In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Doug Jacobs said:
That's a pretty big "if", if you ask me. Other than making sure
the majority of next-gen games are 1080p @ 30fps or better, I don't
really see what more can be done in the graphics area except - maybe -
3D support. Right now 3D support is experimental, and no standard has
emerged. Yet. If that changes and the PS4 was the first/only console
to support 3D grahpics for games, that would be a huge win for Sony.
[snip]
120Hz and contrast ratios will have no impact on the games
or the console's hardware.
These issues are connected -- one of the easier ways of producing
full-color 3D is with screen flipping and active [blinker] glasses.
For this you need a high framerate and low persistance phosphors
or other fast responding display pixels.
3D is probably easier than it looks on the [hard] software side.
Just build a twin core GPU with perspective rendering for each
eye from the same underlying geometry. A hardware solution.
As for whether it is worth it, who knows? Knowledgeable
commentators such as Ben "Yahzee" Croshaw usually complain
more about gameplay than about graphics. Gaming is supposed to
be enjoyable, often as the result of an immersive experience.
That experience can also be obtained under much more primitive
graphics (Castle Wolfenstein).
Personally I admire Nintendo's "develop interfaces" strategy, but it
is less predictable. The remarkable loyalty of fans (willingness to
pay for marginal upgrades) and simple economics make high-resolution
the preferred development path. So we get more pixels!
-- Robert