Topic: Hooking up to a monitor

[ThePerm]

you could always crap on the floor....they sell toilets in animal crosing..but no bathrooms..do they just crap in the forest?

[PaLaDiN]

"I said only an insane mental case would NOT buy a console because it supports HD. Like you go to the store, see "HD supported" on the box and say "I'm not buying this." Who would do that? NO ONE."

You should be in sales Ian.

What if you go into a store, right? And then you see two consoles. One of them says "HD supported" on the box. The other doesn't. But the "HD supported" one is, guess what? MORE EXPENSIVE. And you don't have HDTV.

Which one do you buy Ian? Sorry, there goes your argument.

"It's only because they've now said that they're not supporting it that you think HD is so bad."

No, it's because I don't want to pay for crap I don't need. However... have you even seen HD in motion Ian, have you been irresistibly seduced by the vast differences offered by higher resolution, or are you only supporting it because Sony and Microsoft say it's needed? Because, you know. People in glass houses.

What's your argument for making me pay more money?

[Don'tHate742]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Adding computer monitor functionality further adds to the number of possible consumers. Adding HD limits it. Making it cheap adds to the number of possible consumers. Adding HD limits it."

Well maybe the cost relates to it though no one who isn't some sort of insane mental case would NOT buy a console just because it supports HD because it would still work on a normal TV.  Technically having monitor support might raise the cost of the console too.  There are all sorts of variables regarding cost.  But the HD feature itself, ignoring everything else, would not turn away anyone but the lack of the feature will.  Not too many would be turned off just because of the monitor thing.  It's so minor few will care at all.

Hell my Mom is sour on the Rev just because of the HD thing and she doesn't own an HDTV and probably won't for a long time.  To her the very fact that they're ignoring something she sees as a future requirement suggests incompetance.  She doesn't think highly of Nintendo for overlooking something that to her seems obvious.  Like if they're too stunned to see the importance of including HD support they're probably not capable of making a decent product.  This is one example but my Mom IS in Nintendo's target demo for the Rev.

Everyone who walks into a store like Best Buy or the electronics section of a department store knows what HD is within five seconds of looking at the TVs or talking to a salesman.  It's a big buzzword right now and people who don't even know really what HD is would ask "does it support HD?" when buying a console just because it's something they heard about that supposedly is cool.

You obviously didn't get was I was saying.

Adding HD doesn't expand the market of possible consumers. Those that have HD already have a TV. To Nintendo, being cheap is better than being high-tech.

So now they support regular TV's and computer monitors. This yields the highest possible consumers at the cheapest price. You can't argue this.

[Ian Sane]

"What's your argument for making me pay more money?"

I guess I don't really have one but you probably wouldn't have noticed if Nintendo didn't bring it to your attention.  The arguement for paying more money I guess is that that's the cost you pay to buy a console with a future.  That's what it costs to get a console that will increase Nintendo's marketshare for a change and thus have a chance at improving chronic problems like poor third party support or crappy rental selections.

I personally don't really care.  I just want the option because it's a feature both competitors have that does relate to gaming (unlike say the ability to play movies) and last gen the Cube got bit in the ass big time because Nintendo SUCKED at matching the competition.  Plus I feel that Sony and MS are making a big mistake by forcing devs to support HD.  Nintendo could have gained an advantage by making it optional but instead they cut it entirely and thus are just as restrictive.  Actually they're MORE restrictive because their strategy also limits consumers while Sony and MS just limit developers.  They look what could have been a plus for them and turned it into a minus.

The price issue might work out if the Rev is WAY cheaper than the competition.  But being cheaper didn't help the Cube any.  It was missing the CD player (and later online gaming) and people just assumed it was cheaper because they cut features.  There's a fine line between not having to pay for stuff you don't need and not having the option to have what you want.  Including a whole bunch of accessories with the PSP is paying for stuff you don't need because you can choose to buy it all seperately.  HD support isn't something I can buy seperately.  I can't pay for it if I want to.  They cut it and it's GONE and no one can have it.

I don't even see it as saving money.  I see it as making a gamble that you won't need something later.  Now it's like Nintendo's got the non-HD model and if you want HD you buy the competition.  If they matched that people would see the three consoles as equals instead of the Rev as the "economy model".

Nintendo's controller in theory could give them an advantage but they're making it a tradeoff AGAIN (connectivity or online?) and thus going from being the "better" console to the "different" console which thus gives them no advantage at all.

[Don'tHate742]

Honestly, I have a feeling HD will never catch on and will inevitably get skipped with higher technology.

Once Holographic Disks catch on later next year (which they will), hopefully major companies from hollywood will you use it for media presentation (allowing zero compression). Then, TV's that maybe HD will be compatible this technology, but some new TV will come out allowing a direct transfer of information off the disk and onto the screen with resolutions coming close to or on par with the latest computer monitors.

The future...

[Renny]

Actually there've been complaints about the 360 on SD interlaced sets. Apparently the Xbox doesn't downscale the image too cleanly. Or it just looks like crap all around and the HDTV-owners are still in the hypnotic trance of blowing two thousand dollars on a TV for a rushed console.

So yes, a person could go into the store and not pick up a console that supports HDTV for a legitimate reason. They wouldn't because they'd have no idea how bad it looks (at this point anyhow). But theoretically it could happen.

[BigJim]

The logic falsely assumes that one is required to to pay out the ass for hardware that can display 1080i. Even current generation low-end graphic cards (on sale for a rich man's $40) can manage to crap out 20x15. Start saving those pennies.

The expense is not in the resolution but the greedy bleeding edge hardware that they choose to adopt to cram it full of pretty landscape that apparently only marginally improves enjoyment, if at all.

There is a perfectly adequate "happy medium" that you could obtain in a $199-$249 console, but Nintendo has apparently chosen to get the cheapest thing possible to be your second console rather than to compete and spend any extra money in their art department.

It's more Nintendo's decision to be the cheap alternative than it is some sort of gross "HD tax".  

[Renny]

We still don't know the exact cost of all the hardware to be included in the Revolution. Hell, we might not even know just what hardware will be included. Remember that someone said somewhere (I'm lazy so what...) that a lot of the price of the console would be going towards the control system. Maybe those sensors placed by the TV aren't too cheap. Or maybe the remote isn't too cheap. The latter possibility being less preferable. It might still come in at the $200 price point and only offer what's been promised so far.

[zakkiel]

Quote
The logic falsely assumes that one is required to to pay out the ass for hardware that can display 1080i. Even current generation low-end graphic cards (on sale for a rich man's $40) can manage to crap out 20x15. Start saving those pennies.

The expense is not in the resolution but the greedy bleeding edge hardware that they choose to adopt to cram it full of pretty landscape that apparently only marginally improves enjoyment, if at all.

Yes, and a 5-year-old PC can effortlessly manage hundreds of frames per second in Doom. I guess we should all expect that the latest games can be played at 500 frames per second on $200 dollar PCs.

Resolution is the single most definitive determinant of computer resource consumption. It's the major scalable factor. The difference between my current three-year-old computer and the new one I'm getting in a week while playing FEAR will largely be the resolution I can play at; the rest is tweaking. Will that make any difference for three-year-old games? No. But I'm one of those people who prefer my modern pretty landscapes, and will choose them over HD in a heartbeat. And if you want both, you have to pay a bundle.