-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
1.33% of Steam users play games in 4k
- Thread starter CozMick
- Start date
I'll move to 4k at some point, probably a long time for now, but the only thing that really interests me in going beyond 1080p is that higher resolutions make for cleaner upscaling when emulating sprite-based hardwares.
1440p is the sweet spot between eye bleeding graphics and performance for me personally since I have a lowly 1070. I am surprised at the low number for 1440p since it is a big upgrade compared to 1080p IMO.
Not surprised, 4K gaming is expensive as fuck. I had to dump $1.3k into just my PC to get consistent 1440p, and that was on Black Friday.
1080p gaming is perfectly find for most screens, because once you get above $1k, cost starts becoming prohibitive.
1080p gaming is perfectly find for most screens, because once you get above $1k, cost starts becoming prohibitive.
this. i mean you have the option to play older games at 4k.
There are SOOOO many reasons why 4K, ultrawide, super ultrawide and all the other displays are niche and will remain to be niche in PC gaming.
- I think the number 1 reason is very simple really, most people just DO NOT CARE about 4K.
- Then there is the price.
- Diminishing returns (especially at smaller screen sizes, which is was most PC gamers have). Most people either don't see the difference or don't consider it to be significant to upgrade.
- Higher FPS is always better than higher resolution.
- Hardware requirements are still very very high.
- With exception of OLED, display tech basically has plateaued, there are almost no differences between quality of panels made 5 years ago and now. Heck, nowadays sometimes they put LOWER quality panels in monitors to cut costs. Yes, resolution increased from 1080p to 1440p to 4k to 8k, but underlying tech and all its limitations hasn't changed. You still have ghosting, input lag, backlight clouding problems, etc. VA and IPS panels of 5 years ago have the same drawbacks as 4K VA and IPS panels of today.
Tons of people with laptops playing CSGO and other non hardware intensive games.
Last edited:
Remember how for the longest time many many many people couldn't tell the difference from a 480i tv channel to an HD channel on their brand new HDTVs and would for years watch standard definition tv not knowing any better? Expect that with 4K but it'll be even worse since the difference, while noticeable, is way less obvious that going from SD to HD.
Seriously this is a much bigger factor than most people give it credit for. 4K gets hard to get a good sense of difference in quality over a solid 1080p version of the thing, especially if you're sitting far enough away, and yet is exponentially more complicated to playback (more limited devices, greater internet speed required for streaming etc.). For every person who's whiz-bang whole hog into 4K there are at least 50 who couldn't point out a difference between 720p and 1080p, especially outside of gaming or in other situations where those pictures are achieved by super-sampling.
My dad called me angry that the picture on the TV was windowboxed because the cable box was outputting a 4x3 signal (so AR was correct, but picture was small and in the center of the screen). It had been that way for at least two months (since he got it hooked up because he upgraded from analog cable finally earlier this summer), I hadn't touched it at all.
Coupled with the fact that the fastest internet available at his place gets 4 megabits per second on a good day, I doubt he'll be getting a 4K TV anytime soon.
You'd be surprised. I have a 980 and I play a lot of stuff in 4K. Most indie games work fine, the entire ps360 gen is great to revisit at 4k60, off the top of my head I recently played DmC, The Darkness 2, telltale batman season 2 and Inside at 4k. All the telltale games run great at 4k. Even newer games you can easily run at 4k/30 most of the time. Don't know why you'd say it's literally not an option, it obviously is an option, I do it all the time.
Having a 1080p 144hz display has ruined me for 60hz. I probably won't make the jump to 4K for my PC until you can get a 120hz+ display, and GPU that can reasonably support it, that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
Right now that means a $2000 monitor and a $1000 GPU.
Right now that means a $2000 monitor and a $1000 GPU.
I have a 4K monitor (was cheap) and a 4K TV (was also cheap), and I still generally default to 1080p due to my wanting 60 fps over all. Only when I can run a game at 60fps with settings turned down (like Overwatch) do I end up actually running at native 4K.
I ran AC Origins at 4K mostly because that game seems impossible to run at a constant 60 fps (basically any settlement, especially Alexandria, results in stuttering out the ass). That game looks fucking EXCELLENT at 4K. But I'm not sure the picture sharpness is worth the horsepower that 4K demands. It's definitely noticeable but definitely a niche, bleeding-edge luxury.
I ran AC Origins at 4K mostly because that game seems impossible to run at a constant 60 fps (basically any settlement, especially Alexandria, results in stuttering out the ass). That game looks fucking EXCELLENT at 4K. But I'm not sure the picture sharpness is worth the horsepower that 4K demands. It's definitely noticeable but definitely a niche, bleeding-edge luxury.
Last edited:
Just bought my first 4k monitor, still waiting for the video card to arrive. If I used it just for gaming I'd probably go 1440/144 today, but I'll use it mainly for photo editing so I had to prioritize that.
To be honest I was expecting to be higher than that.
Probably we will have a significant increase of 4K users when the next generation of consoles arrive. By then we will probably have and cheaper 4K capable GPUs (from AMD at least).
Personally I am using as a monitor and playing on my Samsung 49" KS7000 and never looked back to my 27" 1440p PC monitor.
Probably we will have a significant increase of 4K users when the next generation of consoles arrive. By then we will probably have and cheaper 4K capable GPUs (from AMD at least).
Personally I am using as a monitor and playing on my Samsung 49" KS7000 and never looked back to my 27" 1440p PC monitor.
It's a pricing issue, at least when it comes to PC gaming.
A decent 4K monitor, especially one with HDR support, is still way too expensive and the graphics cards are also way too expensive for it to be worthwhile for more casual players. 4K regardless of HDR or not also have way less content outside of gaming to make it worthwhile, pretty much none of the big 4K streaming services like Netflix, iTunes Movies and others will allow you to watch their content in 4K due to copy protection issues.
Console gaming has a much bigger 4K playerbase because pretty much every new mid-high end TV is 4K HDR and good low end offerings are popping up. Add to that that the entry price for gaming in "4K" on these screens are much lower than on PC.
4K on PC will be much more normal in 3-5 years as displays and computer hardware go down in price, but it's honestly no surprise that the number is that low.
A decent 4K monitor, especially one with HDR support, is still way too expensive and the graphics cards are also way too expensive for it to be worthwhile for more casual players. 4K regardless of HDR or not also have way less content outside of gaming to make it worthwhile, pretty much none of the big 4K streaming services like Netflix, iTunes Movies and others will allow you to watch their content in 4K due to copy protection issues.
Console gaming has a much bigger 4K playerbase because pretty much every new mid-high end TV is 4K HDR and good low end offerings are popping up. Add to that that the entry price for gaming in "4K" on these screens are much lower than on PC.
4K on PC will be much more normal in 3-5 years as displays and computer hardware go down in price, but it's honestly no surprise that the number is that low.
Heh, I'm in an even lower percent - 3440x1440 Ultrawide when I actually use my PC to play stuff. I'll gladly take that over 16:9 4k any day. Plus anything higher just gets waaaaay too costly to run.
Seriously never going back to a 16:9 monitor for my PC usage and a 2160p based UW would be extremely cost prohibitive.
Seriously never going back to a 16:9 monitor for my PC usage and a 2160p based UW would be extremely cost prohibitive.
Not comparatively enough to matter for the vast majority of games (Or any games). Yes, there are a select few TVs where this probably is bad enough to matter, but if you do a little research when buying your TV, it's a non issue.
My TV is my primary monitor in this case. I only use another monitor if it's a game that requires a mouse and keyboard. (Few and far between with a Steam controller.) That's more of what I was getting at; using a TV as the primary.
Makes sense. I love my 4K monitor but with a 1070, I'm not playing all of my games at that setting.
We're still just getting cards capable of 4K/60fps so it shouldn't be surprising that most people aren't playing at that resolution. I sure as hell cant go back to 1080p though.
We're still just getting cards capable of 4K/60fps so it shouldn't be surprising that most people aren't playing at that resolution. I sure as hell cant go back to 1080p though.
This percentage doesn't surprise me. It's basically a choice between having a rig that can do 1080/1440p60 or 4K30 in the PC market right now unless you're willing to build a PC (including monitor) north of $3000, and most PC gamers, especially me, are just too used to buttery 60fps by now.
There's also the fact that 4K isn't nearly as impressive without HDR, and HDR support in PC games and in monitors is still very spotty.
There's also the fact that 4K isn't nearly as impressive without HDR, and HDR support in PC games and in monitors is still very spotty.
Sure that Steam Survey doesn't give you the same shiny portrait of the PC gaming market as Nvidia fancy powerpoint. But the graphics cards rubric is more indicative.
I remember having a laptop with that resolution years and years ago. I know the majority of pc gamers don't play at the higher end of the spectrum in terms of specs but I still can't believe that res is that popular. Do they even make laptops with that res anymore?
I have a gtx 1080, there's no reason for me to think about a 4k monitor unless I'm ok with capping stuff at 30fps (hint: I'm not).
And price absolutely does play a huge role like seemingly everything else on PC nowadays. A 1440p/144 monitor with gsync is expensive enough.
And price absolutely does play a huge role like seemingly everything else on PC nowadays. A 1440p/144 monitor with gsync is expensive enough.
I'd love to get into 4K gaming, but it's rather expensive to get into. I would need to purchase a new GPU (currently using a 980ti) and a new monitor of course.
I'm okay with gaming in 1080p 60fps for now, even if my card is starting to show signs of aging. Hell, I still play my PS4 and Switch and neither of those output games in 4K.
I'm okay with gaming in 1080p 60fps for now, even if my card is starting to show signs of aging. Hell, I still play my PS4 and Switch and neither of those output games in 4K.
I think I did the math and it was cheaper for me to game in 4k on my Xbox. Upgrading my PC or buying anew one would be too much.
Again with the Steam surveys... The survey is optional and many folks have probably done upgrades since they last participated. I haven't taken part in the survey since I was running a i7 3770K and a GTX 690. I've purchased 5 GPU's and 2 CPU's since then and I've gone from 1440p to 4K.
I haven't jumped on 4k yet either, since I'm waiting for HDR to be more of a standard on G-sync 144hz monitors.
FPS > resolution
That being said, I can't wait to get get another 2080Ti and put the entire rig under water so that I can blow up that 4k, 60+ fps, utlra settings show
That being said, I can't wait to get get another 2080Ti and put the entire rig under water so that I can blow up that 4k, 60+ fps, utlra settings show
