Here's my argument against ultra-high resolutions in average display sizes for PC use.
1) Yes, your text will get smaller. I find on my 37" desktop that 1080p native text is perfect. I once tried to use a laptop that had an extremely high native rez on the 17" panel and I felt like I was going to go blind in a week. I mean, I'm middle aged now...maybe if you're 22 with 20/20 vision this is a moot point. Remember i'm on a 37" monitor and its about 2 1/2 feet from my eyeballs where I am right now. I wouldn't want my text any smaller that it is at Windows 7 default font settings.
2) Adding resolution results in one thing, sharper lines and detail, ASSUMING the textures are sufficiently detailed enough to handle a bump in resolution things may or may not look better, and assuming the game is designed with lots of detailed objects that will resolve better with additional lines to play with (say, the distinct grid of a metal fence or antennas in the distance that might crawl or meld into 1 thicker line on "lower" rez displays). Back in the days of 640x480 to 1024x768 gaming, going up in resolution was a big deal. Today, going up in resolution isn't so big on the payoff side. Advanced shadowing, parallax mapping, ambient occlusion, and the list of visual "ooohs" and "aaaahs" is what is more important than resolution right now. Sure, at some point 1920x1080 will seem like looking at VCD's does today, but particularly on smaller display sizes the real visual payoff is more of a "yeah that's nice...but" kind of experience. Nice to have, not something everyone is clamoring to get into. The games need to take advantage of it. Try playing Quake II at 640x480 and then at 1920x1080....nothing really changes.....todays games are still in that same realm. Crysis 3 at 4k is still Crysis 3 with more dots on the screen, its not like suddenly you can make out the individual weaves of the stitching in the thread used in the glove you see onscreen, because that detail wasn't there to begin with. (Although knowing Crysis 3, it probably IS in there).
Crysis 2 is an amazing looking game on any platform at any resolution.......going up higher in native resolution makes distant objects more defined, but it doesn't do much for anything that close, that you'd be interacting with.
3) The horsepower required to drive "Double or quadruple" the resolution of 1080 or 1200p isn't here yet, unless you want to drop a grand or more on a pair of cards. Sure, you might be able to drive Crysis 3 with a couple of titans, but I'm not sure if you're driving them at 4k.....and even if you were, would you drop a couple grand to get 'adequate' framerates for a game that was already released? Forget about next years un-optimized releases that will run like @ss?
Now, nobody is going to argue that higher rez isn't better......but in terms of bang for your buck, I'd rather have 8 gigs of texture memory and a GPU capable of slathering on the visual FX than the ability to drive 4k....I'd love both, but the first will give me immediate bang for the buck, while the resolution game is starting to get onto the other side of the "Bang for your Buck" bell curve.
my .02 cents, your mileage may vary.
And when 4K is the norm and the games at 4k look significantly better than they do at 1080p, I'll be jumping on that ship.
One thing to note....at 37" at 1080p, I am right on the cusp of being able to see the pixels......and if I squint, I can see individual pixels. Ideally at this screen size, a 2k monitor would be a better choice at this distance...but like I said, its just on the side of not bothering me. I tried a 42" set for a few days, that was too much. 1080p at 42" diagonal at 2 1/2 feet away is simply too close...things look ugly, the way they do when you sit too close to ANY display. So....at 32" or 37" a 2K monitor makes sense.....not for me, but I don't really want the extra resolution or the cost associated to drive it right now....but in a 27" display? I'd take a pass.
Let us know what you wind up doing.