Nintendo: "The audience for 4K gaming is limited." - Sensationalist Headlines

[IMG]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1U63vGug9a346du_WziVdUMVIFA=/0x0:3600x2400/920x613/filters:focal(1512x912:2088x1488):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55220323/631610908.0.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]With both the PS4 Pro and the Xbox One X promising 4K, Nintendo is obviously going to be considering the benefits of such an upgrade. However, it looks like we won’t be seeing a 4K Nintendo Switch anytime soon. In an interview with The Verge, Reggie was asked about Nintendo’s interest in 4K. However, the NOA President quickly pointed out that they’re trying to appeal to a mass audience, not just early adopters of expensive technology.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Reggie Fils-Aimé]The Nintendo mission is to reach as many consumers as possible and to have them engage and have fun with our [intellectual property]. That’s what we try and do. So inherently, we go for a more mainstream audience. Inherently, we want our products to be affordable. We want our products to be easy to pick up and experience, low learning curve. We want our IP to shine as we deliver these experiences. That’s the way we approach it. And so, what that means is, a sweet spot of $300 for the Nintendo Switch, a platform that has Mario and Zelda and Splatoon. Going against a more limited consumer pool, a higher price point, requiring investments in other ways — 4K TVs, what have you — that is a strategy that for us, candidly, is a bit too limited.[/QUOTE] Sources: [url=https://mynintendonews.com/2017/06/25/nintendo-believes-that-4k-has-an-extremely-limited-audience/]MyNintendoNews[/url] [url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/15785774/nintendo-switch-4k-esports-reggie-fils-aime-interview-e3-2017]TheVerge[/url]

of course they won't go like "yeah 4K is next big thing!" when their console runs at 720p/1080p but i also agree that 4K is still early adopter territory besides that.

It took them a long time just to catch up with 1080p, it'll be while before they think 4k is worth it.

They're not wrong. 4k will replace 1080p as the standard for sure, but it's not there yet. I'd give it a few more years; about the time the new generation of consoles are ready to come out. I don't blame them for not making it a priority.

Theyre not wrong. 4K is pretty damn new still. And as we go further in resolution and graphical fidelity, the differences will be less noticable which will make people less eager to buy a new TV and 4k system. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Thaggers;52407112]They're not wrong. 4k will replace 1080p for sure, but it's not there yet. I'd give it a few more years; about the time the new generation of consoles are ready to come out. I don't blame them for not making it a priority.[/QUOTE] I almost thought I doubleposted because of you

Lets be honest though, 4k at 27 inches is about the minimum you'll see 'great advantages' for it, which is what I'm using atm. 4k is a [B]MASSIVE[/B] improvement however. meanwhile my phone has 1440p... honestly, at 1080p it's about the samish. That's because of the size of the screen. The switch would maybe benefit from 1440p but even then it really wouldn't do much. 4k would have 0 benefits at all on a switch, outside of TV play, and even then the main thing about the switch is that its mobile. you just aren't going to be close enough and its just too small to matter.

I agree with Reggie's statement in the sense that 4K is still in an "early adopter" stage. Unless you're willing to make significant compromises in graphical settings in order to maintain a playable framerate, you're going to need a fairly beefy PC in order to play most modern games in 4K resolution. We'll have to wait a few PC Hardware/console generations before 4K replaces 1080p as the standard let alone Nintendo embracing 4K (look how long they took to get to 1080p).

I know that I'm not interested in shelling out money for a 4K when I have a perfectly good 1080p tv. Then again high fidelity graphics never really woohed me unless the game was good. I'd much rather play a Nintendo game rather than something like EA's StarWars Battlefront which looks pretty but has dull gameplay. So as long as Nintendo can release quality gaming experience at a reasonable price (Which the switch is more than reasonable for a portable console device) then I'm game.

its why im glad xbox is doing supersampling for below-4k tv's for the new scorpio, that way theres still a obvious quality increase no matter what

Tbh 1440p is where it's at. 4k is hardly noticeable on TVs (where most people play console games) and is pretty much only worth it up close for large computer monitors.

Indeed. Not everyone nowadays can buy a 4k television.

I'd rather the PS4Pro and XboneX use the extra power for processing, framerate and smaller graphical details instead of 4K honestly. Even when the technology gets there, there's diminishing returns because you're sitting far away from the TV.

It's a valid point, the amount of people who would buy an Xbox one x and a ps4 pro are a lot smaller than those would go out and buy a One S or ps4 Slim, it's more of an enthusiast product than a common device, but just like how we went from 480 > 720 > 1080, when 4K becomes cheaper eventually most people's tv's will begin getting replaced by 4K ones, and 4K console prices will start to go down aswell and replace the current cheaper model that runs at 1080p

The fact that over here television networks don't have 4K broadcast yet we sell 4K TV's to run 4K Netflix but our internet fucking crashes the second you try to load up a 4K video it's a few years away at least

Nintendo definitely isn't wrong. Right now, 4K is still very much in "early adopter" territory, as prices are still too high for most, and there just isn't that much media out yet that is 4K. Of course, 4K will eventually replace 1080p, but not until 4K TVs and monitors are within most consumer's spending tolerances. And by the time 4K starts becoming mainstream, 8K adoption will more than likely start, starting this cycle all over again. I'd say give Nintendo/NVIDIA a couple of years. They'll probably come out with a *new* Nintendo Switch that has a Tegra SoC capable of handling 4K while docked. For right now, with most people still having 1080p TVs, there's no point in pursuing 4K, especially if you want to keep costs down on console hardware (like Nintendo wants to do).

4K is doable in price though, but most people don't see enough reason to upgrade. My 4K TV was 420 euro and its 43 inch with HDR10 at 60Hz (with artificial smoothing up to 120hz). That said, when i sit on my bed from a distance i could barely notice the difference between 1080p games and 4K games

Im gaming 1440p, 1080p to me is the same as 720p is to 1080p users. Not gonna go back to 1080p. I dont really know about 4K though, atleast not yet.

[QUOTE=Rahu X;52407267]Nintendo definitely isn't wrong. Right now, 4K is still very much in "early adopter" territory, as prices are still too high for most, and there just isn't that much media out yet that is 4K. Of course, 4K will eventually replace 1080p, but not until 4K TVs and monitors are within most consumer's spending tolerances. And by the time 4K starts becoming mainstream, 8K adoption will more than likely start, starting this cycle all over again. I'd say give Nintendo/NVIDIA a couple of years. They'll probably come out with a *new* Nintendo Switch that has a Tegra SoC capable of handling 4K while docked. For right now, with most people still having 1080p TVs, there's no point in pursuing 4K, especially if you want to keep costs down on console hardware (like Nintendo wants to do).[/QUOTE] It's not like 4k TV's are insane anymore though. You can find many models below $400 even off sale. 4k monitors start at under $300. It'll be a while for a tegra type to be able to consistently drive 4k though, hell it even struggles at 720p with current games at times. There's no real need for the console to support it either, at least until it can handle 1080p perfectly.

Just be warned of false 4k tv's there are tons of "120hz" tv's as well, those are just not real at all

They aren't wrong. Nintendo is partially about affordability and just wants to focus on the broader market to not have inventory to sell to rather than the smaller 4k market.

I care more about Nintendo's mostly 60FPS games than Sony&MS's 4K games. I could supersample Overwatch on my PC or run it at 144Hz. I'll choose framerate any time.

Who the fuck cares that the Xbox One Xbox can run in 4k when it still can't run 60fps.

[QUOTE=General J;52407369]Who the fuck cares that the Xbox One Xbox can run in 4k when it still can't run 60fps.[/QUOTE] as someone that runs games in 4k 60fps is more important than 4k... which is like, the 'basic' playable framerate for many games

[QUOTE=J!NX;52407141]Lets be honest though, 4k at 27 inches is about the minimum you'll see 'great advantages' for it, which is what I'm using atm. 4k is a [B]MASSIVE[/B] improvement however. meanwhile my phone has 1440p... honestly, at 1080p it's about the samish. That's because of the size of the screen. The switch would maybe benefit from 1440p but even then it really wouldn't do much. 4k would have 0 benefits at all on a switch, outside of TV play, and even then the main thing about the switch is that its mobile. you just aren't going to be close enough and its just too small to matter.[/QUOTE] The only good argument I've found for mobile 1440p is mobile VR. It's an immediately obvious difference. Other than that I don't see much difference from a 1080p phone. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52407201]Tbh 1440p is where it's at. 4k is hardly noticeable on TVs (where most people play console games) and is pretty much only worth it up close for large computer monitors.[/QUOTE] Damn straight! I love my 1440p monitor. Can play most games on ultra while sitting near the sweetspot of GPU price-performance, and it's a significant bump from 1080p. Also great for CAD and programming and stuff.

[QUOTE=darth-veger;52407300]4K is doable in price though, but most people don't see enough reason to upgrade. My 4K TV was 420 euro and its 43 inch with HDR10 at 60Hz (with artificial smoothing up to 120hz). That said, when i sit on my bed from a distance i could barely notice the difference between 1080p games and 4K games[/QUOTE] when i play on my 1080p television from a distance it looks good when i game on someone else's 4k television with a 4k enabled game it looks exactly the same just a tad smoother bc i got a lower hertz tv like, i'd love a 4k television don't get me wrong but there's nothing about it that's making me run out to get one

320x200 should be enough for everyone

[QUOTE=Drury;52407495]320x200 should be enough for everyone[/QUOTE] I do all my gaming on a dot-matrix printer these days

[QUOTE=J!NX;52407379]as someone that runs games in 4k 60fps is more important than 4k... which is like, the 'basic' playable framerate for many games[/QUOTE] Are you a PC gamer? The majority of console games don't run at 60fps. You might only consider 60fps or higher playable, but that's just because it's what you're used to. I personally don't mind being on less unless it's a fast paced online game

[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;52407499]I do all my gaming on a dot-matrix printer these days[/QUOTE] I exclusively play on an analog oscilloscope. Infinite resolution baby [editline]wot[/editline] Oh wow, apparently that's actually a thing [video=youtube;aMli33ornEU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMli33ornEU&t=70s[/video]

I wouldn't say sub-60fps is unplayable (30fps is my minimum) but I'd definitely take 1080p/60fps over 4k/30fps