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

[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;52407499]I do all my gaming on a dot-matrix printer these days[/QUOTE] pentium?

I went from 20-40 FPS at 1440x900 to 60 FPS at 1080p and that was not until 2014. I would like my next jump also be both in resolution and framerate, so 4K at 120 FPS at affordable price, I can wait. The problem now is that marketing is way ahead of the current hardware capabilities; current hardware is more meant for something like 1440p and/or 90FPS, a jump from 1080p to 4K and/or 60 FPS to 120/144FPS is very steep.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52407315]Just be warned of[B] false 4k tv's[/B] [/QUOTE] never heard of this, elaborate

The monitors we have at work are 4k, and for productivity they're great. We get a big discount on used monitors when people upgrade but I think I'll pass. The Refresh rate is absurdly slow so they'd be awful for gaming/video editing.

[QUOTE=meppers;52407793]never heard of this, elaborate[/QUOTE] Early on there was a lot of bullshit with overscan and bizarre logic leaps but I haven't seen shit like that in a while.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52407658]pentium?[/QUOTE] He's on Windows 10 now, fyi

[QUOTE=meppers;52407793]never heard of this, elaborate[/QUOTE] it has more to do with shows itself but [url]http://realorfake4k.com/my-product_category/fake/[/url] there are shows that are "4k" in that they're actually just HD or uHD/2k upscaled to 4k, so you end up getting what is ultimately psuedo-4k. I noticed that netflix may be guilty of this too. as for [URL="http://4k.com/news/lthree-of-lgs-4k-tvs-offer-pseudo-uhd-and-a-raw-deal-for-consumers-uh6400-uh6100-uf6800-16649/"]TV's[/URL], there was a scare of 'fake 4k' because of LG but I'm not so sure how widespread the issue is. Its just a matter of researching the TV before you buy it and checking reviews really. I'm fairly certain that by now 'false' 2160p screens using the 4k hype-word will be pretty much phased out though. [editline]27th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AntonioR;52407662]I went from 20-40 FPS at 1440x900 to 60 FPS at 1080p and that was not until 2014. I would like my next jump also be both in resolution and framerate, so 4K at 120 FPS at affordable price, I can wait. The problem now is that marketing is way ahead of the current hardware capabilities; current hardware is more meant for something like 1440p and/or 90FPS, a jump from 1080p to 4K and/or 60 FPS to 120/144FPS is very steep.[/QUOTE] 4k and 120hz that'll take a good while for that to be affordable, why not 1440p@144hz?

[QUOTE=AntonioR;52407662] The problem now is that marketing is way ahead of the current hardware capabilities; current hardware is more meant for something like 1440p and/or 90FPS, a jump from 1080p to 4K and/or 60 FPS to 120/144FPS is very steep.[/QUOTE] That's exactly what seems to be happening. Someone is pushing 4K a LOT. Meanwhile the common hobbyist values high fps above resolution, I believe, and isn't going to dish out over a thousand on just GPU and monitor. On the console side very few seem to manage 1080p at stable 60fps so 4K seems pointless.

I think Xbox has the right idea. But of course it's not there yet. At least someone is trying to innovate - Nintendo certainly isn't.

I'd rather have a frame rate improvement than a resolution improvement anyway. 600x400 was my childhood gaming resolution so 1080p is great for me.

He's not wrong. 1440p should have been the future. The Xbox One X could've been a sick 1440p60fps machine rather than a stupid 4K30fps (with guaranteed dips) machine. With that said, Nintendo is embarrassingly behind the curve when it comes to hardware. I guess they don't care about graphical fidelity all that much though, which is fine.

Make no mistake, If I could get 4k I would, but I want a roof over my head more. Im gonna go out on a limb and say thats gonna be the bulk of the argument against 4k right there in a nutshell.

[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] That is exactly and entirely true if you play on postage stamp for a screen. If you have anything over 28 inches it an absolutely massive change.

[QUOTE=redBadger;52408200]I think Xbox has the right idea. But of course it's not there yet. At least someone is trying to innovate - Nintendo certainly isn't.[/QUOTE] I'm very interested in how you think Nintendo isn't innovating.

[QUOTE=redBadger;52408200]I think Xbox has the right idea. But of course it's not there yet. At least someone is trying to innovate - Nintendo certainly isn't.[/QUOTE] all nintendo does is innovate and sometimes it can be their shortcoming.

[QUOTE=redBadger;52408200]At least someone is trying to innovate - Nintendo certainly isn't.[/QUOTE] I want to see you explain this.

[QUOTE=redBadger;52408200]At least Nintendo is trying to innovate - Xbox certainly isn't.[/QUOTE] Fixed that for you, buddy. ...unless, of course, you can explain how exactly Xbox is being more innovated than Nintendo.

[QUOTE=redBadger;52408200]I think Xbox has the right idea. But of course it's not there yet. At least someone is trying to innovate - Nintendo certainly isn't.[/QUOTE] xbox is as far from innovative as you can get right now like fuck, PC has had 4k for years now, far longer before xbox. "Catching up with new tech" isn't innovation [QUOTE=27X;52408351]That is exactly and entirely true if you play on postage stamp for a screen. If you have anything over 28 inches it an absolutely massive change.[/QUOTE] [t]https://cdn3.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/gabe-newell-tv.jpg[/t] Unless you're Gabe Newell, 1440p on a TV screen at a NORMAL viewing distance is more than enough. Normal for a TV being, far enough away that it wouldn't matter. I have 27' 4k monitors and 1440p isn't as good as 4k, I'm usually far enough that I can touch it with my middle finger. Any farther and it wouldn't really matter

I think with the PS4 Pro and the Xbox One X they are playing the long game. Considering how long these console generations are now, in a couple of years 4k TVs will be far more ubiquitous and there will be more of a reason for owning one of those consoles as a result. Also worth mentioning that Phil Spencer specifically said that he didn't aim for 60fps as a target because he didn't want to force developers to adhere to guidelines which they don't necessarily need.

[QUOTE=Valiantttt;52407098]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.[/QUOTE] Problem is that even if it wasn't in the late stages of early adopter right now, 1080p60fps was something that even the more powerful consoles almost entirely failed to achieve. To say an incremental upgrade can somehow offer optimal gaming experiences at 4K is utter bollocks, when I'm pretty sure Destiny is running at 900p30fps with framedrops. This 4K push happening right now seems anti-consumer, Microsoft and Sony's dickwaving contest over this seems to be taking away from offering decent framerate when they've finally got the opportunity with the Pro and Scorpio. It's just not standard yet, nobody owns 4K tellies and current tech can't reliably get it done at a cost effective level. Most of them aren't even meeting the current standard so we should probably get that sorted first before we start leaping into next gen territory.

[QUOTE=27X;52408351]That is exactly and entirely true if you play on postage stamp for a screen. If you have anything over 28 inches it an absolutely massive change.[/QUOTE] stop sitting five inches from your TV The difference between 1440p and 4k from 9 feet away (the average viewing distance) is pretty much imperceptible on even the largest of TVs.

I'm five feet away from my [B]monitor[/B] and you're just being willfully ignorant. [quote] I can't afford 4K [/quote] [quote] 4K is just like 2K [/quote] Are not even kind of the same thing. I use 4K because specifically of the changes it brings, and that's pretty much the end of any equivocation. They aren't remotely the same. The monitor I used before this one for five years was 2560x1600, and the same size, and they weren't, aren't, and never will be the same. Your subjective equivocation is not facts, and the facts are at equal real estate it's double the density resolution, period. If you plan on buying a [I]television[/I] with crappy dot pitch and slow ass guns with a bunch of extraneous post processing gimmicks, that has very little to do with the objective implementation 3.7M versus 8.8M pixels.

"willfully ignorant" "subjective equivocation" lol if only somebody had tested this and put out the results [URL="https://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/"]oh wait[/URL] tl;dr [img]https://d18oqavmcmo3u.cloudfront.net/resolution_chart_small.png[/img] Just thinking about it logically, it should make perfect sense that at increasingly further viewing distances, pixel density will matter less and less. I don't know why you're having a hard time grasping that. I also don't know why you think looking at your monitor from five feet away matters when you don't have a lower resolution monitor next to it for comparison.

It's going to be a long-ass time before 4K is the norm. I mean, blu-ray is only just now [i]kinda starting[/i] to be the norm for videos. I work in a store that sells DVDs, and most of the people older than ~35 still buy standard DVDs and don't have a blu-ray player. Though I guess at this point, anybody who has discovered the advantage of blu-rays would have also discovered the advantage of streaming services and digital purchases, so they wouldn't even visit a store for that.

[QUOTE=redBadger;52408200]I think Xbox has the right idea. But of course it's not there yet. At least someone is trying to innovate - Nintendo certainly isn't.[/QUOTE] "Let's make a console that's a home console but also fully portable with a controller that can double as 2 smaller controllers." "Let's make a console that's the same thing as out last 3 consoles but with higher specs." Like idgaf which console fanbase you're part of there's no way you can be THIS ignorant enough to think Nintendo isn't the leading innovator (for better or worse) of video games in the console world.

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52409070]"willfully ignorant" "subjective equivocation" lol if only somebody had tested this and put out the results [URL="https://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/"]oh wait[/URL] tl;dr [IMG]https://d18oqavmcmo3u.cloudfront.net/resolution_chart_small.png[/IMG] Just thinking about it logically, it should make perfect sense that at increasingly further viewing distances, pixel density will matter less and less. I don't know why you're having a hard time grasping that. I also don't know why you think looking at your monitor from five feet away matters when you don't have a lower resolution monitor next to it for comparison.[/QUOTE] Just said I have a 2K monitor sitting next to it actually, the one I mentioned, and there's nothing to grasp, and if you actually bothered to [i]read[/i] the chart you posted you'd see why.

[QUOTE=27X;52409547]Just said I have a 2K monitor sitting next to it actually, the one I mentioned, and there's nothing to grasp, and if you actually bothered to [i]read[/i] the chart you posted you'd see why.[/QUOTE] Are we having the same argument? I feel like you're talking about something completely unrelated with how off-base you are.

[QUOTE=redBadger;52408200]I think Xbox has the right idea. But of course it's not there yet. At least someone is trying to innovate - Nintendo certainly isn't.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but you are objectively wrong. Nintendo has been the only one that consistently tried to innovate on how we experience video games. They had the Nintendo DS, touchbased gaming which may have had an influence on mobile gaming in general on phones like the iPhone in 2007. Nintendo brought us the Wii, motion based gaming which was later "copied" by Microsoft with Kinect and Sony with Playstation Move and now VR which uses motion controls. Nintendo had a huge influence on it. 3DS, playing in 3D without glasses. And now they just released the first step into the future of video gaming that is the Nintendo Switch. No barriers, playing games everywhere you want. Giving the customer as many choices as possible to enjoy their games. Sony and Microsoft are heading into this direction too, slowly, but as of now, Nintendo is leading with their new system of what playing games in 15-20 years will be like. Not being limited.

[QUOTE=redBadger;52408200]I think Xbox has the right idea. But of course it's not there yet. At least someone is trying to innovate - Nintendo certainly isn't.[/QUOTE] Sony invested in the upscaled 4K system so they could help their floundering TV division get more 4K TVs out the door, and Microsoft, not willing to put itself behind Sony even more followed suit. Absolutely everything they showed off at E3 with the One X had already been done by someone else, except the Porsche. I'll reach even farther and say the games that they showed off with the 4K enhancements aren't graphically impressive enough to even make a huge use of it.

Just make games run fucking smooth before reaching for something like 4k. I just do not get that mindset that everyone wants to improve graphics but games run like shit for most parts on consoles.