They are options that the developers have to implement. It's extra work. It often doesn't happen, or the options are extremely limited. For most games, very little effort is put in to enhancing them for the PC. Some are good ports, sure, but it's by no means the vast majority.

I'm not "100% wrong", and you're still not even addressing the point I was making many posts ago.

@Wheels2050: Don't even bother. Experience has taught me otherwise than to continue anything that even pertains to the slightest relation with that guy.

You are considering that these games are developped for PS360 and then ported to PC, when what happens is the opposite. Developing and debugging a game for PC is way easier than for a particular console, the enormous quantity and quality of dev and testing tools available for PC are not available for consoles. Only with the time required to debug, fix problems, run, test and debug again you will save months of dev time working on PC. Once your game is finely working on PC you or other dev teams may port it to consoles and then take care only about the hardware specifics of them. Your PC version will cover from low tech PCs to high tech ones, and in between you will have the detail level supported by the consoles. If what you mean is that nobody creates anything specifically to work only in top tech PCs, then that's obviously true, it has been always this way. There might be few cases where a game was designed as an specific console exclusive and later ported to the other console and PC, but I dont know of any particular example.

I think you're confusing programming ON a PC with programming FOR a PC.

To be honest, I give up - I can't be bothered arguing with you about it any more.

Kind of annoying how this thread about the ps4 resolution changed to programming for pc..

"4k" is a misleading term since it refers to the horizontal resolution of the format, not the vertical resolution. the actual vertical resolution is near 2000p, roughly double 1080p.

other people have already explained why this is worthless for 95% of home systems- the human eye can't see that much information. even seeing the most detail present in 1080p content would require sitting 4 feet from a 70" set. unless you plan to actually touch your eyeballs to the screen or use a tv the size of a drive in theater, the extra resolution from 4k (2,000p) will be wasted.

in video game terms rendering to that resolution can improve the clarity of distant objects and the smoothness of the polygons, but not in any meaningful way. increasing the internal resolution of a game beyond the screen resolution starts to give very meager improvements, and that power could instead be applied to better effects that actually would make a noticeable difference. that's why most devs this gen believe 720p is a better resolution to work in than 1080p.

And a $4,000.00 price tag to boot. ~BAZINGA!~

No, I'm not confusing anything and you have no idea what you are talking about, so you do pretty well giving up, anyway as an example:
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/08/30/metal-gear-solid-ground...
Everything big and new is created first for PC, then ported if possible. Eventually we will be able to see things like that in PS4 or next XBoX in the near future, but for sure PS3,360 or WiiU ports, if they ever exist, would be downgraded versions.

@Mandoble He was never really arguing that, though. If a dev wants to include console releases for their game as well as PC, then they have to keep the consoles limitation in mind. If the XBOX 360 is one of those consoles, and it is unable to even remotely accomplish what the devs are trying to do in the game, then they won't try to implement it in the game. If the devs want a level of a game to feature 2,000 enemies on screen at once, they can't just do that if the XBOX 360 can't remotely handle that. Thus, if they're also releasing it on consoles, they have to keep the consoles limitations in mind. The console ports are downgrades, yes, but it's not like the console ports are vastly inferior from a game design perspective.
Crysis 2 looks absolutely amazing on PC. But aspects of its game design had to have the console limitations of the 360/PS3 in mind. If the PC could handle the draw distance of a mile away and that wasn't technically feasible on the 360/PS3, then it won't be implemented in the game because the 360/PS3 are target consoles for the game.

I just saw some report on austrian TV that the german IFA fair (electronics fair) is about to commence and they were showing 32" and UP OLED 4mm thin 4K displays. Ready for launch this christmas, for a meager 8000 euro (for the 32" model...) just saying. I feel its pretty worthless.

Look, it's simply not:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113564-John-Carmack...

I'm pretty sure John Carmack knows what he's talking about.

Well this is wrong. The human eye has a resolution of something close to ~50MP if you're healthy and it then combines those two 50MP images (assuming you have two healthy eyes) into something of a "higher resolution" again. Ontop of that the centre of the eye is more densely packed than the edges and your iris constantly "jitters" so it can take in more information. I saw one guesstimate that a healthy human visual system can take in a full 500MP scene.

1080p, if you do the maths, is only just above 2MP and 4k is 8MP. 4 feet away from a 70" set is what you'd need for 4k? I can see the individual pixels 4 feet away from a 46" 1080p set. If that was true then people wouldn't be able to see what's so good about the retina display from a couple of feet away. I saw that new iPad and instantly thought "give me a 4k 30" monitor please"

As for the 4k term being misleading... well I don't think so. What I think is misleading is measuring resolution by the horizontal or vertical resolution rather than the number of pixels. Vertical resolution is also misleading and changes constantly especially with movies. You could potentially have a 3D signal that has the R/L images split down the middle, at 1080i and 4:3. You'd call that 1080 even though what you're actually being given is virtually two SD images. This "counting the lines" is a vestige from a time when everyone had CRTs with the exact same aspect ratio and it's virtually meaningless now.

I propose that people start talking about screens in the same way that they do about cameras. Remember when digital cameras first came out? The VGA ones sucked, 2MP was better but it didn't really take off till it was getting into the 3-5MP range and professionals only really started on it with ~8MP DSLRs. I think that says something about 1080p. So SD is anything upto about 0.4MP, 720p is now the magical 1MP barrier, 1080p is 2MP, 4K is 8MP, 8K is zomg-what-have-you-done 32MP. If someone cuts some resolution from it by using various tricks that stretch the image or if they letterbox it they should tell you how many MP the new image is. You want non-misleading? There you have it.

.......... oh, and human eyes don't have a "framerate" either really. They have a response time which happens at a cell level. Your eye doesn't take a picture, process it and then work it all out. The cells in your eye tell your brain when something changed and the speed at which it can adjust to and send this change which, while fairly slow causing a bit of motion blur, happens in parallel across the whole eye. So if you slowly moved a piece of paper across your eyes you'd see the new position as it crosses over the next cell's range and then the same for the next one regardless of how fast it was moving but if it moved too fast you'd see it "ghost" as it goes past.

this is just what i've read. maybe it's wrong, but most seating distance formulas for 1080p televisions will have you sit 3.5 feet away from a 37" set in order to see the maximum amount of detail possible; any further and the eye can't resolve all of the detail being displayed. if you're not sitting within 3-5 feet of a a commonly sized 1080p set, some of that resolution is going to waste. unless the tv is being used as a monitor, very few people sit that close. most home theater setups i've seen have the set at least 7 feet away. unless people intend to sit much closer than they do now or buy much, much bigger tv sets, 4k won't matter for them.

here's cnet on 4k: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-...

ID is not leading anything in the video game industry since the launch of Quake 2 (1997), and he is pretty right saying that for the type of games that ID does a PS2 would be more than enough forever. You have choosen the less representative voice for today's game industry, you might want to choose some remarks of Mark Rein (Epic games) with the newest Unreal Engine 4 targeting exclusively PCs (DX11) and next gen consoles.

Others that know a bit about the future of video games are these of Square Enix, and again they are working on a new next generation game engine which is based exclusively on the anticipated power of the next gen consoles and PCs:
http://www.square-enix.com/na/careers/getech/

"In the not-so-distant future, video game visuals will equal or surpass the quality of those in feature films, requiring even more advanced game development pipelines."

But of course, all of them might be wrong ...

Why is ps4 news in the Wii-U section?

Wait... are you actually using Square Enix as an example of developing on PC first and then porting to consoles?

Hahahahahahah. Square Enix will always be a console developer first and foremost - well, console and iOS. PC is an afterthought.

Silly bunny.

@romulux
Actually there was a screening of the Hobbit in 4k with a proper cinema projector. The cinephiles complained that the movie had too much detail and the 4k resolution made it seem like they were looking through a window of a movie set ruining the illusion of cinema. Or something like that. There's obviously something in the extra resolution then... even if this example is third hand or maybe even fourth hand anecdotal evidence.

As I said, we didn't stop at 2MP cameras and when we print them out it's usually on a 6x4". So why should a 2MP screen the end of the road? I think there's room to move yet before we start laughing at how pointless the extra resolution is like we do with 20MP cameras with crap lenses.

yeah, but that's a digital projector creating (i assume) a very big image. of course 4k matters in a theater setting where the screen is huge. what i'm saying is that it doesn't matter on an average size HDTV from an average seating distance.

i personally sit about 3.5 feet from a 37" 1080p set. that's pretty close, but if i sit any further away i can't see all of the detail present on the set. if i sit any closer, then yes, i can start to see the pixels more easily and the picture starts to slightly degrade. 3.5 feet is the sweet spot where i can see all of the detail from the set without seeing the individual pixels, and this is not just according to most seating distance formulas but my own experience. unless i wanted to sit closer (which would be insane) or buy a larger tv set, 4k wouldn't offer very much improvement.

again, if i WERE sitting closer to use a 37" tv as a monstrous monitor then 4k would help, or if i were projecting a movie onto an entire wall 4k would help, but it'll do nothing for normal HDTV watching.

I think the main complaint was the '48p' they shot the film in which basically destroys the surreal look of classic 24p film. People really seem to be divided on it, more so on the negative side and i can't blame them.

OlympicCho, I guess you can read, so go and read, next gen consoles and PCs, or is that you believe that their quote applies to current generation of consoles? BTW, their new prototype of game engine was on PC, not on any PS360WiiU, same applies to CryEngine 3 (the one from Crytek), same for Unreal Engine 4. These believing that current generation of consoles (7) are driving the future of the games are plain wrong. As proably you simply ignored their quote, I'll repeat it here, take your own conclussions:

"In the not-so-distant future, video game visuals will equal or surpass the quality of those in feature films, requiring even more advanced game development pipelines."

These guys already know what the PCs are able to do, and they already should have first hand info about what to expect from PS4/720, they are not talking about any future 15 years away.