Slashdot Mirror


First 1080p Xbox 360 Games Announced

rwven writes "In the October firmware update to the Xbox 360, Microsoft added the capability for their new console to reach the coveted 1080 resolution. EA and Sega have both announced new titles that will reach that resolution, the first for the system. They're not the most visually intense games (NBA Street Homecourt, and Virtua Tennis 3), but this is another symptom of the tight race between all three consoles. Does this change the playing field at all between Sony and Microsoft?" Moreover, does the resolution of a title matter all that much to you yet? Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p? If you do, does reaching 1080p make you more likely to buy a game?

145 comments

  1. wont you notice lack of realism more? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With a really high-res video game, especially a game like basketball, I think you'd notice the lack of realism after a certain point. For example, you'd see clearly that the edges are being rendered by a computer, versus if they're a bit fuzzy, and that fuzzy effect is used to its advantage, then it might look a bit more like a regular tv broadcast of a basketball game.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:wont you notice lack of realism more? by Wordplay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Between anti-aliasing and judicious use of lighting effects, this really isn't that much of an issue. It's more of one at lower resolutions. Low-res fixed-pixel displays don't make the picture fuzzy, they make it blocky and more obviously pixelated. It's true that SDTV CRT televisions tended to hide jaggies and pixelation, but that was because of the tech (electron guns and phosphors aren't completely precise), not because of the resolution.

    2. Re:wont you notice lack of realism more? by Assmasher · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Prior to the introduction of shaders this was a very likely scenario; however, there are approaches to pixel shading which result in polygonal edges which mitigate this (potentially very well). It is also important to remember that on most models, only certain areas (i.e. on humans look at elbows/forearms, shoulder joints depending upon the animation) where edge issues are actually prominent or provide the ability to become prominent. A greater angle of incidence (which is usually the current solution, and I apologize for using the term angle of incidence this way) results in a lesser likelyhood of the mesh geometry standing out inappropriately. This is often coupled with multiple sets of skin weights which are used for different sets of animations in order to elasticize the skin more appropriately (for example using different skin weight sets for animations where a player lifts both arms up over his/her head than the weights used for when the player is dribbling.)

      --
      Loading...
    3. Re:wont you notice lack of realism more? by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is an issue.

      As graphics get better, your brain gets less forgiving and it looks wrong. Worse graphics (too a point) will look better than more realistic graphics.

    4. Re:wont you notice lack of realism more? by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      That's plainly not true by any definition of "more realistic," since "more realistic" implies that it looks like the real thing. We're just now getting to the more realistic graphics. Think Sin City and Sky Captain, not Doom and Prey. Obviously, we're a ways off from competing with the render farms, but the techniques are filtering down as consumer graphics hardware gets more able . Compare Fight Night 3 for X360 or PS3 to Fight Night for PS2--there's a huge jump in realism that's not explained by the resolution. It's all about the shaders.

      Like I said, lighting effects (shaders and mapped textures, as the other respondent mentioned) are the key to getting realistic contrast--and thus, edge perception--here.

    5. Re:wont you notice lack of realism more? by sqlrob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More realistic as I meant it was more realistic by mathematic comparisons to a real object. Mathematically, it's been getting closer. But, the pattern detectors in the brain are magnifying the differences from expected. We're designed to detect differences from normal, it's a survival trait.

  2. Short answer is no by JFMulder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Long answer is no.

    Seriously tough, while a fun game is a fun game, a fun game with great graphics is even better.

    1. Re:Short answer is no by tomstdenis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You could try playing sports in RL, the graphics are much higher resolution.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:Short answer is no by lotsotech · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's only been -4 degrees out lately let me round up some folks for a pickup game. Plus with work and a family I'm sure they'll be good to start at 10pm and be willing to stop every time the baby cries. Thanks for that fantastic suggestion!

    3. Re:Short answer is no by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 2, Funny

      What is this RL you speak of, and please give me its web address so I can subscribe to the RSS.

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    4. Re:Short answer is no by tomstdenis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No problem! I do what I can to help!

      Cuz I'm sure the vast majority of people who play video games are incapable of scheduling an hour long game into their week somewhere. I'm so definitely sure that every waking moment is already occupied with things of the utmost priority.

      Right.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    5. Re:Short answer is no by @madeus · · Score: 1

      You could try playing sports in RL, the graphics are much higher resolution.

      Higher resolution yes, but not usually better looking!

    6. Re:Short answer is no by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Depends who you play with. All about the co-ed. :-)

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    7. Re:Short answer is no by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

      And a shitty game with great graphics... is still a shitty game. But sometimes it starts to look like a shitty movie.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    8. Re:Short answer is no by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      Funny, cause I actually play tennis in real-life. So I guess the joke is on you.

    9. Re:Short answer is no by tomstdenis · · Score: 1, Troll

      Don't see how. My comment applies to all those who crave uber detail in activities they could likely do themselves.

      OMG this dish washing game is 1080p @ 60fps!!! awesomes!!!

      I'm all for video games (though I don't really play them often) but for me the attraction is the fantasy. When I play Halo 2 [for instance] I don't want to be reminded that running full speed for 13 kilometers would actually be hard. I just want to blow up my friends with the rocket launcher.

      A lot of the incidentals like super high detailed textures are lost by the fact that you're playing a fast paced game and not concentrating on it.

      And besides, poly count matters more than pixel count.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    10. Re:Short answer is no by Cauchy · · Score: 1

      You could try playing sports in RL, the graphics are much higher resolution. Unfortunately, playing RL sports frag grenades and carbines tends to get one arrested, and getting raped in prison is just a bit too graphic for me.

    11. Re:Short answer is no by ironwill96 · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else just hear Madden's voice in their head at OP statement: "Seriously though, while a fun game is a fun game, a fun game with great graphics is even better"

      Think i've watched too many Madden impersonations by Frank Caliendo..

      --
      "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
    12. Re:Short answer is no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck business of it is yours anyway, troll?

    13. Re:Short answer is no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ, if you don't like video games, why don't you go hang out somewhere other than /.? It seems to me that coming here and insulting people because they don't choose to spend every waking moment working out is pretty fucking lame. It's not about whether or not he can play a real game of basketball, it's about when he does play basketball videogames, would he rather play in 1080i or 1080p.

    14. Re:Short answer is no by tomstdenis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      His comment that he can never find time to play is most likely false. For most, they just don't *make* the time.

      As for whether 1080p is a selling feature, my comment about RL is spot on. If you're obsessed with your FANTASY VIDEO GAMES looking like real life ... go play or watch a real life game.

      I'm not against playing video games. I'm just questioning the thought process that leads people to say things like "this game would be better if it was in ridiculously higher def, running on a console that takes 10x the power to run and wastes naturally resources!"

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    15. Re:Short answer is no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your brain used 1/10th the power you wouldn't say "naturally resources"

    16. Re:Short answer is no by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      that's what editors are for.

      If you're only response is to correct some grammar I think I've made my point. Thanks for confirming it.

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    17. Re:Short answer is no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shows you watch must suck! Bassmasters should have a laugh track.

    18. Re:Short answer is no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So should we all be happy with our Atari 2600s?

    19. Re:Short answer is no by Brigs · · Score: 1

      Oh, I have plenty of time. I guess I'll just have someone roll me out of the cancer ward so I can go dunk a basketball. Thanks for pointing out my laziness. You are a great person.

    20. Re:Short answer is no by tomstdenis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Actually the few 2600 games I liked [back when they were new] were things like Enduro, Frogger, and Asteroids because the gameplay wasn't bad, even if the graphics sucked bad. Games like E.T. and the few "RPG" were horrible because the game play was not fun, not because the audio visual was bad. To this day I still play a lot of NES games, albeit on a Gameboy through PocketNES.

      Maybe you're just young and you never learned that life is about the character and story, not about the glitter. I feel sorry for you.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    21. Re:Short answer is no by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      And the game being in 1080p, consuming more electricity somehow fights cancer?

      Gotcha.

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    22. Re:Short answer is no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously tough, while a fun game is a fun game, a fun game with great graphics is even better.

      Right up until it starts moving, that is... anything more than spot animation or motion, and the human eye/brain lose the ability to see a **lot** of details.

      That's why 1080p is the most you'll ever need for all but viewing stills.

    23. Re:Short answer is no by deopmix · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the co-ed isn't all that great looking either. I go to Michigan, and let me say, the pickings are pretty slim.

  3. upconversion/upscaling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    My HDTV does 1080p...but I've noticed that when I "stretch" the image from a videogame...upconversion smooths everything out, and makes it look 1080p...I expect that unless they sink time/money into coming up with dazzling textures, most folks will be disappointed.

  4. It is good to see the 1080p titiles by glenrm · · Score: 1

    I have a Dell 24" monitor and the 1080p titles mean that the PC equivalents will look quite nice. Marvel Ultimate Alliance looks and plays great on a PC with an XBox 360 wired controller. It is a cheap way to get a console beat um up experience for less than $100 if you have a good PC. The title is touted as 1080p and the visuals on the PC certain look great.

  5. 1080p Game for My Wii? by rlp · · Score: 1

    Uh, no. My TV only goes to 720p and the Wii only supports 480p (I do have the optional component cables).

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:1080p Game for My Wii? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered... is there actually a visible difference between 480p and plain S-Video/RGB input?

    2. Re:1080p Game for My Wii? by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. There is significantly less dot crawl.

    3. Re:1080p Game for My Wii? by RebelScum · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is.

      I was able to see a big difference in the Xbox (original) dashboard, when switching from 480i (default) to 480p. It looked a lot smoother and detailed.

      Technically, it should have 2x the resolution, since with 480i it's only rendering every other line (240 lines total) each frame, and with 480p it's rendering all 480 lines each frame.

    4. Re:1080p Game for My Wii? by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. My TV only goes to 720p and the Wii only supports 480p (I do have the optional component cables).

      Why would you want high res graphics on your Wii anyway?

      I thought that crappy looking games were more fun? That's what all the fanboys say and I can't think of any reason why they would lie about it.

      If you turn down the colour control on your TV so that everything's monochrome, do the games get better? I assume they do.

    5. Re:1080p Game for My Wii? by abigor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Best of all is just to turn off the TV altogether. Then it's just pure gameplay! That's what the Wii is all about.

    6. Re:1080p Game for My Wii? by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Informative

      antp: I've always wondered... is there actually a visible difference between 480p and plain S-Video/RGB input?

      ivan256: Yes. There is significantly less dot crawl.

      Although they are different formats, neither RGB, nor S-Video should exhibit dot crawl.

      Dot crawl happens when separate colour and luminance signals are multiplexed (with colour modulated onto a high-frequency subcarrier). The sudden colour transition is (in effect) a high frequency signal which exceeds the safe bandwidth of the colour subcarrier and causes it to spill into the luminance signal, creating bogus detail.

      RGB shouldn't exhibit dot-crawl at all, because it carries separate R, G and B signals on separate wires. At any rate, I've never, ever seen dot crawl with an RGB connection (via SCART).

      Although S-Video *is* different, however, it still carries colour and luminance on separate wires, so it shouldn't show dot-crawl either(!); the Wikipedia article confirms this.

      Perhaps you meant composite video?

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    7. Re:1080p Game for My Wii? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Additional: On reflection, I think what you had in mind is the flickering of fine lines caused by interlacing; this is a separate phenomenon to dot crawl.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    8. Re:1080p Game for My Wii? by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      If you turn down the colour control on your TV so that everything's monochrome, do the games get better? I assume they do.

      Of COURSE it does! See that COLOR/B&W switch on my Atari 2600?
      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    9. Re:1080p Game for My Wii? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relaying your misinterpretations of the opinions of your opponents to a third party is a good way to reveal your own biases, fan.

      You just don't get it.

  6. 1080p is excessive by HappySqurriel · · Score: 0

    Honesly, on the current generation of consoles the focus on 1080p is excessive ...

    From my (very limited) understanding, only in the past 2 years have 1080p TVs come on the market and the vast majority of new HDTVs are still 720p/1080i TVs; seriously, how does targeting the 1% of the population who owns 1080p TVs benefit anyone else?

    1. Re:1080p is excessive by DJCacophony · · Score: 1

      how does targeting the 1% of the population who owns 1080p TVs benefit anyone else?

      It doesn't, obviously the point is that it benefits that 1%, duh. As long as you're asking questions like this, why don't you ask how targeting the 1% of people who can afford a Mercedes with a Mercedes benefits those who can't? Or how targeting the 1% of people who own an hd-dvd/blu-ray player with hd-dvd/blu-ray movies benefits those who don't?

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    2. Re:1080p is excessive by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point.
      These consoles are intended and expected to have life spans of 5 to 10 years. The push for 1080p is based on the idea that in a couple years, a much higher percentage of households will have HDTVs that support 1080p.

    3. Re:1080p is excessive by dextration · · Score: 1

      1080p won't benefit too many people right now. But, by 2009, it'll probably benefit a lot more people - why not make a product that people can enjoy now, and enjoy more later?

      Personally I don't see the logic in buying anything less than a 1080p TV. I have a 1080p Westinghouse 42", while my parents have a 1080i Sony Bravia, and a 720p Samsung something-or-other. Gears Of War upscaled to 1080p still looks better (to me) than at 720p, and HD-DVD is dreamy at 1080p.

      --
      http://www.mushoo.net/
    4. Re:1080p is excessive by bman08 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're leaving out the critical 2-5% of the population with friends/roomates capable of 1080p. Not to mention the 20-30% who watch those screens with slack-jawed delight at the Best Buy. Supply side resolution. With all the recent talk of 120hz, I've become convinced that there's no such thing as hi-def, only higher than what you have.

    5. Re:1080p is excessive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever hear of thinking about your customer's *future*? Seriously, I'd much rather the software was capable *before* my hardware, so that the decision when to switch is left completely up to me. Why should I be held back because you're a luddite?

      Now, that said, I have no intention of switching to 1080p any time soon.

    6. Re:1080p is excessive by DJCacophony · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right, the point is that the parent is asking an incredibly stupid question, which is:
      "How does a product made for X benefit people who don't have X?"
      And the answer is obviously that it doesn't, it benefits people who DO have X.

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    7. Re:1080p is excessive by tbannist · · Score: 1

      It clearly benefits anyone who will buy (or sell) 1080p TVs over the next 5 years.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    8. Re:1080p is excessive by HappySqurriel · · Score: 1

      By 2009 'more' people will obviously own 1080p TVs but most people will still own 1080i/720p TVs or worse ...

      Also in 2009/2010 we will be hearing about the PS4, XBox 720 and (probably) the Wii 2 which will be released in 2010/2011.

    9. Re:1080p is excessive by ProppaT · · Score: 1

      "why not make a product that people can enjoy now, and enjoy more later?"

      Because I'd rather pay $300 for a product that can do what I have the ability to display now and then $300 for an even better system than today's $600 system 4-5 years from now when I actually have the ability to use said technology. I think 1080p out of the Xbox 360 is going to negatively affect games with complex graphics, because developers will have to cut back in poly count, effects, etc. that would run just fine in 720p just to make them work in 1080p. Really, I'd much rather see companies design games for 720p now (seeing that most HD monitors on the market now are geared for 720p and 1080i) and the extra processing power to make the games look EVEN better at that lower resolution than having to figure out ways to milk the hardware for all it's worth just to make it display 1080p at a respectable framerate.

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    10. Re:1080p is excessive by British · · Score: 1

      Honesly, on the current generation of consoles the focus on 1080p is excessive ...

      That's like saying anything past 320x200x256(MCGA) for a PC game 5/7 years ago is excessive. I honestly don't see anything wrong with moving up in resolution for console gaming.

    11. Re:1080p is excessive by marshallbanana6 · · Score: 1

      Wii will have half the lifespan of the other two. I fully expect another Nintendo console within 3 years. If not, I'll be severely disappointed.

    12. Re:1080p is excessive by HappySqurriel · · Score: 1

      I would say anticipate disapointment ... Consoles do not get replaced based on their technology they get replaced based on sales.

      The XBox lasted 4 years, the Gamecube lasted 5 years and the PS2 (has) lasted 6/7 years (so far); the XBox 360 was released in order to get the "First Mover Advantage", the Wii was released because the Gamecube stopped selling and developers were no longer developing games for it, and the PS3 was released because Sony worried about the distruption in their control on the North American and European markets that the XBox 360 could provide.

      If the Wii sells well in 2007 and 2008 I wouldn't expect to see any movement (from Nintendo) to replace the Wii until it was at least 5 years old ...

    13. Re:1080p is excessive by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      As long as you're asking questions like this, why don't you ask how targeting the 1% of people who can afford a Mercedes with a Mercedes benefits those who can't?

      In the automobile market, if only 1% of consumers can afford a luxury car, then only 1% of the cars produced will be luxury models.

      The situation we have right now in the console game industry is something like 5% of gamers are currently 1080p-capable, but 40% of the games being published targeting that tiny segment of the market (all numbers courtesy of My Ass, but I'd guess the margin of error is under 30%). It doesn't make economic sense.

    14. Re:1080p is excessive by DJCacophony · · Score: 1

      Those 40% of games work on 1080 and everything below that, too. It would be pretty stupid to make different releases of the same game for different resolutions.

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    15. Re:1080p is excessive by Frumply · · Score: 1

      Since 1080p is bigger than 720p it must be better! Buy buy buy!

    16. Re:1080p is excessive by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Do you mean 15-17? (That would be rather high, but 2D games did very fine in 1024x768 5-7 years ago, and there was certainly enough detail to do 800x600 in 16 or 32 bits in any 3D game and really lose stuff you went even lower.)

    17. Re:1080p is excessive by NotNormal23224 · · Score: 1

      It's not really "targeting" since the games work on all of the sets up to 1080P. It would be a different story all together if these titles couldn't run at the other lower resolutions and required 1080P, but they don't. So why not let folks, like me, enjoy the games running at their sets highest resolution as long as it doesn't impact the game?

  7. 1080 vs 720 by miyako · · Score: 1

    I don't think that there is really much of a reason not to push 1080p if it can run smoothly at that resolution- but I don't think it's a huge deal yet either. While a lot of the larger sets are starting to run at 1080p, I haven't personally seen anything less than 36" that runs 1080p. While I'm certain that there are gamers who are playing games on these larger sets, I think that there are still a lot of people, like me, who are playing on mid-sized screens that don't to 1080p yet. (as a side note, anyone know of an HDTV that will do 1080p and is in the 24 inch range? I keep my games set up in my office and I don't have room for anything bigger 24"-ish, but I would like to have a "true" HD display.)
    I think that the biggest drawback to having 1080 on the xbox 360 will be storage space on the disk for textures. IIRC games running at 720 have already started to hit the limits of the capacity of a single DVD- and while disk switching will work for some games, I don't think it's a general purpose solution.

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    1. Re:1080 vs 720 by dlZ · · Score: 1

      I have a Westinghouse in my bedroom that does 1080p, but it's still a bit larger than you're looking for at 32". I wasn't too sure because of the brand, but the picture on that TV is amazing. My main TV is a Sony 54" HDTV, but that only does up to 1080i (and I bought it before DLP was standard.) But it's also the TV with the game systems hooked up to it, and it doesn't look too bad at all.

      --
      rm -rf ./evidence @ punkcomp
    2. Re:1080 vs 720 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get 1920*1200 (slightly over 1080p) PC monitors in that size range easily. Apple does a 23 inch cinema display, for instance. You'll need separate tuners for TV and sound system etc, and might need a converter if you want to plug in something that doesn't have DVI, but if you're willing to spend the cash on that kind of setup this shouldn't be a problem.

    3. Re:1080 vs 720 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure it's 1080p? To the best of my knowledge, there are no 1080p 32" sets out there. All I could find on the web were 32" Westies that have 1366x768 screens (the standard for 32" sets). Please post the model of your TV, if you wouldn't mind.

    4. Re:1080 vs 720 by Sketch · · Score: 1

      Some of the newer widescreen LCD monitors even come with component video or HDMI inputs on them.

      --
      -- OpenVerse Visual Chat: http://openverse.com
    5. Re:1080 vs 720 by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

      I don't think that there is really much of a reason not to push 1080p

      I can think of several... namely that higher resolution doesn't necessarily net you a better looking image. In terms of movies and pre-recorded video, sure, but in terms of games it can actually make the picture look WORSE. Why? because it takes about 150-200% the pixel pushing power to reproduce an equivalent image in 1080p instead of 720p. To get that extra power it needs to come from somewhere which means that other areas must take a hit as a result. When "pushing 1080p" other things suffer, textures get muddier, the polygon counts on character and level models have to be dropped, FSAA might get reduced or dropped, lighting and other effects are reduced or turned off, frame rates drop, etc. What you end up with is a less impressive world rendered in a resolution that really lets you see all the things it's lacking because of that higher resolution.

      Gears of War is fantastic looking game, and seeing it rendered as it is today 1080p would probably look amazing but not if other things had to suffer for it. Would it be as impressive if the resolutions were higher but the textures were muddier, the AI wasn't as sharp, the lighting and particle effects were simplified, the character and level models were more blocky, etc.

      My point is I'd love to play games in 1080p but not if other aspects of the game have to suffer to reach that, because quite honestly in terms of the overall image quality I consider things like textures, poly counts, particle and lighting effects, etc. far far more important to the image quality then a 1080p image. And the few 1080p games I've seen so far I think would have been better if they concentrated on those areas more as opposed to just bumping up the resolution. So if all these are things are taking a hit to reach 1080p does it really serve those of us with 1080p sets? Honestly I think 1080p in games this generation is just a hyped up buzzword I'd much rather have the game programed for 720p and upscale it to 1080p then run them have it programed natively in 1080p because the 1080p games I've see so far just didn't impress me graphically. While it's obvious that these consoles CAN produce 1080p they'd better serve graphics whores at the 720p level.
    6. Re:1080 vs 720 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many widescreen monitors do HD at either 720p or 1080p. One monitor that fits your needs is the Dell 2407FPW. It is a 24" monitor and has a native resolution of 1920x1200 pixels and has DVI (with HDCP) and component inputs. It will display 1080p unscaled with slim black bars on the top and bottom that make up the extra 120 pixels. It costs around $700 and can double as a computer monitor.

    7. Re:1080 vs 720 by m3gtr0nix · · Score: 1

      I recently got a new LCD TV (40" Samsung). It only does 720p and 1080i. While similar sized 1080P sets looked impressive, it wasn't *that* much better IMO to justify the almost $1000 price difference. I think it's good for MS to support 1080p, and there's no real reason not to support unless for some strange reason it hurts the more widely used resolutions of the games, including non hd versions (480i). 1080p users are such a small subset of still more of a niche group in HDTV users, although that niche is expanding quite quickly these days. So yeah, it's cool, but since I don't see myself getting a 1080p set anytime soon, I'm indifferent.

    8. Re:1080 vs 720 by UWC · · Score: 1
      Dell sells some pretty good LCDs. The UltraSharp 2407WFP is 1920x1200 and has DVI, VGA, S-video, composite, and component inputs (only one of each). It seems to be $674 on their site right now.

      http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.a spx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4335

  8. Noticing A Pattern With MS And The 360? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's like Microsoft's Xbox team is comprised of terminal fuckups. With backwards compatibility they were completely unprepared to support it and then once they were getting slammed for not having it they scrambled to get a half assed solution out the door that was an utter joke but still tried to claim that they were now just as good as their competitors and then just gave up.

    With HD movie support Microsoft failed to add a HD disc format and stated it wasn't necessary and filled the Net with FUD about disc sizes and so on. And then they had to scramble to add a clunky, giant, and expensive addon to the 360 that didn't even support HDMI that most HD tvs use for their main connection now.

    And now Microsoft made all sorts of inane claims about 1080p and built their console with the silly 10 megs of EDRAM setup that is fine for 480p games, a pain in the ass for 720p games, and I can't imagine what a nightmare it must be to try to get the 360 graphics system to output 1080p frames. And all this after they did the PR FUD blitz about how they had a scaler and 720p upscaled to 1080p was 'just as good' as true 1080p.

    Jeez, what a bunch of fuck ups. It's no wonder they have lost billions and billions on the whole Xbox mess and after six years on the market are still selling to the same small fps/bald space marines in shiny armor/pc gamer demographic.

  9. 1080p will end up in obscurity. by hal2814 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    HD is finally starting to pick up some popularity largely in part to the cost of mid-sized HDTVs plummeting. There are decent 720p LCD monitors out there for $500 online now. It won't be too long before that price is reflected in places like Wal-Mart, Costco, etc. That will only further fuel people's desire to jump to HD, not because of the quality as much as the price. It no longer makes much sense to buy an standard def TV when the HD isn't that much more. An LCD or plasma set is starting to become necessary to keep up with the Jonses. NONE of the decently priced LCD, Plasma, whatever support 1080p right now and right now is the beginning of any semblance of mass adoption. By the time 1080p sets catch up in price, most folks will have their HDTVs and those HDTVs will mostly be 720p/1080i sets. If you thought it was hard to get the Average Joe to upgrade his SDTV for 720p, just try to convince them to upgrade their 720p/1080i for a 1080p.

    1. Re:1080p will end up in obscurity. by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      "There are decent 720p LCD monitors out there for $500 online now."

      Hate to reply to myself, but I meant to say, "There are decent 32" 720p LCD monitors out there for $500 online now"

    2. Re:1080p will end up in obscurity. by Fortissimo · · Score: 1

      "Obscurity" is a bit strong, but your point is well taken. I paid $5000 for my 50" plasma TV less than two years ago, and now I've seen them online for as low as $1500. If someone had told me that essentially the same TV would drop in price by two-thirds within that time frame, I'd have thought them nuts. With that kind of dramatic price drop, 1080p units will likely become the defacto standard within a reasonable time frame. Right now though, you're right, it ain't worth the "upgrade"

  10. Vast majority by GweeDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it is great that they support 1080p for the few that might be able to take advantage of it, but the issue for both the PS3 and Xbox360 in this arena is that most people just can't take advantage of it. In fact, pretty much all HDTV owners can't. The vast majority of HDTV's on the market right now are 32" and smaller. Most of these sets are 720p sets.

    1. Re:Vast majority by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does it always have to be the now now now? The original Xbox supported HDTV, all the way up to 1080i. When I got my Xbox, and plugged it into a small TV with composite cable, did it matter? No, not really.

      But, a few years later, when I got a 16:9 HDTV, I bought the HD AV unit for the Xbox, plugged it in, changed two settings in the Xbox dashboard, and damn, suddenly the vast majority of my Xbox games are playing in at least 480p, widescreen. It was that easy. And that universal.

      Over in PS2 land, some games support widescreen, some don't. Some support progressive, some don't. If they do, you have to tell each and every game if it should be widescreen or not. Some, you have to use a GD *cheat code* to flip it over correctly.

      So yeah. If you program your Xbox360 game correctly, then people who upgrade their televisions over the next five years are in for a treat.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Vast majority by Ark42 · · Score: 1


      I dunno, I bought a 46" 1080p set *just because* I bought a Wii. Sure it only supports 480p and widescreen, but it is a ton better looking than on my old 27" CRT. So maybe if I buy an Xbox someday, I can take advantage of it. They might as well start supporting as high of a resolution as the systems will allow.

  11. Nothing But Pity For The Sega And EA Teams by TionVaria · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos

    Writing 720p games on the 360 hardware is bad enough due to the gimped EDRAM setup in the graphics system. You are basically faced with having to decide between going with not enough AA vs a pain in the ass tile rendering change to your graphics engine. That is why so many 360 games are plagued with jaggy graphics since so few companies want to waste their time writing a 360 specific rendering engine just to work around Microsoft's poor hardware design. One of the main reasons you hear so many developers bitching about working on the 360. And why so many 360 games end up using fake marketing shots to hide the AA/jaggy problems that plagued actual in game 360 graphics.

    I can't imagine what a pain in the ass it was to pull of this publicity stunt of 1080p games on the 360. The EA and Sega teams deserve our sympathy.

    1. Re:Nothing But Pity For The Sega And EA Teams by iainl · · Score: 1

      Running at 1080p means pretty small jaggies, though, and the scaler that lives between the graphics output and the actual video output will give you free antialiasing when it scales the 1080p down to 720p for the majority out there who can't use it.

      So yes, it's a good thing.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    2. Re:Nothing But Pity For The Sega And EA Teams by Slashcrap · · Score: 5, Funny

      One of the main reasons you hear so many developers bitching about working on the 360. And why so many 360 games end up using fake marketing shots to hide the AA/jaggy problems that plagued actual in game 360 graphics.

      Hi, welcome to Slashdot!

      I see you managed to make your first post okay, despite the posting interface being different from the PS3Fanboy forums you're used to.

      I think you're going to settle in very well here. Many posters on Slashdot are also teenage virgins obsessed with other people's choice of game system.

      But I know how you feel! It really makes my blood boil when I see someone recommending a different system to the one my mummy bought me for Christmas. One day I'm going to steal the pistol out of my dad's underwear draw and teach them all a lesson!

    3. Re:Nothing But Pity For The Sega And EA Teams by Stalin · · Score: 1

      How about backing up some of your claims? In the interviews with developers that I've read they seem to fawn over the 360. I also just got a 360 and a 720p LCD TV in the past couple weeks. I have to say, Dead or Alive 4, Need For Speed: Most Wanted, and Project Gotham Racing 3 look pretty damn good. NFS does lag at 720p, though. Neither of my other games do.

    4. Re:Nothing But Pity For The Sega And EA Teams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in pretty much the same position (got myself a 360 just before Christmas and a 720p TV just after). NFS:Carbon also lags, although only in the UI - and usually when I've got an over-complicated set of vinyls on the car. It used to do it on my old TV, before I got the HDTV so it's something a bit dubious in their code. It's fine in-game though.

    5. Re:Nothing But Pity For The Sega And EA Teams by Cannelbrae · · Score: 5, Informative

      1) AA is a 360 cert requirement. Yes, a title or two may be able to get that waived by having something else special/that does the same thing. In general though, MS won't let 360 titles with jaggies ship. I am not sure what you are talking about here.

      2) Yes, the EDRAM takes extra effort to work with. Sure, it would be nice if there was an infinite amount. In the end though, the tiling work generally impacts the rendering programmer for a short period and no one else. There is plenty of info for 360 devs on how to use it. If this is a devs main 360 complaint, MS is making devs lives easy - providing a good system, tools and documentation.

      3) Marketing will always use renders. Their job is to get people excited about the title in a cost/time effective way - staged screenshots and renders are the fastest way to do that. This generation, difference in quality is much more visible in movies. A few marketing departments will use rendered movies here, but the cost is basically quite high relative to a rendered model.

      The main 1080p challenge is the performance hit you get for drawing that many more pixels. For games that are GPU bound, going from 720p to 1080p hits the pixel shaders hard. The other issue is memory (same on both platforms) as many games have multiple full screen render targets. A 1080p render target is much larger than a 720p target.

    6. Re:Nothing But Pity For The Sega And EA Teams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard developers for the past year complaining about the 360 but I've never seen anyone dispute why developers hate working on the 360.

      Isn't it just simply a fact that Microsoft made a system that forces developers to decide between tile based rendering, which is a pain, or give up on decent AA for their game?

      I would love Microsoft to explain how they made such a huge blunder when designing the 360 hardware.

    7. Re:Nothing But Pity For The Sega And EA Teams by tepples · · Score: 1

      AA is a 360 cert requirement. Yes, a title or two may be able to get that waived by having something else special/that does the same thing. In general though, MS won't let 360 titles with jaggies ship.

      Is AA required even for 2D titles on Xbox Live Arcade? Or does Microsoft not let 2D titles ship either, as SCEA has often been accused?

    8. Re:Nothing But Pity For The Sega And EA Teams by NotNormal23224 · · Score: 1

      Another poor deluded fanboy arrives. Guess what, I have a PS3 (hooked up via HDMI), Wii (hooked up via component) and a 360 (hooked up via VGA) on a 1080P set and so far the 360 has the best graphics of all the systems out there. I can't believe you had the gall to mention Gears of War in the same post as "shitty 360 graphics", please enlighten me to the PS3 game that has similar/better graphics, I'll buy it, currently on the store shelves there aren't any (I have hopes for "Lair" but we shall see). HD-DVD? I bought my game system for games, but I do have the attachment and I do watch plenty of HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray disks, a distinct advantage of not being blinded by marketing and irrational fear of other systems (also of having a job letting me pay for all of the above). As for sales, well there are 10+ Million 360s out there, 4+ Million Wiis and less than 2 Million PS3s so how about a fact check instead of fanboy rants? Here's something to try, take off your blinders and actually use all 3 systems and then check back in with reality OK?

    9. Re:Nothing But Pity For The Sega And EA Teams by NotNormal23224 · · Score: 1

      Must be a real pain to work with since EVERY single developer has commented on how easy it is to work with the 360 and how the PS3 requires so much more work to get results. I could get into the insane bablings about both machines but in the end the developers say that the advantages that each one has over the other end up a wash, the systems are basically at the same power level if the strengths of the systems are taken advantage of (which is not currently happening since most of the ports to the PS3 run and look better on the 360). Having all the next gen consoles lets me sit back and watch the war of words between the crazed zealots like you and laugh at the stuff you guys make up.

  12. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what you're on, but almost ALL of the 360 games that I have (I have 30 games) are 1080i. I have a 72" HD DLP screen, and ALL of the games look gorgeous. I have a PS3 as well, and there is not a noticable difference between the two in graphics. Gears of War is gorgeous, and amazing to play, as is Lost Planet, NBA 07, Madden 07, etc. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "720p and all sorts of texture filtering problems, screen tearing, jaggies, jaggies, jaggies"???? I have an original launch day 360, and I have NEVER had any of these issues, and none of my friends that have a 360 have either.

    I'd check your source of info - you're a little off..BTW - do you even own a 360??

  13. Minority of One by Syncerus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a 61" 1080p television, and yes, I will look more closely at games and consoles that have the ability to use 1080p technology.

    --
    "Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
    1. Re:Minority of One by Mondoz · · Score: 1

      I just got a Sony 70" LCoS TV, and have been a bit disappointed in the availability of consoles that display resolutions better than 480P...
      I thought the Wii would have a better resolution than the Gamecube... But alas, it does not.
      I thought the PS2 would be able to do better than 480i, but I have yet to find a setting for this. (Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong about this.)
      I don't have a 360, but I am not really interested in it.
      It appears that I must buy a PS3 just to get a decent picture...
      That's a bummer.

      --
      /sig
    2. Re:Minority of One by gowdy · · Score: 1

      You could get an old Xbox 1.

    3. Re:Minority of One by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      I have a 61" 1080p television, and yes, I will look more closely at games and consoles that have the ability to use 1080p technology.

      "I bought a box of nails, and yes, I will look more closely at tools if they are hammers."

    4. Re:Minority of One by Mark+Maughan · · Score: 1

      For the PS2, it depends on the game. Try the last GT and GoW.

  14. Re:Hilarious by Thraxen · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're a total idiot. Most of what you said is entirely false. First off, many of the PS3's titles are NOT 1080p. This includes their flagship title Resistance Fall of Man. Second, it's true that none of the current 360 games run natively in 1080p, but most of them can currently be scaled to 1080p by the hardware scaler... which is something the PS3 can't do for its games that run lower than 1080p. Third, WTF are you talking about with jaggies and texture filtering? Slamming GoW shows you have no clue what you are saying. STFU and GTFO, fanboy.

  15. Re:Minority of Two by gowdy · · Score: 1

    Me too, but only at 37". I'm probably not interested in those games though... Can hope that Mass Effect or Halo 3 support it. Actually now my games (on the xbox 360) do play at that resolution, so they must be up-scaled somehow.

  16. Not as expensive as you make out by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I haven't personally seen anything less than 36" that runs 1080p. While I'm certain that there are gamers who are playing games on these larger sets, I think that there are still a lot of people, like me, who are playing on mid-sized screens that don't to 1080p yet.

    While it's true there are not that many smaller sets, a lot of people are hooking consoles up to these larger TV's - especially if they want to use them for the Blu-Ray or HD-DVD abilities. And sets are getting http://www.pricegrabber.com/search.php?form_keywor d=1080p+HDTV&topcat_id=&Search=Search">pretty reasonably priced now, which means there will be user demand for more 1080p content including games, with demand only ramping up from this point on.

    I think that the biggest drawback to having 1080 on the xbox 360 will be storage space on the disk for textures. IIRC games running at 720 have already started to hit the limits of the capacity of a single DVD- and while disk switching will work for some games, I don't think it's a general purpose solution.

    That is a problem for a system without a standard hard drive or a disk format that can hold more than a DVD, and I do think Sony made the right call here - the same call Microsoft should have made with the 360. I think though what will happen is that game studio pressure will force Microsoft to release the "360.2", including an HD-DVD drive and also allowing games to be developed for it (which they have stated so far will not happen).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not as expensive as you make out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That is a problem for a system without a standard hard drive or a disk format that can hold more than a DVD, and I do think Sony made the right call here - th"

      Stop believing the Sony PR machine and think for a second. Ever run WoW on a PC at 800x600? Did you then ever try switching the display resolution to say 1600x1200? Was there a huge wait while the game loaded completely new textures off of disc? Of course not. Rendering 3D at 1920x1080 doesn't require any more DISK SPACE than rendering at 1280x720. Only if a game had pre-rendered cutscenes at 1080P vs 720P is there a disk space issue. Since pre-rendered cutscenes are on a one-way track to extinction, it isn't a huge issue. In-game cutscenes and procedural texturing are the not the future, they are the present.

    2. Re:Not as expensive as you make out by hexix · · Score: 1

      You do realize you just brought up a game that spans 4 or 5 DVDs as a claim that the Xbox 360 doesn't need to come out with a new HD-DVD version?

      I have to agree with the grandparent post that when moving up to 720p/1080p resolutions it probably was a bad decision to stick with the same storage format as last gen. The 360 is doing fine with DVDs so far, but I'd be surprised if we don't start to see it bite them in the ass as PS3 developers start taking advantage of all the space.

    3. Re:Not as expensive as you make out by dootbran · · Score: 1
      You do realize you just brought up a game that spans 4 or 5 DVDs as a claim that the Xbox 360 doesn't need to come out with a new HD-DVD version?

      No, actually he's not. WoW came on 4 CDs, it did not ship on DVD. I have heard that the collectors edition of BC shipped on a DVD but my regular BC box had another 4 cds in it.


      I believe the trial that you can pick up in the store comes on a single DVD.

    4. Re:Not as expensive as you make out by hexix · · Score: 1

      No, actually he's not. WoW came on 4 CDs, it did not ship on DVD.


      Woops. You're right. And I just checked the install size and it's 6.0gb which should fit on a dual-layer DVD. So I guess technically WoW would be possible for the XBox 360 without a hard drive. They'd probably have to be pretty clever to make up for the slower reading of the DVD drive though.


    5. Re:Not as expensive as you make out by NotNormal23224 · · Score: 1

      If they had gone with a larger format (doesn't matter which one) that would have pushed up the price of the system, had slower transfer rates, and delayed the launch, as it did with the PS3. A better idea would have been to scrap the Core system and just sell the premium, garranteing everyone had a harddriveand or letting folks add their own generic drive as you can do with the PS3 (well as long as it's a 2.5" SATA).

  17. 1080p sets not that expensive - $1200+ by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    NONE of the decently priced LCD, Plasma, whatever support 1080p right now

    Well, except for all of these. For a lot of people $1200 is not that much to spend on a large TV set because it's the center of most peoples entertainment time.

    "True" HD sets are coming down in price rapidly because now there is real demand for them now that there is more content, demand which is only going to ramp up this year rapidly.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:1080p sets not that expensive - $1200+ by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      This is from the CEA and it's pretty consistent with everything else I've seen on the subject: "On average, current owners paid $783 for the primary TV in their home, but plan to spend $966 on their next set." $1200 is still a lot to spend on a TV and will continue to be a lot to spend on a TV in the foreseeable future. And even if there are people a lot of people willing to spend $1200 on a new HDTV, I'd wager most of them opt for a larger 720p set over a smaller 1080p set at the price they're willing to spend, especially considering the content available in HD on TV is 720p or 1080i right now.

  18. Very different? by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Troll

    I see you managed to make your first post okay, despite the posting interface being different from the PS3Fanboy forums you're used to.

    You seemed to have managed the switch OK from the 360 forums.

    Do you have anything of substance to actually counter the specific claims made, or is "Fanboi!" your whole counterargument? I don't think you would have done well in debate club. Will your next witty volley be a handfull of poo?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  19. 1080 resolutions aren't that important by The+Orange+Mage · · Score: 1

    I've been told that it takes a larger HDTV (We're talking 50+ inches) to even see a noticeable difference between 720p and 1080p at normal viewing distances.

    1. Re:1080 resolutions aren't that important by CorSci81 · · Score: 1

      You're on the money from what I can find out. You might find this interesting. It saved me from making the mistake of going for a 1080p set when I looked at the size of TV I could fit in my entertainment cabinet (46" or less) and my viewing distance (12 ft).

  20. Not the question for today by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p? If you do does reaching 1080p make you more like to buy a game?

    That's not the question for today. We already know most people don't have true 1080p x 1020 televisions. There haven't been that many of them sold. But over the life of the console itself it will matter. What will you own a year from now? Two years? A whole lot more people may have them by then, and like games that take full advantage.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Not the question for today by Palshife · · Score: 1

      We already know most people don't have true 1080p x 1020 televisions.

      Did you mean 1920x1080? That's the true resolution of 1080p.

      --
      Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
  21. 1080i, 1080p, 720p by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p?

    My HDTV can do 1080i, but not 1080p. It also can't do 720p, which is one of the reasons that I have not purchased an XBOX 360.

    It's an RCA 32" CRT 4:3 HDTV which does not letterbox 1080i content either. I doubt I'm even getting full resolution from my anamorphic DVDs. I'm waiting for the prices in the 42-50" range to drop a bit more.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re:1080i, 1080p, 720p by |Cozmo| · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed as the AC mentioned, the xbox 360 will scale the output of everything to whatever resolutions your TV can handle. In the settings you can say yes or no to each resolution. Most old CRT HDTVs couldn't take 720p, and they kept that in mind during the design.

      AFAIK this is better than the way the PS3 does it, which I believe is to fall back to the next lower supported resolution.

    2. Re:1080i, 1080p, 720p by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Would that be true also with using the VGA output adapter? It only lists 720p as an output, not 1080i. The HDTV is old enough to have VGA inputs and I'm running out of ports on my component video switch. (I'm already out of optical outputs.)

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    3. Re:1080i, 1080p, 720p by NotNormal23224 · · Score: 1

      The VGA adaptor list a whole bunch of resolutions including 1920x1080.

    4. Re:1080i, 1080p, 720p by iainl · · Score: 1

      There are a whole bunch of resolutions (all 60Hz) available when using the VGA leads.

      When you first plug them in it goes with the lowest common denominator of 640x480, but you've got 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, 1280x768, 1360x768 (what I use, as it's the native res of my panel) and 1920x1080. I've probably missed a few as well, but as long as your TV can take one of those you should be ok; check your manual.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  22. The 360 can output at 1080i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just FYI, you can set the XBox 360 to output 720p games at 1080i, so this shouldn't be an issue for you should you be interested in picking one up.

  23. 1080i and 1080p?? by shlepp · · Score: 0

    I currently own a 360 and run it in 1080i and also have my computer connected to my TV using 1080i, which is perfect for me. Now i highly doubt there is that "BIG" of a noticeable difference between 1080i and 1080p as they are both 1920 × 1080 just different refresh rates and some additional features. Honestly for gaming it won't matter so much. 1080p is just a way for the TV makers to get people to buy new HDTV's over a minor thing. Now i could understand going from 720p to 1080p, thats noticeable, going from 720p to 1080i is very noticeable too. Those peeps that say that 1080i is worse quality then 720p, i strongly suggest investing in a higher quality HDTV and not buying cheap economic crap as that would be the cause.

    1. Re:1080i and 1080p?? by Thraxen · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a marketing aspect, but it's not all that. It's the technologies that are being used. CRTs are the only TVs that can actually display any sort of interlaced signal. LCDs, plasmas, DLP, LCoS, etc... all have native progressive resolutions. There is not such thing as a 1080i TV for any of those technologies. If they list 1080i that just means they can accept that signal and will then scale it to 720p or 1080p (or 728p or whatever odd resolutions plasmas and LCDs sometimes have).

  24. Averages being averages... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    On average, current owners paid $783 for the primary TV in their home, but plan to spend $966 on their next set.

    Yes, on average - which mostly means a some people going for small cheap sets, and others going for much larger, more expensive sets. HD TV sales figures have been really good. Why do you think even that average has jumped so much? People are looking at getting large HD TV sets now.

    And even if there are people a lot of people willing to spend $1200 on a new HDTV, I'd wager most of them opt for a larger 720p set over a smaller 1080p set at the price they're willing to spend, especially considering the content available in HD on TV is 720p or 1080i right now.

    Many of those 1080p sets were pretty large (one of the cheaper ones was a Samsung 50" TV). Also, 1080i has the same resolution as 1080p so it's not like the set is not useful for that as well even if the source is not progressive.

    I don't think sheer mass is the driving factor for most people when looking at these TV's, they also want a good picture.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  25. 1200p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I enjoyed playing Half-Life in "1200p" already in 1999.

    1. Re:1200p by Thraxen · · Score: 1

      e-penis +1

  26. You're wrong by Thraxen · · Score: 1

    I remember when large flat panel plasmas cost $20K+, and that wasn't that long ago. Now the same sized plasmas can be had for $2K. It won't be long before 1080p TVs are below the 1K mark and well within the range of people looking to upgrade their main TVs. You're right that a lot people who have just bought or are about to buy 720p sets won't want to upgrade right away, but some will. Also, not everyone will have HD sets before the 1080p sets hit even more reasonable prices than they are now. Consoles and the new HD movie formats will help drive the 1080p sales. Also, DLP and LCoS are the kings of affordable big screens (50"+) and they will soon only be available in 1080p. LCoS is pretty much already there and 720p DLPs are being phased out fast. LCDs and plasmas will start moving that direction this year too and I wouldn't be surprised if that's where SEDs (if they finally appear) debut. So while I agree than not everyone will want to upgrade, 1080p will not fall into obscurity. Not even close.

  27. Yes, a lot have 1080p. by blargh-dot-com · · Score: 1

    Moreover, does the resolution of a title matter all that much to you yet? Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p? If you do does reaching 1080p make you more like to buy a game? Most bigger TVs put out in the past year do 1080p native, both display and on inputs. Mine that I bought 10 months ago will do it, and I have several other friends that bought similiar fully-1080p capable sets as soon as they came out - they had been waiting for exactly that.

    I would wager a good 30% of the people I know have HDTVs that can do 1080p. Most of the others don't have rooms big enough to warrant a screen big enough to make 1080p useful (and that is a consideration - you need a screen bigger than about 50" or so for 1080p to be practical, and that takes a good-sized viewing distance), or are the perputal 'wait-and-see-next-years-models' type.

    That being said, I'm getting a little irked at seeing "Yeah, but nobody has 1080p yet!" on headlines on Slashdot (in one form or another). Yes, people have 1080p. The same people with enough disposable income to be buying these other sorts of toys.
    1. Re:Yes, a lot have 1080p. by NotNormal23224 · · Score: 1

      Amen, people like me have a 1080P set and all the current gen of consoles (and the last gen too, and quite a few gens back as well in my closets). I think it's great that people take advantage of 1080P when it makes sense for the game. If you find your game can run fine at 1080P then go for it, if not don't force it, and from what I've seen of the NBA street demo it looks and plays well at 1080P so it was a good decision.

  28. It's all in the numbers by rickbowen · · Score: 1

    I have a 37" 1080p LCD TV with a plethora of different inputs and video modes (Westinghouse... who knew they made hi-def video monitors?) I have all the consoles and consider myself an Avid gamer, but far from uber :) The difference betwen 1080i and 1080p is neglegible when it comes down to figuring out which games win. The qualitative factor of gameplay and how fun a game is will ALWAYS outweigh the quantitative specifications of a system. The mega-selling Wii is proof of this - low def, FUN games. In the eyes of a mid-20's average guy, the only reason why 1080p is so coveted is simply because of the marketing department at Sony. This was one of their biggest pre-sale points. Now that Microsoft has this under their belt, Sony doesn't really have anything yet. Content is king, price tag is the queen. Until the ultimate "next gen" games comes out for the next-gen consoles, the cheapest system will win.

  29. Re:Hilarious by Osty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Second, it's true that none of the current 360 games run natively in 1080p, but most of them can currently be scaled to 1080p by the hardware scaler... which is something the PS3 can't do for its games that run lower than 1080p.

    Actually, all Xbox 360 games can currently be scaled to 1080p by the hardware scaler. That's the beauty of a hardware scaler -- you tell it you want 1080p (or 720p, or 1080i, or whatever), and that's what you get every time. While scaling is not the same as natively rendering in 1080p with high resolution textures, it's still better than trusting your TV to upscale properly. The 360's hardware scaler works upon the digital image prior to sending it to the TV. Your TV has to work with an analog signal (because the 360 doesn't do HDMI/DVI). Your TV's scaler in general won't do as well as the 360's scaler, and some TVs can introduce lag when scaling images that's not present when given a signal in their native resolution.

    After being spoiled by the 360's scaler for over a year, I was somewhat disappointed with my Wii. With the 360, I've set it to 720p and I don't have to worry about anything else, whether a game supports that resolution or is widescreen or not (the 360 will appropriately side-box original Xbox 480i/p 4:3 games so I don't have adjust my set). The Wii acts more like the original Xbox, where I have to visually determine if a game is 16:9 or 4:3 and shrink or stretch the set's mode appropriately. From what I hear, the PS3 is the same way. Ugh. Hopefully the next generation of consoles (5 years from now) will all have hardware scalers.

  30. Re:Hilarious by hexix · · Score: 1

    The 360's hardware scaler works upon the digital image prior to sending it to the TV. Your TV has to work with an analog signal (because the 360 doesn't do HDMI/DVI). Your TV's scaler in general won't do as well as the 360's scaler, and some TVs can introduce lag when scaling images that's not present when given a signal in their native resolution.

    This is interesting. I have been wondering what the deal was with the 360 ever since they added 1080p support via a software update.

    So, in your opinion, if you have the ps3 with a 720p game hooked up via HDMI to a 1080p display it should be able to upscale it just as well as the 360 does since it's a pristine digital signal? Or is the 360 scaler regarded as being better than what is in most HDTVs?

    Also, I have been wondering if a 1080p signal via component is really as good as a 1080p signal via HDMI? Since component is analog is it really reasonable to believe that all those pixels are going to be able to travel to the TV without being degraded? Not that I think it would be that noticeable, but it would be nice to know that your TV is receiving the exact data.

  31. Re:Hilarious by Thraxen · · Score: 1

    You're in the same boat I am. We just bought a new 1080p HDTV over the holidays and now I'm having a hard time going to the Wii. The Wii looked OK on the my older and smaller TV. It was an HDTV, but it was only 34". Now we've got a 55" TV and the Wii looks pretty crappy at that size. The initial coolness factor of the Wiimote has worn off and now I'm back to the 360. Plus, there just aren't many games worth a damn on the Wii. Sure, some people say Elebits, Wario Ware, and Trauma Center are good games... but those are getting pretty average reviews overall and they simply don't interest me. And, yes, I do already have Twilight Princess.

    So right now I'm just waiting on Nintendo, or another dev, to put something truly innovative and fun out. I can deal with the sub-par graphics if the game is fun. For example, I think my favorite Wii game is the Bowling on Wii Sports. My friends and I have had a good time with that game.

    Also, I do also have a PS3 and I don't know if I'll need to manually set the aspect ratio or not. We only have Resistance, Blast Factor, and Go! Sudoku (wife's a puzzle game fanatic) for it so far. Resistance is 720p and Blast Factor is 1080p, so they are both widesceen by default. I don't know about Go! Sudoku. It doesn't look stretched, but I doubt it matter either way with that game. Wait... actually... I think you might be right. I played Twisted Metal 2 a couple of days ago and I think it ran stretched, but I can't recall for certain. I just tried it out late one night to see how it looked and ran. I'd have to try it out again to know for certain. Anyway, it likely won't matter with the PS3 games since they should all be HD and widescreen by default anyway.

  32. Re:Hilarious by Thraxen · · Score: 1

    I own a PS3, 360, and 1080p TV and I'll tell you what I have seen. First off, I can't detect any real difference in picture quality between the 360 running at 1080p via component and my PS3 running 1080p via HDMI. I haven't sat around looking for flaws/differences, but nothing sticks out. IMO, the advantage of a digital signal over analog on PCs/Consoles is vastly overrated. You have to remember we are talking about cable lengths of like 3-6 feet (~1-2 meters) for most people. Just buy any decent shielded cable and you shouldn't have any noticeable signal loss. I see zero interference in my 360's signal.

    As for the upscaling... the best example I can use for what you asked is Resistance vs Gears of War. The 360 scales GoW to 1080p whereas my TV has to scale Resistance to 1080p since the PS3 can't. I can't see any issues on either system. GoW looks fantastic and Resistance looks good too. Resistance isn't as pretty as GoW, but that the game itself and not an issue with the TV scaler. Again, I haven't spent any time looking for artifacts/issues, but nothing sticks out and Resistance looks fine. But really, I don't think scaling from 720p to 1080p is that difficult for most new TVs.

    The Wii on the other hand is a different story... scaling from 480p to 1080p plus the fact the screen is 55 inches results in a less than ideal picture.

  33. 1080p not just for video by deuterium · · Score: 1

    I purchased a 1080p LCD because I wanted to use it as a computer monitor as well as a TV and Xbox 360 display. 1920x1080 is just big enough to be usable as a desktop, and I can now program and web surf from my couch.

    The 360 looks gorgeous on it, as well.

    1. Re:1080p not just for video by ADRA · · Score: 1

      I'd be truly amazed if you could tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p (while watching a movie, and not pausing).

      The difference the two formats is incredibly small while watching the movie that its truly turning the term 'Videophile' (People who assume their overpriced equipment makes them important) into a reality.

      All that said, you will notice a gigantic difference with your PC experience. I've got a 50" Sony with an incredibly nice video renderer and I can say even though it supports 1080i, I still view everything but games at 1152x648 (overscan correction) because the 'i' makes all the difference in the world with -still- images.

      I think that people have the big buzz word push on the brain and think that somehow they're getting less data on a 1080i vs. 1080p. You're not. In the background, its still rendering the gigantic 1920x1080 frame buffer and both formats display the equivalent of 30 full frames a second, the only difference is that it sends that picture at 1/2 full frame increments for the 'i'.

      I'm sure that there must be a web site that actually explains the reason you notice static interlacing more than and dynamic, but my best guess is simply that when there's a dynamic image, our brains automatically do a pseudo-anti-alias of the stimuli in to make better sense of the rapid information change.

      --
      Bye!
    2. Re:1080p not just for video by Growlor · · Score: 1

      I have recently started doing this as well. It also helps to make me a little more social with my family. My 3 year old is a dinosaur addict and I recently bought an RTS game that has dinosaur units and he REALLY likes those battle scenes. I've been experimenting with wireless keyboard/pointer devices so we can lounge on the couch (I'm looking for something other than 2.4Ghz frequency and decent range) and play, but I often end-up over by the PC with him and my wife watching me from the couch.

  34. Re:Hilarious by Mark+Maughan · · Score: 1

    A good TV will always have a better scaler than any device because the TV knows what it's own native resolution is and the device doesn't. What that guy said only applies to cheap TV's.

    And DVI/HDMI > Component if you have a good signal. I don't find it necessary for my HD cable because the video is so compressed.

  35. Image constraint token by tepples · · Score: 1

    IMO, the advantage of a digital signal over analog on PCs/Consoles is vastly overrated. You have to remember we are talking about cable lengths of like 3-6 feet (~1-2 meters) for most people. Just buy any decent shielded cable and you shouldn't have any noticeable signal loss.

    Unless the publisher specifies that your hardware must downscale the image to 480p and then upscale it back to 1080p because you are using analog cables.

    1. Re:Image constraint token by Thraxen · · Score: 1

      True, but that has nothing to do with analog vs digital. That's DRM BS.

  36. S-video is not perfect by tepples · · Score: 1

    Although S-Video *is* different, however, it still carries colour and luminance on separate wires, so it shouldn't show dot-crawl either(!)

    S-video doesn't have dot crawl in the same sense that composite does (where the Pr/Pb carrier bleeds onto the luma carrier), but the Pr and Pb components are still multiplexed onto one signal, and cheap decoders may produce effects similar to dot crawl but more subtle. Cheap interconnects might also cause some crosstalk between Y and Pr/Pb. In addition, S-video is still interlaced, and detailed textures scrolling up and down at some rates cause scanline crawl.

    1. Re:S-video is not perfect by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Okay, fair point; I don't use S-Video, so I can't comment on its performance (here in Europe, RGB via SCART is very common), or how similar the effect you describe is to dot crawl (Wikipedia does state that "The infamous dot crawl is eliminated"). Sometime after I'd posted the original message, I was idly wondering how they derived three colour signals from two wires without multiplexing, and should have realised that what you describe was a possibility.

      From what I understand of the WP article, the colour multiplexing of two signals into one of S-Video is the same as that on NTSC/PAL- Quadrature Amplitude Multiplexing, i.e. two out-of-phase sine-waves merged. I'm not an expert on this stuff and can't visualise what sort of interference that might cause... so I'll take your word for it.

      Of course, NTSC/PAL then modulates the colour signal and adds it to the luminance, so it should exhibit the QAM multiplexing artifacts *and* the frequency modulation luminance/chrominance artifacts; the latter being the one that supposedly causes "real" dot crawl.

      (BTW, I did later realise- and mention- the possibility that the original poster was thinking of interlacing artifacts on fine lines; see my reply to my own post).

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  37. Not the first titles though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except e.g. Rainbow Six : Vegas already does 1080p on the XBox360.

  38. Dead Rising? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Those 40% of games work on 1080 and everything below that, too.

    But do Xbox 360 games look significantly better on an Xbox 360 in 480i than Xbox games look on an Xbox in 480i? And what about Dead Rising, whose text is so small that it is just barely readable in 480i?

    It would be pretty stupid to make different releases of the same game for different resolutions.

    Unless (say in a first-person shooter) having 1080 lines gives the player an unfair advantage in sniping accuracy.

    1. Re:Dead Rising? by DJCacophony · · Score: 1

      Having better hardware isn't an unfair advantage. Ever.

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    2. Re:Dead Rising? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Having better hardware isn't an unfair advantage. Ever.

      On a Nintendo DS, isn't a DS with an Action Replay accessory better hardware than a stock DS? Besides, what if the lack of resolution prevents the player from completing the game (see recent story about gaming walls)? Then games are poorly designed.

  39. I think the answer is in the question by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Moreover, does the resolution of a title matter all that much to you yet? Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p? If you do, does reaching 1080p make you more likely to buy a game?

    I don't have an HDTV, nor do I have any intention of getting one any time soon. But I think those that do have one will be more likely to buy 1080p games since a) 480 games look like balls on the TVs, at least on my brother's, and b) they will want to justify that purchase as much as possible.

  40. Re:Hilarious by NotNormal23224 · · Score: 1

    My problem with my PS3 not having a built in scaler is minor watching it go through the resolution syncing every time I launch something (even at the same 1080P resoulution) is a bit jarring to watching my 360 smoothly go between things. In actual gameplay however I haven't notice any glaring issues or differences with my PS3's HDMI being scaled by the TV over my 360's VGA being scalled internally.

  41. Hang On, Microsoft Lied To Us.... by Mark+Gillespie · · Score: 1

    Microsoft told us, that 1080p was basically impossible: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/22/xbox-exec-on-ps3 -1080p-will-be-basically-impossible Until of course, they can do it, then it is possible.. LOL. People actually take in this Microsoft spin and believe it as gospel...

  42. Microsoft Lied To Us.. by Mark+Gillespie · · Score: 1

    They said 1080p was basically impossible..

    http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/22/xbox-exec-on-ps3 -1080p-will-be-basically-impossible

    Now of course, it's possible all of a sudden. What gives? The truth was it was always possible, and PS3 was doing it, Microsoft however lied, as they did not have the capability at the time..

    I feel sorry for the puppets that belive anything that Microsoft says, in particular the lying b1tches at the gaming division...