When sites like Lens of Truth and Eurogamer started posting minor differences between consoles. Before then, no one knew and no one cared outside of PC gaming.

The same applies to native resolution wars.

It didn't become important to me until CoD 4 so 2007. before that, I never really played shooters (outside of Halo)

You didn't hear about it in those days because 60 fps was standard... When Gameplay was king. So yeah, you missed something alright.

It's more like people started to get a little more nit-picky since console manifacturers (one in particular) started a campaign to emphatize how its console was better than its competitor's by looking at tiny differences and not much relevant details. Proclaiming things like using  a peculiar architecture or a peculiar  media format could alllow them to do things the competitor couldn't.

This

I know you think tahts a smart response; but it really isn't. PS4 didnt differentiate itself that way, you have the media to thank for that. Its kinda like this, the media showcases their reviews of the games using the PS4 version because its the "best one". Then everyone watching them gets PS4 exposure by default. Then people buy it, then they recommend it to others and they buy it to and play the "best versions of the game".

In reality... thats all BS when you consider that probably over 75% of the consoles audience are people that are gaming on a 720P 32" tv or think the the PS4 now supports 4k gaming after its last update. As I said.....  mind boggling.

Stable 30fps is more than enough for me.

It all depends on the type of game (FPS or racing vs some adventure title). But framerate was always important. We just didn't know the terminology.

Mario Kart on SNES was 60fps. So did most sidescrolling platformers (Sonic, Mario, etc). Same with fighting games.

It got to the forefront of the gamers mind when 3d gaming came into place. That's when a lot of games GOT LOWER FPS so fluidity was now an issue more than ever before where 60 FPS was the standard for many genres of 2D gaming. Certain versions of games (say Doom ports, for example) had crappy ports with crappy FPS. So even then, to weed out the best port, FPS was largely a deciding factor.

Try playing Sonic the Hedgehog sub 30 and you will see it's not that FPS hasn't been a factor. The loss of FPS is what became important with the advent of 3D console gaming.

How is that any different form what I said? You said Ps4 the got more exposure because media reviews showed the "best version of the game" and how is the best version defined? Slightly better framerate and slightly better resolution.

The fact that the average joe can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p doesn't really matter, when a company markets a new product they generally start from key influencers and specialized media, then world of mouth goes to general media and general public.

I bought games like Wave Race, mk64, and Ocarina of time and never cared. I bought Ridge Racer 4 for PS1 and it came with a 60fps version of Ridge Racer 1. I couldn't tell the difference. Even during the Dreamcast days, I had a game called Out trigger that boasted about its framerate. Didn't mean a thing to me.

I would watch Digital Foundry videos saying "the framerate dips here" and if it wasn't for their tool telling me that it dipped here or there, I'd never be about to tell. It just never mattered. Save thing with resolution.

Now, I have a 4K tv and an Xbox One X on pre-order and I can't help but wonder it I'd been had. I mean, there's an Xbox One under every TV in my home and PS4 and Pro under two of them(for the features they add plus gaming whenever I want) and they're connected to different TVs--one 4K, one 1080p and one 1080p 3D--and I don't care. I don't notice the framerate or even the resolution. Companies and the internet told me they should matter so they matter.

Meanwhile, two of my fondest gaming experiences of the year have been on Switch and 3DS