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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Assassin's Creed Unity is 900p/30fps on both PS4 & Xbox One 'to avoid all the debates and stuff'

Ryudo on 09 October 2014

Lol tell that to Platinum Games where I played Bayonetta 2 at 60FPS



Around the Network
QuintonMcLeod on 09 October 2014
Neodegenerate said:
QuintonMcLeod said:


That's a bold claim to make. Have any sources that leave you to that conclusion?


You think it is a bold claim to make that more people base their resolution desires on their TV than they do their PC?

Ok, we are done here.


If you're trying to convince someone of something, you don't just say, "Well, that's just how it is. Accept it and like it." You provide evidence. You've provided none. If you're done, then you're done, but don't except me to just believe everything you say.



Neodegenerate on 09 October 2014
QuintonMcLeod said:


If you're trying to convince someone of something, you don't just say, "Well, that's just how it is. Accept it and like it." You provide evidence. You've provided none. If you're done, then you're done, but don't except me to just believe everything you say.


It shouldn't require convincing, that is the thing.  Your premise, unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, is that the mass market (read: any human being who consumes entertainment in any form or fashion) is more concerned with the resolution of a PC screen (a market that is well documented to be on the decline) than they are the resolution of a TV.  If you need to be convinced that your situation of caring more about your PCs resolution is more niche based than mass market based, then that is on you.



QuintonMcLeod on 09 October 2014
Neodegenerate said:
QuintonMcLeod said:


If you're trying to convince someone of something, you don't just say, "Well, that's just how it is. Accept it and like it." You provide evidence. You've provided none. If you're done, then you're done, but don't except me to just believe everything you say.


It shouldn't require convincing, that is the thing.  Your premise, unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, is that the mass market (read: any human being who consumes entertainment in any form or fashion) is more concerned with the resolution of a PC screen (a market that is well documented to be on the decline) than they are the resolution of a TV.  If you need to be convinced that your situation of caring more about your PCs resolution is more niche based than mass market based, then that is on you.


But that is your opinion, and you have no evidence to prove this. Then you come here expecting people to just take your word as law. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.



Neodegenerate on 09 October 2014
QuintonMcLeod said:
Neodegenerate said:
QuintonMcLeod said:


If you're trying to convince someone of something, you don't just say, "Well, that's just how it is. Accept it and like it." You provide evidence. You've provided none. If you're done, then you're done, but don't except me to just believe everything you say.


It shouldn't require convincing, that is the thing.  Your premise, unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, is that the mass market (read: any human being who consumes entertainment in any form or fashion) is more concerned with the resolution of a PC screen (a market that is well documented to be on the decline) than they are the resolution of a TV.  If you need to be convinced that your situation of caring more about your PCs resolution is more niche based than mass market based, then that is on you.


But that is your opinion, and you have no evidence to prove this. Then you come here expecting people to just take your word as law. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

So you think that more people that consume entertainment are concerned with the resolution of their computers than they are the resolution of their TVs?  Fine, I will go ahead and support my theory, then I will be interested in your support.

 

As of 2006, the average American household had more TVs than humans in it:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-09-21-homes-tv_x.htm

The PC market continues to decline:

http://www.businessinsider.com/pc-market-shrank-7-last-quarter-2014-1

 

Based on those two things, I say that more people care about their TV resolution than they do their PC resolution.  Your turn.



Around the Network
Hynad on 09 October 2014
QuintonMcLeod said:
Neodegenerate said:

The LIMITED adoption of 4k in gaming, TV, etc. is the point he is making.  Just because a small group (early adopters) of a small group (dedicated PC gamers) of a small group (gamers in general) are doing it does not mean that it is convenient for the largest of the small group (gamers).  You seem to think that because you do something the rest of the world will do it, should do it, or already is doing it.  Doesn't work that way.


You don't need to be dedicated to experience 4k gaming. As you know, PCs have been capable of 4k resolutions for a very long time. Also, 4k televisions are getting very cheap.

http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE50UY04-50-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00BXF7I9M

I dunno what you've heard, but the PC is a lot farther ahead of consoles than you may think.

You go around telling people they know nothing and all that crap.

Here is how limited the adoption of 4K gaming actually is: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Scroll to the Primary Display Resolution data and you will notice that less than 4% of gamers play at a resolution higher than 1080p. Not 4k, all resolutions above 1080p combined. What more, less than 1% of all gamers play in 4k. Only 33% of them play in 1080p. While 25.97% are still playing in 1366x760.
The ratio doesn't change much when you factor in the multi-displays users.

So much for boasting the adoption rate of 4K PC gaming.



IamAwsome on 09 October 2014

Heh, now the topic is at 4k .



Zekkyou on 09 October 2014
Ryudo said:
Lol tell that to Platinum Games where I played Bayonetta 2 at 60FPS

Variable 30 to 60fps would be a more accurate description of Bayonetta 2 :p

Though in fairness B2's over the top style does result in a large variation between standard and peak resource requirements. Locking it at 60fps would have meant heavily limiting their creative freedom (and make it very difficult to trump the original), so it's understandable why they chose against stability.



QuintonMcLeod on 09 October 2014
Neodegenerate said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
Neodegenerate said:
QuintonMcLeod said:


If you're trying to convince someone of something, you don't just say, "Well, that's just how it is. Accept it and like it." You provide evidence. You've provided none. If you're done, then you're done, but don't except me to just believe everything you say.


It shouldn't require convincing, that is the thing.  Your premise, unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, is that the mass market (read: any human being who consumes entertainment in any form or fashion) is more concerned with the resolution of a PC screen (a market that is well documented to be on the decline) than they are the resolution of a TV.  If you need to be convinced that your situation of caring more about your PCs resolution is more niche based than mass market based, then that is on you.


But that is your opinion, and you have no evidence to prove this. Then you come here expecting people to just take your word as law. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

So you think that more people that consume entertainment are concerned with the resolution of their computers than they are the resolution of their TVs?  Fine, I will go ahead and support my theory, then I will be interested in your support.

 

As of 2006, the average American household had more TVs than humans in it:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-09-21-homes-tv_x.htm

The PC market continues to decline:

http://www.businessinsider.com/pc-market-shrank-7-last-quarter-2014-1

 

Based on those two things, I say that more people care about their TV resolution than they do their PC resolution.  Your turn.


This doesn't prove that televisions set the standards on resolutions. That was the point you were trying to make.

Also, your second source is very old, as the PC has been showing growth this year:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/10/09/gartner-growth-eu-us/1?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20bit-tech%2Fall%20(bit-tech.net%20feed)

But even though the PC market is showing growth, it has nothing to do with what my point was. You're claiming that it's inconvenient for those to game on 4k televisions. My point was that, PC gamers have the choice to game on 4k resolutions if they so desire. Console gamers do not have a choice. PC games aren't restricted to 1080p. They can actually scale (I'm not talking uprez) to 4k resolutions. Some games even advertise as being playable in 4k resolutions. You can play Battlefield 4 in 4k resolutions right now. You can play Theif in 4k resolutions right now. You can play NBA 2k15, WatchDogs, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, etc. in 4k resolutions. I bet you had no idea, did you?

The guy I was originally replying to felt that the PS4 was the limit to how good graphics could look at 1080p. He feels that a person won't see much of a difference between a $400 dollar console and a $1100 PC on a 1080p television. This is pure ignorance, and shows that he clearly hasn't seen what PCs are bloody capable of. This is what PCs are capable of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0gZES2pTWk

And that video is in 4k, btw.

Check out this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q4mj3AOscg

That whole scene is rendered in real time. That means you can walk up to those mountains in the background. The PS4/Xbone can't hold a candlestick to graphics like these. PC Gamers are enjoying graphics like this and in 4k resolutions.

Anyone remember this UE4 demo? This was rendered in real time on a PC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v3GA9jSasQ

 

Anyway, I think you were right before. We're done here.



QuintonMcLeod on 09 October 2014
Hynad said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
Neodegenerate said:

The LIMITED adoption of 4k in gaming, TV, etc. is the point he is making.  Just because a small group (early adopters) of a small group (dedicated PC gamers) of a small group (gamers in general) are doing it does not mean that it is convenient for the largest of the small group (gamers).  You seem to think that because you do something the rest of the world will do it, should do it, or already is doing it.  Doesn't work that way.


You don't need to be dedicated to experience 4k gaming. As you know, PCs have been capable of 4k resolutions for a very long time. Also, 4k televisions are getting very cheap.

http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE50UY04-50-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00BXF7I9M

I dunno what you've heard, but the PC is a lot farther ahead of consoles than you may think.

You go around telling people they know nothing and all that crap.

Here is how limited the adoption of 4K gaming actually is: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Scroll to the Primary Display Resolution data and you will notice that less than 4% of gamers play at a resolution higher than 1080p. Not 4k, all resolutions above 1080p combined. What more, less than 1% of all gamers play in 4k. Only 33% of them play in 1080p. While 25.97% are still playing in 1366x760.
The ratio doesn't change much when you factor in the multi-displays users.

So much for boasting the adoption rate of 4K PC gaming.


Who cares? I didn't ever say 4k was at a high adoption rate to begin with. I simply said PC gamers have the choice to do it. So eager to claim a victory and not even realize how far away from the truth you truly are.