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

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52409816]Eventually we will devolve to "choose your own adventure" slideshows[/QUOTE] In all honesty, it's not that bad in all the games but having games run between 20-30 fps is not acceptable to me. Despite getting used to it after a while but once you play on a higher framerate it's hard to go back really except the game is really worth it.

I do wish we did 1080p 60fps first instead of going from 900p/1080p 30fps to (most times checkerboard) 4K 30fps Atleast Nintendo seems to be doing as such since Mario Kart 8, ARMS and Splatoon 2 run at 1080/60

Ironically the highest resolution device in my household is my mum's Xperia Z5 Premium which is 4K, other than that all the televisions are 1080p, my computer's displays are 1920x1200, and all the laptops are 1080p. All of us are fine with that. So yeah I agree, especially since 4K televisions and displays are expensive and beefy hardware would be needed to run games at 4K smoothly anyways. On top of that, do consider that the Switch is designed to also be a mobile console. Imagine the battery life problems if games were rendered at higher resolutions, or the cost problems if the hardware was more efficient.

[QUOTE=Joshii;52409837]I do wish we did 1080p 60fps first instead of going from 900p/1080p 30fps to (most times checkerboard) 4K 30fps Atleast Nintendo seems to be doing as such since Mario Kart 8, ARMS and Splatoon 2 run at 1080/60[/QUOTE] Or, hell, 120/144fps at 1080p/1440p. I've got a 1440p 144hz monitor and I'm pretty much always willing to turn the graphics way down to keep that delicious smoothness. Ooor, introduce choice. It's still astonishing that most console games don't let you touch the graphics at all. Like, one final fantasy MMO does it and that's it I think for modern games? Even if you only have two options that are like "60 fps" "30 fps" for targets that'd still be incredible.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52409864]Or, hell, 120/144fps at 1080p/1440p. I've got a 1440p 144hz monitor and I'm pretty much always willing to turn the graphics way down to keep that delicious smoothness. Ooor, introduce choice. It's still astonishing that most console games don't let you touch the graphics at all. Like, one final fantasy MMO does it and that's it I think for modern games? Even if you only have two options that are like "60 fps" "30 fps" for targets that'd still be incredible.[/QUOTE] Nioh has an option for regular PS4 to prioritize framerate or graphical fidelity, it's great and actually makes the game smooth.

To the people saying 1440p is the sweet spot, Sony agrees. The PS4 Pro actually renders its games at 1440p then uses an internal upscaling algorithm to output in 4K. This is why Microsoft pushing "true 4K" as a selling point.

I'd rather see consistent 60fps (let alone 120fps) be a target for gaming console developers before 4K. Resolutions beyond 1080p are difficult to see the improvements on from a television if anti-aliasing is present, but drops below ~50-60fps are still very noticeable and ruin game immersion when inconsistency is rampant.

[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] I hope you don't actually think this. Like with all consoles, what keeps framerates and resolutions from hitting the native output is the games they run. There's gonna be plenty of 4K60 games on the XbOX (lol that fucking name), but there's also gonna be plenty of developers that prefer the graphical boost in other areas, and therefore sacrifice framerate and/or resolution for it. In fact, consoles could have 10X their current processing power, and I'm sure we'd still see this trend of devs sacrificing resolution/framerate for other things. [editline]28th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Scot;52410043]To the people saying 1440p is the sweet spot, Sony agrees. The PS4 Pro actually renders its games at 1440p then uses an internal upscaling algorithm to output in 4K. This is why Microsoft pushing "true 4K" as a selling point.[/QUOTE] The native res of the PS4 Pro is 3840 x 2160. The checkerboard upscaling Sony advertised is of course a thing, but it's not the "default", nor is it a limit. The PS4 Pro renders the games at whatever resolution the games tells it to render at - be it 120 x 80 or 7680 x 4320. The output is limited to 3840 x 2160 @ 60fps, so devs have to realistically stay within that, but there's literally nothing (apart from themselves) keeping them from staying just on that target.

I'd pick 144hz over 4k every time anyways. Framerate is a massive improvement on the feel, look and most importantly gamplay, while 4k, while good, is comparatively giving diminished returns on experience. Nintendo has neither, though.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52411614]I'd pick 144hz over 4k every time anyways. Framerate is a massive improvement on the feel, look and most importantly gamplay, while 4k, while good, is comparatively giving diminished returns on experience. Nintendo has neither, though.[/QUOTE] the two way more powerful home consoles are failing to consistently hit 60fps let alone 120 or 144fps; what makes you think the portable console is gonna do it

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52411627]the two way more powerful home consoles are failing to consistently hit 60fps let alone 120 or 144fps; what makes you think the portable console is gonna do it[/QUOTE] Nothing. My post didn't imply they should, either. The fact is though, nintendo doesn't even have the capability for any of these things. It's stupid for them to even be commenting on this. Nintendo is justifying the absence of 4k rather than 144hz, despite frame-rate being a way more worthwhile pursuit. Try to read whats written next time.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52411614]I'd pick 144hz over 4k every time anyways. Framerate is a massive improvement on the feel, look and most importantly gamplay, while 4k, while good, is comparatively giving diminished returns on experience. Nintendo has neither, though.[/QUOTE] 144hz has no use outside of racing / shooting / reaction games. Like it's an unbelievable boost to the tightness and feel to the game, but in most games that's very much pointless. I chose 4k over 144hz because frame rate ultimately doesn't matter in the types of games I play. that and many games don't even support above 60fps, either by performance or artificial cap, or just not being needed. Lets not forget that 144hz is a much more niche market for enthusiasts. Even casuals can get into 4k. [editline]28th June 2017[/editline] tbh 60 to 75 fps is the most noticeable impact I've noticed. After that the frame rate increase gradually gets less noticable. Tbh 4k@100hz is where its at bby

[QUOTE=J!NX;52411655]144hz has no use outside of racing / shooting / reaction games. I chose 4k over 144hz because frame rate ultimately doesn't matter in the types of games I play. that and many games don't even support above 60fps, either by performance or artificial cap, or just not being needed. Lets not forget that 144hz is a much more niche market for enthusiasts. Even casuals can get into 4k.[/QUOTE] 144hz makes every kind of game look better and it's controls more responsive. Even in a turn based strategy like Civ, the feeling of your inputs being recognized faster has inherent value. Animations play more smoothly, transitions move more smoothly, camera pans move more smoothly. You could be playing hearthstone and you'd go "oh wow those cards are moving really smoothly". Meanwhile, as people have pointed out in the thread pixel density has diminishing returns with distance. Framerate has no such issue.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52411649]Nothing. My post didn't imply they should, either. The fact is though, nintendo doesn't even have the capability for any of these things. It's stupid for them to even be commenting on this. Nintendo is justifying the absence of 4k rather than 144hz, despite frame-rate being a way more worthwhile pursuit. Try to read whats written next time.[/QUOTE] Nintendo wouldn't even touch 144hz to begin with, or comment on it. It's a more niche and enthusiast grade market than even VR currently is. The only people going for it are PC gamers. [QUOTE=Mattk50;52411678]144hz makes every kind of game look better and it's controls more responsive. Even in a turn based strategy like Civ, the feeling of your inputs being recognized faster has inherent value. Animations play more smoothly, transitions move more smoothly, camera pans move more smoothly. You could be playing hearthstone and you'd go "oh wow those cards are moving really smoothly".[/QUOTE] it ultimately doesn't affect your gameplay in hearthstone and Civ. And higher resolutions do that to begin with. The ultimate reason to use 144hz is to make everything far more responsive and to allow yourself to react faster and feel comfortable. I wish my 144hz didn't break, but at the same time, 4k will give a much better aesthetic than any 144hz at 1080p. Everything looks much more clean after all. That being said, any 1440p@144hz would be better than any 4k monitor, as it'd have a blend of both superior resolutions allowing you to better see textures as well as everything being much more responsive and clean. Neither of them are better at all, they just, have completely different reasons to exist, so really its just a matter of combining both and getting both of the great benefits. [QUOTE=Mattk50;52411678]Meanwhile, as people have pointed out in the thread pixel density has diminishing returns with distance. Framerate has no such issue.[/QUOTE] Not quite. 1080p VS 4k is pretty insane. Even 1440p isn't quite as good, though that all depends on vision. 75fps is the most noticable improvement. After that its less noticeable, it'd be harder to tell 100 from 120 than 60 to 75. They both have their own form of diminishing returns. on a 28 inch, more than 5k really wouldn't give you much as at 4k you already have virtually no aliasing, and 240hz monitors, I doubt that we'll see too much improvement after that. Personally, 4k and 144hz are the max I'd really care about. After that with a 28" maybe even a 30ish" monitor I doubt you'd see much improvement. [editline]28th June 2017[/editline] I do wish more games supported 144fps some of the biggest games that'd be improved by it that I've played either didn't support it or didn't work well enough though Sniper Elite supports it that game is a game that honestly needs resolution more.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52411714] It's a more niche and enthusiast grade market than even VR currently is. The only people going for it are PC gamers. [/QUOTE] Others don't have a choice. You argue so much in favor of 4K over 144hz, which is strange because that preference is entirely subjective. Both improve gameplay, both improve visuals.

[QUOTE=Scot;52410043]To the people saying 1440p is the sweet spot, Sony agrees. The PS4 Pro actually renders its games at 1440p then uses an internal upscaling algorithm to output in 4K. This is why Microsoft pushing "true 4K" as a selling point.[/QUOTE] Depends on the game/devs, pretty sure the more demanding titles get rendered in 1080p

As someone who has been running 2560x1600 for a decade now, it has taken till now for graphics cards to be able to properly and pretty much easily run games at that resolution. Only in the last video card generation did you start to see single GPU solutions able to run AAA games at 60+ fps on average. Before now you were basically required to run an SLI setup with near flagship cards. You've got another 5 or 6 years before the same will he said for 4K. Look how long it took to have consoles able to properly push 1080/60. 4K hardware wise is still in higher enthusiast territory in gaming, but now since panel manufactures have shifted their production you can easily afford a 4K monitor, but the hardware to run it well is as expensive as ever.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;52417894]As someone who has been running 2560x1600 for a decade now, it has taken till now for graphics cards to be able to properly and pretty much easily run games at that resolution. Only in the last video card generation did you start to see single GPU solutions able to run AAA games at 60+ fps on average. Before now you were basically required to run an SLI setup with near flagship cards. You've got another 5 or 6 years before the same will he said for 4K. Look how long it took to have consoles able to properly push 1080/60. 4K hardware wise is still in higher enthusiast territory in gaming, but now since panel manufactures have shifted their production you can easily afford a 4K monitor, but the hardware to run it well is as expensive as ever.[/QUOTE] The problem is as soon as consoles get a hardware upgrade, devs immediately push the graphics to new levels that consoles can't handle 1080p/60fps at. If devs would just settle for less shader effects, a few less polygons, a few less particles, etc. there's no reason consoles even from the last generation can't do 1080p/60fps.

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52420475]The problem is as soon as consoles get a hardware upgrade, devs immediately push the graphics to new levels that consoles can't handle 1080p/60fps at. If devs would just settle for less shader effects, a few less polygons, a few less particles, etc. there's no reason consoles even from last generations can't do 1080p/60fps.[/QUOTE] That's exactly why they push for 4k instead of 60fps.

I rather have the power used for 4K be used for running games in 120 fps.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;52417666]Others don't have a choice. You argue so much in favor of 4K over 144hz, which is strange because that preference is entirely subjective. Both improve gameplay, both improve visuals.[/QUOTE] My arguing for 4k is preferential, but I never denied that they both have their own use, I said that in that exact post. "Neither of them are better at all, they just, have completely different reasons to exist, so really its just a matter of combining both and getting both of the great benefits.". That's pretty far from arguing in favor of it on a 'subjective level' it's that 144hz doesn't see that many actual function outside of shooters, fighters, racing games, and really all reaction based games. It's way more niche of a market. For this exact reason we may never see them on consoles. Resolution serves an aesthetic purpose and makes everything look cleaner and clearer. Framerate makes games feel smoother and tighter, easier to control. One affects the graphics, the other affects the gameplay. Both have benefits in both topics however. 120hz is an enthusiast product and may be that way for an extremely long time, that's just the fact of it. Tons of games don't even have support for it or work for it, and consoles as it is are pushing 30 on a resolution that is going to be outdated fast.

Yeah just like it's been stated a billion times in this thread, I'd much rather have a smooth gameplay experience (60FPS minimum, preferably with the ability to go higher with compatible tvs/monitors) than a denser pixel count. Personally I feel like it'd be more impressive to show off a, say, a game running at 1440p/120hz vs 4k/30. But I'm not a marketing rep so what the hell do I know :v:

[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;52428389]I rather have the power used for 4K be used for running games in 120 fps.[/QUOTE] Considering consoles are a casual market that may never happen. 120fps is such a completely PC market thing and pretty much something only enthusiasts care for. 4k USED to be an enthusiast product exclusively, of course, but now its way more universal. [editline]3rd July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lyokanthrope;52428507]Yeah just like it's been stated a billion times in this thread, I'd much rather have a smooth gameplay experience (60FPS minimum, preferably with the ability to go higher with compatible tvs/monitors) than a denser pixel count. Personally I feel like it'd be more impressive to show off a, say, a game running at 1440p/120hz vs 4k/30. But I'm not a marketing rep so what the hell do I know :v:[/QUOTE] If you can't push 60fps in 4k there's no way in hell you're pushing 120 in 1440p :v:

[QUOTE=J!NX;52428510]Considering consoles are a casual market that may never happen. 120fps is such a completely PC market thing. Resolution however is pretty universal to all media.[/QUOTE] Its also easier to market. More pixels on the screen = sharper image. Most people already grasp that 1080p is better than 480i. Pretty easy. FPS is inherently more abstract, as it requires that person to understand how video actually works, and that more FPS equals more fluid motion. The motion interpolation stuff on TVs is really the closest to mass marketing high FPS. But then if they bring out a new Xbox or whatever for more FPS, they would ask why, when their TV already does that.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52428510]Considering consoles are a casual market that may never happen. 120fps is such a completely PC market thing and pretty much something only enthusiasts care for. 4k USED to be an enthusiast product exclusively, of course, but now its way more universal. [editline]3rd July 2017[/editline] If you can't push 60fps in 4k there's no way in hell you're pushing 120 in 1440p :v:[/QUOTE] I get that the current consoles can't push that. I just wish that was the target for the future, but chances are we'll be stuck with a 30FPS target forever.

[QUOTE=Demache;52428549]Its also easier to market. More pixels on the screen = sharper image. Pretty easy. FPS is inherently more abstract, as it requires that person to understand how video actually works, and that more FPS equals more fluid motion. The motion interpolation stuff on TVs is really the closest to mass marketing high FPS. But then if they bring out a new Xbox or whatever for more FPS, they would ask why, when their TV already does that.[/QUOTE] Not only that but most of the mass market thinks that "High Framerate movies look bad". I'm willing to bet those people would think the exact same thing for games, even though that's just ignorant. Pitching 144hz/fps to the mass market just wouldn't work because as it is the mass market doesn't care for it and doesn't have a use for it [QUOTE=Lyokanthrope;52428557]I get that the current consoles can't push that. I just wish that was the target for the future, but chances are we'll be stuck with a 30FPS target forever.[/QUOTE] 1440p/144hz would honestly be a bit better than 4k pretty hard because 1. Its easier to obtain and from there, grow into 4k 2. it has more options for players 3. Devs can set goals... 4k at 30fps, 1440 at 60fps, 1080 at 120fps, etc funnily enough there are idiots buying 144hz monitors for their 30fps consoles. People that don't understand what 144hz is.

Can't wait for the resolution wars to get less relevant as the resolution gets higher and higher

[QUOTE=343N;52428561]Can't wait for the resolution wars to get less relevant as the resolution gets higher and higher[/QUOTE] Xbox One X Box with 8K Xbox One X Box One with 16K Xbox One X Box One X with 32K It will go on till our time ends.

[QUOTE=343N;52428561]Can't wait for the resolution wars to get less relevant as the resolution gets higher and higher[/QUOTE] There will be a point where the human eye literally can't see the difference and people will start falling for gimmick resolutions that aren't even visibly different even when you're doing this [t]http://www.personal.psu.edu/afr3/blogs/siowfa12/close%20to%20tv.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=Antimuffin;52428575]Xbox One X Box with 8K Xbox One X Box One with 16K Xbox One X Box One X with 32K It will go on till our time ends.[/QUOTE] 32k 30fps :v: