Depends on the game, but 1080p needs to become the standard.

Wrong.


http://techfrag.com/2016/04/06/dark-souls-3-pc-benchmarks
And that was BEFORE patch 1.03.

Here is a benchmark at Quad-High Definition.


http://wccftech.com/dark-souls-3-gpu-performance-amd-wins-midrange-nvidia-takes-high/
Flies in the face of your argument when a Geforce 960/Radeon 380 are getting 30+ fps in Quad-High definition, this is after patch 1.03.
And as you know... Dark Souls scales VERY well with resolution. The game looks far better.

But if this game is the only argument you can muster, not much of an Argument when there are 6,464 games on Steam alone.

No they aren't. Many are Geforce 960 users.

And yes there is a reason to get the PC version. Better graphics. Dark Souls 3 looks the best on PC, these benchmarks are typically done with max graphics.
With that said even a GPU like the Radeon 7850 could do Dark Souls at 60fps @ 1080P, just lower the settings.

Dude i am going by digital foundry and practical benchmarks that were recorded live and shown live. Those benchmarks you have found are from PC's where everything but the GPU is super high end. It is quite insane to have 32 gb DDR4 ram and i7-5960x 4.6ghz.

You just proved that you need an insanely expensive pc to get these results so sure whatever my point still stands.

How come that other guy i linked has worse performance than those benchmarks you showed then? How was the benchmark done? you have to understand that i can't just take your word that they test a variety of places.

More Ram doesn't mean it will be faster, unused Ram is wasted Ram, Ram has zero hardware to facilitate the processing of data.
An i7 5960X @ 4.6ghz can be beaten by a i5/i7 6600K/6600K with a moderate overclock in Gaming (As most games only use up-to 4 threads.) and other Lightly threaded tasks as it's based on the older Haswell Core.

I provided links to answer the rest of your questions, spend some time, learn a little.
There is a stark contrast of Dark Souls 3 performance from launch and right now thanks to Patch 1.03 and updated drivers.
If you owned a high-end gaming PC you would actually know this. ;)

Only if the game runs at 60fps.

Dude you didn't provide links that i can use for anything. I told you i used data from reliable sources such as digital foundry and you just ignore it in favor of your own sources. Regardless of wether or not i have a high end PC doesn't say anything about wether i would know the details of this subject. Stop being so condescending and thinking you know what you are talking about. You said 32gb ddr4 ram. Dude ddr4 ram are not cheap. Besides you need ram nowadays because games are getting way way bigger than ever before. I know exactly what ram does i am actually educated in this. Your GPU's need ram space for each instruction commisioned by the game engine.  On PC this is more important than ever. Not only that but you also need ram for all the files etc. Nowadays they are doing a lot of saving information from previous renders in the pipeline for later use. All of this is only possible because of the ram space, as it is not saved persistently. 

If you can't take the links i posted as proof then you are just delusional. All i can say is wether or not your proof is wrong or not is that we have conflicting proof. My proof is actual proof. Once is live performance stream and the other is digital foundry. Your proof was just pictures without a source.

DDR4 RAM has plummeted in price, the price difference here was been ranging from 25% all the way down to 5-10%, in some cases DDR3 is actually more expensive. I can, for instance, get Kingston Value 16GB DDR4 sets for around 85$ now, whereas a similar DDR3 set costs around 94$.

RAM (including DDR4) is by far the cheapest component in performance vs. cost right now.

$160 for what he proposed in his comment is still rather significant in price no? That was my main point to begin with. If you want performance reliability you will have to pay. If you want a rig that can run new games in 1080p 60fps within 10% consistency you will have to pay the price.

Especially in Xenoblade X, it just does not look good, 720p always looks rough and pixelated. If you ever played the original Xenoblade in 1080p on Dolphin, you do not want to back to such a tiny resolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7tWJxfDj8pQ#t=612

I own several 1080p games, and I've never had any problem with Xenoblade X's resolution.