- 0 Posts
- 5 Comments
I wanted to know how important this really would be. Human reaction times among gamers are on the order of 150-300 ms, and professional gamers mostly manage 150-200 ms. A view refreshing 700 times per second gives a new frame every 1.4 ms, while a view refreshing 60 times per second gives a new frame every 16.6 ms.
In a reaction timing heavy game, this would not be enough to bridge the gap between the fastest in the world and the slowest professionals, but it’s on the right order of magnitude to make a difference in professional level play, up against a 60 Hz display. On the other hand, it’s only a marginal step up from a 240 Hz display, and the loss in resolution must have an effect at some point.
There’s probably games where this is better, but only when the difference is small, or the other display is handicapped.
I consistently don’t buy games that aren’t ready by being a patient shopper, and watching reviews or gameplay before spending money. If you consistently jump on the hype train, buy a copy before knowing anything about the state of the game, and then “complain” to fix it, I have news:
10/10 AAA publishers would rather have $60 and a complaint than $0.
Due diligence is the solution, publishers are now very practiced at weathering criticism.
When a monopoly is faced with a smaller, more efficient competitor, they cut prices to keep people from switching, or buy the new competitor, make themselves more efficient, and increase profits.
When Steam was faced with smaller competition that charged lower prices, they did - nothing. They’re not the leader because of a trick, or clever marketing, but because they give both publishers and gamers a huge stack of things they want.