Topic: EDITORIAL: The HD Debacle

[Dirk Temporo]

"...The one time saving of a hundred dollars (give or take)..."

...

Does that mean HD support would make the system cost $100 more...?

[BigJim]

Not sure what to take away from the editorial. It used all the buzzwords. In a nutshell it says that, all things being equal (and we don't know if they are), a standard definition image *might* look better than HD in *some* ways because of the GPU being less taxed by a big resolution.

Well, yeah. I don't know if we needed a technical lesson to get that point across. The editorial's answer: support widescreen. I'm not sure that was the question being asked. I guess he's saying, "if nothing else, at least support that."

If, it might, it may, sometimes, I believe.... There are a lot of if/but/maybe/might/shoulda/woulda/coulda's. We don't even know the nature of Revolution yet. Nintendo has been more willing to tell us what it's *not* than what it *is*.


The bottom line for me is this. Nintendo has a history of letting their game designers dictate the hardware. There is wisdom in this, but there are reasonable limits. This is not a hardware cost issue. No HD for Revolution means their own art department's costs are controlled, so to hell with everybody else.

Pop your bubble and smell the fresh air, Nintendo. Doing things "your way" has reduced your marketshare in half for 3 generations, and your mindshare down to an afterthought in the mass media.

Until they figure it out, claiming to have a pulse on the gamer and knowing what they want holds little merit with me.    

[jarob]

As someone else has said, PC games are above the 640 by 480 resolution as standard now.  There is little if no slow down in the games I play.  And I have a older Ati card.  Just imagine what Nintendos new ATi card can do.  

[Rize]

Yeah, PC games are far beyond 640x480 now.  Only the oldest of cards have to run any game in that resolution.  At the same time, a console chipset optimized for that resolution could have the additional power targetted in such ways that would not be useful in PC development.  FMV proves that there is still plenty to squeeze from good old 480i.  The worst thing is that 480i just doesn't look good on a 16:9 digital tv.  And that's the optimal way to play the system that will be on the market a year earlier, and also the system that is the successor to the current market leader (by far).  Unless the revolutionary feature of the Rev (which I won't even bother to speculate about at this point) is unbelievable, Nintendo will be starting in third place.  It may be a superficial third place, but for many, especially at the start, that's all that matters.

[stevey]

At e3 didn't someone say the rev can hook up to a computer monitor? So why not mod the wire and hook it up to a HD-TV? The only bad thing from doing that is it be in a 4:3 HD TV.  

[trip1eX]

I don't think Nintendo will require widescreen support.  

It looks like they are going the DS route with their next gen console.  So imagine the 360 and PS3 are the PSP.  And the Revolution is the DS.  What are the differences between the PSP and DS?  The PSP looks alot better and is widescreen and more powerful.  The DS tho is $100 cheaper and has dual screens and touchscreen and built in mic.  Expect the same differentiation with the REvolution.

Nintendo will able to do some interesting things by staying at 480i.  Maybe mix in some full video into their games.  They'll surely be able render lots more objects at 480i.  And the games will surely look better than the Gamecube's.  That excites me.

Anyway NIntendo is conservative.  They don't want to break the bank on hdtv support when most folks don't have hdtv.  I think the penetration in Japan and Europe is even less than the U.S.  for instance.  Can you imagine how many folks in Japan have the 42" TV in their home?  I think Nintendo will cater to their home market first.  

I did read they will have vga out support.  IF that's true than they must support 480p.  Perhaps they'll even support 800x600.  

Anyway even for those that have hdtv in their, how much of your gaming will be done on one?  Alot of folks seem to have the consoles in their bedrooms or guest rooms or can only play in the living room when Mom, DAd, Wife, Husband, Brother, Sister, etc aren't in there.

[Rize]

"At e3 didn't someone say the rev can hook up to a computer monitor? So why not mod the wire and hook it up to a HD-TV? The only bad thing from doing that is it be in a 4:3 HD TV."

True.  And of course this is a 4:3 signal, but a widescreen TV can stretch the signal just as it would any 4:3 signal, so if the game has a 16:9 mode then you're good to go.

A game doesn't even need 480p to use 16:9.  You can plug a plain old 480i signal into a widescreen TV and use a 16:9 mode.  For example, Perfect Dark and Goldeneye on the N64.

[Ian Sane]

"It looks like they are going the DS route with their next gen console. So imagine the 360 and PS3 are the PSP. And the Revolution is the DS. What are the differences between the PSP and DS? The PSP looks alot better and is widescreen and more powerful. The DS tho is $100 cheaper and has dual screens and touchscreen and built in mic. Expect the same differentiation with the REvolution."

I don't think that would be a great strategy.  The DS can get away with being technically inferior because of two things:

1. It's a portable and people have lower standards for acceptable portable graphics.
2. Nintendo is the absolute king of the portable market and the DS benefits greatly from being associated with the Gameboy (despite Nintendo's efforts to push it as a third pillar).

People expect cutting edge graphics on consoles so the Rev just plain cannot have significantly weaker hardware than the PS3 and Xbox 360 and expect to be taken seriously, even if the big feature is really great.  The Rev also lacks the strong brand image that Nintendo has in the portable market.  In the console market the Nintendo brand is not very popular.  There already is a negative bias towards the Rev just because it is the followup to the Cube.  Inferior hardware compared to the competition would just fuel the negative bias.  The DS strategy relies on people giving the system a chance.  The Rev can't rely on anyone to do that.  It has to wow everyone at first glance.

[KDR_11k]

The Rev better be close to the other consoles in power or they're going to see that third party support CAN get worse. Seriously, I believe the only reason games were made at all for the PS2 was because of the userbase. If it was in a distant third place noone would bother because the efford needed is too high.

RE4 uses widescreen. That was the only game that looked right on our family widescreen TV. I suppose it would have looked better had I not enabled 60Hz because I doubt it does 100Hz with 60Hz input signals but whatever.

[Rize]

Don't assume that developers will avoid the rev because it's weak.  They may flock to it because it's weak (much cheaper to make a game).  If the installed base is high enough and there is a need for games, publishers will fill it.  Especially if it's relatively inexpensive to do so.

[trip1eX]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane

I don't think that would be a great strategy.  The DS can get away with being technically inferior because of two things:

1. It's a portable and people have lower standards for acceptable portable graphics.
2. Nintendo is the absolute king of the portable market and the DS benefits greatly from being associated with the Gameboy (despite Nintendo's efforts to push it as a third pillar).

People expect cutting edge graphics on consoles so the Rev just plain cannot have significantly weaker hardware than the PS3 and Xbox 360 and expect to be taken seriously, even if the big feature is really great.  The Rev also lacks the strong brand image that Nintendo has in the portable market.  In the console market the Nintendo brand is not very popular.  There already is a negative bias towards the Rev just because it is the followup to the Cube.  Inferior hardware compared to the competition would just fuel the negative bias.  The DS strategy relies on people giving the system a chance.  The Rev can't rely on anyone to do that.  It has to wow everyone at first glance.

WEll the REv can be $100 less and inferior like the GAmecube was to the Xbox. INferior tho meaning almost as good.  I mean look at RE4.  So they'll go that route again plus throw in some DS differentation by adding some new techs to their controller.  NOt to mention the whole download thing and the Gamecube backward compatibility.  Plus it looks like they'll offer DVD playback as a peripheral for those that want such a thing.

Nintendo is going after profit not market share per se.  MS can lose $3 bil and not blink.  Nintendo can't.

Also not sure I buy that Nintendo can't be less powerful and still get third party support.  PCs run games at different resolutions and the games are made to run on machines with a wide variety of power.  3rd parties could easily port to the REvolution even if it's less powerful.  IT just depends on whether the userbase is there.

[TheZooKeeper]

Very good article. I've been trying to promote this view and it's nice to see someone on a mojor site explaining it so clearly. Could you make sure Matt from IGN gives this a quick read? That would be great.

I'd like to point out, though, that I disagree with the average person seeing a greater difference between HD resolutions vs improved pixel shading (and other rendering enhancements). Putting a better rendered 480p up-scaled image on a plasma screen side-by-side with a less-well rendered image on the same screen at 720p, I bet the average consumer will be more impressed with the 480p version. Just my 2 cents.  

[KDR_11k]

Don't assume that developers will avoid the rev because it's weak. They may flock to it because it's weak (much cheaper to make a game).

Unless the Rev is the dominant console and has good third party sales the third parties will make their games for the X360 first and then try to port to PS3 and Rev. If porting to Rev doesn't work they'll skip that. Especially if the Rev ends up like the GC with ports not exactly being worth the effort bewcause noone buys them.

[Rize]

"Putting a better rendered 480p up-scaled image on a plasma screen side-by-side with a less-well rendered image on the same screen at 720p, I bet the average consumer will be more impressed with the 480p version. Just my 2 cents."

Well, it depends on how much better obviously.  A minor bump would not look as good as HD.  But if the full power of an HD console was devoted to making a good 480p game instead of a720p capable game, it could be significantly better.  But will the rev have the full power of an HD console?

"Unless the Rev is the dominant console and has good third party sales the third parties will make their games for the X360 first and then try to port to PS3 and Rev. If porting to Rev doesn't work they'll skip that. Especially if the Rev ends up like the GC with ports not exactly being worth the effort bewcause noone buys them."

That's exactly it.  What if the rev's controller is so different and the graphics so much worse that they didn't bother with ports, but went for unique games.  Revolution adopters would be much more likely to by unique games and they may not cost any more than a big budget port.

I don't think the Revolution will be that weak though.  I think it'll be at least as capable (although in non HD resolution) as the 360 and PS3.

[KDR_11k]

But if the full power of an HD console was devoted to making a good 480p game instead of a720p capable game, it could be significantly better.

Not really. Not many objects need pixel shaders and you'd have to pretty much overload the scene with them to make much of a difference. Besides, most stores will just throw a multiplatform game in there and there goes your advantage.

that they didn't bother with ports, but went for unique games.

You mean "went for no games" because I can't see them risking money on a console they believe will fail and have a userbase that won't buy their game anyway when the dev costs are this high. The DS can get away with that to some degree, it's so underpowered the games are really cheap to make but current gen games are expensive enough for them not to risk putting something on the Rev and the Rev only. You definitely overestimate the cost difference HD will make. A Rev game will still be more expensive to make than a GC game and a GC game is already too expensive for experiments unless you're Capcom. IOW Capcom might support it and sell pretty low while not contributing anything to the Rev sales while the rest of the world ignores the rev completely.

[Rize]

"A Rev game will still be more expensive to make than a GC game"

A good looking rev game.  Not all games have to be good looking.  Look at the number of 2D DS games in the works.  Nintendo gamers are known for valuing gameplay over graphics.  If a publisher thinks they can publish a fun game with mediocre graphcis that exploits the rev's unique interface and make a few bucks, they'll do it.

"Not really. Not many objects need pixel shaders and you'd have to pretty much overload the scene with them to make much of a difference. Besides, most stores will just throw a multiplatform game in there and there goes your advantage."

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  In the latest pixel shading engines (Doom 3 and Unreal 3) EVERY single pixel needs shading, and most pixels need the same amount of shading.  What you can do with 3x the shading power is increase shader quality across the board.  Or add new shading effects.  It has nothing to do with adding more objects that need pixel shading.  Every object needs pixel shading.  And Nintendo can send out demo disks (with multiple games and videos) which will give stores an obvious and completely Nintendo controlled catalogue of demos.  Of course Nintendo will focus on the rev's unique capabilities not graphics.

[nemo_83]

I read the article, but I don't have time yet to read the three pages of lengthy discussion so I'm just going to speak about the article.

I see where you're coming from about resolution; and the kiosks example was a great one.  I too have been thinking of the effects of that on buyers in stores.

Early adopters and hardcore gamers go hand and hand it seems.  The people these companies rely on to buy consoles the first day are the hardcore gamers yet the consoles aimed at hardcore gamers do not always succeed.  Just look at Saturn, Dreamcast, and Xbox.  HD support from software makers benefits Sony and that is why they seem so reliant upon it.  They make tvs and soon are to be entrenched in Blue Ray technology.  Their Playstation brand is a way of getting consumers to buy their other more profitable products.  Nintendo benefits none from this.  Thus the logic suggests Nintendo seek an alternative avenue such as a visor which can still attract hardcore gamers.  They do not wish to limit themselves to the American market via high resolution.  Plus I know people who claim they want to buy HD tvs eventually, but I see no way of it happening.  People in America have bigger eyes than they do walets.  I can say I am planning on getting a HD tv eventually, but truthfully the economy, inflation, and the job market are sucking the joy out of life.  Who is to say that things won't be even worse in three years than they are now?  Gas prices could be five or six dollars a gallon.  Who is going to be worried about resolution on their tv then?

Moderator: Ixnay on the politics.  They are completely off-topic here.

[KDR_11k]

A good looking rev game. Not all games have to be good looking.

Yes but why complain about hardware at all then? You could just as well make a bad looking XBox 360 game.
They won't test the waters with bad looking games because then they wouldn't know if it was the idea or the graphics that scared people away if it doesn't sell.

As for the per-pixel lighting, the X360 and PS3 can handle fairly advanced stuff at 1080p. If there were shaders that required so much more they'd work only in SD you could expect devs to make them optional, i.e. they only trigger when the game is run at 480 on the X360 and PS3.

[nickmitch]

But the casuals won't buy a bad looking game. We can't forget that we must appeal to this group AND that group.  

[KDR_11k]

How about doing that with different games?

[nemo_83]

One thing that gives me second thoughts on hi def's success in gaming is how well systems like Saturn did.  Saturn was the previous gen with more pixels; isn't that exactly what HD is about.

P.S. Sorry, about the political joke in my previous post; I was trying to lighten the mood.  I guess I have developed a gallows humor.  Most every proffessor I take, every author I read; every comic I watch uses politics for jokes and it bleeds through.  

[Rize]

"As for the per-pixel lighting, the X360 and PS3 can handle fairly advanced stuff at 1080p. If there were shaders that required so much more they'd work only in SD you could expect devs to make them optional, i.e. they only trigger when the game is run at 480 on the X360 and PS3."

Most devs will be lazy and optimize the game for the min spec though.  Also it may not be quite so easy to just turn on better shaders for a game that is simultanously being optimized for a number of different resolutions.

But it is defintely possible for a 360 or PS3 dev to have better shaders at regular resolution.

[mantidor]

Quote
Originally posted by: Rize
Why is this debate a farce?
You can easily notice the difference between 640x480 and 800x600 on a 15 inch computer monitor.  I'm quite sure people will see a significant difference between 720p and 480i even on 20 inch sets.

Thats because we see computer monitors at a distance of two feets at most. People dont normally watch TV so close, specially if you have a huge TV.

And I also didnt find any difference in the doom screenshots until you pointed out the floor, and I really dont think Ill notice the difference when Im playing the game, its not like I stare at the floor for thirty seconds and see how defined it is, I just go in to kill some mosters. Graphics easily go to second or third in importance (and sometimes to no importance at all) once you are into the game.

[Rize]

Not so.  In a game like Metroid Prime where things often move more slowly and atmosphere is created by graphics, increased fidelity can go a long way.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Not sure where to put this and not really sure if anyone cares, but here is a debate on HD & More....
http://www.nintendonow.com/index.php?categoryid=5&m_articles_articleid=2778">Roundtable: David Gornoski(Nintendo Now) and Matt Casamassina(IGN) Discuss HD and More

Quote
David:  We have no clue how the Revolution's graphics will look. We're only assuming they will look worse because the execs have said they are not looking to beef up horsepower. But as we've seen with Japanese imports, more horsepower does not necessarily mean better performance.  So which would you prefer: solid frame rates w/ no HD or poor frame rates w/ HD?

Matt: Tough one. I'm a stickler for fluidity, so I'd go with frame-rates.  Still, we don't know for sure if HD games will really run bad on these new consoles. It's a potential problem articulated by one developer.

Quote
Matt: Yes. Xbox Live was perhaps the biggest innovation this generation. Nintendo copied Sony's EyeToy, meanwhile. To say that neither challenger is innovating is absurd. Fact is all of the companies innovate. However, with Nintendo, it oftentimes seems to come at the expense of technology, at least where next-generation consoles are concerned.

???huh???