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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Only 1.33% of steam users play in 4k

Ganoncrotch on 03 October 2018
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. 



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Around the Network
Conina on 03 October 2018
Ganoncrotch said:

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. 

Well, a lot more than 1.3 percent of PCs are capable of rendering 4K in some titles with concessions. Around 30% of the Steam users, so at least 60 million PCs (any PC with a 970/1060/290/480/580 GPU or above).

Also we don't have a clue how many PS4 Pros are out there. Every PS4 sold before the launch of the Pro model obviously was no Pro model, less than 40 millions PS4s were sold since the Pro launch.

So the majority of PS4 sales since that date would have to be Pro models to reach 20 millions by now.

I seriously doubt that, otherwise Sony would boast about the Pro numbersnumbers every chance they get. The same goes for the Xbox One X numbers.

Last edited by Conina - on 03 October 2018

d21lewis on 03 October 2018

The way I see it, a lot of the PC Master Race are actually having worse experiences than console gamers. But, since some gamer somewhere has a PC that beats consoles, they feel like they win too. It's like when you weigh 600 pounds and have zero athletic ability but some athlete of your race wins a gold medal. You feel pride by association.



gemini_d@rk on 03 October 2018

4k is a feature that maybe in 5 years is feasible without compromising the quality of the games. Developers having to sacrifice resources, no longer investing in quality to make capped games, with ps2 graphics just to say that the game runs in that resolution is one of the most regrettable things in this gen. Outside the price of the console, video card still has the TV or monitor to spend.

For me, 1080p/60fps and great games is above 4k.



AngryLittleAlchemist on 03 October 2018
d21lewis said:
The way I see it, a lot of the PC Master Race are actually having worse experiences than console gamers. 

omg omg where is the dislike button???



Around the Network
Burning Typhoon on 03 October 2018
Pemalite said:
Burning Typhoon said:
it's about 2 frames (60fps) slower than my 144 hz monitor.

Not a fair comparison.  I was going off the top of my head.  Of course it isn't actually that slow.  It's 33 ms slower than my 144hz monitor, specifically.  I ran tests when I got the TV, initially and the results were on my phone, which i wasn't going to consult to get exact details.  I put 60fps in there to mean with both of them running at the same framerates.  A TV running 60 fps and a monitor running 144, or anything below, or around 60, a 2 fps difference doesn't tell you anything.

But, as I was saying before.  Yes, that 33ms delay is enough to keep me on 1080p.



m0ney on 03 October 2018
d21lewis said:
The way I see it, a lot of the PC Master Race are actually having worse experiences than console gamers.

Yes, around 5% of them



My Etsy store

My Ebay store

Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.

HintHRO on 03 October 2018

But I thought consoles were stupid because they can't do 4K...



d21lewis on 03 October 2018

😉



Pemalite on 03 October 2018
Conina said:
Pemalite said: 

Even in the late 80's the PC had higher resolutions and significantly better sound.

In the 80s Commodore was the king of sound. At first the SID-chip in the C64 and after that the Paula-chip in the Amigas

In 1989 the PC had Sound Blaster and before that AdLib.
But... One could argue the Commodore was a PC, not a console anyway.

Before that the PC's audio was catastrophically terrible.

However... The peak of 3D positional Audio was during the Aureal A3D/Soundstorm era on PC in my opinion.

Peh said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Ah. I have an LG UK6300. Looks like I got a good TV then.  https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag UK6300 Series

Input lag is not everything. Panel quality is something that you should take into account. 8bit/10bit/12bit per color channel, brightness, backlight technology, Smart TV features, CPU power and more. All of them make the price and depending on your taste, you either go with the one you have chosen or one in a higher price class, if something like HDR and no color banding is a must for you.

WELL. If you *really* want me to touch upon that topic... Nothing less than 10bit IPS for me, FRC can muddy the picture a bit... And is typically more important on 6-bit panels.
Allot of cheaper TV's tend to use VA panels, which are okay, but VA does suffer from ghosting a little more, but does have some impressive blacks.

Gotta' be careful with HDR as well. Sometimes a panel might be advertised as a "HDR" display but cannot hit the required brightness... Let alone the different variants of HDR as well.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Ah. I have an LG UK6300. Looks like I got a good TV then.  https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag UK6300 Series

LG have always seemed to have handled input lag fairly well.
But... If you don't have game mode enabled, you are going to be looking at 62.6ms.

Ganoncrotch said:

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. 

False comparison.

What you are doing is taking all the 4k "capable" consoles and not accounting for the amount of users with 1080P or lower displays.

1.3% of PC's is the amount of PC's with a 4k display, NOT hardware that is capable of 4k, the amount of PC's capable of 4k is significantly higher.

Burning Typhoon said:
Pemalite said:

Not a fair comparison.  I was going off the top of my head.  Of course it isn't actually that slow.  It's 33 ms slower than my 144hz monitor, specifically.  I ran tests when I got the TV, initially and the results were on my phone, which i wasn't going to consult to get exact details.  I put 60fps in there to mean with both of them running at the same framerates.  A TV running 60 fps and a monitor running 144, or anything below, or around 60, a 2 fps difference doesn't tell you anything.

But, as I was saying before.  Yes, that 33ms delay is enough to keep me on 1080p.

Fair call.

m0ney said:

Yes, around 5% of them

Impossible to say actually.
Multi-GPU's are a thing that isn't reflected.



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