In 3yrs, with a shelf life of 5~ yrs. Yes, i expect 8k to be viable. I really don’t think 8k is technologically that big of a deal. Lotsa hard drives for the video guys. Gonna suck to be a data wrangler…but as far as i know 1080 to 4k was tough, but 8’s simply a doubling. Besides, its multi use. Things such as vr will need larger resolutions to deal with managing distortion when things finally go varifocal.
Anyway, its their choice. Either its capable, or i finally give up and build a pc. We shall see.
Maybe reconstructed 8K from a 4K image using PSSR in the PS6 could run at 60 FPS. And even then I'm not sure. If it's a 4090 equivalent, perhaps it could run it without ray-tracing. But then, more and more games will be built with RT in mind as GPUs become powerful enough to run it at a high quality with a good framerate. And I don't think the PS6 will have a 4090 equivalent.
Native 8K at 60 FPS is probably two or three generations out minimum. 4K to 8K is a massive leap in hardware requirements - from pure GPU compute power, to CPU overhead, to GPU video memory.
Native 8K/120 is literally decades away as far as consoles go (and PCs aren't pushing that any time soon either - at least not with ray tracing involved). I would be floored if that arrives at any point before PS9.
And to be honest, the more likely thing is that devs stick with native 4K 120 or hold at 8K 60 for... well, is there any point in going higher than 8K? You may as well just cap it there for another 30 years because the benefits are minute compared to the requirements.
And even
then, you may as well just PSSR 4K up to 8K and be done with it. It'll look good enough since 4K is a very high base res so you're not blowing up a significantly less detailed image up to 8K.
There's enough in a 4K image to look good on an 8K screen, but as it's still rendering
twice four times the pixel count at a native 8K, the requirements to run 8K at any decent framerate are very high.
EDIT: 8K is four times the pixel count of 4K. My apologies.