Do Gamers Really Need HDTV?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Monday October 9, 2006 @07:36AM from the robert-deniro's-mole-has-got-to-be-ten-feet-wide dept.

Gamasutra has up an article, their latest in the 'Analyze This' series, exploring whether gamers are really clamoring for the HD era ... or if the only people looking forward to HD gaming are the game makers. All three analysts seem to think HD is very important, but with varying levels of fervency. From the article: "On the Nintendo front, Nintendo has sacrificed graphics that can be viewed by the minority for a price that can benefit the majority. So, no, I don't think that they've made a mistake in the short run. Over the long run, we'll have to see: If HDTV adoption rates accelerate, the differences between the Wii and the Xbox 360 and PS3 may become more important, and it may end up that sell-through of the Wii begins to decline. That's a couple of years away, and my crystal ball isn't quite that clear."

14 of 167 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Nintendo will eatch and adapt by revlayle · 2006-10-09 07:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wide-spread HDTV penetration will happen when they become commonplace in a variety of retail outlets for a comparable price to what one could purchase a classic CRT-based TV now. Maybe in 4-6 years??? (pure speculation there on my part) By then, Nintendo would recongize that trend and have thier next console take advantage of HDTV resolutions.
1. Re:Nintendo will eatch and adapt by LoverOfJoy · 2006-10-09 07:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I could see this potentially happening sooner than the 4-6 years you guess at but even if it happens sooner I don't think Nintendo would find it too difficult to make the switch with a WiiHD if they already made a killing on the regular Wii. As it is, Wii is set to be backward-compatible with gamecube games. It could end up like the shift to a color gameboy.
2. Re:Nintendo will eatch and adapt by thebdj · 2006-10-09 07:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You mean ccommon place enough to already be in Wal-Mart? I mean this place is usually far behind technology, and they are the largest retailer in the US. Actually, many HDTV products are available there with 17" LCDs on their website going for around $299. Granted this is almost $100-$150 over comparable sized televisions that are standard definition, but the point is it might not be as far off as some people think.
  
  I think the true test is going to be getting TV stations to broadcast in HD and to get less 4:3 content. This is a problem since most HDTVs are widescreen aspects, so the black bars are on the sides now, and that small widescreen TV looks even smaller with 4:3 content showing. I do think Nintendo was smart though. While Microsoft and Sony expect these things to last in the long haul, Nintendo can sit back and sell consoles without HD and make money. They can also avoid the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray war and release their next console 4 or 5 years down the road (if not less) once a potential winner has been anounced. I think they are smart to avoid direct competition so as to avoid the fate of Sega.
  
  --
  "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
...umm... by AcidLacedPenguiN · 2006-10-09 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

go ahead and ask any PC gamer if to choose between 640x480 or 1600x1200.

--
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
1. Re:...umm... by Mishotaki · 2006-10-09 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It depends on if my machine can run it fluidly at 1600X1200...
  
  I would sacrifice a big part of the resolution for better graphics often , as you don't see that much of a difference after 1024X768 compared to all the options you can put on to get the same framerate....
2. Re:...umm... by MBCook · 2006-10-09 08:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Now ask the question of Joe Bob, who bought a new 45" Plasma and watched SD content on it thinking it's HD because he has no clue.
  
  --
  Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
3. Re:...umm... by eno2001 · 2006-10-09 08:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Exactly. Most people have no clue what HDTV actually is other than a bigger wider screen. Then they wonder why they either have black bars on both sides of their picture, or everything looks fat (as in wide, and not hip and cool), or why things widen at the left and right edges of the screen while things in the middle look normal. I'll even go so far as to say that most Slashdotters don't have a clue, they only think they do. To answer the main question that this submission asks: Real hardcore gamers (the kinds who put more interest in their hardware than the game itself) will *think* they need HDTV. But as many people have pointed out, you don't really need it since there really is a point of diminishing returns on this sort of thing. I have a 1920x1080 LCD TV (In other words REAL HDTV, not that 720p crap) and there isn't a game system in the world as of yet that can feed it properly. But I didn't buy it for gaming, I bought it for something much more important: my Linux based media center PC. The gaming on it is just a side effect. (Tux Racer is a lot of fun on it though. ;)
  
  --
  -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
4. Re:...umm... by de+Siem · 2006-10-10 03:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Just for a moment there, I thought you were going to say for HD Hockey broadcasts. I had my first experience with HD hockey on the weekend, and now I can't think of a better use of the technology.
  
  HD ladies Beach Volleyball
  
  --
  Beating up people in little rooms, if you do it for a good reason you do it for a bad one.
Yes and No by p0tat03 · 2006-10-09 07:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Disclaimer: I have an "HDTV" in the form of LCD hooked up to Xbox360.

The whole HDTV argument is kind of moot. The status quo of video gamings certainly do not demand HDTVs, but IMHO that's a limitation that game developers are trying to overcome. For years we've been stuck in the world of ultra-huge text just so it's readable on a crappy tube set. We've been unable to communicate detailed information to the gamer. Think about the resolution as a mode of information bandwidth. The more resolution you have to work with (within limits) means the more data you can pass to the gamer. This is why RTS games work on PCs but not on consoles (beyond the obvious control difficulties) - these games demand that a lot of information (unit health, unit selection, unit status, squads, tactics, waypoints, etc) be visible all at once, which before the HD era has simply not been possible.

The way I see it, the HDTV thing is good. It further reduces the gap between PC and console gaming, allowing game developers to put games that would never have worked on a 480i tube TV on a console. To me this is a lot more than being able to see the tiny glint on a suit of armour - there is more to the HD issue than mere aesthetics.
1. Re:Yes and No by Osty · 2006-10-09 07:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is why RTS games work on PCs but not on consoles (beyond the obvious control difficulties) - these games demand that a lot of information (unit health, unit selection, unit status, squads, tactics, waypoints, etc) be visible all at once, which before the HD era has simply not been possible.
  
  While I don't disagree with your point as a whole, I don't think this is the best example. RTS games worked well enough back in the days of 320x240 resolutions (Dune 2, Command & Conquer, Warcraft I). Perhaps modern RTS games wouldn't work well at lower resolutions, but that's just a matter of design. If they had to work with a max res of 640x480, developers would continue to advance the genre. They'd just have to be smarter about how they display information.
  
  On the other hand, the current state of HDTV adoption means that console games still have to work well on SDTV sets. Dead Rising is a great example of how to do it wrong. They used smaller fonts to fit more information on-screen, but ended up screwing SDTV customers in the process. As long as developers have to support SDTV as well as HDTV, don't expect text and information displays to take full advantage of the resolution provided by a 720p or 1080p HD set.
Re:I've said it once... by p0tat03 · 2006-10-09 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

"...gamers who want HD have been using their PCs as their primary platform with a phat 20"+ LCD attached that can do 1680x1050 or more widescreen."

That's an amazing generalization. Being able to run new top-of-line games on a 20"+ LCD doing 1680x1050 costs quite a bit, both in initial investment and constantly chasing the upgrade curve. I never did it - my PC is still too crappy to play Half-Life 2 at anything above 800x600. I am not inclined to sink thousands into such a machine when now a console can do HD for a fraction of the price.

Assuming a console lifetime of 5 years... $600 for consoles plus some accessories.

vs... $4K+ to maintain a system at good game-ability (ability to run all new games at relative high resolution and settings) over 5 years.

One is affordable for me. The other never was.
Short answer: No. by Ant+P. · 2006-10-09 08:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Long answer: Game Boy.
Re: Get the Wii Component Cables.... by trdrstv · 2006-10-09 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ok, I got a HDTV 6 months ago, and the GameCube seriously got an upgrade in Sharpness even through S-Video (I do have component cables, and an early modle GC so I can get Progressive scan). I highly recommend the Component cables.
F-Zero GX is glorious in 16:9 + 480p and it STILL pushes 60 FPS. If you don't have the component cables for the GC, I'd recommend them for the Wii and to replay some of the GC games that support it.
definitely not by rabbot · 2006-10-10 02:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've had an HDTV for a few years now, and I still couldn't care less about console gaming in HD. Sure, I like watching movies and sports in HD, but that doesn't mean everything else is garbage now.

There are a lot of people now trying to justify their Xbox360 and future PS3 purchases by telling everyone that we need HD and that HD is the future of gaming. It doesn't make a difference gameplay wise. You're not going to get some life altering experience from playing games at higher resolutions.

We don't need it and it's not what the majority of people have, or will have in the next 5 years. When they can deliver consoles that support HD for a reasonable price to consumers who actually have HDTVs, then obviously things will be different...but for now it's just not worth it for the average consumer.