p. If you're 12 feet away, you need a screen larger than 60 inches.

Viewing distances aside, we're reaching a point of somewhat diminishing returns when it comes to improving a gaming image just by throwing more pixels at it. Back in the '80s, the jump in resolution between the Atari 2600 and the NES was about the same pure pixel ratio as the jump from 720p to 1080p, but it provided a much more noticeable effect on image quality (even if you discount the NES' wider simultaneous color palette and larger character sprites). The jump from 720p to 1080p is much less noticeable, even up close, than the jump from 480p to 720p that made Wii games look like muddy, washed-out relics compared to their Xbox 360/PS3 brethren.

It's hard to look at the Xbox One's technically "inferior" 720p output with the same kind of practical concern as those inter-console resolution comparisons of the past. Resolution aside, the games look practically identical, with similar textures, apparent polygon counts, frame rates, and particle effects (like smoke). The small aliasing difference due to the resolution pales in comparison to the similarities in the overall look and feel of both versions.

That's not to say the differences aren't there; it's just that they're not all that significant to my eye. As Digital Foundry put it in its analysis, "the Microsoft console manages to hold up despite the undeniable, quantifiably worse metrics in terms of both resolution and frame rate."

You should be wary of reading too many long-term performance concerns into any resolution differences in launch titles, as well. The evolution of graphical quality on a system has at least as much to do with optimization and allocation of developer resources as it does with raw hardware specs (where the Xbox One and PS4 are quite similar). Furthermore, the overall look and feel of a game lies heavily on overall art direction and craft than raw numbers anyway. Games like Super Mario 64 and Shadow of the Colossus still hold up to this day, despite being in standard definition, thanks to the strong aesthetic sense behind them.

None of this is to ignore the actual differences in resolution between the PS4 and Xbox One versions of at least a couple high-profile, multiplatform launch games. If you're the kind of person who isn't happy unless his gaming rig generates the highest raw benchmark numbers, the PS4 seems to be your console of choice for the time being (though, really, a high-end PC still wins out on this score). If you're the kind of person who values actual gameplay, though, choose your next console based on the games. You can feel secure in the knowledge that, graphically, there doesn't seem to be much practical, noticeable difference in performance.