-
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.
Samsung is pushing for the Xbox Series X to support ultrawide monitors
- Thread starter ivan.k
- Start date
I just got a 144hz, 1ms, 1480P, freesync 2 ultrawide. I like gaming on it with the stretched out visuals better than the 65" Oled. Ultrawide is immersive. If Series X does 1480P with true ultrawide resolution at 120fps, that would be amazing.
now that's smart thinking
push for it on console and it becomes another thing on cert checklist
that means all console games that would hit xbox would support ultrawide
admire their ambition but it won't work lol too many genres just can't support it and would add more work for the sake of more work
though an optional thing might be neat but it would segment the userbase kinda hard and then some games you'd get unfair advantage in MP or whatever
push for it on console and it becomes another thing on cert checklist
that means all console games that would hit xbox would support ultrawide
admire their ambition but it won't work lol too many genres just can't support it and would add more work for the sake of more work
though an optional thing might be neat but it would segment the userbase kinda hard and then some games you'd get unfair advantage in MP or whatever
If Xbox X will support ultra widr then it would be easier to push people to buy new monitors or TV
Samsung wants to sell more ultra wide monitors, Microsoft wants more features for Xbox
Last edited:
well for the XSX at worst case it's just half res of 4K
you'd be looking at 3840x1080 which would be completely doable
but support would be so spotty but i figure the reason they want it is just to increase developers doing it for PC
Yeah, I guess they could have it as a menu option in certainly games where it makes sense, like racing games, but since you can't mod console games we might hear lots of complaints whenever a game doesn't have the ultrawide support.
This is a little random, but I bought one of Samsung's new monitors. I got the 32" CHG70. Its 1440p, 144hz, FreeSync 2, supports somewhat real HDR (HDR600), has two HDMI (2.0b) ports and a DisplayPort.
I got it in anticipation of next-gen, but even games like Death Stranding on my base PS4 running at a non-native resolution look fantastic with HDR. I'm just worried that next gen the PS5 won't support 1440p and full compatibility with variable refresh rates might require HDMI 2.1
Xbox Series X will probably support 1440p but I'd imagined myself sticking with Sony
I got it in anticipation of next-gen, but even games like Death Stranding on my base PS4 running at a non-native resolution look fantastic with HDR. I'm just worried that next gen the PS5 won't support 1440p and full compatibility with variable refresh rates might require HDMI 2.1
Xbox Series X will probably support 1440p but I'd imagined myself sticking with Sony
No, 5120x1440 would be the currently biggest Ultrawide resolution at 49", Samsungs new line of Odyssey monitor sounds quite promising.
Nevertheless, you are right. The resolution would be below 4K (3840x2160), so it should actually run a little bit better.
Yeah, why not?
As people have pointed out, the largest (in resolution) ultrawide monitor we have right now has less pixels than 4k, so it should be doable.
The only issue I can think about is FOV (needs to be a lot higher) and the UI elements that need to scale and move around with different horizontal sizes.
As people have pointed out, the largest (in resolution) ultrawide monitor we have right now has less pixels than 4k, so it should be doable.
The only issue I can think about is FOV (needs to be a lot higher) and the UI elements that need to scale and move around with different horizontal sizes.
High frame rate support should be priority for next gen if devs want, I should be able to play RL at 144hz on the next gen consoles. Ultrawide would be nice too but high frame rate is more common.
I am all for ultrawide console support. I think bringing PC features to consoles helps elevate consoles and introduce console gamers to new experiences and that's what made me into a PC guy. Cool things that I could do with the hardware. Consoles don't have to stagnate and I hope this comes to fruition
This is interesting, but I really wonder how many people actually play their console on a monitor anyway? Unless TVs start going ultrawide I can't really see this happening
How is this crazy? 120hz is standard stuff on PC, even games like Hollow Knight and Monster Boy support 120hz and are all the better for it. it's good to see consoles finally supporting these features.
Also if work has already been done on a game to support UW on PC then it's little effort to bring the same feature to XSX. Clearly not all games will support it.
Although I'm not gonna buy a 32:9 Monitor anytime soon... I am curious how it would look on my 55" LG C9.... how thin...lol.
But joking aside here's how 21:9 looks on a 55" 16:9 TV/Display.
Also someone who reviewed playing at 21:9 on his LG C9.
Here's parts of it.
But joking aside here's how 21:9 looks on a 55" 16:9 TV/Display.
Also someone who reviewed playing at 21:9 on his LG C9.
Here's parts of it.
The wide screen gaming listing is just laughing at your genre comment.
also adding resolution isn't much work and certainly shouldn't be too much for games that charge a bit of money in 2020 and beyond. It's not work for the sake of work considering that resolution support on consoles in 2020 and beyond shouldnt' be like the 90s.
Way to come up with a boogeyman that doesn't exist. On windows currently in shooters you're fov and resolution locked out if the dev wants so you literally invented something that doesn't exist to ignore how it's currently implemented.
I hate having to worry about what is the best aspect ratio to play a game. It was annoying with widescreen, and it will be annoying again when super wide becomes accepted. Oh well.
I still don't understand ultrawide. I'm sitting here in front of my 60 inch TV and think, why the fuck would I want to play on a screen that's as wide as my TV but only half as high, how stupid is that?
I don't get the praise for this aspect ratio at all. Just buy a TV or big screen in general and you have "ultratall" too.
I don't get the praise for this aspect ratio at all. Just buy a TV or big screen in general and you have "ultratall" too.
I have a Samsung CRG9 and a 65" LG C9 OLED TV. The C9 is pretty great playing at 3840x1600 but you need to sit closer than you would with 16:9. Until HDMI 2.1 GPUs are available it is only possible at 60 Hz as it's using GPU scaling so the TV thinks it's still receiving a 4K 16:9 image.
Ultrawide support even on PC is spotty:
Here's how different width resolutions add to the image:
2560x1440 is 16:9, 3440x1440 is 21:9. 3840x1440 does not exist in any display but it should, it's a great aspect ratio. This was done by changing the resolution on the CRG9. It scales perfectly with black bars on the sides.
This is how a 32:9 49" display compares to some TV and desktop display sizes. Remember that the curved display makes the width much more comfortable to use than flat screen as the edges are pushed towards you so you avoid viewing angle issues. The curve is not taken into account in these comparison images.
Ultrawide support even on PC is spotty:
- Control not supporting 32:9 resolutions at all until using a 3rd party patcher to fix this. After that it is actually one of the best 32:9 games because it has no FOV distortion at the edges like many games do. The stupid thing is that it supports 21:9 but not 32:9. I can understand not supporting DLSS with 32:9 but at least support the damn aspect ratio!
- A Plague Tale does not support anything but 16:9 but again with a patcher works perfectly fine with the only issue being some outside the scene weirdness in cutscenes like characters snapping into action right as they enter the 16:9 section. Again works just fine, the devs just didn't take the time to support it.
- Red Dead Redemption 2, Witcher 3 and many others letterbox their cutscenes even on ultrawide displays. 32:9 in RDR2 is double bad because it letter AND pillarboxes things. Again a mod can be used for these to fix this but developers really need to stop this practice because it's idiotic and immersion breaking.
Here's how different width resolutions add to the image:
2560x1440 is 16:9, 3440x1440 is 21:9. 3840x1440 does not exist in any display but it should, it's a great aspect ratio. This was done by changing the resolution on the CRG9. It scales perfectly with black bars on the sides.
This is how a 32:9 49" display compares to some TV and desktop display sizes. Remember that the curved display makes the width much more comfortable to use than flat screen as the edges are pushed towards you so you avoid viewing angle issues. The curve is not taken into account in these comparison images.
As said, you can see more to the sides. "But I can just zoom out in games that have that feature!" you say. No, it's not the same. I tried this in GTA V some time ago running it on my 4K TV and the result was that I still saw more to the sides at the default 3rd person zoom level in ultrawide than I did in 16:9 with the most zoomed out view option! With the ultrawide you also don't make things smaller, your character etc stays the same as it would on a narrower display, the field of view just spreads out to the sides and crops a little bit up top and bottom.
On the 16:9 you see more sky and ground above and below, which is completely useless most of the time. Seeing more to the sides is far more useful. With a wide enough display it becomes peripheral vision or you can take in the sights by just looking to the left and right. I fully believe that ultrawide is how every game should be presented, it's just better. After using ultrawide 16:9 feels very cramped by comparison.
You can see more
Yeah, but if you have a big 16:9, just uhm, zoom out? If developers would support that wouldn't it be the same or better?
Edit:
laxu Thanks for the explanation, interesting. But still hard to understand specially in comparison with TV's which are as wide as the ultrawides. If developers would really want that, they could give you the 100% exact same setting/optic with just more space vertically.
Last edited:
I'm sure there is no reason why they can't add the ability to change resolution to an arbitrary Ultra wise angle.
I'm sure they could have with the Xbox should they have wanted.
Whether devs will bother is another thing altogether as it's another thing to need to optimise for , beyond the base resolution.
I'd It's a bit of an odd proposition with super niche appeal.
If you have an ultra wide monitor now, you probably have a gaming PC
If you have an Xbox, are you going to purchase an ultra wide monitor if few games support it?
I'm sure they could have with the Xbox should they have wanted.
Whether devs will bother is another thing altogether as it's another thing to need to optimise for , beyond the base resolution.
I'd It's a bit of an odd proposition with super niche appeal.
If you have an ultra wide monitor now, you probably have a gaming PC
If you have an Xbox, are you going to purchase an ultra wide monitor if few games support it?
That's on the games developers, not the console maker.
Call of Duty supports it, probably the best example of a major (and multiplayer) game there is
To have any relevance it needs to be mandatory! I'm primary console player but hate that support for PC-stuff is so lame on console. Wouldn't be nice to play Wasteland 3 with M/K in 4K on my XOX? No, no, not to hope to play it that way, but to expect it to play that way. It would add so much to the experience.
That's main issue, it is not mandatory.
TBH, Microsoft has given a lot of indication that, near-term at least, their high end machine will focus on taking games with a per-pixel complexity defined by other less powerful systems and then using the extra power to dial up 'easy' wins like framerate or more resolution. Ultrawide support could slot neatly in as another 'easy' way to use power on the series x. In the same way the One X and Pro also offer tradeoffs to users, this could be something users control too, if they want ultrawide support rather than higher framerate or whatever.
I think a bigger complication is if support of this requires different camera field-of-views (?) and whether that would impinge on game design or fairness in multiplayer games. In that case it would have to be a per-game support kind of thing rather than something that could be mandated at a platform level.
A higher FOV percent for shorter view distance with monitors would be nice in general, but UI is usually handled by keeping it in 16:9 area in the middle and pillar boxing when needed
it's not the resolution that is the performance sap, as you say, it's lower than 4K on many displays.
It's that more geometry, effects, textures, characters, vehicles etc can be on screen at once.
But again I suppose we live in a word of dynamic resolutions and refresh rates, so the obsession with a locked 30/60fps isn't relevant anymore
It comes down to how the field of view in games works. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games for some info. The way I understand it is that how the FOV calculation is implemented determines how much you see of the game world given a resolution of X width and Y height. Games that are the "vertical minus" way chop off height the wider your FOV which can cause issues on ultrawides and especially super ultrawides. The more common "horizontal plus" way just expands the viewing area to the sides. Go wide enough and many games start introducing FOV-based distortion where things at the edges of the screen start to lengthen. It's not something you really notice when playing unless it's really bad, for example Metro Exodus has a pretty horrible FOV implementation.
With the way it works for most ultrawides is that everything in the center remains the same size as it would on 16:9 and the space seen expands to the sides. But how do you do that on 16:9 aspect ratio? You would instead have to zoom out making stuff in the center of the screen smaller.