Why 4K Console Gaming Isn’t That Big of a Deal

Both Sony and Microsoft are pushing 4K gaming in the console market. But, is it really the right time for that?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
ninsigma569d ago

I like it. Games look amazing on my 4K TV running on the Pro. Big deal or no, it's enjoyed by those who are using it :)

Bigpappy569d ago

I don't know what the purpose of this article is. These things are organic. When we have games at 4K and 4KTV's for sale, people will make that decision at a personal level when they get to see footage. As a gamer, it would be difficult for me personally to see games like Anthem, Metro and Assassins Creed, looking so life-like and smooth, then to have to play them looking dull and jerky. Its like false advertising.

JaguarEvolved568d ago

4k is rubbish. 8k is way better and I can't enjoy a game if it isn't in 8k at 120fps without any compromises. All the times I've been enjoying playing games in standard definition and then high definition with frame rates on games that would dip below 20fps was just silly. 8k is the best and if your gaming system of choice can't do 8k @ 120fps uncompromise then it's rubbish. /s

nix568d ago

i can already imagine the post xbox x launch how the conversations are going to be -

Game1 runs at 4K30 on PS Pro.
Game1 runs at 4K60 on xbx. - Yay! We won! Beast!

Game1 size is 100GB on PS Pro.
Game1 size is 200GB on XbX. - Yay! We still won! Beast!

Death568d ago


I'm fairly certain a games footprint isn't impacted by frames per second. Upscaled vs native footprints will be different though. To be fair it will most likely be [email protected] on PS4 Pro at 100GB vs [email protected] on Xbox One X at 200GB if it is an upscaled vs native argument. Realistically both will most likely rely on upscaling to different degrees though. If done properly though, Xbox One X games will have a larger footprint if the assets are higher quality.

568d ago
darthv72568d ago

4K IS a big deal but from a slightly different perspective. People will say you can't "see" a difference in 4K but you actually CAN so long as it has HDR enabled. HDR is something you can "see" more so than resolution alone. And since the only way to get HDR is by using a 4K set (that supports HDR) then if more people like what they "see" the more people will buy into 4K as a whole.

steveo123456568d ago

I think its a ps damage limitation argument type article

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 568d ago
Soc5568d ago

I like it too but not when it takes half Of my consoles power to do it, I'd rather use that power for something more than a resolution boost.
Im on board with checker boarding and low cost alternatives though

Eonjay569d ago

It's not but it is available for those who want it. For a decent TV its still to expensive. The results are the same game with higher resolution and higher textures to match. It's not necessary to enjoy games and its driving us to higher prices. 4k doesn't make games better

TankCrossing568d ago

Yes it does.

4k won't make the story better, it won't fundamentally change the game play. However, it will irrefutably improve the visual quality, which is a part of the whole package. The same game with better graphics is, in fact, better. Tbh it is hard to see your argument against it.

NordicRainy568d ago

I'd say that 60fps makes a game much better than 4K does. I wish they'd focus more on that instead of resolution. 1080/60 over 4k/30 any day of the week. It's cool that some games will be 4k/60, but it's likely most won't.

GNCFLYER568d ago

I have 4k. HDR is as good an upgrade as 4k.

The author is right about half baked experiences. But each know if they wait until they can fully achieve it the other guy will come out and get market share.

ninsigma568d ago

But of those better graphics tank the performance then is it really better?? Up to you. You obviously like high fidelity visuals, I'm with ya there. Others would rather go for a lower res with at least 60 fps. That makes a lot of sense as well.

holtzy568d ago

no it does not the story and how the game plays is more important than how pretty the game looks. resolution only means something to a small number of gamers overall

jmc8888568d ago (Edited 568d ago )

Actually for Pro it's the same price as the PS4 launched, and the Scorpio is the same as the XB1 launched.

So no, it's not 'more expensive' console wise.

People also need to learn WHY things cost more.

Is it costing more because the tech is at a higher level for the current times? I.E. is the tech a level higher then the PS4/XB1 was? NOPE.

Or is it costing more because the value of the paper in your wallet or the 0's and 1's in your bank account are worth less then they used to be?

The answer is #2.

The tech is ACTUALLY getting cheaper and lower quality. But with advances, it's more powerful.

360/PS3 were pretty close to high end PC's. The difference between a high end GPU and what was in the consoles was the amount of ram in the GPU.
PS4/XB1 were 2010-2011 mid range GPU's with sub 2008 CPU's. See, that's significantly 'cheaper' quality.

If the 360/PS3 was the PS4, the PS4 would have had PS4 Pro GPU power level, with a better CPU then is in Scorpio, in 2013.

The reason they can't? $$$$

Your currency (all currencies) are depreciating faster then wages are rising.... by quite a lot.

So in order to make money, they can't keep that tech level in a console, because no one could afford to buy it.

PS4 Pro/Scorpio are just the same mid level consoles that PS4 was, except they launch in 2016 and 2017, not 2013. But in a sense they are worse, since they use the same crap CPU.

Still a good product that delivers better quality at a cheap price, but they are being undercut 20-40 percent by the crappy CPU. (and technically more, but you can't expect a top end gaming cpu in a console. A decent one would make 4k/60 possible with 2015-ish settings.)

TankCrossing568d ago

I'm not saying that resolution is more important than any other factor, or that 4k/Pro/Scorpio are worth the cost of entry.

I'm just refuting that "4k doesn't make games better", because that statement is illogical.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 568d ago
kneon568d ago

If you're buying a new TV over 40 inches and want to buy anything better than the absolute cheapest TVs available, then you're getting 4k whether or not you want it. The price difference is disappearing so manufacturers can't be bothered producing 1080 TVs, it's just not worth it anymore.

steveo123456568d ago

That's kind of what I'm thinking, don't know about where everybody else lives but 4k sets in the uk are mainstream now

Death568d ago

I picked up a 8500 series 50" Samsung curved 4K UHDTV and a 55" Vizio M series 4K UHDTV both with HDR for under $600 each. I'm not sure if I would call those "too expensive". It's not "necessary" to play games in 4K, but it wasn't necessary to play them in 1080p upscaled or native either. The same argument was made when games went from SD to HD. Playing in 4K and HDR is a huge leap over 1080p in visual quality though. If you haven't tried it, obviously you won't see the need for it. Once you try it though, it's hard to go back.

Can you give an example of higher prices with 4K gaming on console? Games are the same price with old games being updated for free. If you choose to buy a 4K console you will experience a higher price than a 1080p console, but that is still a choice. If anything, 4K consoles are driving down prices since the 1080p consoles were lowered when the new 4K consoles launched.

Allsystemgamer568d ago

There's no way you got an 8500 for under $600. That things is worth over $2k.

Death568d ago

Got it at Sam's Club last month. They were making room for the 2017 models. Awesome TV for the price. I'm using the Vizio as a gaming monitor. The Sammy is in my bedroom.

Shadowlee568d ago

Hook me up with those deals. I was eyeing the lg uh7700. Under $700 with 4k hdr and some other stuff. Plus i love its design and stand.

Allsystemgamer568d ago

799.99 is expensive for a tv? Are you joking? They want be amazing tvs but 4k tvs are not expensive.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 568d ago
Brave_Losers_Unite569d ago

To me it is. Getting a game to look incredibly beautiful is important to me. However there is absolutely no problem playing games that are good a low resolution. For instance I started playing ff7 again and I am having a wonderful time

FallenAngel1984569d ago

I'm definitely not in the mood to get a 4K tv. There's little reason to do so and 1080p still looks awesome to me

Gh05t568d ago

Okay, but if your TV got fried from a power surge tomorrow would you buy another 1080p or 4k?

Just because you arent in the market doesnt mean that no one is or that due to unforeseen circumstances you become in the market.

I didnt want to buy a new car, until mine got totaled and boom, I'm in the market all the sudden.

FallenAngel1984568d ago

I'd get another 1080p TV cuz it's cheap.

I didn't say what other people are interested in, I said what I'm interested in.

569d ago Replies(4)