[SONY has left the chat]

4k is such a meme. It would be better if console manufacturers focused on 60FPS instead because all those people who can't see the difference simply haven't been exposed to it enough. Once you go 60+FPS you cannot possibly go back to

Blablabla higher resolution is a meme!
How to spot the retarded underage youtube shitty opinion maker watching sheep

I can't wait for console manufacturers to start pushing 8k. I swear 4k is so barely noticeable it's mad, and 8k will be even less noticeable.

Death of the consumer tech industry incoming.

We get all the games white boy :)

Attached: 23456789965432464.jpg (1000x1333, 511K)

Not like any other console is capable of running modern games at stable 60 fps
Not to mention that 60 fps is actually just the bare minimum for comfortable gameplay, and if frame time is inconsistent the game is gonna feel laggy at any framerate

The same people that will tell you that 4k isn't noticeable will try to peddle you a 1440p display as a noticeable upgrade from 1080p.

Real problem with upping the native display resolution, which neither console really does yet, is the fact that user investment is simply too high still. I'm not buying a new overpriced TV simply because devs decided upscaling their games is the latest gimmick.

give em back Jamal, not cool.

I'm looking at 240hz monitors recently as there seems to be a couple good ones around $500 already. Any experience with those?

>overpriced
4k displays aren't overpriced at all, a 60' '4k display costs the same as 60'' 1080p one costed 2 years ago.

720@60 vs 1080@30
Just wondering what you would prefer

When a few years ago my pc was getting weak, I’d always prefer the frame rate over the resolution.

But I guess it’s just easier to reach 30 + a higher resolution than 60

Can you pc do 240 FPS?
I’d go for a better 144hz monitor

I don't think they'll achieve either. Also it's funny because it will be yet another console generation until they even try raytracing.

Answer is always framerate. Your screen size dictates resolution to be used for optimal experience. People are seeing jaggies and shit because TVs got bigger but resolutions, with consoles at least, did not follow for a while. I guess it would explain the 4k craze. PC seems to lean more on 1440p for balance.

The real problem has nothing to do with the cost of consumer tech. That shit balances out. It always does.

The real problem is with the development cost/time this type of graphical push makes for. Making actual textures that aren't drawn out or stretched to fit 4k/8k screens still isn't being done because it would simply be too much work. Only the absolute bleeding edge of AAA games do this and usually it's an affair so costly that gameplay and "fun" suffers heavily because of it.

Not to mention it widening the canyon between AA and AAA developers, essentially murdering the AA marked in the process. There are tons of exclusive games, God of S'oy, The Last of (((Us))) and other AAA garbage that looks fucking amazing, but plays like complete garbage because the only way to easily sell those games are on visuals.

>165hz IPS 1440p G-sync

"Poorfag left the chat"

>That shit balances out.
Yes, but there are awkward transitional periods and we're probably still in one.

A better monitor would mean I'd have to essentially do 1440p. It's basically that vs 180-200 fps on a 240hz monitor. No idea what to go for just yet.

I'd absolutely pick 720 at 60. Hell, I'd pick 640 at 144 for a multiplayer shooter.

When ~Fire Emblem Warriors came out in 2017 it had a performance mode and quality mode where you could choose 1080p30fps or 720p60fps and i naively thought this would be a more common thing on switch from that point on.

Boy was i wrong. I dont know why the fuck it isnt though

Of course there is. But the point is that shit always balances itself out eventually.

My point is that you can't "sell" framerate, or gameplay and most people aren't willing to buy a video game on good music either. The most effective way to sell a video game is to pump 99% of the budget into the way it looks, then spout buzzwords like "immersive experience" for 6 months and hope normalfags don't catch on this time either.

>Games
>[Xbox has left the chat]

720@60. I can deal with shitty graphics if I get good performance.

>less than 30fps
>[Nintendo joined chat]

Attached: Doom Switch.jpg (900x504, 54K)

and I see people say this all the time, how come the devs on console target the resolution then?

Marketing.

cos with a lower framerate it looks just like da movies!!!

>YT memes

I don't think all those normalfags can comprehend what resolutions are either though;

but I think it has more to do with the fact that it's easier to reach 30 and fine graphics then 60.

Idiots, mostly

Feels good being a high end PC + piracy fag

I'm guessing the mentality is that the more choice you give them the more it can bite you in the ass.

Think of when The New Order came out and everyone complained about it being too large of a download because none of the assets were compressed. What if they allowed you to download compressed assets? Then everyone would download that version and complain of lower quality, even though that was the trade-off they chose.

Even if the option was a simple "Higher Graphics/30fps vs Lower Graphics/60fps" I'm sure the playerbase will find a reason to complain about it and make you look bad. "WTF I turned on 60fps and it doesn't look as good, shit game"

Customizability is a pain in the ass to implement I guess. And since console = one hardware option, games should be already optimized enough. In theory.

PC multiplats already have all those graphics settings.

t. Never used a PS4 Pro
LITERALLY has a '30fps with extra pretty graphics' or '60fps' option for most games.

>youtube humor
end yourself

An on/off setting that only exists on one model of the console is hardly the same as having sliders for everything on every model.

Because you're in Yea Forums, not on a place where people actually play console games.
I'd take good graphics over 60fps any time if I had to choose and most other people would as well.

Moved goalposts are hardly the same as being right in your original claim.

>even though in the long run between shit sales on games and paying for online, it's much more expensive
Not even true you graphic card changer fag

Remember fps and graphics don't matter unless you're arguing with a nintendie.

Attached: 1452748724253.jpg (920x900, 173K)

>[Total Buscuit has left the chat]

>turn on TVs motion interpolation
>game now runs at 60
Checkmate PC nerds

Attached: based.jpg (1234x1070, 95K)

But pretty much all first party Nintendo games shoot for a steady 60fps, there are some notable exceptions like Breath of the Wild but the vast majority are smooth 60.

what does his shirt say "PS

the majority of users don't want/need customization, that's why they buy consoles.
I've seen dumbasses complain about their slow laptop because they didn't know how to turn off battery saver or their game automatically switched to 4k ultra.
Products like consoles should just werks because that's all the consumers are asking for.

so better textures > smooth gameplay for ya?

It's not moving goalposts if you didn't understand what the goalpost was

You mean 30fps with extra graphics or 35 fps without them
Its very rare that its actually 60

Better, yes, but Playstation's library is full of indie trash. Literal garbage.

>unplug fans
>300 FPPS
checkmate da!