Next Gen consoles may have Ultrawide support

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Player enjoyment of the experience =/= In game benefit.

 

i have to disagree there

having the game give a more enjoyable experience to the player is a benefit.

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Twitch shooters need high FPS because it allows them to hit targets quicker than players without it. Everyone else just wants it because they see the pros all using it and think its required. IT ISN'T.

 

and that's just another benefit of having high fps in game, not the only one.

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Again, in the vast majority of cases having 144FPS over 60FPS will give the player no IN GAME benefit

again, i disagree

 

5 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

If people enjoy running high FPS then that's fine, at no point have a said they shouldn't have that choice.

then why are we having this discussion? 

just how they started to introduce the option of picking between 1080p@60 and "4k"@30 in some games, imo this generation should give the option of having  1080p@>60, even 90fps would be a good start

[blitzduck]

22 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

these sound like big enough benefits to me

I think you're both right up until the road splits into a fork. At a certain point (like Disaster said) there's a point of diminishing returns, though that line is further for a shooter than it is for another genre.

 

What it boils down to is: how much does it increase your reaction time window? Naturally if you can SEE something happen FASTER you are able to REACT to it faster (as we saw in that LTT video).

 

Even a lowly console player (sarcasm btw) on Fifa will benefit from a 30 FPS to 60 FPS jump.

A 60 to 144 FPS jump? Definitely noticeable. But will it make that player score more goals? Probably not.

 

Change from Fifa to a shooter though and everything I said above can be re-debated.

 

 

 

 

 

[Master Disaster]

5 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

i have to disagree there

having the game give a more enjoyable experience to the player is a benefit.

But it doesn't give them an IN GAME benefit, like being able to see players quicker than every one else is an in game benefit, enjoyment is not.

5 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

then why are we having this discussion? 

just how they started to introduce the option of picking between 1080p@60 and "4k"@30 in some games, imo this generation should give the option of having  1080p@>60, even 90fps would be a good start

Totally agree, more options is always good.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, blitzduck said:

I think you're both right up until the road splits into a fork. At a certain point (like Disaster said) there's a point of diminishing returns, though that line is further for a shooter than it is for another genre.

 

What it boils down to is: how much does it increase your reaction time window? Naturally if you can SEE something happen FASTER you are able to REACT to it faster (as we saw in that LTT video).

 

Even a lowly console player (sarcasm btw) on Fifa will benefit from a 30 FPS to 60 FPS jump.

A 60 to 144 FPS jump? Definitely noticeable. But will it make that player score more goals? Probably not.

 

Change from Fifa to a shooter though and everything I said above can be re-debated.

Exactly, my point is that nobody plays COD (just an example) on Playstation seriously enough to care. If you want to get into competitive COD then you buy a PC with a mouse & keyboard.

[blitzduck]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Exactly, my point is that nobody plays COD (just an example) on Playstation seriously enough to care. If you want to get into competitive COD then you buy a PC with a mouse & keyboard.

Exactly. My best friend plays on Xbox from a 42", 15 year old TV that sits like 15 feet away from him, blasting the sound through the TV speakers WHILE listening to music on his phone.

It makes me cringe but it's how he enjoys it. That said, before this whole Coronavirus situation, he would bring his Xbox over and we'd play together (I'm on PC) and he said he definitely notices my 144Hz vs his 60Hz (though at home I'm 99% sure his TV is 30Hz). But in the end that's not what he cares about.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, blitzduck said:

60 to 144 FPS jump? Definitely noticeable. But will it make that player score more goals? Probably not.

Here is my controversial take on this whole debate... What if you just want to play the game for fun? I know I know... It's a wild idea to want something because it makes the game more enjoyable rather than increase the odds of you winning, but it might be something to consider. 

 

6 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Exactly, my point is that nobody plays COD (just an example) on Playstation seriously enough to care. If you want to get into competitive COD then you buy a PC with a mouse & keyboard.

Exactly. Nobody plays COD on a console to be the best player in the world. They play it because it's fun and enjoyable. Not everyone wants to play competitively and take gaming super seriously. Is it really so bad to say "hey, we should have high frame rate on console games because it makes games more enjoyable"? Not everything for games has to be optimized for competitiveness, especially not on consoles. 

 

So I think high frame rate on consoles makes perfect sense. Not because it will make you win more matches, but because it makes the experience better. Isn't that what should matter? 

[Master Disaster]

33 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Here is my controversial take on this whole debate... What if you just want to play the game for fun? I know I know... It's a wild idea to want something because it makes the game more enjoyable rather than increase the odds of you winning, but it might be something to consider. 

 

Exactly. Nobody plays COD on a console to be the best player in the world. They play it because it's fun and enjoyable. Not everyone wants to play competitively and take gaming super seriously. Is it really so bad to say "hey, we should have high frame rate on console games because it makes games more enjoyable"? Not everything for games has to be optimized for competitiveness, especially not on consoles. 

 

So I think high frame rate on consoles makes perfect sense. Not because it will make you win more matches, but because it makes the experience better. Isn't that what should matter? 

Except the literal point of high FPS gaming is to increase reaction time. Why do you think both times Linus has tested the subject it was using CSGO and a slo mo camera? Because in almost any other situation having 144FPS over 60FPS offers nothing except a smoother mouse.

 

This issue in tangential to the main point but the vast majority of people only want 60 billion FPS because they're being told that's what they need. OFC the manufacturers are telling them it helps (it literally doesn't unless you're playing a game where millisecond reaction time vs a human opponent matters) and all the big names in professional gaming have them so its aspirational.

 

Plus like I've already said, high FPS only works because of a mouse, when you have an analogue stick to aim it offers nothing, you're weakest point in the chain is still the way you have to aim.

 

I'm not saying its bad, I'm not saying it shouldn't exist and I'm not saying people should have it if that's their preference. I'm saying that it doesn't really offer them anything, they're just conditioned to believe "moar is alwayz betterz" by the fat cats who are selling them displays they don't really need and will likely never use to the full capacity anyway.

 

Also fun fact: I too am one of these morons, I own a 1440p 144Hz display which I only ever use to play single player titles on plus my system can't push 144FPS in anything even remotely modern. At least on PC it improves my mouse cursor smoothness, on console you don't even get that.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Except the literal point of high FPS gaming is to increase reaction time. Why do you think both times Linus has tested the subject it was using CSGO and a slo mo camera? Because in almost any other situation having 144FPS over 60FPS offers nothing except a smoother mouse.

 

This issue in tangential to the main point but the vast majority of people only want 60 billion FPS because they're being told that's what they need. OFC the manufacturers are telling them it helps (it literally doesn't unless you're playing a game where millisecond reaction time vs a human opponent matters) and all the big names in professional gaming have them so its aspirational.

 

Plus like I've already said, high FPS only works because of a mouse, when you have an analogue stick to aim it offers nothing, you're weakest point in the chain is still the way you have to aim.

 

I'm not saying its bad, I'm not saying it shouldn't exist and I'm not saying people should have it if that's their preference. I'm saying that it doesn't really offer them anything, they're just conditioned to believe "moar is alwayz betterz" by the fat cats who are selling them displays they don't really need and will likely never use to the full capacity anyway.

 

Also fun fact: I too am one of these morons, I own a 1440p 144Hz display which I only ever use to play single player titles on plus my system can't push 144FPS in anything even remotely modern. At least on PC it improves my mouse cursor smoothness, on console you don't even get that.

That is actually crazy to think people would think that high fps and refreshrate is only so you can see people faster for competitive games. Having high framerates and refreshrate is super nice for any first person game for sure as when you move your head around it is much smoother and easier to see movements. This makes the game so much better and I can not stand playing at 60 fps anymore as it just feels bad. I mean even in games like the witcher 3 it still feels way better to play at high framerates compared to 60 fps. Also why do you think high refreshrate ultrawide monitors exist in the first place? People sure as hell don't buy them to play competitive esports like csgo. They buy them because it makes the gaming experience more enjoyable. 

[JAKEBAB]

10 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Exactly, my point is that nobody plays COD (just an example) on Playstation seriously enough to care. If you want to get into competitive COD then you buy a PC with a mouse & keyboard.

Horrible example. CWL uses ps4 with controllers.

[Master Disaster]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

That is actually crazy to think people would think that high fps and refreshrate is only so you can see people faster for competitive games. Having high framerates and refreshrate is super nice for any first person game for sure as when you move your head around it is much smoother and easier to see movements. This makes the game so much better and I can not stand playing at 60 fps anymore as it just feels bad. I mean even in games like the witcher 3 it still feels way better to play at high framerates compared to 60 fps. Also why do you think high refreshrate ultrawide monitors exist in the first place? People sure as hell don't buy them to play competitive esports like csgo. They buy them because it makes the gaming experience more enjoyable. 

And yet nobody has been able to give me a single example of how it improves the experience outside of the example I gave, increasing responsivity (except that one guy who said it makes interacting with the UI better like spending $500 on a monitor so you can have a smoother button clicking experience is a good idea).

 

Y'all are saying it really does help so I am asking this seriously, how does it help? Or, as I said, is it just a placebo effect and in reality it does nothing?

 

High FPS gaming is like having a 700HP engine in your car to drive to and from work and to the shops twice a week. Its a nice thing to have but the reality is it does nothing a 200HP engine wouldn't also do and you're never really going to use it to its full extent.

[suicidalfranco]

20 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

And yet nobody has been able to give me a single example of how it improves the experience outside of the example I gave, increasing responsivity (except that one guy who said it makes interacting with the UI better like spending $500 on a monitor so you can have a smoother button clicking experience is a good idea).

 

17 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

17 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

makes the game more fluid, more pleasing to look at and follow, and feels more natural when interacting with elements in the game

these sound like big enough benefits to me

it's not that no one as given examples of how it improves the experience, you just choose to ignore every example i gave. Also

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Having high framerates and refreshrate is super nice for any first person game for sure as when you move your head around it is much smoother and easier to see movements.

here's another example

[Master Disaster]

4 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

it's not that no one as given examples of how it improves the experience, you just choose to ignore every example i gave.

I'm choosing to ignore the UI example because nobody should be buying a high FPS display to get a smoother button clicking experience in a games UI.

 

More fluid and nicer to look at. OK they're both the same thing really but even so, can you explain how these things improve the experience?

 

I'm betting you can't because the reality is, it doesn't. You've just been told its better so you believe it to be true.

 

Its a preference, which is totally fine, but still a preference.

4 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

Also

here's another example

That's literally the same thing as my example, increased responsivity.

[suicidalfranco]

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I'm choosing to ignore the UI example because nobody should be buying a high FPS display to get a smoother button clicking experience in a games UI.

if it gives a better experience to the user, then it is a benefit. Might not be important to you but it's clearly important to others.

 

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

More fluid and nicer to look at. OK they're both the same thing really but even so, can you explain how these things improve the experience?

 

I'm betting you can't because the reality is, it doesn't. You've just been told its better so you believe it to be true.

 

It does improve the experience by giving you a less choppy transition between frame to frame and it improves it by making games less reliant on cancer features like motion blur 

 

7 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

That's literally the same thing as my example, increased responsivity.

that can be a benefit to the player outside of "only competitive players should use this"

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

More fluid and nicer to look at. OK they're both the same thing really but even so, can you explain how these things improve the experience?

Well it improves the experience by making things look nicer. Things become less blurry and more responsive. 

I mean, by your logic that "it doesn't matter if it makes things prettier" why are we even pushing for better graphics? 

 

How does higher graphics fidelity increase the experience for gamers? And you're not allowed to mention that it makes things look nicer because thst argument is apparently invalid. 

[HumdrumPenguin]

On 5/20/2020 at 1:20 AM, AndreiArgeanu said:

I mean I guess that's great but let's be honest, 99% of people will be playing on a flat screen since I've never heard anyone complain regarding the xbox one or ps4 lacking ultra wide support. Though I am curious how it will be implemented in games, it may lead to the developer having to do extra work for games to scale properly to ultra wide.

You can count me in as the first to complain then.

[ARikozuM]

Finally, I can play console closer to my triple setup than before. Now, if only they would start making more RTS for consoles. 

[Vanderburg]

On 5/20/2020 at 4:11 AM, holtert said:

exactly. you can't market a gaming monitor very well if it is say, 120hz or 100hz. At best, it's a marketing move.

Why not?

[Brooksie359]

11 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

And yet nobody has been able to give me a single example of how it improves the experience outside of the example I gave, increasing responsivity (except that one guy who said it makes interacting with the UI better like spending $500 on a monitor so you can have a smoother button clicking experience is a good idea).

 

Y'all are saying it really does help so I am asking this seriously, how does it help? Or, as I said, is it just a placebo effect and in reality it does nothing?

 

High FPS gaming is like having a 700HP engine in your car to drive to and from work and to the shops twice a week. Its a nice thing to have but the reality is it does nothing a 200HP engine wouldn't also do and you're never really going to use it to its full extent.

There is a reason why people pay good money for high refreshrate monitors even if they don't play competitive fps games. I use to think that high refreshrate was a gimmick as well when I first started building pcs but then I bought one just to see what it was like and the experience is just so much better. I mean everything is much more fluid and it feels like your vision is more like it would be in real life vs 60 fps where it is basically a fraction of that. Its really hard to explain to people what it is like and much easier if they actually experience it first hand. Is hugh refreshrate necessary to play games? No but it sure does make them more enjoyable.

[MadyTehWolfie]

Sought you'll see the consoles being able to play games at 144hz let alone 120hz that are graphics intensive. It's supposed to be on par with a 2080 aka 1080ti on paper. Untill we see the benchmarks though on paper performance means absolutely nothing untill we see it running in real time. My bets being it'll prob be on par with a 2060 or 2070 at most.