900p? It didn't ran at 900p, check your sources. SF multiplayers generates a 960x1080 buffer for a frame, then it gets the previous 2 frames and get the stored info about movement. He corrects the previous ones following the movement pattern and combine in a single 1920x1080 frame that is the final output. So, by this definition, it is native. If you look at the game, you can see that it's native. They just use a clever trick to construct their frames.

Edit: If we consider that native 1080p = everything rendered at 1080p, a lot of games, even on PC, wouldn't reach the denomination. Despite the normal resolution, a lot of subsets of the rendered scene aren't at full res. It's normal to render fog, reflexes, particles, ambient occlusion or even all the lightning at a lower resolution. In a similar way, most games wouldn't be true 30 or 60 fps, since it's a common trick to render distant objects/NPCs in a lower framerate since it isn't very noticeable. So going by the "strict" definition people want to use, nobody here probably played almost anything at 1080p@60.

If the console standard is 60 FPS its not debatable, but consoles arent standard 60 FPS. This is only common sense. This isn't the PC realm.

Expected while hopes where still high after e3 reveal which now seems to be unrealistic. It will still look good and I guess we can expect 30 fps locked.

I would rather a 30 frame game then a 60 especially a action game. The less frames the more they can do with the system, why waste it on frames rate. Unless its a driving game.

I don't know about Killzone (i was too busy staring a leaves and taking screenshots to notice much else lol), but inFamous does still have a degree of stuttering, even after the patch. I prefer to play it unlocked since i barley notice the stutter myself, but i can understand why added the lock option. I know many can't stand even a tiny bit. A bit like me with IQ :p

Would preffer 900p if it would be 60fps

i said it in this thread and i will say it again. a better game at 30FPS is preferable than a worse game at 60FPS. 

uncharted as a series (well 2&3) have pushed many boundries, and not just graphical ones. in uncharted 2 you played an entire moving level that went through landscape to landscape (the train level). and in uncharted 3 you had a level that moved dynamcally based on random ocean movment, flip 90 degrees mid gameplay, and sink (the ship level). 

my point is, uncharted has pushed technical limits in previous games, the animation fidilty, much improved AI and more interactivity with the enviroment is just a part of the game we seen so far in uncharted 4. and i would much rather they push the game more than have 60FPS. 

This does not make sense at all. If you are a player your experience is better the better control precision etc you have NOT the more things you have to look at that dont have much importance to the actual gameplay. You can have huge levels even at 60fps as long as you dont add nonsense that requires alot of processing power.

I am also not criticizing that the game runs at 30 fps. 30 fps is acceptable to me (as long as there is NO drop)  its the fact that NaughtyDog kinda says player experience has nothing to do with framerate and imput/precision etc. 

Its almost Ubisoft "cinematic experience" level of nonsense.

30fps for an Uncharted game is pretty good, though I will be slightly disappointed if the game doesn't reach that 1080P/60fps figure. If it does reach 60fps @ 1080P it would definitely be considered as a feat and it could show the real capabilities of the PS4.

Does Uncharted even benefit from 60fps or will the experience actually feel better with 30fps?