It's just the resolution, no need to change anything except maybe the texture res to keep them in a similar relation but that is optional.
The screen is simply filled by more pixels, making it easier to see details that are already present.

High res textures and assets from todays games are already good enough to take advantage of 4k.  I doubt 4k will add to the costs significantly. Crysis 3 in 4k will no doubt look much better on a PC than Crysis 3 in 1080p. Also at a certain point there will be no need for AA at all like already mentioned. I think the resolution race will be over when we reach retina quality at all distances and screensizes, this is the ultimate goal.

Oh yeah! 300 ppi on a 32 incher! Now you're talking!

I do illustration work on a PC plugged to a 32" screen (Corel Painter, Photoshop). I would benefit greatly from an added pixel density like that!

For that to happen, I'll have to wait for the 8K standard to be adopted (making a 32" screen get close to that target with 275 ppi). =(

50" screens can really benifit from 4K. also as the article says 4K really makes a difference. alot of people doubted HD tv's and just look at them now. you never know maybe after a gen or two 4K tvs will be cheap and it can become a standard.

exactly, it might even save them some money because at 4K they might not even need to use anti aliasing

If res is not expensive, why the hell theres barely no 1080p games?

its because PS3 and 360 barely have to power to push 1080p games. technically they can but they would need to sacrifice some stuff so most developers see it better to render it 720P and upscale the games to 1080P

Because current gen hardware can't push that resolution without some really big compromises to the overall visual quality and framerate? ¬_¬

at least no MSAA - from what I got from the article post processing AA methods work better the higher the res (and those only use ~1/10 or less of the processing power of MSAA) as their respective drawbacks are lessened

a few years back manufactures notified us of all those fancy 3D televisions to which consumers said fuck off.  those 3D tvs aren't and won't be the standard moving forward because most people aren't willing to drop even the marginal 5-10% extra cost. 

mark my words, 4k is going to be the same.  there is a niche market for tech junkies who will always want the best but for most people the drive isn't there.  blu-ray (at 1080p) isn't exactly doing great now.  streaming is doing far better and lots of time the resolution drops relative to dvd.

it's not that 4k won't be shiny and people like me won't say, "wow, nice".  but i've got to be honest with you, i just can't see even myself (tech enthusiast that i am) caring enough to vote with my money.  i'm going to take the 1080p model that looks fantastic and priced to move over the 4k model that looks really fantastic and busts the bank.

quote me, bet me, whatever.  4k will fail at market.