I'm not tech-savvy, so I personally have no idea what the power difference is going to translate into, exactly. The Xbone will most likely be fine, graphics-wise, but it's quite possible that the difference in multiplatform titles will be enough to persuade some people into going with the PS4, because let's not forget, the main appeal of these two consoles are arguably the third party (multiplatform) titles, so the huge majority of their libraries will be identical. So, in that sense, I agree completely with what you said; it's all about the games. But that's precisely what will play in detriment of Microsoft. Given how both consoles will be so very similar not just in their libraries, but also in a lot of other aspects, it makes sense that people would gravitate towards the most powerful one, even if this difference in power ended up being very, very small.
Kinect is one of the main (and few) things that distinguishes both systems from each other, but the hardcore market isn't responding very well to it. Even Microsoft seems to be puzzled as to what to do with it beyond the casual market. The fact that they had no Kinect games to show at E3 speaks volumes. Now, one could argue here that hardcore gamers don't want Kinect games, so Microsoft was just giving them what they wanted. But if that's the case, why make Kinect mandatory at all? Why force hardcore gamers to pay a considerably superior amount of money for something that this demographic doesn't want, as Microsoft themselves seem to be acknowledging? It just seems to me that Microsoft is making the same mistake as the Wii U; that is, trying to catch both the hardcore and casual demographics, with the end result being a product that satisfies neither, and which feels directionless, in contrast to the PS4, which has always been branded towards hardcore gamers. That's precisely what I was alluding to earlier when I was talking about how PS4 is a machine focused first and foremost in games.
