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?
What Nintendo is setting themselves up for is a console that is obsolete in a couple of years when everybody starts to get HD.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?
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
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."
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
:D
You would not believe the shit I can do in realtime at 320x240.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Because it's fun?
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
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.
Two Roommates and a Boyfriend, updates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
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.
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.
Not in HD.
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.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
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
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.