Pemalite said:
Ganoncrotch said:
That's some slow adoption rate then when you think that in 18 years a whole 1% of PC gamers use that resolution. Heck 1/3rd of them today are using sub "mid 90s" resolutions.
|
Same could be said for consoles.
Even today a large percentage of consoles sold still cannot guarantee 1080P across every title.
Fact of the matter is... Not everyone cares about resolutions... And that holds true no matter the platform you own.
Ganoncrotch said:
Just points even more to how it is just enthusiasts who have PC's in the "master race" category, most have toasters.
|
But by the same token... The PC market is catastrophically massive.
Even if only 2% of PC gamers have something... That's still millions of rigs.
Ganoncrotch said:
One point regarding that resolution and PC's though, say if a user on steam has multiple PC's with the same account on it, I wonder would it be a survey of each machine or each user and their best hardware, because my account is on my gaming PC but also on a laptop which is just capable of indie games or 3d titles at 720p ish stuff, wonder do I count for 1 user at 1080 and another at 720p because of that, messes with the numbers somewhat when obviously there are many gamers who have their steam account on things like HTPC's for indie games on a TV.
|
The survey is only done on the machine that the popup asking you to participate in that months survey appears on.
danasider said:
I believe for the most part, consoles led the graphics in the late 80s and early 90s.
|
Even in the late 80's the PC had higher resolutions and significantly better sound.
In the early 90's... Whilst consoles were still fumbling around with 320x240... The PC was heading towards 1024x768... A resolution that allot of 7th gen games would hang around.
But once the PC started to enter the 3D Accelerated revolution... It was all over for consoles being able to compete with PC in any aspect.
danasider said:
Talking both from experience and as an avid DF retro viewer. And only talking about the rule, not the exception (compared to now where it's the rule that PC games pretty much always have a better version unless the dev is lazy).
|
I think it's important to take both the exception and the rule into consideration when drawing comparisons.
|
Just in relation to the figures for consoles vs PC , say if 1 in 5 ps4s sold are pro models and we have around 5m it so x1x's that means you have around 20m console gamers who've got hardware which can reach 4k in some titles albeit with concessions (but don't be living in fantasy Land that those who are rendering in 4k on the PC are all on ultra settings/60fps please)
But my point is if it was 20m consoles capable of it, but 1.3% if PC's then to get 20m pcs using that % it would require steam/gaming PCs numbering into the billions, around 1.6b if my math is correct. It's just that such a low % at 4k means for their to be multiple millions it sends the other side of the scale insanely high.
