Thanks. Weird, I can't seem to embed videos in my original post, there is an option when I'm replying to the thread however. 

If you genuinely think that current games do not have the texture capability to display on 4k just fine youre mistaken, many of the latest games for PC have shipped with, or optionally had available, high resolution textures up to 4096x4096, but even when for the most part the textures are 2048x2048, or even 1024x1024 or any power of two variation, the likelyhood of that texture being displayed on the screen where the full resolution of the texture is displayed at native or stretched, is extremely small.

When youre looking at a wall in the distance, the image on screen shows that wall as being only a few hundred pixels high and a thousand or so long, meaning the amount of texture you actually see is for example, 256x256 tiled, if, and in most cases will be the actual case, the wall texture is a power of two such as 1024x4096, or 512x2048, you would need to be close enough to the wall for it to be filling that amount of screen realestate JUST TO GET IT TO SHOW AT ITS NATIVE RESOLUTION, and when it does end up closer, shader effects, bump mapping and detail textures muxed in with the material maintain a level of detail higher than the original texture asset anyway.

In short, you do not need "special 4k textures" to display games at 4k and see a benefit.

Of course, if you feel a far off object on screen taking up a few hundred pixels, but the object itself having a 1024x1024 texture applied, somehow wont look better if the amount of that texture being shown is higher, then you have some major issues.

In short, higher resolution doesnt just "smooth the edge of objects", you dont "need 4k specific textures and assets" for a game to be the first "4k next gen", increasing the resolution, increases how much of the texture on each and every object drawn, is visable.

There are no ways about it, you cannot just say "all textures will be 4k" then, because for one, no graphics card around will have the vmem for it, and for two, its an absolute waste of memory for anything other than ground and wall, and skybox textures - and guess what, most modern games use high res textures for those already.

But please, go ahead, tell a game dev shes wrong, see how far it gets you.

Bonus tip, not many of the textures in the game linked will be 4096x4096 either, and the specular maps on the asteroids are definitely below half the resolution of the asteroid itself.

If you genuinely think that current games do not have the texture capability to display on 4k just fine youre mistaken, many of the latest games for PC have shipped with, or optionally had available, high resolution textures up to 4096x4096, but even when for the most part the textures are 2048x2048, or even 1024x1024 or any power of two variation, the likelyhood of that texture being displayed on the screen where the full resolution of the texture is displayed at native or stretched, is extremely small.

When youre looking at a wall in the distance, the image on screen shows that wall as being only a few hundred pixels high and a thousand or so long, meaning the amount of texture you actually see is for example, 256x256 tiled, if, and in most cases will be the actual case, the wall texture is a power of two such as 1024x4096, or 512x2048, you would need to be close enough to the wall for it to be filling that amount of screen realestate JUST TO GET IT TO SHOW AT ITS NATIVE RESOLUTION, and when it does end up closer, shader effects, bump mapping and detail textures muxed in with the material maintain a level of detail higher than the original texture asset anyway.

In short, you do not need "special 4k textures" to display games at 4k and see a benefit.

Of course, if you feel a far off object on screen taking up a few hundred pixels, but the object itself having a 1024x1024 texture applied, somehow wont look better if the amount of that texture being shown is higher, then you have some major issues.

In short, higher resolution doesnt just "smooth the edge of objects", you dont "need 4k specific textures and assets" for a game to be the first "4k next gen", increasing the resolution, increases how much of the texture on each and every object drawn, is visable.

There are no ways about it, you cannot just say "all textures will be 4k" then, because for one, no graphics card around will have the vmem for it, and for two, its an absolute waste of memory for anything other than ground and wall, and skybox textures - and guess what, most modern games use high res textures for those already.

But please, go ahead, tell a game dev shes wrong, see how far it gets you.

Bonus tip, not many of the textures in the game linked will be 4096x4096 either, and the specular maps on the asteroids are definitely below half the resolution of the asteroid itself.

I agree with you for the most part, but you can't say that many of the modern games are made with the 4K resolution in mind. But they do do work in 4K and they look somewhat better than in lower resolutions. And while there are 4096x4096 textures implemented, it's important to what scale in the game they are applied, and so on. But you know all this, so it's pointless arguing. 

Edit: since most games focus on character design to be extra detailed and have killer looks, here's my case in point - some 4K screens

http://i4.minus.com/iupzfrjVzmVA5.png - crysis 3 - face is passable even at 4K, but look at the clothes textures.

http://i7.minus.com/ibi3BqzL6AZSni.png - Metro 2033

http://i7.minus.com/ibs2d4opiy3xhG.png - Fifa 13

So, a game that will be made to push the limits of the upcoming high-end hardware in 4K will most probably have to do a better job.

If you can run a game at 4k, then it runs at 4k, 4k is just a resolution as such the topic claims this to be the first game to run at 4k, which given that its a pc title, its extra silly.

again, games will always show better results at higher resolutions except for objects extremey close to the screen, as more pixels of each texture as visable on models further away that otherwise would be a muddy mess.

To make it absolutely clear, heres battlefield 3, prior to take off from the carrier, both at the same settings the only difference is the left is upscaled from its native 1080p to match the size of the 4k image.

Edges and aliasing are not the only thing that improves, as i have now said multiple times.

I'm not arguing that 4k is just a resolution.
However, StarCitizen is doing more than just rendering at a higher resolution with a High-Resolution texture pack to look fantastic at 4k.
They aren't merely stretching a texture over a surface and calling it a day, they aren't baking details into the textures, they are using real geometry for everything.
That Battlefield 3 picture is a perfect example, where the metal rings on the hanger deck are baked-in texture details, in StarCitizen small details such as that would be geometric.
Problem with that approach however is that, when you scale up in resolution, it also removes jagged edges, so low-poly assets with little aliasing are more obvious with their flat sides.

You normally don't notice such small details in a console game, because compared to even 1440P/1600P/4k the 720P/1080P console games look downright blurry and low definition, that it hides most of those flaws.

Essentially in the end, this level of fidelity is only possible on the PC and because the game is going to be so popular, with mod support, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being the best looking game on any platform for several years.

You're forgetting the game is still in pre-alpha.
Allot of assets like those rockets are still being worked on, the game is designed as a high-end PC game, most single GPU's should struggle, I.E. Not achieve 60fps even at 1080P.