They can (and more easily, obviously), it's just not a priority to most. In-fact there are many solid 60fps titles on the PS4 and X1 (many of which are also 1080p/60fps on the former). Many developers would simply prefer to use the extra 500ms of render time for other things, whether that be better graphics, larger scale, more on-screen enemies, better physics etc.

There's no "best" choice when picking between 30fps and 60fps. It's all depends on the type of game being made, and the preference/standards of the developer and expected players.

Good answer to a rather silly question.

captain toad is awesome

i guess hes talking about solid 60fps, with no frame drops lol.

They arent powerfull enough to handle a  demanding graphical beast that is Captain Toad at 60fps, only crap like Metro Last Light and Tomb Raider

PS4 first party can and does handle 60fps. Xbone can and sometimes does.

You are probably thinking about the dozens third party that do not achieve 60fps on these consoles, but wii U can't really compare on that front.

Ah crap, I did it again, the "gaming discussion" default kicked in when I meant to post it to "Nintendo discussion"...

Killzone,  Infamous and Driveclub don't do 60fps, so that leaves knack, lbp and a remake not really graphical highlights. Sony doesn't focus on 60fps for quite a bit of good reasons, but their 30fps is solid,which is netyet than an unstable 60.

Kind of ridiculous when you think about it (not the lack of 60fps, but the lack of a constant fps). These devs are more concerned with outcompeting each other graphically and squashing in content then actually providing a stable, fufilling gameplay experience. Something really needs to shake these 3rd party AAA developers because their outputting is getting worse and worse and they're getting away with it.

They still bitch about 59fps in MK8