You obviously have no idea how much 4k gaming costs.

Anyway onto your other point, saying 1080p/60fps means almost nothing about the games visuals, every game this gen could be 1080p 60fps if the developers wanted it to be, they would just have to scale back the visuals it's literally up to them so if they want to do it they can like metal gear and the COD games etc.

If ps4 was 2x more powerful I can almost bet it would still have 1080p 30fps games because everything would be put on visuals. But it wouldn't sell nearly aswell because it would cost so much.

Selling $600/$700 consoles kind of ruins the point of them.

As an Xbox One gamer that has taken a stance against sub-1080p games, I have a lot of free time now.

Instead of playing H5's 25 minute campaign I'm now out in the real world doing things that actually matter.

All I can say is Thanks M$! I saved a Steak dinner from instagramers today.

I think 900p is okay if you are playing on a console. These are budget gaming systems that released in 2013. I think Sony and MS could've added a little bit more with a little bit of a loss, but I don't think the marginal benefit would outweigh the marginal cost in that circumstance. I think everyone had their expectations higher because Sony and MS have been over-promising/falsely marketing 1080p for years now. So it seemed only natural that in this generation they would finally have it.

So then if making these consoles more powerfull than a pc when it first releases it will automaticly make it cost 700$/600$? How did mircosoft manage to make the 360 pretty much more powerful than a pc at the time for 400$ in 2005? My knowlage ain't huge on this but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be impossible to get it under sub 500$ at launch if they were more powerful..

I can only think of 9 Xbox One games that run at 720p-792p. Some of which are simply due to poor optimization. However, all of them trounce the last gen in presenation and frame rate. Xbox One has about 300 games. So that means people are getting worked up about 3% of the library. Bottom line, those 720p games generally still look great on X1. Much better than last gen could achieve at any resolution. So that argument is moot.

If you have a gaming PC, by playing with the resolution you can see 900p is considerably more crisp than 720p. That's a 37% more pixels on top of better graphics.

You can't have a console more powerful than a PC. It's never happened and never will.

The proof is in the games, PC games always look better. Always.

Most consoles use PC derived parts anyway, the Xbox 360 for instance used a Radeon x19xx/2900 series semi-custom hybrid GPU, it wasn't more powerful than what PC gamers had at the time.
PC Gamers also have the option of multiple cards.


The fact of the matter is... AMD's Graphics Core Next GPU/architecture is old.
That particular GPU architecture was already a few years old when the current consoles launched, it was already past it's use-by-date.

AMD has done some re-organizing and refocusing recently to try and become competitive again, hopefully that means a new GPU architecture more often, having the same cards on the market for 5~ years has been unprecedented.

The consoles *could* have been faster if AMD spent more money in R&D, but AMD is doing it tough I am afraid.
Ironically even PC gamers are turning away from them which has impacted AMD's bottom line and ability to compete.

I want solid frame rate. 30 fps or 60 fps doesn't matter. And I want complete game at launch. Not broken game to be patched later. Resolution was never a concern for me.

I'm still playing my PS3 games.

The resolution wars was fun (and stupid) and all I think don't have time to care about that. So as long as the frame-rate is steady, then it's okay.