Consolefriends, which games will you rebuy next gen (or maybe next, next gen?) if they get a 4k remaster?
>>320477910
Windwaker HD
>having to rebuy your games just to play them at a higher resolution
>>320477910
At best they'll be making 60fps Remasters of 8th gen games since most games run at <30fps now.
No way 9th gen consoles will be able to handle 4k.
>>320482003
in 3 or 4 years if we get 2 graphics improvements on the scale of fermi to kepler or HD 6XXX to HD 7XXX it might be possible for the 380 market equivalent to run current gen games at 4K 60fps
>>320477910
>1020p
Do you think 4k will honestly be that popular? I feel like it might be supported by a PS5 if it's ever made but I feel like the jump from 1080p to 4k will be similar to the jump from DVD to Blu Ray and that not everyone will buy into it
>>320482491
Only through higher resolutions will shooters stop being on fucking the small ass scales they are.
Only once you're able to see dudes on hills hundreds of meters out without zooming in at all like you can in real life will the resolution be high enough.
>1020p
wut
>>320482650
That isn't a function of resolution, that's a function of draw distance.
>>320482953
No, resolution plays a big part in it.
Even games with extreme draw distances, with a low resolution, there isn't even enough pixel density to draw more than a few pixels of the person, and at that point, they might as well be invisible, because they don't form a shape.
>>320483357
That itself depends on your screen. The larger it is, the worse everything will look, assuming you sit at the same distance
>>320483401
Yeah sure, but with higher resolutions you can have big screens that still have high pixel density
>>320482491
I think 4K will be more popular when 4K displays become more affordable. In my eyes, you need at least a 32" display to really reap the benefits of 4K against 1080p.
>>320483401
My point still fucking stands, draw distance and screen size play a part, but resolution still needs to increase.
You can't aim at shit that far away even because there isn't enough pixels even drawn for you to aim at them, you would need to get literally pixel perfect aim and that isn't going to happen.
There's plenty of cases where you can't see some one because they only form a couple of pixels, and not the shape of a person, because there isn't enough pixels density, and even if you had a larger monitor, they'd still be hard as shit to see because they'd be blocky as fuck.
I've played enough large shooters to deal with this shit regularly. There is a long way to go before we'll ever have games where the scale is at all realistic.
>play games at 1080p for years
>tfw downsampling for the first time to 1440p
it's like i can finally see. I've been blind this whole time.
>>320482491
Ps5 should worry about actually getting games in 1080p before going for 4k.
>>320482650
Are you retarded?
With the extra performance requirements for 4k and the expectations of better graphics for a new generation of games, shooters will have to be even more limited in scope to run on any corporeal system.
>3840 x 2160
>4K
>HD 1020p
>HD 720p
>DVD
>600x379
What the fuck is up with that image?
>>320482491
It will, but not anytime soon. There's still fuck all 4K content, and even as far as games go maybe 1% of gaming PCs can run stuff at 4K without plenty of compromises.
>>320485736
are you mentally disabled?
>>320486186
No, why do you ask?
>>320485736
>not knowing the official HD terms and numbers
>>320482491
in ten years everyone will have it. But it will be a slow jump.
Took about 10 years to make 1080 standard.
obviously this isnt discussing smarthones and tablets, they will be 4k pretty soon
>>320486276
Those are definitely not the official ones. Except for HD 720p (and 4k I think, though it also isn't), but I included that as a comparison.
>tfw 4k will be the last big leap, since our eyes can only tell small differences from 4k to 8k
After 8k there's nothing else. It's crazy we'll get to experience it in our lifetime.
>>320486279
>4k on a smartphone
But why
>>320486279
smartphones dont even need 720p though; your eye literally cannot tell the difference in resolution on a screen that small.
>>320487376
>8k
Even higher resolutions than this would make sense for a VR display such as the Oculus, but for a TV and even a computer monitor, it's retarded.
>>320487687
It sells.
Resolution is the new MEGAPIXELS.
>>320488589
What is that graph based on?
Because I'd rather have 1080p on my TV thats like 3m away than above 4k on my 24" monitor.
>>320488589
The real advantage of 8k for a computer monitor is that you get a screen that supports 720p, 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p with integer scaling.
Plus at 2x scaling on a 40" monitor it allows you to have both the enormous desktop realestate of a large format display and the incredible sharpness of a high ppi display.
>>320489325
I think 20/20 vision, I understand there are people with 20/10 vision, so it shouldn't be hard to figure out. Only at the solid color line do you get the full benefits of the higher resolution, being in the colored area means only getting some benefit over the prior standard.
>>320489632
There are technical advantages to a 2160p screen regardless of size and viewing distance, namely that it supports both 1080p and 720p content cleanly.
This is the real reason why 1440p and 2160p phones are becoming popular because they both allow apps built for older 720p displays to render without odd scaling factors.
>>320477910
can someone help me imagine what 4k would look like? My peasant eyes are no where near worthy to view it's glory.
>>320490191
Look at your shitty little 15" 720p monitor. Now imagine that you have 9 of them hooked up together with no seams or bezels.
40" 2160p displays are the future of PC gaming.
>he thinks consoles will be able to do 4k within the next few decades
top laff
>>320477910
So there is a LG UHD 55" IPS on sale for 698, would anyone recommend it?
Sorry, I forget the model number.
>>320490348
Oh my....how it glows so incandescently.
It. is. magnificent.
I don't know if we're ready for this.
I've heard tales of some losing their minds by it's pixel density.
>>320490525
Be sure to find reviews talking about gaming performance. Some of the budget 2160p displays have some real display lag issues. You'd be better off buying one of the 40" 2160p computer monitors like the one from Phillips its normal price is around $700. They have high quality components since they're PC centric products focused on the pro market which means very low input lag.
>>320490753
You're doing God's work, anon. I will look into the monitor instead.
>>320482375
You're retarded aren't you??it might be possible for the 380/970 equivalent to run it but consoles typically lag 2-3 years so...what pc's 970's performance right now will be ps5' performance.
call of duty
