Also if you remember the original vision for UC4 was 1080p/60fps not 30.

I would love that. Never going to happen though. Publishers want casuals to lap up their games, visuals sell to the masses.

Sure...I think pretty much everyone would take 60 fps over 30 fps if you didn't have to give anything up for it, but there are certainly hardcore gamers who would rather have 1080p/30 than 720p/60. For instance, in the example you gave, I'd much rather have 1080p/30 purely because jagged edges really bother me in a game. 720P can be fine, but it needs REALLY good AA.

Thats the thing..... AA is a very resouce heavy thing. If you want really good AA on a 720p game, to make it look at least as good as a 1080p game with a less resource heavy AA solution, the amount of resources you would need would pretty much make you better off just rendering the game at 1080p.

If AA was the be all end all to IQ then no one would really bother upping resolutions and just focus instead on great AA. But great AA to an extent is akin to doing just that, upping the resolution.

See my other post, and Pemalite's on page 2.

ehh I'd have to disagree with you there. First, you mention BF1 and SWB MP. These can stick to 900p60 (and not constant mind you) because it's a restrictive map. Pay atention to draw distance, textures, detail across the map, or the environment outside the map. Pretty bland for a reason. But what about the campaign (BF1)? Dynamic resolutions that go below 900p in order to push more detail. Again for a reason.

Heck I can bring up my own example too. Titanfall 2 looks great but then look at the "barriers" of the map. Or the textures at a distance (anistropic filtering). Thats why it can target 60fps; the lowered details are all around. And similarly to BF1, campaign has dynamic resolution below 900p to target higher details. 

Unchated 4 is on a similar boat. The detail in MP looks great sure (better than the others mentioned imo), but the resolution is noticeable and the textures suffer compared to the campaign. Personaly I'd have the campaign's IQ over the MP. And don't forget the new Survival mode, 900p30 mind you.

Just because some games do it in MP doesn't mean they can design the whole game around the same performance. SP components will always draw more out of the hardware and it's up to design to showcase what you can do with limited resources. 

There will always be constraints. Everything is a compromise, even on PC. The choice is there for 60fps and most developers don't go for it. Clearly 30fps is the lesser compromise for most developers.

All Frostbite powered games on console have their detailes lowered compared to the PC.
The Xbox One and Playstation 4 use a mix of Low/Medium/High settings compared to the PC's Ultra.
Even the Playstation 4 Pro doesn't use "Ultra" PC settings.

Sorry to burst your bubble. :P

I would prefer this, yes

Never mention BF1... I did say BF4.

You said, "not powerful enough" and then use those adjectives, all i say is, that statement is incorrect, since most games could be developed into those target resolution and frame rate and i give examples of games runnig at that settings that are far from the adjectives you said. If devs chose to do other wise it's not the hardware that is not capable. I personally also prefer some more eye candy over framerate since that is not a big deal in lots of game genres, even driveclub at 30fps is awesome in my opinion and i am a racing games enthusiast and that "it has to be 60fps or no buy" is crazy talk to me.

Did you read the statement i did quote and why i did quote. Going to paste it here and explain. 

I don't think base PS4 is powerful enough to do 900p60 across most titles. Not without significantly lowering game detail to a point of blandness.

Focus on the first bold statement and in the two bold words after. I never said that it didn't had lower detail compared to high end PC running ultra settings, i wasn't agreeing with the significantly and blandness words to describe a game that runs at 900p 60fps in a vanilla ps4.

Edit: also just to add some info about me, my first PC was a 486 at 33 mhz and 4 mb of ram when i was 14 (more than 20 years ago), always had gaming PC up until my core 2 duo q6600 with a hd 3870 x2, did take a break in PC gaming because i worked lots of years as a computer technician and was sick of sitting in a desk, but i want to do a new build with ryzen and vega if they are good this next year, so I'm not a complete alien to PC gaming and what it delivers and I'm in no bubble. Don't want to sound rude but i feel i had to get this out of my chest...

I like this idea.