4K just may be the next gen standard, Sony shows Gran Turismo 4K tech demo

#251SolisPosted 10/4/2012 9:06:45 PM
overkillwfo1978 posted...
This statement posted by Solis is 100% false in every way, shape and form. Let me give you the facts:

1) The first HDTV related content was available in the US from 1994-1998 when it officially went commercial. From '94 to '98 content was very sparse and largely unavailable... much like 4k is to consumers today. The fact that you will inevitably throw the word "commercial" back at me with your argument is noted beforehand.... and it doesn't change the fact that no one has a 4k TV in their house right now.

Your "fact" is quite incorrect: we were specifically talking about 1080p content, not just "HD" content. Can you tell me what 1080p content was available in 1997? In fact, can you tell me when 1080p content was first available? And how long after that it actually became a standard?


2) In 2001, you could walk into any Fry's Electronics and a few other retailers and select from about 4-6 different models of HDTV. Most with 720i/P resolution and usually 1 model with 1080 i/p. They were MUCH less expensive then than 4k is now. Like almost half of the cost. How do I know? I was shopping for one from 2000-2005 and waited for them to come down in price and finally bought in 2005. Your statement regarding that timeline is also 100% false.

For someone that actually thinks "720i" was a standard, you're one to claim that someone else's statements are false. And again: 1080p TVs. There were no 1080p HDTVs to my knowledge in 2001. Nor were there TVs with HDMI input, and that quickly became a standard as well. Can you please post an HDTV with 1080p from 2001? Your timeline is extremely misleading.


?3) What TVs support 4k in the US? Where can you walk into a store and purchase a 4k TV for your living room in October 2012?

No, but that's irrelevant since the consoles that would support 4K aren't out yet either.


do you NOT think that supporting 4k tech will cost more money than not supporting it will? What logic are you following?

The logic that the underlying hardware will already support rendering and outputting resolutions such as 4K regardless. Again, what logic is everyone else using that enabling 4K output will be expensive? Can you tell me SPECIFICALLY what will add costs by adding 4K support? It wouldn't really be any different from the PS3 supporting 3D output: all it required was a firmware update.


overkillwfo1978 posted...
You are also completely wrong about a single 7970 being able to run a game @ 4k @ 30fps. Where are you pulling your info from? It's not even close to true.

You're wrong again. I've played plenty of games at resolutions above 4K on a GTX 460. If anything even a GTX 460 is overkill for many games at 4K, have you seen benchmarks lately?

http://www.ninjalane.com/reviews/video/evga_gtx460_sc/page9.aspx

Notice that at 2560x1600 resolution, it averages 80FPS. 4K is almost exactly double that resolution, so you're looking at 40FPS then. Not bad for a 2 year old mid-ranged GPU!
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review
#252Master XPosted 10/5/2012 11:04:00 PM
darkjedilink posted...
Master X posted...
I think last time it was a mistake for Nintendo not to go HD, claiming it wasn't in many homes, IT WAS IN ENOUGH TO MATTER.


Apparently not. Unless you think selling 100 million consoles in under six years - faster than the PS2 sold 100 million consoles - and outselling its competition by a very significant margin somehow didn't actually happen.



Why do you think selling lots of consoles and hd mattering are mutually exclusive? HD DID matter then and yes it sold a lot. My answer is...so? I was talking about Nintendo thinking HD TVs underused by gamers, but this was completely wrong. Nowhere did I imply that people would or didn't buy it just because it wasn't HD. Get your eyes tested.
---
GAMERTAG: Casperstar X"For those of you wondering whether the above made sense, you've just answered your own question. "
#253DarkZV2BetaPosted 10/5/2012 11:14:17 PM
At the time the Wii came out, HDTVs were underused. PS3 and 360 changed that, though, which is something Nintendo should have seen coming. It's not like PS2 was so heavily advertized as EDTV ready, or even PS1. Same with Xbox, even. But, they assumed it would be the same thing, that people just wouldn't care, similarly to EDTVs.(which were a much bigger upgrade off SD than HD was off them.)
---
Also, lolz@SATA drives. You see, they make these things called "heat," which kills consoles.
-darkjedilink
#254kobalobasileusPosted 10/5/2012 11:17:40 PM
I'm sure 4k will be the next-gen standard... just like 1080p is the current-gen standard. All PS3 and Xbox 360 games play natively in 1080p mirite?
#255omniryuPosted 10/5/2012 11:34:37 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
At the time the Wii came out, HDTVs were underused. PS3 and 360 changed that, though, which is something Nintendo should have seen coming. It's not like PS2 was so heavily advertized as EDTV ready, or even PS1. Same with Xbox, even. But, they assumed it would be the same thing, that people just wouldn't care, similarly to EDTVs.(which were a much bigger upgrade off SD than HD was off them.)


I think it wasn't an oversight. Rather they chose to ignore it.
---
PSN ID: Omniryu; Skype: Ryan.cox43
Gamertag: Omniryu
#256oboro9Posted 10/5/2012 11:43:02 PM
darkjedilink posted...
Master X posted...
I think last time it was a mistake for Nintendo not to go HD, claiming it wasn't in many homes, IT WAS IN ENOUGH TO MATTER.


Apparently not. Unless you think selling 100 million consoles in under six years - faster than the PS2 sold 100 million consoles - and outselling its competition by a very significant margin somehow didn't actually happen.


Why does it matter if it sold faster when the fact is the PS2 sold more. The PS2 also outsold its competition by a very significant margin. 150+ mil to 20+mil is very significant; I would say more significant than 100 mil to 67 mil
#257DarkZV2BetaPosted 10/6/2012 12:44:47 AM
omniryu posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
At the time the Wii came out, HDTVs were underused. PS3 and 360 changed that, though, which is something Nintendo should have seen coming. It's not like PS2 was so heavily advertized as EDTV ready, or even PS1. Same with Xbox, even. But, they assumed it would be the same thing, that people just wouldn't care, similarly to EDTVs.(which were a much bigger upgrade off SD than HD was off them.)


I think it wasn't an oversight. Rather they chose to ignore it.


I don't see how they could benefit from ignoring it.
---
Also, lolz@SATA drives. You see, they make these things called "heat," which kills consoles.
-darkjedilink
#258omniryuPosted 10/6/2012 12:49:12 AM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
omniryu posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
At the time the Wii came out, HDTVs were underused. PS3 and 360 changed that, though, which is something Nintendo should have seen coming. It's not like PS2 was so heavily advertized as EDTV ready, or even PS1. Same with Xbox, even. But, they assumed it would be the same thing, that people just wouldn't care, similarly to EDTVs.(which were a much bigger upgrade off SD than HD was off them.)


I think it wasn't an oversight. Rather they chose to ignore it.


I don't see how they could benefit from ignoring it.


They don't benefit from ignoring it. It is one of those matter Nintendo put last on the Wii.
---
PSN ID: Omniryu; Skype: Ryan.cox43
Gamertag: Omniryu
#259DarkZV2BetaPosted 10/6/2012 12:50:24 AM
Then that's not a case of ignoring it. It was an oversight on the importance of HD content through the next generation.
---
Also, lolz@SATA drives. You see, they make these things called "heat," which kills consoles.
-darkjedilink
#260darkjedilinkPosted 10/6/2012 6:55:02 AM
oboro9 posted...
darkjedilink posted...
Master X posted...
I think last time it was a mistake for Nintendo not to go HD, claiming it wasn't in many homes, IT WAS IN ENOUGH TO MATTER.


Apparently not. Unless you think selling 100 million consoles in under six years - faster than the PS2 sold 100 million consoles - and outselling its competition by a very significant margin somehow didn't actually happen.


Why does it matter if it sold faster when the fact is the PS2 sold more. The PS2 also outsold its competition by a very significant margin. 150+ mil to 20+mil is very significant; I would say more significant than 100 mil to 67 mil


So, you think selling 150+million in eleven years is better than selling 100+million in 6?

Again, you gotta put those numbers in context - it took twice the time to sell that many. A lot of people have bought 3 or more PS2's to REPLACE the ones that broke (much like the 360 and PS3....).

I'm not arguing that the PS2 didn't win its gen - it clearly did. However, what if the roles were reversed? What if Sony killed the PS2 when the PS3 launched, at about 95million units sold, and Nintendo had kept making the GC to today, and it had finally gotten up to 96million? Would you then say that Nintendo won that gen?

No, you wouldn't. You'd be stupid to.
---
Gaming is like a pair of boobs - Sony and Microsoft fight over whos boobs look more realistic, while Nintendo is about having fun with them - Walkiethrougie