I think the difference is that you’re seeing a live performance as atmosphere (atmosphere in this analogy) whereas I’m seeing it as musical performance (football contest / performance in this analogy). It’s a mixture of both in all honesty but for me it’s skewed heavily in favour or musical performance.
Without being there in person the musical is nothing more than a song sung on a concert. It's not even better than a studio recorded song.
All I'm saying is that for these kind of things to be good and memorable, you just need to be there. The magic is in the atmosphere, being there, and listening to the roar of 90.000 fans to the tune of your favourite band singing your favourite songs. Without all those, it's just another pop band singing Ok ish song. That particular performance was deemed best by the OP, which is fair play. But not for me, because I'm not there, and from here all I see is just meh. It's not more bombastic than the concerts of other pop songs in terms of lighting, dance choreography, gimmicks, which is no slight at Queen considering it's 20 years from their time. The same way people pay top dollar to be in the concert, instead of simply seeing it at home, you can't capture the moments on DVD.
Not comparing Queen to Cold play in any way, but from outside point of view their concert is more of a spectacle, lighting wise, gimmicks etc. Doesn't mean they're the best for whatever reason, but you can objectively see which one is a better spectacle without having to be there in person. Off course if you're there in person the whole experiences changes and nobody can argue which one you think is better