No they don't. Why is that? That's so silly. Do you think people enjoy watching TV more today than they did 30 years ago? Because I see no compelling evidence that they do.
That's a dishonest question because you're trying to make comparisons across generational and cultural gaps. People back then were happy with color. It was the highest standard. TVs weren't as widespread as they are today. Now, the norm is higher definition, clearer colors, and crisper sound. It provides the entertainment in a much more coherent manner. That's now what people are used to. If everyone woke up today with television tech rolled back thirty years, there would be a strong outcry of displeasure.
That's objectively better. The same programs from 30 years ago gain new depth on the televisions of today.
Furthermore, the on demand nature of television today gives more control to viewers, whereas if you missed a program thirty years ago, you were shit out of luck more often than not. The library available to you today is expansive.
The people of the eighties didn't have an inkling of the control and clarity today's viewers enjoy.
Arguing that a 70'' television is "objectively better" because it has a higher resolution would be like arguing that a new piece of medical equipment is better because it has pretty lights on it.
The purpose of medical equipment is to improve health; pretty lights have no effect on its intended functionality. An ugly piece of medical equipment is neither worse nor better than a pretty piece of medical equipment ; the relevant question is, "which one makes me healthier?"
Similarly, the purpose of a television is to entertain (and in some rare cases, to inform). I see no compelling evidence that a nicer picture makes things objectively more entertaining or pleasing. Or less entertaining or pleasing. Better, more intelligent programming makes a television more entertaining, but a better picture does not.
Televisions provide entertainment through visual means. If you improve the transfer of information, you're improving the viewer's engagement with the program, which maximizes the production values. A medical instrument's looks have no bearing on its function, and
if it did, it would certainly carry more aesthetic appeal.
You have objectively better imagine quality, sound, and utility. Can you prove that it makes watching TV objectively more enjoyable?
Do you think young kids would necessarily enjoy playing soccer in a stadium far more than in their neighborhood cul-de-sac?
Not in absolute terms, because I'm not of the mind of hunting down research articles.
Why does it have to be far more, and why does it have to be children?
If it's any more a greater enjoyment to play in the stadium, it's better. And children would have their opinions skewed by relatively simple emotions such as being in a large, unfamiliar place (alternatively, more compelled to play in the stadium because it's "cool").
