I remain skeptical. I can FEEL the difference in keyboards. A lot of times I consider these DPI wars something planted by the mouse manufacturers to increase sales.
Plus, PC gaming is dying, dying, dying............
(my kid would kill me for saying this because I'm just pissed that L4D2 kept him up too late last night).
I think it's in a slump not death. You may say otherwise but I really doubt that PC gaming will go poof out of thin air.
DPI is debated a lot, some people feel it's a gimmick some people say it's a scam. In simplest terms DPI is nothing but a linear speed modifier(So long as windows is set to 6/11(1:1 ratio) or else it changes the speed). Move an inch and you move the DPI of set value. Use a WMO 1.1 for example: 400 DPI and you move 400 pixels on screen per inch. Use a deathadder and have it at 1800 DPI and you move 1,800 pixels on screen per inch.
From what I read a lot of people feel it's a gimmick because some people have calculated the perfect pixel accuracy to the field of view of the game and resolution of their monitor. Some say it's impossible for a human to manipulate the DPI that is coming out like 5600/5700 our hands are not fine enough to control it.
I mentioned this on another thread some of these people are counter-strike players, CS has a problem with mice. CS uses an X/Y overlay to calculate the mouse position. When you hit the edge of your screen it recenters the pointer that's running on your desktop to the center of the overlay.
It's not a directinput game, meaning that counter-strike suffers from a lot of negative acceleration due to high DPI.
Your son plays TF2, unlike counter-strike the sensitivity value can go further below than 1.0. Many modern games can do the same Call of Duty's sensitivity goes from 0.01-100. So are many other games and quake engines, unreal games/engines, and many other modern games/engines.
The question that I have for all the people who say DPI is a gimmick is this.
Now I want to point out that my position on DPI is not out of skepticism I do think it has it's benefits but on practicality.(Like can it be used as an advantage, does it have a use things like that). I don't outright shoot it down.
A number of people will try and set a sensitivity to the size of their mousepad, if not and it's lower they will lift the mouse off the mousepad move it across the other side and sweep again.
Let's assume that person uses 400 DPI and 1.4-2.0 sensitivity. And they played CoD. With 1800 DPI to achieve a similar sensitivity feel you would need to go to a region of 0.700-0.800 sensitivity in-game. Say they used a G500 with 5700 DPI if they dropped their sensitivity to 0.07 or 0.05 so it feels the same. Wouldn't that be more accurate as the mouse is more in control of the speed thus your hand more in control.
But the debate also goes further. If someone has set their DPI and sensitivity to be maybe not pixel perfect accurate but accurate to the field of view and resolution, what's the point of more DPI. And that's where things get tricky because these people aren't going to be gaming on resolutions requiring that much DPI.
But still it leaves the question of what I mentioned above. Is the low DPI set to the resolution sensitivity going to be better than a extremely high DPI set 1 or 2 magnitudes lower than the sensitivity set by the others. In other words is the guy using a low DPI and a sensitivity modifier that the game has more control of more accurate or is the guy who has so much DPI that you can practically set the sensitivity so low that by all factors 99% of the game's control is in your mouse/hand.
(I forgot to add, I'm aware some people use very low sensitivities and mouse acceleration. They set their sensitivity so low they can hardly turn but if they flick their mouse fast enough the acceleration kicks in. Here's an excellent system used by
Soldier of Fortune 2. I'm ignoring low sens/mouse accel as some people don't like the inconsistencies brought about by it.)