I stick to the PC myself, and try not to touch the console scene; but my suspicion would be that Microsoft knows (in broad numbers) the expected loss of system-selling value from a PC release, and was OK with it (Titanfall was certainly bought and paid for in terms of exclusivity, so had they wanted a substantial delay on the PC side, I suspect they could have gotten one).
As for resolution, it’ll really come down to whether the graphical issues hinder enjoyment or not. Since it doesn’t exist on the PS4, there won’t be any embarassing side-by-side screenshot contests showing off the results of Sony’s decision to buy a few more GPU compute elements from AMD on each of their dice, which means that it’ll come down to whether the graphics mess with the gameplay or not. If they don’t, people will suck it up unless it’s just plain dreadful as a shooter.
If reports start coming in that ‘Apparently 27th century targeting optics are only good to 200 feet because The Mysterious Fog of Framerate blocks out the sky’ and ‘I’m pretty sure the original demo videos for Halo I looked better than this!’, they are going to have a problem. If it merely looks worse than the PC version can (on a decent to crazed gaming PC), I’m less sure that that will make a difference. Except for console exclusives, and, on earlier console generations, occasionally the first few months after launch, you’ve always been able to get better results on a PC. It just might cost twice as much and require more fiddling with beta-quality GPU drivers. If absolute inferiority bothered console gamers, they would have died out by now.
