3 ms·

You already do, just with different consequences. Our brains are very good at mitigating input latency since it deals with it all the time, so we adapt quickly

You already do, just with different consequences. Our brains are very good at mitigating input latency since it deals with it all the time, so we adapt quickly to 80ms. Compare that to the current system where what you see on screen is not what actually happens in the game. You get used to it, but every game solves it differently and it always feels bad. So I think that a lot of players would actually prefer this kind of latency over the kind they are used to now. Also note that many who play for example COD does it on TV's and consoles which has hundreds of ms already without people noticing it, so playing with 80ms input lag would be fine for 99% of players.

kllrnohj 7y ago
> Also note that many who play for example COD does it on TV's and consoles which has hundreds of ms already without people noticing it This is just straight up not true in the slightest. There's a reason HDMI ALLM exists, and it's not because "nobody notices hundreds of ms." 80ms is very noticeable, it's like moving around in sludge. hundreds of ms is straight up unplayable. This is no where close to what consoles & TVs are currently doing, which is closer to 50ms.
- username90 7y ago
  I didn't say that specific people didn't notice it, just that a most people are surprised if you tell them that they have hundreds of ms latency when they play on their console because they thought it was practically instant because their brains tricked them. The fact that console gaming is so popular despite it having such horrendous latency is proof that latency is not an issue for streaming services to go mainstream. I'd look more at unreliable latency and data caps, people definitely notice 100ms latency spikes.
  - kllrnohj 7y ago
    > just that a most people are surprised if you tell them that they have hundreds of ms latency when they play on their console They're surprised because that's absolutely not even remotely close to true. Consoles & TVs do not have hundreds of ms of latency. This horrendous latency does not exist. That's why it's not an issue.
    - username90 7y ago
      They do have hundreds ms of latency, the fact that you don't they they do means that you didn't notice hundreds ms of latency for your whole life. Look here, the games averaged 100ms for a monitor with no display lag, add another 50 - 100ms for a typical plasma tv: https://displaylag.com/console-latency-exploring-video-game-input-lag/ https://displaylag.com/console-latency-exploring-video-game-...
      - kllrnohj 7y ago
        The smallest hundreds is 200ms. 100ms is half that. And I do notice 100ms which is why I mostly play on PC with sub-50ms end to end latency. But this is besides the point. > add another 50 - 100ms for a typical plasma tv The typical TV has never been plasma? LCD TVs have had game modes for a decade and those are 10-20ms latency. Consoles automatically switch into game mode, too, and have for a long time.
  - ProfessorLayton 7y ago
    This is incorrect. Furthermore, just about every consumer TV has a “Game Mode” setting to further minimize latency by turning off post processing — a feature that wouldn’t exist if people didn’t care about latency.

kllrnohj 7y ago

> Also note that many who play for example COD does it on TV's and consoles which has hundreds of ms already without people noticing it This is just straight up not true in the slightest. There's a reason HDMI ALLM exists, and it's not because "nobody notices hundreds of ms." 80ms is very noticeable, it's like moving around in sludge. hundreds of ms is straight up unplayable. This is no where close to what consoles & TVs are currently doing, which is closer to 50ms.

username90 7y ago
I didn't say that specific people didn't notice it, just that a most people are surprised if you tell them that they have hundreds of ms latency when they play on their console because they thought it was practically instant because their brains tricked them. The fact that console gaming is so popular despite it having such horrendous latency is proof that latency is not an issue for streaming services to go mainstream. I'd look more at unreliable latency and data caps, people definitely notice 100ms latency spikes.
- kllrnohj 7y ago
  > just that a most people are surprised if you tell them that they have hundreds of ms latency when they play on their console They're surprised because that's absolutely not even remotely close to true. Consoles & TVs do not have hundreds of ms of latency. This horrendous latency does not exist. That's why it's not an issue.
  - username90 7y ago
    They do have hundreds ms of latency, the fact that you don't they they do means that you didn't notice hundreds ms of latency for your whole life. Look here, the games averaged 100ms for a monitor with no display lag, add another 50 - 100ms for a typical plasma tv: https://displaylag.com/console-latency-exploring-video-game-input-lag/ https://displaylag.com/console-latency-exploring-video-game-...
    - kllrnohj 7y ago
      The smallest hundreds is 200ms. 100ms is half that. And I do notice 100ms which is why I mostly play on PC with sub-50ms end to end latency. But this is besides the point. > add another 50 - 100ms for a typical plasma tv The typical TV has never been plasma? LCD TVs have had game modes for a decade and those are 10-20ms latency. Consoles automatically switch into game mode, too, and have for a long time.
- ProfessorLayton 7y ago
  This is incorrect. Furthermore, just about every consumer TV has a “Game Mode” setting to further minimize latency by turning off post processing — a feature that wouldn’t exist if people didn’t care about latency.