• Bakkoda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      If the hardware specs support it, I want to be able to do it. End of fuckin story. If they sell me a thing I don’t want to be told how I cannot use it. It’s not about what you think I need it for and it’s that exact attitude that allows this shit to exist.

      • artyom@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, what allows this to exist is consumer complacency. If people refused to buy HDMI devices, they couldn’t sell them, and they’d stop making them. And then just everyone would use DisplayPort, which is the objectively superior standard anyway.

    • juipeltje@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      LG C series OLED in particular is a popular choice as a gaming display, no displayport on those puppies. I got one myself because it was actually a better deal compared to a similar OLED monitor.

      • artyom@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        Okay so would you say there are a handful of “TVs” that need this?

        It really just doesn’t seem important.

        • juipeltje@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m not sure what you mean. I think all TVs should have displayport, since regardless of what model it is, people also like plugging their pc into the living room tv for couch gaming. I just mentioned the C series as an example because they’re popular with desk gamers. Alternatively, having hdmi 2.1 support would be another solution, and seems more feasible than trying to get tv manufacturers to put displayport on their TVs, because they refuse to do it for some reason.

          • artyom@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            I’m not sure what you mean

            I mean there are very very few people using TVs like yours.

            because they refuse to do it for some reason.

            The reason is money (as always). The TV manufacturers all got together and formed the HDMI consortium and then decided they were only going to use these ports on their devices, and then charge any OEM a fee for the privilege of connecting to them.

      • artyom@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Uh-huh, and what TV are you going to plug this gaming PC into that necessitates HDMI 2.1? HDMI 2.0 runs 4k/60 just fine.

          • artyom@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            I mean that’s just a super rare choice of TVs that very few people are actually going to be using.

            • juipeltje@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 days ago

              Why are you so against this? Just because it’s a smaller group of people that needs this feature it’s not worth implementing, and the people that need it can just suck a fat one? Also, assuming technology keeps advancing, wanting more than 4k60 output isn’t going to be a rare request as time moves on.

              • artyom@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                I’m not against it at all. It just seems super unimportant.

                When I got a “TV” I just got one with DP, personally.

                • juipeltje@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  I’ve never even seen a tv with dp before lol, nevermind one with the specs i’m after. Although tbf i’m not that informed about the tv market. I only payed attention to it when i wanted one for the desk.

                  • artyom@piefed.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Well I put “TV” in quotes because I don’t know exactly what the difference is. The 2 devices have distinct general features but they’re not strict. Mine is a 48" OLED.

            • velxundussa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Take of that what you will, but I have the same specs/requirements as that other person.

              I don’t think it’s as rare as you assume: couch gaming PCs are a thing, and expecting similar compatibility as consoles is normal.