I don't agree with Blizzard.
I don't agree with Blizzard.
This suggests that Blizzard may still be developing compatibility features for it.
putting dev hours into something rarely used feels like a waste of time, especially when it doesn’t really matter to anyone else. i’m used to running a triple monitor setup, but nvidia surround is so chaotic I avoid it. better use it for stuff like discord and spotify. i’ve tried two games that work well with triple monitors—minecraft and civilization v—but haven’t found a competitive shooter that supports triple screen effectively. battlefield seems to be the exception.
Refresh rate can be high without any adjustments needed; most relevant engines handle 144+ fps smoothly. Ultra wide doesn’t affect UI consistency. Multi-GPU and 4+ cores are expected to work as they’re anticipated for future use. Triple screens are largely outdated, just like multi-GPU is becoming less common.
The argument about frame rate comparisons keeps repeating without solid grounding. Claiming support for ultra widescreens is confusing if not accurate. If no support existed, the game would either block 21:9 play or show issues instead. Frame rate changes are straightforward—up or down on a single axis. A 120Hz boost over 60Hz is clear progress, and higher rates offer only minor gains. The screen’s aspect ratio isn’t just about being longer or shorter; its width and height are relative measurements. While one monitor may be wider than another, calling it taller is equally valid. I suspect the latter idea holds more weight, since many standards cap at 4K to mark a benchmark for lower resolutions. In reality, “wider” simply means different, not inherently better. Choosing between width and height can favor one side, which might have been the case in older CRT-era games. There are four possible approaches: prioritize width at the cost of height, favor height at the expense of width, aim for a balanced compromise (as Overwatch does), or let players adjust their field of view freely. The last option tries to satisfy everyone but risks enabling unrealistic FOV settings that distort competition and harm the gaming experience. Ultimately, market trends lean toward 16:9, so Blizzard’s choice makes sense. A practical fix for motion sickness would be to raise the FOV ceiling to 120, letting 21:9 viewers enjoy the full picture while still benefiting those using 16:9.