21:9 will never have 100% support in games.

[Thinker_145]

Consoles are not going to adopt it anytime soon if ever. 21:9 has already failed on televisions and is unlikely to make a comeback.

People consume more television and streaming content at home than movies so 16:9 is actually superior for multimedia.

It is unfortunate how the PC gaming scene is effected by the consoles but it is what it is.

 

[2is]

Well that was random, but I'll play along... I'm perfectly ok with this as I don't ever see myself running a 21:9 ratio

 

[Arachnotronic]

yeah, 16:9 monitors for me.

 

[richaron]

I think from a developer's perspective it's much harder to support the lower resolutions (1280×720, 1366×768, 1600x900, etc) which require stuff like the game's HUD to be scaled proportional to the display res'. But that's work they're going to have to do anyway for compatibility.

Although OP is no doubt correct "100%" of games will never support ultrawides, I suspect a vast majority (if not all) high profile games on PC will go the extra inch to add support.

Like all self fulfilling prophecies OP's claim relies on people taking the bait for it to become true. But I for one would not give up the huge productivity gains of an ultrawide for the off chance it won't be supported by some games.

 

[Thinker_145]

I think from a developer's perspective it's much harder to support the lower resolutions (1280×720, 1366×768, 1600x900, etc) which require stuff like the game's HUD to be scaled proportional to the display res'. But that's work they're going to have to do anyway for compatibility.

Although OP is no doubt correct "100%" of games will never support ultrawides, I suspect a vast majority (if not all) high profile games on PC will go the extra inch to add support.

Like all self fulfilling prophecies OP's claim relies on people taking the bait for it to become true. But I for one would not give up the huge productivity gains of an ultrawide for the off chance it won't be supported by some games.

Nobody is denying that ultrawide is not better for productivity. I am strictly talking about games.

 

[richaron]

Nobody is denying that ultrawide is not better for productivity. I am strictly talking about games.

Yes. I said I wouldn't give up other advantages of a product for the tiny chance that games might be a deciding factor.

 

[Thinker_145]

Yes... I said I wouldn't give up other advantages of a product for the tiny chance that games might be a deciding factor.

Many of us don't do any work on our gaming PCs or not serious enough work that desktop real estate is an issue. And 16:9 4K is the future anyways. I am sure a 4K 40" TV wipes the floor with any ultrawide in productivity and doesn't actually cost more either. They are just slow for gaming currently which is a problem that will be resolved in the future.

 

[John Carmack]

Consoles are not going to adopt it anytime soon if ever. 21:9 has already failed on televisions and is unlikely to make a comeback.

People consume more television and streaming content at home than movies so 16:9 is actually superior for multimedia.

It is unfortunate how the PC gaming scene is effected by the consoles but it is what it is.

...and VA screens rule the wrold!

 

[Thinker_145]

...and VA screens rule the wrold!

So?

 

[richaron]

Many of us don't do any work on our gaming PCs or not serious enough work that desktop real estate is an issue. And 16:9 4K is the future anyways. I am sure a 4K 40" TV wipes the floor with any ultrawide in productivity and doesn't actually cost more either. They are just slow for gaming currently which is a problem that will be resolved in the future.

Lol your posts are just full of sweeping generalizations and bad logic. By your logic -bigger is better?- one could also argue an ultrawide version of X screen would be better for productivity. You've already said "Nobody is denying that ultrawide is not better for productivity"(?). And even more bigger again is just held back by being slow for gaming which is a problem that will be resolved in the future...

I would like to bring attention to the axis of the human eyes. Plus remind you there's always a personal choice balancing costs, usage, screen real estate, physical size, and much more when choosing a monitor. Yes people might choose something other than what you've decided is right, or what you think is "the future". No doubt you'll just reply with another sweeping generalization or miss represent a point of mine, but I thought I'd play along for a while.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Just got a 21 by 9 (the 29um68). Doom, witcher 3 and assetto corsa run great. I hear fallout 4 has to be modded for it to work though.

I guess it's less of a hassle than triple screens, and I can still run in 16:9 if games are really stubborn.

 

[Thinker_145]

Lol your posts are just full of sweeping generalizations and bad logic. By your logic -bigger is better?- one could also argue an ultrawide version of X screen would be better for productivity. You've already said "Nobody is denying that ultrawide is not better for productivity"(?). And even more bigger again is just held back by being slow for gaming which is a problem that will be resolved in the future...

I would like to bring attention to the axis of the human eyes. Plus remind you there's always a personal choice balancing costs, usage, screen real estate, physical size, and much more when choosing a monitor. Yes people might choose something other than what you've decided is right, or what you think is "the future". No doubt you'll just reply with another sweeping generalization or miss represent a point of mine, but I thought I'd play along for a while.

But I am talking about what is currently available in the market and not creating a hypothetical screen to compete with 21:9. Sure you could say that a 4K version of an ultrawide would be even better for productivity but it doesn't exist.

When I said ultrawide is better for productivity it's comparing similar resolutions and size. However there is no ultrawide alternative to a 4K 40" display so if someone really gives maximum priority to productivity they wouldn't use ultrawide. Another negative of a 4K screen for gaming is obviously the demanding resolution.

 

[ZGR]

Many of us don't do any work on our gaming PCs or not serious enough work that desktop real estate is an issue. And 16:9 4K is the future anyways. I am sure a 4K 40" TV wipes the floor with any ultrawide in productivity and doesn't actually cost more either. They are just slow for gaming currently which is a problem that will be resolved in the future.

Personally, I find 16:9 to look rather dated when compared to 21:9. That didn't stop me from getting the Acer XB280HK as my primary gaming display which looks pretty good imo. 4k is a much better gaming experience when it comes to image quality and raw detail; but we don't have any 21:9 4k panels as of yet. It adds about 3 million more pixels which is a considerable increase.

A 21:9 2160p panel would be preferable. 16:9 is a rather low field of view in gaming and simply lacks the real estate that 21:9 provides.

The 21:9 price tax is far too much for me to take it seriously at the moment. I know many who love their 2560x1080 displays but that is too low of a resolution for me. 4k is a stepping stone and is a large step forward in the right direction.

I keep talking about 8k120hz, but now I may be willing to settle for 21:9 2160p (5040x2160). For 4k, Aliasing is clearly visible at optimal viewing distance and AA is far too much of a tax for my 1070. Going anywhere lower than 4k at this point makes everything look fuzzy unless the PPI is high. No amount of anti aliasing will make 1080p or even 1440/1600p look as crisp unless the PPI is really high (smartphone display). Going to 8k will make 4k look dated as well...

8k is the resolution for monitors, 4k is the resolution for laptops. I hope we have a plethora of choices for aspect ratios soon. VR may simply be a better alternative at that point for gaming. I think the best option is to (one day) get a 4k 21:9 120hz display (5040x2160) as every game worth buying will support it. 21:9 is an improvement over 16:9. It looks silly at first, but so did 16:9 laptops.

21:9 isn't the best either, but it makes 16:9 look cramped. Our eyes can percieve about 200 degrees horizontal and 100 degrees vertical. We simply need a more immersive experience for gaming and applications... Something like a virtual reality... hmm...

edit: For reference, you can comfortably play at 90 FoV on 16:9. On 21:9 you can go to 110 comfortably and some may prefer 120. So much more of the game is shown with the increased FoV, giving many who play on a 21:9 an advantage.

 

[Valantar]

But I am talking about what is currently available in the market and not creating a hypothetical screen to compete with 21:9. Sure you could say that a 4K version of an ultrawide would be even better for productivity but it doesn't exist.

When I said ultrawide is better for productivity it's comparing similar resolutions and size. However there is no ultrawide alternative to a 4K 40" display so if someone really gives maximum priority to productivity they wouldn't use ultrawide. Another negative of a 4K screen for gaming is obviously the demanding resolution.

A 40" display for regular desktop use is an ergonomic nightmare. You'd be begging for chronic neck pain. No thanks. At regular desk viewing angles and distances, for regular semi-static types of work (such as gaming, where you're mostly looking at the same spot on the screen) anything significantly taller than ~30" is too tall for comfort (i.e. any size which requires craning your neck to see its top). I'm very happy with the height of my 27" 16:9 monitor, but I'd gladly have some more width. 34" 21:9 fits the bill perfectly.

 

[Thinker_145]

Personally, I find 16:9 to look rather dated when compared to 21:9. That didn't stop me from getting the Acer XB280HK as my primary gaming display which looks pretty good imo. 4k is a much better gaming experience when it comes to image quality and raw detail; but we don't have any 21:9 4k panels as of yet. It adds about 3 million more pixels which is a considerable increase.

A 21:9 2160p panel would be preferable. 16:9 is a rather low field of view in gaming and simply lacks the real estate that 21:9 provides.

The 21:9 price tax is far too much for me to take it seriously at the moment. I know many who love their 2560x1080 displays but that is too low of a resolution for me. 4k is a stepping stone and is a large step forward in the right direction.

I keep talking about 8k120hz, but now I may be willing to settle for 21:9 2160p (5040x2160). For 4k, Aliasing is clearly visible at optimal viewing distance and AA is far too much of a tax for my 1070. Going anywhere lower than 4k at this point makes everything look fuzzy unless the PPI is high. No amount of anti aliasing will make 1080p or even 1440/1600p look as crisp unless the PPI is really high (smartphone display). Going to 8k will make 4k look dated as well...

8k is the resolution for monitors, 4k is the resolution for laptops. I hope we have a plethora of choices for aspect ratios soon. VR may simply be a better alternative at that point for gaming. I think the best option is to (one day) get a 4k 21:9 120hz display (5040x2160) as every game worth buying will support it. 21:9 is an improvement over 16:9. It looks silly at first, but so did 16:9 laptops.

21:9 isn't the best either, but it makes 16:9 look cramped. Our eyes can percieve about 200 degrees horizontal and 100 degrees vertical. We simply need a more immersive experience for gaming and applications... Something like a virtual reality... hmm...

edit: For reference, you can comfortably play at 90 FoV on 16:9. On 21:9 you can go to 110 comfortably and some may prefer 120. So much more of the game is shown with the increased FoV, giving many who play on a 21:9 an advantage.

I agree with you on the PPI part but the reality of graphics performance means we have to deal with non optimal PPI for gaming for quite a few years still.

I also believe 21:9 is better for gaming but the problem is I can't tolerate the fact that there will be games that won't support it. I am just OCD about that maybe. What's worse is that some games flat out stretch the image instead of not giving the option.

I also believe one should strive to have as "consistent" a gaming experience as possible. If you go ultrawide then your enjoyment of a game which doesn't support it will simply be ruined for that fact.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

What's worse is that some games flat out stretch the image instead of not giving the option.

That's just as bad, not worse.

At least it's always an option to just run 1920x1080, screen/gpu won't stretch it if you tell it to keep the aspect ratio.

 

[Thinker_145]

That's just as bad, not worse.

At least it's always an option to just run 1920x1080, screen/gpu won't stretch it if you tell it to keep the aspect ratio.

But it is worse since you will start the game in ultrawide all happy then realize things are not right. To me that is worse as it breaks the flow of your gaming.

 

[Innokentij]

Consoles are not going to adopt it anytime soon if ever. 21:9 has already failed on televisions and is unlikely to make a comeback.

People consume more television and streaming content at home than movies so 16:9 is actually superior for multimedia.

It is unfortunate how the PC gaming scene is effected by the consoles but it is what it is.

This is the truth as both user of 16:10 and tripplescreen i still remember how every new release got harder to hack to work right and native support was basicly none existing at launch atleast. This is why im staying away from 21:9 and bought 16:9 1440p 27".

 

[bystander36]

I suspect at some point, most dev's will use some scaling methods to accommodate almost any resolution. This would mean that 21:9 would work, but the UI would likely not make a lot of since for those resolutions. Of course it's easy enough to simply chose 16:9 and go with black bars when it's not supported.

Meanwhile, 4K will never be easily played at max settings as long as dev's present us with settings for 1080p users. Of course you can simply use lower settings, which is the same settings they'd call max had they not given 1080p users settings to use.

 

[Thinker_145]

Yes I actually preferred 16:10 but ultimately gave up because of lack of support. However now that I use 16:9 I don't want 16:10 even if it had full support. Kinda funny how this works and we get biased towards the experiences we get used to.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

I suspect at some point, most dev's will use some scaling methods to accommodate almost any resolution. This would mean that 21:9 would work, but the UI would likely not make a lot of since for those resolutions.

Sane devs have been doing this for ages.

A lot of games also have the UI elements defined as being x distance from a corner. In that case 21:9 works fine, since it's not that much wider, on triple screen it goes wrong of course, but a decent number of games has that configurable too.

 

[Bacon1]

16:9 will never have 100% support in games. 16:10 will never have 100% support in games.

Nothing will ever have 100% support in games because there is and will forever be limitations.

Whats the point of this thread exactly?

 

[HurleyBird]

16:9 will never have 100% support in games. 16:10 will never have 100% support in games.

Nothing will ever have 100% support in games because there is and will forever be limitations.

Whats the point of this thread exactly?

Heh, was just about to post the same thing.

Right now the game I'm developing works from 5:4 to infinitely wide. It's a 4X space strategy game. but I've been seriously considering dropping support for anything below 3:2 since it's a pain to make sure every UI element works at both ultra wide and ultra narrow aspects, it does influence the design, and I doubt anyone still using a 4:3 or 5:4 display will have a PC capable of running the game anyway.

 

[gorobei]

Sane devs have been doing this for ages.

A lot of games also have the UI elements defined as being x distance from a corner. In that case 21:9 works fine, since it's not that much wider, on triple screen it goes wrong of course, but a decent number of games has that configurable too.

i remember seeing all the user customized TF2 ui (very impressive in the variety, tho each major patch broke functionality). as far as i am concerned all games should have built in user editing of ui, most games rarely get everything or even most of the ui right for most users.

the smarter thing to do is simply base all ui off of the center of the display and allow users to nudge any element in x or y as needed. and adjust scale as well, there was a bit in the last dx11 dev tools about multi layer multi res ui compositing. hopefully it makes its way to dx12.

anyways if VR takes off, ui and display size/aspectratio will all need an overhaul. each ui element needs to be customized in order to properly align/control its depth in vr so one fixed template will never do. with all the coming headsets with multi lcd/oled or split smartphone lcd, aspect ratios will have to be flexible. theoretically things like nvidia's Simultaneous Multi-Projection should allow display res to be a non issue.

 

[Kozlow]

All you naysayers can keep saying nay!! Lol, all I know is that I just set up a 3440 by 1440 ultra wide up this weekend and I LOVE it!!
I've been playing ROTTR with all settings maxed out and now I don't think that I would ever go back to 16 by 9.