Why do so many gamers have such crappy monitors?

[lamedude]

Its just to hold us over until SED shows up. That was my reason when there was still hope.

 

[vbuggy]

I agree with some that has been said here. The OP seems to be a VERY hard core gamer. I play... well... Minecraft. Yeah, dont need a fancy monitor for that. My monitor is easily 4 years old, no issues here.

I'm an even more casual gamer (in fact, I'd say Minecraft is actually a really hardcore game) and I find larger TN monitors get on my nerves in terms of what I see onscreen. I bought a few Dell and Samsung 22-inch TN's a while back for the office, which I rejected and then attempted to use at home but... no, they just didn't work out. Two 24" TN's I bought by mistake after that was got rid of pretty damned fast.

It's the colour shifting and also this sort of artifact in the pixels as I shifted my head just a bit I couldn't stand. I have quite a lot of spare monitors I bought 1-3 years ago so stuff at home/office is a cobbling-together of those, but I wouldn't personally even casually game on anything less than a 24-inch *VA (which may be a better bet for gaming than some IPS anyway).

I've gone back to having two 1920 monitors at home for my main PC, especially as this is the one I play games on. I only have a single GTX 580 on the PC so I figured that the 27-inch running 1920 native was the best bet. I still have a number of Dell 2707's so I've bought one back. These panels are, I find, great for all-purpose use and the extra 3" does help with the immersion. I run it with a 24" on the side.

 

[vbuggy]

one day, when i have a good job and bills out of the way, ill want such a monitor, and an aeron chair

I've never quite gelled with the legendary status of the Aerons, apart from the fact that they're design icons. A lot of people talk about them in terms of ergonomics as well and I'm not sure about that.

I have a few in the office that I dragged from two dot-bombs (about the only part of the investment I got back) and I don't think they're that ergonomic actually - they do allow me to slouch quite a bit in the chair.

I use an Embody at home and that's a slightly different story. My back does like it better.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Personally I'm waiting for a 24" IPS monitor with good build quality, a matte screen, and that has little to no quality issues like backlight bleeding and few coming with dead pixels. All for ~$300 or less. Hopefully it'll happen.

 

[Zap]

I forgot to mention that my opinion may be very skewed since my monitor quality is tied to what I do professionally, so nevermind....

That could be it. For instance, BITD I used to drink Dr Pepper pretty religiously. I hated when I went to restaurants and the wait person would say "we have Mr Pibb, it's pretty much the same." No it is %@#%$@ NOT the same! However, I wouldn't care much with other flavors. For instance, to me 7-Up, Sierra Mist and random generics all taste the same.

It just intuitively seems to me that avid gamers would want a high quality monitor to bring out the best possible IQ from their games.

I used to be pretty much an exclusive multiplayer FPS gamer. I did not care about IQ. I cared about getting my kills or completing the objectives. In fact BITD when I just played twitch shooter deathmatch, I would LOWER all the IQ so I would have fewer distractions.

 

[ieatdonuts]

Yeah, lots of people do that in Quake Live and TF2. Turn down image quality, get maximum (125) fps.

A hardcore gamer should not be frugal with a monitor - get that 120 hz low response time monitor.

It's just that a lot of gamers are casuals and so couldn't be bothered with fast refresh (120 hz) or best image quality (IPS).

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

24" IPS panels are cheap. A couple of years ago 22 and 24" *VA panels were ~$300. 22" eIPS panels are even cheaper. That's harder fail than Fabio Old Spice.

Are there? The only thing resembling that I've seen is the Dell U2311H, and that's $300. If there was a 24" IPS monitor for $300 or under with little to no quality control issues I'd jump on it. For those of us with 22" 16:10 1680x1050 monitors going "up" to a 23" 16:9 1920x1080 monitor means losing screen real estate in terms of height. It'd be nice to have something that's taller and wider.

 

[0roo0roo]

Same reason most laptops have 720p displays.

people are cheap.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Are there? The only thing resembling that I've seen is the Dell U2311H, and that's $300. If there was a 24" IPS monitor for $300 or under with little to no quality control issues I'd jump on it. For those of us with 22" 16:10 1680x1050 monitors going "up" to a 23" 16:9 1920x1080 monitor means losing screen real estate in terms of height. It'd be nice to have something that's taller and wider.

HP LP2275w was under $300 3 years ago. Probably going to be keeping it for another 3, minimum. 22", 16:10, 1680x1050, PVA

HP has "ZR" monitors that are in the same price range but I think they are 16:9. Still beats a TN monitor if you ever have to do anything requiring color accuracy.

 

[cmay119]

You wouldn't catch me spending that kind of money on any of the current gen IPS panels. LG (The only manufacturer of IPS panels for non-TV display's) thought it'd be a really good idea to put an AG coating on the displays so strong, that a white-background looks like it has a constant, heavy Spackle of dust on the screen. So, you're screwed with whatever brand you go with (besides Apple, as they're the only glossy IPS display on the market). Dell, HP, NEC, Asus, etc. They're all effected with the same issue.

IPS monitors are marketed with image-quality as the top priority. Yet, they give you a panel that has been tarnished by this coating that makes it look absolutely awful. I'm currently using a Samsung 2333T (VA panel) until Samsung introduces the SA850 series with PLS. I pray Samsung is able to deliver in the areas where LG has failed.

The Dell U2711 looked like the perfect monitor for me, until I saw it in person, that is. So disappointing.

 

[mfenn]

You wouldn't catch me spending that kind of money on any of the current gen IPS panels. LG (The only manufacturer of IPS panels for non-TV display's) thought it'd be a really good idea to put an AG coating on the displays so strong, that a white-background looks like it has a constant, heavy Spackle of dust on the screen. So, you're screwed with whatever brand you go with (besides Apple, as they're the only glossy IPS display on the market). Dell, HP, NEC, Asus, etc. They're all effected with the same issue.

IPS monitors are marketed with image-quality as the top priority. Yet, they give you a panel that has been tarnished by this coating that makes it look absolutely awful. I'm currently using a Samsung 2333T (VA panel) until Samsung introduces the SA850 series with PLS. I pray Samsung is able to deliver in the areas where LG has failed.

The Dell U2711 looked like the perfect monitor for me, until I saw it in person, that is. So disappointing.

That's honestly one of those things that pops out at you when you first get the monitory but quickly fades into obscurity. I had to open a new Paint window and jack might brightness all to hell to even notice it.

 

[goobernoodles]

Just picked up a Hanns G 28" LCD for $150 on the FS/T forum and couldn't be happier. Suck it. lol

 

[ch33kym0use]

Chances of sucking it, almost no chance at all.

 

[n7]

Ignorance is bliss.

They're all fools.

 

[ManBearPig]

you know, this kinda sounds like the people over at AVS recommending me $1000+ subwoofers (or speakers, or remotes, or tvs, etc etc lol). Yeah i want those, except for i either a)dont have the money, or b)dont care that much about what those offer over a more modestly priced one.

 

[Paperlantern]

you know, this kinda sounds like the people over at AVS recommending me $1000+ subwoofers (or speakers, or remotes, or tvs, etc etc lol). Yeah i want those, except for i either a)dont have the money, or b)dont care that much about what those offer over a more modestly priced one.

This is exactly it. Most people DONT care because we have bigger things to worry about. The day i care about trivial things like what a $1000 monitor can offer over my 4 year old Acer with 5ms refresh (which still looks FINE to me btw), is the day i must be divorced and living on some sort of income that I don't have to earn myself and have NOTHING better to do.

But the market caters to all. Casual gamers and incredibly rich OCD mofos alike. The markt has something for everyone.

BTW, minecraft both is, and isnt hardcore. Its one of those games that can be both because its all in how the player chooses to play it. While this is true for most games, it is true here too. I play a couple hours a week at the most, and any largeish project I take on usually takes me upwards of a month or two to complete. Then there are guys that build replicas of the sistine chapel in a 20 hour weekend marathon session.

My computer primarily gets used for virtual machines, and network administration for work from home.

To each their own!

 

[Zeze]

People have different priorities with their money?

I have a standard 24" monitor and a nice desktop that handles whatever later games I want.

For $1K, I'd go to Mexico again with GF. That fucking beats the shit out of some stupid monitor.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

If my memory serves new correct, the old tn panels only came in 16.2 million colors. I'm personally now just seeing 16.7m color tn panels. Correct me on this if I am wrong please.

 

[HeXen]

last i saw, most gamers still used 17" monitors on average.
I use 32"

 

[skipsneeky2]

1k on a montior? wow.

You could buy a 55 inch 1080p t.v for that price and before anyone says it could look like crap my 37 inch insignia does just fine with the vga.

Hell have a hard time wanting to buy a new 23 inch monitor now...idk if many gamers end up simply using their flatscreen t.vs to game on?

 

[BladeVenom]

TN offers faster response time, less ghosting, and they're cheaper. For under a $1000 you can get 3 nice TN monitors.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

TN offers faster response time, less ghosting, and they're cheaper. For under a $1000 you can get 3 nice TN monitors.

Both of which you'll notice if you're a hardcore gamer OR you have very sensitive eyes only.

For under $1000 you can also get three Dell U2311Hs, and those have comparable response time and ghosting to the previous gen 2-5ms TN panels, which is to say good. Where you might notice a difference is when going to slower panels.

Personally, I don't really notice ghosting or lower response times so I'll go for a nice Samsung 2333T now that it's $150 at TigerDirect. It's 1920x1080 and 23" like most TNs in that price range but being a cPVA panel it beats the hell out of them in color accuracy, viewing angles, contrast ratio (and therefore blacks), and backlight bleeding. The only negative thing is the "slow" response time, but I don't really notice it even when doing hardcore gaming on older monitors.

 

[RussianSensation]

It just intuitively seems to me that avid gamers would want a high quality monitor to bring out the best possible IQ from their games.

In that case a 50 inch 1080P Pioneer Kuro or Panasonic plasma sh!ts all over a 1080P IPS monitor. Chances are gamers who want the best compromise between IQ and resolution (and can afford it) will get a 2560x1600 monitor, which by default tends to be IPS. Otherwise, for movies and games Plasma > LCD/LED any day .

Personally I could never justify spending $1k on a 30 inch LCD when I can get a superior (in my eyes) 50 inch Plasma for games. Of course, you are probably starting to see a trend: opinions are not facts; and hence people are going to have a difference of opinions.

You could buy a 55 inch 1080p t.v for that price and before anyone says it could look like crap my 37 inch insignia does just fine with the vga.

Hell have a hard time wanting to buy a new 23 inch monitor now...idk if many gamers end up simply using their flatscreen t.vs to game on?

Been using an $800 37 inch IPS LCD for gaming since 2007. There is no way I would downgrade to some tiny 24 inch IPS monitor that still costs $300-400! But honestly, even my 2006 Panasonic plasma with 1024x768 resolutions BLOWS it away for everything other than games (due to low resolution). A modern plasma with its amazing response time, deepest blacks is miles better than IPS monitors. The only thing IPS has going for it is 2560x1600 resolution and lower power consumption. For IQ, LCD has been inferior to Plasma and still is.

 

[newtobuilding]

I have an ASUS 1600x900 LED monitor. 10'000'000-1 contrast ratio, with 60hz.

 

[Chinoman]

I like to think of myself as a discerning gamer and I believe that a system is as good as its lowest quality part. Smart system budgeting which allows for higher quality accessories facilitates the best overall user experience.

For my most recent build I went with a Dell U2211h. I got it for $199 shipped + 3 year exchange warranty. Of course, you could find a similarly priced TN panel for a larger size like 23-24", but I actually considered it an upgrade over my old BenQ 24" LCD due to the increased ergonomics of the Ultrasharp line (monitor ergonomics seems to be underrated stat for most users) as well as the tremendous difference in image quality.

What I think the problem is is that things like ergonomics and image quality are tougher to sell successfully in a market where most buyers are looking for quantifiable stats like screen size, resolution, and response time.

Price is hardly the issue if you're a savvy shopper. You can find a decent number of competent IPS panels at reasonable prices, even as low as $200. I think that price will become less of a factor as time goes on and they become even more readily available at that price range.