MW3 vs BF3, a lesson in Game Feel I guess

Eurogamer.net has an interesting article comparing (though they fail to use the term) the game feel of Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. The article brings a game quality that nobody talks about into context, discusses the rivalry between EA and Activision(-Blizzard), the future, and even some pc vs console discussion.

The Game Feel part of the discussion has to do with response times. Apparently Digital Foundry sat down and measured out the response time of MW3 and BF3 and found that MW3 responds about twice as fast as BF3, partially because MW3 runs at 60 FPS and BF3 runs at 30 FPS. I think their interpretation is that this response time is secretly addictive to players (even if they may not realize it) and draws them to MW3 like children to Chuck E Cheese's. I think they're on the tokens. In exchange though, Battlefield 3 implements a whole slew of rendering techniques that Modern Warfare can't handle in the time allotted, so we have a clear tradeoff.

The really interesting part to me though, is near the end where Digital Foundry points out that BF3 runs at 60FPS on a PC, that's not using the 5 year old technology that Modern Warfare is optimized for. They then claim that come next console generation, Activision is going to be at a technological disadvantage because of the engine Modern Warfare uses. EA will topple Activision, and the hobbits will begin taking on their real nemesis: Sauron.

The article is very interesting, but I wonder if the predictions are true. I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that Activision won't try to improve the engine at all for the next generation. Activision probably saved a pretty penny on development costs for MW3 so I don't see why they wouldn't invest in an upgraded engine for Xbox 720 or whatever. Even if they didn't, I'm sure Modern Warfare 4 would sell amazingly well on name alone.