alt Hacker NewsWhich is the right choice because our eyes cannot resolve that kind of DPI at that distance.
Past 2880p on most desk monitor viewing distances or past 1080p on most TV viewing distances, you hit steeply diminishing returns. Please, please let's use our processing power and signal bandwidth for color and refresh rate, not resolution.
This is also why I think every console game should have a 720p handheld 'performance' and 1080p living room 'performance' mode. We don't need 1080p on handhelds or 2160p in the living room. Unless you're using relatively enormous screens for either purpose.
>Which is the right choice
No damn it, it's not!
Everyone I know can immediately see a clear difference between 120 ppi and 200 ppi, but I've yet to encounter anyone who can reliably tell 120hz from 200hz. We have monitors that render lego-sized pixels at 500+ hz now, it's enough.
Gamers have been gaslit to believe they have the reflexes of spider-man and are a lost cause, but their preferences have been listened to by monitor makers for 30 years. Enough already!
Millions of office workers are working all day reading text on screens optimized for playing games at low resolutions. It's just sad.
Steve Jobs showed a decade ago that 4x resolution could be sold at great profit for normal prices. Text on screens can be as crisp as on paper.
Sadly it only became the standard on phones, not on productivity desktop monitors. It so easily could be, and it should be.