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.
What Nintendo is setting themselves up for is a console that is obsolete in a couple of years when everybody starts to get HD.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.
"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."
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.
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.
Imagine that 5% of the gaming market has HD TVs, with 95% having SD (we'll assume that everyone in the game market has some sort of TV, or they couldn't play games).
Even if the top 5% bought more games than the other 95%, they would have to buy 19 games for every 1 game the rest bought, in order to give Nintendo the same profits as the non-HD crowd.
Now consider that many a significant portion of the non-HD group has enough money to buy several games per year. They will, for the most part, therefore be more selective in what games they buy, getting mostly games they have heard good things about from other gamers.
If the 95% are buying several popular games per year per person/family, what other games will the 5% buy to fill up their quota, which is now 19 * "several" (maybe 2-5) per year per person, or 38-95 games per year? We can assume that they will buy the popular games as well, but will they buy crappy games too, just because they had the money to spend? Probably not. Will they buy multiple copies of the popular games? Almost certainly not.
So you see, the wealthy, HD-using minority just can't out-spend the non-HD-using majority, because there are only so many games to choose from, and the minority is vastly outnumbered.
Not to mention that, because the Revolution will not be HD, it will be affordable to more people (who wouldn't use HD even if it had it). Additionally, because the games will not be HD, they will be cheaper to develop, and thus presumably can be priced lower, making them affordable to more people.
So here's the equation:In words: Nintendo will (probably) make more money than they would by supporting HD.