The Revolution Will Not Be HD

Gamecube Advanced has the news that the Revolution will not support HD signals. From the article: "Nintendo doesn't plan for the system to be HD compatible as with that comes a higher price for both the consumer and also the developer creating the game. Will it make the game better to play? With the technology being built into the Revolution, we believe the games will look brilliant and play brilliantly. This can all be done without HD." Sony and Microsoft are hanging the moon on the HD phenomenon, with both consoles supporting at least 720p or 1080i. Press the Buttons has commentary on the announcement.

Comments

Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[wyldeone]

While HD TVs may not now have a wide distrabution, they are very obviously the future. What Nintendo is setting themselves up for is a console that is obsolete in a couple of years when everybody starts to get HD. However brilliant their graphics are, they still can't look that good at 720x480.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Seumas]

The console will hardly be obsolete in a couple years. It's not like it won't operate on an HDTV display. It just won't operate at HDTV resolution. I think that's a bad move for a console that is probably intended to be their mainstay for the next five years since maybe four of those years will see the nation moved to HDTV televisions and signals.

On the other hand, Nintendo has never really been the hardcore gaming system. It's more of a fun little time-waster (or at least, that's the kind of game they tended to make up until now). Do you really need HD for Kirby, Mario, Tetris, Animal Crossing and so on?

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[ivan256]

What Nintendo is setting themselves up for is a console that is obsolete in a couple of years when everybody starts to get HD.

Actually, what they're doing is betting that the majority of people still won't have HD in 3 years when the console will be obsolete anyway. They're probably right, but only time will tell whether they shot themselves in the foot by not including it, or whether Microsoft and Sony shot themselves in the feet by wasting money on HD that could have gone to profit. It seems to me that PS3 and Xbox 360 will likely be used in Non-HD mode by the vast majority of people who buy them; myself included. Considering that even with the lowest market share Nintendo is still winning the profit battle, I'd think hard before betting against decisions they make.

It's always come down to the games in the past anyway. Graphics have always been secondary to the majority of buyers. The game lineup 6 months after release will determine who 'wins' this generation more than any set of specs any company releases now.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[GigsVT]

However brilliant their graphics are, they still can't look that good at 720x480

720 is generous. 704 or less is more commonly cited. And the safe viewable area is more like 640, remember some of the picture goes under the bezel in most TVs, unlike monitors that have an image smaller than the screen.

So it's more like 640X480... interlaced.

I always blast my console loving friends that also always buy the latest video cards for the hypocracy of accepting interlaced 640X480 for console but spending $300 on a the latest video card so they can turn all the res and settings up in the latest PC games.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[KDR_11k]

Do you really need HD for Kirby, Mario, Tetris, Animal Crossing and so on?

You don't need HD for anything that doesn't involve tiny details or text.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[cgenman]

Don't forget that extra pixels come at the expense of image quality. If these systems have enough power to do all of the tricks that developers want you will be OK. If, however, higher-rez causes lower texture quality, reduced normal mapping, reduced environment lighting, or any of the other tricks, then it may not be worth it in terms of overall image quality.

Microsoft scored with the HD on the Xbox because a lot of Xbox games are ports of PS2 titles... hence developers can use the extra power to put out extra pixels, and call it a day. But if you're starting from scratch and trying to push 4x the pixels onto the screen for 10% of your users and giving up atmospheric effects for it, it seems somewhat unnecessary.

I'm not convinced the next generation of systems will be powerful enough to take "full" advantage of the pixels available to them currently, let alone 4x that many. And the majority of people who own HDtv's, don't realize that the normal signal is still at normal resolution. It's nice, but tough for the average person to see the difference. Nintendo going with a single image output standard is probably a good move overall, and I support their decision. Plus it will make my job easier, which is a nice bonus.

On the other hand, as a feature checklist, this will be a minus in most people's books. But most people who own HDTV's still play normal DVD's on them and somehow think they're running in High Density.

If you have an HDTV enabled game, you must optimize your game to look best in HDTV, and people with normal TV's just have wasted cycles that could be used for effects, etc. If you have a normal game, you optimize your game to look best on normal televisions, and while HDTV's potential goes underutilized, you still have the same great looking game as on normal TV's.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Cuthalion]

Well, they can look as good as all of the best looking games on the existing consoles, and quite a bit better probably. In neither Ico nor Windwaker did I lament the fact that the game was running at a lower resolution.

It's possible that stuff can look betteter at low-definition, because you get eight times (half the x, half the y, interlaced) the time to work on each pixel. How much gain HD gives you depends on the size of your screen, but I game on a projector throwing a 6' image on my wall, and I'm pretty happy with the output capabilities of current games.

I do hope they include at least a component video output; the first two generations of the GameCube had one, but they dropped that in the third gen.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[zerocommazero]

HD market saturation is still fairly low and most likely will be for at leat 5 years. It would be a wasted effort for Nintendo to go out of their way for HD. The switch to HD for the average household is still way too expensive. Not only do you have to shell out for a very expensive TV, but then you've got to pay extra for HD services from your cable/satellite provider. Not to mention that most homes would have to get a new wall unit or purchase new furniture in order to compensate for the new HDTV. If all it took was a new TV, then I'm sure you'd see a faster changeover.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Aquariette]

Personally, I don't have an HDTV, and I don't plan to get one anytime soon. I don't know how many people think as I do, but I'm just fine with Nintendo's lack of HD support.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[wyldeone]

Yeah, except that these consoles have 6 years lifespans. So Nintendo better hope that their console isn't obsolete in three years.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Seumas]

Five years?

As I recall, broadcasting will move to HD *only* in 2006. Or at least, that was always the plan. So what are all these people going to watch with their non HD televisions when only HD signals are being delivered?

Or maybe I have the dates wrong...

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Fred Or Alive]

I think the width of an analouge TV signal is debatable, it all depends on how you sample it. I think 704 is about right for analouge signals, but digital TV formats use 720 because it's a nice round number computer-wise. I'd guess modern consoles use 720 for their highest res modes.

Some of the horizontal lines will be chopped off as well, 480 (or 576) is the maximum number of visible lines, some of them will be overscanned as well.

----

Digressing into a tangental rant of nonsense.

I personally don't mind low res stuff, running games through RGB SCART on a good TV is great. They're low res, but they still look fine, becuase they're running at the right resolution for the display. I prefer things like the style and artistry of graphics really, not how uber high the res is. My PC's LCD display has a 1280x1024 resolution though, and stuff running below that looks a bit horrible because of the scaling (including my Dreamcast, alas...).

But high res support would be nice, although living in the UK, I haven't really seen much HDTV stuff to say how good / bad it is.

I think Nintendo seem to be in a slight pattern of always being slightly in the previous generation with their consoles. The N64 use cartridges, the GameCube's complete lack of online stuff (well, barring Phantasy Star Online), and now lowdef when everyone else is doing highdef stuff (hopefully they'll at least have VGA (yay Dreamcast!) or some form of progressive output). The Big N is great at designing hardware with the absolute minimum power needed to compete though, it's their great skill, but it can also be an annoying failing.

Sorry is this is unreadable garbage. Not had much sleep, plus I'm not very good at writing anyway.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Anonymous Coward]

I should clarify that the 720 used for DTV is padding, they're blank, at least with stuff sourced from pre-digital video (like old Doctor Who episodes), where if you run them on a PC you'll see two small bars down either side, although I don't think they'll be in the picture at all on analouge connections like most DVD-TV connections.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Keeper]

If you're not convinced, you need to take a second look at how weak the graphics hardware is on current generation consoles. Look at what a budget video card today is capable of vs a top of the line card from 2001. The difference in performance is amazing.

Now compare a current midrange card to a budget card from ~2001. This is essentially the leap being made by the next generation consoles.

HD resolution is NOT a stretch for any kind of modern hardware -- low resolution for pc games these days is 1024x768, which is very near what HD games will be rendering at.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[TiredGamer]

Wrong.

Broadcast TV in the U.S. is only required to move to digital, not HDTV. Digital signals can carry both standard and HDTV. The confusion exists only because the proponents of HDTV want the general public confused enough to pay upwards of $800 more for their HDTV sets.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Momoru]

I think its a bad assumption first of all, 3 years is a long ass time in the technology industry, the leaps and bounds HDTV has made in the last two years should show where it is heading. I really hope this isn't true...its things like this that have cost Nintendo in the past (no cd-rom drive, then no dvd drive...).

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Southpaw018]

It's a gamble. When they bet on online play being more expensive than necessary, they lost. They're making the same bet again, only on HDTV. As the commentary article says: only time will tell.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[cgenman]

Which is optimized for the output of the screen, to take full advantage of a decidedly non-analog medium. TV's, however, bleed pixels in a very natural way to make lower-rez images look better.

Plus, quite frankly, we're still not doing relative light levels, ubiquitous normal mappings, or even 3D crowd members at sporting events. The floating heads in Doom looked terrible and jagged around the edges. Realistic fire and esp smoke are still a pipe dream.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Seumas]

Well, of course digital signals can carry both standard and HDTV. But how is that digital signal going to be transmitted? And how are you going to use that digital signal going to be processed by your television without a digital converter?

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[gabebear]

actually 720p has over 17% more pixels than 1024x768. To turn on all effects in Doom3 in current mid-range cards and still have decent FPS you do generally have to turn the resolution down to at least 800x600, SD TV is basically 720x480(480i).

I doubt we will be seeing many games that support anything but 480p/480i because of speed issues and many more that just don't want to have to make the extra graphics and do the extra testing for a higher resolution version. Supporting anything higher than 480p on games is going to be a lot of extra work for developers and until HDTVs have a much higher penetration I don't see them bothering.

are 480p games a good enough reason to buy an HDTV? Probably not...
However if Sony successfully gets 1080p Blue-Ray HD movies on shelves I can see buying a HDTV.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[TiredGamer]

There is no mystical voodoo magic involved with transmitting, receiving, or processing digital television signals. The air around you is already filled with digital TV signals (since 2003 as mandated by Congress and the FCC). The only thing that has not happened is the shutdown of the analog broadcasts.

As for how people without digital TVs will go on living... I imagine most will employ set-top digital-analog converters. The U.S. is not the first to push for all-digital TV and there have been no angry riots yet. Digital, after all, doesn't mean a different picture so much as a crisper, cleaner picture.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Regardless, if 2 out of 3 consoles support high res graphics, I have a display that supports such, and the third console does not, I will not be buying the third console. Why should I waste my money?

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[PyroMosh]

Because it's fun?

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact of the matter is, while Sony and MS force developers to make high-def games, those same developers can use those resources to up the poly counts and keep the framerate static for the Rev version, which means that to Joe Average consumer, the Rev will have the best "graphics" anyway, they just won't be as "sharp".

And that'll only be a difference for people who actually own HDTV sets anyway, which isn't much compared to the general public, or even the public who THINKS they have HDTV sets but only have "HD Ready" sets.

And furthermore, the resolution being compared to online functionality or even DVD playback in terms of importance to the end-user? Bullshit! There's just not a comparison there. The only reason having 1080i instead of 480p would be as important as things like network gaming is that the owner wants to have a prick-waving contest with his neighbor and show he's got superior technology. But noone is really like that. Noone makes purchase decisions, especially for consoles, based on maximum resolution, let alone resolution as a primary selling point. People buy computer monitors regularly that are capable of extremely high resolutions but we all mostly use 800*600 or 1024*768 anyway.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[word_virus]

While HD TVs may not now have a wide distrabution, they are very obviously the future. What Nintendo is setting themselves up for is a console that is obsolete in a couple of years when everybody starts to get HD. And in a few years it'll be time for, guess what, a new round of gaming consoles! I think Nintendo is being really smart here, if this console's half as revolutionary as Nintendo claims, and it's 200 bucks cheaper than everyone else's (but still making a tidy profit for Nintendo) it might just claim supremacy in this round of the console wars. Most people don't have 6000 dollar plasmas at home. Most people will never have 6000 plasmas at home. They're gonna wait 4 years 'til they're 400 bucks at Best Buy and then buy one... to go with their Playstation 4.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[KDR_11k]

There's more to a game or a console than just the resolution and not all games are available on all systems. Especially Nintendo themselves won't release cross platform games so if there's a Nintendo game you want it's not "HD on X360 or SD on Rev", it's "Rev or nothing".

Besides, that comment came from Perrin Kaplan, she never has any clue about the hardware they're selling so it's still most likely that the Rev will do HD.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[cgenman]

Sorry, was distracted before finishing my thought.

DVD's look great currently. While Videogame - like, everything in The Fifth Element DVD just looks significantly better than what you would see in a videogame. Or The Clone Wars, The Matrix, or any other movie you care to name. They just use the pixels they have more effectively.

Games don't need more pixels. They need to use the pixels they have better. Once we're there, we can talk about higher-rez.

BTW, one of the reasons you need higher-rez on computers is because computer monitors weren't built for low-rez applications. Because of this, even DVD's look bad on computer monitors.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[wheany]

Because Xbox 360 and PS3 don't play Nintendo games?

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Keeper]

You've actually never watched a DVD on a large plasma screen have you? They don't look so good. DVDs look "good" on a normal tube because the tube blurs the image. They're better than any technology we have out there (it beats the pants off of VHS), but the "quality" of DVDs is still pretty horrid.

Games can always use more pixels. It makes it possible to display more information. It makes split screen play bearable. It allows you to see more detail where you need it. Saying that you ought to be able render something that takes a professional studio hours (for a single frame) before upping the resolution is a rediculous statement to make.

You don't need "higher rez" on computers because they won't work in low-rez applications -- you need it because people want more than 10 lines of text on the screen at a time. The detail is what is important, not the lack thereof.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Keeper]

I guess you're definition of a mid-range card and an acceptable fps is different than mine. An ATI Radeon 9800 XT will run Doom3 at 1280x1024 with all the goodies turned on at about 30fps.

To put things into a bit more perspective, Doom 3 has been released for the Xbox, and it looks/runs just fine. Lower res textures and fewer polygons, but the core look and feel of the game remains intact.

Microsoft seems to think that it will be reasonable to force every game for the 360 to be released supporting 720p. We'll see if they can pull it off ...

I personally won't be buying an HD set for gaming. I'll get one when I get one. The whole thing is really a non-issue for me, but to say that the status quo is better than raising the bar seems shortsighted to me.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[justforaday]

Yeah, except that these consoles have 6 years lifespans.

Interesting statement to make. Especially considering consoles previously had 5 year lifespans, which just got shortened to 4 years with the current generation...

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[cgenman]

Games can always use more pixels, but it is a question of balance. Do you up resolution that helps 5% of your users, or do you up texture density which helps 100% of your users?

Don't get me wrong, I want HD to catch on. But is has a ways to go before everyone has one. Personally, I think the time for ubiquitous HD should be the generation after the current, once the standard has broken 50% installed userbase.

Currently while we still billboard enemies, trees, while we still have static sky boxes, while we still have environmental objects that are nondestructable static superthings, upping the resolution to help 5-10% of users seems unnecessary.

If it were free, I'd totally say do it. But game development is a series of balancing choices, and this would be one that should fall on the side of the average user.

Now, to be fair, some game development studios do this in a way that harms nobody but takes a long time to do, creating the optimum normal - rez experience, then reducing textures, effects, and draw distance for a higher-rez version. This works, but is a tremendous timesink.

P.S. I have watched movies on a plasma screen. SEGA had one.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Keeper]

Digital broadcasts are going to be mandated by the FCC in just a few years. You aren't going to be able to buy a non HD-capable tv a few years from now. It isn't a matter of waiting for the userbase to grow -- it WILL grow; consumers have no choice in the matter.

I have seen games that do not billboard enemies, trees, environmental objects, etc. You're complaining about crappy games, not limitations of the hardware.

You keep talking about benefiting the average user -- if you're playing a racing game, does the average user benefit from a fully modeled 3d spectator as they whip by the stands a 200mph? No, they don't. Do they benefit from more visible detail in the distance which allows them to make a more precise turn? Yes, they do.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Anonymous Coward]

the leaps and bounds HDTV has made in the last two years should show where it is heading

It went from being non-existant at Wal-Mart to being one or two of the most expensive sets on the wall of 30....

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[gabebear]

No I don't consider $200+ video cards mid-range, my idea of mid-range is $150ish to $100ish.

30fps average stinks! That means your low fps during complex scenes is around 10fps.

I'm also going to have to disagree with you about Doom3 on the XBox. It's playable but looks really crappy.

Microsoft has been saying 4xAA will be "free" at 720p because of the 10MB of eDRAM. I don't know how they are making this work unless they are planning on having everything running in 16bit color; each frame of 720p@32bits eats over 3.5MB. I think this whole thing is marketing bull. From what I've heard Sony has backed off about mandating any HD except 480i.

Standard TV is analog 480i. There isn't any reason Nintendo couldn't release another version of the Revolution that supports HD in a couple years, although all current games would be 480i.

Only supporting the status quo now makes sense for Ninteno, besides being cheaper it's also practical. Sony supporting HD does make sense, they are including a drive which will hopefully make HD DVDs a reality.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are seriously deluded if you think most middle-class people are going to spend $300 on a set-top box that squeeze a couple more years out of their old 20" Zenith when the store that sells them will have rows and rows of crappy cut-rate plasma screens which look far better.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Microsoft is trying to shorten the lifespan of the Xbox (released late 2001, they are pushing Xbox 360 for late 2005). They're bleeding money on it, so of course they're going to try their damnedest to disrupt the industry as much as they can in an effort to cauterize their wounds and release version 2.0. They have no established interests to lose, unlike Nintendo and Sony, who together helped create the previous 5-year lifespan. Note that Nintendo will be sticking almost exactly to the 5-year mark (late 2001 to late 2006), while Sony will be releasing the PS3 almost 6 years after the PS2 (late 2000 to mid-2006).

If MS continues to fail financially against the competition in the next generation, expect the Xbox 360 to have a similarly short lifespan. After all, the noise from gamers this time around has been minimal to nil, so to MS, this looks like the green light to shaft them with accelerated hardware release schedules and short MTBEOL per generation. Only the stupid and the posers will eat it up, but they are the majority of the American gaming populace now, aren't they?

BTW, I am a script. At least I'm not a real user doing something stupid like being blind or posting from Lynx, though.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[jensen404]

It would sure help for four player Mario Kart

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[bhtooefr]

Hmm...

The "crappy cut-rate plasma screens" that you speak of cost $1400 for the crappiest. LCD TVs cost $700+. (Granted, I can find a 17" DVI LCD for $200...)

Suddenly (except for the DVI LCD), the $300 set-top box looks better, doesn't it? Also, it would probably be more like $100 - it doesn't have to do HDTV, after all, just DTV.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[jtwJGuevara]

Actually, what they're doing is betting that the majority of people still won't have HD in 3 years when the console will be obsolete anyway.

And I think their bet will pay off. What percentage of your friends own a HDTV? I only know one friend personally (I'm college aged, so most of my friends are poor, however). So it seems to me that having HD capability in new consoles will not be one of the huge selling points. With that said, Nintendo's strategy seems to be that they want to remain the low cost leader in this market and offer their system at much lower prices than Microsoft or Sony. If this is their goal, why would Nintendo want to add a feature at extra cost that is going to benefit a small minority of the public?

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[cgenman]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, The tradeoff that I've seen in racing games falls to would the user benefit from a higher-pixel count, or an increased draw distance. Invariably, the draw distance is more useful, as draw distance craps out long before you get to the single-pixel distance. Would the user benefit from believeable AI, or from AI that can't think it's way around a pole when the environment changes?

Not all digital broadcasts will be in HDTV. It appears that currently, not many of them will be, as broadcasters are wisely using the extra bandwidth for more content rather than higher-rez content.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Keeper]

Draw distance on the current crop of racing games is already to the horizon, as best as I can tell.

Digital broadcasts may not be in HD, but I can't imagine that people will be getting SD sets in droves (for the same reason why people who just need a work processor get a 3ghz P4).

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[patternjuggler]

But most people who own HDTV's still play normal DVD's on them and somehow think they're running in High Density.

If I play a widescreen DVD in an regular set, I'm not seeing all 480 lines of resolution, but I do if I play it on a computer or on a HD tv. It's not as good as 1920x1080i but it still is higher definition.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Hast]

No I don't consider $200+ video cards mid-range, my idea of mid-range is $150ish to $100ish.
I'd agree with the first poster that a $200 card is "mid-range". Perhaps higher mid-range but it's certainly not high-range ($400+ cards). And cards that cost less than $100 are not the kind of cards you'd use for much gaming anyways.

$200 is what I'd expect to pay for a card that plays games well enough to be fun.

Also keep in mind that next gen consoles have more power than even high-end systems today. Well, besides the Revolution perhaps, we don't know much about it yet.

Re:Wow. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[mink]

Any decent HDTV will upconvert. Sure it wont look as good as native, but from what I have seen of current sets that do that it looks good.

WTF?

[badasscat]

Ok, I used to be as big a supporter of Nintendo's "it's the games, stupid" strategy as anybody, but they're taking it a little too far these days. It's become less of a rallying cry and more of an excuse for just not designing their technology properly.

They may as well argue that nobody needs anything but an RF connection, because "you can see the games fine". Composite or s-video? They only "add to the cost". Give me a break.

Game consoles are supposed to last for five or so years. Even today, quite a few people own HDTV's - and mine only cost me $570. In five years, I expect the market for HDTV's will be pretty significant, and Nintendo not supporting HD while Sony and MS does seems like a big mistake. They are basically ceding that part of the market.

They're also ensuring that a) fewer cross-platform games will be made, and b) those that are will always look significantly worse on the Revolution. I mean you're talking the difference between 1920x1080 resolution and 640x480. And you can bet that's a noticeable difference on any HDTV.

So far I haven't heard anything at all about the Revolution that's even an improvement over the GameCube, much less keeping pace with the PS3 and Xbox 360. I like the whole downloadable games thing, but it's not like the GameCube didn't already have a broadband connection, it's just that Nintendo didn't use it. So they get dragged kicking and screaming into broadband a generation too late and now it looks like they're going to get dragged kicking and screaming into HD a generation too late too. Meanwhile, they will just continue to hemmorhage market share until there's basically nothing left.

Re:WTF?

[ivan256]

They're also ensuring that a) fewer cross-platform games will be made...

I doubt that.

Developers are going to code to the market. For the next 10 years the market is going to be greater than 50% Non-HD. That means that the games are all going to be coded for Non-HD with some HD extra features. You can be certain that there will be few if any games that require HD on any platform. The least common denominator this generation isn't the Revolution, it's the majority of TV sets in the market.

Re:WTF?

[NanoGator]

"They may as well argue that nobody needs anything but an RF connection, because "you can see the games fine". Composite or s-video? They only "add to the cost". Give me a break."

Considering that the PS3 and the XBOX 3 are rumored to be $400 machines, I can live with that decision. Don't forget, this will have ramifications for the developers. There is already drama going on over companies switching their exclusivity because of standards being too high. There is potential here for Nintendo scooping up more 3rd parties.

"I expect the market for HDTV's will be pretty significant, and Nintendo not supporting HD while Sony and MS does seems like a big mistake. They are basically ceding that part of the market."

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I agree it's a fairly significant omission. (At least 2-3 years from now.) On the other, is the mass market for these items really going to be that picky? Suppose the lower standard does bring more 3rd parties aboard (btw, Nintendo has stated their strategy is to keep game budgets from skyrocketing...) which would hurt Nintendo more: Fussy HDTV owners, or not as many games? They may very well be ceding one market but they may also be expanding another. Strategy.

"They're also ensuring that a) fewer cross-platform games will be made..."

For HDTV alone? Nah. You've got a point, the games won't look as sharp. Not arguing that. However, that won't cause fewer cross-platform games to be made. The funky controller it's going to have will do that. Heh.

"So far I haven't heard anything at all about the Revolution that's even an improvement over the GameCube..."

Hardly conclusive. Nintendo's been extremely tight lipped. As for the GameCube already having broadband, that's bunk. They have an adapter that a handful of people grumpily make use of. The Revolution comes with WiFi built in, 512 megs of flash memory (also built in), and Nintendo's creating a service that makes interesting use of that technology.

I'd hardly call that 'being dragged kicking and screaming' into broadband. That implies Nintendo didn't ever want to do that. Not true. Nintendo wanted to provide broadband access when it was possible to do it... FREE. They pull it off, and bitch bitch bitch.

"Meanwhile, they will just continue to hemmorhage market share until there's basically nothing left."

Uh huh. I understand your frustration over HDTV support. I plan on upgrading in the next couple of years. I'd like the Revolution to support it. Ultimately, though, I want to play fun games. If Nintendo keeps up their strategy of being cheap and coming out with innovative games, it doesn't matter a whole lot. The interesting thing about Nintendo, it quickly becomes that 'second platform' to have around. When you get tired of playing the same old boring shooting and racing games in HD, you'll be able to inexpensively buy a Rev and expose yourself to Nintendo's steady stream of AAA titles.

Or, if that's not interesting to ya, okie doke. To each is own.

Re:WTF?

[KDR_11k]

A HD-only game couldn't be released in Europe because HDTV penetration ias rougly 0% round here. Might be the smallest market but still enough to make up a few million sales for a megaseller.

Re:WTF?

[david.given]

For the next 10 years the market is going to be greater than 50% Non-HD.

Remember, too, that it's only really the US that's pushing HD --- most of the rest of the world simply doesn't care about it. Which means that if Nintendo want to sell the Revolution anywhere other than in the US market, they're going to have to target it primarily for standard TVs anyway.

Re:WTF?

[Adam Whisnant]

The whole HD debate basically boils down to prick-waving, and Nintendo isn't having any of it. The Nintendo consoles always launch at competitive prices to appeal to parents who think that their kids are just going through a "video game phase" and don't want to drop a bundle of cash on something that's going to collect dust.

On that same note, Nintendo knows where its money comes from. Even if they're not outselling everybody, they're hardly starving. They make their money on the Pokémon players and the family-friendly set, who don't have the slightest interest in HD.

So far, the next generation is shaping up to be pretty much identical to the last. Go to Xbox for wasted hardware potential and overhyped, underwhelming games, Nintendo for outstanding first-party games and little else, and Sony for enough decent-to-really-good titles to stay entrenched at the top.

Re:WTF?

[Rallion]

Suppose the lower standard does bring more 3rd parties aboard (btw, Nintendo has stated their strategy is to keep game budgets from skyrocketing...) which would hurt Nintendo more: Fussy HDTV owners, or not as many games? They may very well be ceding one market but they may also be expanding another. Strategy.

It isn't simply shifting their market, it's shifting it away from the one being targetted by their major competitors. That means that even if the market stays the same size, they still get more sales. (Probably.)

Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

will it be televised?

Re:Yes, but...

[wheany]

Not in HD.

No HD. Boo-hoo

[MBCook]

Big deal. Most people have a SD TV right now. That will continue for a while. Sony and Microsoft are interesting and all in that they want to give us all 1080i signals, but I'm not going to go out and buy a $2000 TV just to play videogames (especially when I just bought a $300 console).

I think Nintendo's decision makes sense. For most people, this makes no difference. And my bet is that their console will do progressive scan (say 480p). Maybe they'll even offer 720i. They just aren't going after 1080i. I see no problem with this.

Things will still look good, they just won't be as jaw-dropping on that 50" TV. And considering how many people have 50" HDTVs, they are really "shooting themselves in the foot". It's cute that the PS3 can drive two 1080p TVs at once, but how many people are really going to USE that setup?

I don't see this as any real problem. I don't think it will really effect most people. And if you are so gung-ho that all your games must be 1080i or better, buy the versions for the PS3 or XBox 360.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[MooseMuffin]

I have an HD tv. I am no longer interested in the revolution.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Karma Farmer]

How could you possibly tell the difference anyhow? If you're like 99% of the people in the US, you're just watching DVD's or (if you're really lucky) badly artifacted, low bandwidth signals from a satellite or cable provider.

Personally, I just think this is a really bad marketing move on Nintendo's part -- they should stick "HD compatible" on the checklist on the side of the box, and then not actually provide any increased resolution. That way, everyone with an HD TV who has never actually seen an HD signal can feel all smug, and pretend like they can see the difference.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Zerth]

So I'm guessing you have also thrown away your tapes, most of your dvds and all your other consoles, as none of them support HD tvs either?

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Keeper]

He probably hasn't, but I doubt he's interested in buying new VHS tapes when a better alternative is available...

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[MooseMuffin]

No longer have a VCR or tapes. I have dvd's cause its the best we've got, and an xbox with the proper hd cables. I dont see why I would take a step back.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't buy a $2000 TV. Yeah, you can buy 'em for less.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Seumas]

Well, I for wan can absolutely tell the difference on my widescreen HDTV between a standard television broadcast and an HD broadcast. And you can, too. Find a program that is broadcasting on HBO. Now find the equivalent HBO-HD channel. Watch them side by side (if you have a dual tuner) or one right after the other. The same program will look dramatically more impressive on the HD channel.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[gabebear]

With the state of the world's patent system I wouldn't doubt removing HD saved them some serious cash per console. Besides saving money on IP, support, and hardware they will also have better looking games on standard TVs since developers don't have to mess around with HDTV resolutions.

The highest resolution you are going to get with SD NTSC is 720x480(basically 480i). There are 6 times as many pixels on a 1080i/p display than a 480i/p display. The higher resolutions don't only tax the GPU more, they also eat up more shared RAM. FPS will be MUCH lower when developers decide to support the high resolution HDTV outputs. If a game supports the higher resolution then it must be playable at that resolution so something has to be sacrificed that could be included in a 480i/p only version. I'm guessing almost all XBox360 and PS3 games will only support 480p because of speed issues. 480p does look noticeably better than SD TV on a good HDTV, however you have to decide if it is worth the extra money, especially when you probably don't own a HDTV yet.

Nintendo is trying to put out a budget console so this makes sense, but if I had already bought a HDTV I'd be bummed.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

My TV is HD. I'm excluding the Revolution from my list of systems to by now. I had planned to buy them all. Revolution offers me nothing, since it will have an inferior display resolution.

Thanks for saving me ~$200 Nintendo! I really appreciate it.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[MaverickUW]

If you're not gonna buy a game system just because it doesn't support HD resolutions, then you're not a real gamer. It sounds like all you were gonna buy all 3 consoles for was to say you had them.

It's a good thing that Nintendo isn't targetting the whiney babies like you who won't get something just cause it doesn't have the prettiest graphics at the highest HD resolutions. They're targetting people who want to play games for the fun, not for the graphics.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

I own several HDTVs in multiple homes. I am interested in obtaining multiple Revolutions, just as I'm interested in obtaining multiple PS3s.

Are you a gamer, or a pixel-counter?

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

"My TV is HD."

Mine are too.

"I'm excluding the Revolution from my list of systems to by now. I had planned to buy them all."

Why, to both statements? Resolution?

"Revolution offers me nothing, since it will have an inferior display resolution."

This statement only makes sense if the ONLY reason you were going to buy any of the next gen consoles was "resolution." Not games, not fun, etc.

As always, there will many games only available on Revolution that will never see the light of day on other consoles. If you don't care about these, that's okay. But don't try to lead people to believe that resolution has anything to do with it. And if you do care about them, but "resolution" turned you off, I'd be tempted to insult your intelligence.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[KDR_11k]

I'm guessing almost all XBox360 and PS3 games will only support 480p because of speed issues.

MS and Sony prevent you from publishing a game that doesn't support HD. At least MS has announced they require 720p support, I've heard Sony won't accept any less than 1080p. Not that it matters, here in Europe HDTV has a penetration of roughly 0%.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[DeadScreenSky]

I'm guessing almost all XBox360 and PS3 games will only support 480p because of speed issues.
You couldn't be more wrong about that. Hell, 95% of all Xbox1 games even support 480p. Some of the really nice looking games even support 720p (like Amped 2).

You are correct that HD does have a performance hit, but these next-gen consoles are designed to be able to handle that. For example, the Xbox360 has a very tricky method to help deal with the increased bandwidth costs in that it has an integrated 10 megs of very fast RAM in the videochip itself. This is for the framebuffer and fancy/expensive things like AA. This frees up an enormous amount of graphics bandwidth (I've heard estimates of as high as 30% or so), along with giving other advantages (like 'free' AA and even crazier things). MS isn't kidding when they say all Xbox360 games must support a minimum of 720p (which is incidentally more performance-needing than 1080i in most cases) - the console is designed for that.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[radish]

Nintendo is annoying me with all this luddite crap. First they pull the component outs on the GC (never mind that it doesn't even have digital audio outs), and now this. I would have bought all 3 next gen consoles, I have all 3 of the current ones (plus a GBA & PSP). I spend a lot of disposable income on games, I'm not wedded to any one manufacturer. I'm (I would have thought) a valuable customer. They just lost me by making their games look like crap (compared to the competition) on my TV. Xbox have stated that all 360 games will support at LEAST 720p, and that's cool.

And if you are so gung-ho that all your games must be 1080i or better, buy the versions for the PS3 or XBox 360.

I think I will. Sorry Nintendo.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[gabebear]

MS isn't kidding when they say all Xbox360 games must support a minimum of 720p (which is incidentally more performance-needing than 1080i in most cases) - the console is designed for that.

What? 1080i has over twice as many pixels as 720p. Interlacing is just a matter of pushing the pixels in a different order and 1080i needs AA just as badly as 720p does. What are you talking about?

Most games support 480p because it's relatively simple. Standard Def TV is analog 480i and the only difference between 480i and 480p is that 480i is interlaced. 480i and 480p are putting out the same number of pixels/sec at the same resolution so you don't have many issues switching between the two. I don't see any reason for this to change in the next 2 years. Making your game look worse on 90% of the screens out there so that the other 10% get a sharper picture doesn't make sense. HDTV penetration need to be higher before developers will support 720p and higher.

Microsoft has been saying 4xAA will be "free" at 720p because of the 10MB of eDRAM. I don't know how they are making this work unless they are planning on having everything running in 16bit color; each frame of 720p@32bits eats over 3.5MB. I think this is all marketing bull.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[LocalH]

720p and 1080i are a lot closer in terms of pixel count per second than you might think. Let's lay out some facts, then use those facts to do the math:

720p = 1280x720x60fps
1080i = 1920x1080x30fps

720p = 921600 pixels per frame
1080i = 2073600 pixels per frame

720p = 55296000 pixels per second
1080i = 62208000 pixels per second

Sure, within a single frame, 1080i has shitloads more pixels, at half the frame rate it almost evens out, but not quite.

Also, with 720p, you have more vertical resolution with 60fps games (as 1080i only has 540 lines per 1/60th of a second). And you won't notice the difference in horizontal resolution. And as 720p has no interlacing, you'll get optimal quality in both high motion and still scenes, whereas with 1080i high motion instantly drops the vertical resolution by a factor of two, and you only realize the full resolution on still shots (or extremely low motion).

Also, I was under the impression that 480p ran at 60fps, which make it twice the bandwidth of 480i, which runs at 30fps interlaced.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a hypocrite then. Your DVD player outputs video that is roughly equivalent to what you'll get on the Rev. By your own reasoning, you should throw out your DVDs and wait for whichever format end up supporting HD first.

You also dodged part of the question. Did you throw out any device you own that generates standard definition NTSC video (other than VHS)? If not, then you are a hypocrite, and should keep your hole shut.

Also, a gripe with /. :

"Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 36 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

What the fuck, Taco? Fix your goddamn site. And if you changed the length of time you have to wait to post again, then FIX THE FUCKING MESSAGE THAT TELLS YOU TO WAIT 2 MINUTES!

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[gabebear]

You are somewhat correct, 720p can run at 60fps, as well as 30fps and 24fps. These fps ratings are for the interface to the monitor/tv, kind of like the refresh rate on a CRT, they have no bearing on the computed fps. The bandwidth you were computing is for the connecting interface, resolution does impact computed fps.

This is exactly the same as with computers.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Slight problem with your assumptions there.

Even running at 480i, most games on most games consoles actually run at 60 frames per second. Not fields - frames. They generate one full frame every 60th of a second, of which only half is displayed. It looks much more natural and fluid that way. You can see the difference between a game running at 30FPS, and a game running at 60FPS.

The possible exception is the PS2, but it's graphics hardware isn't really in the same league as the Gamecube or Xbox. Some games (older ones mostly) actually do generate half frames, but they tend to flicker like crazy because the PS2 has no hardware deflicker filter and no anti-aliasing like the other consoles do.

So even if you're running at 1080i, it's still going to be generated internally at 1080p at 60 frames per second. You're just only going to be displaying half of it.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[leland242]

I had a friend of mine spend the weekend with me. She laughed at my 50" dlp and said it was excessive. Then I turned on HD.

Her response was "holy shit, I expected it to be pretty good...but that's amazing".

I will buy a revolution, but it looks like I'll be getting one of the other two to play HD games.

Bad move Nintendo - you just eliminated all multi-platform game sales on your console for those that own a HDTV.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[twosmokes]

They're targetting people who want to play games for the fun, not for the graphics.

Because we all know that you can't have both.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[angle_slam]

How could you possibly tell the difference anyhow?

Obviously, you've never seen HD.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[MaverickUW]

They're targetting people who want to play games for the fun, not for the graphics.

Because we all know that you can't have both.

You must not have read the parent post. The parent was complaining about that he won't get a Revolution since it won't support the resolution his TV can go up to. Obviously Nintendo isn't really catering to those who buy video game consoles just cause they can display a high resolution. They target those who want to buy a video game console to play games.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Karma Farmer]

The point is not whether or not I've ever seen HD television. The point is that the majority of people who own HD televisions have never seen HD.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[Karma Farmer]

Well, you've kind of proved my point. HD televisions have something like a 10% or 15% market penetration for a few years -- it's almost inconcievable that she hasn't seen an HDTV before.

But, yours is the first TV where she's ever seen a difference. In other words, of the hundreds of HDTV she's seen, yours is the very first, ever, to be running on an HD signal. The other 99 of the 100 she's seen have all been running at normal resolution. And that's why it makes absolutely no difference if Nintendo sells an HDTV or normal resolution player -- 99% of people who own HDTV won't know the difference.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[twosmokes]

My point was that Nintendo could have done both.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[DeadScreenSky]

What? 1080i has over twice as many pixels as 720p. Interlacing is just a matter of pushing the pixels in a different order and 1080i needs AA just as badly as 720p does. What are you talking about?

I am certainly no expert, but the experts I have read have always suggested that the interlacing does make a big difference in hardware requirements.

It appears I was wrong about 1080i sometimes requiring less performance than 720p, but as LocalH demonstrated they definitely are close. *shrug*

(And it's obvious that 720p looks better, of course - maybe I was confused by the fact that 720p screens at least used to be more difficult and hence expensive to make than 1080i screens.)

Most games support 480p because it's relatively simple. Standard Def TV is analog 480i and the only difference between 480i and 480p is that 480i is interlaced. 480i and 480p are putting out the same number of pixels/sec at the same resolution so you don't have many issues switching between the two. I don't see any reason for this to change in the next 2 years. Making your game look worse on 90% of the screens out there so that the other 10% get a sharper picture doesn't make sense. HDTV penetration need to be higher before developers will support 720p and higher.

That is only true depending on what your hardware supports. You are completely wrong about progressive display not affecting performance - it is double the pixels. Some console hardware like the Dreamcast and the Xbox internally draw graphics at 480p anyway, making an 480p image essentially free. But the PS2 doesn't automatically do this (though it is capable), which is why so many PS2 games (the vast majority, actually!) don't even support 480p. There is definitely a potential performance cost when you double your pixel output.

And I guess we'll find out in November for sure, but I'll be shocked if any Xbox360 games don't support 720p. The hardware is simply designed for it, just like modern PC videocards are designed for higher resolutions. Sure, gameplay might suffer a little on 480i TVs, but the same is true right now of gamers using crappier (or even non-480p) TVs now. Developers will surely test their 360 games on a 480i screen (MS is actually specifically encouraging that).

Microsoft has been saying 4xAA will be "free" at 720p because of the 10MB of eDRAM. I don't know how they are making this work unless they are planning on having everything running in 16bit color; each frame of 720p@32bits eats over 3.5MB. I think this is all marketing bull.

The Xenos chip basically takes a tiling approach. This extensive article explains how it's done (I would start from the beginning, but that's a link to a later page that describes how the framebuffer RAM is used). Apparently this will actually cost some performance, but we are talking a low single digits percentage - close enough to "free" for that not to be a lie, IMO.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[gabebear]

You are completely wrong about progressive display not affecting performance - it is double the pixels

Where did you pick this up?
Both 480i and 480p push a 720x480 image to the screen. Interlaced video pushes the odd lines of a frame and then the even lines where progressive pushes one full frame at a time. I would LOVE for you to explain how a 720x480 image can have half as many pixels when interlaced. I'm guessing most PS2 games don't support 480p because there is little reason(few HDTVs) and it adds another item to be tested.

Who is LocalH?

Your extensive article explains jack. It even says the front buffer will resides in main memory which would be wasting a small chuk of precious memory bandwith and a lot of time. Besides the fact that for 4xFSAA you still have to compute 4 times as many pixels...
I think the XBox360 will take about the same performance hit as computers for 4xFSAA.

Re:No HD. Boo-hoo

[gabebear]

I realized who LocalH is, your sister post.

1080i/p and 720i/p have similar interface bandwith requirements because they are designed to use HDMI. That has absolutly nothing to do with interlacing or computed fps.

What does HD have to do with devs?

[Toxygen]

This doesn't make much sense to me, I mean isn't HD basically just a higher resolution and the elimination of interlaced frames? How does that increase cost to the developer, in terms of either development time, money, or complexity?

Re:What does HD have to do with devs?

[GigsVT]

Maybe your engine has to be tighter because you have to pump out effectively twice the FPS?

Just a wild guess, I'm not a game programmer.

Re:What does HD have to do with devs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would supporting different resolutions affect developers? Why don't you ask PC game developers :) different interface graphics for each resolution, testing and QA in every resolution to make sure all the assets look as good as they can, etc etc. This is a very real concern.

Re:What does HD have to do with devs?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need more RAM dedicated to the video frame buffer and a fast GPU that can draw into the larger HD buffer. If Nintendo does not put more RAM in the console then developers have to spend more time optimizing data to fit in the console and optimizing code for the processor.

Re:What does HD have to do with devs?

[KDR_11k]

HDTV is what, three different resolutions? Not exactly much to debug.

Re:What does HD have to do with devs?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"This doesn't make much sense to me, I mean isn't HD basically just a higher resolution and the elimination of interlaced frames? How does that increase cost to the developer, in terms of either development time, money, or complexity?"

The artists have to do more work, for one thing. They have to make higher resolution textures. Since the fill rate's going way up, the engine has to be tuned to make the right trade-offs in order to maintain frame rate. This'll mean more coding, tweaking, and possibily the artists will have to make alternative modes for their models and textures. (Err, I'm not explaining the artist bit too clearly. If a texture's resolution is too high, but drawn really small on the screen, it can cause flickering. The hardware is supposed to deal with it but sometimes some hand-tweaking has to be done.)

Also, it can potentially mean that the games now have to run in different modes. Time may tell me I'm wrong, but it depends on what the point of the game is. If a game's running at 720 by 480, it has a lot more cycles to spare than a game running at HD res. Perhaps running it at lower res means more lighting effects. If the developer chooses to do that, then there's more testing and tweaking going on right there.

If you're not sold, don't worry, I understand that. I do have a semi-relevent anecdote to share, though. Episode II used HD video cameras for their model shots. Though technically these things capture roughly the same resolution as film, film is a lot grainier. The HD footage was too clear. They had to spend considerably more time touching up the models on set to stand up to the HD scrutiny. More time == more money, etc.

Re:What does HD have to do with devs?

[Cuthalion]

You have a lot let time for each pixel. If you want to take full advantage of HD, all your art has to be a lot more detailed too.

You would not believe the shit I can do in realtime at 320x240. :D

Re:What does HD have to do with devs?

[AltaMannen]

They have to upgrade their TVs, from the current $200 with built in VHS (they are like $50 now, but back then they were more expensive) to something that costs around $500. When you buy dev-kits for $20000 you need to cut some corners, and employees will probably get mentally burnt out before they go completely blind from squinting at the crappy tvs they have anyway.

Re:What does HD have to do with devs?

[AltaMannen]

While technically true, I don't think that the "HD cost" applies exactly as linear as Nintendo makes it sound like.

As far as textures goes, almost all artists I talk to make them around 512x512 to start with and then scale them down to fit the memory and fill rate requirements for each object. Having larger textures is just a matter of less scaling.

As far as increased number of polygons, a lot of models are made with several levels of detail, and the highest resolution mesh is usually done first and the hard work is trying to make the lower resolution models that look the same. While possibly adding a higher poly LOD level that isn't more than 25% more work.

Much of the increased rendering power will probably go towards full-screen effects and more procedural content that requires no artist time at all.

As far as programming goes, having the ability to draw more objects and more power behind determining which objects to draw and which to ignore is hardly more work.

Having consoles that differ much in performance will be a lot of work though because making a game for all consoles simultaneously will require more people to downsample all the assets including meshes.

Most games for current generation machines look better on HD than SD so there is no immediate need to completely ignore HD tv owners, the higher costs for creating next generation games and higher performance will most likely go towards creating more detail and more content (as in more levels, longer levels, more things to do in levels, less space between gameplay elements in levels) which does not rely on the TV resolution.

Re:What does HD have to do with devs?

[Jonny_eh]

The rendering in the higher res is handled by hardware on the next gen systems (360 + PS3). There is a performance hit on the xbox currently, but the 360 won't have that problem. There should be NO excuse to not support HD on a system like the 360.

Of course.

[SocialEngineer]

Of course the revolution won't be in HD, the revolution won't even be televised!

Bogus Article

[Anonymous Coward]

IGN's article refers to emails sent by Nintendo, but since when does Nintendo directly report system capabilities to IGN?

Re:Bogus Article

[DarKnyht]

Possibly since IGN and Nintendo inked a partnership. This would also be why IGN has the Nintendo Minute with the CEOs of the company.

Composite/S-Video are fine by me.

[megli]

Having seen the old GameCube with digital out in action on a large HDTV, I can honestly say I'm not too disapointed by this decision. The games still look wondeful. Just don't sit closer than 3 feet from the television.

Re:Composite/S-Video are fine by me.

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Fine. Your standards are low. Mine are not.

I won't be buying the next Nintendo console.

I spent good money on a high res display. I'm not going to pay for new content that doesn't take advantage of it.

Re:Composite/S-Video are fine by me.

[Lehk228]

i take it you buy monster cables as well?

Re:Composite/S-Video are fine by me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you don't watch DVDs then, and you only ever view HD stations on your TV, right?

Otherwise you're a hypocrite, and should keep your hole shut.

"On their own terms"

[DoctaWatson]

Why is it that Nintendo ignores obvious trends in gaming, only to come up with their own arrogant and ultimately useless "innovation"? It's like they relish in being the odd man out, even when it means doing away with features that would benefit their games.

-They consistently avoided CD-Roms and then DVD's, the Gamecube being the first optical media Nintendo has used. The result was that the console RPG has been virtually non-existant on Nintendo consoles since the SNES.

-When Sega and Sony started garnering support from 3rd party developers, Nintendo shut itself off in an Ivory Tower, giving support only to in-house and 2nd party developers. The result was that the N64 had a tiny selection of games.

-Nintendo is the king of gimmicky and irrelevant consoles, examples being the Virtual Boy and the DS. But when the PS2/GC/Xbox came around, they derided DVD playback in other consoles.

-TFA mentions Online Play and High-Definition as the two new features that Nintendo has shunned. But for what? The impression I get is that they are avoiding these features because they don't know how to implement them effectively- not because they have an alternate plan in mind for the future of console gaming.

It's like they cling to the Nintendo Power glory days, spiteful that these "upstart" companies MS and Sony are the ones holding all the cards.

What amazes me more than Nintendo's obstinance is the fact that they've managed to hang around and still be something of a factor in console games.

Re:"On their own terms"

[NanoGator]

"-They consistently avoided CD-Roms and then DVD's, the Gamecube being the first optical media Nintendo has used. The result was that the console RPG has been virtually non-existant on Nintendo consoles since the SNES."

I think you mean "Final Fantasy has been non-existent on Nintendo consoles..."

"-Nintendo is the king of gimmicky and irrelevant consoles, examples being the Virtual Boy and the DS. But when the PS2/GC/Xbox came around, they derided DVD playback in other consoles."

Err okay. Credit for the Virtual Boy, but the DS? Gimmicky? Please. They added an input style which, btw, is what every single palm platform uses. Incidently, it's the first time anybody's made a game console that comes with a decent built in interface for FPS and strategy games. Gimmick my ass, they made the platform more viable. Hardly comparable to DVD playback. Touch/dual screen == More interesting for playing games. DVD playback == more interesting when conserving shelf space.

"-TFA mentions Online Play and High-Definition as the two new features that Nintendo has shunned. But for what? The impression I get is that they are avoiding these features because they don't know how to implement them effectively- not because they have an alternate plan in mind for the future of console gaming."

They're shunning on-line play? First I've heard of it. They're right about to launch a massive on-line network for DS's. Revolution, presumably, would be part of that, too.

Re:"On their own terms"

[Doomstalk]

Nintendo is the king of gimmicky and irrelevant consoles, examples being the Virtual Boy and the DS.

Yes, because with over 5 million units sold, the Nintendo DS is completely irrelevant. Oh, and that analog stick thing they introduced with the N64? Irrelevant. The 3D platformer? Total gimmick. Nintendo may have made some mistakes, but it's foolish to chide them for trying different things. They've invented a lot of important elements of console gaming as we know it.

TFA mentions Online Play and High-Definition as the two new features that Nintendo has shunned. But for what? The impression I get is that they are avoiding these features because they don't know how to implement them effectively- not because they have an alternate plan in mind for the future of console gaming.

Wrong again. It has nothing to do with Nintendo's arrogance, and everything to do with economics. Sony's a huge multifaceted company and so is Microsoft. They can afford to do a lot of things Nintendo can't. Sony's got other divisions that can probably produce HD hardware for a fraction of what it'd cost Nintendo to buy the same thing, and Microsoft has the money and the will to bruteforce their way into the market.
As for the online example, I think it's debatable if anyone except Microsoft has anything much of an online presence. Sure there's a couple online games for the PS2, but the Xbox is lightyears ahead of that. And, as you can see from the Microsoft Games division's profits, it hasn't done then a whole lot of good financially: they've had a single profitable quarter since the Xbox launched. Indeed, it's probably cost them a whole lot of money to launch and maintain their network. Sure, it's gotten them a lot of mindshare, but both Sony and Nintendo came into the generation with that in spades. Nintendo can't afford to spend that kind of money if they're not getting a quick return on their investment, and Sony simply didn't need to. Now they've found technology that will allow them to let them enter the market affordably, and they're doing it- in the first generation where it will REALLY matter.

Re:"On their own terms"

[sonatinas]

If The DS is irrelevant how come in Japan DS titles are in the top 10 in sales. The #1 game in Japan is a DS game. Being an armchair marketer isn't a strength here.

Re:"On their own terms"

[zerocommazero]

-They consistently avoided CD-Roms and then DVD's, the Gamecube being the first optical media Nintendo has used. The result was that the console RPG has been virtually non-existant on Nintendo consoles since the SNES.

They avoided optical drives because of their fragile temperment (which is alot better these days), and their long load times.

-When Sega and Sony started garnering support from 3rd party developers, Nintendo shut itself off in an Ivory Tower, giving support only to in-house and 2nd party developers. The result was that the N64 had a tiny selection of games.

This is inaccurate. Nintendo lost a lot of 3rd party developers over their choice of media (cartridge based) which is much more expensive at cost to produce and more reliable. Nintendo never purposely shunned anyone. That would be sheer stupidity

-But when the PS2/GC/Xbox came around, they derided DVD playback in other consoles.

This decision was based on cutting costs. The optical drive reliability is an issue again too. I've had to replace my PS2 dvd drive once and I barely play DVDs on it. In fact I'd rather watch DVDs on my DVD player to push back the inevitability of my console dying because of over-use. And.....did you ever hear about the class action suits out there against Sony and Microsoft over the optical drives!??!! Yep, bad move, Nintendo.

-TFA mentions Online Play and High-Definition as the two new features that Nintendo has shunned. But for what? The impression I get is that they are avoiding these features because they don't know how to implement them effectively- not because they have an alternate plan in mind for the future of console gaming.

Broadband saturation is now over 50% of the population. It was only 10% at the time the GC launched.

What amazes me more than Nintendo's obstinance is the fact that they've managed to hang around and still be something of a factor in console games.

Nintendo makes money on their products. When all is said and done, Nintendo makes more money off of each unit sold than their competitors. You might want to delve into both sides of the story when posting your opinion

Re:"On their own terms"

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Hi, I have a Virtual Boy and still use it. I picked it up for $25 when a local toy store was selling off their stock. I only have Mario Tennis and Galactic Pinball, but they're very fun.

Re:"On their own terms"

[Lemental]

You have

A) A Headache.

and

B)Permanent Vision Damage

Re:"On their own terms"

[DoctaWatson]

I chide them for trying different things because they're arrogant enough to think that their "innovations" are somehow more important than the real trends in gaming.

For every analog thumbstick and Mario 64, there's a Virtual Boy and a proprietary non-backwards compatible cartrige system.

Re:"On their own terms"

[DoctaWatson]

Relevance in America and Japan are two different things. If anything, Nintendo is showing this by avoiding High-Def where the installed base in Japan is much higher than America.

Re:"On their own terms"

[DoctaWatson]

But when it comes down to it, when another company innovates or sets the bar higher, and gamers ask for it, Nintendo denies it and tries to make excuses.

As far as delving on to both sides, I lost faith as a card carrying Nintendo-fanboy about the time Super Mario Sunshine came out. I took off the rose colored glasses and realized all the bullshit we've been spoonfed from Nintendo was just propaganda.

Others are realizing it too, and thus we get rumors about Nintendo going software-only like Sega.

Re:"On their own terms"

[Rallion]

Why is it that Nintendo ignores obvious trends in gaming, only to come up with their own arrogant and ultimately useless "innovation"?

I'm not sure! It's crazy! Maybe it's because they make almost twice as much money as the people that do it your way. I don't know.

Re:"On their own terms"

[GojiN]

Oh, and that analog stick thing they introduced with the N64?... The 3D platformer?

It was called the 3-D controller and it was introduced with NiGHTS for Sega Saturn.
3D Platformer? Saturn again, with Bug! and Clockwork Knight.

They've invented a lot of important elements of console gaming as we know it.

Both examples you gave were Sega Saturn "innovations".

Wrong again.

Please check your facts before you act so sarcastic and make such statements.

Re:"On their own terms"

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to jump into arguments between a correct person and an idiot, but you really don't get it, do you?

Nintendo revealed the N64 controller several months before N64 launched. What happens immediately after this? Sonic Team announces Nights into Dreams and Sony releases their analog controller (precursor to the Dual Shock). What happened after the revelation of the Rumble Pak? Sony releases the Dual Shock.

Bug? Jumping Flash and Super Mario 64 both precede it, and both are more fun. Clockwork Knight? "2.5-D" movement, like Klonoa, not 3-D in the Super Mario 64 vein. Learn the difference, boy!

Now you know both why we haven't seen the Revolution controller yet and also why Nintendo is widely credited as being the fathers of the 3-D platformer genre. History lesson over, console n00b.

Re:"On their own terms"

[drewmca]

I still fail to see how Nintendo's profit making is supposed to help me. They're dropping features that their competitors are adding. They have for a while now. While that may profit them, how in the hell does it help me?

People need to remember that unless they're Nintendo shareholders, boasting about Nintendo's profitability is about as asinine a self-defeating exercise as could be imagined.

Competition, if I recall correctly, was supposed to help the consumer. WHen competitors get into a pissing match with each other, jamming features into their products at a loss to attract us consumers, we benefit by getting more for our money. When a company offers less features in the name of profitability, their bottom line may benefit, but we consumers quite simply do not.

I'm am very tired of Nintendo apologists telling everyone else that Nintendo's cost-cutting moves offer me or any other gamer any benefit at all.

Re:"On their own terms"

[zerocommazero]

But remember, who ends up paying for these new features? You, the consumer. You might be OK paying more for a system with every added feature but not me. I do not own an HD tv. Ultimately, I'm sure Nintendo has carefully analyzed their market and has added/deleted features that they feel the MAJORITY will be happy with. If I had an HD tv, I'd most likely sympathize with you. The others (Sony, M$) can afford to take a hit and sell for less because they are huge corps that have many other markets under their belt. Nintendo knows it can't rival them and participate in the pissing match or they'd be trampled like Sega. I'd rather them cut back on this feature and save everyone some $.

Sega was the disputed king of innovation. They pumped out alot of systems to be innovative. Hell, they even had a downloadable game thing going with the cable companies (I do not remember the name of the service). But ultimately, they couldn't afford the losses after their technology gambles and went out of business. Nintendo is a much smaller company then Sony or M$ and are playing it safe to make sure they can protect their future.

I definitely understand your point about cutting back innovation. I really would've liked to be able to play Mario Kart over the net. I just understand the position Nintendo is in. And to be honest, I kind of agree with them to a point. There's no way I'm gonna shell out $400 for a next gen system.

Re:"On their own terms"

[drewmca]

But the whole point of competition is that it keeps them scrambling to offer more for less. You yourself said "the others can afford to take a hit." So I as the consumer don't end up paying more, or at the very least, I'm getting a lot for my money. Nintendo may come in with a console $50 under the others, as they did last time, but as with last time, with a much more limited feature set. That $50 is worth it to me for the other features.

What gets me angry is that Nintendo is thinking, "we can't afford to offer all those features for less because we can't take the hit that our competitors can." But what they say is, "you don't need those features at the same or similar cost, silly consumers!" And worse still, the legions of Nintendites chant "Yes, Nintendo, you are correct! I should get less for the same amount of money because of your business plan! I think what you're doing is really smart even though I get less!"

Re:"On their own terms"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nintendo may come in with a console $50 under the others, as they did last time, but as with last time, with a much more limited feature set."

The GameCube doesn't play DVDs and doesn't have Toslink output. (The current model doesn't have component output either, but Nintendo will exchange these systems with component-equipped models for free on request. Try that with a PS2 that lacks a hard drive bay or a Firewire port and listen for the subdued snicker by the Sony phone rep.) The current PS2, at least, doesn't have four controller ports, connectivity with a portable system, the GameCube's level of graphical power, or first-party wireless controllers with identical layout and feel to their traditional wired controllers. And yet it has always cost at least $50 more than the GameCube during their shared lifetimes. We can compare the features that were removed from both consoles too, if you'd like, just to keep perfect score. Let me know if you want the full laundry list of useless red herring "features" that each one now lacks, or what either manufacturer is willing to do if you contact them about them. Interesting stuff, if you're the kind of person who likes to pay attention whenever Sony tries to slip things past you as a system buyer (their standard operating procedure).

Anyway, the point is that the feature set of the GameCube, as a GAMES machine, is pretty damn good, and the lower price has always made it a good hardware value compared to the PS2.

"What gets me angry is that Nintendo is thinking, "we can't afford to offer all those features for less because we can't take the hit that our competitors can." But what they say is, "you don't need those features at the same or similar cost, silly consumers!""

Hey now. Do you really believe that this is really what they've been saying?

"And worse still, the legions of Nintendites chant "Yes, Nintendo, you are correct! I should get less for the same amount of money because of your business plan! I think what you're doing is really smart even though I get less!""

I should get as much "product" as is fair, in my own judgment, to the price I'm paying. Not "less for the same amount of money" (I repeat the quote, "Nintendo may come in with a console $50 under the others..."). $100 gets you a very capable games system with plenty of software exclusives. I don't know what your problem here is, because you haven't pointed a real one out yet.

Looking forward to Revolution, the features I've already heard about are enough to justify its purchase already.

higher price for the developer?

[TheSHAD0W]

I can see the consumer bearing a heavier burden for a HD-compatible box, as it would not only require the interface electronics but a lot beefier GPU in order to handle the higher resolution. But exactly what additional costs would it put on game developers? Maybe somewhat more detailed models, maybe more megabytes for finer textures, but these aren't heavy costs compared to creating the games in the first place. The models nowadays are already way more detailed than 480i requires, since the computer versions companies come out with are already played on higher resolutions. There's plenty of room for textures on a DVD and higher resolution textures don't cost much more either.

Re:higher price for the developer?

[Lehk228]

the expensive and difficult job of tuning the game engine so it can keep up full framerate at HD resolution, higher resolution means more pixels to calculate every frame, and if you start dropping frames your game looks like crap on a console, PC gamers accept slowdowns because their hardware can be replaced and settings tweaked, a console isd supposed to just work, and we aren't playing NES anymore, slowdowns really are not acceptable

Incredibly short-sighted

[RogueyWon]

I really can't believe the lack of planning that this move demonstrates. TFA correctly highlights the fact that not many consumers possess HD TVs at the moment. However, the 10% figure on its own should not be taken as evidence that HD TV isn't worth supporting.

First of all, consider that people who own HD TVs already are people who spend a lot of money on consumer electronics. These people are almost certainly going to be disproportionately likely to be early adopters of the next-gen consoles, even if they aren't hardcore gamers.

Next, think about the length of a console cycle. The current cycle has lasted... what... about four years (depending on when you time it from)? It's going to be getting on five or more by the time all three systems are on the shelves. In other words, you don't need to be thinking about the number of households that have HD TV now, you need to be planning for the number who will have HD TV in 2008 or so, by the mid-point of the next cycle. Remember what happened to the level of DVD-player adoption over a similar time-scale?

Oh, and I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but the "it's the games, stupid" rhetoric would sound a lot more convincing if Nintendo had any real track record of being able to deliver sufficient quantity of games over the last decade, or if they weren't making decision after decision that looks set to drive third-party cross-platform developers away.

Re:Incredibly short-sighted

[Soul-Burn666]

The way I see it, the new Nintendo console is not even targetted at people "who spend a lot of money on consumer electronics". The Revolution will be the cheapest of the lot, targetted to the mass audience.

I agree that eventually we'll have HD, and it does make a difference GRAPHICALLY. But high res graphics aren't everything. It's about graphic aestethics. It's about gameplay.

Really. The war between Sony and MS actually plays in favor of nintendo. The two behemoths push all those technical details, and in the process exploding the prices.

I've enjoyed more playing some emulated GBA games than some of this age's beautiful games. Yes, some 2D games for a tiny screen console just feel like they look better than full shaded bla bla 3D games.

Nintendo knows all this and this works great with their plan to allow downloads of games for their old consoles to be played on the Rev. Graphics have become better, games haven't.

Disclaimer: I'm not a nintendo fanboy. I don't even like their main game series (Mario/Zelda). But really, graphics aren't all. (tho there are many beautiful games which are also great gameplay-wise such as MGS or SoulCalibur).

Re:Incredibly short-sighted

[rohlfinator]

"First of all, consider that people who own HD TVs already are people who spend a lot of money on consumer electronics. These people are almost certainly going to be disproportionately likely to be early adopters of the next-gen consoles, even if they aren't hardcore gamers."
It should be obvious by now that Nintendo isn't trying to sell to the self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamers. Do you think that NES and SNES fans who dropped gaming since the mid-90s are going to be turned off because Super Metroid isn't playable in 1080i? Hardly.

"Oh, and I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but the "it's the games, stupid" rhetoric would sound a lot more convincing if Nintendo had any real track record of being able to deliver sufficient quantity of games over the last decade, or if they weren't making decision after decision that looks set to drive third-party cross-platform developers away."
You'd have a point about online support and cartridges, but how is the lack of HD support going to drive developers away? It has absolutely no bearing on gameplay, and it makes games cheaper to produce. How is that a disadvantage?

You might argue, "the games won't sell as well if they don't look good," but look at the PS2. No HD support, clearly inferior graphics, but due to some great games and some clever developers, it's dominating the market. Developers don't follow the most powerful console; they follow the userbase that will buy their games. If they can make a profit writing "ugly" games for the Revolution, they'll do it. It's simple economics.

Sony and Microsoft are just blowing smoke with this HD spiel. When you look at the graphics of GTA, the first fault you notice isn't going to be the resolution. MS and Sony are just hyping this feature because people are equating resolution with graphics, which is hardly true. Half-Life 2 running at 640*480 looks worlds better than Half-Life running at 1280*1024 or whatever high resolution your computer can handle.

Re:Incredibly short-sighted

[greenmonorail]

Actually, the PS2 does support HD. Though admittedly sparse in support, Gran Turismo 4 pushes 1080i.

Re:Incredibly short-sighted

[angle_slam]

You might argue, "the games won't sell as well if they don't look good," but look at the PS2. No HD support, clearly inferior graphics, but due to some great games and some clever developers, it's dominating the market.

It's dominating the market because of inertia. If the Xbox and PS2 were not in existence until tomorrow, when both got released at the same time, PS2 may still win, but Xbox would easily win among HDTV converts. (On various home theater message board I'm on, hardly anyone uses PS2. They all use XBox because of better graphics.)

As HDTV gets more and more penetration in the market, the new Nintendo is more and more at a disadvantage.

What's it look like in Japan?

[DoctaWatson]

Honestly, I don't know. Isn't their HD market already well on it's way?

HD?

[Lars T.]

As long as most people think that (copies of) VHS is good enough quality, HD is going nowhere.

Re:HD?

[SoulMaster]

Is there actually anyone who still thinks that? I havn't seen a VCR in years.

Re:HD?

[finkployd]

TONS of people still think that. Frankly I don't buy DVD's for the picture quality, I would still have VHS if that were the case. I get them for the form factor, long life, and ability to easily skip around.

Finkployd

Re:HD?

[Corngood]

It can't be a very big proportion of people, you can't even rent VHS tapes at most places around here any more.

Re:HD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he did say tons. So, that's what, 4,000 people? I assume they'll be the same 4,000 that buy the Revolution or whatever it will be called when they finally show it.

Re:HD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well tell me about the billions of dollars Tivo is raking in selling PVRs to all those people who saw the light and tossed their old VCR.

While we're at it, spare a few alms for the Macrovision guys, seems that now that nobody copies movies onto tape anymore, their whole product became useless and they went out of business and ended up penniless.

Re:HD?

[angle_slam]

A person who can't tell the difference between VHS and DVD is not the target market for HD.

Re:HD?

[finkployd]

Anyone can tell the difference, the question is do they care enough to pay the price? And do they consider HD to be superior in the first place? I've watched a lot of it (too much actually) and in some cases I find it detracts from my viewing enjoyment. Nature shows rock, but I have no interest in seeing the individual pores in Jennifer Aniston's face.

I'll eventually get it, but certainly not at the price today. I imagine you will see a lot of that. Consumers remember what TVs, VCRs, CD Players, DVD players, etc. cost before they became ubiquitous and probably do not feel the need to be the early adopter who pays several times more than it will cost in 3 or 4 years.

Finkployd

Re:HD?

[rhuntley12]

What is this VHS you speak of?;) I think a lot of it is just the fact that you have to rebuy all the movies you already own.

Re:HD?

[Lars T.]

Rerent and make copies of, you meant to say ;-)

Re:HD?

[Temsi]

Show them an HDTV next to VHS (or even DVD) and they'll care enough to gladly pay the extra price.
You don't have to spend that much to get an HDTV these days - and it will make all your TV experiences more enjoyable... including porn :P
I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but I got a refurbished 30" CRT Philips widescreen HDTV for $600 from www.electronicsnation.com and I couldn't be happier about it. I've had it for over a year now, and I can't imagine going back to SD. No way. Xbox looks fantastic on it, even at the low end 480p which most games support.

If you're already spending $3-400 on an SD TV with limited adaptability for future use, why not save up another $2-300 and get a decent HDTV that will last you a lot longer (at least quality wise)?

Not all HDTVs are the $5.000 65" monstrosities you see at Best Buy... although I wouldn't mind having one...

This seems like a dumb move.

[SoulMaster]

While understand Nintendo's goal to keep the costs of thier system down, I just can't see anything good coming of this. Granted, HDTV isn't widley accepted by the masses in the USA, but it has been out for years in Japan, and is the standard. Furthermore, the FCC changed the timings of the US HD rollout (as previously covered on /.) making it far more agressive meaning that more than 10% of the american households will have HD in the relatively near future.

Finally, I have a DVD player that upconverts directly to HD, it currently runs about $150, and is expected to be $100 by end of year. This (along with the fact that Xbox has HD and is $149)makes me think that HD just isn't that expensive. It at least makes sense to add it in and not reequire the developers to use it. But put it there for them if they want to use it.

I agree with the commentary in the story, there will be quite a few people saying that this will be the demize of Nintendo. I, for one, agree.

Not a shock only hardcores will even care.

[falcon5768]

Seriously Why should I pay a extra 50+ dollars on a feature maybe 2-3% of the people buying the thing will even use. Sure you will read here people kicking and screaming about this, but the truth is we are still a LONG way away from HD being accepted and if the past has anything to show it might even be longer.

When I was 13, at this point today would should have already HAD HD TV. 90% of America doesnt even own a HD READY TV let alone one that actually supports it. So why should Nintendo spend the money and make a system expensive when the truth is most things wont even see any sort of a benifit from it. Heck most " HD TVs" arnt really HD, they fudge with the signal.

the only people who are going to bitch about this are hardcore gamers, and as a recent article here shows, a lot of the developers would like not to pander to that segment anymore since its not the big money segment. They might buy the most expensive stuff, but they are so small to be insignificant in the big picture.

And most importantly, whats the point of HD when 99% of the games for ANY system computer or otherwise, are crap. If I wanted to see crap in HD I wouldnt flush the toliet before I got up.

Re:Not a shock only hardcores will even care.

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Yea and Nintendo is dominating the home (non-portable) console market, isn't it?

Oh that's right, it isn't.

Omitting HD support isn't going to help.

And there's a lot of people out there who aren't Hardcore gamers that will walk into a Gamestop, look at a Revolution title in SD, and see the same title running at HD resolution on a PS3 or Xbox360 and immediately decide that the Revolution looks like shit.

Oh, you say Nintendo's not planning to have any cross platform games? yea that's working out great for them isn't it? I bought a game cube on the day it was released, with a handfull of games. I haven't bought another gamecube game since. The games I'm interested in playing are available on the other platforms as well. They look and play better on the other platforms.

I'm not suprised taht the gamecube is now $75.

Re:Not a shock only hardcores will even care.

[justforaday]

If I wanted to see crap in HD I wouldnt flush the toliet before I got up.

I've learned that flushing after getting up helps keep your ass dry. Nothing like having fecal splashback hit you after you've already wiped...

Re:Not a shock only hardcores will even care.

[falcon5768]

1) if it makes the Revolution 200 dollars cheaper than yes it WILL help.

2) Not really, like I told you before no one has HD, MOST CERTAINLY a gamestop wont have a setup in HD. SO actually most people wouldnt tell the difference.

3) Nintendo has a boatload of cross platform games, and not haveing HD wouldn't stop that. HD means MORE development time thanks to rendering than less. As for looking better, maybe on the xbox, but the Cube is much more powerful than the PS2 and even I who owns a PS2 will admit it looks like shit compaired to the cube my GF owns.

4) Im not either, Nintendo doesnt rape you when it comes to these systems. and here is the shocker ... THEY ARE STILL MAKING A PROFIT AT $75. Microsoft and Sony could never drop below $100 and make a profit. So whos the smart one now, the company bringing in total profit, or the ones who still are eating a lot of costs on certain aspects of their systems.

Re:Not a shock only hardcores will even care.

[radish]

the only people who are going to bitch about this are hardcore gamers

Rubbish. The people who will bitch about this are the people who have big expensive TVs. The exact same people with lots of spare cash to spend on consoles & games. Smart move Nintendo - alienate your most profitable demographic.

I am not a "hardcore gamer" by any definition of that phrase, but I still spend plenty on games, and I want them to look their best.

Re:Not a shock only hardcores will even care.

[G-funk]

Erm, I think the rest of us learnt that pretty much when we made the switch from potty to flushing-potty.

Re:Not a shock only hardcores will even care.

[falcon5768]

actually its well known that the people who can SPEND the most arnt the most profitable demographic.

Its actually the people with the least money who are, because there are more of them.

Re:Not a shock only hardcores will even care.

[rhuntley12]

Aren't they shooting for this generation to last about 5 years or more? I recently read that last year went from like 2% to 12% of homes have HD TV. With them getting more common and so cheap that number should rise a lot more. How do you think it's going to look in 2 years? Hell, we have 1080p coming out now, in 2 years they should be affordable for most people.

I've owned al lthree system from release, but I'm really not buying a new nintendo at release. Gamecube just hasn't seen enough use, plus how are third parties going to like this? Already seen a lot stop porting to gamecube, what are they going to do when the game looks worse on Revolution then on other consoles?

Nintendo has a few great games, I just think this is a big mistake they are trying to downplay. If last generation could display 480p easily, next generation that I've heard should last 5 years not being able to seems kind of backwards.

Re:Not a shock only hardcores will even care.

[falcon5768]

try closer to 2% of homes, and no system shoots for 5 years, the PS3 was in development before the 2 was even out yet.

And no it wont be affordable in 2 years the price has barely changed on some of them in 5 years, a great example would be Computers, it took years for them to be affordable enough, and in computers case there was nothing else, Standard TVs are still out there and can run HD signals through a converter.

not surprising

[teksno]

this isnt that surprising...given the prototype that was shown, as well as nintendos track record of new technologies adoption...im sure every one remembers how popular the GC was for online play...

nintendo doesnt like to move on "future technologies". they realize that in 4 or 5 years new next gen consoles will becoming out...and then they will implament what we today see as future technologies.

this isnt a bad plan. this keeps the cost of their systems down and makes them able to compete while being profitable. right now people dont have massive HDTV's. early adopters do, but broke geeky gamers probably dont. and thats the majority of gamers...broke and rather geeky.

yes HDTV is the future, just like online blay was, but at the time those technologies were expensive. i for one am not concerned.

Re:not surprising

[OneIsNotPrime]

Ummm... No, not insightful. Nintendo was the first console developer with- Analog sticks Rumble/Force feedback First pary wireless controllers (Now all 3 next gen consoles will have them) Console to handheld connection (Copied by Sony) (Not to mention whole new game genres like the 'Party Game' and the 'Kart Racing game' copied nauseum.) Yes, they dropped the ball big time on online play, which thankfully they are now embracing in a big way, but your premise that they don't like to "move on 'future technologies'" is woefully overgeneralized. Overall I would say they've been ahead of the curve.

My God

[MWoody]

This will be the first ever Nintendo console since the 8-bit era that I won't own. That's so... sad.

Re:My God

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad that you think you need HD support.

You don't.

Re:My God

[idonthack]

The thing is, he doesn't. He was making fun of anyone who it was true for.

Re:My God

[MWoody]

Nah, I need HD support. Because if I'm going to play in full, glorious, widescreen HD on my other two consoles, I'm not about to take the technical leap backwards. I mean, really, why bother? If they don't care about power (and don't forget, power describes things like physics and AI as well as graphics), why release another console? Why not release the 'Cube in another color or something?

Re:My God

[rohlfinator]

"If they don't care about power (and don't forget, power describes things like physics and AI as well as graphics), why release another console?"
Funny, I never read anything about Nintendo abandoning physics, AI, or whatever this fictional "power" is. You know, they never even said anything about graphics. Resolution is just one factor in a graphically impressive game, and it's really not that important. What looks more realistic: "It's a Wonderful Life" at crappy, black and white 480i, or Dig Dug at 1080p?

Re:My God

[Lehk228]

looks like Taco needs to down the doses of crack he's giving to the Mods today

Re:My God

[Guppy06]

Yet all those older Nintendo consoles also don't support HD. The N64 doesn't support RGB out of the box, and the NES didn't support stereo sound, let alone s-video. Why draw the line here, other than as flamebait?

Huge Mistake

[the eric conspiracy]

Many people already own monitors capable of at least 720p, and current sales of HDTVs are at 25% of all new TV's sold.

In addition over the next year we are going to start seeing DVD players with HD resolution outputs.

I sure am not going to buy into an SD console and games at this point in time.

Re:Huge Mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you also not buying SD DVDs? If you still are, how can you stand the hypocrisy?

Re:Huge Mistake

[Yorrike]

Maybe 25% of the US market, but Europe and Japan buy more consoles than the US when combined. Add in smaller markets like Australia (where people don't care about your HDTV), and there's no reason to force everyone to buy it because 5 or 10% of American gamers could use it.

If graphics really mattered, the XBox would be number 1, followed closely by the GameCube, with the PS2 coming in dead last. Graphics don't matter. If Nintendo can say to developers "you'll notice only a slight increase in development cost from last generation", while MS and Sony demand developers spend 4x the cash on art than they did previously, you'll be looking at a lot more third party support for the Rev.

Ask yourself this; if HD was the norm now, and GTA :SA came out on the PS2 on SD, while MS released a game like Red Ninja, but it's in HD? Which would you buy? And would the fact that the Xbox game was in HD, despite the fact it's a terrible, terrible game really have made your choice difficult?

The resolution doesn't matter. Graphics don't matter that much. Asteroids is still a fantastic game, even though it's 2D vectors at a tiny resolution. It's gameplay and marketing and that's why Pokemon gameboy games recently topped 100 million.

I rest my case.

Re:Huge Mistake

[Guppy06]

"Many people already own monitors capable of at least 720p,"

My TV is bigger and is in the living room, where the seats are more comfortable.

"and current sales of HDTVs are at 25% of all new TV's sold."

How many television owners have purchased a TV in the past year? Or the past five years, for that matter? How do the sales of HDTVs compare to, say, RF modulators used to retrofit composite inputs into TVs even without that much?

When it comes to appliances, short-term sales don't tell you anything about what everybody is using because people don't buy appliances that often.

"In addition over the next year we are going to start seeing DVD players with HD resolution outputs."

Will they sell? Everybody is still replacing their VHS collection with NTSC DVDs. Would higher resolution be enough to justify starting all over again?

"I sure am not going to buy into an SD console and games at this point in time."

Is there any reason to believe you represent the majority of the gaming market, though?

Re:Huge Mistake

[the eric conspiracy]

How many television owners have purchased a TV in the past year? Or in the past 5 years?

Quite a few I would imagine since there are currently about 13-15 million US homes with HDTVs of one sort or another. The vast majority of these were sold in the past 4 years. These are a great market segment too, with people with disposable income and an interest in technology.

Everybody is still replacing their VHS collection with NTSC DVDs.

That conversion happened a long time ago.

The only thing I see slowing down DVDs in HD is the possibility of a format war.

The fact is that consumers are very hungry for HDTV content since there is not that much available. HD game consoles will be very popular for that reason.


Is there any reason to believe you represent the majority of the gaming market, though?

Not this year, but it is quite clear that people are buying HDTVs in large numbers, and are looking for HDTV content. A console that doesn't provide that capability is cutting itself off from a good percentage of the top end of the US market right now, and that percentage is rising rapidly.

Re:Huge Mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

And those players will still be dealing with anamorphic 720x480 (or 720x576) content. A DVD player with an HD output is useless.

Now, if you're talking "Bluray" or "HD-DVD" or some sort of future technology upgrade, then you've got a point. But as it stands right now, if you're watching a DVD, you're watching either 480p/576p or 480i/576i at best (depending on whether the DVD is film content or interlaced video content).

Also, as another poster mentioned, if you watch ANY standard DVDs at all, you are a blatant hypocrite. Go stuff yourself if that is indeed the case.

Re:Huge Mistake

[Hast]

I believe Japan has a rather high number of HDTV, and here in Eu they are beginning to roll them out right now. Considering that we (Eu) are also beginning to move to digital TV at the same time it's possible that they combine HDTV and digital broadcasting as one big push. Combined with the quite eminent arrival of HD-DVD/Bluray we might find that HDTV is coming quite soon to Eu at least.

I would think that at least most "serious" gamers will have a HDTV connected to their consoles before this console generation is over. That might end up hurting Nintendo as their Revolution will age a lot faster than the others.

More devolpement cost?

[MooseMuffin]

They claim HD costs the developer more but with Microsoft and Sony already requiring that EVERY game on their platforms be in HD, it costs pretty much nothing for a cross-platform 3rd party game. So I suppose this means its only cheaper for Nintendo exclusive titles, which again is an example of Nintento's 1st party focus.

Re:More devolpement cost?

[WhyCause]

Of course, if the added cost of required HD support is significant, you may see the same developer publish the title ONLY on Revolution.

The issues, then, are, "how significant is the cost increase," and, "are there enough Revs to make this worth my while?"

Of course, Nintendo could be positioning the Revolution as the GameBoy of the next-gen market (just about every third party title gets a GBA release). This would turn into a case of 'no matter what other system you have, you also have a Rev', which means big profits for Nintendo, and directly contradicts the idea that this is a first-party only system.

Re:More devolpement cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing you forget is that if developers are supporting HDTV (as in 1080[i/p]) they will still have to support 480[i/p] and 720[i/p] because the majority of users will not have the option to play their games on that TV; this means that it will cost more for a developer to support another platform than it will cost to support the revolution.

Personally I think that it was a mistake for Nintendo to not give people the option of taking advantage of HDTV, but I think that it is an equally damaging mistake for Microsoft to force developers into supporting 1080i. Would you be happy if you had to reduce the detail of your models and lower the resolution of your textures inorder to support a resolution that most people will never use?

Re:More devolpement cost?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

And when the facts are that the Revolution won't achieve the requisite market penetration (due to being inferior to it's peers), publishing ONLY on Revolution will be a suicidal move.

It's not going to happen.

Re:More devolpement cost?

[Guppy06]

"publishing ONLY on Revolution will be a suicidal move."

I'm sure Nintendo would be interested to hear that since, by definition, all their titles will be Revolution exclusives (and not just for a few weeks).

Re:More devolpement cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, beyond HD compatibility there is no reason to assume that the Gamecube will be dramatically inferior to either the 360 or PS3; the reality is that they will all perform in a similar range. HDTV isn't even all that important (despite all of the bitching to the contrary) and I can demonstrate it; take any game you have and run it at 1600X1200 without any AA or AF, now run the same game at 800X600 with 4XAA and 8XAF. The visual difference is quite slight unless you're on a remarkably large display (40+ inch range).

What we do know it that Nintendo is trying to minimize both system costs and development costs on their platform. If Nintendo can produce a system for $149.99 that has similar performance to systems that costs $299.99-399.99 don't you think that they have a lower barrier to entry than other systems? On the same note, if they can keep development costs lower (as in less than 80% of development const on other platforms) and can also give publishers other revinue sources (games from old platforms, and potentially new games developed for these old platforms, for sale online) don't you think that they could attract new developers?

Developers will always bear the burden of higher development cost if they're forced to adopt new technologies. By forcing developers to use HDTV resolution Microsoft is forcing developers to sacrifice Model Resolution and Texture Resolution inorder to draw more pixels with limited results. The odd paradox of this is that under higher resolution outputs it is far more noticable that you're using lower resolution textures and models.

What people forget is that the PS3 only supports HDTV but doesn't force/encourage developers to use it; much like last generation, few developers will actually bother to offer a higher resolution than 480p or possible 720p. Certanly having 1080p support will make a great looking sticker on your PS3 box but do you really want to spend the extra money on something that developers will not really use.

Nintendo is opting out HD because...

[Minced]

1) its an extra cost, and 2) their "research" reports that there aren't enough people with HD currently (or used the GCN HD ability when it was offered) to merit continueing to offter HD output. Nintendo offered online play for nearly two decades in Japan and the US, it just never really caught on. Then people harp on them for making a "bad decision." They jump on a new idea a generation too early at times and when they get burned by it they stay away from it till its too late.

Re:This seems like a dumb move.

[Karma Farmer]

Furthermore, the FCC changed the timings of the US HD rollout (as previously covered on /.) making it far more agressive meaning that more than 10% of the american households will have HD in the relatively near future.

No, they didn't. The FCC made the rollout to digital more aggressive, not high definition. Those are two different things.

Seriously, with the amount of confusion around television standards, I figure the marketing department at Nintendo will be perfectly justified slapping "HD compatible" on the side of the box, so that anyone who was going to buy a Nintendo won't have excuse not to buy it. Since the majority of Americans with HD televisions have never seen an HD signal on the box anyhow, they'll never know the difference.

"Look! Mario looks so totally awesome in High Def on my TV! I can tell the difference, just like when I watch DVD's!"

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

[Associate]

You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
The revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be brought to you by the
Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie
Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
The revolution will not make you look five pounds
thinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother.

There will be no pictures of you and Willie May
pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,
or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.
NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
or report from 29 districts.
The revolution will not be televised.

There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being
run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
There will be no slow motion or still life of Roy
Wilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
For just the proper occasion.

Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Hooterville
Junction will no longer be so damned relevant, and
women will not care if Dick finally gets down with
Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people
will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
The revolution will not be televised.

There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock
news and no pictures of hairy armed women
liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose.
The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb,
Francis Scott Key, nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom
Jones, Johnny Cash, Englebert Humperdink, or the Rare Earth.
The revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be right back after a message
bbout a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
You will not have to worry about a dove in your
bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
The revolution will not go better with Coke.
The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.

The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
will not be televised, will not be televised.
The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
The revolution will be live.

Re:The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

[Jacius]

Actually, the Revolution will be televised, but it won't be HD.

P.S. Thanks for selecting only a small, most-relevant portion of the lyrics, and cutting out all the rest, thus limiting our exposure to something which, aside from using the words "revolution" and "televised", is completely off-topic. I really appreciate it.

Re:This seems like a dumb move.

[WarForge]

While I agree with your overall post, I just want to clarify a couple of things.

First, the FCC is only mandating that all TV be able to accept a digital signal, not necessarily be HD capable. DigitalHD.

Also, as for the Xbox, yeah, it might be $149, but realize at this point, Microsoft is still supporting the console with a loss on every purchase, so it does not really tell us the cost of the HD components.

In the end though, I agree that Nintendo would be better off in the long run by supporting HD in the Revolution

The Revolution Will Not Be HD

[St. Arbirix]

So long as the revolution will be televised, I'm happy.

Re:The Revolution Will Not Be HD

[Anonymous Coward]

The juxtaposition of this to the comment directly above it is amazing.

Re:The Revolution Will Not Be HD

[Look KG486]

Just as long as it isn't...(buffering)...streamed.

Re:This seems like a dumb move.

[Keeper]

The xbox may be sold at a loss, but it is NOT being sold at a significant loss. The big things killing Microsoft with the production costs of the box are the hard drive, the video hardware, and the cpu. They're still paying the same prices for the chips as they were when they first started manufacturing the device...

The HD components aren't a significant cost, and some of that can be "made up" with the sale of cables to connect the device to the TV...

720p may be possible

[Anonymous Coward]

I may be wrong but I suspect that Nintendo is talking that there are no plans to support 1080i/p; being that the Gamecube still supported 720p I wouldn't be surprised if the Revolution supported 720p (and honestly 720p with 4XAA and 8XAF is good enough for the most part).

Re:720p may be possible

[Troed]

being that the Gamecube still supported 720p

No. The Gamecube supports 480p if you use the "digital" (analogue really, component) output - in some but not all games.

This also means that very few Gamecube games are in widescreen. Nintendo might survive with 480p for another generation - but then they'd better make sure all games support anamorphic WS.

Aw man

[Bongo Bill]

Now I won't be able to get an unnecessary improvement to graphics on a TV I don't own and can't afford. I hate Nintendo. Or should I say Nin¥do.

Re:Aw man

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn it, someone mark that as funny, at least.

PC Monitor

[sloose]

Although I don't have a HDTV and don't intend on buying one soon, it's nice to know that at least the xbox 360 and ps3 will be useable on my 19-inch monitor. A bad move in my opinion.

Re:PC Monitor

[NeMon'ess]

Where did you hear that the 360 and PS3 will have HD support for a monitor? I've been hoping for this, but haven't seen any news of it.

Re:PC Monitor

[KirkH]

It's true. MS has announced a VGA adapter for their console, and Sony has similar support (DVI, I think).

Big deal. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo is always right and I do whatever they say and buy whatever they make. Nintedo is the only company that understands me as a gamer and they give me what I want. At least, that's what they tell me. Yay for Nintendo! All I want is for my game machine to play Mario games in low res with no online play. Why can't MS and Sony see this is what all gamers want? Only Nintendo makes good, innovative games. Any game that is not new is crap. Every FPS or RTS is crap it's all been done before. Now that Mario game where Mario had a water jet pack thingy. Oooh, genius. Never been done before = greatest game evar! I played UT2K4 the other day, for like a minute. The first weapon I had was a rifle. Boring. Give me Super Soakers and electrified tennis rackets that shoot turtle shells which, if knocked off a wall, can be ridden like a surfboard. That would be the coolest.

I heard, that in the beginning, God was convicted of being a monopoly, so the Titans split him in two. Now he's known as Nintendo and Apple. Let's face it, the only thing keeping evil at bay is Nintendo and Apple. They're like Ash Inc. They just can't overcome other companies because, you know, they didn't say ever exact syllable, but all the words are there.

Jesus.

Re:Big deal. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You spend a lot of time on your flames, but you don't try very hard. I'd like to see what you can really do. Maximize your potential! You may also want to try supporting an indefensible position with seemingly rational arguments next time, instead of the complete opposite as with this attempt.

Grade: D-

You pass, but please have your mother sign this and return it to me tomorrow morning.

Re:This seems like a dumb move.

[Seumas]

How are you going to decode that digital signal without a converter? And if you're going to buy a digital converter for your TV (or a tv with a digital converter), why not just buy a TV that also has makes use of HDTV?

PS1 anyone?

[L0k11]

Back when I saw my first full scale console war there were playstation fanboys and nintendo fanboys.

The ps1 had terrible graphics (I literally couldn't stand all the jagged edges and rough textures....felt like some horrible VR arcade game), slow loading times and in my own opinion crap games.

The n64 by contrast had the best looking games I had ever seen, goldeneye, mario 64, even diddy kong racing. Zelda Ocarina of Time was a massive game with almost no loading time (when you put it next to a ps1 at any rate).

I cant say I know much about the dreamcast but I do know that its graphics were a good few notches above the n64... and it died.

Sony still captured the market (with more violent games?) and I believe it was sony's sucess with the ps1 that got it where it is today. Which just goes to show its not quite about graphics and hardware, or even game quality...

Re:PS1 anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. It's obvious you're just a Nintendo fanboy in denial. The Playstation had more great games than the Nintendo 64 had total games. Certainly the N64 had a few masterpiece's, but they, just like the library in general, were few and far between. And a lot of PS games looked better than Nintendo 64 games. N64 games were all just blurry and foggy with incredibly mind numbingly bad textures. (Maybe that kind was easier to compress for the carts? I don't know.)

They pretty much just threw on a couple 3d effects to try to compensate for their slow hardware. Run a few PS1 games on an emulator with 3d accelleration and it will stand up to Nintendo 64 games without breaking a sweat. It's because PS games tend to have higher quality art.

If you prefer blurred out plain looking environments to jagged lines, fair enough. But not everyone has the same opinion as the hardcore Nintendo fanboys. I liked my N64 and enjoyed the handful of great games on it, but overall I had a lot more fun on my playstation.

Re:PS1 anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree, psx had better prerendered graphixs but the n64 had better realtime graphics. I totally agree with the guy above you, you were most likely blinded by the fmv.

Fanboy alert

[DoctaWatson]

Yes I mean Final Fantasy. But go ahead, name me a relevant RPG franchise on a Non-Portable Ninentdo console. That's what I thought.

And yes, they shunned online play. It's common knowledge that they opted to avoid broadband and online play in the Xbox/PS2/GC generation simply because they wanted to do it on "their own terms". The same thing is happening this generation with HD.

It's nice to see that if you criticize Nintendo on Slashdot, you'll get modded down as flamebait and then half-baked fanboy apologists can come up here and get +5 Insightful.

Re:Fanboy alert

[sehryan]

But you do not finish the picture with the online play comment. Did they avoid it this time around? Yes, absolutely. But in the new consoles, they are going online...wireless...AND COMPLETELY FREE.

So, at the time when PS2/Xbox/GC came out, do you think a deciding factor for most people was online? Nope, because at the time, 50% of Americans had broadband. Now that the majority is in the market where online gaming is feasible, Nintendo is hitting it full force. So why shouldn't they do the same thing again with HD, and ignore a minority market, especially if that market isn't going to be a majority unti about the same time that the PS4/Xbox 720/Revolution 2 is coming out? Why waste their - and my - money now on a technology that is 2-3 years from actually being commonplace?

Re:Fanboy alert

[NanoGator]

"Yes I mean Final Fantasy. But go ahead, name me a relevant RPG franchise on a Non-Portable Ninentdo console. That's what I thought."

Name another 'relevant' RPG franchise on a non-Nintendo system, preferably one that was on earlier Nintendo systems. (Given your original point, afterall...)

"And yes, they shunned online play. It's common knowledge that they opted to avoid broadband and online play in the Xbox/PS2/GC generation simply because they wanted to do it on "their own terms"."

They avoided it because they didn't think a lot of people would want to pay a montly subscription. Given that out of the 50 million or so PS2 owners out there, only a million have subscribed, it seems they were right. Want to talk about somebody using broadband on their own terms? Go have a look at XBOX live.

'Shunning' implies they were against on-line play. They are not, nor were they ever. Same goes with HD. There's a reason Nintendo's never released a $300 system.

"It's nice to see that if you criticize Nintendo on Slashdot, you'll get modded down as flamebait and then half-baked fanboy apologists can come up here and get +5 Insightful."

Yeah yeah. Fanboys, etc. It happens here on Slashdot all the time. Say anything unkind about FireFox or Linux and your post will disappear. You should be careful, though. Whether you are wrong or not isn't in the hands of the dude with the mod points. It's all dependent on the shit spewing out of your keyboard. Want to criticize Nintendo? Try pointing out actual mistakes they made instead of slapping an inflammatory word on a decision that didn't float your boat. Good luck picking apart their business moves, though, since Nintendo has a 3 cubic acre money bin that Iwata swims through every night.

Re:Fanboy alert

[assassinator42]

" Yes I mean Final Fantasy. But go ahead, name me a relevant RPG franchise on a Non-Portable Ninentdo console. That's what I thought." Paper Mario. Really, really awesome games.

Re:Fanboy alert

[DoctaWatson]

"Name another 'relevant' RPG franchise on a non-Nintendo system, preferably one that was on earlier Nintendo systems. (Given your original point, afterall...)"

The Chrono Series, the Dragon Warrior series, the Secret of Mana Series and the Breath of Fire series... just to name a few.

Re:Fanboy alert

[DoctaWatson]

Awesome games, I agree, but a drop in the ocean as far as market share goes.

Re:Fanboy alert

[NanoGator]

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

Moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's off-topic, but...

There's a serious moderation problem in this thread. Viable criticisms of Nintendo's policy are inevitably being modded troll or flamebait, while knee-jerk defences are being modded insightful. Remember, the moderation system does not exist just to help you impose your views on others. Modding down all the posts that criticise Nintendo won't save the company from destruction, or even get them to send you a free console.

Re:Moderation

[rohlfinator]

You'd have a point if it weren't for the fact that most of the "trolls" are simply HDTV-owning whiners who act like resolution is more important than any other feature. People are going as far as saying that this news alone will cause them not to buy a Revolution.

To all the upset HDTV owners: Yes, we know you spent a lot of money on your TV, and yes, we know you'd like to use it, but stop trying to extend your feelings to the 90% of console owners who this doesn't affect in the least. It's not going to cause Nintendo to go bankrupt, and it's certainly not going to affect the quality of the games, unless your satisfaction comes solely from counting pixels. If the Revolution fails, it'll be from a different poor design choice.

And shame on anyone who actually believes that HD support will be the defining feature of the next generation. If you can't find anything in the PS3, Xbox 360, or Revolution that's more interesting than the resolution, you're not trying.

What about the N64 Hi-Res cartridge?

[DoctaWatson]

Nintendo asked developers to make Hi-Res options of their games before...

Re:What about the N64 Hi-Res cartridge?

[skyman8081]

If you are referring to the expansion pack, it was an additional 4MB of RDRAM that games could use to allow games to run at resolutions closer to LaserDisc(400 Lines) than VHS(240 Lines) oft he standard output.

Factor 5 and LucasArt's game Rogue Squadron was the first game to use it, and only one game, Donkey Kong 64, required it to run. Every other game could run without it, albeit with some features disabled.

Re:What about the N64 Hi-Res cartridge?

[edwdig]

Zelda: Majora's Mask required the RAM Expansion. Perfect Dark technically didn't require it, but without it you couldn't play the single player mode, and multiplayer was limited to 2 players.

Your argument is flawed...

[Iscariot_]

Your argument has a big flaw. Why go after the market of people w/ the 50" TVs? I'll tell you why... because those people buy shit loads of games. I mean, if they've got the cash for a huge TV I'd say the likely hood that they have the cash for a decent game collection is good.

Re:Your argument is flawed...

[PhotoBoy]

Plus those are the coveted early adopters who tell their friends which console to buy, and they're not going to be recommending the Revolution if it can't do HD.

Plus, how is the Revolution supposed to compete when sites like IGN do their "Head to Head" articles where they compare a game available for multiple platforms to tell you which is the best version to buy? I can see them slating the Revolution's graphics for being low-res and indistinct now...

As much as I love Nintendo's games, they really do seem to have no clue when it comes to what the market really wants.

Re:Your argument is flawed...

[Jacius]

But your counter-argument is flawed: the vast majority of people are not filthy rich.

Imagine that 5% of the gaming market has HD TVs, with 95% having SD (we'll assume that everyone in the game market has some sort of TV, or they couldn't play games).

Even if the top 5% bought more games than the other 95%, they would have to buy 19 games for every 1 game the rest bought, in order to give Nintendo the same profits as the non-HD crowd.

Now consider that many a significant portion of the non-HD group has enough money to buy several games per year. They will, for the most part, therefore be more selective in what games they buy, getting mostly games they have heard good things about from other gamers.

If the 95% are buying several popular games per year per person/family, what other games will the 5% buy to fill up their quota, which is now 19 * "several" (maybe 2-5) per year per person, or 38-95 games per year? We can assume that they will buy the popular games as well, but will they buy crappy games too, just because they had the money to spend? Probably not. Will they buy multiple copies of the popular games? Almost certainly not.

So you see, the wealthy, HD-using minority just can't out-spend the non-HD-using majority, because there are only so many games to choose from, and the minority is vastly outnumbered.

Not to mention that, because the Revolution will not be HD, it will be affordable to more people (who wouldn't use HD even if it had it). Additionally, because the games will not be HD, they will be cheaper to develop, and thus presumably can be priced lower, making them affordable to more people.

So here's the equation:

SD games * huge game market - small development cost > HD games * tiny game market - large development cost

In words: Nintendo will (probably) make more money than they would by supporting HD.

Re:Your argument is flawed...

[elrous0]

I mean, if they've got the cash for a huge TV I'd say the likely hood that they have the cash for a decent game collection is good.

Hey, just because Kenny is poor doesn't mean he doesn't want to play games too. He just has to wait until they're in the $10 bin and his dad stops drinking.

-Eric

Re:Your argument is flawed...

[Morinaga]

Do I get troll status if I said 32.54% of statistics are made up?

On a serious note, since when have consumers done what's practicle? Consumers don't buy 40 GB Ipods because they've really mapped out the fact they will one day have 10,000 songs loaded on to the thing. They buy them because in their minds "one day I will need it".

I can't tell you how many products I've bought because of so called features that I will never use nor probably need. My fridge has humidifier controls, crushed ice dispenser and other stuff I thought was really important when I overpaid for it. I can't remember the last time I looked at that humidifier control nor switched the ice make from cube ice to crushed. My new lawnmower not only has a special blade for criss-cross mulching but also has a special ejection cover on the side for mowing exceptionally longer grass that you don't want to bag nor mulch. This thing I've never used but contributed towards my purchase decision. I regret to inform you that consumers simply aren't practicle when the promise of some unexperienced utopia of the refrigerator, mowing a lawn or gaming is just out of reach. The examples go on and on. Need AA x12 with Anthropology hyper-smoothness at 90fps, no problem consumer I've got just the thing for you. Practicle? Probably not but it's too enticing for you to purchase our competitor's product that doesn't do this.

Re:This seems like a dumb move.

[UserChrisCanter4]

What digital signal? All of the info I've seen on the next-gen devices indicates that they'll be using component video for HD feeds in addition to optional HDMI/DVI. None of them will be converting to a DTV signal (which would involve pointlessly compressing video generated on the fly into an MPEG-2 transport stream). Assuming there's a normal analog TV involved, you'll hook it up the same way you always did: just use the best analog connection your TV supports. Assuming it's an HD-compatible TV or HDTV, you'll hook it up via component video or HDMI/DVI if those connections are present.

HD-compatible refers to television that are capable of displaying HD content but not tuning into Over-the-air digital feeds. Essentially, they're like monitors without a computer - all the resolution capability is there.

If you have an HD compatible TV and hook up an XBox 360 or PS3 to it, you'll get HD resolution without the need for a converter box. Additionally, if you have HD content being distributed via digital cable or satellite and you hook those devices up (using a component or DVI or Firewire connection, of course), you'll get HD content.

A converter allows an HD-compabitle TV to tune into telelvision shows being broadcast over the airwaves and being picked up with rabbit ears (or some similar antenna). This is one of the reasons (besides) confusion that consumers have been willing to purchase HD-compatible TVs; most of them already use digital cable or satellite and thus already have a converter box of sorts.

Revolution not supporting hi-def?

[Anonymous Coward]

Me not supporting Nintendo.

Is Sony backwards compatible either?

[tepples]

What appears to be Sony fanboyism is not especially warranted, given that Nintendo has no monopoly on commercial failures and legacy breaks.

For every analog thumbstick and Mario 64, there's a Virtual Boy

Sony Elcaset. Sony Betamax. Sony-Philips CD-i. Sony HiFD. Microsoft Bob.

and a proprietary non-backwards compatible cartrige system.

Nintendo isn't the only company with non-backwards-compatible solid state (not snake) electronics. Where's the slot for PS1 or PS2 memory cards on the PS3? What about the Game Link port on the back of the original PlayStation (used for Command & Conquer Red Alert Retaliation as well as several racing games) that was eliminated from later PS1 models (starting when they stopped manufacturing the original form factor in favor of the PSone)? And why doesn't the PSP play games designed for Sony's previous handheld system, the Clie?

Besides, Nintendo isn't as consistently non-backwards-compatible as you'd think. GBC plays Game Boy games. Super NES plays Game Boy games (in single player mode) through an adapter. GBA plays Game Boy and GBC games. GameCube plays Game Boy, GBC, and GBA games through an adapter. Nintendo DS plays GBA games (in single player mode; unlike the original PS1, the GBA SP is still manufactured). Revolution will play GameCube discs, and Nintendo will offer classic NES, Super NES, and N64 titles for Internet rental on Revolution.

Re:Is Sony backwards compatible either?

[Doomstalk]

Where's the slot for PS1 or PS2 memory cards on the PS3? What about the Game Link port on the back of the original PlayStation (used for Command & Conquer Red Alert Retaliation as well as several racing games) that was eliminated from later PS1 models (starting when they stopped manufacturing the original form factor in favor of the PSone)?

For that matter, where's the HDD bay on the PSTwo? You can't play FFXI on it. How can you complain about Nintendo's backwards compatability efforts when Sony breaks compatability with the same generation of hardware?

Same mistake they made with online for Gamecube

[PoderOmega]

Does anyone see this as the same mistake they made with the Gamecube and online play? The GC having no online play hurts it marginally, but it is a segment of people that are more the type who play (and buy) loads of games. This is a segment they should try to make happy. I don't think the HD will hurt the Revolution much, but I think they are making a mistake. They have stated the the Revolution will have more online games, so I don't know if that is admiting they messed up with GC or that they think online games are coming in to prime. I would think it was a mistake.

Re:Same mistake they made with online for Gamecube

[cowscows]

It wasn't a mistake. The PS2 won the last generation hands down, and its online abilites are not the least bit impressive. They had very little bearing on its success.

Nintendo didn't have any problem selling most of their games. SuperSmashBros. online would've been cool, no doubt, but they sold tons of them anyways. I doubt that online capabilities would've pushed through a significant number of extra gamecubes.

They're perfectly happy to sit back and watch stuff unfold, and learn from the mistakes and efforts of others. Expect the Revolution to learn a lot of lessons from XboxLive, as well as have some unique ideas from Nintendo. The technologies for online gaming are better, broadband is more widespread now, and like you said, online console gaming is ready to hit its prime.

It's worth pointing out...

[ajservo]

Japan has had a variation of our ATSC signal for YEARS in Japan. The japanese haven't seemed to care about HD in the previous generation.

I think most people expecting full HD from day one with everything aren't going to be satisfied with the revolution period.

People like myself who wanted a HD ATSC compatible television for the future are more concerned about quality content rather than video that looks like it was photo-realistic.

Re:It's worth pointing out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan has had a variation of our ATSC signal for YEARS in Japan.

Your post has had a similar phrase repeated EARLIER in your post.

Goddamnit Nintendo! Wake the fuck up!

[__aailob1448]

You know, if I didn't love nintendo games, I would be laughing right now:

First they shun CDs with the N64. Everybody thought that was a mistake way back when and lo and behold: it was! Nintendo swallows and goes mini-dvds the next generation but...

They go shun online gaming and downplay tech specs (I erroneously thought for the longest time that the GC was inferior to the PS2) with the Gamecube. Everybody thought doing this was a stupid move and lo and behold: it was! Nintendo swallows again and starts raving about wireless and online for the next generation but...

Now with revolution, They're poised to make what may be the stupidest mistake of all. No HD? What.The.Fuck ??? It's the ONE thing that next-gen consoles must obviously embrace. Even more obvious than 3D back in the Saturn and PSX days. I just want to start slapping whomever is in charge at nintendo until he stops making stupid fucking decisions. What's next? Let's nix sound in games? Or maybe use controllers with 2 buttons? Jesus fucking christ. I'm pissed. I'm gonna have to play the next zelda in 480p.

Re:Goddamnit Nintendo! Wake the fuck up!

[Anonymous Coward]

They must obviously embrace a feature that only 5-10% of users currently have? A feature that may only have a 30-50% usage rate 5 years from now?

People mention that HDTV is growing at an 'amazing' rate because a full 25% of new TV purchaces are HDTVs; but this means that a full 75% of TV purchaces are not HDTVs and that these people will probably not buy a HDTV for 5 years. Why should Nintendo care so much about a feature that the majority of users don't care about; this goes for HDTV as well as online play. Being the only real online console this generation really helped the XBox being that less than 10% of its users played online, right?

Re:Goddamnit Nintendo! Wake the fuck up!

[G-funk]

Suck shit.

Like most people out there in the real world who are older than 18 and into tech stuff, I have a big screen, excellent picture quality, has-ten-more-years-on-it sony trinitron. Why the fuck should I pay an extra $40 for my revolution so you can feel better about being suckered into buying a tv that serves only to hilight the dodgey compression in modern broadcasts and dvd?

Regular resolution plus FSAA will sure as hell beat the pants off a high resolution, no AA display that runs at half the FPS whenever there's some action, just so you can brag to your mates about your HD tv.

*end rant*

Re:Goddamnit Nintendo! Wake the fuck up!

[leland242]

"Why the fuck should I pay an extra $40 for my revolution so you can feel better about being suckered into buying a tv that serves only to hilight the dodgey compression in modern broadcasts and dvd?"

Why shouldn't I be able to pay an additional $40 to play games on a real HDTV because I chose to wait and didn't buy an overhyped 800 lb Sony Trinitron?

Also, mate, you will not be using that tv in 10 years - at least, not in your living room.

Does it matter?

[MagicDude]

I don't have HDTV, and as far as I know I've never watched anything on an HDTV either, aside from maybe a few seconds while walking through Best Buy. But my question is will HDTV make video games all that much better? Sure movies and TV shows might benefit from improved clarity and resolution, but do video games need it? Would Super Mario Sunshine look any better if it had a few more pixels? How about Halo? It seems that enhanced resolution would only be useful for hyper-realistic pre-rendered movies with millions of surfaces and shading and the like. It seems like if Link were made with an extra 10000 pixels, nobody could tell the difference (except those with HDTV, who want to justify that they can "see" the difference in their video games).

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Super Mario Sunshine: No, it's single player and has that heat-haze effect so distant stuff is irrelevant. It'd look a bit sharper, but no big deal really.

Halo: Yes! Ever play 4-way split screen? It's awful, you can't see a damn thing. It's roughly equivalent to playing in a 320x240 window on a PC. Moving to 1920x1080 would be like giving all the players their own TV.
In single player mode it'd make sniping somewhat easier, but it's perfectly playable in SD so not much difference.

PS3 games might even have 6 or 7-way deathmatch (they say it'll support 7 controllers). 6-way split screen on SD wouldn't be worth playing.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sure movies and TV shows might benefit from improved clarity and resolution, but do video games need it?"

What a stupid question? Ofcourse games need higher resolution. More so than a movies does. Reduced flicker (higher refresh) and clear sharp lines translate to easier viewing. I'm sure my eyes will appreciate HD gaming over shitty SD.

Higher resolution == better

Not a hard concept to grasp folks.

Both good and bad implications

[LKM]

Let's assume that the whole thing is legit. What are the pros and cons of this decision?

Pros:

• The Revolution can achieve better graphics using lesser hardware than the other two consoles. It needs less memory since, for example, textures can have a lower resolution, so the console itself will be cheaper to manufacture.
• Development will be cheaper, although I guess the difference won't be vast. And if you have games appearing on all consoles, you will have to spend the money either way, but Revolution version will look worse.
• Also, most people won't benefit from HD resolution anyway. I'm living in europe, and I don't know even one single person with an HD TV. Most people who have better equipment have bought 800x600 beamers, and the current cube looks simply gorgeous on these. If this generation lasts for 5 years, then I would assume that at the end of the generation, there will still be a majority of people without HD TVs.

Cons:

• Game mags will report that Revolution versions of games look worse than the versions for the other two consoles. That it won't make a difference for most consumers won't matter, the Revo will look bad next to the other two.
• Sales clerks will try to sell the other two consoles to people as the commission on those will be higher, and they will have one more checkbox to show that the Revolution is worse than the other two consoles.
• For people with HD TVs, the Revolution actually will look worse than the other two.

Technically, it might be the right choice at this time, but it could hurt Nintendo.

Re:Both good and bad implications

[Jacius]

You forgot:

Pros:

• All the stupid people who only care about graphics will keep their damn dirty ape-paws off my Revolution.

Re:Both good and bad implications

[Anonymous Coward]

Introducing the new Nintendo Revolution. Having a console with less features just proves your a "true" gamer.

Re:Both good and bad implications

[LKM]

All the stupid people who only care about graphics will keep their damn dirty ape-paws off my Revolution.

Heh, good point. Also:

• Since people who only care about graphics won't buy Revolutions, the games that will appear for the Cube will be the ones which have to survive on gameplay alone. In other words, the good ones.

Re:Both good and bad implications

[Maffyew]

Sales clerks will try to sell the other two consoles to people as the commission on those will be higher...

Ummm, no, not quite.

At least, not in Australia. Don't know if it's the case where you live.

The company I work for makes (quite literally) about six dollars off a console sale. They are absolutely terrible for margin - the fact that the Revolution is using cheaper hardware could very well mean that the margin is a great deal higher on these consoles.

More margin DOES mean more commission.

More sales, in most cases, does not mean more commission.

This is why salespeople will try to encourage you to pick up that extra controller, or that extended warranty. That's where the margin is.

Re:Both good and bad implications

[Hast]

Technically, it might be the right choice at this time, but it could hurt Nintendo.
Yes I bet that non-HD makes a lot of sense *right now*. But a next gen console will have to last for a couple of years, 2010 is a reasonable guess as to when we will see next gen consoles.

The Revolution will not even be released for another year or so and even by then non-HD may seem a little passé compared to today. I guess they may still change their minds, just like I hope Sony decides to include a HDD as standard.

Re:Both good and bad implications

[LKM]

But a next gen console will have to last for a couple of years, 2010 is a reasonable guess as to when we will see next gen consoles.

Yeah, 5 years is reasonable. So, how often do you buy a new TV set? My girlfriend bought a new TV two months ago since her old TV (which was more than 10 years old) broke down. It's not HD. The place she bought a TV from doesn't even sell more than a few different HD TVs yet, and they cost a small fortune. She bought a really nice, big normal TV quite cheaply. I bought a beamer a year ago, and a new TV about two years ago.

I don't plan on buying a new TV in the next five years. Maybe a new beamer if I find one that's cheap and makes less noise. My girlfriend will most likely keep her new TV for at least five years, too. I guess most people keep their TVs for longer than that.

How many people will have an HD TV in 2 years? Maybe 20%? In 5 years? 50%? I don't know.

In 5 years, all consoles will be HD TV, because in 10 years, most people will have HD TVs.

Even so, how many people won't buy a Revolution if it doesn't support HD TV? How many people who actually own an HD TV will not buy the Revolution if it doesn't support HD TV? I would buy it either way, because I know that some of the games I want to play will only be available on it.

I guess it's all just rumors at this point. I'm sure Nintendo will think about this very hard. Not including HD TV would certainly have an impact on the sale numbers of the Revolution, but I'm not sure how big of an impact it would have.

Re:Both good and bad implications

[Hast]

Point is, right now a lot of people will be getting new TV sets. The reason being that Eu is moving to digital broadcasting and HDTV at the same time. Furthermore as HD-DVD starts to appear on the market the reasons to get HDTV increases. (Right now there is basically no content in Eu.)

My guess is that HDTV will have it's breakthrough within the next 5 years (just like CD and DVD took a long time to catch on but then a lot of people got them at the same time). If Revolution doesn't do HDTV that may lower their sales in the long run.

Yes, Revolution can be connected to a PC Monitor.

[Anonymous Coward]

From N-Sider:

Q: Will Revolution hook up to a television?

Fact: Yes, according to Nintendo Senior Managing Director Genyo Takeda, the Revolution will be able to interface with both a television and a computer monitor. In June 2004 Takeda said, "You'll be able to play [Revolution] not just by linking up to a television but to a computer monitor as well."

Well it does make sense

[IntergalacticWalrus]

Up to now from what we can tell the Revolution will be marketed as a low-cost console, accessible to the casual gamer on a budget (apart from the cost, the downloadable classics come to mind). Most people who will buy it probably won't have the money to blow on a fucking HDTV screen.

I'm sure i'm not the first....

[drewmca]

but here goes nintendo telling us again that a lack of a feature is actually a benefit. HD-quality graphics will still work on normal TVs, so it's not like using them will alienate the non-HD audience. My favorite is how it will be easier on the developers, though. I'm sure all of the home-brew developers out there for PC games have found high resolutions a real hindrance. This will be a certain boon for all of the artists at game companies who will finally have reason to cheer that they can easily move the graphics they have been developing at low resolutions into games. Artists hate high resolution graphics, and game companies are always hiring extra people to upconvert low-res graphics down to TV resolutions.

Enough already! Just come out and say it! "we will do only enough to make a profit and no more!" And wait for the legions of fans to say how this profit making is in the gamer's best interest.

Also cue the "I think this is a really good idea because...." posts.

Cheaper games?

[Anonymous Coward]

But will Nintendo's cheaper development costs and hardware costs outweigh the failure to reach economies of scale?

Even though games will cost a fraction as much as a comperable PS3 game, won't publishers still need to charge their $50 to recoup their costs from a smaller user base?

I, for one, don't mind the difference paying $200 or $300 for a console. But I have serious problems paying $50 for most of the craplicious games out there that might be mildly entertaining for a short bit. I guess that's what Blockbuster is for.

Damn, I guess this is that whole "replayability" argument from the 90's isn't it?

Re:This seems like a dumb move.

[Qzukk]

A real HDTV: $thousand. Converter: $hundred, less at mass market prices.

HDTV might come down in price, assuming that enough consumers hold out for it, and aren't suckered in by cheap digital SD sets or "high(er) definition" EDTV sets. As long as the majority of customers are willing to pay $100 for a SDTV set and around $200-$500 for an EDTV set, the HDTV sets are going to remain a high-dollar "luxury" item.

FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Not this year, but it is quite clear that people are buying HDTVs in large numbers, and are looking for HDTV content. A console that doesn't provide that capability is cutting itself off from a good percentage of the top end of the US market right now, and that percentage is rising rapidly.

Bologna. The Rev will run just as well on HD as SD. Your FUD is like telling people their BetaMax machine won't work on newer TVs, with all these VHS machines getting so popular.

Re:FUD

[the eric conspiracy]

Bologna. The Rev will run just as well on HD as SD. Your FUD is like telling people their BetaMax machine won't work on newer TVs, with all these VHS machines getting so popular.

Ever see an SD signal blown up on a 60" HDTV? It looks like crap, The fact is that SD signals look crummy on a HDTV.

Re:This seems like a dumb move.

[AvitarX]

Isn't the rollout something like 5 years late?

I hardly call that more aggressive.

Nintendo are doing the right thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

...by not bloating up their hardware with features that less than 5% of the world can afford to use.

Yes there is a place that doesn't have HDTV. It's called Europe.

If I had £400-500 and wanted to play games at that res, I could upgrade the 2-year-old midrange prebuilt PC I have and _still_ have enough money left over to buy an actual game or two.

From someones who owns an HDTV

[iamghetto]

It doesn't sound like anyone leaving these comments actually have an high definition television set. I'm almost completely sure they don't, because they're missing the main point of why the Revolution should support HD.

Regular signals look like GARBAGE on an HDTV. People who say they can barely notice the difference between progessive scan and an interlaced signal, obviously don't have a HDTV. Its tough to describe, but a 480i signal just looks muddy. And what's worse, each TV varies in how good it displays a standard definition (SD) signal.

I used to own a Toshiba 52HM84 but I returned it for a Panasonic 50DL54 just because non-progressive scan games look so bad. I'd hook my PS2 up to my shitty 27" Trinitron just to play Metal Gear Solid 3 because it looked so bad on my Toshiba HDTV. If an HDTV gets a less than HD signal, all it does is exponentially magnify the poor quality of the signal. Not a good thing.

People who own HDTV will be -alienated- by the Nintendo Revolution. We don't spend $3000 on our TV's to have stuff look like crap on them.

It's not the fact that HD doesn't "add to the quality of the game" as Nintendo said, its the fact that the 12.5% of North America that have HD televisions won't want to be bothered with something that doesn't support it. And if someone has money to spend on a fancy TV, they're probably the exact same person who has money to spend on video games.

I used to be a PS2 guy, but since I got my HDTV's I'm a closet XBOX guy. Why? Because to a greater agree, it takes advantage my TV.

Once you're HD equipped, and have seen a game in HD, trust me, TRUST ME. You'll never go back. And as time goes on, more and more people are going to be HD-ready, and they're going to want nothing to do with anything that isn't.

Oh right... but Nintendo only makes games for 8 year olds and 8 year olds can't really afford HDTV's. My bad. :)

Re:From someones who owns an HDTV

[HarvardAce]

Regular signals look like GARBAGE on an HDTV.

I have an HDTV, and I'd have to agree with you mostly. Some shows, even though they are standard 480i, don't look so bad, but there are many which don't look very good on my HDTV. However, my cable box does a fairly good job upconverting these to 480p and it doesn't look too terrible (but if I go directly using the built-in TV tuner it doesn't look that great).

I used to own a Toshiba 52HM84 but I returned it for a Panasonic 50DL54 just because non-progressive scan games look so bad.

I have the same Toshiba, and I only have my xbox hooked up to the TV (the PS2 is broken and I left the GC with my sister when I moved into my apartment), and the games look beautiful. I haven't hooked up any non-progressive stuff to it, however, so I have no idea how they would look. But playing MVP Baseball 2005 in 720p widescreen is awesome -- I played the same game on the xbox on a standard TV at a local Best Buy, and man, the difference is incredible.

All that being said, I believe that the Revolution will at least support 480p so the quality on a HDTV shouldn't be too bad. If it's only 480i I definitely won't touch the Revolution with a 10 foot pole.

Re:From someones who owns an HDTV

[leland242]

"All that being said, I believe that the Revolution will at least support 480p so the quality on a HDTV shouldn't be too bad. If it's only 480i I definitely won't touch the Revolution with a 10 foot pole." Totally. I have to get my GC serviced - it's a launch date system and the laser has died. I'm not about to buy another one because they removed the 480p ability in the newer GC's. I have no plans on reverting back to a fuzzy 480i. I love Nintendo games, but if the revolution is less than 480p...I dunno.

Re:From someones who owns an HDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right to a certain extent, 480i signals do look reasonably bad on a large HDTV; what you fail to consider is that a 480p signal from a digital output is exactly what a progressive scan DVD player outputs. Now, in particular when you're not dealing with small text, the difference between a 480p signal and a 720p (or 1080i) signal is noticable but not dramatic.

Now, when you're dealing with images (in particular computer generated images) the main reason you want a higher resolution image is to deal with aliasing; it is reasonably safe to say that the revolution will save enough processing power from not supporting the higher resolutions to have some pretty impressive anti-aliasing (probably 4XAA or possibly something similar to the previously announced 9XAA). Now, if the revolution has the capability to run 4XAA and 8XAF (or better) on every game the difference in visual qualtiy between an image produced on it and on the 360 or PS3 will be reasonably minimal.

Finally, I put this challenge to anyone to prove me wrong; if you have a good graphics card (ATI X800 or better) take a good looking game (Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 or something) and do both a performance benchmark and a visual check on these games with the following settings:

1)resolution: 800 X 600 (aproximatley 480p),4XAA, 8XAF
2)resolution: 1280 X 768 (aproximatley 720p)
3)resolution: 1280 X 768 (aproximatley 720p),4XAA,8XAF
2)resolution: 1920 X 1024 (aproximatley 1080p)
3)resolution: 1920 X 1024 (aproximatley 1080p),4XAA,8XAF

What you'll notice is that inorder to maintain a reasonable frame rate on the higher resolutions you will have to scale back on either the post proccessing (AA,AF) or you will have to reduce the texture and model detail; either way you'll be obtaining a similar visual result.

Re:From someones who owns an HDTV

[BattleTroll]

"Regular signals look like GARBAGE on an HDTV"

Regular signals look fine on my Sony VEGA HD CRT. Maybe the problem isn't in the signal but in your set? I do notice the difference but it's not enought to call the result "garbage". Viewing SD is fine; HD looks stunning - best of both worlds. Maybe the problem you're having is in your set? Buy into the hype of plasma/LCD? Easy to get disappointed there.

My PS2 looks great on my VEGA and IMO has the better games.

Re:From someones who owns an HDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

From Anandtech.com ( http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2406 )

ATI X850 XT

Doom 3:
Frame rate 1024X768 = 97.6
Frame rate 1600X1200 = 52.9
Frame rate 1024X768 (4XAA, 8XAF) = 65.0
Frame rate 1600X1200(4XAA, 8XAF) = 34.3

Splinter Cell Caos Theory:
Frame rate 1024X768 = 79.9
Frame rate 1600X1200 = 46.0
Frame rate 1024X768 (4XAA, 8XAF) = 66.1
Frame rate 1600X1200(4XAA, 8XAF) = 36.6

Half Life 2:
Frame rate 1024X768 = 145.6
Frame rate 1600X1200 = 116.9
Frame rate 1024X768 (4XAA, 8XAF) = 140.5
Frame rate 1600X1200(4XAA, 8XAF) = 86.0

What you'll notice across all tests is that you can run Anti-Aliasing and Antriscopic Filtering at their highest levels at a lower resolution and still maintain a higher framerate than by simply increasing the resolution. One could assume (although it may not be true) that if you were to run your game at 800X600 with 4XAA and 8XAF that the game would maintain a higher frame rate than the 1024X768 resolution without AA or AF.

Re:From someones who owns an HDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

"Regular signals look like GARBAGE on an HDTV. People who say they can barely notice the difference between progessive scan and an interlaced signal, obviously don't have a HDTV. Its tough to describe, but a 480i signal just looks muddy. And what's worse, each TV varies in how good it displays a standard definition (SD) signal."

With computer generated images the "muddy" look is not necessarily fixed by simply increasing the resolution; as an example read this article which should act an an introduction to AA and AF

http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=guide& dId=601&dPage=1

Pay particular close attention the the KOTOR section; it has KOTOR running at 1280X960 and when you compare the PNG images the one with neither AA nor AF looks really muddy, on the other hand by simply using AA and AF you get a really crisp clear image. If a developer had to sacrifice AA and AF to get to the higher resolutions you may find that the image produced would be far muddier than the one produced at a lower resolution with AA and AF.

Re:From someones who owns an HDTV

[iamghetto]

Both TV's were DLP. For the money, they easily had the best picture. I looked at LCD/RP LCD/Plasma and all the rest, even the CRT. SD does look alright on some plasma TV's because the majority of them are only EDTV (852x480) not HDTV.

But to that extent, it is my TV. That is the reason why it looks like garbage. It won't look like garbage on your CRT, but the point is that the future HDTV aren't going to be CRT's. They're going to be LCD/Plamsa/LCoS/DLP and these technologies do no favors whatsoever with a less than progressive scan signal.

The basic point I'm trying to make is that people who invest all that money into nice high-end HD sets are going to go for the systems that use what they bought. 480p PS2/XBOX games look fine on my TV, but if the PS2 version is 480p, and the XBOX version is 720p I'm not buying the PS2 version. :) There is a big difference in quality, especially on a +50" screen.

But also, Nintendo as of about a year ago pulled the digital a/v jack from its gamecubes as well as the ability for its gamecubes to use component cables (component cables are required to for GC to run at 480p). So while a number of games might support progressive scan, Nintendo from a hardware point of has abandoned it completely. Not a very good mindset. :)

Re:From someones who owns an HDTV

[iamghetto]

All that being said, I believe that the Revolution will at least support 480p so the quality on a HDTV shouldn't be too bad. If it's only 480i I definitely won't touch the Revolution with a 10 foot pole.

In the back of mind, I was thinking that the revolution would support 480p as well, but then I realized something.

As of about a year ago, Nintendo removed the ability for Gamecubes to output progressive scan. They released a 101 model with the digital a/v output removed which also removed to ability for one to use component cables. With Gamecube (and perhaps everything else ??) you need component cables to run something in progressive scan mode. So while some games still support it, from a hardware standpoint Nintendo has removed any & all progressive scan functionality from the Gamecube itself. So if the Gamecube doesn't need it, why would the Revolution?

There is a royalty to be paid on every piece of hardware that implements progressive scan, so maybe Nintendo is just abandoning it all together.

I looked into the projections and I read that by 2007 some +40% or homes will have HD and by 2008 +60% are expected. And I still insist, anyone who's spent the money on a HDTV is going to go out of there way to play games that take advantage of it. If the Revolution doesn't support HD, people who have HD will abandon it.

Can you imagine... Madden 2007 in 1080p on the PS3 and Madden 2007 in 480p or even 480i on the Revolution? Good idea Nintendo. GREAT IDEA. :)

Re:From someones who owns an HDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

"With Gamecube (and perhaps everything else ??) you need component cables to run something in progressive scan mode."

There are various connection methods that allow one to display video in progressive scan. Component cables are just the most common in the U.S.

"So if the Gamecube doesn't need it, why would the Revolution?"

Bad assumption, I think. Revolution may very well have component output, and it may very well do 480p or even better. We don't know for sure yet, because all we have is the word of NoA's press person.

"There is a royalty to be paid on every piece of hardware that implements progressive scan, so maybe Nintendo is just abandoning it all together."

That's just not true. You may be thinking of Macrovision royalties, or DVD movie playback royalties, but there is absolutely no royalty on "progressive-scan" electronics (which would include such things as PC graphics cards, for instance). I've only ever seen this falsely mentioned by Xbox fanboys defending MS's [actually smart] decision to sell a DVD dongle for the Xbox separate from the console itself. It was a good decision, but not because the royalties would have had to be paid for progressive scan, of all things.

As for abandoning Revolution just because I have [several] HDTVs, that's just not true for me. Revolution will look just as good in HDTV as on an SDTV (or even much, much better, as good HDTVs have good line doublers that eliminate the huge line pitch that is present on SDTVs - those of us from the laserdisc era engraved the Faroudja name on our foreheads because of this). Will it be HDTV? I'm hearing no. But will it look good on my HDTVs? Well, based on the consoles I have connected to them now, going back from GameCube & PS2 to TurboDuo & NES - I have no doubt in my mind about it. And that's why I'm not going to be so stupid as to dismiss the Revolution over this piddling non-issue.

It's about game devlopment

[rAiNsT0rm]

The big news here is the leg up that Nintendo will have in development support. Developing in HD from the ground up is hugely time consuming, expensive, and intensive on everyone involved. As a result the Xbox 360 (which requires only HD development) and PS3 (to a little lesser extent) will have very limited game availability throughout their lifespan. Game development costs are going to be so high that only the big studios will be able to produce content... so get ready for sports, sports, and more sports (yay!) and licensed titles en masse. Also timetables for development grow exponentially with the HD content, so less games will be produced. The Revolution is going to have a three fold advantage here: Retro titles, low development cost for regular titles, and opening the development up to some degree to hobbyists and small developers (remember shareware days and where Doom came from...) These advantages are huge. Not to mention lower console cost (possible to integrate into A/V equipment), less complex for families and those who don't want the cumbersome setups of the other consoles, innovative controller (which is yet to be seen), and the quality hardware and software that Nintendo is known for. For all the HD elitests, go ahead buy your expensive PS3 and Xbox to go with your expensive TV (of which there is still no full standard on and could be rendered useless in the blink of an eye) and play your sports titles and movie licensed titles, and sequel after stale sequel... I'll happily be enjoying a massive library of fun titles, new titles, new spins on old favorites, and the next Carmack, or ID with the open development. HD means nothing when the game is solid. In fact it means less, I want to be pulled into the game and immersed, not looking at the wonderful bump mapping. That's why Tetris, and Katamari Damacy do their jobs so well... not because it is HD. Let's get back to the games, and focusing on fun and new ideas, that is what the Revolution is all about.

Wake up and smell the coffee...

[AzraelKans]

In case you havent noticed, Nintendo ALWAYS uses "substandard" technology on their consoles, they claim that is because they dont need it (although they curiously use it in the next console when is cheap) but the real reason is that they get much better profits for doing so.

Not only dont count on HD on revolution, xlive like net service? (for free?) I dont think so, HDD? probably not, Physics chip? fat chance, hd-dvd blu-ray dvd? you are kidding right?

Instead of great technology, nintendo offers their well known franchises and "innovative" gameplay, non-standard games that require some new device to play with, (and you have to buy along with the game) Its not perfect, but it works. just ask any rabid Nintendo fan.

And besides all HDTV nay sayers, just one question, you do realize you dont need a $1000 tv right? I mean any regular pc with an hd entry($100) can decode hdtv, actually there a bunch of monitors that are entirely HDTV capable and cost the same than a flat screen monitor (around $300-$400). whats hd for? well just ask yourself, how many PC games have you played lately at 320*240, 640*480 resolution instead of 800*600 or 1024? (if you have a good card) also HDTV is expensive now, but as soon as more devices with HD begin to appear, tvs will start coming out with the mode at a very similar price than regular tv's.

Games will come back to the PC anyhow

[Anonymous Coward]

It's going to be a cycle. Consoles are becoming more 'PC' like anymore. PC advances in graphics, sound, etc are takes huge strides every year. With XP becoming easier to design for, I don't see the issue of 'having to write code for numerous video cards, etc' being much of a problem (which has been in the past).

Hey console game makers: Want to make your best console game on the PC?

Then ship the game with a USB console game pad made for your game. An extra $10 won't matter, and the gamer will love it. And the game will look 10 times better than on el-crapo TV video.

HD video... what a waste of time and money.

The poor kids need consoles too

[elrous0]

1) if it makes the Revolution 200 dollars cheaper than yes it WILL help.

I don't think it will hurt much. Let's face it, Nitendo is dead in the console market. And their "Revolution" was DOA at E3.

So, they had might as well make it as cheap as possible, so that maybe at least some of the poor kids will buy it. Just because someone can't afford a real game console doesn't mean they shouldn't have one at all.

-Eric

Re:The poor kids need consoles too

[Anonymous Coward]

Get well soon!

And to everyone else reading this, please let the parent post guide you to donate a charitable gift to your local department of mental health services. You too can help bring an end to living tragedies like this.

The difference between PC and Console gaming...

[leland242]

Look at the specs of BF2. They state, basically, if you haven't upgraded your computer in about 2 years, you cannot play this game. If you have current generation hardware, it's going to kick some serious ass in the visuals department. If not, it's still gonna be fun, but not as pretty.

They are rewarding those with good hardware.

Nindendo is basically saying, nah, you can use you're old tnt riva to play our games.

It hasn't stopped PC developers

[elrous0]

PC developers have gone to high resolution a long time ago. If a game came out for the PC today that only supported 640x480 resolution, it would be laughed at.

And, it's funny, but I haven't heard PC gamers complaining about slowdowns and development costs as a result.

-Eric

This is fine

[brkello]

Reading through the posts that are modded up, one would think that Nintendo somehow tracks down people who have mod points and pays them to mod in their favor. Is it a big deal that Nintendo isn't going to support HD? Nah. It is disappointing to some of us who have HDTVs? Sure. If it makes Nintendo consoles cheaper then it may give them advantage in the market for this next gen (even if it didn't for this one). I would imagine it would be the console of choice if parents were choosing a console for their child. Where it might hurt them a little is non-exculusive game sales. If I have a choice on which console to get a game, I will pick it on the console that looks best on my TV. Is that going to kill Nintendo? Of course not. I still don't see anything about the Revolution that really changes it from the current gen. It will have the cheapest console with great exclusive games. The other consoles will have more power (well, not totally true now as the Gamecube > PS2). I don't think the Revolution will dominate the market, though. Mainstream gamers are going to go with the PS3 or 360 because of Nintendo's image and lack of features. There is no need to get defensive about this, though. Nintendo will do what it does best and make tons of profit. Personally, I am happy we have so many choices these days.

Re:PC Monitor - Been There, Done That

[stylee]

The early Gamecubes support digital video out that could do 480p, possibly 720p. You could buy a cable with component video adapters for TVs that supported it at the time. Someone actually went ahead and created a vga cable for the gamecube digital out so you could play the game on your computer monitor.

Now, they took the digital out feature off the latest versions of the gamecube to reduce the price because so few people used it. I would be surprised if the revolution didn't support at least what the gamecube did. I would anticipate that they will support up to 720p but not 1080i/p.

I've got some BAD NEWS for HDTV owners

[Anonymous Coward]

I know there are a lot of HDTV owners who are upset at Nintendo's decision, but I have some very bad news for most of them. HDTV compatible TVs, in particular 1080i and 1080p, DO NOT EXSIST!!!

I know what you're thinking; this guy is crazy, I just bought this TV for $10,000 and the guy at best buy said it was 1080i compatible. While that may be true, the vast majority of Plasma, LCD and Projection LCD TVs (essentially all HDTVs) have a maximum resolution of 1280X720 or even worse 1024X720. What most of the manufacturers have been doing, and not really advertizing, is producing TVs that will accept an HDTV signal but not display a HDTV image; they can get away with saying it is HDTV compliant because the regulations on compliance state that it must accept the signal and state little on the display of the image.

Now the question is Why should Nintendo support HDTV (as in 1080i) when so few Television manufacturers actually support HDTV themselves?

Re:I've got some BAD NEWS for HDTV owners

[Anonymous Coward]

"The key is this: if you want a true HDTV experience, the unit you buy should natively support either 1080i or 720p. You may still get a pretty darned good picture out of a 1024x768 display, but it's not true high-definition. Be sure to check the native resolution of any digital display before you buy. Actually, only a small handful of TVs actually support (or come close to supporting) the true 1920x1080 resolution of 1080i, so sets claiming native 1080i really are not at that level in horizontal resolution"

[cough] http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1573980 ,00.asp [/cough]

I'm personally surprised how often I hear about the "rapid adoption" of HDTV and that at the same time I never hear about how TV developers have been misleading their customers.

Re:I've got some BAD NEWS for HDTV owners

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the question is Why should Nintendo support HDTV (as in 1080i)

Since when does HDTV = 1080i? 720p is also HD.

Re:I've got some BAD NEWS for HDTV owners

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right 720p is High Definition as well, but even if Nintendo fully supported 720p people would be complaining about how 'short sighted' this is. My personal belief is that Nintendo should have made the console support 720p, 480p and 480i; but I still don't get what all the fuss is about.

In 2010, in North America, we will probably have nearly 33% of households having HDTV compliant TVs with a smaller portion (probably 25% or less) being actually able to display a 1080i or 720p signal (most plasma and LCD tvs are EDTVs; that is their native resolution is 852 x 480). What this means is that in 2010 it will be important to switch to HDTV output. Currently the majority of TVs are NOT HDTV compliant (less than 10% are HDTV compliant and I would guess that less than 2% can display a 1080i image). Now, in order to support the higher resolution and maintain framerates something is going to be sacrificed; it will either be texture and model resolution, or Antialising and Anisotropic Filtering. By forcing a Higher resolution on Developers, Microsoft will be forcing a lower quality image on the Majority of their users.

That's my point

[DoctaWatson]

It wasn't required for games, and yet they put it in and the developers that wanted to use it used it.

Developer cost wasn't a factor then for a high-res option... but it is now?

No, No, YOU"RE argument is flawed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 23 years young and live in a shack. Times are tough. Before the Great Depression hit, I took the family cow to the supermarket. Entering Worst Buy(R), on the right side was a 5" refurbished TV with 25 PS2 games and a Lawyer holding a Extended Warranty, but on the left side was a 66" Sony bigscreen with 0 PS2 games. I've since gone on welfare because ...I picked the bigscreen. It didn't even fit in my small house. Oh the shame.... Why haven't I called Geico?