By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - You people want MOAR Power in 8th Gen consoles, but........

Turkish on 10 February 2013
Mazty said:
Turkish said:
Mazty said:
Turkish said:
Mazty said:

For fucks sake let me repeat myself:

Ultimately, the issue with 4k is not the price, it's the size, and that won't

change over time.

Many people won't, and can't, fit a 60+" TV in their living room.

 

Understand? You don't seem to understand living room size. In Japan and Europe, rooms are much smaller than in the USA. Your chart shows that it has plateaued at 46", which backs my point up. 

 

You fail to comprehend what I'm saying. There is a relation between the price and size of a tv screen. You are ill informed if you think people can't fit a 60" tv in their living room. Do you have a source to backup your claim? Any study that proves you right? How do you know rooms in Europe are much smaller? Thats just your assumption with no truth. (I live in Europe and I have enough room to fit in a +80" tv.) My chart is also from 2009. You're accepting your assumption as true without proof which again makes no sense.

Fact is that average tv sizes increase. http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2012/10/average-size-of-lcd-tv-panels-increases-by-2-inches-in-12-months/

There are several factors leading to increases in the average LCD TV panel size:

  • The emergence of new sizes has led many customers to choose larger sizes, such as moving from 26W to 29W, from 37W to 39W, from 46/47 to 50 inch, and from 55 to 60 inch.
  • As consumers replace older LCD TVs, they tend to choose a larger size. Many consumers in North America originally had a 32 inch LCD TV in their bedroom and a 40-50 inch set in their living room, and are upgrading to a 39 or 40 inch in their bedroom and a 50 inch or larger set for the living room.
  • LCD TV brands are promoting larger sizes in order to preserve profit margins.

With the year-end, many promotions will be launched, such as the rumored 60 inch LCD TV for $999 on Black Friday. With such attractive prices on large size LCD TVs, we can expect other consumers to migrate to larger sizes, further driving increases in average screen size.

Once 60" TVs become affordable at 999 you bet your bottom $ they'll be what people buy when they're in the market for a new tv with the budget.

You're not fucking listening.

The size of rooms does not increase with a drop in the price of TV's. TV's in excess of 55" need an increased viewing distance that averages at 3+ meters. For a lot of people, that distance is unrealistic. Do some research into the size of living areas outside of the US. 


I think you're acting immature with your constant use of fuck. Neither fuck nor putting your text in bold is bringing more truth to your claim. As I've already showed you the average tv screen sizes increasing, there is really nothing to discuss anymore, you keep coming back to me without any source or proof. I asked you to provide a source backing up your ridicilous claim that European rooms are smaller than American ones, but you haven't, neither did you for your other assumption that people won't/can't fit a 60" tv in their living room.

And I think you're being obtuse ignoring the fact that viewing distance increases with the size of TV's, yet rooms do not. 

The average TV size has plateued at 46". That is what you have proven. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580

Go do some damn research on what I've been saying. If you think it's rediculous that European houses are smaller than US housing then you are living in the clouds. How about you look at an estate agent site for the UK or that too much hard work? You are completely ignorant on housing sizes - I'm not, yet you're saying I'm wrong. Go figure.


No I didn't, the graph is 4 years old. Bigger screens were just not mainstream back then.

Come back at me when you can backup your ridicilous claims first, you're just wasting my time, stop rambling about room sizes, you have got no clue what you're talking about, stop telling me European living rooms are small if you haven't got proof. This is from your link:

Britain's tiny houses

• In Ireland, new homes are 87.7 sq m (15% bigger)

• In the Netherlands, new homes are 115.5 sq m (53% bigger)

• In Denmark, new homes are 137 sq m (80% bigger)

 

Yep, UK is a good representation of Europe smh.



Around the Network
baph7667 on 10 February 2013
Mazty said:
Turkish said:
Mazty said:
Turkish said:
Mazty said:

For fucks sake let me repeat myself:

Ultimately, the issue with 4k is not the price, it's the size, and that won't

change over time.

Many people won't, and can't, fit a 60+" TV in their living room.

 

Understand? You don't seem to understand living room size. In Japan and Europe, rooms are much smaller than in the USA. Your chart shows that it has plateaued at 46", which backs my point up. 

 

You fail to comprehend what I'm saying. There is a relation between the price and size of a tv screen. You are ill informed if you think people can't fit a 60" tv in their living room. Do you have a source to backup your claim? Any study that proves you right? How do you know rooms in Europe are much smaller? Thats just your assumption with no truth. (I live in Europe and I have enough room to fit in a +80" tv.) My chart is also from 2009. You're accepting your assumption as true without proof which again makes no sense.

Fact is that average tv sizes increase. http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2012/10/average-size-of-lcd-tv-panels-increases-by-2-inches-in-12-months/

There are several factors leading to increases in the average LCD TV panel size:

  • The emergence of new sizes has led many customers to choose larger sizes, such as moving from 26W to 29W, from 37W to 39W, from 46/47 to 50 inch, and from 55 to 60 inch.
  • As consumers replace older LCD TVs, they tend to choose a larger size. Many consumers in North America originally had a 32 inch LCD TV in their bedroom and a 40-50 inch set in their living room, and are upgrading to a 39 or 40 inch in their bedroom and a 50 inch or larger set for the living room.
  • LCD TV brands are promoting larger sizes in order to preserve profit margins.

With the year-end, many promotions will be launched, such as the rumored 60 inch LCD TV for $999 on Black Friday. With such attractive prices on large size LCD TVs, we can expect other consumers to migrate to larger sizes, further driving increases in average screen size.

Once 60" TVs become affordable at 999 you bet your bottom $ they'll be what people buy when they're in the market for a new tv with the budget.

You're not fucking listening.

The size of rooms does not increase with a drop in the price of TV's. TV's in excess of 55" need an increased viewing distance that averages at 3+ meters. For a lot of people, that distance is unrealistic. Do some research into the size of living areas outside of the US. 


I think you're acting immature with your constant use of fuck. Neither fuck nor putting your text in bold is bringing more truth to your claim. As I've already showed you the average tv screen sizes increasing, there is really nothing to discuss anymore, you keep coming back to me without any source or proof. I asked you to provide a source backing up your ridicilous claim that European rooms are smaller than American ones, but you haven't, neither did you for your other assumption that people won't/can't fit a 60" tv in their living room.

And I think you're being obtuse ignoring the fact that viewing distance increases with the size of TV's, yet rooms do not. 

The average TV size has plateued at 46". That is what you have proven. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580

Go do some damn research on what I've been saying. If you think it's rediculous that European houses are smaller than US housing then you are living in the clouds. How about you look at an estate agent site for the UK or that too much hard work? You are completely ignorant on housing sizes - I'm not, yet you're saying I'm wrong. Go figure.


I guess I'll either get a 29 to 32 or a 40 to 42. 



WagnerPaiva on 10 February 2013
IamAwsome said:

If development costs rise more next gen like Epic says, bigger publishers will have to merge, and smaller publishers will either turn to iOS development, or shut down altogether, like THQ and Atari. Everyone wants an insanely powerful PS4, but for the good of the industry, it's not necessary. 

It is normal to expect that it improves, every console gen was like that, however, it is also true what you said, the costs are rising and the companies ARE going bankrupcy, I guess they have to work around that somehow, it will be interesting to see what happens.



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

coolguy on 10 February 2013

you turn a profit from more pwoerfull consoles nintendo is jsut cheap



VITA 32 GIG CARD.250 GIG SLIM & 160 GIG PHAT PS3

IamAwsome on 10 February 2013
coolguy said:
you turn a profit from more pwoerfull consoles nintendo is jsut cheap

So is that why it took nearly 4 years for Sony to start making a profit on the PS3, and why they STILL haven't recouped the losses from earlier in the gen?



Around the Network
Mazty on 10 February 2013
Turkish said:

No I didn't, the graph is 4 years old. Bigger screens were just not mainstream back then.

Come back at me when you can backup your ridicilous claims first, you're just wasting my time, stop rambling about room sizes, you have got no clue what you're talking about, stop telling me European living rooms are small if you haven't got proof. This is from your link:

Britain's tiny houses

• In Ireland, new homes are 87.7 sq m (15% bigger)

• In the Netherlands, new homes are 115.5 sq m (53% bigger)

• In Denmark, new homes are 137 sq m (80% bigger)

 

Yep, UK is a good representation of Europe smh.


http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-the-151738

Do some damn research. Your graph showed that 50"+ TV's are an overwhelming minority. Factoring in the above, if you think large TV's will become common place you're completely wrong. 

So, on two fronts you are completely wrong.

1)Your graph shows large TV's are a minority
2)Living room size is generally not large enough outside the US to accomodate large TVs

This is what pisses me off. You clearly have absolutely no idea about housing sizes and yet want to sit their and preach away as if you do. That attitude stinks. 



Lafiel on 10 February 2013
IamAwsome said:
coolguy said:
you turn a profit from more pwoerfull consoles nintendo is jsut cheap

So is that why it took nearly 4 years for Sony to start making a profit on the PS3, and why they STILL haven't recouped the losses from earlier in the gen?

because they tried to develop a main chip for it and ended up creating a development and production nightmare - that coupled with including blu-ray when the blue laser diodes still were hard to manufacture and expensive made the kit needlessly expensive at release, which in turn made the whole console undesireable

they could have made a $400 console from PC parts back then, which likely would even have performed better



Turkish on 10 February 2013
Mazty said:
Turkish said:

No I didn't, the graph is 4 years old. Bigger screens were just not mainstream back then.

Come back at me when you can backup your ridicilous claims first, you're just wasting my time, stop rambling about room sizes, you have got no clue what you're talking about, stop telling me European living rooms are small if you haven't got proof. This is from your link:

Britain's tiny houses

• In Ireland, new homes are 87.7 sq m (15% bigger)

• In the Netherlands, new homes are 115.5 sq m (53% bigger)

• In Denmark, new homes are 137 sq m (80% bigger)

 

Yep, UK is a good representation of Europe smh.


http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-the-151738

Do some damn research. Your graph showed that 50"+ TV's are an overwhelming minority. Factoring in the above, if you think large TV's will become common place you're completely wrong. 

So, on two fronts you are completely wrong.

1)Your graph shows large TV's are a minority
2)Living room size is generally not large enough outside the US to accomodate large TVs

This is what pisses me off. You clearly have absolutely no idea about housing sizes and yet want to sit their and preach away as if you do. That attitude stinks. 


You missed the point rather spectacularly. This whole time I was talking about 1 simple fact: tv screen sizes are growing, yet you kept on challenging this fact. My graph shows that bigger screens are indeed gaining marketshare while smaller ones lose. The 32-37" is for the sleeping room. Here's another article saying average tv sizes in the UK have risen by 15" in the past decade http://hdtvorg.co.uk/news/articles/2007112001.htm Note the article is 5 years old so the average is way higher by now. I don't need to know all the rambling about uk housing sizes. Its pointless as sources show the average has increased even in the UK, the country that is supposed to have the smallest houses. You act like people have hit a limit for the size of tvs, they didn't. I asked for sources to backup your claim, you came up with home sizes, this is not what I wanted, I asked you to prove why people didn't want a 60" sized tv. You based your whole argument on viewing distances, tried to make a connection with housing sizes somehow. Have you seen Gilgamesh's chart? Min viewing distance for +65" tv is 2,5m, this is my current viewing distance for my 50". Note the difference for 42" tvs and +65" on that chart, the difference of min. viewing distance is only 1m. Suddenly bringing up housing sizes seems silly. You're simply ill informed if you think there is no market for large tvs outside the US, European retail chains like MediaMarkt advertize nothing more than big tvs.



Mazty on 10 February 2013
Turkish said:
Mazty said:
Turkish said:

No I didn't, the graph is 4 years old. Bigger screens were just not mainstream back then.

Come back at me when you can backup your ridicilous claims first, you're just wasting my time, stop rambling about room sizes, you have got no clue what you're talking about, stop telling me European living rooms are small if you haven't got proof. This is from your link:

Britain's tiny houses

• In Ireland, new homes are 87.7 sq m (15% bigger)

• In the Netherlands, new homes are 115.5 sq m (53% bigger)

• In Denmark, new homes are 137 sq m (80% bigger)

 

Yep, UK is a good representation of Europe smh.


http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-the-151738

Do some damn research. Your graph showed that 50"+ TV's are an overwhelming minority. Factoring in the above, if you think large TV's will become common place you're completely wrong. 

So, on two fronts you are completely wrong.

1)Your graph shows large TV's are a minority
2)Living room size is generally not large enough outside the US to accomodate large TVs

This is what pisses me off. You clearly have absolutely no idea about housing sizes and yet want to sit their and preach away as if you do. That attitude stinks. 


You missed the point rather spectacularly. This whole time I was talking about 1 simple fact: tv screen sizes are growing, yet you kept on challenging this fact. My graph shows that bigger screens are indeed gaining marketshare while smaller ones lose. The 32-37" is for the sleeping room. Here's another article saying average tv sizes in the UK have risen by 15" in the past decade http://hdtvorg.co.uk/news/articles/2007112001.htm Note the article is 5 years old so the average is way higher by now. I don't need to know all the rambling about uk housing sizes. Its pointless as sources show the average has increased even in the UK, the country that is supposed to have the smallest houses. You act like people have hit a limit for the size of tvs, they didn't. I asked for sources to backup your claim, you came up with home sizes, this is not what I wanted, I asked you to prove why people didn't want a 60" sized tv. You based your whole argument on viewing distances, tried to make a connection with housing sizes somehow. Have you seen Gilgamesh's chart? Min viewing distance for +65" tv is 2,5m, this is my current viewing distance for my 50". Note the difference for 42" tvs and +65" on that chart, the difference of min. viewing distance is only 1m. Suddenly bringing up housing sizes seems silly. You're simply ill informed if you think there is no market for large tvs outside the US, European retail chains like MediaMarkt advertize nothing more than big tvs.

You notion is rediculous because you are ignoring all other factors. If we just go with what you are saying then in 2030 all TV's will be 200+".

Good one on completely ignoring the fact that I backed up my claim on finite living space. 
If the article is 5 years old then you need to find a more uptodate source. 

Yes because people always love sitting in the front seats at a cinema *facepalm* Working on the minimum distance is rediculous - average it out. 

Look at the bloody link I gave you. There isn't a market for big TV's because there isn't the room for them in Europe. Go look at an estate agent for the UK before talking about something you know absolutely nothing about. I've lived in both the US and UK and know the difference in housing size is phenomenal - you are just taking a complete guess at size. 



Turkish on 10 February 2013
Mazty said:
Turkish said:
Mazty said:
Turkish said:

No I didn't, the graph is 4 years old. Bigger screens were just not mainstream back then.

Come back at me when you can backup your ridicilous claims first, you're just wasting my time, stop rambling about room sizes, you have got no clue what you're talking about, stop telling me European living rooms are small if you haven't got proof. This is from your link:

Britain's tiny houses

• In Ireland, new homes are 87.7 sq m (15% bigger)

• In the Netherlands, new homes are 115.5 sq m (53% bigger)

• In Denmark, new homes are 137 sq m (80% bigger)

 

Yep, UK is a good representation of Europe smh.


http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-the-151738

Do some damn research. Your graph showed that 50"+ TV's are an overwhelming minority. Factoring in the above, if you think large TV's will become common place you're completely wrong. 

So, on two fronts you are completely wrong.

1)Your graph shows large TV's are a minority
2)Living room size is generally not large enough outside the US to accomodate large TVs

This is what pisses me off. You clearly have absolutely no idea about housing sizes and yet want to sit their and preach away as if you do. That attitude stinks. 


You missed the point rather spectacularly. This whole time I was talking about 1 simple fact: tv screen sizes are growing, yet you kept on challenging this fact. My graph shows that bigger screens are indeed gaining marketshare while smaller ones lose. The 32-37" is for the sleeping room. Here's another article saying average tv sizes in the UK have risen by 15" in the past decade http://hdtvorg.co.uk/news/articles/2007112001.htm Note the article is 5 years old so the average is way higher by now. I don't need to know all the rambling about uk housing sizes. Its pointless as sources show the average has increased even in the UK, the country that is supposed to have the smallest houses. You act like people have hit a limit for the size of tvs, they didn't. I asked for sources to backup your claim, you came up with home sizes, this is not what I wanted, I asked you to prove why people didn't want a 60" sized tv. You based your whole argument on viewing distances, tried to make a connection with housing sizes somehow. Have you seen Gilgamesh's chart? Min viewing distance for +65" tv is 2,5m, this is my current viewing distance for my 50". Note the difference for 42" tvs and +65" on that chart, the difference of min. viewing distance is only 1m. Suddenly bringing up housing sizes seems silly. You're simply ill informed if you think there is no market for large tvs outside the US, European retail chains like MediaMarkt advertize nothing more than big tvs.

You notion is rediculous because you are ignoring all other factors. If we just go with what you are saying then in 2030 all TV's will be 200+".

Good one on completely ignoring the fact that I backed up my claim on finite living space. 
If the article is 5 years old then you need to find a more uptodate source. 

Yes because people always love sitting in the front seats at a cinema *facepalm* Working on the minimum distance is rediculous - average it out. 

Look at the bloody link I gave you. There isn't a market for big TV's because there isn't the room for them in Europe. Go look at an estate agent for the UK before talking about something you know absolutely nothing about. I've lived in both the US and UK and know the difference in housing size is phenomenal - you are just taking a complete guess at size. 


Have you even read my comment? The min. viewing distance for 42" is 5ft(1.5m), for 65" 8ft (2.5m). Do you live in a container? 1m is insignificant.

If we used your logic, Americans should have 3x bigger tvs than English people because their houses are 3x bigger. I'd suggest you visit a retail chain next time and see what kind of tvs they're marketing.