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........

Mazty on 10 February 2013
Turkish said:


1080p was about getting the price to come down? What are you talking about? You don't make sense. The first 50" 1080p plasma cost around $15,000 back in 2006. Over time they got cheaper, the average tv size has been getting bigger and will continue to get bigger as they gradually become affordable. I hear today many people say they wished they bought a bigger tv afterwards getting a 42-46" set. You're again ill informed about the sizes 4K come in, Sony will release a 55" 4K tv in spring. Here's the average screen sizes from 2002-2009. TVs got bigger and they will continue to get bigger.

 

 

 

In due time 4K will be affordable, once they're affordable so will there be an increase in content. If there was no substance to the quest for greater resolution, then no one would've cared about Retina displays or 1080p on smartphones. 4K is another part of the pixel density war.


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. 

 



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


1080p was about getting the price to come down? What are you talking about? You don't make sense. The first 50" 1080p plasma cost around $15,000 back in 2006. Over time they got cheaper, the average tv size has been getting bigger and will continue to get bigger as they gradually become affordable. I hear today many people say they wished they bought a bigger tv afterwards getting a 42-46" set. You're again ill informed about the sizes 4K come in, Sony will release a 55" 4K tv in spring. Here's the average screen sizes from 2002-2009. TVs got bigger and they will continue to get bigger.

 

 

 

In due time 4K will be affordable, once they're affordable so will there be an increase in content. If there was no substance to the quest for greater resolution, then no one would've cared about Retina displays or 1080p on smartphones. 4K is another part of the pixel density war.


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.



Scoobes on 10 February 2013
justinian said:
Heavenly_King said:
justinian said:
Developers want more power. More power means better looking games, more intelligent AI etc, etc and the potential for far better games overall. The consoles with the oomph are the ones the developers are likely to support with in turn push up the sales. This is evident from the way many of them dismissed the wii u.

The wii sold a lot of consoles without third party support but it is looking very likely that this underpower console thing that nintendo insist on doing isn't going to work this time around.

The truth is processing power rules with the developers and it is has always played a part for the consumer, seems this will be the case even more next gen.

BTW I do not believe developers when they say PS and xbox regular game prices will stay the same next gen anymore than I would a politician telling me that my taxes and the cost of living will stay the same next year. I simply do not believe it.

As time passes tech gets cheap.   The only reason why PS360 costs $60 is because publishers needed to make their Wii games appealing.    If a PS3 game costs $50 and a Wii game costs $50, according to you which one people would think that is outrageous to have that price?  So instead of making Wii games cheaper they made PS360 games more expensive.   Think about it, why the same version of a game that is also available for PC costs $50 and not $60??? 

When next gen enters overdrive, it will require less resources to make "previous gen" games, making them cheaper to make; and the "current gen" games will cost just about the same as it is right now.

In theory what you said makes sense. But pratically I don't think this will be the case.

PC high-end games sell  poorly compared to their console counterparts. That's why I believe PC game prices are priced as they are. Making them the same price as console games will do little to improve already weak sales.

For example Crysis is the best selling big budget PC game in the last 6 years with approx. 3m sales ( Please note I am not including PC role-playing or sims etc., as these are cheap to produce ). Compare that to the console big budget hitters.

History confirms prices don't fall. If regular games cost $70.00 at the start of next gen I believe they will stay that price until the end of the gen  no matter how cheap they are to produce.

I was paying £45-£49 for regular console games at the start of this gen and am paying the same now. Aren't they now easier and cheaper to develope?

Why am I still paying the same now? Why should this change next gen?

Not saying you are wrong, just stating what I think will happen.

 

 

@ bolded

PC games cost less because there are no royalty fees for releasing a game on PC. I think that the royalty fee on consoles is around $8-10 which easily accounts for PC games being cheaper than equivalent console games.

Also, Crysis was not the best selling big budget PC game in the last 6 years. Starcraft 2 is rumoured to have a budget of $100 million dollars (not surprising considering it was in development for 10 years) and sold 4.5 million as of December 2010. Diablo 3 which was in development for many years has sales of over 10 million. Then there's all the Valve games on Steam which have also sold ridiculous numbers.

@ the rest

I think it's likely prices will stay on par to current gen console prices. Publishers and console manufacturers are starting to push digital sales which have a higher profit margin for publishers then physical sales. I think taking out the retailers cut on even 10% of sales will greatly improve revenue.




Get your Portable ID!

Mazty on 10 February 2013
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. 



Turkish on 10 February 2013
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.



Around the Network
Gilgamesh on 10 February 2013
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. 

Here's a chart for you guys

 

 16:9 TV diagonal screen size   Min. viewing distance (in feet)   Max. viewing distance (in feet) 
26 3.3 6.5
32 3.8 7.6
37 4.3 8.5
42-43 5.3 10.5
47 5.9 11.8
50-51 6.3 12.5
55 6.9 12.8
59-60 7.5 15
65+ 8.1 16.2


thismeintiel on 10 February 2013
Turkish said:


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.

I think the his whole argument is void when you consider anyone saying you can't tell the difference between 1080P and 4K, unless you have a X" screen is full up BS.  We had the same arguments back when people were arguing we didn't need 720P or 1080P TVs, cause you couldn't tell the difference between them and 480P unless the screen is so big.  You can ALWAYS tell the difference when there is a increase in PPI, even on a small iPhone.  Well, unless you have poor eyesight.

It's just like th chart Gilgmesh just posted.  Do you think people even follow those guidelines?  Hell no.  Later this year, or sometime next year, I plan on getting a 75" Laservue.  Now, it will most likely be only 8' away from my couch, while that chart would suggest the distance should be around 9-9.5' away from each other.  I don't care what some chart says, but I'm damn sure its going to look much better than the 52"  TV I got, now.



 

Player2 on 10 February 2013
Turkish said:
Mazty said:
Turkish said:


1080p was about getting the price to come down? What are you talking about? You don't make sense. The first 50" 1080p plasma cost around $15,000 back in 2006. Over time they got cheaper, the average tv size has been getting bigger and will continue to get bigger as they gradually become affordable. I hear today many people say they wished they bought a bigger tv afterwards getting a 42-46" set. You're again ill informed about the sizes 4K come in, Sony will release a 55" 4K tv in spring. Here's the average screen sizes from 2002-2009. TVs got bigger and they will continue to get bigger.

 

 

 

In due time 4K will be affordable, once they're affordable so will there be an increase in content. If there was no substance to the quest for greater resolution, then no one would've cared about Retina displays or 1080p on smartphones. 4K is another part of the pixel density war.


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.

Ok, I'll finish this.

"Based on panel makers’ shipments reported in the Monthly TFT LCD Shipment Database, the average TV panel diagonal has increased from 34.8” in August, 2011 to 36.8” in August, 2012. With a typical range of 18-20M panel shipment per month, an increase of 2 inches in screen size is significant, and has helped to increase area demand."

"Sharp has the highest average screen size of TV panels shipped, and it grew significantly in the past year, from 39.1 to 48.3 inches. Most other panel makers saw an increase of approximately 2 inches in screen size over the past year. AUO increased from 34.4 to 36 inches, BOE from 29.9 to 32.7 inches, Chimei Innolux from 30.9 to 33.6 inches, LG Display from 36.2 to 38.9 inches, and Samsung from 37 to 39.4 inches."

The current trend is an increase in 2 inches per year.

The average in the industry (not Sharp's) was 36.8" in August 2012. To reach an average of 60" we'll need over 11 years. We'll be playing with the PS5 then.

The source is the same article you used to cherrypick all that.

I'll be good and ignore the trick hidden in the 2002-2009 graph.



Turkish on 10 February 2013
Player2 said:
Turkish said:
Mazty said:
Turkish said:


1080p was about getting the price to come down? What are you talking about? You don't make sense. The first 50" 1080p plasma cost around $15,000 back in 2006. Over time they got cheaper, the average tv size has been getting bigger and will continue to get bigger as they gradually become affordable. I hear today many people say they wished they bought a bigger tv afterwards getting a 42-46" set. You're again ill informed about the sizes 4K come in, Sony will release a 55" 4K tv in spring. Here's the average screen sizes from 2002-2009. TVs got bigger and they will continue to get bigger.

 

 

 

In due time 4K will be affordable, once they're affordable so will there be an increase in content. If there was no substance to the quest for greater resolution, then no one would've cared about Retina displays or 1080p on smartphones. 4K is another part of the pixel density war.


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.

Ok, I'll finish this.

"Based on panel makers’ shipments reported in the Monthly TFT LCD Shipment Database, the average TV panel diagonal has increased from 34.8” in August, 2011 to 36.8” in August, 2012. With a typical range of 18-20M panel shipment per month, an increase of 2 inches in screen size is significant, and has helped to increase area demand."

"Sharp has the highest average screen size of TV panels shipped, and it grew significantly in the past year, from 39.1 to 48.3 inches. Most other panel makers saw an increase of approximately 2 inches in screen size over the past year. AUO increased from 34.4 to 36 inches, BOE from 29.9 to 32.7 inches, Chimei Innolux from 30.9 to 33.6 inches, LG Display from 36.2 to 38.9 inches, and Samsung from 37 to 39.4 inches."

The current trend is an increase in 2 inches per year.

The average in the industry (not Sharp's) was 36.8" in August 2012. To reach an average of 60" we'll need over 11 years. We'll be playing with the PS5 then.

The source is the same article you used to cherrypick all that.

I'll be good and ignore the trick hidden in the 2002-2009 graph.


Eh I never talked about an average of 60".



Turkish on 10 February 2013
thismeintiel said:
Turkish said:


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.

I think the his whole argument is void when you consider anyone saying you can't tell the difference between 1080P and 4K, unless you have a X" screen is full up BS.  We had the same arguments back when people were arguing we didn't need 720P or 1080P TVs, cause you couldn't tell the difference between them and 480P unless the screen is so big.  You can ALWAYS tell the difference when there is a increase in PPI, even on a small iPhone.  Well, unless you have poor eyesight.

It's just like th chart Gilgmesh just posted.  Do you think people even follow those guidelines?  Hell no.  Later this year, or sometime next year, I plan on getting a 75" Laservue.  Now, it will most likely be only 8' away from my couch, while that chart would suggest the distance should be around 9-9.5' away from each other.  I don't care what some chart says, but I'm damn sure its going to look much better than the 52"  TV I got, now.

Indeed, you can find a lot of threads dating from 2006-2007 of people questionning the need of 1080p. My 50" tv from 2,5m is definetly not big enough for me. In a few years when I'm in the market for a new tv I'll go for +65"