Slashdot Mirror
Do Gamers Really Need HDTV?
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."
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.
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.
One of the things I've wondered is if Nintendo has looked into the feasibility of releasing the HDWii in, say, three years. The Wii is supposed to already support widescreen at 480p (I think; google searching was a bit inconclusive but pointed to widescreen support), and the hardest part of upscaling to HD resolutions would be handling varying aspect ratios sanely in the game, as there would be no way whatsoever to hack that in later. (You can handle them non-sanely, but not sanely.)
If they decided to design a new graphics card that was designed from day one to have the exact same performance as the current one, only at a higher resolution, it could be feasible.
Then, once HD adoption has improved and once the graphics card prices have dropped, they could release an HD Wii that played the old games, only at higher resolution, and the games should mostly work. (A few small patches may be needed, and the odd game may not work at all.) This way, they don't go to market with expensive new features most people can't use until most people can use them; best of both worlds.
Polygon-based 3D game scale up really nicely. You wouldn't get higher-resolution textures magically out of the deal, but just actually rendering the whole HD space, rather than upsampling an SD-sized signal, would look much sharper. You might see a bit more pop-in and it's faintly possible the balance of some games might be broken by being able to see a bit farther, but mostly it ought to work.
Yes, there are technical issues, but I don't think they are insurmountable, and even if there is some set of games that just don't work in HD, you can always just run them in SD mode, which the HDWii would need to support anyhow. (Especially if they completely replace the Wii with the HDWii, instead of maintaining two product lines.) Probably the biggest issue would be if games strongly assume SD resolution with some sort of pointer, although it's still possible that such games would still work, it's just that you'd still only be able to point with SD-pixel resolution, which probably most people wouldn't even notice. (Any game that asks for pixel-perfect pointing almost certainly won't be fun anyhow...)
"...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.
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."
To harp entirely on the semantic, there is probably a near zero number of gamers who "need" HDTV. These people should be found and given treatment for their unhealthy obsession.
For the rest of us, we'll either make do without and enjoy looking like a nutcase swingling an oblong white doohickey around or we'll get 57.352" wide screen dilithium concentrate HD TVs and enjoy killing zombies in glorious resolutions.
Either way I'm stoked.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Um, no. They are commonplace enough. HDTV sales will outpace SD sales for the first time this year. Morgan Stanley estimates that approximately 26% of households will have at least one set by the end of the year. That number rises to ~68% in 2010.
You can say that 26% this year and 33+% next year isn't wide spread enough, but I beg to differ. Those are also the households with the disposable income to afford not only the console, but the real expense of accessories and games for it.
Nintendo is making a mistake. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean the games won't be fun, but based on perception alone they are missing a major marketing 'checkmark'.
IMHO, it's TV viewers that will drive this whole HDTV-debate, not gamers. So to talk about whether or not gamers really need HDTV is moot.
We all seem to forget that the primary use for the TV in most households, is to view TV shows. If Joe Bob is going to get an HDTV, it's not because he or his kids want to play video games in HD, but because the whole family has this need: Mom wants to see her prime-time shows in all HD glory, Dad wants to catch his football shows in HD, the kids want to play games in HD, etc.
So, is HD adoption in general growing in the US? It certainly is. Every holiday season, it seems like HDTV is the "big gift" to save up for. If not then, its the tax-return season. Or around the time of the Superbowl (guys want to get a new TV in time for the "big game"). Eventually we'll get to the point where half the country now has some sort of HD TV set. It's anyone's guess how long it will be (I'm betting it won't be for another 5-10 years).
-- jchenx
Actually, Nintendo is probably safe. If I remember correctly, they are supporting 480p TV in 16:9 aspect ratio. That, realistically, will support the vast majority of gamers just fine.
IMHO, HDTV provides 4 major video improvements over "Standard Def" TV, or more precisely, over standard NTSC TV. These are:
1: Improved color model and accuracy. NTSC color is hideous (people say NTSC stands for Never The Same Color). HD's color system allows more accurate color, and more precise changes in the color from pixel to pixel.
2: Progressive Scan
3: Widescreen aspect ratio
4: More scan lines.
Of these, more scan lines is actually the least important. Unless your TV is huge, you really don't see a huge difference between 480p and 1080p until you're far closer than you would be for watching TV or gaming. Even still, motion covers a plethora of sins. It's hard to discern fine detail at all in a moving image. Static images, sure, but not moving ones.
Wii, with a 16x9 progressive scan 480p image will be just fine once people sit down and play it. It may not look as sexy on the spec sheet, but in reality, it will work great. The guys with 108 inch TV's might be able to say "My PS3 looks so much better", but the vast majority of the population, with 42" TV's and smaller, will really say "looks fine to me".