Super Icon owner Richard Hill-Whittall believes 4K is “becoming more essential now”.
Agree, the key word is "becoming" not there yet. Next gen, sure. In the next two years more and more people would get 4K Tv's. I read somewhere that the market is 14% now?
Adoption rate for UHD sets seems to be moving quicker than it was for HD back in the day. Prices have come way down compared to a year or two ago.
Ones 4K is affordable enough 8K will be the new goal.
When you have no games to talk about.....
60fps and 4k should be the default settings for Ps5 and Xbox Next
"Next Xbox Should Have VR Support" thats funny i remember ms promoting xbox x with vr then it got taken off thr site and never spoken of again minus the typicle pr talk
I think that's because VR isn't quite the "next big thing" that's was touted a few years ago. Even Sony admitted that they haven't sold as many headsets as they hoped they would. I think that the other problem is that a report a few weeks back said that releasing a purely VR game meant that the game woudn't make a profit.
They also promoted Halolens AR, and mixed reality, yet it's nowhere to be seen, because apparently it's not big enough or practical enough for MS to support it on the Xbox yet. For as little relevance as MS seems to place on VR, they certainly seem to be doing everything they can to distract from Sony's own VR offerings. MS should support it next gen. If Sony keeps selling PSVR, MS will be behind with whatever they offer up. Nothing new for MS. They're often behind when it comes to getting into new technologies where they wait for others to do most of the hard work. This of course leads to MS more often than not being completely irrelevant to the field, and failing miserably. @shaggy As far as gaming goes, it's about the biggest advance in gaming immersion or technology we're going to see for quite some time. Better graphics are a given. VR will get advancements as technology improves as well, and as more people try VR, the more people that will be interested in it. Having finally gotten a PSVR myself, I've found myself being more and more interested in seeing it grow than I have in the past when I only tried demo units.
There is no such thing as 60fps support. 60 fps can be done on any console, Devs will always have to decide where to use the power.
out of curiosity , why could the ps3 and xbox 360 hit 60fps and the pro and x1x cant?
they can. Developers prioritize eye-popping visuals over 60fps
Uh some games do hold 60 fps on both...the devs decide what they want, not the console. Wolfenstein is 60 fps on both.
Do some research the Xbox One X is supposed to support VR maybe it's another empty promise from Microsoft. https://uploadvr.com/micros...
They've already said that they weren't going to offer it, because they feel the technology isn't ready yet. Next gen may be a different story.
PS4 has it and its doing ok Microsoft just fails at getting things done they'll be third party soon enough.
I think MS could have gotten it done on X1X. But they weren't wrong that it wasn't that much in demand. While it's been respectfully successful on PS, and even on PC, it is still pretty early in adoption ratios. The X1X was a niche product from the start, and they knew it wasn't going to sell like crazy. I assume the X1X has done respectfully well in relation to the Xbox overall sales though....not factoring in how Xbox is doing overall to make it a console war thing. Since it wasn't going to be their biggest seller, I can see why they wouldn't expend the resources on making a couple different hardware providers support to make it work with their system. My only issue with what they did isn't that they didn't bring support, it's that they promoted support for it when they should have looked at if it was financially viable before hand. They did the same thing with Halolens, although I think that's because they knew people weren't going to pay what Halolens costs to play AR, and they knew the hardware in it's current form wasn't going to be satisfactory to gamers(very limited FOV). But MS has been trying to take focus away from Sony's VR since Sony first started promoting it harder. They couldn't down play it because there was too much hype. That's why we got the staged Minecraft Halolens demo, and the talk about them bringing 3rd party VR devices to X1X. When it comes to this, MS has been more reactive than proactive. While they are doing some good with VR support built into DirectX, that is a far cry from being a major player in the VR market, and MS is, or was, trying hard to make themselves out as relevant in that field for when VR starts to pick up steam. Now they're just more in a holding pattern, and I assume if VR becomes popular enough, they'll make it out like they were always on board. They're already trying to do that with their DirectX VR stuff, but as it is now, the PC hardware makers seem to prefer using their own stuff, because they want to control their own markets.
There is no way a console version of VR can compete with PC. Although neither can games really. So in summary MS should just double down on PC.
They never were supposed to compete. Sony wasn't trying to compete against vive or oculus, it was a part of the group that had gotten Vr where it is today.
If they aren't meant to compete, get out of the way. Bad VR experiences just hurt VR as a medium.
it isnt a bad vr expereince though, i own it and use it all the time for GTS, Moss, looking to buy RE7 just for the VR. Why no issue or complaints about samsung gear VR? or the iphone VR or android cardboard.
You can't expect perfection first time around dude. Even during the birth of this industry and traditional gaming, there were plenty of bad experiences and the good ones shone through. The medium is still young.
Right now it's prudent for more cooperation than competition. Being cutthroat right now could stymie progress in VR by the different companies with different goals. PSVR is the most important one tbh. It allows for mass market adoption of a normally expensive medium. Otherwise VR doesnt have a presence on tv via commercials. Only Sony is advertising like that. Vive/Rift can show off potential graphics for enthusiasts. Potential/Highest Quality. PSVR can bring it to the family room at a favorable price. Accessibility/ Quality for the price. I argue the cheap phone VR is the one that makes it look like a gimmick.
Problem is, Companies making VR games want to control their own market for the games. That doesn't really help MS outside of people using Windows. Current VR is still in its infancy, but it's pretty impressive compared to any other attempt in the past. It feels like you're there, and you want to reach out and touch things. It does what it says it can do, but because of the current tech, it's not going to match current gen visuals on any reasonable system or console. Console VR can compete with PC. In fact, Sony is doing better with PSVR, than the PC offerings are doing. They're getting plenty of support, and they've sold more. The thing is though, MS isn't competiting in the VR market at all. They're just trying to appear relevant to the hardware market to take thunder away from Sony. They're working on DirectX API's to support it, which is good, but MS has no interest other than to make sure devs use their tools and API's, ,to help keep things stuck on Windows. As far as PSVR being lackluster, I'd have to disagree. There are certainly bad games on it, but bad games on consoles don't diminish the good games that exist, and they certainly don't diminish VR. In fact, the good experiences really define what the potential is for VR.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.