It's a cart before the horse type of thing. Naturally games developed for Windows (since this is really what we mean when we say PC) have scalable resolutions, but no developer optimizes their games to run at X resolution, unlike on consoles. So developing a PC game specifically to run on a 4k display would make almost zero sense, even years from now. You can run any game at any resolution, if your hardware supports it, but developers don't design games to be run at ultra high resolutions. 

It's understood that performance for individual games on PC is really up to the user based upon their system specs, which in term influence how PC game developers wish to optimize their games, or at least set the minimum and preferred specs. Most developers want as large a potential userbase as possible, so those minimum specs can't be "Nvidia Titan" otherwise they would have a tiny pool of buyers for their game. 

One of the last games that was developed for future spec PCs was 2007's Crysis and they eventually managed to shoehorn that game (using a console optimized version of CryEngine) onto PS3/XB360 specs, albeit at pretty reduced visuals, but playable nonetheless. 

What the "out of date" peanut gallery fail to acknowledge, and they pop up the instant the specs are released for any console because the successors to the GPUs used on said consoles are already announced by ATI/Nvidia by the time the consoles hit shelves, is that the majority of consumers gaming on PCs don't upgrade their VGA cards on an annual basis. Or even every other year. Hell, most gamers on PC are using laptops; only a small percentage actually games on a desktop PC and only a portion of that userbase builds their own optimized gaming PC. 

So yeah. If you can get 5-6 years out of a console, and history shows that same console will actually see continued developer support beyond that, using GPUs or hardware designs from 5-6 years ago is completely irrelevant. Does it still play current games? Are new games still be released for it? If the answer is yes and yes, most people won't bother upgrading consoles. "Out of date" is a meaningless term. 

It's the games that matter though. XB1 still doesn't have many lol PS4 has a subdecent amount of exclusives and Wii U is almost healthy with it's lineup

That's exactly what I was thinking, it might be a bit of a stretch but still.

That's stupid. Our Eyes can output 400 Megapixels. Who cares about 4 Megapixels?

PS4 and XB1 can do 4k games but they would look like SNES games.

Not necessarily.

There is a difference in games developed for Windows and games developed that run on Windows. Not to mention Mac is a type of PC, and then Linux-PC as well that support small number of but big PC games like LoL.

Not to mention it gets really confusing when you consider Games for Windows is a brand that became Games for Live I believe then Microsoft just axed the whole thing cause of steam, steam who is mainly responsible for getting games on Mac and Linux.

I hadn't realized how cheap 4K TV's were until now (you can actually buy them for around $350 online)...

Anyway, I honestly doubt the lack of 4K will be a big deal this gen--especially when you consider how much they'd make the 8th gen consoles cost. Next gen (which should start around 2017-2020) on the other hand seems like the perfect time to start having 2K/4K support. By then it'll be cheap-ish and lots of people will have 4K TVs.

And why should i care? I just want games

Nobody who games on a Mac calls it PC gaming. I say this as someone who builds gaming PCs and uses a Mac for the majority of my work. I haven't referred to any of the Macs I've owned over the past 3 decades as PCs. That would just mislead people into thinking I was working in a Windows environment. You may as well call it Computer Gaming at that point. 

I'm sure you want to argue semantics and say that all computers are Personal Computers, therefore gaming on any computer = PC gaming, but developers don't think that way. You buy a retail game and it tells you which OS it runs on. "Does it run on my Mac?" No. "But my Mac is a PC!" Yeah. Exactly. And yes, if you want to lawyer up and say you can play Windows games by running Windows on your Mac through Bootcamp or Parallels, etc. everyone knows it's still Windows gaming. 

And game support for Linux when it comes to big titles is even worse than it is for the Mac.

Sure, there's an argument for Steam OS (everyone knows it's based on Linux) being a new standard for PC gaming, one that I would gladly support, but until that happens. PC gaming is synonymous with Windows. 

Exactly. Windows is synomous with PCs, not PC gaming directly. Hell, they don't even put the Windows logo on games anymore just the PC one.

The difference between a Game for Windows and a Game on Windows is that a Game on Windows is so because its on PC, there is nothing stopping it from being ported to other platforms if the devs and publishers wish. Games for Windows ,which is a brand, is exclusive to Microsoft and their platforms. Bound by licensing agreements to make it exclusive. So just because most PCs use Windows, doesn't mean Windows is synonymous with PC gaming, else we would see branding that says on Windows instead of on PC.