Clearly rendering >500K extra pixels per frame is a strain for Frostbite on the PS4 hardware. But that's a shit load more pixels for PS4 to deal with than Xb one. Over 50% more pixels in fact. So you have to ask yourself, what would the Xb one frame rate be like with all those extra pixels?
I think people have said before higher resolution 100% of the time is better than higher frame rate 10% of the time. But in this case, since PS4 couldn't manage 1080p, and lots of visual problems still exist for PS4 even at the higher resolution, perhaps it would have been better for the PS4 version to be set at a resolution that kept the frame rate absolutely solid.
It does seem like the opinion of Digital Foundry is that fps>res so they prefer developers to compromise on res in order to achieve a solid frame rate, and that's a fair enough opinion to have. It aligns with my opinion. But it's not everyone's opinion. In terms of PR I think there is nothing wrong with developers saying that fps is king, and that even though they could have upped the res for PS4 it would cause more fps drops than is acceptable for game performance hence they went with a lower resolution to lock the fps. 1366*768 would still have given PS4 gamers bragging rights, and no doubt at that res 60fps could have been locked down.
Ultimately the only real res bragging rights are 1080p, so if you are going to not hit that mark you might as well deliver on fps and settle for a res that will achieve this.
Looks to me like the multiplat benchmarks this console gen are 1080p 30fps and less than 1080p if you want to have a consistent 60fps. 1080p 60fps will only be achievable on relatively low graphics demand games.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
