Would you be okay with graphics staying at PS4/XBO level if it meant cheaper games and shorter dev times?

[Chrkeller]

PAOerfulone said:

Yes.
You don't need any higher than 4k in terms of resolution. I'm not going to lose sleep just because I can't see each individual pore on the character's face in a game and you shouldn't either.

I'd rather have a more solid, consistent frame rate. 90-120fps would be fantastic, but 30-60fps is still perfectly fine as long as it is rock solid and consistent with no drops whatsoever.

This would let them focus on improving OTHER areas for their consoles. Like reducing load times for games and for the online stores, to the point where they're almost non-existent. And also add more internal storage. I would GLADLY take a less powerful PS5 or Switch 2 with 2-4 TB of internal storage and lightening quick loading times. And in the case of Switch 2, a longer, more efficient battery life.

Not sure I follow.  You are ok with graphics not moving forward but want 4k?  The ps5 rarely even gets close to 4k resolution, unless running at 30 fps.  Spiderman 2, as an example, is 1080p to 1440p in performance mode.  4k/60 fps will require a ps6 with way more power.  4k/120fps, ps6 won't even do that.  My 4090 can't even do that in most cases.  I can get 1440p/120 fps in most games.