I agree, more choice is always good.

While you're at it, add an antialiasing on/off (mainly to switch it off) option.

..... Ok. I'm not sure what you're saying though, because I don't say I preferred pc at all! I prefer consoles too, always have. I'm not sure if you were just making a comment or misunderstanding my post.... But yeah. There's nothing wrong with options, right?....

Like SvennoJ  posted it's just not as simple as most people think, and to get these kind of "options" I bet the dev's don't have the time for it and the average customer won't pay the price for the added options. So this is basically all hyperbole converstion/social entraptment.

I mean if the game designers want the game in "X" resolution then they need to go to the PS4 or demand that XB1 and Wii U have better GPU's more memory Bandwidth. If you buy their low res games and underpowered systems in the past why complain today? Because it is the trendy conversation or is it these people just like to complain in general. I think so.

Exactly.  Not every game needs 60FPS.  I agree it does improve some games, but to me, I like it when a game going for realism sticks to a smooth (and locked) 30FPS.  It just looks more lifelike to me.  Maybe because its closer to the 24FPS of film, I'm not sure.  60FPS in those types of games just looks too smooth/fast, and throws off the realism.  I also prefer 1080p, since it gives me the best possible image fidelity on my 1080p TV.  It amazes me what the visuals the PS4 can pull off at 1080p.  Optimization for the win.

Nope.

About the only option I wouldn't mind seeing is something simple like 1280x720p @ 60fps, or 1920x1080p @ 30fps. Auto-detection for anyone still using a 720p HDTV for 60fps.

Even then, I wouldn't bother switching from the default set by the developer.

Yes, I tweak and fool around with settings on my workstation PC when I use it for games. Usually, it's only to get the best performance out of my personal set up, which if I really cared, would be tweaked by buying a new VGA card every time performance was an issue.

No, I don't want to bother with that on a console.

These options don't seem to increase the cost of pc games, that are covering huge variances in hardware, so how would it be so difficult to add a couple of simple options on a single hardware design? Again, yes this just talk, but, there's nothing wrong with options.

Yes, yes! but then it goes down to 15p for 4K :/

Although, to get the 3D frame rate, the card has to be running at 240fp, as each eye needs a slightly different picture.

While you suggestions of a sliding scale is nice. I would hate to give up performance to have those options.  PC's do give up some performance to be so flexible.  But they have to work with so many different kinds of hardware. 

While I have been blow away with the visuals on Ryse as have others with Kill Zone I think both Sony and Microsoft underpowered the GPU department.  But then, we were really spoiled last gen with really good GPU's.

So as long as it doesn't cut to much into performance, sure, a sliding scale on resolution vs frame rate would be nice.

AA is the first thing that should be shut off.

It's always the first thing to go when I'm playing on PC. I will take 1920x1080 with no AA over a lower res with AA on every time. 

If a game can't run at decent frame rates on a console, then developers have no business even bothering with AA in the first place. 

I prefer frame rate to be honest. I could care less if something looks beautiful but runs like ass.

Sony really should have just upped the specs and ate the losses. With as great as they're dominating, they would have recouped it in a year or so.

Imo, next gen should have been 1080P/60FPS STANDARD.