Should Home Theater Embrace Gaming to Save the Industry?

[diskreet]

Checking back in, even with a gaming laptop that's fairly capable, I still find myself preferring to game on the home theater. The huge TV and amazing sound system can't be beat. While gaming may only be 5-10% of the time we use the HT system, it was a major driver in justifying it. I couldn't imagine building a system without gaming on it, unless it was truly a dedicated theater room. Even then, I'd just move the xbox in there.

 

[Pogre]

Checking back in, even with a gaming laptop that's fairly capable, I still find myself preferring to game on the home theater. The huge TV and amazing sound system can't be beat. While gaming may only be 5-10% of the time we use the HT system, it was a major driver in justifying it. I couldn't imagine building a system without gaming on it, unless it was truly a dedicated theater room. Even then, I'd just move the xbox in there.

That's pretty much how I feel. I don't purchase gear that's dumbed down for gaming. I purchase gear to make the experience better, and that includes the best possible picture along with the best sound.

 

[Auditor55]

Selling a lot of something doesn't mean you make the best overall product.

(HP and Ford waving from the background)

I'm not going to dump on people that purchase Samsungs. There are folks that prefer QLED over OLED, I'm not one of them, but they do exist.

 

[panteragstk]

I'm not going to dump on people that purchase Samsungs. There are folks that prefer QLED over OLED, I'm not one of them, but they do exist.

I'm sure they do. QLED is better if you have a VERY bright room. All I'm saying is that selling more of something doesn't make a company the best at making something.

 

[Auditor55]

Checking back in, even with a gaming laptop that's fairly capable, I still find myself preferring to game on the home theater. The huge TV and amazing sound system can't be beat. While gaming may only be 5-10% of the time we use the HT system, it was a major driver in justifying it. I couldn't imagine building a system without gaming on it, unless it was truly a dedicated theater room. Even then, I'd just move the xbox in there.

I rather have a UHD player like a Panasonic UB9000 instead of a gaming console. Looking at all the nice A/V gear you have, why don't you have such a player?

 

[panteragstk]

I rather have a UHD player like a Panasonic UB9000 instead of a gaming console. Looking at all the nice A/V gear you have, why don't you have such a player?

You can have both.

 

[Auditor55]

You can have both.

You are correct. I have two UHD players and an Xbox One S. I used the Xbox for Blu Ray and it's inferior to a UHD player. That guy has all of that great A/V gear but he invested more in his game console than his UHD player.

 

[Auditor55]

I'm sure they do. QLED is better if you have a VERY bright room. All I'm saying is that selling more of something doesn't make a company the best at making something.

Agreed!!

 

[allargon]

I'm sure they do. QLED is better if you have a VERY bright room. All I'm saying is that selling more of something doesn't make a company the best at making something.

QLED is also better for larger displays. OLED's top out at 83"/88". QLED's top out at 85"/98" (or 100" if you just go with 4K Sony). QLEDs also get you to that 4000 nit mark for HDR. OLEDs (even the A90J once ABL kick in) usually top out around 900 nits (still impressive but not 2000/3000/4000 nits).

Sound quality? They all suck. MS and Sony decided to ship consoles without optical out to save at most $5. Now, we have to either hope for competent optical pass through from the display manufacturers (LG and Samsung won't pass DTS.) or hope for a competent ARC/eARC solution. (Nope! Mediatek managed to break eARC/ARC for Sony, Samsung, TCL, Vizio, Panasonic, etc.)

 

[panteragstk]

Sound quality? They all suck. MS and Sony decided to ship consoles without optical out to save at most $5. Now, we have to either hope for competent optical pass through from the display manufacturers (LG and Samsung won't pass DTS.) or hope for a competent ARC/eARC solution. (Nope! Mediatek managed to break eARC/ARC for Sony, Samsung, TCL, Vizio, Panasonic, etc.)

Or just plug them into a receiver and be done with it...

 

[allargon]

Or just plug them into a receiver and be done with it...

Umm.. Have you not heard of the HDMI 2.1 receiver fiasco?

Sent using Tapatalk

 

[panteragstk]

Umm.. Have you not heard of the HDMI 2.1 receiver fiasco?

Sent using Tapatalk

Yep. I don't see HDMI 2.1 mentioned in your post, so I wasn't going to assume anything. For people that don't need/care about VRR or any of the other HDMI 2.1 features, it's not an issue. Especially if they have an existing HDMI 2.0 receiver.

Not that many people will buy a new TV and receiver "just" for a game console.

 

[Trebdp83]

Optical means nothing if one is interested in getting lossless multichannel/atmos audio to the receiver from a console. MS and Sony both f@#ked up. I put a bit more blame on Sony as they put two HDMI outputs on their UHD players but not the PS5. For all of their technical marvel, the XBOX and Playstation have never gotten it right when combining state of the art audio and video in a single generation. Check the specs on their consoles up to today. Anytime they managed to get one thing right, something else went very wrong. I'm not touching either of them again until each are half the size they currently are and have two HDMI outputs. So, I guess that means I'm done gaming when my XBOX 360 dies. The PS3 is already in a casket.

 

[Eppie]

You'd be surprised how much your original PS3 might go for. A truly universal player for it's day.

I still rely on my PS3 for blue-ray/DVD playback, Plex and Netflix. If it had Roon support I would drop the Pi and use it for that as well. Skipped the PS4 as they were too slow releasing DLNA support. My only gripe is how slow the response is with DLNA. Browsing libraries can be painfully slow. No issues with Netflix, though, that still works great and gets updates (knock on wood). Will probably look at moving to the PS5 when I make the upgrade to 4k but for 1080p the old PS3 still does a fine job.

 

[Eppie]

No, games aren't important to the movie and TV entertainment industry at all. Nothing to see here...
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/netflix-to-dive-into-video-games-with-ad-free-mobile-gaming-at-no-extra-cost/

 

[Cos]

Late to this post, but Interesting read of 12 pages. I am in the mindset that HT should 100% embrace the Gaming Industry for a variety of reasons.

@Auditor55

• IMO comparison of LG OLED vs Sony OLED is a weak example of milenials etc choosing inferior product because of gaming
• The LG TV is reccommended for gamers because of faster response times, VRR features that work and ready to go. The TVs are so close in picture quality.
• Both TVs use the same OLED LG Pannels, the only separation is color reproduction and image processing, which sony gets the SLIGHT nod.
• LG is reccommended for gamers because Sony has yet to update most of the TV firmware to support VRR, and given the fact LG has embraced gammers with additional picture settings, they are winning the sales battle. The Sony A90J is not worth 1.5K more for a slight improvment in picutre quality vs C1
• New TV innovations helps drive TV sales, HDMI 2.1, VRR newer features, help bring consumers to buy new product. I have an A8G, if not for newer features and larger screen size, I probably wouldn't have updated to a A80J OLED 77in. I agree with you Sony picuture quality is slightly better, but not by a huge margin.
• I remember your earlier posts about Dolby Atmos not surviving and its not supported by the major streaming servcies. Fast Forward now, and pretty much every major streaming service supports Atmos.
• I agree it's not easy for a majority of people to implement ATMOS at home, I speak from expereince, even with a new home build. What can not be denied is that people are buying equipment for it, and gaming is 100% having an impact of the sales of Atmos because both new consoles make it a point to support it.
• A vast majority of the AAA games coming out will have support for it, so gamers want it. That drives more conent for it, and I enjoy the beneifts on my setup.

I would say streaming services are having more of a negative impact on overall quality of HT then gaming. Using compressed audio/video has esentially killed physical media or the need to have an player outside a gaming console.

Gaming benefited my desire to get better equipoemnt. In my case when I purchased a Xbox 360, I bought the HDDVD drive which lead me to buy a physical Blu-Ray player. When those players were over 1k, getting one on a console for a few hundred dollars was a bargin and influenced my decision to get something better.

Point being without rambing on more. Gaming will drive revenue for the HT market.

• Companies need to make money. Yes there will always be the entry level stuff that people will buy.
• It's those products that drive the majority revenue for these companies.
• Without that revenue, they can't invest in R&D, make improvments and offer a premium end line.
• Gamers probaby buy more OLED TVs then HT enthusiasts at this point.

At the end of the day, some gamers may buy low end equipment, a lot, like myself (though not a huge gamer anymore) don't. Gaming will generates a signficant amount of revenue for HT companies. They need the money to survive and grow. Having a TV with slighly better picture than the previous year will not generate enough sales. The same can be said about a variety of other HT products, but you get the idea

 

[Trell]

Umm.. Have you not heard of the HDMI 2.1 receiver fiasco?

Sent using Tapatalk

You mean the HDMI 2.1 fiasco like all the previous fiascos?

Excreted using Buttatalk

 

[Auditor55]

Late to this post, but Interesting read of 12 pages. I am in the mindset that HT should 100% embrace the Gaming Industry for a variety of reasons.

@Auditor55

• IMO comparison of LG OLED vs Sony OLED is a weak example of milenials etc choosing inferior product because of gaming
• The LG TV is reccommended for gamers because of faster response times, VRR features that work and ready to go. The TVs are so close in picture quality.
• Both TVs use the same OLED LG Pannels, the only separation is color reproduction and image processing, which sony gets the SLIGHT nod.
• LG is reccommended for gamers because Sony has yet to update most of the TV firmware to support VRR, and given the fact LG has embraced gammers with additional picture settings, they are winning the sales battle. The Sony A90J is not worth 1.5K more for a slight improvment in picutre quality vs C1
• New TV innovations helps drive TV sales, HDMI 2.1, VRR newer features, help bring consumers to buy new product. I have an A8G, if not for newer features and larger screen size, I probably wouldn't have updated to a A80J OLED 77in. I agree with you Sony picuture quality is slightly better, but not by a huge margin.
• I remember your earlier posts about Dolby Atmos not surviving and its not supported by the major streaming servcies. Fast Forward now, and pretty much every major streaming service supports Atmos.
• I agree it's not easy for a majority of people to implement ATMOS at home, I speak from expereince, even with a new home build. What can not be denied is that people are buying equipment for it, and gaming is 100% having an impact of the sales of Atmos because both new consoles make it a point to support it.
• A vast majority of the AAA games coming out will have support for it, so gamers want it. That drives more conent for it, and I enjoy the beneifts on my setup.

I would say streaming services are having more of a negative impact on overall quality of HT then gaming. Using compressed audio/video has esentially killed physical media or the need to have an player outside a gaming console.

Gaming benefited my desire to get better equipoemnt. In my case when I purchased a Xbox 360, I bought the HDDVD drive which lead me to buy a physical Blu-Ray player. When those players were over 1k, getting one on a console for a few hundred dollars was a bargin and influenced my decision to get something better.

Point being without rambing on more. Gaming will drive revenue for the HT market.

• Companies need to make money. Yes there will always be the entry level stuff that people will buy.
• It's those products that drive the majority revenue for these companies.
• Without that revenue, they can't invest in R&D, make improvments and offer a premium end line.
• Gamers probaby buy more OLED TVs then HT enthusiasts at this point.

At the end of the day, some gamers may buy low end equipment, a lot, like myself (though not a huge gamer anymore) don't. Gaming will generates a signficant amount of revenue for HT companies. They need the money to survive and grow. Having a TV with slighly better picture than the previous year will not generate enough sales. The same can be said about a variety of other HT products, but you get the idea

You're probably very young and have a level of disposable income that allows you to just blow through money on what's ever the new trend, which is what I expect gamers to do. I believe gaming means the end of HT as we know it, here comes the era of the "throwaway" TVs in exchange for gaming features.

 

[Auditor55]

You mean the HDMI 2.1 fiasco like all the previous fiascos?

Excreted using Buttatalk

It was a fiasco because it was a gamer-driven feature. No one needs it for home theater.

 

[Trebdp83]

First it was hotdogs, now you’re hanging salamis around your neck. You better have some pepper spray.