Topic: General Xbox Series X|S Thread

@BlueOcean I never said there was anything wrong and some TV's do try and minimise the wear by dimming certain elements - although they don't dim those ticker-tape scrolling 'breaking news' bars because the text scrolling makes it seem like its not static but still causes more wear - as do some news boxes, EPG boxes etc too. Its perhaps too early to see if these measures have a 'big' impact as most 2019+ TV's haven't yet had 5000hrs + of usage.

Neither LEDs or OLED TV's are 'perfect' and the 'best' option for 'everyone'. There is NO denying that OLEDs have an excellent PQ - but its not 'perfect' for every type of content - particularly HDR as it doesn't have the colour volume or brightness to deliver HDR as the content was mastered. Not saying its 'bad' at all - but you lose some colour saturation (as it has to use White sub-pixel to boost the brightness thus desaturating the colour) and you do lose some detail in highlights because it has to compress the range down to its maximum peak brightness. An OLED has around 100m+ lower colour volume it can display compared to a QLED. Again its not one sided because an LED has areas its not so strong on - starry skies can be a real struggle for LEDs as local dimming may make the sky look far less starry.

My point wasn't to bash on OLEDs but to provide information and if you know what the actual risks are, you can then make a more informed decision, be more aware and/or take action to minimise that risk further. Maybe search Netflix on a mobile and add to your playlist so you don't have the Netflix on screen for so long, maybe not leave Sky Sports News on in the background for hours every weekend etc to minimise that accumulative wear. Maybe it doesn't matter to you at all and the quality of the PQ is worth replacing your TV every 3yrs or so for to ensure the colour accuracy and consistency is maintained before any really noticeable uneven wear appears...

The problem is though that people may think 'Burn-in' isn't an issue - which it really isn't these days with general use, but then will watch Good Morning Britain every morning before work for an hour and then sometime later, notice that the logo is visible in some slides or content because that hour every day adds up, 7hrs a week, 365hrs a year etc of more wear than the surrounding sub-pixels. Thinking that they should not have issue because they never left GMB on for hours on end to 'burn-in' and ensured all the anti-burn in measures were enabled.

My point was to make people aware of that and reassess whether their usage would be a 'higher risk' of uneven wear, whether its worth purchasing an OLED or changing their viewing habits to minimise that risk further or not the 'best' technology for them - especially if they expect to get a LONG life without issue despite being a very 'high' user in terms of hours of viewing. HDR too or setting the TV 'brighter' than is 'necessary' for the content too can increase the wear as well so knocking the brightness back a bit can reduce the wear - SDR is mastered to around 120nits but some may watch at 250nits because they prefer a brighter look. LEDs do offer a longer life expectancy because LEDs don't 'fade' over time like Organic compounds which break down. Like I said though, LEDs have issues too but people need to decide whether the pro's and just as importantly, the cons/risks are acceptable to them. Neither is perfect, but one tech maybe better suited to the usage and needs of the individual over another. OLEDs may have the edge on PQ but if the usage you demand causes that PQ to deteriorate (due to uneven wear) and be worse than LEDs (with poor colour accuracy across the whole screen) after say 2yrs when you expect at least 5yrs, then maybe it might be better to take that 'small' hit on PQ for a more consistent viewing experience over 5yrs instead...

I will 'never' recommend that someone should buy an OLED or an LED because people need to determine what tech will suit their situation the best. I may say that LG offers the 'best' OLED or Samsung the 'best' LED in a certain area (like gaming input lag) or for certain features but as its not my money, not me that will be watching or having to live with any issues (long or short term), I try and give people the information to look at what they want/need/expect from a TV and decide which TV, with its Pros and Cons will suit them the best.

@BAMozzy @BlueOcean That’s exactly why I don’t want an OLED, the cons outweigh the pros for me. When a TV costs over a grand I’d expect that TV to last a lot longer than 2-3yrs and for it to not have the many risks that come with it and also having to take steps to lower them.

If it wasn’t for the major cons of OLED I wouldn’t of even considered anything else. It’s just typical that OLED TVs have the best picture quality but also happens to come with more severe risks than LED. But as is life we can’t have it all.

I’ve been looking at Samsung TVs and from what I’ve seen not one of them that’s currently for sale have HDMI 2.1, not even the new QLED 2020 range. If they are planning to add HDMI 2.1 to their 2021 range then that’s too late for me and I’ll just have to settle with HDMI 2.0 while knowing I’m not going to get the very best out of the Series X.

@MaccaMUFC Samsung are planning to update their TV's to HDMI 2.1 as far as I know - not sure IF it has happened yet or will happen soon but it is expected. That's why I am not actively seeking to upgrade in the next few months and much more likely to consider my options around Black Friday onwards. If it hasn't happened by then, I will wait to see what next years TV's offer, maybe by the January sales, after CES, I will have a better idea too as to what will be the best option for me.

My KS8000 will be going to the bedroom so I will be upgrading the H6400 I have there. Whilst the KS8000 is delivering what I want/need right now, I can wait until I can buy a TV that actually represents an upgrade for the future and tech I expect to use on it. I wouldn't be happy to buy a TV now and find that I want features it doesn't offer when I get my Series X and PS5. If something happens to either TV in the meantime, then I may have to consider my options sooner but right now, I can live with the KS as my main TV until the right TV at the right price comes along.

An interesting video about Smart Delivery....

@MaccaMUFC The burn-in is massively overblown by some people. If you check forums like https://www.avforums.com you'll find OLED TV owners that have enjoyed a perfect picture for many years. The burn-in tests are extreme like maximum brightness 24/7, literally. With normal use it's a different story. If you don't want OLED I recommend you to at least wait until LCD/QLED TVs have HDMI 2.1 because every new console (and Xbox One X) will make the most of it and I don't mean 8K (not relevant or important now) but mostly variable refresh rates, support for higher frame rates and the new eARC standard. Anyway, read some TV reviews before buying one and pay attention to gaming features like lag and HDMI 2.1.

@BAMozzy @BlueOcean I’ve been thinking and thought I can’t justify paying a grand for new tv that I’ll be keeping for 5+yrs or until anything goes wrong with it and be missing out on important tech that the Series X will benefit from. So right now a Samsung tv without HDMI 2.1 is out of the question unless Samsung releases a tv with HDMI 2.1 in the next few months, although that’s very unlikely.

I’ve came across two LG models that have HDMI 2.1, the C9 which BlueOcean recommended but I still have my concerns with the risks that come with the OLED screen and that it doesn’t have a long life compared to LED. Plus I’d only consider the 55” at £1,300 because I’m just not prepared to pay £2,000 for the 65”. So that in itself isn’t going to be an upgrade in terms of size as I already have a 55” and I really wanted to go bigger with a new tv.

The other LG model is the SM9000 it’s an LED but it’s 65” at £1,100 and has NanoCell which I presume is the equivalent to Samsung’s Quantum Dot technology? I know the C9 is the better tv but the fact it will be 10” less and probably won’t even last past 4 yrs is putting me off. I know the SM9000 sounds like it would be best for me but then I do think isn’t it just worth paying the extra £200 for better picture quality and deeper blacks even despite the C9 being 10” less than the SM9000? I’m just unsure and really need to think what I really want because over a grand is lot of money and I want the best tv mainly for the Series X.

@MaccaMUFC https://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&am...

According their figures and impression, it would be a downgrade on PQ over the KS8000. Its blacks and black handling is worse because of its different panel type, it has a lower % of the DCI-P3 colour gamut - in other words, its colour range is smaller, and its not as bright either for HDR content.

At the end of the day, its up to you of course and hope you find the right option for you...

@BAMozzy I didn’t even look at reviews for the SM90 as I just saw that it had HDMI 2.1 and was affordable at 65” but it bothers me when it has worse blacks and worse brightness than the older KS8000.

I’d consider the C9 but it would have to be the 55” so no size upgrade but at least I’d have better PQ, amazing blacks and HDMI 2.1. Isn’t it true though that OLED don’t do HDR very well as it’s brightness isn’t on par with the likes of QLED? Let’s say all your TVs broke right now and you needed a replacement ASAP what tv would you get right now for Series X/PS5?

@MaccaMUFC Mine is 55". 3-4 years for a 2019 OLED TV is a very pessimistic reckoning! The truth is that modern OLED TVs last almost the same (at the very least 8 years with normal use) that you can expect from a LCD/LED/QLED (LED televisions are actually LCD televisions that harness LED technology as a backlight and QLED is Samsung's marketing "BS") and enjoying perfect contrast, accurate colours and saving electricity in the process:

https://www.yourgamecave.com/oled-vs-led-lifespan/

Considering all brands and models you can find useful rankings like these:

https://www.whathifi.com/awards/best-tvs-2019
https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/best-tv-uk

Finally, I just recommend OLED because I read a lot before buying the LG C9 and I know how good OLED has become but whether you buy OLED or not, my recommendation still is getting a low lag and HDMI 2.1 but only LG incorporated that in 2019. If you want LCD and HDMI 2.1 outside LG you have to browse 2020 models.

Read the links above and specific reviews of the models that you are seriously considering. Good luck! This has been off-topic but hopefully helpful. Going back to Series X, I am becoming excited now about the new controller and reduced lag times. I have the Elite controller and I love it so the fact that it can be updated to get that lag reduction when connected to the new console is great but I'm impressed by the subtle improvements of the new controller.

I know you asked him but since I own the C9 I can confirm that HDR looks amazingly good (all formats are supported). It doesn't hurt my eyes but it's bright enough. That said, most games have HDR settings. Perfect blacks are more important than extreme brightness in my opinion and because OLED panels are thinner and don't use backlight, brightness is always higher on LCD/LED/QLED.

EDIT:

This is Digital Foundry's recommendations for gaming TVs:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-best-4k-tvs...

They consider the LG C9 the best 4K TV for HDR gaming.

@BlueOcean I’m seriously considering the C9 now as it’s the only tv out there right now that’s appealing with HDMI 2.1 over my KS8000. I’ll still be nervous about burn-in and pixels fading but I could always take steps to lower the risks and prolong the TV’s lifespan, I may even get it insured to put my mind at ease even if it doesn’t cover burn-in or faded pixels as there’s other ways to claim for insured TVs.

I see the B9 is still selling and for £200 less than the C9 but then the C9 does have a more advanced processor and probably more/improved features. Did you get your C9 calibrated by a professional or did you use the TV’s own auto calibration functionality? I agree I’ve took this way off topic in a Series X forum and won’t post more in here.

@MaccaMUFC If I had to buy right now,I would buy the C9 - It has the best PQ/price balance, best feature set and best equipped for the next generation of gaming. You will lose out on the brightness, brightness details etc and full screen whites won't look HDR at all - probably dimmer than most SDR screens would look - but that doesn't happen often and often nothing more than a quick 'flash'.

I doubt I would get more than 2-3 yrs out of it if truth be told - not the amount of hours I watch but I think if I had to, right now I would buy the LG C9. I haven't looked at the latest 2020 models yet, but for a 2019 TV, its probably the best you can buy. I would buy 55" because I would be happy with just the PQ upgrade and feature set - then if I do wear out the TV in a few years, It won't be such an expense - still expensive I know. If that really isn't and option, then the ONLY LEDs to consider in my opinion are the Samsung Q95T (2020) or Q90R (2019) as an alternative choice to the OLED - maybe even the 8k Screens to ensure I get HDMI 2.1. Realistically, the C9 is the better all rounder but its whether you would be willing to accept that risk and/or replace again if it doesn't last as long as you hope

@MaccaMUFC The C9 has better and smoother video because of the faster processor and is better value than B9. The CX is C9's sucessor. When you pause a video game or video stŕeaming on these TVs the screensaver kicks in. Static logos are automatically dimmed. I didn't call a professional but I used the Xbox One X calibration test. I used slightly different settings for Game and HDR Game modes, the settings are saved after being tweaked. You have a thread with more input about this and I even posted my settings there:

https://www.nintendolife.com/forums/general_discussion/lookin...

You can post there or create a thread on PureXbox telling us about your purchase, if you called a professional and if it was worth it, etc.

@BlueOcean
I hope this rumor is bogus, because I don't like the idea of Perfect Dark being re-imagined as a shared, open world online experience. 😧

@gingataisen Yep, online can ruin anything but I think that if it's true it would have some limitations. Let's see. We will see some games in May/June.

Destiny - a shared online, 'open world' game is not that bad as a solo gamer and really the next step from a game like Borderlands. Perfect Dark could sit somewhere between the two and doesn't mean that it will ultimately be a 'bad decision'. It may well be better than a very linear FPS story like PDZ was. Having other players in the same game instance doesn't need to ruin your own enjoyment or impact on what you are doing, what you want to do etc. I spent 'thousands' of hours on Destiny playing Solo, achieving what I wanted, what I needed etc and others had NO impact on my enjoyment - couldn't take my loot/weapons etc.

I think some people see 'Online' and instantly think that it will have young kids shouting obscenities, going out of their way to spoil your game, your fun, grabbing things you want/need before you can get there etc but it doesn't have to be that way. It could be more like Borderlands where you can play the game co-operatively and at most, just have a 'social' hub. I don't write of any game just because it maybe 'Online' only and certainly not if the story, game-play etc interests me. Forza Horizon can be a shared world too...

See what it is and how they choose to implement any online options before criticising the choices of the dev team.

We have heard rumours about Fable, Forza Motorsport and Perfect Dark. Xbox needs Banjo-Kazooie and Viva Piñata too.

@BAMozzy
No, I see 'Online' and instantly realize that the game now has an expiration date. Once those servers shut down, it's game over. This modern aversion to offline-only games is something I'll never fully understand. We did just fine with it for decades. Why is it so wrong now? 😟

@gingataisen 'Online' does not necessarily mean the game has an expiration date at all - especially less so with MS who seem keen to preserve games. The most likely way an 'online' game expires is more likely to be from a lack of people playing more than the servers not being active.

Again though, it depends on the way online is implemented and what modes etc use online. Its entirely possible that the game could be played 'offline' with couch co-op/MP or even a 'bot' mode version. Online 'adds' something that offline-only games of the past couldn't offer. It doesn't necessarily take anything away from those old games and instead of having to have 'friends/family' come round to sit around a small screen TV and see just a small corner of that screen to play, you can play with anyone, anytime from anywhere in the world.

That attitude to me is like saying why do we need HD or 4k when we had SD for years before? Why do we need surround sound when Stereo was good enough for years. Its not as if Offline gaming has completely disappeared at all but that Online offers something 'new', something 'different' and/or something 'more' than was possible before. It doesn't have to be 'bad' or even worse - it can be more fun, more interesting, more unique and often better than having some 'AI' partners. Sharing a game experience, playing and working together with friends to complete missions etc can be a lot more fun than just playing Solo and online doesn't 'just' mean competitive gaming. Arcades had 2p options - even if it meant having to take turns and had 'couch co-op' type games too that you could play together - Gauntlet for example. Online removes the need to have 2 (or more) people in the same room.

All you have to do is look at Xbox Backwards Compatibility (and/or PC gaming) to see that games can have a LONG shelf life with online functionality - you can still play games like Halo, Star Wars Battlefront (the originals) etc online today. There is a lot more chance that this games will have a longer shelf life than a lot of 'single player' games - especially those sports type games (inc racing sims) because they are replaced 'regularly' with newer versions. Do people still want to play games like the Division or Destiny now when there is a sequel? Will they still be wanting to play in 10yrs time or more even if the servers are on? Will you still want to play 10yr+ old games you already played when you have a backlog of new games on newer hardware? Maybe some - maybe some will also be remastered or updated too. I don't see it being too much of an issue - as long as I get my enjoyment and time out of it when it was new. After over 2000 hours in Destiny, I don't know that I want to replay it in 10yrs time and certain activities (like MP, strikes and raids) could be 'dead' before the servers get turned off because no one else is playing but it could last longer than trying to play those activities on you own 'offline' when none of your friends/family want to play. You could still do ALL the campaign missions, run around the world killing enemies in free roam etc - even if you never see another 'human' controlled character.

I think Online has its place and I for 1 am happy that 'some' games are 'Online' - even 'online only' - as they offered something different to offline only games and its better to have variety and different experiences than the same old thing rehashed in a different setting, different characters etc. There are options for those that want 'solo' offline experiences as well as more social gaming experiences too - some that offer both in one package. Gears of War can be played entirely solo but take away offline, and you could struggle to find someone that may want to play the campaign co-operatively or any of the MP modes (not all competitive modes as Horde is a co-operative mode).

There is NOTHING wrong with offline gaming either and there is still a LOT of games - more games in fact that can be played (or at least have an offline/solo campaign). Point is, there is 'choice' and I wouldn't write off any game because its 'online' or even 'online only' because those games can be as much fun, if not more fun because you are playing with friends...

Open world bothers me a lot more about the rumours. Ever since BotW was a gigantic success, everything seems to becoming [insert franchise]'s take on BotW and it's gotten dull fast.