PlayStation 5

8k will take probably take a decade to become the standard, mostly because supporting tech like bandwidth and graphics power isn't there yet. 4K is definitely the best choice currently.

Harmonica wrote:IF PS5 is going to be 599, peasants should start thinking upgrading to PC.

PC just don't appeal the same way console does for most of us console users.

Also I already have a PC that's pretty much only used for WOW, PUBG & old games with IRL friends.

Harmonica wrote:8k will take probably take a decade to become the standard, mostly because supporting tech like bandwidth and graphics power isn't there yet. 4K is definitely the best choice currently.

4 years might be a reach but can see it in gaming and netflix/hbo in 5-7 years.

My old, 52» Plasma TV was from 2012-13, so the upgrade was more than just resolution. My current TV has a deeper black and a wider color palette, which may sound silly, but the contrast between the deep blackness and other colors makes for a world of difference in making things look more vibrant and realistic.

LeVersacci wrote:

Harmonica wrote:8k will take probably take a decade to become the standard, mostly because supporting tech like bandwidth and graphics power isn't there yet. 4K is definitely the best choice currently.

4 years might be a reach but can see it in gaming and netflix/hbo in 5-7 years.

8K quadruples the bandwidth and power needs compared to 4K. 4K has been on like forever and has just in few years hit the peak time. And we're still waiting next gen GPU's to hit 120fps on 4K. That eliminates gaming for like a decade to the future. 4K resolution pretty much already covers 35mm film resolution so scanning old movies will not push the tech. Transmission infrastructure is still 2K so it will not push it either. Streaming services could support it in few years, but I don't see that currently happening. I would say a decade is a optimistic guess for 8K.

Will buy only if something interesting comes out and then the console will be half the price lol. Currently I only care about TLOU2 and Cyberpunk and both are on PS4 still so cant be bothered. Gaming PCs are for teenagers

Harmonica wrote:

LeVersacci wrote:

Harmonica wrote:8k will take probably take a decade to become the standard, mostly because supporting tech like bandwidth and graphics power isn't there yet. 4K is definitely the best choice currently.

4 years might be a reach but can see it in gaming and netflix/hbo in 5-7 years.

8K quadruples the bandwidth and power needs compared to 4K. 4K has been on like forever and has just in few years hit the peak time. And we're still waiting next gen GPU's to hit 120fps on 4K. That eliminates gaming for like a decade to the future. 4K resolution pretty much already covers 35mm film resolution so scanning old movies will not push the tech. Transmission infrastructure is still 2K so it will not push it either. Streaming services could support it in few years, but I don't see that currently happening. I would say a decade is a optimistic guess for 8K.

What's even the need / demand for 8K? Most screen sizes and distances from the screen that people watch their stuff on really does not require 8K resolution, imo.

Art Morte wrote:

Harmonica wrote:

LeVersacci wrote:
4 years might be a reach but can see it in gaming and netflix/hbo in 5-7 years.

8K quadruples the bandwidth and power needs compared to 4K. 4K has been on like forever and has just in few years hit the peak time. And we're still waiting next gen GPU's to hit 120fps on 4K. That eliminates gaming for like a decade to the future. 4K resolution pretty much already covers 35mm film resolution so scanning old movies will not push the tech. Transmission infrastructure is still 2K so it will not push it either. Streaming services could support it in few years, but I don't see that currently happening. I would say a decade is a optimistic guess for 8K.

What's even the need / demand for 8K? Most screen sizes and distances from the screen that people watch their stuff on really does not require 8K resolution, imo.

8K is a complete hoax. For your eyes to notice an 8K resolution on a 60" screen you need to sit 67 cm away from the screen. Nobody sits that close to a TV. Any farther than 67 cm and you're not going to notice any difference between that and a 4K. All these calculations are done assuming if you have perfect vision btw. I'm not even a huge advocate of 4K, as the gains are minimal compared to the computation level.

The development should be shifted towards FPS, not resolution. But as household TVs drive the market not gaming monitors, the manufacturers are pushing 8K instead.

In a decade 100" could be the norm though, as TV:s are growing pretty fast on affordable level. We could have TV:s like curtains that you roll up when you don't use them. One thing I forgot to mention was VR, that could push the tech. But it has more important problems to fix than resolution. 120fps should become the next norm after change to 4K.

Are houses / apartments going to grow, too? Because what's the point of having "a TV like curtains" if you're going to be watching it from 3 meters away?

Art Morte wrote:Are houses / apartments going to grow, too? Because what's the point of having "a TV like curtains" if you're going to be watching it from 3 meters away?

I don't think you need bigger houses, in 3 m wide room you can fit 135" 16:9, more with curved screens. More the screen fills of your vision, more immersive it is. I have 125 cm wide curved computer monitor which I watch from about 80 cm distance, there's no problems in it. It's the same if you watched 135" TV from 6 feet, which falls in the blue on above graph.

And it's not just about perceived resolution, because in computers, it's usually additional space, you see more and wider angles in desktops and games.

Art Morte wrote:Are houses / apartments going to grow, too? Because what's the point of having "a TV like curtains" if you're going to be watching it from 3 meters away?

getting a movie-like experience from home I suppose.

I have a 45" that always felt big enough for me, but the space I have it in could easily fit a TV twice the size.

In terms of warranting an upgrade from 1080p to 4k, I think the visual upgrade is worth the money if you care about image quality. Increased resolution aside, there’s enough technological advancement in most 4k TVs that make for a substantial difference in how things look compared to the older, and by now, quite frankly, outdated, 1080p TVs. It should be evident if you own an older TV

For people who play competitive games on consoles, 4k TVs with a better latency standard, are also much more available now than they were in the past. The majority of Samsung TVs come with a «game mode» as well, which pushes the latency down to a level where you really can’t complain unless you’re comparing it to a smaller, PC monitor.

Thimmy wrote:In terms of warranting an upgrade from 1080p to 4k, I think the visual upgrade is worth the money if you care about image quality. Increased resolution aside, there’s enough technological advancement in most 4k TVs that make for a substantial difference in how things look compared to the older, and by now, quite frankly, outdated, 1080p TVs. It should be evident if you own an older TV

For people who play competitive games on consoles, 4k TVs with a better latency standard, are also much more available now than they were in the past. The majority of Samsung TVs come with a «game mode» as well, which pushes the latency down to a level where you really can’t complain unless you’re comparing it to a smaller, PC monitor.

4K is all good, but we were talking about 8K. Which is not needed, imo.

danyjr wrote:I’m not even a huge advocate of 4K, as the gains are minimal compared to the computation level.

The development should be shifted towards FPS, not resolution. But as household TVs drive the market not gaming monitors, the manufacturers are pushing 8K instead.

I thought I quoted this, but somehow it didn’t show up.

Art Morte wrote:

Thimmy wrote:In terms of warranting an upgrade from 1080p to 4k, I think the visual upgrade is worth the money if you care about image quality. Increased resolution aside, there’s enough technological advancement in most 4k TVs that make for a substantial difference in how things look compared to the older, and by now, quite frankly, outdated, 1080p TVs. It should be evident if you own an older TV

For people who play competitive games on consoles, 4k TVs with a better latency standard, are also much more available now than they were in the past. The majority of Samsung TVs come with a «game mode» as well, which pushes the latency down to a level where you really can’t complain unless you’re comparing it to a smaller, PC monitor.

4K is all good, but we were talking about 8K. Which is not needed, imo.

I’m not saying that Dany is wrong, but my point stands that upgrading from an older 1080p TV to a newer, 4K one may be worth it if you care about the visual quality. It’s not purely the resolution that you will be upgrading, and the difference is quite clear, even to me, who’s got some degree of near-sightedness and doesn’t use glasses.

Just the other day, a friend of mine who still only has an older flat screen TV, told me that everything looked so much more crisp and vibrant on my TV. All of the new technology adds up to a better viewing experience. The best way to confirm how substantial the differenxe is, is by going to an electronics store and comparing what you see on the demo TVs, to your own TV.

@Thimmy how much of the difference you're seeing is down to the newer picture technology (contrast, HDR, OLED, refresh rate etc) and how much of it is down to the increase in resolution?

I personally think it would be wrong to put all of it down to the higher resolution. In fact I would argue that the resolution does not contribute much to it, if at all.

So the stream will be at 1080p 30 FPS but all gameplay videos and trailers will be uploaded to Youtube after the show at 4K.

1080p vs 4k TV:

When a content isn't in native resolution or scaled up, there's lots of aliasing which causes loss of clarity. 4k has got 4 times the amount of pixels 1080p does on the same area, it means every single pixel are 4 times smaller. Upscaling on a 4k TV looks much better on the eye because the grains are smaller so there is less aliasing present. Bandwidth wise in native resolution, 1080p is clearly superior for the current streaming standard.

Monitor vs TV:
There is no contest: any modern IPS or AV monitor with 100Hz+ blows any TV out of the water with image quality, clarity, energy consumption, ease on the eyes (very little radiation, eyes don't get tired easily) and the filters one can apply through the video card ( MSAA, SSAA, adaptive MS/SS, Superresolution, anisotrofic filter, image sharpening etc.). 4K is achievable in most games unlike consoles, best controllers currently are Xbox One and PS4 controller which can be natively used on PC. The only reason for TV+Console would be if one watches TV a lot or plays games with friends on the couch.

M99 wrote:So the stream will be at 1080p 30 FPS but all gameplay videos and trailers will be uploaded to Youtube after the show at 4K.

It's tomorrow right? What time is it again

I never have and probably never will understand why PC players get in their feelings over console players. Incels?, low self esteem, elitism?

Imagine caring so much about another mans entertainment system. Sus af.

I've had a gaming PC since late 2004 and never been as lame as some of you guys toward console players.

Thimmy wrote:Already confirmed games for PS5, including those that already exist for PS4:

Fortnite

Call of Duty: Warzone

Outsiders - A co-op RPG by Square Enix

Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege

Lord of the Rings: Gollum. An action adventure game set for a release date in 2021.

Other than that, there’s a nameless Harry Potter game with an unknown release date, and the same old speculations that there will be a new GTA for this console generation. More PS5 games will be revealed over the summer.

Has there been any info regarding the Harry Potter game? Think I saw some old alpha clip of the game that got me curious about the game.

I don't have anything against consoles. In fact I own a PS4 but it is only used to play exclusive titles. It is a case of preference and performance.

Preference: I've never been a living room gamer, perhaps because my parents never had enough money to buy me a console. I grew up playing games on my dad's PCs (back when "PCs are not meant to play games on") and that I guess has stayed with me to this date. You can have a small form factor PC in a living room too, but it is like having a Ferrari that you're only driving to go to a shop and back. A PC is more than just a gaming machine.

Performance: I do everything on my PC, from playing games to audio editing to programming to watching movies and surfing the web. In this sense it is not really comparable to a console, as much as it can be a console if you hook up a controller to it. There are two downsides to PC gaming, costs (arguably less bang for buck than a console) and multiplayer performance (some multiplayer PC games have cheaters). Other than that I can't imagine why I personally would ever turn on my PS4 to play a game.

I dont see a point in TVs larger than 70" at home, if you want a movie experience go to the movies imo

And I don't even have a PC because i dont see a point. I have a laptop on which i play some light games like Stardew Valley and earlier Minecraft etc and its enough for work/youtube stuff and I turn on the console and lie down on the sofa to play other games, its very comfortable

Myesyats wrote:I dont see a point in TVs larger than 70" at home, if you want a movie experience go to the movies imo

Agreed.

LeVersacci wrote:I never have and probably never will understand why PC players get in their feelings over console players. Incels?, low self esteem, elitism?

None of those. It's usually about consoles holding games back technologically for so long. Great example is a SSD. I first had one like in IBM T40 laptop way back, like 15 years ago, and it's been staple in PC gaming years already. And now suddenly it's going to be this "huge thing in gaming" when it's introduced in consoles. Well good, but what took so long? You can add to this graphical fidelity, multicore support etc.

M&BII: Bannerlord is the first true multicore scalable game I think, and it wouldn't be possible with current consoles. Though it will probably be released on the next gen consoles, because they have 16 thread cpu's. The same which I'm playing it right now.