Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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?
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?
What Nintendo is setting themselves up for is a console that is obsolete in a couple of years when everybody starts to get HD.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.
IGN's article refers to emails sent by Nintendo, but since when does Nintendo directly report system capabilities to IGN?
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.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
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.
===== will post for karma
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.
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.
As long as most people think that (copies of) VHS is good enough quality, HD is going nowhere.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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.
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.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
"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.
"Derp de derp."
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.
The ______ Agenda
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.
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
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.
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.
We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Yeah, except that these consoles have 6 years lifespans. So Nintendo better hope that their console isn't obsolete in three years.
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
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.
I think you mean "Final Fantasy has been non-existent on Nintendo 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.
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.
"Derp de derp."
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!"
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.
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...
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.
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.
10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
20 GOTO 10
So long as the revolution will be televised, I'm happy.
Direct away from face when opening.
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.
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.
-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
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...
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.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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.
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
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.
...but is it art?
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.
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...).
The thing is, he doesn't. He was making fun of anyone who it was true for.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
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.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
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.
The ______ Agenda
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?
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?
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?
"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?
You have
A) A Headache.
and
B)Permanent Vision Damage
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.
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...
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Nintendo asked developers to make Hi-Res options of their games before...
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.
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.
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
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.
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.
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Because it's fun?
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
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.
looks like Taco needs to down the doses of crack he's giving to the Mods today
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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).
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.
The ______ Agenda
Because Xbox 360 and PS3 don't play Nintendo games?
Let's assume that the whole thing is legit. What are the pros and cons of this decision?
Pros:
Cons:
Technically, it might be the right choice at this time, but it could hurt Nintendo.
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.
it's in my head
Not in HD.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
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.
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.
The ______ Agenda
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
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.
Isn't the rollout something like 5 years late?
I hardly call that more aggressive.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
It would sure help for four player Mario Kart
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.
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.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
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-$400). whats hd for? well just ask yourself, how many PC games have you played lately at 320*240, 640*480 resolution instead of 800*600 or 1024? (if you have a good card) also HDTV is expensive now, but as soon as more devices with HD begin to appear, tvs will start coming out with the mode at a very similar price than regular tv's.
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
Sega was the disputed king of innovation. They pumped out alot of systems to be innovative. Hell, they even had a downloadable game thing going with the cable companies (I do not remember the name of the service). But ultimately, they couldn't afford the losses after their technology gambles and went out of business. Nintendo is a much smaller company then Sony or M$ 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.
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!"
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
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
And, it's funny, but I haven't heard PC gamers complaining about slowdowns and development costs as a result.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
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.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
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 swear PowerPoint is going to be the downfall of higher education in western society.
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?
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.
The ______ Agenda
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.