Your point is meaningless, very very few people have a 4K TV nowadays, people just bough a HDTV and they're not ready to buy a 4K TV, there is no hype for 4K like there was for HD, so it's pretty useless to have more than HD console.

and people who have full hdtv expect at least a full HD game, if they didnt care about full HD, they wouldnt have HDTV ...

So like everyone said, " i just realised online gaming is so good, how did we survive with no online games on PS2 ? "

I have a HDTV and I am perfectly happy with 720p games.

Ok, thank god. I was beginning to think I was crazy lol. I agree that they could have done with a little less motion blur I suppose. Never been a big deal for me. Still do very well in that game. 

Well I expect an evolution with resolution from the previous gen. With hardware that is supposed to be about 10x more powerful I don't know why 1080p wouldn't be achieved. Its particularly disappointing knowing the xbox one is struggling with that.

For starters, what video by "JoetheBro" are you talking about? I don't remember ever linking any video to Killzone 6 from any supposed state of the game before the MP became a blurry mess. Maybe refresh my memory, friend? All I ever linked were pics and gifs showing that the game is, in fact, blurry as hell when you move. This is actually hilarious, you're confusing the clear pics of the game as some version of the game from "before blur was added" when it's actually the exact same game, the player just wasn't moving. Is there a better way for me to prove my point than you doing it for me? Thanks.

As for the bolded, lulz. Yeah, it's kind of 1080p, except not. It looks damn near identical, except for all that blur. And it's not caused by the method they used to simulate 1080p, except that it completely is. Either way just like the other guy, you're missing the point. And no one noticed because it took a pixel counter like DF longer than normal to break down the game and reveal it actually wasn't the perfect 1080p60 next gen showcase people were claiming it to be. Had that article never came out, people would still be posting that it's 1080p60. But the article did come out, so now we get "it's basically 1080p", "everyone knew it wasn't technically 60fps", it "looks near identical" to 1080p, and all other sorts of cute qualifiers. Thanks though, it's funny to read.

Well, Nintendo went from 480p on Wii to 720p/1080p on Wii U, I found that a nice jump. ;)

It's freaking hilarious that so many people claiming that 1080x1920 was the only acceptable standard and that anything below was easily noticeable were playing a sub 1080x1920 game for months without knowing it, haha. XD

Here is the video: http://killzone.dl.playstation.net/killzone/kzsf_multiplayer/KZSF_HIGHTBITRATE_H264.zip

As if by divine intervention the majority of the blur is gone, yet it's still using the blending effect for the 1080p? o: It's almost as though a large chunk of the motion blur was added in post processing, rather than during the actual render of each frame set ^^ I can understand why they did it, while the blend effect does create an image incredibly close to 1080p in regards to clarity, it does give the impression of poorer AA (such as the trees). Regardless to if i think that was a good move or not, i think the video does a perfectly adequate job of demonstrating how the simulated resolution itself is not the cause of most of the blur seen in the final game.

I'd also say they cut down the lighting slightly, no doubt for increased stability, but for the sake of this argument that's irrelevant.

I'm sure you can understand why it's such a bad example for comparison now? If the blur is coming from post processing, then it would look the same regardless to if the game was native 1080p+ motion blur, or simulated 1080p+ motion blur. The difference only becomes apparent when the motion blur is removed, in which case the simulated 1080p images shows signs of lesser AA (in-fact caused by the blends lapping over). Personally i'd say that's a pretty good trade off for an extra 15fps, as did Gorilla it seems. Shame about the motion blur, not a fan myself, but it's understandable (they had the same motion blur effect in Killzone 2, so it's not like this is something new from them).

Alas, my words no doubt fall upon deaf ears. I'm once again thoroughly bored of how often this topic needs to be explained to you, so i'll leave you too it. If you look around hard enough i'm sure you can find something else to cling onto for another couple of months. It's nice to see users who apparently don't "play resolutions" take such a deep interest in them :)

720p or sub-720p wasn't horrible for 2006 it was the standard for the time and peoples expectation were met, it was also the best the PS3 and 360 could do, but like anything, standards change over time and so do expectations.

Move to 2013....1080p TV's and Blu-rays are the norm, there was an expectation from console gamers that the newly announced Sony/Microsoft consoles would do 1080p as that was the current standard, and Both Sony/Microsoft met that standard with the marketing.....problem....when both consoles launched only the PS4 seemed capable of actually delivering the native 1080p experience for the overwhelming majority of it's games, while the Xbox One was stuck with the majority of it's games being 720p.

In peoples mind, the PS4 met the current 1080p standard and satisfied the console gamers expectations, the Xbox one simply hasn't been able to meet the same expectations....so people complain, tech sites like Digital foundry dig into games and reveal the differences between the PS4 and Xboxone versions (because it what they do) and this unfortunately led to resolutiongate...again because expectations were not met.

Now if either the Xbox one delivered the goods like the PS4, or if the PS4 performed like the Xbox One and delivered 720p for most games, then people would eventually adjust their exceptions accordingly, even if the second scenario was a bitter pill to swallow.

So to conclude, 720p wasn't horrible for 2006 it was the best of it's time, but standards and expectation change over time as technology and it's adoption also increase over time. So now in 2014, 720p isn't exactly horrible but it also isn't ideal because there is ONE console on the market delivering 1080p for practically all it's games, so when consumers have an option to play the same game on their 1080p TV's, then Natively rendered 1080p games will always win out. The PS4 being cheaper also doesn't help the Xbox Ones situation...as for the WiiU....well Nintendo is stuck in what ever time bubble their in, cuz while we're in 2014, they seem to have just hit 2006....but that's not here or there.

With a hell of jaggies...