Quantum Break is a horrible port. In-fact... If you have a monitor with a higher refresh rate, Quantum break actually runs at a higher fps.
That's right... You can have a Mid-range PC and beat out a PC with Dual Titans because your monitor refreshes faster.

I have no idea what "DAS3" is.

DAS3 = Dark souls 3. It takes 970 or 390 to do it.

You still have to spend a lot more money than consoles to get games running at 60fps 1080p across the board. Else you will have some games run at a variable framerate which is arguably worse than solid or just stick to the console framerates which by that point it wouldn't matter too much to have said more expensive PC.

A GTX 970 allows for 1080P max graphics, higher graphics than the consoles and with twice the framerates.
A GTX 970 will do 45-60fps, Max graphics at 1440P/Quad-High Definition.

A Geforce 960 with a couple of settings lowered will do 1080P 60fps and still look better than the PS4.
A Radeon 7850, which is similar to the GPU in the PS4 will do PS4 levels of graphics at 30fps. That's a mid-range card, better can be had for about $120 USD off newegg. (Radeon 270.)

Dark Souls has been RENOWNED for it's shotty PC ports... Patch 1.03 allowed a heap of users who were only getting 20-30fps to now get rock solid 60fps, AMD and nVidia have been improving the game with drivers.
http://segmentnext.com/2016/04/12/dark-souls-3-pc-crashes-bugs-freezes-low-fps-game-fixes/

You couldn't have picked two better examples to try and backup your argument... Both are crap console ports that require more work after release.
On the bright side. At-least the PC CAN do 1080P 60fps in every game. ;)

Really depends on the game, and the art style. A lot of Nintendo's games for example are completely fine in 720p, it's usually the titles going for a realistic art style that suffer more from a lower resolution.

Still playing a lot of games in 480 p. So no problem for me.

idc about resolution, but I do want a stable fps ;C

I completed ff9 on my ps1 a few weeks ago (for the first time) and it looked good and the cut-scenes even amazing and this games is 480p (maybe less? don't know) so I guess I say NO 720p is not acceptable and nobody should buy games that have this resolution!

The radeon 7850 is insuffecient for what you said there. 7870 is supposedly the chip that was the base for the PS4 gpu and then they did a bunch of customization ontop.

But as always console paper specs =/= PC paper specs.

Those users you said got boosted from 20-30fps to 60fps in 1.03 are still 970 equivolent or above, which is rather expensive. My point is if i can't go 60fps 1080p in all games then there is little reason to get the PC version over the console version. Consistency is valued when gameplay is front and center. Btw i saw a guy stream DAS3 at 1440p with 980TI x 2 SLI and he was doing 50-60 fps with many dips to 55 so what you are proposing by saying a single 970 would do the same is kind of odd. 

https://www.twitch.tv/destiny/v/60203182

I am not saying that PC can't do it because i know for a fact that it can. Even the Dark souls 3 performance i showed you there i would say is acceptable outside of the huge open areas even if it isn't locked rock solid. I would say that games get to have up to 10% framerate drops max as long as it is non-vr. The reason he is getting drops is not at all related to him streaming as he uses a seperate PC for streaming.

Btw Dark souls might have been renowned for shitty pc ports but its also renowned in general for performing bad on all platforms. There is no logical reason as to why the PS4 version and Bloodborne has framepacing issues. All other games that reportedly has had that, got a patch to fix it really fast.

Glad to see the Luddites like me are ahead in the poll

Seriously, though, this question is all about priorities for me. I think we all want our games to look as good as possible, but resolution is only a single element of a much larger equation. Frankly, game design is so much more important, at least in my eyes.

Take Ocarina of Time, for example. This dinosaur of a game runs at 240p and 20fps. I imagine a lot of modern video game enthusiasts wouldn't touch a game with those specs with a ten foot clown pole. Yet, it's arguably one of the greatest games ever made, with some of the best music and sound design in video game history, expert dungeon design, and an intoxicating sense of discovery.

Now take Killzone: Shadow Fall. It boasts incredible particle and lighting effects, amazing draw distances, super-detailed textures, 1080p resolution (at least in single player), and 60fps. And it's mediocre at best, with a nonsensical story, poor level design, and infuriating free fall mechanics.

Now, this isn't exactly the fairest comparison. But, for me, it's emblematic of this debate over resolution and advanced technology in general. I'm all for organic growth in technology. I appreciate the advances that have led to online functionality, larger 3D worlds, and more accurate physics. But the design philosophy and mechanics of a game usually determine its greatness - not pixels, not frame rate, not God rays.

Just my two cents.

not while playing on a 70", because of this my X1 has been collecting dust for well over a year now