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

[jarob]

kairon, you sure have a lot to say :-)  I dont know why people here are defending Nintendo so much in their decision not to have HD support in the Revolution.  Nintendo is not always right folks.  HD is the future whether people here want to admit it or not.  (I can hear people here saying we dont need no stinking color tv, games look and play great on my black and white tv).  I play PC games in high resoution, since there is very little if any slowdown.  And this is with previous gen Ati card. Nintendo should have HD support, if N does not want to use it then fine.  Let other developers use it.  I honestly dont see why they would not include it.  

[Artimus]

I just don't get why not. Make it optional.

They could just be testing the field, of course.

[heinous_anus]

"And where does the HD issue stand here? If Nintendo doesn't intend to make 1080p games, then it's a waste of money to them. And third parties may want to take advantage of it, but Nintendo probably sees 1080p support as something that can distract companies from concentrating on new gameplay instead of slicker graphics, and something that can tempt developers to make "pretty" games instead of good ones."

This is a pretty big assumption - that companies will be making games (read: companies=third parties) first and foremost on the Revolution.

What people are worrying about, and I don't know why this specifically isn't being talked up as much, are the potential ports from other systems.  Just like the Cube, we can expect to see games created/optimized on the other two systems, and then ported to the Rev.  Why is it so wrong to ask for a comparable (HD-supported) version on the Rev?  As someone said here, or maybe on IGN, if companies like EA and Ubi are going to make their games HD-aware to begin with on PS3 and 360, what's the harm in the Rev having it...but not demanding its use out of Nintendo's own teams and third-party exclusives?

Ian's original point that he's made before has still NEVER been addressed, that this is something that Nintendo can "fix" far ahead of time and make for a more equal playing ground, whether real or only perceived, when it launches.  Is there any harm in including HD support?  No.  Might there be potential harm in NOT including it?  Yes.

Also, Nintendo software and third-party software are not mutually exclusive.  If the PS3 and the Xbox360 get a game from, say, Ubi or Rockstar, there's no reason why we can't demand a version for the Revolution, or complain if it doesn't come.

[Artimus]

IGN has a campaign to mail Nintendo if you disagree with this.

I'm on the fence as whether or not to mail.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Could some please list all the known ED/HD resolutions and their respective aspect ratios?  I'm in a math mood.

[Mario]

Quote
Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire were amazing, Gold/Silver/Fire Red/Leaf Green are all amazingly disappointing games that no one seems to want to admit.

Of course, this is all preference, I do think Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire are amazing, but Gold/Silver/Leaf/Fire are just as good, ESPECIALLY Gold/Silver, which I consider to have the best Pokemon.

[anubis6789]

I put a link earlier in the thread, involving the 18 ATSC standards, but I can understand not wanting to trek through this now juggernaut of a topic to find it.

So here it is.

The information you seek should be at the bottom of the page.

*EDIT:By the way this is in regards to Professional 666's question.*

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Thanks a bunch, much appreciated.

[Chris1]

well I emailed nintendo about the lack of hd, anyone else do it?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Some personal thoughts after reading the ATSC format chart.

I noticed all the HDTV standards have widescreen/16:9 aspect ratios.  Since all the TVs I've used in my immediate life (in my house, in my friends' house, and just about anywhere else that's not a Best Buy) for playing games are in 4:3 aspect ratio, I have little care for widescreen gaming.  The little amount of TV I DO watch (Mail Call, baby!) is in 4:3, not 16:9, and I don't see much widescreen programming on the cable channels I frequent, either.

Sure I buy/watch widescreen movies, and I don't mind seeing my 4:3 TVs letterbox the image.  Strangely, I feel cheated when I have to watch a 4:3 program on a widescreen TV, seeing the image stretched horizontally OR putting vertical black bars on the sides, and I'll end up wishing that this widescreen TV was simply taller to give me the proper viewing dimensions -- HEY, why not just get a BIGGER 4:3 TV instead (that includes special widescreen mode)?

I'm wondering if Nintendo (the developer) as well has little care for widescreen gaming.  Might they just want to save development resources by focusing their games exclusively on 4:3 viewing and forget about 16:9?  GUI's and HUD's and camera angles are put into consideration.  "Oh hay you can see more of the ground in Zelda while in widescreen!" -- I already have a big TV, I'll just zoom the camera out a bit, thanks.  But I can see how maybe shooters and racers directly benefit from the expanded viewing field, but not Mario Tennis or a fighting game whose 1-on-1 combatants are generally in close proximity to each other and tend not to fly into the air.

[anubis6789]

I'm with you Professional, Widescreen is not all it is cracked up to be (unless we are talking about movies originaly shot in that aspect).

To me the biggest achievment brought about by the ATSC standards is progressive scan, which actually has a lot of things it could do for gaming, at least in my opinion.

[Nile Boogie]

Cost can't be the issue if the Playstaion 2 can do 1080i(GT4).  

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: jarob
kairon, you sure have a lot to say :-)  I dont know why people here are defending Nintendo so much in their decision not to have HD support in the Revolution.  Nintendo is not always right folks.  HD is the future whether people here want to admit it or not.  (I can hear people here saying we dont need no stinking color tv, games look and play great on my black and white tv).  I play PC games in high resoution, since there is very little if any slowdown.  And this is with previous gen Ati card. Nintendo should have HD support, if N does not want to use it then fine.  Let other developers use it.  I honestly dont see why they would not include it.

It isn't a question of whether Nintendo should be criticized or not. I'm simply proposing that instead of passing judgement as if the only factor of our approval was marketshare, we instead look at the issue all-inclusively, seeing Nintendo as just one actor in a large industry, and as an actor who has their own personal share of quirks.

There's no question at all that we would all prefer HD support to non-HD support. But whereas some seem to think that this is a reason to stress, to moan, to threaten doom and gloom and start up name-calling, I'd rather think a Nintendo fan would be fascinated by exactly how different Nintendo is from everyone else, and be intrigued enough to wonder by what process Nintendo got there. We all love Nintendo for the games, and if we stay centered on that, then examining Nintendo's though processes becomes an examination of why they make the games they do. And out of that, I'd expect that instead of stating whether Nintendo is arbitrarily "right" or "wrong" (again, using the $ as the basis for all calculations), we'd instead learn to respect Nintendo as something special and unique in today's industry... and perhaps even treasure that.

Quote
Ian's original point that he's made before has still NEVER been addressed, that this is something that Nintendo can "fix" far ahead of time and make for a more equal playing ground, whether real or only perceived, when it launches. Is there any harm in including HD support? No. Might there be potential harm in NOT including it? Yes.

The reason I'm not addressing this point is because it's obvious and true. But it has little relation to what I'm imparting, because this point is looking at an issue from a purely "market" perspective. My argument is that while we can certainly discuss market issues, our appreciation for Nintendo should be rooted in the games they make, and not at all proportional to marketshare percentages we can brag about to others. As Nintendo fans, the games should always come first, and the most wholesome way to look at this HD decision is to see how the issue relates to Nintendo's idea of gaming.

Nintendo needs to be successful in the market, sure. But that's a cursory issue to the information we can glean from little controversial snippets like this. You can stress yourself over marketshare and industry happenings and the need to be "Number 1!" all you want, but if you truly want to understand Nintendo games and want to understand how they do what they do, you have to look at them with an entirely different mindset then the one that dictates what stock you buy.

That's why I consider myself a Nintendo fan, because I'm interested in learning about their games, how they make the games, and what that means for videogames as a whole. Nintendo is never going to be important to me because they control more or less marketshare, they'll be important to me because they are the only ones in the world who can make games of Nintendo style and Nintendo caliber.

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[SgtShiversBen]

Well this is from another website "Nintendowned" and it has a pretty interesting little news blurb:

"It's being widely claimed that a post on blogsite Nintendo Centrium has revealed the specifications of Nintendo's next-generation Revolution console.  The specs hint at a system with impressive graphic capabilities but also a machine designed with high-definition output in mind, a feature that Nintendo have already ruled out in an interview with IGN.com last week.

Supposedly, the source is a programmer contracted by Nintendo to work on software for the DS handheld, so we wouldn't quite take these specs as gospel just yet, especially with Nintendo refusing to comment on the matter. For what it's worth though, the list claims Revolution will run on two 1.8Ghz IBM PowerPC G5 processors, and will sport a 600Mhz graphics chip from ATI and a 7.1 Digital Sound chipset.

The system will also boast 128MB of high speed 1T SRAM as main memory, along with 256MB of slower DRAM, and the games will be appearing on Panasonic-designed 6GB proprietary DVD-size discs.

(Speculative) Nintendo Revolution Specifications

2 G5 1.8GHZ CPUS
512K L2 Cache
1200 MHZ Front Side BUS
600MHz GPU with 12MB embedded 1T SRAM
128MB 1T SRAM MAIN MEMORY 600 MHz (L3 Cache to CPU and GPU)
256MB 400MHZ NEC design embedded DRAM
Embedded 16-BIT HD 7.1 Digital sound chip
Dedicated sound bandwidth will not affect CPU
6GB HD Dual Layer Panasonic Discs
3:1 balance between CPU and RAM
1:1 balance between GPU and RAM"

Whether or not this is true, especially the specs part is up for grabs.  

[KDR_11k]

You continually discount marketshare as something that's only there for bragging. You do remember that with more marketshare more third parties will come? Don't give me the "but I only want Nintendo games" or the "you can buy all three systems if you want third party games" excuse. Excuses are just that, excuses. They mean you are content with that flaw and don't want to correct it. In other words, "we have created the most beautiful thing in the world".

SgtShiversBen: That's the same bullsh#t specs that were posted in three other threads already. Please, do NOT draw any conclusions from "leaked" specs because you're basing your argument on false information. You can immediately discount any information that claims Nintendo uses G5 processors, especially multicore ones because those are expensive and hot chips that aren't suited for consoles, especially not the kind Nintendo wants to build.

[SgtShiversBen]

Hey, just posting things I find.  I'm not basing my opinions on anything yet.  I personally don't care about specs because I know I'm going to have fun either way.

Thing that interested me was the 6GB Panasonic Disc most of all.  So yeah, not jumping to anything KDR.  

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Quote
Originally posted by: Nile Boogie
Cost can't be the issue if the Playstaion 2 can do 1080i(GT4).

I believe that was a matter of what the developer had to sacrifice.  Here, have some awesome hi-rezness -- oh but we can only allow 6 cars at a time, sry (i read in a review only 6 cars were allowed, so i don't know).

I don't know if interlacing affects the fill-rate demands on the console.  Is progressive more demanding than interlaced?  Cuz we could take a (60hz) 1080i image, separate the fields, then collapse them, which would yield progressive frames with half the height (540 lines high).  So in the case of GT4, is the PS2 only drawing/filling half of each frame -- using interlacing to take advantage of a higher resolution?

Personally, I like progressive all the way, baby.  I'm looking at YOU, Mario Power Tennis.

[nolimit19]

marketshare is only relavent when it comes to 3rd party support, and even then, im not so sure. the percent of market share by nintendo and my post is a train wreck is not proportionate to the amount of 3rd party support the two consoles get. i dont know what nintendo is doing wrong, but its more than just market share. i have heard before that nintendo makes its 3rd party supports pay more in royalties than the other consoles...i dont know if thats true, but if it is, i guess it would explain a lot.

[Nile Boogie]

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666

Quote
Originally posted by: Nile Boogie
Cost can't be the issue if the Playstaion 2 can do 1080i(GT4).

I believe that was a matter of what the developer had to sacrifice.  Here, have some awesome hi-rezness -- oh but we can only allow 6 cars at a time, sry (i read in a review only 6 cars were allowed, so i don't know).

I don't know if interlacing affects the fill-rate demands on the console.  Is progressive more demanding than interlaced?  Cuz we could take a (60hz) 1080i image, separate the fields, then collapse them, which would yield progressive frames with half the height (540 lines high).  So in the case of GT4, is the PS2 only drawing/filling half of each frame -- using interlacing to take advantage of a higher resolution?

Personally, I like progressive all the way, baby.  I'm looking at YOU, Mario Power Tennis.

No one ever thought the PS2 could do such a thing. 480p was the most you could get out of just a few games. I can see no big difference between 1080i and 720p, both look really clean and crisp. Other than DD5.1 what can the PS2 do that the GameCube cant? Nothing. I bet the GameCube could push 1080i if the really wanted. Therefore if A=B and B=C then Revolution will be able to do 1080i regardless(A=C).  Furthermore, I refuse to believe they will not include the Componet Video Out. 480p is not HD, although you can cheat the system to make the Digital Out convert up to higher standards.

...or maybe there is no such thing as HI-DEF 3DVR( Boy do I love beating the that horse.)

[anubis6789]

Regarding GT4 being 1080i, it is just a lower resolution, the dimensions of which I can not remember, stretched to fit a 1080i signal. It is not a "true" 180i signal. Think of it this way, if the Xbox barley does 1080i what makes you think the PS2 could do better?

As far as Dolby Digital 5.1 goes only a few PS2 games can be run with it going in real time (basically anything not pre-rendered), most of the PS2 games that have in game surround are actually using PL II.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I see, so GT4 really is just running on a stretched rez (1080i/60hz) -- then I'm not impressed.  Give me the real deal, 1080p/60hz!  I have a hard time swallowing the notion of only 6 cars after the likes of Burnout 2 & 3.

Video capturing is my hobby, so i battle with interlaced fields everyday.  I wish interlacing was eliminated and everything ran in progressive.

[BlackGriffen]

This was the email I sent to NOA on the matter:

Quote
I will not buy a console that is going to be a dead end, period. It's bad enough that the Revolution is planned to not support the impending broadcast standard in the United States. What's worse is the bad publicity it will generate. It will kill the Revolution before it launches.

Every relevant argument given in favor of excluding HD output only applies to not making HD mandatory for developers. Not making HD mandatory is acceptable. Excluding HD entirely is not.

The GameCube supports 480p. At bare minimum, the Revolution should offer support of at least one 16:9 format. It's 50% more pixels per second to push than 480p, but it would look better than any 4:3 format on an HD television. Even better would be if the Rev supported 1080i like the XBox. Best would be support for 1080p, but I won't hold my breath.

Considering that Nintendo is working with ATI, a PC graphics chip manufacturer, and graphics chips are designed to run computer displays at resolutions in excess of 1280 by 1024, a resolution with 26% more pixels than 1080i, I would expect no less from Nintendo's next console. Consider this graphics card:

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=320776

by ATI. It has 32MB of video RAM and is based on 3 year old technology. In the manufacturer's specifications, it states:

" -Crisp and clear 32-bit 3D resolutions up to 1900 x 1200"

Given that the Rev should have more video RAM than that, it should be able to perform better than that. Now, I understand that there are issues of frame rate and effects to consider but 1080i, which is less than half of the pixels, is perfectly reasonable.

My Real Name
Proud owner of every Nintendo console ever made, but having serious doubts about the Revolution and Nintendo's future.

This was the canned response:

Quote
Message(#6851-000443-3918\4433918)

Hi!

Thanks for letting us know how you feel.  We appreciate you giving us your feedback and we will be forwarding it on to the appropriate people for review.

There will be more details released about the Revolution in the future so stay tuned to www.nintendo.com for more information.  We are confident that gamers and non-gamers alike will support our focus on fun, innovation, and affordability.  Once you have a chance to play games on the Revolution, we think you will!  

Sincerely,

Nintendo of America Inc.

Nintendo's home page: http://www.nintendo.com/
Power Line (Automated Product Info): (425) 885-7529

-----
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
[...]

For those not initiated, here is how to calculate the number of pixels a card has to push per frame:
4:3 aspect ratio - square the height (in pixels) then multiply by 4/3
16:9 (all HD) - square the height then multiply by 16/9
all others: multiply height by width
if interlaced - divide by 2

For comparison's sake, I'm going to list some common resolutions and their total pixels along with a percentage increase over the previous size.
480i: 153600 (N/A)
480p: 307200 (100%)
720i: 460800 (50%)
1024 X 768: 786432 (70.7%) <- Very common, not high res at all, computer monitor resolution (I don't know if they make monitors with a lower native resolution than this any more)
720p: 921600 (17.2%)
1080i: 1036800 (12.5%)
1280 X 1024: 1310720 (26.4%) <- Another common monitor resolution
1080p: 2073600 (58.2%)
1900 X 1200: 2280000 (10.0%) <- Resolution mentioned in the specs for a Radeon 7000 GPU with 32 MB of VRAM (ie dirt cheap and old as the hills).

Now, consider the ATI Mobility Radeon X800 XT benchmarks at the link. Remember that this is a mobility product so they should be able to squeeze it in to the Rev's small form factor.

To summarize the results, I'll list the games that make the cut (about 60 fps or more) and those that don't to give you some idea of the graphic quality you could expect on a screen this size at full frame rate.

Game List: Doom 3, Far Cry, Half Life 2, Splinter Cell: CT, UT 2004
1280 X 1024, full effects: + = Half Life 2, Far Cry
ditto, no effects: + = Doom 3, Far Cry, Half Life 2, Splinter Cell
1680 X 1050 (17.6% more pixels to get 1080p), full effects: + = Half Life 2
ditto, no effects: + = Half Life 2, Far Cry, Doom 3 (almost)

So, if Nintendo doesn't support more than 1080i, it should be able to do just fine.

This also isn't about developers, because then Nintendo would only have to make HD support optional. There are only two reasons I can come up with to make this decision:

1 - save a few cents on every console manufactured, assuming Nintendo will save more than the profits from the lost console and game sales.
2 - Nintendo doesn't want to look bad for not supporting HD with its in house software.

Bottom line: if Nintendo supports 1080i I'll be happy, if Nintendo supports 720i I'll grumble but accept it, but if Nintendo doesn't support HD at all I say screw Nintendo.

BlackGriffen

[Ian Sane]

BlackGriffen I think your letter makes your point well but it's a little harsh.  I think a company is less likely to listen to you if you start a letter with "I will not buy a console that is going to be a dead end, period."  I think it makes a good forum post or editorial but I think it would work better to be friendly, like you're a really devoted fan who is disappointed you won't be able to make full use of your HDTV.  You're saying the Rev is doomed without it.  Nintendo's reaction will probably be "who's this nobody to question how we do business?"  But if you ask specifically for HD support then you're a fan who is interested in the feature and thus Nintendo's reaction would be more like "hey one of our fans wants HD support, maybe we should reconsider."

I think the best way to get Nintendo to change their mind is if we act like we want and will use HD.  That way to appears to them that there's interest.

Edit:  Okay I just sent them this letter.

I am a current Gamecube and GBA owner and I am considering purchasing Nintendo's next console, the Revolution.  However in a recent article on IGN, Perrin Kaplan revealed that at the present time there are no plans to support high-definition on the Revolution.

I currently connect my Gamecube to my TV using component cables.  At the very least I hope that the Revolution will at least give me the same options that the Cube does.  Ms. Kaplan didn't specify that so I would like some sort of confirmation regarding that issue.

I currently don't own an HDTV but they're becoming more affordable each year.  I realistically could see myself purchasing one within the next five years.  Therefore I want my videogame console to make good use of my equipment.  I probably won't own an HDTV in 2006 but I might in 2010 and the Revolution is supposed to last me that long.

I know that both Sony and Microsoft are going to support HD on the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360.  Therefore developers like Electronic Arts and Activision, who often make their games available on all platforms, are likely going to be making their games support HD for the other two consoles.  Since that feature won't be implemented on the Revolution versions, the Revolution is thus guarenteed to have the "worst" version of those games.  I would prefer to at least have the possibility of having multiplatform games that in terms of features are on par or better with the other versions.

I wouldn't even mind that much if internal games didn't support HD provided that third parties are given the option to support HD if they wish.  Microsoft is requiring all games to support HD, which I think is unnecessary and highly restrictive to third party developers.  However not allowing any Revolution game to support HD is equally unnecessary and restrictive.

This issue is very important to me and will be a factor in my decision regarding which console I will purchase in this coming generation.  Please reconsider your position regarding HD support on the Revolution.

[real name]

[The Omen]

Quote
I wouldn't even mind that much if internal games didn't support HD provided that third parties are given the option to support HD if they wish. Microsoft is requiring all games to support HD, which I think is unnecessary and highly restrictive to third party developers. However not allowing any Revolution game to support HD is equally unnecessary and restrictive.

This issue is very important to me and will be a factor in my decision regarding which console I will purchase in this coming generation. Please reconsider your position regarding HD support on the Revolution.

That about sums it up for me as well.  Make it optional, but at least implement it.  

[Mario]

Bah, if they DO end up implementing HD now (thanks a lot guys), then it better not destroy the framerate of games, better not make the Revolution or games more expensive, and it better be optional for developers. Then i'll be happy/not care.

Question: If I do have a HDTV, can I still run the game without HD on my HDTV, even though it's an HD enabled game?