Kill Ultra widescreen support before you dig yourself another Harvest-hole.

Having the 99% be at an inherent disadvantage is fucked. D2:R has measures against it already (because monsters idling offscreen is fucked). Seeing more on the screen is just as fucked.

Why the fuck am I even bothering. This stuff is so mind-numbingly obvious that it shouldn't even have to be told.

Sorry but PC gaming has pretty much always been pay to win.

My 1080 drops frames in such and such but this guy's 3080 doesn't and I died.
That's just how it goes. It's why tournaments use standardize setups.

EDIT: Besides 21:9 is starting to replace 16:9 as the standard. Just like 4:3.

Actually in some games you even loose out of screenspace because your field of view is fixed horizontally so you have even less visibility in the vertical space. It depends on how the game implements it. Also what Xzorn already mentioned: there was a time we had 4:3 so if you already use 16:9 or anything besides 4:3 you are paying to win.

It is pay to win because this game have Royal and some prize event, when people with ultra wide can see other players before they see them this is P2win.

All those royal event with prize are not fair without locked resoulution

"

lolozori wrote:

It is pay to win because this game have Royal and some prize event, when people with ultra wide can see other players before they see them this is P2win.

All those royal event with prize are not fair without locked resoulution

Again the same can be said for 16:9 vs 4:3. Just because you have 16:9 doesn't mean there is no one who "suffers" from only having 4:3. Also you ignored the complete missing on the verticallity.

"

SuperMotte wrote:

Again the same can be said for 16:9 vs 4:3. Just because you have 16:9 doesn't mean there is no one who "suffers" from only having 4:3. Also you ignored the complete missing on the verticallity.

it s about price range, those ultra wide monitors are still elite level and pretty expensive for the average salary.

Once those cost 200 dollars and are democratized then yes there is a point into letting this fly but when only a rich minority can p2win and have advantage in a competition over the majority then it s not ok.

"

lolozori wrote:

"

SuperMotte wrote:

Again the same can be said for 16:9 vs 4:3. Just because you have 16:9 doesn't mean there is no one who "suffers" from only having 4:3. Also you ignored the complete missing on the verticallity.

it s about price range, those ultra wide monitors are still elite level and pretty expensive for the average salary.

Once those cost 200 dollars and are democratized then yes there is a point into letting this fly but when only a rich minority can p2win and have advantage in a competition over the majority then it s not ok.

why is 200$ ok as an "entry cost" ?
thats still way too much for low income countries
why not 100$ or 500$ ?

you are simply using a price range that feels comfortable for you based on your wealth/income
there is 0 other reason for it to be at that price range

"

ciel289 wrote:

"

lolozori wrote:

"

SuperMotte wrote:

Again the same can be said for 16:9 vs 4:3. Just because you have 16:9 doesn't mean there is no one who "suffers" from only having 4:3. Also you ignored the complete missing on the verticallity.

it s about price range, those ultra wide monitors are still elite level and pretty expensive for the average salary.

Once those cost 200 dollars and are democratized then yes there is a point into letting this fly but when only a rich minority can p2win and have advantage in a competition over the majority then it s not ok.

why is 200$ ok as an "entry cost" ?
thats still way too much for low income countries
why not 100$ or 500$ ?

you are simply using a price range that feels comfortable for you based on your wealth/income
there is 0 other reason for it to be at that price range

100% wide screen is the future i dont see and can never see games providing support for more advanced stuff as bad thing..
the same way the guy on topic could complain about having vulkan support.. maybe hes also telling GGG to never add DLSS ? i can understand disabling for now only for Royal since its PVP and even there i dont see it fair.. whats next? ban people for using advanced sound system ? i personally dont have a super wide display right now but i know if i had it and game wouldnt support it id say its a shitty oldish game that refuse to advance into modern tech.. but clearly the guy wants whats in his range and dont show real concern to P2W because as you mentioned low income countries could still struggle to get poe to run above 10 fps on a much smaller resolution

21:9 is just a tech advancement. You can't ask a dev to go backwards.
Even Netflix 'finally' supports 21:9 on their new content.

This has been a thing since the 80's. You and your friend fighting over who gets to use the turbo controller. Ball Mice Vs Laser/Optic. Membrane Keyboard Vs Switches, the list goes on.

This type of nitpick can go down the line forever. Money gets you more.

EDIT: Similar to the community making fun of GGG for making beautiful Wallpapers... in 1080p.
Forward, not backwards. Always.

"

ciel289 wrote:

"

lolozori wrote:

"

SuperMotte wrote:

Again the same can be said for 16:9 vs 4:3. Just because you have 16:9 doesn't mean there is no one who "suffers" from only having 4:3. Also you ignored the complete missing on the verticallity.

it s about price range, those ultra wide monitors are still elite level and pretty expensive for the average salary.

Once those cost 200 dollars and are democratized then yes there is a point into letting this fly but when only a rich minority can p2win and have advantage in a competition over the majority then it s not ok.

why is 200$ ok as an "entry cost" ?
thats still way too much for low income countries
why not 100$ or 500$ ?

you are simply using a price range that feels comfortable for you based on your wealth/income
there is 0 other reason for it to be at that price range

you really think Someone buying a 800 euro drawing tablet for his side hobby think 200 euro monitor screen is too expensive for him ?(guess what, I also have wide screen that fit the graphic tablet). I myself If I wanted to could stretch POE into 3 screen giving me insane pov during Royal/pvp.

I am not like some here, I actually think about others. But if you think my estimation of 200 was still too high suit you well, put it lower. Hell unless those screens are free just cap the resolution and be done with it :)

Why did I mention any budget level?

Well because I am here since 2013 and I know GGG s history.

They waited very very long time before switching to 64 bit because they said a lot of people only played 32 bit still. Lot of people complained about it but they waited until the market had a majority of 64 bit system. Same with Windows version.

I assumed because of their previous stance that budget and availability of material count a lot for them.

I assumed GGG would think the same with ultra wide screens.

I still think those monitors are pay2win simply because we have organized competition like Royal with prizes and those give unfair advantages.

Poe should have locked resolution for real competitive game like royal.