I am of the belief that 1440P should be the minimum in 2017. But that's just me.
Older games are of course an entirely different kettle of fish, they have already been built.

My TV can't even go higher than 1080p, so if that was the minimum I'd be locked out of playing new games.

You have to make compromises one way or another in real-time rendering, even on PC ... (the only difference being is that you get less compromises on PCs but that can change if console manufacturers decide to bring higher performance SKUs to the market such as Pro or Scorpio for example) 

The only ones that don't have to make compromises (there's still compromises) are those who are doing offline rendering with render farms since they can spend as much time as they want on a frame ... 

You can play 1440p games on a 1080p screen, no real issue.
The devs may even give you some extra AA.

1080p 60fps medium settings OVER 4k/30 ultra for me i've done it on pc many times, turn down graphics so i can get the framerate and it has always been worth it

I meant in regards to framerate and/or resolution.
But you are right. There are always compromises due to various reasons.

False.

How is that false? When I change the resolution of my computer to something higher than my monitor, nothing shows up.

I'm with you, Polyglot.

The wording of the original message was that in 2017, 1440p should be the minimum. It was an oversight by the original poster, most likely.

I'm playing through Splatoon 2 right now and it presents an interesting case study; during both the campaign and multiplayer the game runs at a locked 60fps, with a dynamic resolution that varies between 1080p and 864p depending on load. In the plaza, it's locked to 1080p, but there's a catch; it's also locked to 30fps.

As an example of the kind of tradeoff needed to hit either a locked 1080p or a locked 60fps, the latter is by far the more appealing.

Then you are doing it wrong.