PS4 & Xbox stuck in a 1080 past - 4K Gaming is the future Now

PS4 and Xbox One are stuck in the past arguing over 1080p when 4K resolutions are becoming much more affordable to the masses.

[JoGam]

But how much data would need to fit on a disc? Imagine an open world game in 4k. Thats a lot of data. I also believe the price of games will increase if and when 4k gaming hits.

[Volkama]

Most openworld games can already be played in 4k...

You don't actually need 4k textures to benefit from 4k resolution, it's not like you typically have a single texture occupying the full screen. 4k allows any grade of texture that makes up part of a scene to retain and display more detail that would be lost if the resolution were lower.

[Volkama]

In case that idea is confusing, imagine a 1080p texture.

If that texture occupies the whole screen, then a 1080p TV and a 4k TV show the same amount of detail.

Now shrink that 1080p texture to a quarter of the screen, and tile it 4 times. The 1080p TV loses 3/4 of the detail, and the 4k TV retains it all.

This concept applies directly to textured surfaces in games.

[mikeslemonade]

4K still not pratical at all. I only play 1080p with my 2 GTX 970s. I would sacrifice lots of frame rate if I were to go 4K.

[NioRide]

@Mike

I have 3 R9 290s in my system, I play games like Insurgency at 3840x2160 with AA and still manage 250+FPS. FF14 runs at 90fps. SMITE runs at 180fps, Arma 3 runs at 140fps.

And this cost the same as a little more than 1 GTX 980. It's very much possible to run games at 4k and it's not even that expensive.

[Volkama]

@Mike sli 970s could run a lot of games at 4k. Of course you would sacrifice frames, but it's not so much as to say it is impractical.

Easiest way to find out is to use the downsampling tool in the nVidia control panel.

[LightofDarkness]

@mike: you bought two 970s for 1080p? I hope you're also going for 120-144FPS, because 60FPS framerates at 1080p are achievable for a lot less. I have two myself, but the only game that brings them down to around 60 is Dragon Age, and that's just because it's CPU bound and unoptimized, frankly. Plus, that game stutters like mad in SLI at times, it's better played on a single GPU or even in CFX, apparently.

The 970s are limited at 4k due to their memory bandwidth as well. The 780s and R9 series outperform them at resolutions above 1440p.

[OrangePowerz]

Yes you can play them in 4K, but they don't use assets designed for 4k. While you get more detail from the textures it's not the same as actually using 4k assets and that will require a lot more storage.

[vishmarx]

who approves these bs articles?
btw if 1080p is past and 4k is future whats the present?
and how many games have been made for native 4k so far?
you can even play snes games i 4k but that doesnt make them 4k games.
4k tvs are rare and expensive, 4k machines are rare and expensive.there is no need for 4k on consoles atm
1080p if perfectly fine. we should focus on making games better, making them compatible to bigger screens adds absolutely nothing besides some reduced AA and sharper detail.pointless waste of resources.and thats when you downsample

@volk
what exactly is the point of a 4k game with no 4k assets? assets include more than just textures
4k isnt nearly as common on pc either,its just fanboys . how stupid is it that youre asking for a pointless resolution upgrade for a screen you do not even own instead of better effects,textures,fps,onscreen characters,other game features.

[slappy508]

At mikes: I have 970 slis and run All my games at 4k. You don't need to have high anti Aliasing at that resolution, you can even turn it off, and that's what usually is the most demanding. As long as I have 35-40 fps on my gsync monitor it feels like 60 frames. I think gsync is the greatest invention since we went from twigs to CRT.

[Volkama]

@Vishmark, the same applies for assets. Imagine Nathan Drake is a 1080p asset, OK? To see the full benefit of that asset, you would need Nathan Drake to occuply the entirety of your 1080p screen. Otherwise lose detail.

On a 4k TV you could fit 4 Nathan Drakes on screen, in full detail.

As for how many games are made for native 4k? Hundreds. Maybe thousands. Mortal Kombat 9 won't render in 4k, but that's about the only 3D game of the last 5 years I can think of that doesn't. I can actually run Asheron's Call 2 in native 4k, and that's about 12 years old.

[averagejoe26]

Basic biology has proven that any screen size under 82 inches does not benefit from 4k. You'd have be sitting right in front of the screen to see a benefit on and screen size smaller than that. So unless you're screen is bigger than 82 inches or you plan on sitting inches from your screen, 4k is pointless. The human eye has limitations which are not debatable. If you claim otherwise, you're obviously lying or obviously Superman.

[DARK WITNESS]

when I think of 4k I think of PC...

Right now we are still haveing my console's 1080P is bigger then your console's 900P D"£%^k swinging contests...

At let's not mention that if we hit the magic 1080p it usually means FPS has to default to 30 unless it's a jumped up indie game!

what a blow-out :/

[alabtrosMyster]

I agree with your point, actually I want 4K gaming...

But I think that you could not have had consoles released with 60hz 4K output last year, so both support whatever version of HDMI enabled back then (4k at 30hz) however, the software does not enable it yet.

Now, I am not sure I want man 4K games on the PS4 (the idea of 1080p games on the XB1 is still hardly attainable, so let's not include this one in the conversation at all)...

So, we have issues getting above 30fps games on the PS4 now, at 1080p (well, for some stupid reason a lot of recent games come with a 30fps cap on them) ... so the games I see benefiting from 4K would be ports of older titles and some indie games that accept to take the hit on frame rate :-/

maybe in a few years there will be a decent ammount of 4K TVs out there and we will get consoles that can output good quality images at a decent price, for now, you need a pretty high end PC to do anything beyond watching pictures at 4K.

[TankCrossing]

Lol average Joe. Explain this basic biology of the human eye. Should be easy.

[Silly Mammo]

This seems like a "pat on the back, I have a 4K system!!"article.

[miyamoto]

Why Ultra HD 4K TVs are still stupid
The flood of TVs with higher resolution than 1080p is inevitable, but at typical TV sizes, quadruple the pixels makes no difference in picture quality and are not worth the extra price.

http://www.cnet.com/news/wh...

[zme-ul]

@everyone here

you do know 3840x2160 is not 4K? but actually Ultra HD?
4096 × 2160 (19:10 display radio) is 4K !!!!

4K has 1/2 of million pixels more than UHD !!!

[starchild]

@ slappy508

I couldn't agree more. Buying a G-Sync monitor was one of the best purchases I ever made for my PC gaming. It honestly is a game changer and makes a bigger difference than any other technology to come along in a long time. Any variable framerate between 30 and 144fps is smooth and enjoyable on my monitor. I'm glad you are enjoying yours as well.

[totallysane]

@NIO,

that is honestly a bad example. an average of $550 for a single computer part is pretty expensive. I'm sure majority of gamers out there are like me and have to save and plan for a year before you can even consider parts. Not of all of can drop cash for 3 graphics cards. Yes it is possible to run 4k for a lot of games and cards, but that's why they call some of these cards budget cards. I'm considering picking up a 970 myself but that's after months of financial planning, budgeting, and stealing from some of my tax return. We all can't just spend like crazy on pc parts.

[Gamer1982]

4K gaming isn't really prevalent for 70% of gamers as they don't own TVs big enough to see the immediate benefits. It's one thing to say consoles should have included it but it would have upped the consoles to a price point where it just would have put off too much of the audience.. 1080p should have been the most important and to be fair every game could have been 1080p since launch devs just choose graphical fidelity over resolution.

[Maddens Raiders]

Finally got a UHD 65" Sony and a 4k server summer of last year. The movies are pricey at 30 bucks but I'd gladly pay $60 for AAA 4K gaming titles like say, GT7 or God of War, Uncharted etc....

Yeah bring it on. Let's get on with it already...

[NuggetsOfGod]

A single gtx 970 gets you 4k @30fps in battlefield 4 @ ultra settings.
Or 1200p @85fps.

http://www.guru3d.com/artic...

Now when dx12 comes and nvidia/amd stacked vram comes next year pc will be to far ahead lol

1440p is the present and 4k will be big between 2016/17 no doubt.
Newegg has 4k monitors at $450+.

The consoles tablet hardware makes it easy this gen for pc gamers.

@mikeslemonade is a lier and the console gamers who agree with him are ignorant about hardware.

Two gtx 970s?? Yeah ok. Let me guess u get 35fps at 1080p lol

@uth11
Are u 90 years old? Do u want me to come program the remote control?

[Muzikguy]

@Nio

I have 6 of those cards in my system. I run all those games at double the FPS you mentioned and display my games on 4 4K monitors linked up simultaneously! Also use the HoloLens and Morpheus at the same time it's pretty amazing

/s

:)

[bubblebobble]

only got my ps4 at christmas after having a ps3 since day 1 (which i was well happy with) and im blown away with 1080 on ps4 and this early in the generation too hopefully games later on in the gen will look alot better than this even 1080p is more than enough for me thanks

[MazzingerZ]

Visual difference yeah but I want a VG that plays smart and that has nothhing to do with 4K...talk any Zelda, MSG game...they didn't need a 4K to tell an awesome story or gameplay, I think 4K is ok but just as part of normal technique evolution nothing that kills gaming experience in "lower" resolutions

[_-EDMIX-_]

...well most of those games are also last gen titles..running on dated engines.

[Vegamyster]

@mikeslemonade

Well 970 SLI is easily capable of 4k, if they can do Crysis 3 on very high with an average of 31 then you'd probably hit 60 fps in most games less demanding games or if you turned the settings down a little, one 970 is considered overkill for 1080p.

http://www.guru3d.com/artic...

[Sarcasm]

You guys are living in some kinda of weird fantasy. The PS4 is $400. Who would actually compare it to that of a $1200+ PC?

[thereapersson]

@ Dasteru

That is both hyperbole and trolling in one post.

[PoSTedUP]

averagejoe is right. 4k is pointless unless you have an enormous tv. you can only tell the difference if youre like 2ft away from it. and it makes perfect sense, the same sense in not being able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080 on a tv smaller than a 40in. there is a threshold at a certain distance where your eyes cannot makeout the small details of a 4k tv anyways, unless it is say 80in and above. on 65in people couldnt tell the difference between 1080 and 4k at a normal viewing distance 6-9 feet. only when they went close up could they make out the small detail and benefits. companys market it like you need it bc they want to sell it to you. its even funnier when they get ppl to spend more money on a smaller 4k tv, boy you are being conned like theres no tomorrow.

picture quality trumps rez, im a big fan of OLED. id pick it over the pointless 4k any day of the week. bigger color spectrum and sharper blacks really makes a TV Pop-eye.

[XBLSkull]

You could also say PC elitists are stuck in a cycle of buying overpriced hardware to play games that just really aren't that good, and getting slightly better looking multiplatform games. I play PC games too but if I had to give one up I would give up my gaming PC well before I ever gave up my Xbox.

I spent about $2000 building my gaming PC. Are the games worth the price of admission? No. I have enough disposable income that it doesn't matter but I get way more enjoyment out of my Xbox that is priced far lower.

[awi5951]

@Volkama

970 cant run well at 4k because they only have 3.5gigs of usable ram. Ram is a huge bottleneck for 4k gaming.

[Maxor]

A guy running 2 970 GTX at 1080p? Must be either an idiot or a troll. Unless you refuse to run your games in under tripple digit fps that set up is a massive overkill.

[decrypt]

Nvm mike hes a hardcore PS4 fan, ill believe he has 2x GTX 970s when pigs fly.

[Cindy-rella]

8k is the future. Actually 12k is the future. Im sorry, 16k is the real future.

People can like whatever but 4k gaming powerful pcs are amazing but 1080p ps4 has the best looking game on earth which is the order 1886 and it isnt 4k but 1080p. I would have loved to have a more powerful ps4 that is able to do 4k gaming but it would have cost a lot more and sales would have suffered. Its like people cant get over the simple idea that gaming consoles are made to be affordable for a lot of people to buy while being very reliable to play on for years.

Ive got a powerful pc which can play most games at max settings in 1080p @60fps but i have to deal with all the headaches of bsod, error messages, graphics card firmware that causes conflicts, software that causes conflicts, wait a lot of times for games that are already on consoles, programs that wont boot and all sorts. I like it but i prefer the ease of consoles that are smaller, produces less heat while burning less electricity. I would love if all games were on pc but it isnt so.

[Volkama]

Honestly, I see more vague error messages on my PS4 and Xbox than I do on my PC. And I haven't seen a BSOD since.... Windows XP?

You are right that "people cant get over the simple idea that gaming consoles are made to be affordable", but it isn't the people with PCs that struggle with that...

[uth11]

For me it got so bad that the thought of installing a new game on my PC caused more dread than excitement. Because there were always problems of one sort or another. Then I bought consoles and gaming became fun again.

[BlackTar187]

LOL what vague error messages do you get on your PS4 and Xbox outside of login errors or internet connectivity errors?

PC have so many more problems it just comes with the territory there is a lot more threats out there on a PC.

[NioRide]

It sounds to me uth11 that you aren't very tech literate...

[LightofDarkness]

Oh please, unless the game is unplayable/doesn't start, the issues that SOMETIMES accompany PC releases far from remove the fun of gaming entirely. Hyperbole much?

[johndoe11211]

@volkama

"Honestly, I see more vague error messages on my PS4 and Xbox than I do on my PC."

Seriously, the utter and total crap people like you say in order to prove a non existing point is staggering. Other than the RROD with the 360, what other console in history has ever given more problems than a windows PC?

"You are right that "people cant get over the simple idea that gaming consoles are made to be affordable", but it isn't the people with PCs that struggle with that..."

Really??? Freaking seriously??? Console gamers aren't the ones who write garbage articles like this. They aren't the ones who constantly bash consoles for being "weak" and "outdated". They aren't the ones who cry down every single console game for not being 1600000K and troll every console article about games not running at 200000000fps and criticizing games even when they look better than anything we've seen on pc.

When have you ever heard sony, microsoft or nintendo come out publicly and down play pc gaming the way Nvidia does to consoles? I would love to know. PC gamers have this elite club that only they give a d@mn about and spend more time trolling console articles than actually playing the games they buy.

What other sort of nutjob would want to compare a game running on a $1000 pc to one running on a $400 console and then criticize that game for not having the same performance? The utter lunacy of pc elitists is mind numbing. They are the ones who cannot accept that these games CANNOT be 4k and 120fps on a bloody $400 console, not us.

[Volkama]

@JohnDoe take a breath... Are you OK?

My Xbox One definitely crashes and has problems more frequently than my PC. They are invariably resolved by a hard reset, but they happen more than they should.

My PS4 is less error prone, but when there is a problem with the network or rest mode or anything else, it's damn vague about it.

Some times I need to take the batteries out of my Wii remote in the middle of a game in order to re-sync it.

Am I "proving a non-existing point"? No, I'm responding to one. So rant at Cindy-rella, who brought up "bsod, error messages, graphics card firmware that causes conflicts, software that causes conflicts, wait a lot of times for games that are already on consoles, programs that wont boot and all sorts". Take a look at my other comments in this article and you should see quite clearly that I'm here discussing 4k gaming, because it interests me. Unfortunately I responded to a poor post which you seem to have missed.

I didn't say PC elistists are right to attack console-only players. I said most people understand that consoles are made to be affordable.

If someone compares a game running on an expensive PC with a game running on a console and says the PC one looks better, that doesn't make them a nutjob. It only suggests that they are observant and level headed.

If someone compares those same games and shouts "YOU CAN'T COMPARE THOSE GAMES!" and starts insulting people for having PCs, their logic is more questionable. Sound like anyone you know?

[Bobby Kotex]

I'm sorry but you're talking out of your ass. BSOD was an issue maybe 15-20 years ago, but not anymore. 'Graphics card firmware'? You're trying to sound smart but you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

[starchild]

@Cindy-rella

All of your comments make it blatantly clear that you are a hardcore Sony fanboy (or fangirl?), which makes me somewhat dubious that you actually own a high end PC. Many of your comments simply don't make sense if you actually owned a gaming PC.

In any case, I can't fathom why you would have so many problems. I have very few problems with my PC games. I haven't had a single game from this generation crash on me, nor any of that other crap. The only issues I've had--and only with a few games, mind you--are performance issues where I had to go into the ini files and tweak something. These games are the minority, though, and usually the problem is solved with a quick google search and a few minutes of tweaks.

I've had some problems with console games too, but, again, not many. The difference is, however, that I often can't fix the problems myself on my consoles and have to just hope that the developers will fix them.

As far as The Order 1886 being the best looking game ever, well that's debatable. I'm open minded to that possibility and if it turns out to be true after I have played the game myself then that will be just great. But honestly what would that one game change? It wouldn't change the fact that 4k (or 1440p for that matter) are better than 1080p. It wouldn't change the fact that the PC has better looking games and better performance nearly across the board. '

You seem to think that it would somehow make the PC irrelevant if the PS4 had one game that looked better than any other game at this point in time. But it really wouldn't. It's just one game. I enjoy my PS4 for what it is and I'm happy some Sony first party developers push out such great looking games, but it doesn't change the fact that I am disappointed with the performance and image quality of many 3rd party games on the console. Those same games look and run so much better on my PC and one game isn't going to change that.

[MelvinTheGreat]

But my pcs gaming network never goes down

[_-EDMIX-_]

100% Agreed. Many don't fully get that resolution is based on game engine. If a game is running in 4k, its liking a lessor engine.

Next gen only titles like The Order, AC Unity etc will be running on much more beast engines. Thus...those games in 1080p, beat last gen titles in 4k, as those 4k titles are also RUNNING ON DATED ENGINES!

Example...would you want GTASA in 4k or GTAV in 1080p?

MOST will tell you GTAV even at 720p, looks more advance, next gen etc then GTASA at ANY resolution.

Resolution does nothing for a dated engine, blurry textures etc.

Add in there are not PC exclusives that even fully use most hardware to even rival any AAA exclusives on PS4 and XONE.

Soooo this idea that 4k on PC being better then 1080p is not that big of a deal if you consider what games are even being played in 4k.

PC might have 12k, but it also doesn't have titles that are ONLY for PC that max it out near a PS4 or XONE.

Next gen only titles are much more technical and desired then dated engines in 4k.

Would someone really want a GTASA looking game in 4k, vs a GTAV looking game in 1080p?

I'm sorry but I just don't think that resolution is desired MORE then updated engines.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Also many need to factor that indeed, The Order is very much up there with one of the most demanding engines created thus far.

its A. Next gen only.

B. On the most powerful next gen system

C. PC doesn't have a game that requires 8gigs, 3.5TFLOPS to run

yes....the PS4's GPU PERFORMANCE is 2x of what is listed based on optimization.

Sooo unless someone knows of a beast PC game currently being made that requires a GPU of 3.5TLOPS or higher to play....I would really sit down.

Yes...The Order's engine is much more advanced then Star Citizens...its a great looking game, but it also runs on any damn GPU, many GPU's way, way lessor then the PS4's.

Its also running on the CryEngine3. I'm sorry but factually, The Order's custom engine is very much likely the more powerful one given that they are able to use all the hardware of the PS4 vs on PC using bare specs.

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

"they are relatively well-balanced pieces of hardware that are well above what most people have right now, performance-wise. And let's not forget that programming close to the metal will usually mean that we can get 2x performance gain over the equivalent PC spec"

Sooo many seem to be forgetting that system specs mean nothing of a developer is NOT creating such a game on PC.

Again...unless we know of a developer that has a PC exclusive that is so demanding, its 8gigs required, 3.5TFLOP GPU or higher etc....then its not even meeting the max PS4 specs.

Thus...how can a game be more advance then a system its bare specs are factually not even meeting?

[Vegamyster]

"Ive got a powerful pc which can play most games at max settings in 1080p @60fps"

I find that hard to believe.

http://i.imgur.com/zOHlE7A....

"but i have to deal with all the headaches of bsod, error messages, graphics card firmware that causes conflicts, software that causes conflicts, wait a lot of times for games that are already on consoles, programs that wont boot and all sorts."

Then there is clearly something wrong with your PC, i have 134 games on Steam and bunch of others on Origin ect and i've only had issues running Just Cause 2 which took me 5 minutes on Google to find a fix and Tiberium Sun which is a 16 year old game so compatibility issues are expected. I'd like to know about all the games that have delayed PC versions that you're interested in, the vast majority of games come out at the same time.

"I like it but i prefer the ease of consoles that are smaller, produces less heat while burning less electricity."

It's not like consoles are matching high end hardware in multiplats, and getting getting console like performance/efficiently in a small form factor is not hard at all.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

@_-EDMIX-_

"yes....the PS4's GPU PERFORMANCE is 2x of what is listed based on optimization. "

No it's not, a 750 TI matches a PS4 in the majority of games, Digital Foundry and other webites have your proof if you're interested. plus the PS4 isn't getting things like MFAA, Mantle, mods ect that ease the load.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

[Dasteru]

The Order 1886 looks like shart. The playable character models are moderately detailed but the environments are basically RFOM at 1080p. The NPC models also look like pastel phantoms made with PS1 hardware.

http://ftg.operationsupplyd...

http://media1.gameinformer....

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/up...

Crysis 3 still looks vastly better than 1886 and will most likely look better than anything the PS4 will ever get.

[awi5951]

Yeah acer has a 4k monitor that people have rated very high for 489 dollars.

[NioRide]

That's not how 4k gaming works man. I'm sitting on my computer right now with a 4k screen playing Final Fantasy 13 At 4k.

You can see the difference here. I even have a screenshot for 1080p and 3840x2160 UHD 4k. I even highlight major differences.

1080p
http://i.imgur.com/7XlZ259....

3840x2160 UHD 4k
http://i.imgur.com/fUnq0MA....

Major differences
http://i.imgur.com/GzwCBLg....

This is a game from 2009. long before 4k was even thought of as a thing for gaming. So please don't spread miss information about needing "loads" of space on a disc. Regular textures we have right now are more than capable.

[kurruptor]

That's because you're sitting 2 feet from a small monitor.

You aren't doing that with a console.

If you have a 50" TV, you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4K unless you are sitting within like 7 feet... which you don't do with a screen that big.

[leogets]

Pmsl thats like sooooo major.pshhhhhh get out of here with ya miniscule differences

[bubblebobble]

what a joke you are really going to put your case to own a 4k pc because a game will look this much better to notice what you just pointed out its so small in fact your tweet has done the opposite than you planned its proved 4k is not needed what a joke

[BlackKnight]

You have to place resolution comparisons at the same size of screen/object. I have used NioRide's screenshots.

http://i.imgur.com/E4qDwk3....

This lets you see the difference between 1080P and 4K IF it were on the same TV/monitor capable of both 1080P and 4K.

When you view a 4k image on a 1080P screen, the image will appear zoomed because the pixels are the same size. But you can fit more pixels in the same amount of space in 4K so you have to double the zoom of the 1080P and place it next to the 4k image to show the difference in clarity.

@kurruptor

And when we have 55-65 inch screens, 1080P is not sufficient at 6 feet which is where I sit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

I can EASILY see jaggies at that TV size, distance, and resolution. Once 4K becomes to a decent price for TVs, you bet I will be getting one, and it will be bigger than 60 inches.

[ginsunuva]

Discs - also the way of the past.

[raptorjacob]

I love discs. call me old school, but I prefer having a hard copy to digital copy. I tend to lose digital copies of things by storing them in different places. I do like when I find some old songs, its like finding $5 in your coat pocket.

[kurruptor]

No thank you. Unless they come up with a way to sell used digital games or digital games cost half price.

[madjedi]

Discs outside of movies are dead by next gen, you'll still have a physical media format for games but it will be like a vita game cartridge or sd card.

[memots]

720p and 900p is the past.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Too funny.

Yet XONE's little stunt the beginning of this gen failed....I wounder why.

Consider this is still the beginning of next gen and we've yet to even see a 100GB game, by the end of the gen, we will likely see 250GB games easy as LAST GEN we saw 50GB games...

What about Next gen? When games are using 4K? I'm sorry but disk are neither past, future as much as the are the current and make sense in the present.

Sony and Panasonic are working on a new format right now that fits 300GB per layer!

Unless you like downloading 300GB to 400GB...I would legit sit down with that notion...

[Kidmyst]

Most everywhere I have read, to get the best out of 4K you need a over 50" TV, and also depends on distance to TV. I have a 24" 1080P PC Monitor, I'm not going to notice much if anything on that. I play console on 47" 1080P 120HZ LED TV, i'm not going to see much difference from that either. If you want to see a difference you will, but I don't sit that close to my TV.

[Pogmathoin]

So, the great 1080p war of 2014 is over?

[Irishguy95]

Uncharted 3 - 720p
~40GBs
Skyrim - 720p
~8GBs

Its called compression. Size of gameworld isn't really relevant ya know? You'd think it would be but it isn't. Compression techniques are extremely good these days.

[Dark_king]

Skyrim reused a lot of the assets over and over again.This reduced the size needed for the game.An compression is not going to ever be as good as being uncompressed.Just a matter of physics there there will always be some loss.There is even more downsides then that.You have to waste CPU power to decompress that data.
Though Uncharted 3 also had uncompressed audio and that can eat up disc space quick.They probably also had assets on the disc multiple times due to the ps3 BD drive having a slow seek speed.

[mixelon]

Bwaaa? How are people agreeing with this?!

The resolution the game is displayed at doesn't increase the storage space it uses up. HD textures already benefit from higher resolution display.

[solid_snake3656]

Lets not jump ahead now, theirs only a handful of games that can even do 1080p and 60fps.

[Spore_777]

No need for prices to go up once industry standards are attained. Same way prices cost the same as last-gen.

[Dee_91]

So if 4k is the future and 1080p is supposedly the past, then whats the present?Then again on PC the future turns to present every few weeks if nvidia is of any indication with its constant updates that does nothing noticeable.Striving for a cutting edge that changes every month is exhausting, but then again you need to on pc considering how horribly optimized a lot of pc games are... I'm fine with 720p/1080p

[TheCommentator]

Xbox One can run native 4k, and I'll tell you why I think it will(I can already feel the flames-a-burnin').

win10/dx12 - Xbox One is the fully compliant with the new api, which may offer as high as a 500-600% performance gain once in place.

dual lane gpu - Xbox One has the only commercially available dual lane gpu anywhere on the market, which pushes the theoretical limit of its gpu to 2.6tb(until dx12, it only utilizes 1 lane).

Data move engine - There are 4 data move engines which have a direct connection to the Noc. This type of connection was taken directly from supercomputers to significantly enhance data transfer between Xbox and the cloud. Even with a 2-5mb connection with an average latency of 60-100ms it is fast enough to offload global illumination, global ai, tiling and physics to name a few.

It's not going to happen overnight, but these new consoles are going to be around for 10 years. 4k will be a standard by then, and xbox is ready to combine all this technology to make it happen.

[Dark_king]

"500-600% performance gain" lol no just not even possible think more like 10-15 percent which is quite nice for a closed system.

Fantasy's are nice though.

[TheBrownBandito]

@TheCommentator

"win10/dx12 - Xbox One is the fully compliant with the new api, which may offer as high as a 500-600% performance gain once in place."

You ain't right in the head mate....

[reallyNow]

hook me up with your dealer, bro. i want in on that crazy as **** high.

[TheCommentator]

Those points listed above are all facts(not speulation) that can be found in the Wardell dx12 interview from two days ago, directly or linked to the article itself. Anandtech already benchmarked performance gains of 500% on many of amds' cards as well.

I know it's way easier to make fun of what you don't understand than it is to educate yourselves though, which is why I anticipated your statements in my original post.

Prove me wrong by showing me how the technologies either don't exist or can't function as suggested. MS just built their tech around more advanced concepts that will take time to realize its full potential.

Edit @1.15 - The way Sony talks about 4k right now is that it can't output 4k for games and they don't have any plans to updte the console to do so.

[GameNameFame]

Commentator is so desperate.

Sorry. MS themselves shot this down.

Like 5 times already.

Lol this is so desperate.

[ThanatosDMC]

Even MS said that Xbone will not have huge increase in performance with dx12.

[TheCommentator]

When it happens I hope that some of you are able to reflect back to this thread and realize you should have researched what I talked about instead of assuming i would make this all up. None of your comments tell me why these sources are wrong and are just sheepish personal attacks.

ThanatosDMC: Thank you for being civilized, but MS has been refering to the recent dx12 update which is not full dx12. Win10/full dx12 will be epic change when devs get it this fall because it will open up parallel processing and the dual lane functionality in the gpu.

[solid_snake3656]

Lol and with all that technology they can barely pull off 1080p lol. And let's not forget, both consoles have hdmi 1.4 not 2.0 .You can get a 4k video signal to pass through hdmi 1.4, but not without MAJOR compromise in frame rate. So try running games in 4k on the current consoles with hdmi 1.4 the video quality will actually look much worse then what we currently have, due to the major drop in frame rate. You must remember consoles at this stage can barely even do 1080p 60fps.

[reallyNow]

4K has nothing to do with hard drive/ disk space. more to do with meeting video ram requirements. PS4 COULD do 4k on some old games, definitely not on a title like driveclub.

[ZombieKiller]

Sorry but I choose the open world and everything they can do with games now over resolution. I have a perfectly good console that does 1080P 60FPS really well and I'd like to stick with that for now. Concentrate on what makes games great instead of the highest possible resolution. Not to say that I don't want it, but how much processing power would it take and how much game is the dev sacrificing to make that happen?

Not to mention, half the consoles of today (looking at you X1 and Wii-U), next gen or not, struggle to do 1080P in higher frame rate as it stands now.

[ShottyGibs]

Kidding right. WiiU actually has more 1080p @60fps games than the PS4. Think about that.

[brich233]

4k is just a resolution, not data.

[ChickeyCantor]

"But how much data would need to fit on a disc? Imagine an open world game in 4k. Thats a lot of data"

What is it with most N4G people who have no clue how all of this works?

[Magicite]

They forgot to mention WiiU, its also stuck somewhere in the past.

[GreenUp]

DayZ, Arma 3, 2160p. Glorious.

[rodelthegreat]

We are talking about PC gaming. Discs are pretty much irrelevant at this point.

[zidane1341]

@DARK WITNESS

That whole "xbox one cant achieve 1080p" crap is complete BS. If somebody optimizes there game then it is easy enough. If GTA5 can do it most others can too. Forza 5 was 1080P from the consoles start. And with DirectX11 that is one of the reasons some developers dont reach 1080P, you can only do so much compared to Directx12 which is releasing for it this year. If you cant make your game 1080P on a system with 8 cores, 5gb of usable ram, and a midrange graphic card then that is on the developer, not because the system cant handle it. but yeah, 4k would be a waste when next to nobody has 4k tvs anyways.

[tontontam0]

@NioRide

Play the games which does not stretch the textures at 4k, then let us know how your not so expensive pc runs.

[BallsEye]

4k minecraft takes as much space as 720p minecraft. Got nothing to do with disk space unless you wantmind blowing textures crafted specially for 4k.

[Gazondaily]

How many people here have a 4K tv? I hazard a guess that you would be in the minority. I'm still waiting for HD to be adopted in our mainstream television in a more comprehensive manner.

[NioRide]

It was the same exact thing years ago with 1080p tv's and monitors.

Amazing how people forget this so fast.

[D3athc3ll]

Amazing how dumb people are..

[Aither]

Amazing how you forget that only recently has 1080p become the norm. As you put "years ago" people were still adjusting to the term "HD" and not everyone had a 1080p TV as they figured their 720p/1080i TV's were just fine. Heck, not even the cable company's have perfected HD as of yet.

The biggest problem about this article and top of the line PC users is that they don't realize not everyone is a fanatic and can spend thousands of dollars to make the newest a mainstream thing. Not even my i7 4770k, 780ti, 16gb, 256ssd which cost me $1,300 less than a year ago can play top of the line games at 4k textures perfectly. Not to mention the additional cost of 4k monitors.

I remember when framerates were all the rage, but now it has to be 4k? Good luck finding a 1ms monitor in 4k at a reasonable price, the answer is it's not going to happen. That is why 4k is not going to be the norm for people with a budget income which is what consoles are designed for.

If you have that type of money to spend on a machine with 4SLI 980GTX video cards, an i7 5930k, and a 4k monitor to get the best performance out of everything than more power to you, but quit trying to push that benchmark down everyone's throat. You may have the power to run the next "Crysis" like game at max settings, but it wasn't until recently that the technology to run the first Crysis was affordable.

[rainslacker]

Yeah, and at the time 1080p was still the future, and wasn't now. It came about pretty fast, but that was because the costs of the the 1080p TV's was already coming down to mainstream levels, whereas the 4K TV's still have a few years before the bargain ones get below $1000.

4K will probably have a longer time for adoption because the content isn't anywhere near close to coming in broadcast TV in any form, and there isn't a ton of content for movies. On top of that, most people see the HD marketing term, and were never that big on the 720/1080 differences.

4K gaming will come, but 1080 isn't the past, and come next gen, 4K may be where it's at. May be different for PC gamers, but it's a pretty sizable investment for what amounts to a relatively small screen.

[solid_snake3656]

I do, I have a 49" sony 4k tv. They aren't that expensive.

[WildArmed]

Pretty much.

Even 1080p HDTV adoption was super slow (~50% in 2011).

Once you factor in that there isn't very much content for 4K HDTVs ATM (if you have cable, or prefer to stream etc etc). There really is very little incentive to upgrade from 1080p atm.

Once we start seeing 4k content become mainstream, then we'll see 4k TVs becoming mainstream... which then would make the 4k future 'now'

[reallyNow]

i also do a lot of gaming on pc...and dont give a crap about 4k. 1080p is more than enough given how close i sit to my monitor. im sorry, 4k is basically useless to me.

[masterfox]

haha yes is the future, so in other words come back in 4 or 5 years when 4k is mainstream and obsolete all at the same time ;)

[Aither]

Yeah, by that time the PC gamers will be complaining why no one has switched to the "Mega, super, ultra, legendary HD" virtual reality tv's/monitors when they are first released. Shame on everyone else for having a budget to work around.

[SilentNegotiator]

Meanwhile in the year 2022...

"[Heavy breathing] 30fps 4K? *snort* consoles are so far behind it's not even funny. My PC with 3 GeForce Giants can play games in 120fps 12K, no problem."

[RG_Dubz]

The move from 4k to 8k will happen a lot quicker than 1080p to 4k happened, your new 4k UHDTV will be obsolete a lot sooner than you think.

[mixelon]

But 8k really *is* pretty pointless unless you have a home IMAX or something. 4k is clearly nicer than 1080p and anyone could see that easily.

[nitus10]

Yes you can tell the difference between 1080p and 4k or 2160p, assuming an aspect ratio of 16:9, however you also have to look at screen size and of course content.

8k is still in the experimental stage however it will come and if 4k prices are anything to go by (approx 10% to 30% dearer) then 8k will probably be a few percent dearer again.

You are fairly correct in saying "unless you have a home IMAX or something", although I think where 8k will shine is on screens larger than 100". that said I have seen 70" 1080p screens that look really nice with 1080p content providing you sit back from the screen.

I have a 55" 200Hz HDTV and because I sit back about 3m (approx 10 feet) even 720p content (example Skyrim on my PS3) is very watch-able. Of course 1080p content is even more detailed but in a fast action game you really don't have time to look at the flowers :-)

[rainslacker]

1080 won't even be obsolete very soon. Most TV service providers still only supply 720, and 99.9% of Blu-Rays are 1080p. It's a hard sell to get people that just upgraded their TV within the last 5 years to suddenly upgrade to a new format which they likely wont' see any benefit from because the content isn't there.

4K, for the time being, is more a marketing thing, because most people think a bigger number makes a better TV, and most don't understand that it won't make much difference without the content to support it...outside of TV upscaling.

I'd guess that most people would go from 1080 to 8K, when 1080 finally becomes "obsolete", but that's going to be quite a while.

HD gained acceptance due to there being a significant difference in picture quality, and it's getting to the point where it's not that much different for size of the average home TV.

For gaming, I'd see VR becoming the next big thing before 4K gaming does....at least for consoles. PC market is a different beast, but outside the hardcore PC gamer, most are probably still just using 1080p displays.

If I were in the market for a new TV right now, or within the next year, I would certainly go for a 4K TV, but that's just because they tend to be high end right now, and they support 3D, not because there is any content for it worth getting at the moment.

[AaronPS]

This is really stupid. How many people actually have 4k tvs except for technophiles and people with a lot of money. I know no-one that has or plans to buy a 4k tv anytime soon. As Septic said above 1080p has barely been incorporated into mainstream tv, at least in the UK. There's no real reason to fork out a fortune just so your games look better. Imagine the cost of a Ps4 or Xbox one if they were 4k, then people would bitch about the price of the consoles

[nitus10]

4k TV's are not that much more expensive than an equivalent 1080p HDTV (approx 10% to 30%), however people are not normally gong to buy a 4k TV unless it is the first HDTV they are buying or they have plenty of money to spend.

Considering HDTV's like their glass standard definition glass TV's have a life up to 10 to 20 years and unless the buyer can see an advantage in upgrading they wont.

Going from a 26" SD glass TV to a 40" or more HDTV is a huge advantage, while going from a 55" 1080p HDTV to a 55" 4k TV is a resolution advantage that is only seen with the appropriate content which at the moment is fairly limited.

Personally I think 4k is sort of an intermediate step to 8k (in development now) however to appreciate the higher resolution you really should have a larger screen and appropriate content unless you like to sit really close to the screen and that is a cause for concern.

[zidane1341]

Thats not the point, the point isnt how expensive it may or may not be, the point is how next to nobody even has a 4k tv and not many are interested in it. I don't know a single person whos interested in 4k tvs except my father.

[fllysurfer]

... there´s very little 4K much less 8K content out there. Certainly nothing worth while dishing out the cash for either.

I have a Sony Bravia 1080p and not even 1/3 the stuff on cable is true 1080p but hey "a fool and his money soon do part" so...

Another aspect of what people are missing is the size needed to appreciate 4k or high (over 55´´ screens). How many people have rooms in apartments that accommodate that size?

Take for instance the sheer size of the files... there´s a reason why the video posted is full of... STILLS!

Come on people... There´s no reason to go out and buy this... I believe small more affordable VR / AR set will sink in faster into mainstream that this and even that´s a few year off.

[Rimeskeem]

I'm not spending another 1000$ on upgrading my PC to get 4k.

[Nucler100]

Doesn't really matter to me.

[OB1Biker]

'is the future now' made me smile.
But why this article again ? I see it has 1 day old comments

[Nucler100]

Lol same here, and I have no clue.

Maybe it was recently approved? Some users might have thought this would be an "interesting" topic.

[matt139]

Less than 1% of PC gamers play top games at 4k so this article is just stupid.

[Bladesfist]

I never understood that argument. Other people are not playing at the same settings as you so take that!

[matt139]

Hardly anybody plays crysis/metro/bf at 4k. I'm not quite sure how you can disagree with that tbh.

[toddybad]

Nobody is interested in 4k. A few sad PC Gamers who talk techie gibberish might own 4k screens but the mainstream TV owner isn't convinced and they won't take off in the same way 3d screens didn't. Most people find HD to be clear and true enough for any normal purpose.

[madjedi]

No I would state the opposite people are interested in 4k tv's, you have 2 major hurdles the cost and the lack of content in 4k.

Both will get sorted out over time, the mainstream tv owner in 5+ yrs will have 4k tvs in significant numbers.(maybe 25%+)

Because eventually 1080p tv will stop being made and you will only have the choice of 4k or the next step 8 or whatever.

[toddybad]

No, some within the TV industry have already admitted it isn't going to happen. Poeple moved to HD because it was clearly superior. There is no clear advantage with 4k for ordinary users as you'd have to huge a ridiculous TV to notice and even if you did you'd then be sat so far away it would negate the effect. It won't sell.

[tee_bag242]

What are even talking about. I live in Japan.. Go to any Yamada Denki or Bic Camera chain and it's harder finding a 1080p TV than a 4k TV. Believe me, it's coming your way sooner than you think
1080p is being rapidly phased out.

[WickedLester]

Yes because SO MANY gamers are looking at their 1080p displays saying "OMG this looks like shit." Please! GTFO with that crap. Just because YOU were an early adopter of 4K, that doesn't mean you get to declare it "the future" in order to justify your purchase.

[Good-Smurf]

4k is great but at this point it just for bragging rights to people who have the sets.
There are ZERO channel in my country that broadcast at 1080p
We mostly have 720p channels I really don't know what to do with 4k now maybe spend another $1000+ for 4k camcorder and no place to store it on other than camcorder itself,filesize is gonna be HUGE!
4K gaming for the masses is simply out of question for a good while.

[fllysurfer]

again this stupid article? sorry 4K is nowhere close to mainstream... not even on TV side. Manufactures looking make a buck. Don't fall for it.

[MysticStrummer]

The title is funny. 1080p is the past and 4K is the future, so what's the present?

[uth11]

Who cares? Upgrading to a 4K capable PC is expensive, there's not a whole lot of content and 1080p still looks great. I predict 4K adoption is going to be much slower than people think, because there's so little content for it

[toddybad]

I predict less than 10% adoption across the TV market and it will be dead by within 3 years.

[pkb79]

I agree. The switch to hd from sd was like switching from black and white to color. There was an instant noticeable difference.
4K tvs are be luxury item, like the flat screen tube tv.
With the mass piracy of tv shows, cable cord cutters and ppl who dvr shows to skip commercials tv content providers will be very hesitant about upgrading all thier equipment again when there is less money to be made.

[uth11]

I don't think it will be dead. The price will keep dropping until there is no reason not to buy a 4K TV, the question is what 4K content there will be?

What I worry about is SD content looked good on SD TVs, but looks terrible on SD sets. Will 1080p content look worse on 4K sets bc 1080p is no longer native res?

[nitus10]

@uth11

Prices of 4k TV's are dropping rapidly. As for displaying 1080p content all 4k TV's have up-scalers which from what I can gather do a very good job.

In many respects there would be very little between a HDTV that support SD, 720p as well as 1080p and a 4k TV (assuming an aspect ratio of 16:9) that now supports 2160p as well. We can even go one step further to an 8k TV that will support up to 4320p.

@pkb79

Could not agree more although the price differential is becoming smaller with each passing month.

[Mroc13]

1080p is adequate for now and will probably be for a few years to come. Most people currently own HDTV's. I recently bought a 70' HDTV. I considered a 4K but it didn't make sense. It was much more expensive and there isn't any content in my country. Cable isn't even 1080p where I live!

[DougLord]

4k needs a 295x2 or more likely dual r390s. That's $700-$1500. 4k needs $750 monitor. 4k basically needs $5gs of hardware. Before 4k is possible on a $500 pc, the next console gen will be here. Stop being an elitist jackass.

[d_g]

console 400$ 1080p

pc 2000$ 4K

[Str8Chaos74]

Console 400$ maybe 1080p. There fixed it for you.

[d_g]

agree

[Kingdomcome247]

I was very surprised to find out just yesterday that 8k and 10k is actually a thing. Maybe not in video format, but in photography. It was some type of new high end camera I believe. I watched a 10K time lapse of Rio De Janeiro, and it was pretty cool. I guess I couldn't appreciate it fully on my simple 1080p screen lol. I wouldn't say the consoles are stuck in the past. Sure 4k is achievable, but at what cost? You severely diminish your potential market I imagine by trying to go 4k. I don't game on PC, but for those that are able to play at 4k I'm sure it didn't come cheap. That's awesome to have that option, but it's not currently feasible in the console market. They already sell hardware at a loss as is, can you imagine the state of console gaming if they pushed 4k right now? They'd need to recoup that money somehow. They'd really try bleeding us with DLC then.

[Bloodjunkie]

Show me a normal priced (600-800$) PC that can handle 4k games!? As long as such a PC is more expensive it will not be mainstream or the present

[clevernickname]

4K resolution only makes sense if you are using a screen 70 inches or larger and sit closer than five six feet from the screen, a ridiculous distance for such a large screen.

Human vision has a finite resolution that is not going to improve simply because manufacturers want to sell you a new 4K TV.

http://www.cnet.com/news/wh...

[FlyingFoxy]

I have a 65" 1080p screen and if i sit right at the end of the room, 20+ feet away, standard def looks decent.

Standard or high def, I've never sat less than about 8-10 ft away from it so far.. I just checked this calculator here that i got from your link http://referencehometheater...

According to that, a 65" 4k screen viewed @ a 9 foot distance is only 11% better looking than a 1080p screen! And @ 10 foot there is a 0% difference in quality. Didn't realize the difference was so small. Though would explain why i thought 4k looked so good when i saw it in the shop, i was only standing about 2-3 feet or so from it.

Looking at it that way 4k seems a bit pointless, except for PC users that sit much closer to their screens.

[clevernickname]

Another thing to remember is that visual acuity will diminish with age, to a degree. A younger person may notice a difference that an older person may not.

Something else to consider is that 4K resolution at the distance one would view a computer monitor at will make a difference, so those that advocate for 4K resolutions need to keep that in mind.

[vman10809]

I have a 65" 4K/UHD tv and I sit about eight feet from it and I can clearly see the difference over 1080p. There's not a whole lot of video content out there in the mainstream, however playing even Destiny or BF4 on my PS4 being up-converted to 4k by the tv, still looks better than standard 1080p. On my gaming PC which is also connected to my 4K tv, same thing, much better looking textures and details and the gap is even bigger running games in native 4k.

I think it boils down to the eye of viewer as to if 4k is worth it or not, and of course affordability as well, but for me, 4k is the now, and I can only see it getting better.

[Toiletsteak]

I could go out today and buy a 4K TV and a PC capable of 4K but i see it as a waste of money nothing really supports 4K and 4K will be dead in a few years with 5K or higher, just seems like a waste of money when all you get is a game looking better even though it still is the same game i can play on my £400 console.

[hello12]

I have a i7 4790k and i had gtx770 GPU but just bought a Palit gtx970 this week should be here this Monday or Tuesday.

I would hope i get 1080p and 60 frames with those specs. I usually got 1080p and 60 frames with the gtx770, with a few minors tweaks to graphic settings.

I tend to use the PC for strategy games like Total war and my x box 1 for shooters.

4k i honestly could not care have 1080p tv and that all i care about for the next 4 to 5 years. 4K tvs are still not worth it at the prices currently.

Just to add Nivida latest drivers have added DSR http://www.geforce.com/hard... . DSR is a way for a fast GPU to offer improved image quality on a lower-resolution display. Nvidia bills it as a means of getting 4K quality on a 2K display.

I could use it with Windows 8.1, but i am currently running windows 10 technical preview and when i tried to use it my screen went black and i had to reboot to reset to 1080p. Tried a couple of times and just gave up after this.

[damion1980]

From a pc gamer stand point Id have to agree. However most consoles are played on the big screen and I'm really not that convinced 4k is more main stream than 1080p.

[ginsunuva]

Actually they're still stuck in a ~720-1080 past.

[GNCFLYER]

Hey guy. You don't need to drag consoles into your PC world. Us console games could join you guys if we wanted to. It's pretty easy to build a PC after all. I know you think it's crazy but we like our consoles we game on.

BTW, 4k isn't mainstream yet. I for one am not adopting new technology because I've been there done that. Hi Def tv came out and I bought one to early and it was a mistake. No programming, and had to pay extra for what was available. 3d same thing.

I'll wait until 4k is more mainstream to spend my money.

[uth11]

exactly how I feel, I'm finally getting lots of HD content, and lots of HD channels with HD DVR to record them without spending extra for the privilege, and feels like everyone wants to push me to 4K just because.. So pay a premium for the set, why? To pay premium for just a trickle of content? Waste of money right now

[hiawa23]

Yeah, like 3d gaming Was supposed to be the future. At this point, I could care less about 4K gaming, not buying one of those expensive tvs so I am fine with whatever resolution this gens consoles output to. I am sure the masses probably feel the same way.

[ShwankyShpanky]

Hell, F the 4k, give me more 3d games. I ended up with a 3d TV just because the model had other picture quality features I liked that were better than the next model down which wasn't 3d (LG 55LB7200 vs 55LB6300), and right now on PS4 I've only got Trine, Pinball, and SSDU in 3d (maybe 1 other game? can't remember). At least it's breathed some fresh life into some of my PS3 games... working my way through Motorstorm Apocalypse in 3d before digging through my PS3 library for others that have native 3d. Need to get my hands on another copy of KZ3 for cheap.

[noob_zero]

Lol. Yea Im just gonna sit back and enjoy video games for their gameplay and story. Peace.

[Gore-Content]

This sh't again? $400 vs $2000.

[madjedi]

Probably more like $400 vs $1000-1500+ if your trying for 4k gaming.

[Malice-Flare]

no current game is made for 4K. sure game engines can render that today but most art assets aren't tuned for that resolution no matter how much AA or other effects are set...

that's like people saying an upscaled DVD is the same as BD...

[windblowsagain]

1080p is the norm now, with 4k still being pushed out and obviously it needs a fair bit of power.

For a console to produce 4k in the same graphics or better then today, it would need a much bigger power supply and would cost a fair bit more.

Sony wanted to stay below 250watt.

http://www.dualshockers.com...

[boing1]

Not really but whatever.

[Artemidorus]

4K is still in it's early stages for TV's in everyones homes.

As for people claiming 4K makes the difference on 22" screens on pc, it's not the big seller you are claiming. You need a large screen to see massive differences.

1080p is just fine right now but in the next few years, consoles may need to consider where to go with 4K.

Big seller might be Nintendo making a new console with 4K and a game changer.

[Berenwulf]

Yeah, like everyone has a 4K Monitor/TV...

[matrixman92]

too bad nobody cares until the price goes down. It is nowhere near worth the asking price.

[tidusforeverx2]

Let me shut this article down right here.

The past is what they *were* able to do.

The present is what they *are* able to do.

The future is what they *will be* able to do.

Yes 4k tvs are in the wild now. But only a few developers are financially able to sustain themselves while having longer development periods. And considering the price for a new game hasn't gone up in the last 10 years and the accessability to pre owned games is still present they wouldn't be able to afford the production. That's exactly why so many great games conceptually have such horrible sales.

[averagejoe26]

Basic biology has proven that any screen size under 82 inches does not benefit from 4k. You'd have be sitting 2 to 4 inches from the screen to see a benefit on and screen size smaller than that. So unless you're screen is bigger than 82 inches or you plan on sitting inches from your screen, 4k is pointless. The human eye has limitations which are not debatable. If you claim otherwise, you're obviously lying or obviously Superman.

[AndrewLB]

Reminds me of the nonsense "the human eye can't see more than 30fps, so 60fps is useless". LoL.

I've used a 4k 32" and 27" Dell Ultrasharp display and they look FAR better than the 1440p version they sell.

[voltron420170]

I picked up a Sony XBR-65850B 4K tv right after Christmas that was on sale. I sit about 9 feet away from the TV and I and everyone else that sees it can tell the difference immediately.

The TV scales everything up to 'close to 4k' resolution and it's night and day. Games look better, tv shows look better, blu-rays etc.

For everyone saying that 4k is not going to catch on. Think again.. Go into any Best Buy and all of the TV's that are being promoted now are 4k UHD televisions. The prices have come down to an acceptable level as they can be had for less than a 1000.00 now by the fall there will be A LOT more native 4k content available and the prices for 4k TV's will be about the same price as high end 1080p sets are today.

[alice2015]

so its safe to say the ps4 and xbox one are out of date consoles one year in

[make72]

Ps4 is best what you can have under 1000 dollars.I have 3 different gaming pc:s but still mostly i play with Ps4.First game that really looks and play better on over 1500 euros pc:s against Ps4 is Assassin Creed Unity.when Bloodborne comes out my 3 pc:s start collecting dust:).I dont want waste my time to play great pc exclusives like goat simulator,stonesimulator and other shitty pc exclusives.Thats what sucks because of piracy pc doesnt have any good exclusives.

[tee_bag242]

Maybe instead of 3 gaming PC's you should have built 1 that can get the job done right.
Not that you not talking out your a$$ anyway.

[voltron420170]

For playing native 4k games, yes.. The hardware isn't strong enough in either box. However, they will probably unlock the option to upscale to 4k like they did last generation w/ 1080P. Although that might not even be necessary because the scalers in the 4k TV's are probably better then the consoles..

[Tsubasa-Oozora]

Just a quick Question.

Aren't you supposed to have a 4k TV in order to see the full effect? What good is a 4k game when your TV is 720 or 1080..

4k TV are expensive as hell

[vman10809]

You can walk into Walmart right now and get a Vizio 50" 4K/UHD tv for 699.00 US. And its a damn good tv at that. That's not expensive and the prices will only continue to drop. But yes you need to have a 4K display to take advantage of native 4k source material. However most if not all 4k tv's up-convert from 720p and 1080p to 4K resolution so you still benefit over 1080p even if the source material isn't 4K natively.

[Flames76]

Sorry to bust your bubble its gonna be at least 3 or 4 years for 4K to even start growing.Also just so you know the PS4 and XOne both support 4K.Damn do any of these pathetic so called writers do any research before writing a article on somehting

[mysteryraz11]

4k is to expensive right now on consoles to be affordable and profitable for consoles, really only ppl who care are pc fanboys, they wanna compare their fancy expensive rigs to cheap sub 400 dollar machines, really no one cares but pc elitists use your brains

[tee_bag242]

Yeah forget 4k, if consoles had half decent hardware they could have been at least 1080p 60fps instead of 30fps.
And don't worry, they are plenty profitable with so many people paying each month to game online

[dunkyson]

Does he mean affordable when you have to buy a 4k display and a piece of kit that is capable of running them most people have Already shelved out for 1080p the future may well be 4k as standerd but not for 4 to 5 years this article is by someone who is probably happy to spend £800 pounds a year on new kit most of us can't or don't won't too

[--bienio--]

I agree with this article.

[sarshelyam]

Until 4k is a household standard, this article is a pipedream.

[Loadedklip]

1080p isn't even guaranteed at all for PS4/XB1 games.

[TKCMuzzer]

Nope, because my TV only plays 1080p, so for me and the vast majority of 1080p TV owners, 4K is the future, in the future, not now.

[shadowraiserx]

and devs are saying development cost is too high ,imagine development AAA games on 4k.

[ironmonkey]

aimed for people who like to sit at desks.

[n1kki6]

I will be staying at 1080 till I feel like dropping the cash on a 4k tv. RIght now my pc has two 27" 1080 max and a 55 inch third screen I use for gaming form my couch. Until I updade the TV, and grab a second gtx970 to push 4k I am fine with 1080.

[Elda]

As they should,4k tv's are still expensive for the average public to buy knowing 1080p tv's are much affordable now from 200 to 500 for a good hd tv.Also the fact that cable & tv networks are still 1080i including some of the internet networks for the exception of Netflix,some YouTube & 4k blu-ray players.

[Jimboms]

totally with you on this one.

[theFAYEsorceress]

4k is the future now, but it's not the future right now. i'm more than happy with what current gen consoles offer because i don't own, and am not planning on getting a 4k display for a very long time lolz i don't even know anyone who knows anyone who has a 4k display yet~

[chuckyj1]

What a stupid article. The Xbox One and PS4 were never really meant to hit 4K resolutions when they were designed. Just because 4k TVs are around $2000 right now... (for the cheaper) models doesn't mean they are anywhere near mainstream right now. or lots actually "if any" content is really made for 4K TV native viewing.

4K TVs yet alone content built for Native 4K (Ultra HD) viewing will not even be relevant for the next 3-5 years. By that time if there is another traditional console cycle that is when 4k will be addressed.

Right now MS/Sony need to focus on 1080p 60fps... Which Sony hits more often than MS.

You can ALWAYS look to the future and say...wow...the PRESENT SUCKS.... Or you can sit back relax and enjoy the present you are currently in...

[KakashiHotake]

I think resolutions is overrated. One of the things I love about PC gaming is how you can manually adjust the resolution of games to fit your own requirements. Some games are simply just to powerful to run stable on certain PC's and consoles. If a game can't run a stable 1080p 60fps on PC then you can adjust the res and frames and also other features to allow the game to run more smoothly on your hardware. While the game may not look as great as it would if you could have the settings on high or even ultra high, I find that I still enjoy the games just as much even at a lower setting. 4k is really no different.

[N4GJD]

Believe it or not, some of us actually play video games primarily for something called gameplay, and not graphics! A video game's resolution should be the last thing to be concerned with!

[Muzikguy]

These articles are getting old. We can't even get games playing decently in 1080p at 60 FPS. We are to ready for 4K. Not to mention the TVs are still too costly. I'm not in any hurry to buy one. Media outlets hardly transmit in 1080P yet and that's a decade old already. I can't imagine the premium for cable companies to go 4K. Their HD channels suck still

[Stenmark]

They can't even do 1080p

[NixonMonoxide]

4K is far from necessary when it comes to enjoying great performance from games. However I WISH resolution was the ONLY thing that made the PS4/XONE Dated On Arrival.

These bricks can't even handle anything stable above 30fps without major compromise, because y'know "cinematic reasons."

It's really funny, when you imagine that there were a lot more XBOX/PS2 titles with solid/high framerates.

The Order 1886 & Ryse.... Undoubtedly some of the best looking stuff on consoles thus far; but still don't look as crisp as CRYSIS 3 on high performance.

1886 particularly looks like it was dumped in a digital vat of Motion Blurrrrrr.

[Father__Merrin]

£500 on monitor, £300-400 on graphics card

and still indiegala bundles no thanks, the best games that people are looking forward to are console only

[sorane]

You have a source where they said they're stopping development on the PC version of the Witcher 3, MSG5, and the Division? Oh you don't because you're just trolling.

[Two-Face]

Yeah, because 30fps and black bars is something PC gamers are drooling over.

[parentsbasement]

is 4k the price?......if yes , then im out.....

[KillerResistance]

4K Gaming, #PCMasterRace, 2 generations ahead.

[Shonuff]

Don't believe the lie. Click this:
http://www.gameinformer.com...

[WESKER2015]

4k will never be practical until it becomes affordable to the consumer, and i am not talking about PC enthusiasts, the general public, casual market, until then, its just not realistic yet, 1080p 60fps is where consoles should really be targeting with consistency, i still have no problem playing games and watching TV in 720p, i will not follow others, once 4k becomes realistically affordable i will hop on the 4k train, and if true 4k consoles do come out in the future expect the price tags to be in the high hundreds, it needs to become affordable

[Sokol]

Absolutely agree, when HDTVs first arrived it wasn't nearly affordable for the masses and it's the same cycle for the 4K TV.

PS5 will be native 4K and we will actually have TV programs movies and music and games in those resolutions.

As of today just like in the past, only a few people are using 4K and even then it's not actual natural 4K it's upscaled 1080p which looks great but know where near real 4K software.

It's coming but not for the next 5-10 years until it takes over HDTVs.

[BladerunnerZX]

These type of articles are pathetic. First came graphic whores. Now resolution whores.
Just play the damn game and enjoy it. A great game in 720p is still the same great game in 4k.
Very few NORMAL people can tell a difference and even more simply dont care.

[Two-Face]

I agree that resolution is overrated, and I am a PC gamer.

But FPS too me is important, I want the game to feel as smooth as possible and nice flow.

And consoles still keep pumping out dem 30 fps locked games.

[re2_apocalypse]

The author is high; end of story

[MonkeyOne]

There won't be any 4K gaming with 1.6 / 1.75 GHZ CPU's people.

Get over it

[bparks1987]

..... Dumb article. 4k is barely even adopted let alone too expensive on the TV side as well as the PC upgrades needed. That's the same as saying that Dolby Atmos is the standard now when it's barely utilized yet. Next time you make an article make one that actually utilizes standards of highest % of people not 2% of the population of the world. I have a dolby atmos receiver and I can guarantee you I'm maybe 5% of the world that has one so maybe we should adopt it. Not to mention there is very few receivers that actually have future proof 4k because of the HDCP 2.2. 4k will not succeed unless everyone utilizes it even consoles and receivers. Also most 4k TV's released early are not even going to work in the future because of HDCP compliance so basically people wasted all there money on a TV that won't work.

[mastershredder]

"PS4 & Xbox stuck in a 1080 past - 4K Gaming is the future Now"

Uh huh... alas it's NOT the STANDARD yet now is it? So let's stop tooting one's own horn.

[horndog]

No, not happening anytime soon. There has to be a big market for 4k and there simply isn't. Prices for both oled and super oled along with 4k are still on the steep side. Many people happy with 1080p and by the time they become popular IF they ever catch on I think a new gen of console would probably be just around the corner.

[WilDRangeRfc]

Okay commence with the d%$k measuring,I have a spectrum that plays cassettes and a black and white TV thats as big as my car so f%&k you all

[Dannylew]

4k is dead... Enjoy 8k ...

[WESKER2015]

the scary thing about your comment is its true, modern life is update after update, never satisfied, i understand progression but lately its just updates with very little difference, Lol

[jznrpg]

I am not buying a 4k tv until it makes sense too. Hardly any content available, and the price is a bit too high still. I am interested in the upscaling abilities but I am not sure much of a difference that it will make. I have 55 and 60 inch 1080p plasmas that I love and a 32inch samsung led 1080p that I travel with. (Yeah I'm a nerd) until one of those dies on me or a deal pops up I cannot refuse, 4k is not in my near future. I can afford the latest and greatest, but that doesnt mean i want it yet.

[Wonderful101]

I'm good with 720p.

[level 360]

As much as I would love 4K in gaming and everything video-wise, do think 4K came in **too early.

Only a handful of PC and Blu Ray mastered in 4K discs are out.

And all free-to-air broadcast stations and pay TV are still using 1080p as their highest signal format.

Plus the fact nearly all game developers can't even apply 1080p/60fps in this generation for mere reasons of monetary and time constraints.

The only way buyers' with 4K screens can enjoy theirs is to digitally *upscale old films/games which isn't really what you'd call *true sense of 4K.

People who bought 4K I think bought these screens just for bragging rights but in reality I think they have been somewhat duped.

[MultiConsoleGamer]

PS4K incoming.

[teo72]

Don't see the need for 4k gaming. 4K resolution does not garantie better graphics. Remember, 4k demands a lot more computing power to deliver the same result as in 1080p. If say 4k demands 4x more gpu power, then would not it be better to use this 4x power to render 4x better 1080p graphics rather than 4k graphics at 1x quality. 4K is good nice for eliminating antializing.

My advice. Stop focusing on resolution. 4k graphics does not alone a good game make... Good story, gameplay, graphics and sound does.

[Subaruwrx]

The author states that 4k has become affordable for the masses then doesn't bother to state what the cost is to play games in 4k compared to the cost of playing games on current generation consoles. The fact that he uses the word 'masses' inclines me to believe he is an out of touch elitist who thinks that money is easy to come by.

[xabmol]

I'm still content with 720p. As long as there's lots of stuff on screen. (Physics, explosions, AI, etc...)

1080p and beyond is more for simple games, like 2D and such.

[Tzuno]

4k is too expensive and overhyped, i am more than pleased playing on my Pc just as it is.

[SDS Gamerfiend]

I agree with this article. Both PS4 and XBOX ONE should be 4k capable!!

[pumpkin9300]

Bull crap! 7 Games on my xbox one already take up 315 GB and makes it almost full, how the HELL am I going to install 4K games on that?! Nope, not this generation.

[ATi_Elite]

4k is the future and the future is now!

Of course for the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race!

WTF is 1080p? 4k gaming is really not expensive except for a $2500 TV but those were 1080p TV prices not long ago so stop crying.

4k is easily achieved on most sli or cfx setups and top end single cards like 290x or 980 with only BF4 Crysis and Metro 2034 bringing your GPU to its knees but these same games did that at 1080p.

Ask a pc gamer like myself about 4k because as usual those who do not game at 4k tend to spread the most lies.

4k gaming = achievable affordable and glorious!

[Sokol]

2500$ for HDTVs was not to far long ago?

That was over 10+years ago. I purchased 42 inch hdtv in 2006 for 900$ and that were golden years for affordable HDTVs.

Not to long ago is inaccurate and miss leading. No matter how much you try and convince people that amount of money is OK and comes around it won't make it so.

That amount of money is 2-3 months of rent half a year of food in the table or even a older, good condition vehicle.

It's not something majority of people can throw around.

The reality is - it's not affordable, it's too expensive and it continues to have revisions and we still don't have any software to support it properly.

[bangoskank]

Yeah, and we all can afford 4k televisions.
I'll be fine with my 1080p for at least a few more years.

[underwaves75]

FORGET 4K .... i mean honestly.... Priorities!!

[gamer7804]

if 4k is the future, wouldn't the title actually mean that 1080p is stuck in the "present"? lol

[tekksin]

you totally just destroyed this article.

[Neo_Zeed]

Until most games start using 4k textures it's not an issue. 4k Minecraft is still Minecraft. Artificial resolution bump can only improve things so much. We'll talk about it when you get true 4k games.

Also it's irrelevant since according to Steam roughly 2/3 of PC gamers are running resolutions of less than 1080p. Fewer still are those running greater than 1080p. If I remember correctly it was 5% that exceeded 1080p. So with most people not using Ultra HD... it's not relevant yet.

Just another click bait article.

[tekksin]

at this point I just want games for my ps4. My xbox 1 can sit there, but I'm use to playing my playstation. This gaming drought is ridiculous. Got me playin Best Fiends on iphone forever.

[Razuel]

4k televisions yes, 4k video cards not so much.

[hkgamer]

if we look at the average costs of succesful consoles, the ps4 and xbone were released at good starting prices which were affordable and no one made a fuss like ps3 price.

we then look at the performances and both consoles have been struggling with 1080p/60fps. just by looking at that i am glad we are not aiming for 4k. it would have cost atleast 2-3x the amount.

[Azzanation]

I love reading fanboys argue and debate between 900p vs 1080p when 4k is here and its available. Reason why everyone back pedals because kids cant afford a 4k TV. Sorry if your going to debate resolution then do your research before posting. 4k is the next phase of gaming not 1080p. 1080p is 10 years old and is nothing new.

[Kumomeme]

this merely clickbait article

...4k gaming not common yet..even for pc...even still uncommon for movies...we might atleast wait for AD formatted disc for movies

how can this writer said ps4 and xbox one stuck?unless 4k already be usual things for even pc gaming.....

Even witcher 3 size over 40gb for console...how expect for 4k?how many blurays are needed then...
not mention current console,not all people had high end pc capable of 4k,some of them own righ that even struggle to maintain stable 30fps of 1080p of current game..not mention how much devs effort gonna give and sacrifice for console even to achieve stable 30fps and 1080p..and this guys talk about 4k already?what advance guy...

dont be greedy....4k will be future..but obviously not now yet..

this another clickbait article,intended to sparks discussion or debate among readers...nothing else cause things was obvious

[arugula]

There is no future, but only what we do today.

They are also working on 6K and 8K. So 4K is already old along with this article!

[kingbain90]

4k is a waste of time and resources. How many gamers own 100+" 4k TVs? You need a tv that big to notice the difference.

[traumadisaster]

If u ever tried you would know better. 4k sets are $400 to 700. And no you don't need a big set to notice.

[traumadisaster]

I've been at 4k for close to 2 years now and it still makes my jaw drop. Old games to new it is such a shocker. It's like all of my old games were updated...

Does anyone prefer 480p vs 720 or 1080? How about 800x600 vs 720? OK then you see why 3840x2160 is better than anything less.

[WickedLester]

It's order of diminishing returns. In terms of what the human eye can discern, the jump from 480 to 720/1020 is much larger than from 1080 to 4K. It's already been stated by virtually every AV expert that to even begin to notice the difference with 4K you need at least a 70 inch display at a viewing distance of no further than about 6 feet. Very few people have that kind of set up.

Besides if anyone cares that much about resolution they might as well wait. 8K displays are in the final testing phase and should be rolling out either later this year or next year.

[traumadisaster]

You are talking about watching TV not games. How can you try to explain it to me when you have no experience, and I've been playin g 4k for 2 years?

4k Movies are not that much of a jump. But games are much better and I'm on a 50 inch. When I turn any game back to 1080 after 4k, I can't hardly play it cause it looks like mush.

And no there is no reason to wait on 8k. Like I said I was enjoying 4k games before ps4 even came out. Plus 4k sets are $700 and 8k will be $4000.

You really shouldn't even be commenting if you haven't played 4k games because a lot of posters are just gonna feel stupid when they finally get 4k and realize it's fantastic.

[PickAShoe]

naw 69k is the future, this article is so outdated.

[WickedLester]

The current 1080p OLED LG TV's shit all over any 4K display currently available, FACT! Resolution is only a small part of what goes into making a great TV.

[PickAShoe]

own a oled vita myself and the color is amazing.

[Meryl]

How many pc games are in 4k? My point exactly none to my knowledge so 4k gaming is pointless right now, 1080p is the standard games are aiming for this gen.

[Maxor]

Console fanboys: Resolution is important! Specs are important!

Unless it's specs they can't match or resolutions they will never be able to achieve. Thank god the PS4 is here or else the fanboys will drone on about how 1080p "isn't important" or The Cell isn't maxed yet.

[Jaqen_Hghar]

oh hush with that. No one expects PS4 to match PC but it IS important to have the most powerful console because if you're investing in a 7 year machine you may as well get the most powerful one (that coincidentally is the most supported and has the most and best subscription games). A man owns a WiiU and is plenty happy with that because it is ultimately gameplay that matters. A man has seen games in 720p that look a lot better than games in 1080p so resolution is hardly the first factor.

[SnakeCQC]

What a load of bollocks even most pc gamers aren't even hitting anything over 1080p(according to the steam hardware survey)

[Jaqen_Hghar]

Sure if you want $1000+ consoles with giant storage needed either on blurays or your HDD and for devs to have to start selling 5m copies to cover dev cost.

[STIKUP ARTIST]

I get about 45fps with settings set to high on P.CARS at 2160p on a single gtx 970.(LG 55 inch 4k tv) The PC has made me a graphics whore and I am not ashamed to say it. If you got the cash than I say ball out. I'm saving up for another 970 and a oculus rift.