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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Native 4K not worth it.

vivster on 08 April 2018
Otter said:
vivster said:

Absolutely agree. Just like 1080p wasn't worth it yesterday, or how 720p was the day before. HD has just been a big fad anyway. Let's just stop progress since we apparently reached peak 10 years ago.

 

It's already a travesty that devs have to force themselves to make games in 1080p, with textures no less. All a useless drag on performance. And who decided 30fps was so great? Let's go back to 24fps, works great for movies. That's a 25% performance gain just like that.That way we can finally have the cheapest consoles with the best games, now that devs can finally focus on gameplay rather than useless graphics and their tedious optimizations.

Did you even read the OP? The majority of my argument is about graphics. I don't know where you got the idea of stopping progress... its simply a debate on where progress is most appreciable and actually leaves a lasting impression. 

I'd rather much shinier graphics at a 1080p/1440p, considering the jump to 4k to me isn't that impressive despite the massive drain on resources.

It's a bit too easy to just exclude resolution from "graphics". It's a big part of the visual presentation, which can just as easily drag down the visual fidelity as bad textures or terrible lighting. In the end it really is preference.

However I just want to point out one thing. "drag on performance" always depends on what hardware is used and if something as simple as resolution drags too much performance, that means something is wrong with the hardware it's running on. We shouldn't be talking about making compromises on simple things and rather demand for certain entities to give us the choice to forgo those compromises in the first place. There shouldn't be any compromises if it's technologically possible.

I assume you wouldn't mind if you got a high resolution on top of everything else or even if you could choose for yourself. So rather than suggesting to take away a feature in favor of your prefered features you should start demanding that you get to choose for yourself.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
SvennoJ on 08 April 2018
OdinHades said:
SvennoJ said:

Naturally it's different for VR due to the high fov.

Normally a TV you watch at between 20 to max 40 degrees fov. 40 degrees is pretty close, 6.5 ft from a 65" screen. Even if you practically sit on top of the tv at 4ft distance, you're fov is still 'only' 60 degrees.

VR currently sits at 110 degrees fov, still on the low side as 150 is better suited to human vision. At 110 fov any 4K screen will still look worse than a 1080p screen. If you're used to the normal recommended seating distance of 30 degrees fov for 1080p, you would need almost an 8K screen (per eye) for VR to get the same perceived resolution.

Here's one of those fov calculators
https://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

True, but VR is already impressive as fuck even with dat blurry 1080p. Things just in front of you look absurdly real, especially in games with great graphics like The London Heist. I would be fine with 4K for next generation. Not perfect, but a big step up from 1080p. But for 4K to be used in VR, the console needs to push 4K on flat games rather easily. As VR games have to be rendered twice and need 90 fps (or at the very least 60 fps) a console that only handles 1440p with 30 fps or something simply would lack the horsepower to make VR in 4K possible. Games would have to be scaled down way too much and stuff. That's why I would like to see 4K becoming the new baseline. It would help VR indirectly, if you know what I mean. I have some trouble explaining exactly what I want to say, sorry. =P

I get what you mean. More gpu power is needed, and not only for higher resolutions but VR can also use higher res textures. You can stick your head right up to things unlike on a screen. So even if the headset res is low, you still benefit from textures more suited for 4K gaming.

Consoles need more than just gpu grunt though. Better cpu and hardware based foveated rendering are needed as well.

With that, VR can keep up with native 4K games without needing severe downgrades.



Pemalite on 08 April 2018
HollyGamer said:
Peh said:

I don't know how powerful the next gen will be also waiting for the next nvidia GPU's. But I believe that raytracing will be possible with the gen after next.

What I mean  Ray tracing that is possible in next gen probably some kind of hybrid ray tracing like they have  explained in this year GDC.  It will just fill some spot on object that is difficult using resteration technique and filling it just to add real time environmental effect so developer don't have to focus on building more assets on shadow and reflection, so  more resource will be use  for other affect.  

"Hybrid" Ray tracing has already been in games for years.

Spindel said:
On a TV in the livingroom 4K is not needed. High dynamic range is more important. On a computer monitor that you usually sit within 50-60 cm it has more appeal.


Whilst you aren't necessarily incorrect...
I saw a massive difference moving from 1080P to 4k on my living room TV.

I saw a massive difference moving from 1080P to 1440P on my PC. (Although, that came with an equally large increase in display size, balancing each other out.)

When it comes to game rendering though, aliasing gets significantly reduced regardless of your panels resolution, so 4k come at me.

Otter said:

I hope 1440p is the standard developers target and use next generation GPUs to aim for actual better vfx, lighting l, assets and performance.

1440P is more or less the minimum I expect out of Playstation 4 Pro/Xbox One X games though, so I expect games to hit 4k more often next gen.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

CuCabeludo on 09 April 2018

4K 30FPS will be the standard for most console games I believe, there will be a bunch that will be sub-QHD, 4K upscaled in order to support 60FPS.



jonathanalis on 09 April 2018

yeah, pretty much
We just need a good AA, that is much less power demanding than native rendering.
Or even checkerboarding.
Other than marketing, 4k seems to be to many effort for few results (compared to checkerboarding).



Around the Network
HollyGamer on 10 April 2018
Pemalite said:
HollyGamer said:

What I mean  Ray tracing that is possible in next gen probably some kind of hybrid ray tracing like they have  explained in this year GDC.  It will just fill some spot on object that is difficult using resteration technique and filling it just to add real time environmental effect so developer don't have to focus on building more assets on shadow and reflection, so  more resource will be use  for other affect.  

"Hybrid" Ray tracing has already been in games for years.

Not like at the level like at GDC this year. 



fuallmofus on 10 April 2018

not TVs maybe but VR for sure