4 ms·

I mean paying for a game and then getting a low quality version of it without a sub isn't very compelling to a lot of PC gamers if I am being honest.

• hbn 3y ago
  It was 1080p on the free version and 4k on the paid version. I thought this was a stupid understanding of graphical fidelity anyway, when render settings are probably gonna be more important than 1080p vs 4k (and we know some games were set to play at essentially medium graphics settings), and the video compression algorithms the games were being run through to stream them wrecked quality regardless of if you were playing in 4k or not.
  • nightski 3y ago
    1080p vs 4k is a huge difference, that's pretty amusing. Also what about someone with an ultra-wide monitor such as myself at 1440p? Overall it's just terrible, and good riddance it failed.
    • hbn 3y ago
      I think when you're using a desktop OS with tiny high-res icons and fonts, then higher res beyond 1080p matters. But for video games they generally have big fonts and icons because they're made keeping in mind a lot of people will be viewing them on a TV from across the living room. In most cases a higher framerate or better bitrate would be a more improved experience than more pixels.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]