Topic: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis

[BlackNMild2k1]

unless the higher I have my resolution on my monitor set, the smaller my game screen become....

640x480 = O -or- 1024x768 = o

that would suck

[Savior]

This worries me more from Third Parties than Nintendo Games. Not having this, might make it more difficult for Third Parties, thus hurting their support even more. Personally id like alitle more support next gen from them, than i did these past two generations. Im hoping Nintendo Reconsiders, just for their sake. If it takes some pushing from a big third party so be it. EA for example telling them they need it.

[Ian Sane]

"HD tvs is a niche market. The cost of owning such a tv is still too high for the average consumer and will not come down significintly till after the next gen."

HDTV's are niche now but that doesn't mean they will be niche later.  The Rev has to last until 2011.  In 2000 I didn't know anyone who had a DVD player.  Here we are five years later and I only know one person who's not a senior who only has a VCR.  Last year my Mom asked me to find a video for my Grandma for Christmas and I had to run all over town to find a copy.  In the end I had to buy a USED copy from a video store because none of the other stores had any sort of variety for their VHS selection.  In a few years you won't be able to even buy a non-HD compatible TV in stores.

Anyone who is defending this decision needs to ignore the details and look at what Nintendo is really doing here.  They're not providing an option and making a decision for third parties and consumers.  It doesn't matter what it is.  Nintendo has the lowest market share in the console market because they're inflexible and don't provide options.  This decision shows that they STILL haven't learned anything and that they STILL don't get it.  Nintendo's improved some things with the Rev (like going online) but they're just curing symptons of a bigger problem.  In 2011 they'll fix the "no HD" sympton and then make a bunch of other short-sighted decisions that create problems.  Nintendo needs to stop making dumb decisions overall instead of just fixing the individual dumb decisions of the previous gen every time.  Essentially the Cube was what the N64 should have been and now the Rev is what the Cube should have been.

[Truthliesn1seyes]

Quote
Originally posted by: Savior
This worries me more from Third Parties than Nintendo Games. Not having this, might make it more difficult for Third Parties, thus hurting their support even more. Personally id like alitle more support next gen from them, than i did these past two generations. Im hoping Nintendo Reconsiders, just for their sake. If it takes some pushing from a big third party so be it. EA for example telling them they need it.

How does not having it make it difficult on third parties?   Not having HD standards should make it easier for the developer (less work) and publisher (less funding).  Also, there are many different HD standards, from this article, it doesn't specify which resolutions will not be supported.  The fact that the Rev has been announced to connect to PC monitors should show that it'll at least support the minimum or above norm standards.

[anubis6789]

First off I am sure that the REV will have up to ED (480p 16:9 at 60fps) at least.

Second, widescreen and HD are not mutualy inclusive. there are SD formats that are widescreen.

Third, while it my be only 50 cents to add the part that outputs HD, what about all the overhead like the CPU power and RAM to make sure that it actually runs well (more than 10fps) in HD modes.

Fourth, the XBOX supported HD (720p,1080i) and there were only a few games that used it. Those that did use it had problems and limitations.

Personaly I only care that it has ED support becuase I plan on having an HDTV in a few years.

[Kairon]

So...who here actually dislikes for a personal reason instead of an imagined Nintendo-must-be-uber mentality?

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Shecky]

So, I want to know if 480p is considered HD in Nintendo's press release.  Someone please ask them.

A lot of people may call 480p ED, and I can't see why they wouldn't support at least that given it was present for gamecube titles.  Really there is a jump from 480i to p that's quite noticable, especially in terms of color seperation, etc.  There are spare pins on Nintendo's D-Cable for video, they should just combine the functionality of both video ports found on the gamecube to one.

[Truthliesn1seyes]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"HD tvs is a niche market. The cost of owning such a tv is still too high for the average consumer and will not come down significintly till after the next gen."

HDTV's are niche now but that doesn't mean they will be niche later.  The Rev has to last until 2011.  In 2000 I didn't know anyone who had a DVD player.  Here we are five years later and I only know one person who's not a senior who only has a VCR.  Last year my Mom asked me to find a video for my Grandma for Christmas and I had to run all over town to find a copy.  In the end I had to buy a USED copy from a video store because none of the other stores had any sort of variety for their VHS selection.  In a few years you won't be able to even buy a non-HD compatible TV in stores.

Anyone who is defending this decision needs to ignore the details and look at what Nintendo is really doing here.  They're not providing an option and making a decision for third parties and consumers.  It doesn't matter what it is.  Nintendo has the lowest market share in the console market because they're inflexible and don't provide options.  This decision shows that they STILL haven't learned anything and that they STILL don't get it.  Nintendo's improved some things with the Rev (like going online) but they're just curing symptons of a bigger problem.  In 2011 they'll fix the "no HD" sympton and then make a bunch of other short-sighted decisions that create problems.  Nintendo needs to stop making dumb decisions overall instead of just fixing the individual dumb decisions of the previous gen every time.  Essentially the Cube was what the N64 should have been and now the Rev is what the Cube should have been.

DVD players and HD tvs are totally different beasts.  The movie industry basically forced consumers into the DVD era along with the ps2's help.  DVD players gained so much ground as a result of the playstation making it a standard thus forcing standard dvd players to drop in price to compete (also the fact that the ps2 put many dvd players in homes)  The ps3 and Xbox 360 are in NOW WAY going to help give HD tvs a push.  There is nothing forcing consumers to upgrade.  Standard and cable television are just starting to get their feet wet with HD broadcasts.  Just becuase Sony and MS's games will support HD resolutions doesn't mean that consumers will start to go and buy the displays.  DVD's have supported HD resolutions and that hasn't pushed many to purchase a high end tv.  I can't really comment any more on how fast HD tvs will penetrate the market becuase I'll need to see some research and stats to see its growth.  Also, the USA isn't the world, just becuase HD seems to be gaining (minimal) ground here doesn't mean its doing so hot everywhere else.  Japan and Europe so far are in even worse positions.  By 2011, HD might, and thats a really big MIGHT, be a standard here in the US but not anywhere else.  Also, what developer is going to be mad at Nintendo for this move?  All Nintendo is doing is saving them money which in the end is all that matters to these companies.  Its funny how this announcement has really brought out all the graphic whores from hiding.  One minute, "graphics are good but gameplay is what its about" and the next minute, "no HD for Rev??? OMFG, NIntendo is doomed yet again"  This is the typical song and dance displayed by Nintendo fans.  Everyone gets their panties in a bunch for the slightest things that won't really affect the majority of us besides providing us with possiblely cheaper games but forget that, let me get them 60 dollar games, I want that lol.  

[Shecky]

The FCC has a mandate to migrate to digital-only broadcast by 2007... and as a result, HDTV's are expected to become more affordable around that time.

[anubis6789]

Everyone also seems to forget that while yes, there is a federal mandate for all networks to go HD by 2008 that there was also a similar mandate in 2006 and I believe even back into 2003. It keeps on moving back becuase its EXTREMLY expensive to upgrade with little to no returns for the networks, especially those in areas were the HDTV penetration is next to nothing (READ: almost everywere).

After reading the article over a few times I am also with those who believe that Mrs. Kaplan may not know exactly what HD is. Not that she is stupid or anything.

[Truthliesn1seyes]

Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
The FCC has a mandate to migrate to digital-only broadcast by 2007... and as a result, HDTV's are expected to become more affordable around that time.

They can mandate all they want for all I care.  Consumer's are the driving force in the electronics industry.  If people aren't going out and buying said tvs, the FCC is going to have to rework their time frame.  If I'm to believe the FCC, then I'm too expect a huge price drop to take place with HD tvs within a yr or 2.  I don't really see that happening.

[MrMojoRising]

While this may end up being a mistake similar to "no-online" on Gamecube, the real problem is NOT the hardware.  The amount of people who own an X-box that actually go on-line is 10-20%...that leaves 80% that don't go online that were swayed to the x-box for another reason or because they're stupid and they want to have a system that can go online, even if they don't actually want to.  This will probably be a similar case with the Rev, where a selling point will be that xbox360 and PS3 will support HD...where Joe Consumer says, "I don't have an HD TV, but I'm sure I will eventually, and even if I don't ever use it for gaming or I don't get it until the next generation I shouldn't get a Revolution because of this."  I think they should include the port even if they don't EVER use it if it's really as cheap as all you fellows have been saying (50 cents, blah blah).  After seeing both sides and remembering the painful framerates of Perfect Dark, I think I would rather have a game at a lower resolution with a better frame rate on a cheaper machine...but most people probably won't look into it as deeply as I have (which isn't even that deep, basically, reading this forum).

The thing that really irks me is that most of this, in my opinion, is fueled by the gaming media.  The gaming press has to be able to take advantage of all of a games features, which means that 100% of game reviewers play online and will play on an HD-TV next gen; however, it seems that they don't fully realize that docking a game in a review for no online play is completely useless to a majority of gamers.  I'm sure Revolution versions of multi-platform games will get a negative connotation by the media because they won't be HD compared to other versions...even if it's still only a small amount of people that have HD-TVs.

[bmfrosty]

IGN is making sh*t up again. Find me another source for this information. Maybe a copy of that email that Nintendo sent out last week that said they weren't supporting HD that nobody bothered to report on until now.

[Bloodworth]

Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
The FCC has a mandate to migrate to digital-only broadcast by 2007... and as a result, HDTV's are expected to become more affordable around that time.

This is worded correctly, but I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of what this means.  Digital signals do NOT mean HD resolutions, and you'll still be able to buy standard resolution sets.  They simply have to accept the digital signal.

[KDR_11k]

Hey, it's just Perrin Kaplan. If this was Iwata I'd say Nintendo has screwed up but coming from Kaplan I consider it as likely as any rumor on the internet.

HD meaning higher prices? Please, do you have any clue what upping the resolution in a game involves? (hint: One API call) PC games support 10-20 different resolutions and I don't see them put effort into every single one of them, in fact they just give you a dropdown menu and tell the API what you want.

Eggebrecht didn't sound any smarter. Yes, the fillrate usage increases but have you looked at the PC market lately? It's a complete nonissue, you lose maybe 30% of your framerate by going from 800x600 to 1600x1200 and that's with FSAA and AF, both increase the usage even more. At 1920x1080 you don't need antialiasing (in fact I doubt you need it at 640x480 but reviewers tend to claim otherwise), that saves you a huge chunk of performance that can be put towards the increased resolution. Seriously, I don't notice a difference between playing Doom 3 at 800x600 and 1280x960 (and certainly none between AA and no AA).

As for HDTV itself, I haven't seen one in reality yet. Those things simply don't exist around here. The widescreen-only stuff sucks anyway. We have a widescreen TV at home, it sucks because you constantly have to switch modes (half of which make no sense) to get a decent view, the autodetect sucks and at 4:3 the screen is tiny. At least it does 100Hz.

The support stuff might become an issue in the US, though. Online took off half way through this gen, I'm sure HDTV will at least reach enough mass for people to complain about Nintendo.

Still with the money Nintendo saves from waiting on high definition to catch on in Japan and Europe; they can put a PPU and/or AIPU into the Revolution for real.

If I save money on not buying this lollypop I can afford a car tomorrow, right?

[PaLaDiN]

I don't plan on buying a HDTV anytime soon, but this is slightly enthusiasm-dampening news and Nintendo should have a really good reason for it.

I want to know why Nintendo thought this was news worth touting. You'd think if they threw us a bone it shouldn't be laced with poison.

[Shecky]

Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth

Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
The FCC has a mandate to migrate to digital-only broadcast by 2007... and as a result, HDTV's are expected to become more affordable around that time.

This is worded correctly, but I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of what this means.  Digital signals do NOT mean HD resolutions, and you'll still be able to buy standard resolution sets.  They simply have to accept the digital signal.

Correct. sorry if there was confusion... It doesn't mean HD resolutions, but the "market experts" were expecting HDTV's to drop in price around that time, most likely due to increased competition as more sets support the digital signals and (*they* assume) the greater possibility of HD resolutions as well.

Edit: Personally, what I think most people want is just a cleaner, crisper signal.  EDTV as they like to call it.  I often use Mario Golf as a good  example to my friends when comparing the two.  During character selection the trait bars (red bars under the shot trajectory and power) would show up as a single red bar with our regular set.  I noticed that the booklet shows "tick" marks.  So when I finally got a HD set, I ran it at 480p though the component cables and sure enough, you could see the ticks.  Was that due to better resolution.... NO, not at all; rather it was due a cleaner, crisper signal.

[jarob]

As KDR was saying, there is very little difference between different resolutions on PC games today.  And the Rev is going to have a next gen GPU?  I dont see any noticeable slowdown at all.  If todays PC games can play at extreme resolution with little slow down why cant a next gen system have a smaller slow down (if any)?  if Nintendo does not include HD, that will be a very dumb mistake.  HD is the future.

[Ian Sane]

"what developer is going to be mad at Nintendo for this move?"

Any developer who wants to make HD games.  If the port's on there and a developer wants to save money they can by just not using it.  But being FORCED to save money when you might want to spend the money sucks and it's the sort of thing that could make a developer ignore the Rev.  This is like if the government made it illegal to spend more than $500 on a TV so that the citizens save money.  If you had a high paying job and lots of disposable income you would be pissed that someone else was making your purchasing decisions for you.

Plus Nintendo has incredibly poor relationships with third parties to begin with and being a bossy assh0le is why.  So if you're a third party and you stopped supporting Nintendo because they're a tyrant is Nintendo continuing to be a tyrant going to bring you back?  

[denjet78]

So... many... whinny... people...

Did any of you complaining about this actually intent to PLAY your games or were you just going to look at them and marvel at how much better then look in HD?

And as for "why can't Nintendo just match the competition?" that so many people are crying? THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO!

This is their business and they're run it however they like. If you don't like that, go somewhere else. Seems you all just want Nintendo to put out an X360 or PS3 clone anyway. Nintendo is not Sony. Nintendo is no Microsoft. Get that through your heads and maybe you won't fly in rages whenever they decide to do something different from other companies.

You wanna complain about HD? Why not moan about the lack of a harddrive? How about the fact that it won't play Blu-Ray movies or that it doesn't have a built in DVR! Those are all going to sell SOOOO MANY MORE consoles!... to people who probably won't be using them to play games with.

Sony and MS are diffusing the market and eventually, actually already, it's going to have a negative impact on games. I buy these systems for one thing: GAMES. I don't care about all the other flashy crap that makers cram into their systems to lure customers that have little to no interest in games just so they can have inflated installed numbers.

So many people are forgetting about the games. Where will they be when we're all forced to buy Sony or Microsoft's next behemoth entertainment box that's major selling point is everything it can do? What happens to games then? On of the most expensive and LEAST profitable industries.

Sony's talk about how the PlayStation was NEVER about video games. I can tell you right now that that scares the hell out of me. And I'll say one more thing in reguards to all of this:

I TOLD YOU SO.

Video games are in their death throw... not with a bang but a whimper. I'll see how many of you are still around come the funeral.

[oohhboy]

I would pay an extra 25 bucks if I could hook it up to a computer moniter. I got heaps of those. But forget about HDTV. Don't need it. I play DVDs on my computer and is just as enjoyable as any TV.

New Zealand beside DVDs don't have any HD content. There is wider screen stuff which you can watch squish on a Standard TV, but that isn't HD. Basicly, even wide screen TVs are a waste here.

I am unconcerned with these rumours.

[Pittbboi]

People have as much right to complain as you do the right to complain about their complaining.


My gripe isn't with not having HD compatibility--I personally couldn't care less. I don't have an HDTV, and I won't for quite some time. However, I agree with whoever it was that said that Nintendo is making this decision based on the market now, and not on what it could be in the future. HDtv might not be popular now, but it will be soon--it's the future of entertainment, and there's no denying that.

Right now, Nintendo is making they're console look not too pretty. So far, the only reasons worth buying it are:

--Access to all of Nintendo's past games.
--Some mysterious "revolutionary" secret that might be a gimmick and, if Nintendo's past is to be considered, could very well be a gimmick.

However, reasons making it not worth buying:
--System with the gauranteed worst third party support of the three right out of the box.
--System rumored to be vastly underpowered.
--No HD support.
--Rumored to be the last console released.

Not looking too good for Nintendo. It's not about matching the competition in the "who's d!ck is bigger" contest. It's about matching the competition in features that developers might find useful, and the consumer might find appealing. Nintendo didn't have to release a hard drive if it has SD cards--it's still providing a way to save files on your console. It didn't have to go the route of blu-ray or HD-DVD, dual layered DVDs are still more than enough, and it won't be the only one (Xbox) doing so. It will, however, be the only console not supporting HD, and for no apparent reason. This sets Nintendo apart from the competition, yes--but not in a good way.  

[jarob]

Yes it is their business and it is their right to run it into the ground also.  Nintendo use to be #1, now they are #3.  Does that bother you a little?  It sure bothers me.  They should be #1.  They keep on making the same mistakes every generation.  No cd, no online, and now no HD?  Come on.  N is on a downward slope. They have lost counless fans to the PS and XBox in this generation.  I sure hope the Revolution is Revolutionary to get some of those fans back.  You can not expect a company to keep loosing market share and stay in business.

[BigJim]

So their approach might be a very detailed standard definition picture rather than a big HD picture with potential fill rate issues.

I think this is somewhat short-sighted, but probably not entirely damning... that is, until Sony and MS start making Revolution look weak in their PR pushes. It might be easier to let this slide if Nintendo would stop living 3 feet up their own ass and show Revolution in action. Then we could judge.

Of course, now I have this HDTV and won't have HD games to show for it. Sigh.

While most people may not be ready for HD, these cost-cutting choices Nintendo makes are still noteworthy. The people that care about these kinds of technical things help create the buzz about the product. They themselves may only account for a small percentage of sales, but they are often responsible for additional sales due to recommendations, etc. The "buzz" factor.

[KDR_11k]

Rumored to be the last console released.

Why is that a reason not to buy it? Nintendo isn't going to drop it after a year like Sega did with the Dreamcast and I'm sure they won't abandon the market before they've taken huge losses and tried multiple times with no success. In other words, even if the Rev is a desaster from a business standpoint they're likely to release at least one console after it to see if they can do better.

I don't think anyone but that idiot from Team Ninja (forgot his name, Itagaki or something?) is going to avoid the Rev because it lacks HD support. After all, you have to make your game play on SD anyway and can't say "but HD was a crucial feature" because then you'd be alienating a HUGE number of potential buyers.

denjet: Yes, the games are the main point but that doesn't mean you can neglect everything else. The PS2 has nice games but its interface is annoying and the graphics consistently force a certain style (there's just something that all PS2 games share).