Post by: Kairon on June 10, 2005, 04:52:46 PM
To wit:
Quote
"It is accurate that at this time we will not support high-definition [on Revolution]," confirms Nintendo of America's vice president of corporate affairs, Perrin Kaplan.
"Nintendo's Revolution is being built with a variety of gamers' needs in mind, such as quick start-up time, high power, and ease of use for development and play. It's also compact and sleek, and has beautiful graphics in which to enjoy innovative games," Kaplan says. "Nintendo doesn't plan for the system to be HD compatible as with that comes a higher price for both the consumer and also the developer creating the game. Will it make the game better to play? With the technology being built into the Revolution, we believe the games will look brilliant and play brilliantly. This can all be done without HD."
What I can't figure out is whether this refers to 480, 1080i, or 1080p. But the move certainly appears to grow out of a cost benefit analysis by Nintendo.
Especially with Nintendo positioning themselves as an "AND" choice (that is, buy a PS3 AND a Rev, or a X360 AND a Rev), cutting manufacturing costs for a low, impulse buy price is imperative. Additionally, it may keep development prices for the Rev down.
Quote
"Companies focused on outdoing each other for technology's sake are using the power of public relations to confuse the media into thinking high-definition is a live-or-die part of the games of the future," says Kaplan. "It is a technological fact that games will still look incredibly beautiful and play incredibly well without the high cost of making them HD compatible. HD may be one of the technologies of the future. Is it the gaming industry's only future? We don't think so."
Quote
"This is my single biggest worry," admits Eggebrecht. "Let's put it this way. At 640x480 [standard definition], we're at a point where we can do anything. Anything. Finally. But with high-definition, I think we're at about the same level of challenge when it comes to framerate as we are this generation. You can do a hell of a lot more polygons. You can do a hell of a lot more shaders. But the inherent fill-rate issues are still certainly there. Will it be a 30-frame time? Will it be a 60-frame time? It will be interesting to see."
The IGn article also states that HD penetration rate in the US is 12.5% right now, but that HD marketshare is sluggish in both Europe and Japan.
Quote
Europe's inability to settle on a unified HD standard stalled its plan to get rolling with the format. Now, the continent is set to use the same HD standards as America, but nevertheless manufacturers have been slow to gain momentum with the conversion just as Europeans have been slow to embrace it.
The Japanese market has encountered similar issues, which might explain why Nintendo, whose decision makers operate out of Kyoto, is unwilling to accept high-definition.
Once you all recover from your knee-jerk reactions, I'd like to think you'd ask yourselves: What should this tell us?
I, for one, don't care much about HD-TV. As long as the darn game plays, I'm good. Besides, we'll be playing NES, SNES and N64 games on our Revolution!
But while this news doesn't affect me personally, it makes me ever more interested in the Revolution launch price. Let's remember Hiroshi Yamauchi's aim for the original NES: a game machine that sold at 100 bucks. They missed thta mark, but they still sold the NES for cheaper than anything else on the market, that WHILE the NES was also the least capable system technologically, and had cut corners on everything from chips, to memory.
And again, I'm reminded of the "And" approach. Nintendo isn't telling us to buy a Revolution instead of another system, but to buy a Revolution IN ADDITION TO another system. In essence, Nintendo is going to try to enter living rooms via the "stealth mode" of the price-conscious/impulse buy. This is an intrigueing strategy, and could definitely be much more successful than Nintendo trying to face Sony and Microsoft head-to-head. Referring back to the NES... could a console that launches at $199 in 2006 sneak into everyone's living room? Could a console that launches at $150 do it?
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on June 10, 2005, 05:09:59 PM
Thank you. Thank you, Nintendo, for finally saying something along the lines of "We've got a powerful machine and games are going to look brilliant." I've been craving that for a while now.
Post by: Strell on June 10, 2005, 05:13:11 PM
STUPID F*CKING MOVE NINTENDO.
END OF STORY.
Nintendo circa 1950> We won't make our machine color tv compatible, it'll never catch on.
SIGH
YOU ARE JUST PISSING GAMERS AND DEVELOPERS OFF LEFT AND RIGHT NINTENDO
STOP DOING THIS SH*T
All the comments from Julian only reinforce that Nintendo is pissing off developers. I'm no longer surprised Factor Five and Silicon Knights jumped ship. I can imagine the talks now:
Nintendo> Our system won't do HD.
F5> WTF THATS STUPID
Nintendo> NU UH YUR STUPID
Developers are going to make big name games HD from now on. Anything that is cross platform and is a big title will be HD. AND THAT'S GOING TO PISS OFF DEVELOPERS WHEN THEY HAVE TO DOWNGRADE THE GAME FOR THE REVOLUTION. Case in point. Prince of Persia. "Well you can get the Revolution version or the version with high def graphics." PEOPLE LIKE TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, NINTENDO. God. I can't believe this sh*t. Can't f*cking believe it.
From the article: "Nintendo, however, feels that it is appealing to the wider audience by not making Revolution high-definition compatible. "
WTF THATS COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY. PEOPLE WANT OPTIONS. OPTIONS = WIDER BASE.
SON OF A F*CK THIS IS STUPID
Didin't IGN say that HD output costs Nintendo like 50 cents a console? YOU'VE GOT BILLIONS IN THE BANK AND IN YOUR WAR CHEST. STOP DOING THIS. F*CK.
It's like they have an endless inventory of feet and quantity of bullets to shoot them all with.
Post by: cubist on June 10, 2005, 05:19:33 PM
Is it just me or does Denis Dyack, despite developing the exclusive Too Human Trilogy for XBOX 360, still have Nintendo's back.
Now that I've sounded like a complete 'fanboy', this is what I really thought about the article. It felt like the tone of the article had that "here we go again" theme with Nintendo just not really willing to throw some goodies into a system (i.e., N64's cartridge format = losing Squaresoft, GCN's optical disc = not enough memory for voicework and movies to put into games, etc.). I really believe that Nintendo more and more is losing momentum even as an "AND" company. The specs or demos of what the system can do haven't even been shown and it already appears to have even the Nintendo community of loyalist starting to have doubts about purchasing it. Nintendo is staying the course with the argument that technology is a tertiary aspect of gaming behind gameplay experience and content. However, I think that there are just some technological advancements that should not be overlooked. I don't mind that the Revolution is not going to be as powerful as the XBOX 360 and the PS3, but from a business standpoint, they need to show that they're willing to provide their future user-base with something that is increasingly becoming the norm. Without HD, Nintendo is starting to lose the "AND" concept as well as the marketshare.
I'm still buying a Revolution though. Denis Dyack if you happen to come in here...humor us and give us another exclusive on the Revolution to play alongside Zelda.
Peace out!
Post by: nemo_83 on June 10, 2005, 05:21:32 PM
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.
I personally like the latest rumor that says Nintendo really is going to offer an optional successor to the VB that works with all REV games to create 3D graphics, but is not required.
Post by: cubist on June 10, 2005, 05:22:42 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on June 10, 2005, 05:32:58 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on June 10, 2005, 05:34:36 PM
Now, this news IS a bit baffling, and I'm not going to comment on Ian's future complaints since I can see where he's coming from. It's a strange move, and probably not a very good one, but I guess we'll have to wait and see with this one (which seems to be the game the Rev's playing right now anyway).
Personally, I have a great HD TV, but I don't play games on it. I play my games on an 8-year old 17" TV with fading colors. It's just easier to hook it up and get started, and the room the good TV is in is always very busy, and I don't like distractions. The quality doesn't make enough of a difference for me, so I choose to use the crappy TV in my room. So I'm not really effected by this, so I don't really care.
Post by: Bloodworth on June 10, 2005, 05:44:42 PM
Post by: pudu on June 10, 2005, 05:52:04 PM
Here's what I can think of at the moment:
Pros of HD:
more visible detail on screen
widescreen format
ability to display HD cutscene movies
can easy tranfer content from HD movies
Cons of HD:
harder on the hardware, meaning:
lower framerates at the same amount of polys, texture level, etc
possible lessening of polys, texture detail, etc. to make it run
less people will be able to enjoy this resolution
games will be made for HD displays in mind and not maxed out for SD displayes
Alright everyone imagine this: graphics in a game that look real, as in there is no way for the human eye to discern between them and the real life counterpart. If this were possible would it look any less "real" on a SD display then a HD? I understand it WILL look better on a HD display because you will see it in more clearity but it won't look any less "real" on a SD display. Get what I'm saying?
Now, considering that it's a fact that displaying games at higher resolutions is harder on the hardware what matters more? Making a game with more graphical detail but displayed at less resolution OR a game with less graphical detail displayed at higher resolutions?
I understand the article discusses why gamers would want to buy the Revolution version of 3rd party multi-console releases if it won't be in HD but they didn't take into consideration that displayed at a lower could assure a better framerate and perhaps even better detail at the same framerate.
Also, what I'd like to mention is if Nintendo's console does indeed feature less hardware power then the other two, staying at SD resolution actually might allow them to run multiplatform games at about the same detail, just at a lower resolution.
Post by: Bloodworth on June 10, 2005, 06:02:27 PM
Post by: mantidor on June 10, 2005, 06:10:54 PM
Post by: slacker on June 10, 2005, 06:36:21 PM
Post by: MattVDB on June 10, 2005, 07:10:59 PM
How many PCs are built with the _highest_ end video card in them now days? Some cards individually cost 400 and 500 dollars. I would love to see sales figures for those cards, while they are at that price, because that is what Microsoft and Sony are putting in their machines. I personally haven't ever payed that much for one either. I spent 200 on mine, and get liquid smooth fps in Half Life 2 at 1024*768 and playable at 1600*1200. Point being? My _200_ dollar card is performing acceptably for a long time, serious gamer. Would it be nice to see the game with a better card? Sure, but at what cost? If I can turn more effects on at a lower res, I'm more likely to do that, then up the res, and loose features (shading/particles/etc, currently).
I take this as an "eh" announcement, but I do believe there will be _some_ form of HD output in there somewhere. Please don't freak out until we know the details on this. It's ridiculous.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 10, 2005, 07:20:24 PM
What can I say? For the THIRD time in a row Nintendo is thinking in the present to plan for the future. First it was optical discs, then online, now HD. At least their traditional dumb oversights are becoming less crucial but it's a dumb move nonetheless. This announcement just cost them Rev sales. It's not going to be N64 bad and it's not instant DOOMED or anything like that but they just lost sales. Why? Why not match the competition? Why give people an excuse not to buy a Rev? This sort of dumb sh!t is why the Cube never really caught on. Nintendo just gave people so many reasons to pick the competition over them. On it's own this isn't that big of a deal but you just know that there's going to be some other stupid problems. That's just how it is. Every console is going to have some problem that wasn't forseen. But the thing is this is a problem we're seeing already. If Nintendo can't see THIS as a problem how are they going to catch the less obvious stuff?
Why the hell can't they just provide the damn option? This elitist "we're making the decision for you" bullsh!t is exactly why Nintendo's market share keeps shrinking. Plus you figure with the online disaster last gen they would realize that no one gives a sh!t if NINTENDO saves money. I'm supposed to accept having my options comprimised so that Nintendo saves money? I'm not a stock holder. What the f*ck do I care? I know when I was playing Mario Kart: Double Dash I wasn't thinking "boy I'm sure glad that Nintendo saved a few bucks by forcing me to invite my friends over every time I want to play."
Post by: Grant10k on June 10, 2005, 07:21:19 PM
QuoteYeah, it costs THEM 50 cents a console, it costs the game developers 4x the amount of work (in the art department at least)
Didin't IGN say that HD output costs Nintendo like 50 cents a console?
Post by: Ian Sane on June 10, 2005, 07:29:43 PM
Yeah, all those exclusive developers Nintendo doesn't have are going to save money. Most Rev third party games are going to be multiplatform games from companies like EA, Ubisoft, & Activision. These devs are already putting in the work to make their games HD. They're not saving any money from this. All this does is ensure that Nintendo gets the crappiest version of every multiplatform game... again.
Nintendo has some good ideas for making things easier for third parties but the problem is these are only advantages for exclusive games. Since Nintendo pretty much has burnt their bridge with every third party they've ever worked with this isn't going to amount to anything.
Post by: joshnickerson on June 10, 2005, 07:31:53 PM
I don't think I could quite put it as eloquently and dignified as Strell though...
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 10, 2005, 07:53:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Grant10k
QuoteYeah, it costs THEM 50 cents a console, it costs the game developers 4x the amount of work (in the art department at least)
Didin't IGN say that HD output costs Nintendo like 50 cents a console?
Who said that the developers have to use the highest detail possible? The games that are gonna be ported are already gonna be at the resolution, so why not just include it? All exclusive developers, such as Nintendo, can use whatever resolution they see fit, but that doesn't mean that DeveloperX doesn't want to push the machine, and DeveloperX doesn't want to display at the highest resolution possibe regardless of the amount of extra work.
Post by: Robotor on June 10, 2005, 08:04:59 PM
Although, even if they don't, oh well. How many sales can they lose?
And strell, calm down man.
Post by: Caillan on June 10, 2005, 08:35:54 PM
I have a hunch that Nintendo has done this to push their various philosophies regarding the future of the industry. But there's a difference between not bragging about all the cool-but-not-necessarily-always-useful stuff your console can do and just not including it. And it's neat to have a small console, but if it means it's more likely to overheat or there are ports missing as a result, then Nintendo shouldn't hesitate to make it bigger.
Quote
I love how you mention how it pisses the developers off, since the Rev is going to be the most dev-friendly and cost-efficient system to make games on.
The fact is that this particular decision will annoy developers and publishers because it's another option which has been taken away from them. They said that the Cube would be the most developer-friendly console too, but even the most basic steps towards that goal have been neglected. Making promises won't curry them any favour because they've lied in the past. If they want to impress developers they should immediately cut licensing costs and send out a survey asking for feedback on how they could improve their kits.
Edited out embarrassing typo.
Post by: ThePerm on June 10, 2005, 08:52:10 PM
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on June 10, 2005, 09:01:48 PM
HD is not a factor now and it won't be next gen. It'll only matter to all the tech heads who want to find more reasons to warrent them paying so much for a tv. All this supporting of HD and yada yada is just so Sony and MS can get into a "who's d*ck is bigger" contest to put it bluntly. I have yet to hear anyone this gen complain about such and such game not supporting such and such resolution outside of an online forum. Resident Evil 4 looks more than fine on my average tv and I would love to play it on some HD standard but it isn't the end of the world.
In short, I'll like to say that Sony and MS (moreso Sony) are just going for the overkill with their systems. Blue ray and HD-DVDs aren't necessary for next gen systems as DVDs are doing just fine for our needs now and we haven't even used duel layered in the industry. HD standards aren't necessary becuase standard tvs are doing us just fine as it is. All of these features are just there to jack up prices for something 80 or more percent of us can not even support. Nintendo is catering to the masses becuase those are the ones that run this industry not the elite who have HD tvs and complete surround sound.
Post by: King of Twitch on June 10, 2005, 09:03:01 PM
My VR headset and holodeck isn't compatible anyways, I don't care.
Post by: ThePerm on June 10, 2005, 09:10:48 PM
i just think she is getting hd-dvd confused with hd-television...or she does know the difference and is being taken out of context.
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 10, 2005, 09:14:41 PM
640x480 = O -or- 1024x768 = o
that would suck
Post by: Savior on June 10, 2005, 09:20:44 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 10, 2005, 09:28:12 PM
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.
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on June 10, 2005, 09:28:29 PM
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.
Post by: anubis6789 on June 10, 2005, 09:35:24 PM
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.
Post by: Kairon on June 10, 2005, 09:44:56 PM
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Shecky on June 10, 2005, 09:48:51 PM
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.
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on June 10, 2005, 09:51:15 PM
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.
Post by: Shecky on June 10, 2005, 09:58:21 PM
Post by: anubis6789 on June 10, 2005, 10:09:40 PM
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.
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on June 10, 2005, 10:09:48 PM
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.
Post by: MrMojoRising on June 10, 2005, 11:26:18 PM
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.
Post by: bmfrosty on June 10, 2005, 11:40:47 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on June 10, 2005, 11:54:14 PM
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.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 11, 2005, 12:01:09 AM
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?
Post by: PaLaDiN on June 11, 2005, 05:26:26 AM
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.
Post by: Shecky on June 11, 2005, 06:15:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BloodworthQuote
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.
Post by: jarob on June 11, 2005, 07:20:42 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 11, 2005, 08:11:38 AM
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?
Post by: denjet78 on June 11, 2005, 08:29:59 AM
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.
Post by: oohhboy on June 11, 2005, 08:39:09 AM
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.
Post by: Pittbboi on June 11, 2005, 08:53:44 AM
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.
Post by: jarob on June 11, 2005, 09:09:06 AM
Post by: BigJim on June 11, 2005, 09:15:44 AM
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.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 11, 2005, 09:17:31 AM
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).
Post by: jasonditz on June 11, 2005, 09:18:49 AM
The Cube supports HD and widescreen, why the hell would the Rev break that support?
Post by: BigJim on June 11, 2005, 09:22:54 AM
Post by: jasonditz on June 11, 2005, 09:38:24 AM
Post by: The Omen on June 11, 2005, 09:44:48 AM
Quote
Well Nintendo was on such a roll with the Rev so far I guess it was just a matter of time before their first incredibly stupid decision was revealed. Well actually not having an ethernet jack in the Rev was dumb mistake #1 but at least they're offering a work around for that one.
What can I say? For the THIRD time in a row Nintendo is thinking in the present to plan for the future. First it was optical discs, then online, now HD. At least their traditional dumb oversights are becoming less crucial but it's a dumb move nonetheless. This announcement just cost them Rev sales. It's not going to be N64 bad and it's not instant DOOMED or anything like that but they just lost sales. Why? Why not match the competition? Why give people an excuse not to buy a Rev? This sort of dumb sh!t is why the Cube never really caught on. Nintendo just gave people so many reasons to pick the competition over them. On it's own this isn't that big of a deal but you just know that there's going to be some other stupid problems. That's just how it is. Every console is going to have some problem that wasn't forseen. But the thing is this is a problem we're seeing already. If Nintendo can't see THIS as a problem how are they going to catch the less obvious stuff?
Why the hell can't they just provide the damn option? This elitist "we're making the decision for you" bullsh!t is exactly why Nintendo's market share keeps shrinking. Plus you figure with the online disaster last gen they would realize that no one gives a sh!t if NINTENDO saves money. I'm supposed to accept having my options comprimised so that Nintendo saves money? I'm not a stock holder. What the f*ck do I care? I know when I was playing Mario Kart: Double Dash I wasn't thinking "boy I'm sure glad that Nintendo saved a few bucks by forcing me to invite my friends over every time I want to play."
Agree 100%
Quote
Its laughable that there actually are people that believe not including HD display options on a next gen system can spell doom lol. 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. How many years has HD tvs been around already and the price is still out of the average joe's price range. Also, if some family were to jump into an HD tv display, more often then not it'll be going in some type of family room which will be swarmed with people on the regular.
Well, 12.5% own HD now. Next year, I'd venture a guess at 25%. The next year probably, and most likely 45% as prices drop on HD tvs. In three years, the Revolution will be in it's 2nd year of existence meaning it has to exist for about 3 more years in the next generation, without a major force, HD, while it's two adversaries have HD available ahead of the surge. Yep, real smart move...
Post by: PaLaDiN on June 11, 2005, 10:02:20 AM
I've calmed down a little and I'm thinking this might not be as bad as I thought it was.
How hard is it to downgrade the games, really? It's just a matter of resolution, right? Which means it should be pretty much no work at all to downgrade. Developers shouldn't be pissed off because Nintendo doesn't seem to be making them do anything extra... unlike Sony and Microsoft.
If HD is as expensive as people say it is, then it sounds like it's going to be much harder to port Rev games to PS3 and X360 than vice versa. I keep getting this nagging feeling that there's a reason MS and Sony are requiring developers to include HD, and the reason is that they'd rather leave it out. If that's the case and Nintendo plays its cards right then they might actually end up becoming the PS2 of the next gen.
Lastly, I'm still not convinced HD gaming is what it's cracked up to be. I've seen HDTV's and they don't impress me. I've upped the resolution on tons of games and not been able to really tell the difference. If it's really framerate-intensive like Julian makes it out to be, I'd rather they stayed at SD and did the "anything they want" thing he's claiming is possible at that resolution. Rev games might actually end up having better graphics than the others that way.
Post by: BigJim on June 11, 2005, 11:27:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
what are they defining as HD? I'm not entirely clear on it.
HD is considered basically anything that's 720p or better.
Post by: thepoga on June 11, 2005, 01:01:00 PM
At the very least, the Revolution should support the 480 P (like the GC). And they should actually sell the cables for that IN the stores instead of just on their website. HD isn't a required thing, but it's nice to have. Would you rather watch the VHS or the DVD of a movie.
Also, I really wanted Nintendo to start supporting the widescreen formats more. The higher definition of F-Zero in widescreen was a sight to behold. It also helped the actual gameplay because of the ability to SEE more.
The graphics of Viewtiful Joe on an HDTV was amazing. The colors and everything really popped out. It looks really clear, and the cube only runs 480 p.
Overall, I think it's a mistake, but not the BIG mistake that will doom Nintendo. The frustrating thing for a developer would be to have to design multiplatform games the same for two, but not the same for another one.
Post by: Renny on June 11, 2005, 01:56:35 PM
It does truly seem like Nintendo is vying for the role of 'the second console' and not aiming any higher. Being 'the second console' hasn't gotten the Cube to second place, though. Nintendo will have to price the Rev more competitively than the Cube to convince the majority of gamers that it's worth owning two consoles. If they could combine those sales with the mass audience they're intent on courting they could establish themselves well in the next generation.
Speaking for myself though; I'm content to relegate the Rev to being my 'second console.' I like what Nintendo is doing with bringing down the cost of games, providing downloadable games and introducing new input for games. But why not have the choice? Having options is what sells the DS, as Nintendo themselves have said. With Sony and Microsoft forcing HD with their systems, the option of HD on the developer and consumer end should be selling the Rev.
Post by: Mr. Saturn on June 11, 2005, 02:13:21 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on June 11, 2005, 03:20:21 PM
Would you rather play Dreamcast in HD (if it were possible), or would you rather play GameCube in standard definition? Which one would look better to you? Gamecube would still kill the Dreamcast's visuals.
Nintendo may still really do a successor to the VB. Would you rather have stereoscopic visuals as an option for any game instead of high definition? Well get your salt ready and click the following.
new virtual boy
a better pic
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 11, 2005, 04:24:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
Nintendo may still really do a successor to the VB. Would you rather have stereoscopic visuals as an option for any game instead of high definition? Well get your salt ready and click the following.
new virtual boy
a better pic
Do I get to start the new page...
anyway WTF is that?? is that from famitsu? I(we) need more details on that one.......
this can't be a real pic, that helmet doesn't look real wearable
oh, and thanx for the 'hot' links
Post by: mac<censored> on June 11, 2005, 05:13:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Renny
A point that was raised earlier in the thread that most of you seem to be glossing over: this will hurt 3rd party sales of Rev games because people will see Rev versions of multiplatform games as weak.
Ironically, the actual effect of not having HD may well be an increase in the quality of the Revolution's graphics, because developers won't have to limit their geometry etc. to accommodate the slower processing that would happen in HD mode (because of fill-rate issues or whatever).
Of course history does seem to show that the public cares little about reality, and are as likely to base their buying decision on one of Kutaragi's hallucinatory fits as anything else...
Post by: mac<censored> on June 11, 2005, 05:33:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thepoga
Has anyone here watched an HDTV? I saw friggin Animal Planet and it was amazing to watch. The squirrels man, the squirrels.
HDTV is definitely amazing (though arguably less so for games because of the limitations of the source artwork) -- everything looks real and you suddenly realize the conventional TV you thought looked great a minute earlier actually looks like crap.
It's very disturbing watching something like an interview on HDTV though. Every zit and pore becomes very obvious, as does poorly applied makeup! It's much worse than reality because of such practices as intense lighting and facial closeups (which I guess to some degree are intended to work around the drawbacks of conventional television). When they go for one of those ultra-closeups (super popular on Japanese TV) I cringe...
Post by: Bloodworth on June 11, 2005, 05:56:10 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on June 11, 2005, 06:24:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
Nintendo may still really do a successor to the VB. Would you rather have stereoscopic visuals as an option for any game instead of high definition? Well get your salt ready and click the following.
new virtual boy
a better pic
Do I get to start the new page...
anyway WTF is that?? is that from famitsu? I(we) need more details on that one.......
this can't be a real pic, that helmet doesn't look real wearable
oh, and thanx for the 'hot' links
I've heard it was a fake, but this and the Nintendoon video could turn out to viral marketing campaigns. This would make the best counter to HD; the option of 3D. If they did it right you would not only see 3D, but there would be a gyro inside the helmet allowing you to look around; everywhere you look there would be screen.
Post by: Galford on June 11, 2005, 06:46:23 PM
everthing above 480i is considered HD.
The GC supported 480p, I expect Rev to also. While not bone crushing
feature, lack of could become a major handicap towards the end of Rev's
lifespan. Isn't the Rev suppose to support VGA monitors???
If this is true, it shows how Nintendo is being short
siighted, again....
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on June 11, 2005, 07:02:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
If this is true, it shows how Nintendo is being short
siighted, again....
Short sighted might be how you label it but I see it as profet oriented.
Post by: Mario on June 11, 2005, 07:05:24 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on June 11, 2005, 07:10:06 PM
(I have an HDTV and I REALLY don't care...The games will look great either way)
Post by: The Omen on June 11, 2005, 08:35:12 PM
Quote
Unless this is Perrin saying ignorant things again, this is moronic.
She does annoy me to no end. A dumb talking head. Hopefully, she was misinformed.
Post by: anubis6789 on June 11, 2005, 08:46:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
If I remember correctly, according to the original ATSC specs,
everthing above 480i is considered HD.
The GC supported 480p, I expect Rev to also. While not bone crushing
feature, lack of could become a major handicap towards the end of Rev's
lifespan. Isn't the Rev suppose to support VGA monitors???
If this is true, it shows how Nintendo is being short
siighted, again....
Actually all of 480i is standard definition (SD), 480p is enhanced definition, and both 720p and 1080i are high definition. I would also like to clear up something I said earlier, were SD and ED can both be either 4:3 and 16:9 HD can only be 16:9. Just so every one can see what is SD, ED, and HD are here is a link.
If the statements that say that the REV can hook up to a computer monitor are true the REV would at least have to have some sort of progressive scan to work on most modern PC monitors.
What I find odd is that everyone is upset that the REV may not include HD which not so many people have and not championing the fact that , like I said if the statements that say that the REV can hook up to a computer monitor are true, the REV may have something people have been asking for forever. That feature may be only on the REV. I know many XBOX owners who were upset that the XBOX did not support VGA. What is even more strange about that is that it seems that the xbox was originally going to support VGA but MS probably took out to make the XBOX look less like an under powered PC.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 11, 2005, 09:39:54 PM
I'd rather have both. Though I'm probably more interested in high definition than wearing a silly helmet. If that's Nintendo big secret feature it's pretty gimmicky. It would kind of neat but I don't see everyone rushing to buy a Rev for it or anything. Sony and MS would probably laugh at the concept rather than steal it.
One thing we have to look at is how this is going to affect an employee's sales pitch. Even if they're not biased when telling someone the facts they're going to say "this one doesn't support HD" and that's going to kill some potential Rev sales. Every time I've been in a store and I've overheard a salesman talking with a customer about a potential console purchase the second "no online" or "doesn't have a DVD player" came up for the Cube, the customer immediately narrowed their choice to PS2 or Xbox. Just the idea that Nintendo's console was missing features that BOTH other consoles had turned people off. The only time I've seen a Cube get sold is when the customer specifically asks for one. It doesn't matter if the person has an HDTV or not. Just the fact that the Rev is missing a feature will turn them off. Hell I bought a Progressive Scan DVD player, even though my TV at the time couldn't make use of it, just in case I would get a TV that would support it later on down the road. That's the mentality a lot of people have when they buy electronics because the last thing you want to do is have to rebuy your other electronics if you upgrade your TV or stereo system or whatever. The "I might get an HDTV someday" thought is going to lose Rev sales.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 12, 2005, 02:06:49 AM
Unless I'm confused you're Australian and therefore HDTV is of no concern to you anyway. Does PAL even support that? I know I can get my PC to display 1024x768 on a TV and it doesn't seem to miss any pixels but does PAL support proper HD?
Post by: Mario on June 12, 2005, 04:53:17 AM
Ian: You're acting as though Revolution games won't run on HDTVs at all. Guess what? They will! They'll look beautiful too! I may be a bit biased on this subject because I don't live in America, land of the HDTVs, but I see far more benefits to this than what the competitors are doing, which is forcing the developers to throw money away to incorporate HD, as well as all the things people have mentioned in this thread, and if it really did make the framerate take a hit there's no way i'd be playing my games on HD TV even if I had one.
Post by: Aussiedude on June 12, 2005, 05:09:25 AM
Quote
Unless I'm confused you're Australian and therefore HDTV is of no concern to you anyway. Does PAL even support that? I know I can get my PC to display 1024x768 on a TV and it doesn't seem to miss any pixels but does PAL support proper HD?
Sorry but you are confused. PAL does not support HD and neither does NTSC (Never Twice the Same Colour LOL).
The new system for HD in USA is the inferier American-developed ATSC standard.
The new system for HD in Australia is DVB-T; is proving to be a very high quality system and is being used in many countries around the world.
Analogue (PAL) broadcasting will cease in Australia around 2008, so there is no way I will be buying the Revolution as all TV's by 2008 will support HD.
This is a @#$%ing studid decision by Nintendo.
Australian digital television features include:
'Ghost free' reception
Widescreen 16:9 pictures
Standard Definition pictures (SD)
High Definition pictures (HD)
Digital television will be transmitted with MPEG digital stereo sound and/or Dolby Digital Sound (2, 4 or 5 channels)
Multi-channel programming on ABC and SBS
Closed Captioning of programs for the hearing impaired
Electronic Program Guides (EPGs) with 'now & next' program information for some channels
In selected markets, on-screen program guide channel with today's program information.
In selected markets, HD demonstration channels
Multi-camera views and enhancements during selected programs
Post by: Mario on June 12, 2005, 05:15:04 AM
Quote
Analogue (PAL) broadcasting will cease in Australia around 2008, so there is no way I will be buying the Revolution as all TV's by 2008 will support HD.
Does that mean my current TVs will stop working in 2008?
Post by: Aussiedude on June 12, 2005, 05:19:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane" That's the mentality a lot of people have when they buy electronics because the last thing you want to do is have to rebuy your other electronics if you upgrade your TV or stereo system or whatever. The 'I might get an HDTV someday' thought is going to lose Rev sales."
Ian is 100% correct.
Post by: Grant10k on June 12, 2005, 05:22:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Aussiedude
This is a @#$%ing studid decision by Nintendo.
Australian digital television features include:
'Ghost free' reception
Widescreen 16:9 pictures
Standard Definition pictures (SD)
High Definition pictures (HD)
Digital television will be transmitted with MPEG digital stereo sound and/or Dolby Digital Sound (2, 4 or 5 channels)
Multi-channel programming on ABC and SBS
Closed Captioning of programs for the hearing impaired
Electronic Program Guides (EPGs) with 'now & next' program information for some channels
In selected markets, on-screen program guide channel with today's program information.
In selected markets, HD demonstration channels
Multi-camera views and enhancements during selected programs
If you are not buying the revolution based ONLY on the fact that you can't watch broadcasted channels on your old tv then you're "@#$%ing studid"
Half those features don't even apply to the situation, and SD already supports the other half.
Post by: Aussiedude on June 12, 2005, 05:24:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MarioQuote
Does that mean my current TVs will stop working in 2008?
You will need to buy a set top box to convert (modulate) the digital signal into PAL, plus you will need a new aerial. But the HD sets will be so cheap by then why would you bother?
Already the stations are broadcasting some programmes in HD, the results are amazing.
Post by: Aussiedude on June 12, 2005, 05:30:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Grant10k<br
If you are not buying the revolution based ONLY on the fact that you can't watch broadcasted channels on your old tv then you're "@#$%ing studid"
Half those features don't even apply to the situation, and SD already supports the other half.
WTF I want top graphics, and if I have a HD TV I WANT TO USE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At this stage the PS3 seems the way to go (and I have always hated Sony in the past), followed by the XBOX360, with Rev last.
Basically im sick and pissed off with Nintendo constantly making bullshit decisions. (and to save 50 cents WTF).
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on June 12, 2005, 05:42:29 AM
seriously, nintendo might be the most likely to catch the college gamers..,. All they need is one frigckin truely exclusive FPS .. and make it online
Post by: Bill Aurion on June 12, 2005, 06:52:37 AM
Options? Want options? Here's some for you
1) Shut up
2) Go make a sandwich
3) Fap to TVs
4) Rip your internet out of the wall
Post by: Fro on June 12, 2005, 07:20:44 AM
Post by: PIAC on June 12, 2005, 07:27:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: AussiedudeQuote
Originally posted by: Grant10k<br
If you are not buying the revolution based ONLY on the fact that you can't watch broadcasted channels on your old tv then you're "@#$%ing studid"
Half those features don't even apply to the situation, and SD already supports the other half.
WTF I want top graphics, and if I have a HD TV I WANT TO USE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At this stage the PS3 seems the way to go (and I have always hated Sony in the past), followed by the XBOX360, with Rev last.
Basically im sick and pissed off with Nintendo constantly making bullshit decisions. (and to save 50 cents WTF).
So you can afford a HDTV right, but can't afford more than one console? Makes sense I spose. Why would you even post here, if you have no interest in Revolution. Just saying.
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 12, 2005, 07:39:23 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on June 12, 2005, 08:37:50 AM
What annoys me about HDTV is that it's still 50 or 60 Hz. That's f###ing stoneage, why couldn't they go with something more eyefriendly instead like, say, 75Hz or even 100?
BTW, although there's a widespread misinformation out there, the US does NOT switch to HDTV when the FCC finally okays that, it will switch to digital broadcast. Means there's still no reason for HDTVs to drop in price as people will still get cheap sets, just that they support digital decoding now.
Post by: OptimusPrime on June 12, 2005, 09:00:45 AM
Nintendo not giving developers options? Since when is upping the resolution of a game a development option. IF it was up to the developers we would still be stuck at 800*600 (i play most of my PC-games on that resolution because you can't see a difference anyway and it runs so fluent) resolutions maximum. Developers know upping the resolution doesn't change sh!t except dragging the performance down like crazy and adding to the disk storage. Hell... this is good for multiplatform games, they only have to like do 2 resolutions for the Rev and a whole bunch on the other 2 who FORCE them to do it.
If we look at marketshare 12.5% in all the years the damn medium is out thats bad. they'll get lucky if the come close to 20% in the enxt year and very damn lucky if come to 30% in 2 years. The cost of these things will be quite high because you 3 types of HD-display devices: plasma, lcd and those huge ones. That's 3 completly different types of products you have to produce. Electronics companies have to share their old SD-productionrecources for 3 new ones... good luck getting those prizes down with that kind of production-standpoint, not going to happen soon, maybe about....2-3 years when the whole industry decides on the same type to produce (please drop plasmas, they're crappy).
Post by: RABicle on June 12, 2005, 09:15:12 AM
QuoteThat's gotta be the worst idea ever. Doing that is far more foolish than not supporting HD.
Originally posted by: nemo_83
I personally like the latest rumor that says Nintendo really is going to offer an optional successor to the VB that works with all REV games to create 3D graphics, but is not required.
According to this article America has about 260 million television sets. Now Microsoft says in that article that the adoption of high definition in the gaming consoles will "propel the growth of HDTVs" or some bullshit like that. According to a recent GameFAQs poll (skewed I know,) more than 20% of American Playstation 2 owners own more than two consoles, as in they own two (or more) PS2s. And when you factor in non gamers who never touch their systems the USA probably only has 20 million active Sony gamers, if that. We'll be generous and say that all 10 million Xbox owners are active too and only own one system because it never breaks down. So now, with their new systems, assuming they all rush out and buy at launch, that'll be 30 million gamers ready for HD. And let's go totally insane and say that every single one of these brainless gits goes out and spends thousands of dollars on a brand new HDTV, complete with 7.1 surround sound they're told is vital. So now 30 million of the 260 million TV sets are replaced with HD ones. Look that's nothing. Game consoles aren't this massive mainstream thing Microsoft thinks they are, they wont run the entire home like Sony hopes, face it, we're still niche and consoles won't make an iota of difference to the television market. Microsoft won't be bringing the high definition era upon us.
Besides, this is America, a lazy country swimming in money to spend on AV equipment since they are scared of international travel. The rest of the world is streaks behind.
Penny Arcade have had a long running feature written by a guest, helping people setup the ultimate in home cinema. There are 18 articles written over the course of 3 years. That might give you some indication as to the complexity of these setups. In his most recent article he brought up a very good point. HDTVs will ruin online console gaming. In some imaginary world where 1080p won't hamper the framerate, say if games look like they do now just so they are playable at such extremes, people with HDTVs can have up to ten times the detail we do, plus the added viewing area of widescreen. We are talking about being legitimately head shot before you can see more than 2 pixels of your assailant.
Nintendo doesn't want that. Reggie said at E3 that they wanted their online service to be a dickhead free environment. For a competitive level ground online, we cannot have HD support.
Here's another thing. Video games look and play better at lower resolutions. If you have it, play Pokémon Stadium on N64. The Pokémon in that game look quite remarkable. Pikachu looks round because the game was so blurry and low res that we can't see the edges of the polygons. We can't see the faults and it looks really good. The same applies now. The jagged environments of Metroid Prime and Halo would look far worse if we could see their faults from a distance. Further more, all those 2 million pixels on your TV go to waste if the texture artists can't match it for close ups.
Besides haven't we spent the last 5 years slowly upgrading our home entertainment in small increments. DVD players, more than 2 speakers. How will the masses like upgrading all their equipment again? You know HDTVs need HD Dvd players which can play newer, higher capacity discs to even be utilised. It's ridiculous. Analogue transmission will not end in 2008 as much as they claim it will. No one will be ready.
I'll say it now. HD gaming will be something to worry about when we're all playing our Playstation 4s and Nintendo Fist Machines. I'm glad Nintendo have chosen to not take part in this irrelevant sideshow, like some kind of pissing contest. Talk to me again in 2010.
Post by: denjet78 on June 12, 2005, 09:30:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
One thing we have to look at is how this is going to affect an employee's sales pitch. Even if they're not biased when telling someone the facts they're going to say "this one doesn't support HD" and that's going to kill some potential Rev sales. Every time I've been in a store and I've overheard a salesman talking with a customer about a potential console purchase the second "no online" or "doesn't have a DVD player" came up for the Cube, the customer immediately narrowed their choice to PS2 or Xbox. Just the idea that Nintendo's console was missing features that BOTH other consoles had turned people off. The only time I've seen a Cube get sold is when the customer specifically asks for one. It doesn't matter if the person has an HDTV or not. Just the fact that the Rev is missing a feature will turn them off. Hell I bought a Progressive Scan DVD player, even though my TV at the time couldn't make use of it, just in case I would get a TV that would support it later on down the road. That's the mentality a lot of people have when they buy electronics because the last thing you want to do is have to rebuy your other electronics if you upgrade your TV or stereo system or whatever. The "I might get an HDTV someday" thought is going to lose Rev sales.
Umm... so when will that mantality end? You say that just because the GC didn't have a DVD player and didn't support HD turned customers off to it right? So the fact that it's not jam packed with all the goodies that Sony and MS can AFFORD to shove into their consoles, take a HUGE lose on, and still SURVIVE means that Nintendo is dead already. What you are saying is:
NINTENDO IS DEAD!
They simply cannot compete with Sony and MS on the same footing. You're just using HD as your excuse right now but if that wasn't the problem, you'd be whinning about the lack of a large harddrive or the fact that it doesn't have this or it doesn't have that or bla, bla, bla.
True, HD does have a direct baring on games (graphically, finantially, and negative at that) but really, there's no market for it there yet. It would just be a "me-too" feature and as we all know, Nintendo fans hate ANYTHING "me-too".
Now if Sony and MS were bundling their consoles with HDTVs as they snuck DVD into people's homes this last generation, that would be a different matter all together. But I don't think Sony and MS are going to be doing that. I don't think even THEY would be capable of affording that.
Post by: pudu on June 12, 2005, 10:46:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
This topic is still ****ing retarded...You guys shoudn't be playing videogames, it's pathetic...
Options? Want options? Here's some for you
1) Shut up
2) Go make a sandwich
3) Fap to TVs
4) Rip your internet out of the wall
I understand where you're coming from and I'll make a new topic today regarding this. But if you want people to just shut up don't bother trying to make them...just don't visit the topic lol
Post by: Pittbboi on June 12, 2005, 10:47:28 AM
But the thing is Nintendo's not making this console for the 'Nintendo Fans'. We all know that Nintendo fans are going to buy this console no matter what. Nintendo's trying to capture the non-gamer market. And it's not going to be very successful at that if it positions itself constantly as the featureless console. Ian's right. Non-gamers aren't going to care about Nintendo's name, or what its console is offering-- when they make the decision on what next generation console to support, they're going to see that the Revolution does not have features that both of the other consoles support--and that's going to be one factor that turns them off.
And also, even though the HD market isn't big yet, there are still lots of people who own them--people Nintendo is completely disregarding. At this point in time Nintendo is dead last in the console race, and it wants to be number 1. Nowhere did Nintendo say it was content to being the "And" console (not in the context most of you are thinking). Nintendo's goal is STILL to climb back to the top eventually. Nintendo shouldn't be neglecting any demographic because of this.
Post by: PaLaDiN on June 12, 2005, 10:59:21 AM
You're not getting it.
Non-gamers aren't going to make a decision on what next generation console to support, by definition. Nintendo's planning to get unprecedented levels of impulse buying from people who have barely played any games before. Non-gamers will not care about HD... if Nintendo's revolutionary aspect/controller/games really strike a chord with people games have not struck a chord with before, they will buy the revolution over the other two consoles.
Post by: Pittbboi on June 12, 2005, 11:04:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"Non-gamers aren't going to care about Nintendo's name, or what its console is offering-- when they make the decision on what next generation console to support, they're going to see that the Revolution does not have features that both of the other consoles support--and that's going to be one factor that turns them off."
You're not getting it.
Non-gamers aren't going to make a decision on what next generation console to support, by definition. Nintendo's planning to get unprecedented levels of impulse buying from people who have barely played any games before. Non-gamers will not care about HD... if Nintendo's revolutionary aspect/controller/games really strike a chord with people games have not struck a chord with before, they will buy the revolution over the other two consoles.
And you're contradicting yourself. If Nintendo's revolutionary aspect strikes a chord with them, and they buy it, they're still making a conscious decision to. Non-gamer's brains aren't set to random; they're not stupid. When they buy a console, no matter what, they're going to do SOME level of research and go by what they think they know, whether it be what they read in some biased gaming magazine, what their friends told them, or what the dude at EBGames told them when they walked into the store to purchase a console.
Post by: ThePerm on June 12, 2005, 11:12:49 AM
Post by: The Omen on June 12, 2005, 12:10:46 PM
Quote
This topic is still ****ing retarded...You guys shoudn't be playing videogames, it's pathetic...
Options? Want options? Here's some for you
1) Shut up
2) Go make a sandwich
3) Fap to TVs
4) Rip your internet out of the wall
Had you yourself followed these rules, we wouldn't have to deal with your constant Nintendo P.R.
Obviously, these rules only apply to others, though...
Post by: Artimus on June 12, 2005, 12:28:50 PM
Post by: Shecky on June 12, 2005, 12:56:42 PM
Nintendo may say it's for the betterment of companies, but I'd wager that they don't want to foot the larger amount of ram that would be needed to support the high resolutions.
Post by: Aussiedude on June 12, 2005, 01:49:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
another thing..when it comes out looking dam,n good graphically and its 100-150 dollars cheaper than the other console...and has some crazy innovative feature...then its going to have mroe value to the casual gamer.
Gee you MUST be right.
Just like everyone bought the Gamecube over XBOX and PS2 because it is $150 - $200AUD cheaper, and does not support DVD.
YEAH RIGHT, casual gamers will be happy for sure that revolution does not support HD.
And for the record, I have 40 GCN games, 6 NDS games, 0 PS2 and 0 XBOX games. BUT this will change next gen.
Post by: nemo_83 on June 12, 2005, 02:22:04 PM
Its like when the media runs a story on a politician; the politician has to respond. Nintendo has to slip some kind of information, even if it is just confirmation of a 3D helmet over HD; as oppossed to actually showing all the goods (they'll likely wait for 360's launch and E3 for the big press conferences).
I want to say something else though. Mostly on this board we have kept things pretty civil. I have seen some people losing it at nintendo.com. They are at each other's throats over this. I've seen some topics that got locked with people insulting each other with in all caps, bold letters, and large fonts. It was ridiculous. That place is total chaos on a regular day, but recently it's been insane.
Post by: mantidor on June 12, 2005, 03:09:02 PM
Just like everyone bought the Gamecube over XBOX and PS2 because it is $150 - $200AUD cheaper, and does not support DVD."
Its hardly the same case. Having HD isnt that big of a deal compared to not having DVD playback, which I also think is not that big of a deal, this comparison is really stupid.
Post by: nemo_83 on June 12, 2005, 03:33:02 PM
Post by: Galford on June 12, 2005, 03:33:59 PM
Back then ,everything ATSC purposed was considering was considered HDTV.
It's only in the last 5 years that HD has "started" at 720p, mainly for marketing reasons.
EDTV is something that has just recently cropped up as a way for TV manufactures to ease the transition to so called "HDTV".
About broadcast formats, in 2008 the FCC is mandating that all TVs pick up digtal broadcasts. Over those digital signals anything from 480p to 1080p can be broadcast. Also, many new TVs support 480p right now.
This debate could go on forever, why not talk about VSB-8 vs DVB vs QAM256
or how ATVEF will be the red-headed step child of digital broadcasting???
PS - Thanks anubis6789 for the link.
Post by: ThePerm on June 12, 2005, 03:37:26 PM
gamecube was different...
honestly though...this is more of a pr war than a fact war
ain im talking usd not aud
All nintendo needed was the Zelda thats coming out now and not WW....i loved WW but it wasnt a system seller...for most it was a turn off.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on June 12, 2005, 05:02:10 PM
Go ahead, guess.
Right, NONE. I don't OWN a hi-def TV. NOBODY I know owns a hi-def TV.
Post by: ThePerm on June 12, 2005, 05:13:34 PM
if it connects to a monitor there must be some sort of hi rez output...
on average perrin kapplan doesnt know what she is talking about
there isn't going to be a digital out port...but guess what...it doesnt matter.
anolog signals can be converted to digital and not the other way around.
http://theperm.tetrametrics.com/Images/anologvsgidigtal.gif
so that pretty much means a hi-rez signal can be sent through the port....
and the big news about xbox 360 was that it REQUIRED hi-def...Perrin Kapplan was probably misquoted..and she meant to say it wasnt required of devlopers. However, she blurbs alot ...so...
who knows.
"It is accurate that at this time we will not support high-definition [on Revolution]," confirms Nintendo of America's vice president of corporate affairs, Perrin Kaplan.
the whole [on revolution] part is added in either by the newsletter editor or ign...it could be completely taken outy of context..my point is Nintendo the company might not have it in their games..but that doesnt mean it wont be in other games..or it wont exist...i think people should really wait until there is a big press conference because all we are hearing is ambiguous phrases...and then people like matt from ign are writing 3 page articles because news is slow and they are really bored...because seriously..what they do..and how they get paid....they have nothing better to do right now..and its sad. Gamecube is pretty much riding into the sunset and there isnt a steady flow of info from Nintendo.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on June 12, 2005, 05:41:58 PM
Post by: Jensen on June 12, 2005, 05:57:54 PM
Casual, non-gamers are more likely to play split screen games, and resolution helps you see what is going on.
The main reason that there are so few HDTVs is that there is almost no content for them... it is why I held off on getting one. But.... HD-DVDs will start coming out by the end of this year, and the two consoles that support HDTV will be out within a year. And almost anyone that will get a next-gen console already has an HDTV....their computer monitor.
Adding more resolution to a game is virtually free for development costs (except that the console might not be fast enough to handle an HD resolution with the same detail). I've tried a couple of n64 roms at 1920*1200 on my new computer monitor, and they look great.
I was hoping I could play Gamecube games at 720p on the Revolution, that would be a nice feature.
I just don't get Nintendo's stratagy for releasing info about the console... They have only revealed what will make it worse than other consoles (less power because of the smaller size, no HD) without releasing anything good to counterbalance the info.... they should just not say anything)
Post by: trip1eX on June 12, 2005, 06:22:06 PM
NIntendo makes a good pt tho. Or that analyst does. Alot of the processing power jump from the xbox to the 360 will be used merely to support the jump in resolution. IF they kept at the same resolution they'd be able to put alot more effects on the screen and have more objects moving around from leaves to grass etc.
And others have made the pt that even if you have an hdtv you probably only have one. HOw many that have one will do most of their gaming on it? I know when I get one I won't be the only using it. I have a wife and son. I do most of my console gaming on a 23" TV in my computer room.
Post by: Bill Aurion on June 12, 2005, 06:39:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: The OmenQuote
This topic is still ****ing retarded...You guys shoudn't be playing videogames, it's pathetic...
Options? Want options? Here's some for you
1) Shut up
2) Go make a sandwich
3) Fap to TVs
4) Rip your internet out of the wall
Had you yourself followed these rules, we wouldn't have to deal with your constant Nintendo P.R.
Obviously, these rules only apply to others, though...
Oh, considering this is a Nintendo forum one would expect to see more people like me...It's pretty ****ing sad that I'm the black sheep here, isn't it? This is a forum about VIDEOGAMES and it should stay like that...Talking about TVs is POINTLESS and DOES NOT AFFECT GAMING...
Post by: RABicle on June 12, 2005, 06:53:14 PM
Post by: Urkel on June 12, 2005, 07:18:06 PM
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on June 12, 2005, 07:27:57 PM
We complained about NIntendo not going online and here we have Nintendo giving us a free online service
We were dieing for them to bring mario kart, animal crossing, and super smash brothers (among other games) online and here we have Nintendo giving that to us.
Nintendo went a step ahead of our expectations and instead of providing just backwards comp with the Gcube, they give it to us for all their previous consoles.
Who knows what else they have up there sleeve but look at what they are giving us now. More than what we've been asking for in yrs. Yet we still have all these negative nancies complaining about no HD. Big f*cking woop. Go buy your ps3s and xbox 360s then and miss out on future zeldas, marios, metriods and whatever else since you can't have them in the "oh so amazing" high def.
The way I see it, all you people are just looking for reasons to justify your overpriced purchases in the HDtvs. You already can watch dvds in hi def, you can play ps3 and Xbox 360 games in hi def. too bad you cant play Rev games in it though. Tough, you don't get everything you want in life. Learn to accept it. Its not a big a deal as you putting it out to be. At the end of the day, your going to buy a Rev regardless of it having HD or not. If you don't then I don't consider you to be a true gamer.
Post by: PaLaDiN on June 12, 2005, 07:32:43 PM
It's just that we're worried this will mean less dev support or less console sales leading to less dev support, which would mean less games.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 12, 2005, 08:43:16 PM
Yes, that would be fun. An entire forum of people who agree with 100% of everything Nintendo does. THAT would make for some interesting conversations.
The fact that everyone here doesn't have the same opinion is what makes things interesting. It would just be a bunch of boring patting Nintendo on the back otherwise.
As for the arguement that a real gamer wouldn't concern himself over something like HDTV, don't think of this as an arguement about the merits of HD. This is about Nintendo not including a feature that the competition is including and the impact such a move would have on us, the potential Rev owners. No HD means potential lost sales which means lower userbase and market share which means crappier third party support. It is in our best interests that the Rev sells well. The higher market share a console has, the more benefits and options the userbase has. The lower the market share, the less games the userbase has to choose from and there are numerous annoying problems that come with being the last place console (ie: crappy rental selection).
Post by: Talon on June 12, 2005, 09:20:15 PM
Id say the majority of people that buy consoles would make their purchases based on the person selling them the console. Whether Nintendo believe their console is so totally different from their competitors or not the fact is its going to be compared to the other two. Now when a sales clerk says "Both PS3 and XBOX360 will have HDTV support and the revolution wont" immediately the customer will shun the revolution over the other two, even if the customer doesnt know what HDTV is. Nintendo dont want to alienate themselves like the way they did without dvd playback, which really worked wonders in selling PS2s.
Rather than give people reasons not to buy your console, Nintendo you should be giving them reasons to buy your console. It all comes down to education and unless your a hardcore gamer (where im pretty sure your mind will have already been made up to which console you buy) chances are you know little if anything at all about the hardware specs and features of all three consoles and will rely on the clerk behind the sales desk to help make your decision.
Im sure the cost of having this feature included in the hardware is not going to exponentially blow out the price of making the console and could be reflected in the price to the consumer.
That being said my opinion is that Nintendo themselves wont support HDTV but I think they will include it in their console for other developers to implement. Although history shows us that if Nintendo is not willing to support it chances are that none of their developers (2nd or 3rd) will either, like online support.
Post by: anubis6789 on June 12, 2005, 09:36:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Oh, considering this is a Nintendo forum one would expect to see more people like me...It's pretty ****ing sad that I'm the black sheep here, isn't it? This is a forum about VIDEOGAMES and it should stay like that...Talking about TVs is POINTLESS and DOES NOT AFFECT GAMING...
To me this whole HD thing is a non issue, I will buy a REV anyway, the only thing I want is p-scan, but to say that a type of display feature does not affect VIDEO games is a joke.
I also find myself agreeing with Ian. If everyone agreed with everyone else on this forum, the forum would not exist. Hell, one of the reasons I come to this forum is to see what crazy "the-sky-is-falling" thing Ian will say next because I usually do not agree with him. No offense to Ian of course.
Like I said, to me the whole HD thing is a non-issue, and I am not alone. Most people I know that have HDTV's don't hook up any of thier game systems to it with anything more than an S-video cable. This is not DVD playback, this is not online, and this is not cartridges.
By the way Galford your welcome.
Post by: Rocketsastrostexans on June 12, 2005, 09:45:51 PM
A good ole computer (svga) monitor is far better than any HD TV......the only reason this is true is because you already own it.
Just because the monitor is smaller than a HD TV means little (if your cheap like me) all you got to do is get closer to the screen and everthing will be allright........believe me I know.
As as matter of fact.....the only reason they made the HD-TV standard is to make a new market.........companies would make less $ if SVGA was adopted over HD-TV. Thats one win for the lobbiest and corrupt politicians. At least thats my theory (warning: I may be full of crap....of course I did not research this because I am to lazy
Post by: ShyGuy on June 12, 2005, 09:49:34 PM
http://www.planetgamecube.com/news.cfm?action=item&id=6255
Unlike GameCube, the new system will play DVD's, Ms. Kaplan said, and will feature a wireless controller. It will play GameCube games as well as a new class of high-definition games, with new emphasis on online play.
From Perrin's mouth herself! I really get the feeling that Perrin Kaplan has no idea at ALL about the products she promotes..
Post by: WindyMan on June 12, 2005, 10:11:29 PM
There's no doubt in my mind that the Revolution will support 480p. The GameCube does, and there's no reason that this basic video output shouldn't be supported. (Then again, Nintendo is no longer making GameCubes with the progressive cable output.)
Not supporting hi-def resolutions will hurt Nintendo in America more than it will help them. It will greatly help them in Japan and Europe since HDTVs are slow to catch on. In the end, though, I think it will cost them some third party support, but not as much as the GameCube since a lot of publishers want their games to be online. The Revolution will be, and that's all that should matter in the beginning.
And that's the funny thing. Nintendo is pushing for wireless internet, a technology that is in far fewer American homes than HDTV is. It's big in Japan, though.
Back on track. One important thing to remember about SD is it doesn't automatically mean 4:3. Nintendo refuses to put widescreen modes in their games, but any developer that cares will provide a 16:9 option for people who want it. Since every PS3 and 360 game will almost surely be widescreen (and also be required to work on standard def 4:3 TVs), games should already have a widescreen feature. All the developer needs to do is offer the option, and all Revolution games should be 16x9 and 480p. All and all, that's not bad if we're going to get rock-solid consistency.
Post by: anubis6789 on June 12, 2005, 10:23:54 PM
It does not really matter though, my area, Austin, my just me more advaned in regard to wireless internet than other areas, just as your area might have more HDTV penetration than other areas. Perhaps it helps that the Austin area cable provider gives out wireless routers for only five extra dollars a month, while getting an HD box is about twenty more dollars.
Regarding Ms. Kaplan's comments, I think that IGN may have taken here comments about HD out of context, or maybe she thought they were refering to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. I highly doubt a woman that far up in a company would not know what she is talking about... at least I hope.
Post by: Rocketsastrostexans on June 12, 2005, 10:34:46 PM
Post by: Mario on June 12, 2005, 10:37:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PittbboiQuote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"Non-gamers aren't going to care about Nintendo's name, or what its console is offering-- when they make the decision on what next generation console to support, they're going to see that the Revolution does not have features that both of the other consoles support--and that's going to be one factor that turns them off."
You're not getting it.
Non-gamers aren't going to make a decision on what next generation console to support, by definition. Nintendo's planning to get unprecedented levels of impulse buying from people who have barely played any games before. Non-gamers will not care about HD... if Nintendo's revolutionary aspect/controller/games really strike a chord with people games have not struck a chord with before, they will buy the revolution over the other two consoles.
And you're contradicting yourself. If Nintendo's revolutionary aspect strikes a chord with them, and they buy it, they're still making a conscious decision to. Non-gamer's brains aren't set to random; they're not stupid. When they buy a console, no matter what, they're going to do SOME level of research and go by what they think they know, whether it be what they read in some biased gaming magazine, what their friends told them, or what the dude at EBGames told them when they walked into the store to purchase a console.
No. Non-gamers aren't going to all of a sudden care about Xbox 360 and PS3 because they can play games in high definition, because they still offer the same way of playing games they weren't interested in this generation. Nintendo's new form of gameplay has the potential to get these people interested.
Quote
Originally posted by: AussiedudeQuote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
another thing..when it comes out looking dam,n good graphically and its 100-150 dollars cheaper than the other console...and has some crazy innovative feature...then its going to have mroe value to the casual gamer.
Gee you MUST be right.
Just like everyone bought the Gamecube over XBOX and PS2 because it is $150 - $200AUD cheaper, and does not support DVD.
YEAH RIGHT, casual gamers will be happy for sure that revolution does not support HD.
And for the record, I have 40 GCN games, 6 NDS games, 0 PS2 and 0 XBOX games. BUT this will change next gen.
You're going to buy some PS2 games next generation? I donot understand. Or are you implying that unannounced PS3 game is superior to unannounced Revolution game? I still donot understand.
The thing I don't understand most is why people are saying Revolution will get less developer support because of this. Not having the option to have the games playable in HD is just as bad as forcing devs to put HD in their games.
Post by: Talon on June 12, 2005, 10:37:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
The thing I don't understand most is why people are saying Revolution will get less developer support because of this. Not having the option to have the games playable in HD is just as bad as forcing devs to put HD in their games.
There is no truth to this fact. However alot of people are under the assumption that if Nintendo does not support HDTV that it will lead to less consumers opting to purchase the revolution in favour of other consoles. Therefore with a small user-base third parties are more likely to shun the revolution because of the lack of potential sales as opposed to other consoles.
Post by: Mario on June 12, 2005, 10:40:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Oh, considering this is a Nintendo forum one would expect to see more people like me"
Yes, that would be fun. An entire forum of people who agree with 100% of everything Nintendo does. THAT would make for some interesting conversations.
No, that entire frame of thinking wouldn't exist, we'd be talking about games not Nintendo's financial and marketing decisions.
Post by: nemo_83 on June 12, 2005, 11:26:57 PM
the attitude monitor
wait, you're not confused enough
twenty
21
some more interesting images
page 26 the text begins
If you can't view the images go here for a download.
viewer
It appears my time has expired before I was able to finish reading those pattents.
Post by: anubis6789 on June 12, 2005, 11:41:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
AlsoQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Oh, considering this is a Nintendo forum one would expect to see more people like me"
Yes, that would be fun. An entire forum of people who agree with 100% of everything Nintendo does. THAT would make for some interesting conversations.
No, that entire frame of thinking wouldn't exist, we'd be talking about games not Nintendo's financial and marketing decisions.
Well in lieu of any game information what else would we talk about on the REV board?
Also in order to play Nintendo games you have to have a Nintendo system which is what we are talking about. Just because some of us go off into financials and marketing doesn't mean we can't also talk about games. It just so happens that a few of us like to talk about such things, to us that is part of being a gamer. Just because you don't think about them doesn't mean they don't exist. To each his own.
I too hope they still keep VGA monitor support as an option, that is something I am really looking forward to.
Post by: PaLaDiN on June 13, 2005, 12:34:34 AM
"And you're contradicting yourself. If Nintendo's revolutionary aspect strikes a chord with them, and they buy it, they're still making a conscious decision to. Non-gamer's brains aren't set to random; they're not stupid. When they buy a console, no matter what, they're going to do SOME level of research and go by what they think they know, whether it be what they read in some biased gaming magazine, what their friends told them, or what the dude at EBGames told them when they walked into the store to purchase a console."
Huh wha? The whole point is that the revolutionary aspect is what got them interested. Wouldn't be much of a revolutionary aspect if the other consoles had it, now would it? So since that's what got them interested, they'll get a Rev. HD doesn't enter into the equation for non-gamers.
Let's look at the DS for example. Suppose a Japanese girl sees her friend touching a dog on a screen and thinks "so cute! must have it!". You're telling me she'll subsequently do some research, go to the store and buy a PSP because it's got a better screen. I'm telling you she wants to touch her own Nintendog so she'll buy a DS. The PSP is still an unfamiliar alien object to her that doesn't let her pet a Nintendog, so she won't buy that.
Because the revolutionary aspect is what struck a chord with them, that's the criterion they're going to use to select what they want the next time they go shopping.
I mean, that's what makes sense to me.
Post by: Mario on June 13, 2005, 02:10:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: anubis6789Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
AlsoQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Oh, considering this is a Nintendo forum one would expect to see more people like me"
Yes, that would be fun. An entire forum of people who agree with 100% of everything Nintendo does. THAT would make for some interesting conversations.
No, that entire frame of thinking wouldn't exist, we'd be talking about games not Nintendo's financial and marketing decisions.
Well in lieu of any game information what else would we talk about on the REV board?
Also in order to play Nintendo games you have to have a Nintendo system which is what we are talking about. Just because some of us go off into financials and marketing doesn't mean we can't also talk about games. It just so happens that a few of us like to talk about such things, to us that is part of being a gamer. Just because you don't think about them doesn't mean they don't exist. To each his own.
I too hope they still keep VGA monitor support as an option, that is something I am really looking forward to.
I know, I didn't say whether I agreed or disagreed with that, I myself get pleasure out of reading sales figures and predicting market trends. I'm all for trying to make Nintendo "perfect" by expecting the best from them, but really, half the posts in this thread border on stupidity. It's like all this rage that Nintendo's console has been perfect so far has built up, when people heard this they were like "YES!!! er.. i mean, OH NO Nintendo is doomed! *Reply*"
Post by: Nephilim on June 13, 2005, 03:07:04 AM
you can play Terminator 3:rise of the machines on 1152x864 with a 500dollar graphics and it will still look as crappy as a PS1 game
Its how the devoloper uses it, Nintendo dont need Hi-def games at the moment, most of there games are simple looking, look polished and very pretty.
But they dont relize that other companys do want there games like that. much like the cd size vs cart deal.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 13, 2005, 04:15:42 AM
As for the RAM requirement, a 1920x1080x24Bit framebuffer takes roughly 6 Megabytes, times three (triple buffering) that's 24MBs. Admittedly I have no idea how large a framebuffer would be when you're using HDRI but you could simply disable that at resolutions that dont leave enough space. With 256MB of RAM that should be neglectible, if Nintendo feels a need to put even less in there it's their problem that their third party support will suck because the great games don't fit into the Rev's memory. Though perhaps they're removing HD so the devs can downsample the textures to make them fit into the Rev's RAM without anyone noticing. A slower processor is less of a problem than too little RAM, which is already a problem with consoles.
Post by: Nile Boogie on June 13, 2005, 05:06:51 AM
Post by: ABlueflameA on June 13, 2005, 05:26:00 AM
-Games
Nintendo is built upon releasing the highest quality games found on any system. I'm going to buy Revolution and Smash Brothers Online BECAUSE its Smash Brothers Online and not because it has a few more lines of resolution in it. I'm going to buy Mario, Zelda, Metroid and maybe even Donkey Kong because of their history of being great games.
Nintendo is all about games, and as long as they stick with that, they'll still have legions of fans, including myself.
-Blueflame
Post by: Kairon on June 13, 2005, 06:03:16 AM
In fact, the more you get to know Nintendo, the more it seems suitable that they're not ast the forefront of the marketshare heap. The videogame industry has changed, and that change is only indicative of Nintendo's success. We should be proud that Nintendo raised the industry to surpass what they can give it, not outraged that Nintendo can't be everything to everyone.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Deguello on June 13, 2005, 06:30:37 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 13, 2005, 07:57:08 AM
I'm still at a loss as to why people don't understand the simple concept that #1 = amazing third party support, #3 = sh!tty third party support. There are more advantages to being #1 than bragging rights.
Someone brought up that Nintendo already confirmed HD: "It will play GameCube games as well as a new class of high-definition games"
I think "new class" leaves things open to debate. Perhaps in that quote she's refering to the rumoured 3D headset or whatever. Nintendo is infamous for using weird vague terms to describe things so in this context "high-definition" possibly doesn't mean what everyone but Nintendo thinks it does.
Post by: couchmonkey on June 13, 2005, 08:23:06 AM
My favourite part of the IGN article is when Dyack says that he'll play Zelda on Revolution whether it's HD or not. That sums up my feelings perfectly. I don't give a flying crap about High Definition games. In the long run I think this decision will cost Nintendo, but it will not change my decision at all, the games will do that. If Nintendo can deliver the innovative experience it's hoping it can, this may be totally unimportant. High-definition will definitely impress some gamers, but so far the next generation of game systems has done nothing to impress me. I want different gaming experiences.
Something that I think is interesting is the argument over Nintendo's revolutionary games and the non-gamer crowd. I fully agree that non-gamers will be buying Revolution for the thing that makes it different from the other systems and not for the high-def feature. However, if Nintendo's new feature is easy to copy, then what happens when non-gamers can get the same feature on a high-definition system? Tough question!
I'm still skeptical about the non-gamer strategy in general: video gaming is a rather expensive hobby, I'm not sure it can attract a new fanbase that will keep buying at current game prices. I guess we'll see.
Post by: Shecky on June 13, 2005, 09:24:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Since the PGC newspeak was apparently introduced to stifle debate I propose we map "HDTV" to "LOLZ Graphics Whore!!" and bring this forum a step closer to unusability.
I sense a bit of sarcasm, but clearly the term HDTV is not to be blamed for this thread
Quote
As for the RAM requirement, a 1920x1080x24Bit framebuffer takes roughly 6 Megabytes, times three (triple buffering) that's 24MBs. Admittedly I have no idea how large a framebuffer would be when you're using HDRI but you could simply disable that at resolutions that dont leave enough space. With 256MB of RAM that should be neglectible, if Nintendo feels a need to put even less in there it's their problem that their third party support will suck because the great games don't fit into the Rev's memory. Though perhaps they're removing HD so the devs can downsample the textures to make them fit into the Rev's RAM without anyone noticing. A slower processor is less of a problem than too little RAM, which is already a problem with consoles.
Well the GC has a 2MB T1-Ram frame buffer, aside from the main ram. I was guessing that the revolution may thus follow along the same lines, and was trying an alternate view of this issue for constructive purposes. It seems that people are just too worked up about this whole issue, on a system who's specs are not even finalized.
Post by: Kairon on June 13, 2005, 09:31:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"I'm still at a loss as to why any Nintendo fan would care whether Nintendo is in #1 or #3. I thought we all bought Nintendo for their gamer, not for the bragging rights of having the top-market console in our home."
I'm still at a loss as to why people don't understand the simple concept that #1 = amazing third party support, #3 = sh!tty third party support. There are more advantages to being #1 than bragging rights.
Someone brought up that Nintendo already confirmed HD: "It will play GameCube games as well as a new class of high-definition games"
I think "new class" leaves things open to debate. Perhaps in that quote she's refering to the rumoured 3D headset or whatever. Nintendo is infamous for using weird vague terms to describe things so in this context "high-definition" possibly doesn't mean what everyone but Nintendo thinks it does.
I don't buy Nintendo systems to play third party games, and I never will. Nintendo isn't in the hardware business for any other reason than to support their software efforts. They had to enter hardware to introduce the + pad to replace the joystick. They were the ones who made force-feedback and analog control a reality. And whatever they've got cooking up now for Revolution, Nintendo's ultimate goal is not to sell more systems, but to make newer, more interesting and better games.
As a Nintendo fan who understands that Nintendo making hardware is only truly important as it relates to Nintendo making software, I don't care much over whether Nintendo's hardware has a #1 market position or not. All I want is for Nintendo to keep making the best games they possibly can, enabled by both their hardware and software vision. This position is NOT threatened by the discussion over whether third-parties develop on a Nintendo console or not, and that is why I consider myself a Nintendo Fan.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Mario on June 13, 2005, 09:47:23 AM
Quote
I'm still at a loss as to why people don't understand the simple concept that #1 = amazing third party support, #3 = sh!tty third party support. There are more advantages to being #1 than bragging rights.
I agree with you on this concept, if GTA was released on Revolution I wouldn't need to buy a PS3, but the fact is this HD crap won't mean ANYTHING in determining which console is #1 or #3.
Post by: Pittbboi on June 13, 2005, 10:04:28 AM
Quote
I don't buy Nintendo systems to play third party games, and I never will. Nintendo isn't in the hardware business for any other reason than to support their software efforts. They had to enter hardware to introduce the + pad to replace the joystick. They were the ones who made force-feedback and analog control a reality. And whatever they've got cooking up now for Revolution, Nintendo's ultimate goal is not to sell more systems, but to make newer, more interesting and better games.
As a Nintendo fan who understands that Nintendo making hardware is only truly important as it relates to Nintendo making software, I don't care much over whether Nintendo's hardware has a #1 market position or not. All I want is for Nintendo to keep making the best games they possibly can, enabled by both their hardware and software vision. This position is NOT threatened by the discussion over whether third-parties develop on a Nintendo console or not, and that is why I consider myself a Nintendo Fan.
...Only that vision isn't what Nintendo sees for itself. Never have you seen Iwata say that he's comfortable with Nintendo being in last place, or that it only makes its hardware for its games. Remember, the main push by Nintendo back in the pre-Gamecube release period was to get itself back on speaking terms with third party developers. It failed at this, but that goal hasn't changed with the Revolution. Why do you think they're emphasizing how high production costs are becoming and making such an effort to bring them down? Nintendo wants other companies to develop for their hardware, and it wants to gain more marketshare to make its hardware that much more appealing. It's foolish to think that a Nintendo console could survive on it's own games. It simply can't. Nintendo knows this; a lot of people still apparently don't.
What a lot of us "naysayers" are doing here isn't just needlessly poking at Nintendo, it's realizing that some of the decisions made by Nintendo may hinder its own goals. I don't think anyone is doubting that games with still play well and look stunning on the Revolution with or without HD support. However, there's no denying that lack of this support will cost it potential sales--and Nintendo is in no position to risk potential sales, because sales determine how much 3rd party support you get, and THAT'S what floats a console.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 13, 2005, 10:21:29 AM
You're defining yourself a Nintendo fan because you only like Nintendo. A Nintendo fan is merely someone who really likes Nintendo's games. One can be a Nintendo fan and also a fan of gaming in general. I'm a Nintendo fan because I think they make the best games. I don't think they make the only games I want to play. But then I became a Nintendo fan on the SNES and thus know what I used to have and what I miss.
Plus sales also relate to Nintendo's future. If they keep losing market share eventually they'll reach a point where the userbase is so small they can't make a profit anymore and go broke and that means no more Nintendo games for the "I only like Nintendo" fan.
Post by: Kairon on June 13, 2005, 10:34:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
...Only that vision isn't what Nintendo sees for itself. Never have you seen Iwata say that he's comfortable with Nintendo being in last place, or that it only makes its hardware for its games. Remember, the main push by Nintendo back in the pre-Gamecube release period was to get itself back on speaking terms with third party developers. It failed at this, but that goal hasn't changed with the Revolution. Why do you think they're emphasizing how high production costs are becoming and making such an effort to bring them down? Nintendo wants other companies to develop for their hardware, and it wants to gain more marketshare to make its hardware that much more appealing. It's foolish to think that a Nintendo console could survive on it's own games. It simply can't. Nintendo knows this; a lot of people still apparently don't.
What a lot of us "naysayers" are doing here isn't just needlessly poking at Nintendo, it's realizing that some of the decisions made by Nintendo may hinder its own goals. I don't think anyone is doubting that games with still play well and look stunning on the Revolution with or without HD support. However, there's no denying that lack of this support will cost it potential sales--and Nintendo is in no position to risk potential sales, because sales determine how much 3rd party support you get, and THAT'S what floats a console.
There are two sides to Nintendo, two different avenues on which they must act. One side is the avenue that Iwata now heads, and that is keeping Nintendo in business. After all, Nintendo couldn't very well make great games if Nintendo didn't exist.
But that side of Nintendo only exists to ensure the viability of Nintendo's true driving force: Miyamoto and Nintendo's legacy as a software maker, their ability to freely innovate, and their ability to take games where they want games to go. This is what interests me most as a Nintendo fan. The business aspect of Nintendo's profitability is subordinate to Miyamoto's creativity.
Now obviously, this brings us to a question of "do the ends justify the means?" If Nintendo becomes financially dominant, but does so by sacrificing the only thing that truly is Nintendo, Miyamoto's legacy, then I, as a Nintendo fan would count it as an unsconciounable loss. Yet if That legacy survives, then I'm not too caught up in whether Nintendo is in 1st or 3rd place, as long as the games keep coming.
And even assuming that everyone here is working under the question, "Does HD support make-or-break Nintendo's future ability to create the games it wants to make?", I don't think the situation is as dire as everyone makes it out to be.
First of all, by striving for low production costs, Nintendo can minimize financial risk on hardware losses. GC didn't have as much support as the XBox or PS2, but Nintendo made money on it's own games, some licensing fees, AND the hardware itself: nowhere did Nintendo realize a loss except when the unique and specialized arenas of currency exchange (a weak dollar/strong yen) and hefty Research and Development coincided. And in addition to this, Nintendo can pursue the lowest price with more safety than Sony or Microsoft, and with a lower price point Nintendo consoles can become much more comfortable impulse buys for casual gamers rather than the 5-year contract you'll get when you buy the latest and greatest PSXBox.
Secondly, exactly what third party game has sold Gamecube, or the N64? Resident Evil's impact on the GC has been vastly over-rated by viewers (indeed, most were remakes, and RE4 has only moved 500,000 copies, a small amount compared to blockbusters). And the N64's only truly premier third party title was GoldenEye. Nintendo was responsible for every other signature game that kept the N64 afloat. And again, looking at DS with it's lack of marquee third party titles, again Nintendo has managed to sell the system with barely more than Nintendo Licenses and token third party ports.
And of course, while HD may be a selling point for the first-adopters, the techno-lusters, and the internet-savvy, 1080p is hardly commonplace now, nor would excluding 1080p make developers unable to make games that they could before (thus satisfying a key IanSane flashpoint: traditional genres (Street-Fighter-esque fighting games, for example) must not be excluded).
Finally, while the developers may definitely take advantage of 1080p support on other systems, it's exclusion makes Revolution development and ports easier, not harder. After all, this is eye candy.
Now it's no question that a COMPLETE lack of third party support will pretty much relegate a Nintendo console to the dustbin of history, yet that is highly unlikely, as long as EA sits pretty in their "top dog" position and desires as many console makers to fight it out while they rake in the big bucks.
But when reviewing the topic at hand, I'm amazed at the weight people give to issues like this. Iwata's job is to keep Miyamoto in business. Miyamoto's job is to keep making the best games he can possibly make. And I doubt that not supporting bleeding edge 1080p will endanger either aspect to the point that Miyamoto will no longer be able to make the next Mario.
High Definition or not, if the next Nintendo game rocks, I'll be there to buy it. And experience seems to show that although there are no more than 20 million people like me, that there are enough to keep Nintendo in the business of making games... which of course, is the only reason we're all here anyways.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: couchmonkey on June 13, 2005, 11:15:29 AM
I love Nintendo's games and consider them works of art, and I fully agree that Nintendo gives way more priority to the art of game design than most other game companies out there. But to say that Iwata's job is to keep Miyamoto in business...I consider it more of a mutual relationship. Neither one would be as well-off without the other.
As for the weight people have given to the issue, I agree that it's not all that important in the grand scheme of things, but I do believe it will cost Nintendo sales unless the company is able to cut the cost of the system by a very large amount this way. I hope Nintendo will prove me wrong in that respect.
Post by: Kairon on June 13, 2005, 01:50:52 PM
For such a controversial figure as Yamauchi, there is at least one good thing to his credit: he allowed a newly discovered Miyamoto some of the most brilliant games ever.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on June 13, 2005, 02:10:03 PM
But that’s the thing: Miyamoto’s legacy won’t survive if Nintendo keeps losing marketshare, which has been happening since the NES. Its best attempts to keep that from happening with the Gamecube failed. Obviously, the business/financial aspect of Nintendo matters, and they need to pay more attention to it, because at this point in time we’re knee deep Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games, but that hasn’t stopped Nintendo from losing marketshare. And its already been established that Nintendo can only keep losing marketshare for so long before it starts to suffer.
“And even assuming that everyone here is working under the question, "Does HD support make-or-break Nintendo's future ability to create the games it wants to make?", I don't think the situation is as dire as everyone makes it out to be.
First of all, by striving for low production costs, Nintendo can minimize financial risk on hardware losses. GC didn't have as much support as the XBox or PS2, but Nintendo made money on it's own games, some licensing fees, AND the hardware itself: nowhere did Nintendo realize a loss except when the unique and specialized arenas of currency exchange (a weak dollar/strong yen) and hefty Research and Development coincided. And in addition to this, Nintendo can pursue the lowest price with more safety than Sony or Microsoft, and with a lower price point Nintendo consoles can become much more comfortable impulse buys for casual gamers rather than the 5-year contract you'll get when you buy the latest and greatest PSXBox.”
I don’t think anyone here is making the situation out to be dire. This isn’t the stupid decision that’s going to doom Nintendo, and I don’t think anyone here made it out to be that serious. It is, however, a stupid decision, and big or small, Nintendo can’t afford to make stupid decisions this time around. It’s not Sony, who’s the market leader, and thus can afford to make small stupid decisions.
Also, besides the fact that it’s been established that not supporting HD is alleviating only a very small percentage of the production cost, it wouldn’t hurt Nintendo to take a risk and handle a small financial loss. A lot of the things Nintendo does to keep its profit margins up are a lot of things that keep third parties from developing for it (cartridges, mini discs, licensing fees, and now possibly lack of HD support). Hell, look at the Xbox. It didn’t make any money for Microsoft, only leeched it from them. However, that console went from being the underdog in this generation, to coming in second and giving Microsoft a foothold in the market and the chance to compete head-to-head with Sony this upcoming generation. Nintendo’s going to have to play catch up with Microsoft now before it can even get to Sony.
Of course, no one is asking Nintendo to try and weather a HUGE financial loss--it doesn’t have to reserves from other markets that Microsoft and Sony have. However, Nintendo is a much larger company than even its fans give it credit for, a multi-billion dollar one, to be exact. It may not be as huge as MS and Sony, but it can afford to take a small loss for the greater gain, and it’s about time it did.
“Secondly, exactly what third party game has sold Gamecube, or the N64? Resident Evil's impact on the GC has been vastly over-rated by viewers (indeed, most were remakes, and RE4 has only moved 500,000 copies, a small amount compared to blockbusters). And the N64's only truly premier third party title was GoldenEye. Nintendo was responsible for every other signature game that kept the N64 afloat. And again, looking at DS with it's lack of marquee third party titles, again Nintendo has managed to sell the system with barely more than Nintendo Licenses and token third party ports.”
You’re underestimating the value of the third party. Yes, it may be harder to come by a third part big hit game on a Nintendo console, but that shouldn’t undermine their affect. “Collectively” third parties are what keep Nintendo (as well as other consoles) afloat. I highly doubt the DS would sell well if it were only to play Nintendo games. Yes, Nintendo games got people interested in it, but don’t doubt that it wasn’t the promise of better and more varied third party games that got a lot of people to buy it (I know that’s why I did).
What you’re wanting Nintendo to do is give third parties the bare minimum they need to send their crap titles to Nintendo consoles, so that Nintendo alone stays afloat. Not only is that extremely bad practice for maintaining good relationships with third parties, and forcing Nintendo fans to go out and buy other consoles to play quality games that aren’t by Miyamoto (those do exist), it’s a practice that won’t work forever. Frankly, as big of a fan as I am, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if it were harder for Nintendo to round up quality third party titles and exclusives this time around.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 13, 2005, 02:23:46 PM
None but that's kind of the point. Those consoles had poor third party support so obvious no third party game sold consoles. Hell NOTHING sold Cubes, whether first or third party. The NES and SNES however had several huge third party sellers. Street Fighter II for the SNES for example was a huge one. The Cube in particular is the very example of why third party support is so crucial. The Cube's poor performance was largely caused by a post-launch game drought which occured because there weren't any decent third party games to fill the gap between first party titles.
Post by: Kairon on June 13, 2005, 02:54:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"exactly what third party game has sold Gamecube, or the N64?"
None but that's kind of the point. Those consoles had poor third party support so obvious no third party game sold consoles. Hell NOTHING sold Cubes, whether first or third party. The NES and SNES however had several huge third party sellers. Street Fighter II for the SNES for example was a huge one. The Cube in particular is the very example of why third party support is so crucial. The Cube's poor performance was largely caused by a post-launch game drought which occured because there weren't any decent third party games to fill the gap between first party titles.
Yet even with so little 3rd Party support, Nintendo survived the N64 and it was actually profitable with the Cube. I feel that, yes, Nintendo needs to be aware of the changing market place in order to stay profitable, but it's obvious that Nintendo isn't in dire danger of disappearing due to financial insolvency.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on June 13, 2005, 03:06:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
“Now obviously, this brings us to a question of "do the ends justify the means?" If Nintendo becomes financially dominant, but does so by sacrificing the only thing that truly is Nintendo, Miyamoto's legacy, then I, as a Nintendo fan would count it as an unsconciounable loss. Yet if That legacy survives, then I'm not too caught up in whether Nintendo is in 1st or 3rd place, as long as the games keep coming.”
But that’s the thing: Miyamoto’s legacy won’t survive if Nintendo keeps losing marketshare, which has been happening since the NES. Its best attempts to keep that from happening with the Gamecube failed. Obviously, the business/financial aspect of Nintendo matters, and they need to pay more attention to it, because at this point in time we’re knee deep Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games, but that hasn’t stopped Nintendo from losing marketshare. And its already been established that Nintendo can only keep losing marketshare for so long before it starts to suffer.
“And even assuming that everyone here is working under the question, "Does HD support make-or-break Nintendo's future ability to create the games it wants to make?", I don't think the situation is as dire as everyone makes it out to be.
First of all, by striving for low production costs, Nintendo can minimize financial risk on hardware losses. GC didn't have as much support as the XBox or PS2, but Nintendo made money on it's own games, some licensing fees, AND the hardware itself: nowhere did Nintendo realize a loss except when the unique and specialized arenas of currency exchange (a weak dollar/strong yen) and hefty Research and Development coincided. And in addition to this, Nintendo can pursue the lowest price with more safety than Sony or Microsoft, and with a lower price point Nintendo consoles can become much more comfortable impulse buys for casual gamers rather than the 5-year contract you'll get when you buy the latest and greatest PSXBox.”
I don’t think anyone here is making the situation out to be dire. This isn’t the stupid decision that’s going to doom Nintendo, and I don’t think anyone here made it out to be that serious. It is, however, a stupid decision, and big or small, Nintendo can’t afford to make stupid decisions this time around. It’s not Sony, who’s the market leader, and thus can afford to make small stupid decisions.
Also, besides the fact that it’s been established that not supporting HD is alleviating only a very small percentage of the production cost, it wouldn’t hurt Nintendo to take a risk and handle a small financial loss. A lot of the things Nintendo does to keep its profit margins up are a lot of things that keep third parties from developing for it (cartridges, mini discs, licensing fees, and now possibly lack of HD support). Hell, look at the Xbox. It didn’t make any money for Microsoft, only leeched it from them. However, that console went from being the underdog in this generation, to coming in second and giving Microsoft a foothold in the market and the chance to compete head-to-head with Sony this upcoming generation. Nintendo’s going to have to play catch up with Microsoft now before it can even get to Sony.
Of course, no one is asking Nintendo to try and weather a HUGE financial loss--it doesn’t have to reserves from other markets that Microsoft and Sony have. However, Nintendo is a much larger company than even its fans give it credit for, a multi-billion dollar one, to be exact. It may not be as huge as MS and Sony, but it can afford to take a small loss for the greater gain, and it’s about time it did.
“Secondly, exactly what third party game has sold Gamecube, or the N64? Resident Evil's impact on the GC has been vastly over-rated by viewers (indeed, most were remakes, and RE4 has only moved 500,000 copies, a small amount compared to blockbusters). And the N64's only truly premier third party title was GoldenEye. Nintendo was responsible for every other signature game that kept the N64 afloat. And again, looking at DS with it's lack of marquee third party titles, again Nintendo has managed to sell the system with barely more than Nintendo Licenses and token third party ports.”
You’re underestimating the value of the third party. Yes, it may be harder to come by a third part big hit game on a Nintendo console, but that shouldn’t undermine their affect. “Collectively” third parties are what keep Nintendo (as well as other consoles) afloat. I highly doubt the DS would sell well if it were only to play Nintendo games. Yes, Nintendo games got people interested in it, but don’t doubt that it wasn’t the promise of better and more varied third party games that got a lot of people to buy it (I know that’s why I did).
What you’re wanting Nintendo to do is give third parties the bare minimum they need to send their crap titles to Nintendo consoles, so that Nintendo alone stays afloat. Not only is that extremely bad practice for maintaining good relationships with third parties, and forcing Nintendo fans to go out and buy other consoles to play quality games that aren’t by Miyamoto (those do exist), it’s a practice that won’t work forever. Frankly, as big of a fan as I am, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if it were harder for Nintendo to round up quality third party titles and exclusives this time around.
I'm not writing off third parties at all. I'm merely pointing out the fact that Nintendo can survive without overwhelming third party support, and that support is likely to continue in some small form. EA themselves seem content to keep all the hardware makers in the race because they're profiteering handsomely from the console wars. Nintendo may not grab as much thrid party mindshare as MS or Sony, but they don't need the lion's share to survive.
I'm not wanting Nintendo to ignore third parties. In fact, there are a couple third parties out there I'm in love with (for example, DMA, better known as Rockstar North, did amazing things on the N64, and their GTA series shows a significant new direction in videogames). But I'm saying that we shouldn't want to sacrifice the ability of Nintendo to take games where the envision they need should go, just to appease a larger audience. This isn't about HD support anymore, but the general perception that an idea is bad merely because it risks keeping third parties away.
Given that Nintendo shows resiliency, and the ability to survive with not-so-much third party support, there's only one reason a Nintendo Fan could desire more third-partys on a Nintendo system compared to competitors: a concern for marketshare and convenient bragging rights as opposed to a contentment with the actual Nintendo games we play.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Nile Boogie on June 13, 2005, 05:27:10 PM
The wording of this is just vague enough for me to think that Nintendo has something up their sleeve. They have already stated that the 12cm disc would be HD (was this not reported on PGCs' front-page the night after XboX360 MTV crapfest), not my words, Nintendos. That has to mean something more than what we are seeing. Some kinda loop-hole or hidden message. Sound to me like they're coming up with a proprietary form of video output. As good as HD just not the same format.
Adding HD support to a console launching in 2006 can't cost THAT much more than a few dollars per unit , if that. You can buy a 27" brand X HDTV now for about $399.99, while my 27" Phillips cost $321.14 about three years ago. I plan on getting a HDTV as so as there is a reason for me (NFL Sunday Ticket I'm looking you're way)
Post by: BigJim on June 13, 2005, 06:00:16 PM
They don't just want a surviving Nintendo, they want a thriving one. Hot third party support is imperative to achieve that. Not many single 3rd party games move systems. But 3rd party games on the whole do. If I'm an RPG fan, I would scoff at the notion of even considering GameCube. Those handful of games wouldn't sustain me for the life of the system. Options are important. And big name releases like RE4 don't have to be events. Why shouldn't they be regular occurances?
These small, stupid decisions for short term profit don't help. Give the developers the OPTION of HD and let them decide if it's worth the "cost" or not. They want options just as we do. It's not even necessarily directly about "bragging rights" or marketshare either. Many of us simply don't want to shell out $600 or more for multiple consoles to play all the games we want to. There's nothing wrong with wanting better or equal 3rd party games, and there's certainly nothing wrong with not wanting to be overlooked altogether for games like we have been with GameCube.
Nintendo pigeonholed themselves into being the provider of "star power" and "safe" games... where games don't sell unless they have that classic Nintendo pixie dust sprinkled all over it, or has yet another famous IP on the box cover. That may be enough for YOU being strictly a "Nintendo fan." But more third party support would help break the mold and return more game options into their lineup... for the rest of us that don't buy consoles just for one developer.
Post by: Talon on June 13, 2005, 06:20:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Nile Boogie
"There currently are no plans for Nintendo Revolution to support high-definition video output. We have thoroughly considered the best means of video output for the system and are dedicated to delivering the best hardware possible to meet the demands of our consumers. Please stay tuned for more details on Nintendo Revolution to be revealed soon."
The wording of this is just vague enough for me to think that Nintendo has something up their sleeve. They have already stated that the 12cm disc would be HD (was this not reported on PGCs' front-page the night after XboX360 MTV crapfest), not my words, Nintendos. That has to mean something more than what we are seeing. Some kinda loop-hole or hidden message. Sound to me like they're coming up with a proprietary form of video output. As good as HD just not the same format.
Adding HD support to a console launching in 2006 can't cost THAT much more than a few dollars per unit , if that. You can buy a 27" brand X HDTV now for about $399.99, while my 27" Phillips cost $321.14 about three years ago. I plan on getting a HDTV as so as there is a reason for me (NFL Sunday Ticket I'm looking you're way)
Im sure that if the statement nintendo made about not supporting HD was taken out of context they would have said something by now to debunk it. And jugding by the consumer backlash i wouldnt be suprised if they did incorporate it afterall.
Post by: ThePerm on June 13, 2005, 06:34:13 PM
Post by: Savior on June 13, 2005, 07:15:07 PM
ALOT of those Third Party games developed on the GBA... I wonder how would the GBA look without Third Parties? Not as economically succesfull for Nintendo.
Post by: nemo_83 on June 13, 2005, 08:35:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TalonQuote
Originally posted by: Nile Boogie
"There currently are no plans for Nintendo Revolution to support high-definition video output. We have thoroughly considered the best means of video output for the system and are dedicated to delivering the best hardware possible to meet the demands of our consumers. Please stay tuned for more details on Nintendo Revolution to be revealed soon."
The wording of this is just vague enough for me to think that Nintendo has something up their sleeve. They have already stated that the 12cm disc would be HD (was this not reported on PGCs' front-page the night after XboX360 MTV crapfest), not my words, Nintendos. That has to mean something more than what we are seeing. Some kinda loop-hole or hidden message. Sound to me like they're coming up with a proprietary form of video output. As good as HD just not the same format.
Adding HD support to a console launching in 2006 can't cost THAT much more than a few dollars per unit , if that. You can buy a 27" brand X HDTV now for about $399.99, while my 27" Phillips cost $321.14 about three years ago. I plan on getting a HDTV as so as there is a reason for me (NFL Sunday Ticket I'm looking you're way)
Im sure that if the statement nintendo made about not supporting HD was taken out of context they would have said something by now to debunk it. And jugding by the consumer backlash i wouldnt be suprised if they did incorporate it afterall.
The topic on this subject at nintendo.com is 178 pages long already. That is not including a whole bunch of locked threads about it.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 13, 2005, 08:48:04 PM
Hopefully they'll notice that since there is still time to put in the feature. If they're so worried about their precious 50 cents they can raise the price of the console 50 cents. It's not like anyone would care if they did that.
The problem is that NOA is who would see the response on Nintendo.com but NCL is the one who makes the decisions. NCL lives in a bubble called Japan and they base worldwide decisions on what's going on there. In Japan this isn't as big of a deal. This is largely a North American issue so it would be very surprising if NCL made a decision solely to appease a non-Japanese market.
Post by: Talon on June 13, 2005, 09:17:49 PM
NOA: You idiots, look what you have done!! You have just created riots throught the USA and the rest of the territories besides Japan. Dont be such tightarses and pay the extra 50cents per console to incorporate HDTV
NCL: ME NO SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!! >_<
NCL: AND NO HDTV SUPPORT FOR YOU!!!
<beep> <beep> <beep> <beep>
Its funny though Nintendo might not be soley basing its decision on the Japanese market this time. I have a feeling the european market has influenced this decision as well since both Japan and Europe havent embraced HDTV as USA has currently. So HDTV although may be a feature used by MS and SONY to say why their consoles are better may not be utilized by the majority of video game console owners. Maybe HDTV will be more viable in the generation after the one that is looming upon us when more people have adopted the technology.
Post by: MrMojoRising on June 13, 2005, 10:50:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"The topic on this subject at nintendo.com is 178 pages long already. That is not including a whole bunch of locked threads about it."
Hopefully they'll notice that since there is still time to put in the feature. If they're so worried about their precious 50 cents they can raise the price of the console 50 cents. It's not like anyone would care if they did that.
The problem is that NOA is who would see the response on Nintendo.com but NCL is the one who makes the decisions. NCL lives in a bubble called Japan and they base worldwide decisions on what's going on there. In Japan this isn't as big of a deal. This is largely a North American issue so it would be very surprising if NCL made a decision solely to appease a non-Japanese market.
Reggie better do what he claims to do best!
Post by: KDR_11k on June 14, 2005, 01:45:25 AM
Post by: Kairon on June 14, 2005, 07:06:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
Kairon, if your standard of success is Nintendo "surviving" then you're not thinking on the same wavelength as others here.
They don't just want a surviving Nintendo, they want a thriving one. Hot third party support is imperative to achieve that. Not many single 3rd party games move systems. But 3rd party games on the whole do. If I'm an RPG fan, I would scoff at the notion of even considering GameCube. Those handful of games wouldn't sustain me for the life of the system. Options are important. And big name releases like RE4 don't have to be events. Why shouldn't they be regular occurances?
These small, stupid decisions for short term profit don't help. Give the developers the OPTION of HD and let them decide if it's worth the "cost" or not. They want options just as we do. It's not even necessarily directly about "bragging rights" or marketshare either. Many of us simply don't want to shell out $600 or more for multiple consoles to play all the games we want to. There's nothing wrong with wanting better or equal 3rd party games, and there's certainly nothing wrong with not wanting to be overlooked altogether for games like we have been with GameCube.
Nintendo pigeonholed themselves into being the provider of "star power" and "safe" games... where games don't sell unless they have that classic Nintendo pixie dust sprinkled all over it, or has yet another famous IP on the box cover. That may be enough for YOU being strictly a "Nintendo fan." But more third party support would help break the mold and return more game options into their lineup... for the rest of us that don't buy consoles just for one developer.
[Note: this is no longer about HD support, but instead the question of whether Nintendo Fans should desire a Nintendo with more marketshare vs. being happy with Nintendo as long as they give everything they can to keep making great games]
I certainly don't seem to be on the same wavelength as others. Other people only seem to want to believe in Nintendo if Nintendo can give them the bragging rights of holding "X" market share and is better than "So-and-so" company.
But that's not what Nintendo's about. In fact, Nintendo is about the opposite: the pursuit of great games. The very fact that there are so many other game makers out there who can put out quality work is a testament to Nintendo's legacy as the only company in the 80's who realized that videogames needed to be held to a higher standard than knee-jerk commercialism. Nintendo is the ultimate reason why companies like Capcom, Konami, SquareEnix and Namco can exist, Nintendo created the environment for the nurturing of all these third party companies that seem to crowd them today.
And you seem to imply that a Nintendo Fan shouldn't have to buy another system. RIDICULOUS! The biggest Nintendo fan in the world should own ALL systems, because they'd be as dedicated to Nintendo's pursuit of quality games as Nintendo themself. They'd find new, innovative, and quality videogames wherever they are, on the XBOX 360, on the PC, on the CellPhone, on a Nintendo system. Because everything great about videogames today is in the vein of what Nintendo believes in: videogames as fun, innovation in more ways than one, new user experiences.
There are tons of developers out there who tie into the real meaning of what Nintendo has accomplished in the videogame industry. DMA (Rockstar North), after making Body Harvest and Space Station Silicon Valley, has proposed that games be culturally referential and, instead of being fantasy based, be a fantastical reflection of realism. Their attempts to build the best GTA they possibly can, while in a different style than Nintendo, is an honest attempt at doing their best to make the best game possible, something I'm sure Nintendo would support, even Miyamoto wasn't keen on their idea of what a videogame should be.
And I don't see why a Nintendo fan would care about the marketshare of just one company when Nintendo has given the videogame industry YEARS just to get to today, a time when quality is not the exception, but a mantra adopted by all, a time when there's more innovation than ever, from Nintendo or others, and a time when the videogame industry is not struggling because of it's failures, but ironically may just be a tad too successful.
To think that Nintendo's worth is directly proportional to their marketshare is false. Nintendo needed to use cartridges to make Mario 64 and Zelda 64 years before the CD technology could stream data that fast? so be it. We got the best games of our lives and Nintendo got 2nd place. What matters more?
A Nintendo Fan is strictly that, someone who believes in what Nintendo is, and what they're doing. At no point does this exclude them from buying any other systems. Heck, I'll buy an XBOX 360 if I have the money for it (which I probably never will, but that's a technicality). Why? Because there are developers out there who can share with me new gaming experiences, new gameplay, and plain old fun. What more could any Nintendo fan ask for?
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: nickmitch on June 14, 2005, 07:24:14 AM
Post by: Kairon on June 14, 2005, 07:28:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
You know, the GC's third party support sucks so bad I had to get a PS2. A fanboy might be able to ignore all the gaming glory that happens outside of his reach, claiming that only Nintendo can produce good games, but I certainly can't suppress my sanity enough to believe that. Also while a fanboy might be content with the stuff Nintendo delivers, I miss features the competition has. The PS2's memcards are HUGE compared to the GC's, for example. That goes for the competition, too. Sony's awful controller and interface design make me want to bash some heads into walls. HD is another quality of service feature (obviously not in Europe), omitting it means Nintendo believes more in profit than the quality of the game experience (well, obviously). Especially for split screen HD is almost a necessity. Nintendo always omits features they deem too expensive instead of striving for the perfect game experience (well, they are a corporation but people here claim they already have the best possible experience). This is like the worst kind of communism out there, Nintendo dictates what you want to play and you WANT it. Whatever happened to free will?
You've expressed the most perfect and most powerful free-will based action you can in our modern capitalism: you acted as an intelligent consumer, seeing both the good and the bad of any and all products you consider.
You also acted as a Nintendo fan who isn't trapped in the jaded mantra of "Nintendo or bust." The very existence of the videogame industry today is a testament to Nintendo of the 1980's. The proliferation of good third party developers is a direct result of Nintendo's determined push of quality instead of Atari's commercialism. The new experiences you seek in gaming are driven by the knowledge that games can always be more innovative, more interesting, and more fun... a knowledge that we wouldn't have if not for Miyamoto's legacy.
Nintendo is just one videogame company out of hundreds, and because of Nintendo's early victories against long odds, there are now other companies who can make games just as good as Nintendo can. There are companies out there who can innovate as much as Nintendo can. And there are games out there that Nintendo would never have thought up of, but surely approve of.
If anything, Nintendo is a perfect anti-communism. Nintendo is the agent of free-will within the videogame world: Nintendo's work in the 80's and 90's gave us a modern industry where we have choices. Nintendo's dictatorship of that era made sure that we'd have choices between quality third party games, instead of only bland movie spin-offs and consumeristic products.
It is indeed an actual testament to your Nintendo Fanboyism that you bought a PS2. Nintendo always professed to believe in innovation and quality, and the simple fact of the matter is that thanks to mature third companies that benefit from Nintendo's teachings, you can find a lot of those experiences in great gaming on a PS2, PC, or many other systems out there.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
P.S.
Quote
That goes for the competition, too. Sony's awful controller and interface design make me want to bash some heads into walls. HD is another quality of service feature (obviously not in Europe), omitting it means Nintendo believes more in profit than the quality of the game experience (well, obviously)
Your ignoring so many things here! LOL. Sony's controller is a controller that IanSane would love: it maintains the vialbility of older genres of games that have continued to evolve, while at the same time trying to incorporate something new. Yes, the controller sucks, lol. Sony obviously doesn't have the talent Nintendo does in controller design. But let's not forget that Sony had the ergonomic "prong handles" at around the same time Nintendo did, Sony realized that two rumble motors would enhance the experience of force-feedback more than one would, and...well... I guess that Sony is still deluding themselves about analog buttons...LOL. I can't for the life of me do anything but laugh at the analog button concept... a friendly laugh, of course.
Meanwhile, Nintendo's stance on HD is instead Nintendo placing themselves in a commitment to their innovative software developmental efforts. Have you never heard of the general who crossed a river on boats, and then burned the boats so his men couldn't retreat? Obviously, without HD-definition, Nintendo (and third parties) will be forced to innovate, and they won't have the tempting distraction of trying to compete graphically, a distraction which would lead to a dead end because Nintendo will never beat Sony or Microsoft in such a technical field. It's funny, so many companies have tried to force bleeding edge graphics on the DS and the most fun I've had with mine has been crayola-like Pac-Pix and sprites-only Sprung.
Post by: couchmonkey on June 14, 2005, 07:58:43 AM
I agree with your comment that Nintendo fans should be able, and should even want, to enjoy games on other consoles but it's not like new consoles are cheap. For a lot of people it will come down to one or the other, and for multi-console owners, Nintendo may become the "expendable" one. If it breaks down or you need quick cash, bye-bye Revolution.
I'd be happy if Nintendo simply earned more customers next generation. It doesn't have to be first or even second to make me happy, just sell a few thousand more Revolutions than GameCubes. I believe the lack of HDTV could prevent that from happening.
Post by: Mario on June 14, 2005, 08:13:30 AM
Post by: Kairon on June 14, 2005, 08:15:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
For me the fear is that Nintendo systems won't be worth buying or that Nintendo itself will wither and die due to ongoing mistakes. Nintendo has been pulled off a few small store shelves in my city, and I've heard of Wal-Marts in other places selling off their GameCube stock, which I think is awful. How can a company that sells its own hardware and publishes around 20 games a year survive if major retailers won't carry its products? Imagine a Nintendo that becomes marginzalized like 3DO or NGage. That's what I'm afraid of - and Nintendo's worth will go down in such a situation. It won't be able to sustain the kind of gaming we've come to expect, and third party support will drop to sub-N64 levels. I don't mind if Nintendo isn't first, but I do want a console that's worth my money.
I agree with your comment that Nintendo fans should be able, and should even want, to enjoy games on other consoles but it's not like new consoles are cheap. For a lot of people it will come down to one or the other, and for multi-console owners, Nintendo may become the "expendable" one. If it breaks down or you need quick cash, bye-bye Revolution.
I'd be happy if Nintendo simply earned more customers next generation. It doesn't have to be first or even second to make me happy, just sell a few thousand more Revolutions than GameCubes. I believe the lack of HDTV could prevent that from happening.
Now THAT, I can agree with.
There's no doubt that Nintendo has to try to keep up with today's industry, or they'll not only miss out on new gaming possibilities brought about by technology, but also not have the freedom to make games they way they want to. It certainly isn't the videogame industry of the 80's or even the 90's anymore. I don't envy Satoru Iwata, he's got his work cut out for him, and none of the immense resources that Sony or Microsoft has.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on June 14, 2005, 08:58:36 AM
Post by: Kairon on June 14, 2005, 09:22:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
And that's my whole argument. It would be nice, as a Nintendo fan, to see Nintendo back at number one (and not just for the bragging rights that you keep insisting, but because of the options it will have as the market leader). But I, and I'm sure a lot of people, wouldn't be any less satisfied if Nintendo just did better this generation, and not worse than the generation before. And in order for that to happen, Nintendo's going to have to stop caring about itself so much and focus a little bit more on what third parties may want (the same third parties that you admit Nintendo helped garnish). Because Nintendo may be the best, but Nintendo is not good enough to keep itself afloat on its own merits. And more than keeping itself afloat, Nintendo should want to keep it's fans happy by making their investment in the Revolution worth something more, and not just a tool to play Nintendo games.
That's where I have to disagree with you. I don't buy a Nintendo system to do anything BUT play the very best Nintendo has to offer. We're not Nintendo fans because Nintendo made compromises back in the day, we're Nintendo fans because Nintendo stuck to their guns and always did what was best for the games they wanted to make, no matter the risk. The fact that they were dominant for so long was a nice little side-benefit of the fact that they made great games.
Anyways, wasn't 10+ years of Nintendo dominance enough for anyone? lol.
It'd definitely be great for Nintendo to be more prevalent in the gaming world, but I hardly think sacrificing even a little of Nintendo's freedom to create and innovate is worth..what? niceties for us?
Besides, Nintendo as the market leader would probably be horrible for videogaming, as opposed to producing benefits like you imagine it will. Videogames have advanced so much that Nintendo doesn't have anywhere near the resources, the administrative capabilities, nor the know-how to be the caretaker for all of videogames. Nintendo as market leader worked in the 80's when videogames needed somebody with a vision to save the industry from destruction. And Nintendo had a good run. But even the Sega Genesis itself showed that modern gaming is just too big for any one company to keep track of, and especially when that company is Nintendo.
Should Nintendo pay attention to third parties and consumers? Yes. After all, these are their peers and the people who play games. But should these concerns trump Nintendo's freedom to make the games they think should be made? Definitely not.
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.
That's probably what Nintendo's thinking: that if they want to make better games, 1080p support is not only a waste financially since HD is non-existent in Europe, Asia, and only 12.5% penetrated in the US... but it's also something that can tempt developers (like Nintendo) to spend resources on things OTHER than good games.
That's what I'm thinking their stance is (though this entire argument ignores the possibility of Nintendo offering another "type" of High Definition viewing (i.e. VR headsets, lol)). And love it or hate it, it seems to be in line with Nintendo doing their utmost best to try to make the best games they can. That's why I can live with it, because I believe that Nintendo has nothing but good intentions, lol.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Mario on June 14, 2005, 10:14:38 AM
Quote
Besides, Nintendo as the market leader would probably be horrible for videogaming
I highly disagree, Nintendo as the market leader would mean ALL significant third party support. Best first party games + best third party games. Sony and Microsoft would be left with nothing but their pathetic first party games, we would only need to own one console.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 14, 2005, 10:16:45 AM
Theory, meet practice. I don't know how much disposable income you have for games but I certainly don't have enough to buy all consoles and I don't have the time to keep up with the news for each to make sure I don't miss any sleeper titles, etc.
It is indeed an actual testament to your Nintendo Fanboyism that you bought a PS2. Nintendo always professed to believe in innovation and quality, and the simple fact of the matter is that thanks to mature third companies that benefit from Nintendo's teachings, you can find a lot of those experiences in great gaming on a PS2, PC, or many other systems out there.
WTF? Are you now declaring Nintendo as the idea of good games? You sound almost as insane as Gamebasher by now, do you pray to Miyamoto every morning?
Have you never heard of the general who crossed a river on boats, and then burned the boats so his men couldn't retreat?
No but I remember the Führer who told his soldiers to hold Stalingrad until the last man instead of surrendering.
Obviously, without HD-definition, Nintendo (and third parties) will be forced to innovate, and they won't have the tempting distraction of trying to compete graphically, a distraction which would lead to a dead end because Nintendo will never beat Sony or Microsoft in such a technical field.
How does less resolution force you to innovate? Hell, you could restrict them to Atari 2600 level technology and they'd manage to produce the same tired old garbage every year. The problem is not the graphics, it's the managers being in charge. A manager has business training and does what business school taught him, which is minimize risks and maximize profits. Innovation is uncalculable but fails more often than not. Success would mean huge profits but failure huge losses and managers don't like to gamble. They might not be able to use graphics to sell their game anymore but does that mean they'd try to do something completely unproven, i.e. uncalculable? No, they'll just try to grab more popular licenses or something. Nintendo knows Miyamoto has a very high success rate at innovation. EA knows the same about Will Wright. But not everyone has a Shigeru Miyamoto or Will Wright, most have just a few mediocre (or even good) game designers without such a good track record and more importantly strict managers that won't allow for artistic freedom.
Not that it's bad that Miyamoto or Wright are hard to compete with. Every era and art has its grand masters, Miyamoto and Wright are some of the grand masters of videogames.
Besides, Nintendo as the market leader would probably be horrible for videogaming, as opposed to producing benefits like you imagine it will. Videogames have advanced so much that Nintendo doesn't have anywhere near the resources, the administrative capabilities, nor the know-how to be the caretaker for all of videogames.
Sony or MS clearly aren't putting in enough effort to count as the "caretakers" of gaming. They just provide the hardware, make sure users buy it and let others make games for their systems in exchange for a licensing fee. Nothing to take care of here. Noone needs to supervise the gaming market anyway, it works pretty well for itself. There is nobody who could regulate the PC games market yet it still exists. What might hurt gaming is Nintendo's arrogance but I think that happens to everyone who is in the lead. Honestly, was there ever ONE company that wasn't arrogant when they had the power? Power corrupts.
Besides, graphics and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive. Your artists aren't going to make the game more balanced in the time they don't spend on making assets, the most important part to making a good game is a good idea. Sure, more graphics mean higher dev costs and even more risk averse managers but seriously, you won't get these guys to approve innovation until you drop them down to ASCII graphics and games that take a month or two to develop.
What DOES work, as shown by the Playstation and DS, is forcing a new technology on them. They become afraid that their product will sell worse if it doesn't use the new tech so they try to make up a way to use it. Sure, most will try to make enhanced rehashes but many will see that their old ideas won't necessarily yield the same results as they previously did and will okay games they never would otherwise in order to find out what works and what doesn't.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 14, 2005, 10:23:58 AM
This sentence is so ironic. This is exactly why I became a Nintendo fan and why I've been so critical of them in the last few years. The problem is that in the last couple of years Nintendo has comprimised what's best for their games for money. They don't take risks if it means they'll not make a profit for a quarter. For example their reasoning for not going online was that it wasn't profitable. It wasn't that it would comprimise their games or that online gaming has too much lag or anything like that. The decision was made entirely because of money. Mario Kart Double Dash was comprimised as it was limited to LAN only when if Nintendo was willing to take a bit of a risk it could have been online.
This HD stuff is the same way. Their choice to not support it is entirely money driven and Rev games will be comprimised because of it. It's not as crucial since it's only based on visuals but they're still cutting out a feature that directly affects games to save a couple of bucks.
Post by: PaLaDiN on June 14, 2005, 10:31:02 AM
I'm not convinced that this is a profit issue... if it's a couple of bucks, why don't they just increase the price by a couple of bucks?
Post by: Mario on June 14, 2005, 10:32:29 AM
Quote
Their choice to not support it is entirely money driven and Rev games will be comprimised because of it.
Will they really though? If HD makes games have a lower frame rate, like Bloodworth suggested, then I think it's a step backwards.
Post by: Kairon on June 14, 2005, 10:47:53 AM
But yes, the health of today's videogame industry and the vibrancy of so many developers are all parallel to what Miyamoto himself is pursueing: more fun and better games. I certainly don't pray to the all-might Miyamoto sensei... he's much too humble for that, and I try to learn from his humility, lol. But even though Miyamoto and others may have different ideas on what direction games can and should go in, the presence of capable third parties is a testament to not only Nintendo's success at saving the videogame industry in the 80's, but also the success of Nintendo's beliefs: Innovation can trump mediocrity and quality can trump commercialization. That so many in the industry now lay a claim to this mindset shows that Nintendo has already affected the industry in such a way that instead of wanting a uniform and dominant Nintendo, we should treasure the diversity that has resulted.
The spirit of Nintendo is..well...the spirit of fun isn't it? Fun through new experiences and quality work. There are Non-Nintendo games that have fun, so why should any Nintendo fan feel bad about having to look elsewhere for new gaming experiences?
Also, you make a convincing point about the risk-averse managers. Nintendo apparently believes that they won't need 1080p support for any games they make to succeed, but now anyone who makes revolution games will have to believe that also. Will that keep developers away, or be a non-issue? Honestly...who even knows at this point with so little known about the Rev itself? All that can be said is that this is the direction Nintendo's going in, and that as a Nintendo fan I find it highly interesting to see exactly how different they are in thinking about videogames from everyone else. In fact, I've come to respect it.
And I still highly believe that to have Nintendo with market dominance would be a bad thing for gaming. Nintendo's dominance of the 80's and 90's was coincidental, Yamauchi saw a way to make money and grabbed it. But with Yamauchi gone, Miyamoto is the heart and soul of Nintendo and he doesn't seem to care a fig about controlling the rest of the industry. Sure, he'd like to influence it, but through his games, not any edicts.
And as such, Nintendo is in no way or form an entity that can take on the mantle of what videogames are today. Videogames today are violent (something that Miyamoto eschews), sexy, niche, hardcore, casual, regurgitated and innovative, big and small, indie and corporate, cinematic and interactive, male, female, children, adult...
And Nintendo doesn't want to think of videogames like Rockstar Games, Midway, Squareenix, and others who share a myriad set of viewpoints, all of which would need to be encompassed if Nintendo was the one and only console maker. They've censored blood, sex and violence. They lack the technological knowhow to make the graphic cards and processors of the future. They've become very averse to adopting brand new technologies until they see a clear business strategy with them. They refuse to go after hardcore gamers whose tastes have been altered beyond any normal concept of "fun."
Simply put, Nintendo does not represent everyone in the videogame market, and they shouldn't. When Nintendo was king, videogames were only for children. It took another company to come in and represent the specific needs that Nintendo was ignoring.
The only industry which will benefit from Nintendo as the only console maker is an industry that has crashed, marginalized itself, lost it's direction, and that nobody believes in. While there are many worries about the future of today's videogame industry, in many ways it's more dynamic, more inclusive, and more exciting than anything Miyamoto could ever have dreamt up. And that's a good thing.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on June 14, 2005, 10:55:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"we're Nintendo fans because Nintendo stuck to their guns and always did what was best for the games they wanted to make, no matter the risk."
This sentence is so ironic. This is exactly why I became a Nintendo fan and why I've been so critical of them in the last few years. The problem is that in the last couple of years Nintendo has comprimised what's best for their games for money. They don't take risks if it means they'll not make a profit for a quarter. For example their reasoning for not going online was that it wasn't profitable. It wasn't that it would comprimise their games or that online gaming has too much lag or anything like that. The decision was made entirely because of money. Mario Kart Double Dash was comprimised as it was limited to LAN only when if Nintendo was willing to take a bit of a risk it could have been online.
This HD stuff is the same way. Their choice to not support it is entirely money driven and Rev games will be comprimised because of it. It's not as crucial since it's only based on visuals but they're still cutting out a feature that directly affects games to save a couple of bucks.
They didn't go online because they didn't have the know-how, nor the games for it. It's as simple as that. If Nintendo had gone online with the Cube, they wouldn't have the resources to support online play, they wouldn't have the know-how to get an online network made right, and they wouldn't have the games to make it worthwhile.
From Nintendo's standpoint, they did the right thing for their games because trying to shoehorn the online functionality into traditional game ideas that didn't fit it would have been a distraction and a waste. Miyamoto has yet to come up with an innovative way to use online connectivity, and without a Nintendo game, why in the world would they make a Nintendo network?
I'm not merely talking about persistent worlds and player-matching. A Nintendo game has to do more than lazily hook one modem up to another to justify it's existence. A Nintendo game has to treat online connectivity as an integral fabric of the game itself, it has to make online connectivity feel like the touch screen for Pac Pix, or the analog control for Super Mario 64: not just an option tacked onto a game, but a natural and essential part of what gameplay should be.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on June 14, 2005, 11:20:53 AM
Then how do they have the resources and the know-how NOW? The only thing that's changed is the potential cost. They had games that were worthwhile. Mario Kart has LAN play. That's the same thing as online play only with a shorter distance. Nintendo only didn't go online because they didn't think it was profitable. They said that numerous times.
"A Nintendo game has to do more than lazily hook one modem up to another to justify it's existence."
This relates to another reason I became a fan of Nintendo and am so critical now. In their peak every Nintendo game had a reason to exist. That's not so anymore. They've made all sorts of totally redundent sequels and spin offs that had no reason to exist aside from making a quick buck. The Mario Party titles are the obvious example plus they made Cube Mario Tennis and Golf games that added very little to the near perfect design of the N64 games. They've been farming out franchise characters to third parties, they make all sorts of junk Pokemon product, and they're even releasing franchise pinball games which is the ultimate example of milking a franchise. Nintendo has established in the last few years that a Nintendo game doesn't have to do anything to justify its existence provided people buy it.
You're taking the Nintendo from the 80s and 90s that truly was an innovative game artist and putting them in the present. The Nintendo making these decisions is a different Nintendo. In the 21st century Nintendo has been very corporate. They care first and foremost about their precious profit and will gladly comprimise their integrity as a game artist for money. We know they will because they have. Even five years ago I would have justified this decision as being "better for games" as well but they're different now. Five years ago I would NEVER expect to see Mario in an EA game or Star Fox being shoehorned into an original Rare game.
Post by: Kairon on June 14, 2005, 11:44:41 AM
Also, I agree with you that Nintendo has had a spate of not-up-to-snuff titles. But I attribute this to Nintendo's trying to emulate their competitors. Remember the debacle with SMS where they were proclaiming that the opening was FMV? Also, Wind Waker was obviously released half-finished, and while Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire were amazing, Gold/Silver/Fire Red/Leaf Green are all amazingly disappointing games that no one seems to want to admit.
But I'd like to object to your use of Mario Party. Sure, you don't seem to be a fan. But I've played countless iterations of it at my younger cousin's house and I must say, each iteration hasn't failed to impress me and make me want to play it some more. From duels, to exciting new mini-games, I've been amazed that I could remain interested in the series as long as I have. Haven't played the microphone yet but... well, we'll see, lol.
And Miyamoto is still at it with Pikmin. God that game is beautiful.
And of course countless other innovative concepts. Pac Man Vs. Wario Ware. Til n' Tumble/Wario Ware Twisted. Animal Crossing. Nintendogs.
And who are we to credit for the innovations of the DS? Here is an example of Nintendo releasing new hardware specifically so they can create new types of software. My most played game right now is actually Namco's Pac Pix, but I'm looking forward to this new Kirby game exceedingly now, sounds like a more amazing version of Yoshi's Tocuh n' Go!
Therefore, I still believe that the Nintendo of the 1980's and 90's still exists today. It's just that when they are encroached upon by deadlines, by the need to be held to standard's other than their own, when they basically become distracted from making great games, then they fail. When they are forced to inject LAN gameplay in a game like Mario Kart: DD which was apparently wholly unsuited for large scale multiplayer action, then they fail. So I hope to god that whatever online games they have coming down the pipes are online because it wasn't forced, but because the gameplay needs it.
Nintendo is still in the business of making games. But they can obviously fail when they don't have a game concept worthy of these gimmicks. Which is why I'm happy Nintendo didn't go online with the cube: if they did, they would have failed.
Like the online issue, HD support isn't as much about money as it is about what it means for successful game development on the revolution.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: jarob on June 14, 2005, 12:14:58 PM
Post by: Artimus on June 14, 2005, 12:25:24 PM
They could just be testing the field, of course.
Post by: heinous_anus on June 14, 2005, 12:28:05 PM
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.
Post by: Artimus on June 14, 2005, 04:45:22 PM
I'm on the fence as whether or not to mail.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 14, 2005, 04:58:38 PM
Post by: Mario on June 14, 2005, 07:46:42 PM
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.
Post by: anubis6789 on June 14, 2005, 07:51:13 PM
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.*
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 14, 2005, 08:09:03 PM
Post by: Chris1 on June 14, 2005, 08:54:47 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 14, 2005, 09:08:12 PM
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.
Post by: anubis6789 on June 14, 2005, 10:39:57 PM
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.
Post by: Nile Boogie on June 15, 2005, 07:25:10 AM
Post by: Kairon on June 15, 2005, 09:19:43 AM
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
Post by: SgtShiversBen on June 15, 2005, 10:09:17 AM
"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.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 15, 2005, 10:27:05 AM
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.
Post by: SgtShiversBen on June 15, 2005, 10:31:44 AM
Thing that interested me was the 6GB Panasonic Disc most of all. So yeah, not jumping to anything KDR.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 15, 2005, 11:57:58 AM
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.
Post by: nolimit19 on June 15, 2005, 12:45:45 PM
Post by: Nile Boogie on June 15, 2005, 01:20:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666Quote
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.)
Post by: anubis6789 on June 15, 2005, 01:42:36 PM
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.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 15, 2005, 02:03:25 PM
Video capturing is my hobby, so i battle with interlaced fields everyday. I wish interlacing was eliminated and everything ran in progressive.
Post by: BlackGriffen on June 15, 2005, 05:21:45 PM
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
Post by: Ian Sane on June 15, 2005, 05:58:07 PM
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]
Post by: The Omen on June 15, 2005, 07:36:19 PM
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.
Post by: Mario on June 15, 2005, 08:18:14 PM
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?
Post by: anubis6789 on June 15, 2005, 08:39:44 PM
Think of it like the GCN, if you have a 480p compatible scan game you hold B on start up and it then asked you if you would like to enable progressive scan mode. then when ever you start the game again it will ask you if you want to enable progressive scan again. If you answer "yes", it will then ask you that same question on the next start up. If you answer "no" you will start the game with 480p disable and it won't ask you on start up again untill you hold B down on start up.
A better example would be the Xbox. You just go into the dash board and set it for the highest resolution you want it to play at. If you want to play it with SD resolution for some reason down the road all you have to do is select the lowest resolution.
Hope that helps.
Post by: BlackGriffen on June 15, 2005, 08:51:23 PM
The only reason I wrote what I did is that I meant it. If Nintendo doesn't even support at least 720i, I'm not going to buy a Rev until a year or two in to it's life, if then. It doesn't matter if they make it optional, available in the American market only, etc, but they should at least do that. Without even the option of token support I see it as tremendously damaging to the Rev's image in the U.S. The problem is twofold: the technogeeks who already have 16:9 screens and anyone who wants there console to be at least somewhat future-proof because they want to buy a 16:9 screen at some point in the future.
I honestly find it unusual that this information came out at all. This is the kind of thing you let slip under the cover of lots of positive news. That is, unless Nintendo is testing whether they can get away with it by judging the reaction. If that's the case, more information may get back to decision maker than just "pro" and "con." Not a whole lot more, mind you. Something like "make or break pro," "pro," "indifferent," "con." In which case, stick me in the make or break pro column because there is no technical reason whatsoever that the Rev can't perform well on a 720i screen that has about 1/3 the number of pixels of the benchmarked system in my previous post. After all, the three main factors in graphics performance seem to be "how complex is what you're drawing," "how sophisticated are the drawing algorithms," and "how many pixels do you have to push?" Given that 720i is demonstrably not that many pixels (a little more than half of a low res computer monitor) for a GPU to push, I don't see it significantly degrading game performance.
BlackGriffen
Post by: anubis6789 on June 15, 2005, 09:17:13 PM
Post by: bmfrosty on June 15, 2005, 09:32:30 PM
Quote
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).
1080p and 1080i have the same pixel bandwidth. I prefer 720p as it's progressive and 60fps. And oh yeah. The ATSC standard sucks ass.
Post by: Shecky on June 16, 2005, 03:00:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: anubis6789
Think of it like the GCN, if you have a 480p compatible scan game you hold B on start up and it then asked you if you would like to enable progressive scan mode. then when ever you start the game again it will ask you if you want to enable progressive scan again. If you answer "yes", it will then ask you that same question on the next start up. If you answer "no" you will start the game with 480p disable and it won't ask you on start up again untill you hold B down on start up.
My TV doesn't automatically convert 480i signals on the "HD input" and so I get _no_ picture during start up. This is good info to know, since now I won't franticly try and find the right controler to hold B at startup, or reset the system if I do forget.
Post by: BlackGriffen on June 16, 2005, 07:37:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: anubis6789
I don't mean to be a know it all , but BlackGriffen 720i is not a standard ATSC (or any other digital television standard that I know of) resolution, 720p on the otherhand is. Just wanted to let you know.
I beg to differ. Perhaps you're confusing what the TV can receive with what MPEG2 can encode? Regardless, your point is moot. Even if the TV doesn't accept a 720i signal, Nintendo can use an effective 720i by only updating even or odd lines in the frame buffer.
Thanks for saying something, though.
Quote
Originally posted by: bmfrosty
1080p and 1080i have the same pixel bandwidth. I prefer 720p as it's progressive and 60fps. And oh yeah. The ATSC standard sucks ass.
I believe you're incorrect and here's why. Progressive scan runs at 60 full frames per second. Interlaced runs at 30 full frames per second rendered as 60 fields per second. Each field is half the size of a full frame. Thus, unless the card is rendering the full frame and then discarding half of it on every render pass (a technological decision that I doubt is necessary, otherwise the original XBox would support 1080p as well as 1080i), the graphics chip only has to handle half of the pixels per second in order to render interlaced frames.
BlackGriffen
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 16, 2005, 11:54:06 AM
Strange?
Post by: anubis6789 on June 16, 2005, 11:56:16 AM
Post by: anubis6789 on June 16, 2005, 12:09:49 PM
After reading a few of Griffen's links I am inclined to say that I was wrong and most TV's that accept a 720p signal will happily accept a 720i signal.
But interlacing is still ugly.
Post by: bmfrosty on June 16, 2005, 04:39:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BlackGriffen
Progressive scan runs at 60 full frames per second.
BlackGriffen
No it doesn't. see the bottom of the following article:
Article
or Page 31 of the standard itself:
The Standard
or Page 24 of the Guide to the Use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard.
The Guide
And just so you don't forget. I maintain that the ATSC standard sucks.
Post by: anubis6789 on June 16, 2005, 05:16:37 PM
I was just wondering because I feel that the ATSC standard could be better but is far from sucking (AKA NTSC).
Are you from a PAL (or god forbid a SECAM) region, and still harbour ill feelings towards anything remotly sounding of the bane of PAL's existance (NTSC)?
I am just messing with you but I would like to know. I myself think we should have gone the route of the VGA/SVGA/XGA/etc standards and just made PC monitors bigger.
Post by: BlackGriffen on June 16, 2005, 08:01:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: bmfrostyQuote
Originally posted by: BlackGriffen
Progressive scan runs at 60 full frames per second.
BlackGriffen
No it doesn't. see the bottom of the following article:
Article
or Page 31 of the standard itself:
The Standard
or Page 24 of the Guide to the Use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard.
The Guide
And just so you don't forget. I maintain that the ATSC standard sucks.
Congratulations, you caught me unaware of the technicality that the 1080 formats don't support 60 fps. Whooptie-freakin'-do. That wasn't the point I was responding to, although it would effect my comparative pixel bandwidth assessments from earlier. Except, that is, for the one you mentioned. If you had payed closer attention to the link you provided, you'd see that both 1080 formats are limited to 30 fps. If 1080p were limited to 30 and 1080i were permitted to go at 60, you'd have been right, but because they are the same frame rate you were still wrong.
So, it looks like it goes like this because of frame rate limitations: 1080i, 720p, 1080p. Because of that, I would prefer 720p overall because it has the best refresh rate. 1080i becomes the acceptable minimum.
BlackGriffen
Post by: bmfrosty on June 16, 2005, 08:55:44 PM
They are both 30 FRAMES per second.
On typical (correct) HDTV displays the display refreshes 60 times per second.
In 1080p(30), the image changes every other refresh.
In 1080i, the image changes every refresh, but only the even or odd scanlines.
I could go on, but I won't. BlackGriffen will return with more wrong assumptions about the standard I hate and am all too intimate with. I won't correct him anymore. It's not worth my time.
Post by: MysticGohan24 on June 16, 2005, 10:46:56 PM
Post by: anubis6789 on June 16, 2005, 11:11:57 PM
Of course that is mooted because the GCN only has up to 480p. It still looks better than normal.
I am fairly sure that TP will be P-scan compatable, all Nintendo published games have been to my knowledge (except maybe Courtside).
Post by: MysticGohan24 on June 17, 2005, 06:35:16 AM
can't wait, TP is gonna rock!~
Post by: BlackGriffen on June 17, 2005, 07:10:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: bmfrosty
1080i is the same pixel bandwith 1080p(30).
They are both 30 FRAMES per second.
On typical (correct) HDTV displays the display refreshes 60 times per second.
In 1080p(30), the image changes every other refresh.
In 1080i, the image changes every refresh, but only the even or odd scanlines.
I could go on, but I won't. BlackGriffen will return with more wrong assumptions about the standard I hate and am all too intimate with. I won't correct him anymore. It's not worth my time.
Ok, genius. If 1080i and 1080p are exactly the same pixel bandwidth, then why doesn't the original XBox support both? After all, same pixel bandwidth = same processing requirements.
On a final note, you too seem to be confusing the broadcast standard with what the TVs are capable of doing.
Here are some more people you need to go correct, oh infallible sourpuss:
From this thread
Quote
Actually I don't know of any HDTVs that can accept 1080p at 30 fps. Since 60 Hz is the refresh rate of the display if it can accept 1080p is usually only accepts it at 60 fps. There are only two displays that I know of for under $10K that can currently display and accept 1080p at 60 fps and that is the 37" Westinghouse for $2500 and the 45" Sharp for $9000. The 37" Benq might be able to but there has not yet been any confirmation on that.
Communications Engineering & Design Magazine
Quote
[...]
That trend was in evidence at the recent National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) convention, according to Chuck Pagano, ESPN’s senior vice president of technology engineering and operations.
[...]
Even if such equipment does come to market, probably the biggest issue standing between 1080p and commercial service reality is transport bandwidth. By combining the higher resolution of 1080 with the greater refresh rate of progressive, 1080p is even more data-dense and could soak up even greater bandwidth.
That starts with the video produced from 1080p cameras. At present, 720p and 1080i cameras output video at about 1.5 Gigabits per second, but 1080p would roughly double that to 3 Gbps, Pagano says. To convert that into a standard 19.4 Megabit per second channel for transmission across a cable network, “there’s a whole set of other technologies that have got to be accomplished in between there.”
[...]
In other words, 1080p/60 isn't in the present broadcast standards because of bandwidth requirements broadcasters cannot meet, but that does not preclude TVs from receiving such a signal in situations where bandwidth is not limited (ie from a console, computer, etc). Equally important, it does not preclude it from being adopted in the broadcast spec at a later date.
Now, who should I believe? I'm genuinely torn between the engineering magazine reporter with ESPN's senior VP of technology and engineering on her side, and the infallible one here before me in the PGC forums. Whatever shall I do?
BlackGriffen
Post by: KDR_11k on June 17, 2005, 08:03:47 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on June 17, 2005, 10:28:43 AM
Post by: OptimusPrime on June 17, 2005, 10:32:00 AM
Post by: jasonditz on June 17, 2005, 10:42:20 AM
Post by: mantidor on June 17, 2005, 01:47:21 PM
EDIT:
I put it at 75 Hz and I see it exacly the same as 60Hz, the little "uneasiness" I was feeling with the 85Hz configuration was because the screen was kind of blurrier compared to before, and I think thats just a hardware issue, not my eyes' issue.
But its true that higher frequencies are necesary for games because the lack of motion blur, or is there a game who produces motionblur? I think not butI could be wrong.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 17, 2005, 10:11:14 PM
Post by: jasonditz on June 18, 2005, 10:46:40 AM
Post by: Mr. Saturn on June 21, 2005, 03:33:35 PM
Post by: 31 Flavas on June 23, 2005, 10:47:28 AM
QuoteThis is in reference to Reggie's E3 speech, right? As I remember from that speech, Reggie was refering to the software Nintendo makes, games that is, not their console purchasing ideas or whatever. He was saying Nintendo does not produces games for produce games for "this group OR that group" of people, but instead makes games for "this group AND that group".
Originally posted by: Kairon
Especially with Nintendo positioning themselves as an "AND" choice (that is, buy a PS3 AND a Rev, or a X360 AND a Rev) [. . .]
Post by: mantidor on June 23, 2005, 04:35:04 PM
Post by: Pittbboi on June 24, 2005, 12:21:17 AM
Post by: Kairon on June 24, 2005, 06:03:53 AM
Quote
31Flavas
But the "and" idea also grows out of Nintendo's recent pricing history and their positioning themselves as not opposite Sony and MS. With a low price point and games that have an innovative concept and interface, the Revolution could stand as a very desirable purchase even if you grab a PS3 or X360.
Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: couchmonkey on June 24, 2005, 06:17:41 AM
However, I have gotten sick of Matt's technocracy of late. He (and practically the whole of IGN) puts too much emphasis on graphics and every slight improvement in technology. Even though I agree with him on the HD issue, it's ironically a good example of how he seems to care more about technology than games.
Post by: nemo_83 on June 24, 2005, 07:31:26 AM
I am ofended by the igninsider crap, but I have no problem with Matt's opinions. He particularly comes across as well spoken in this discussion/argument between himself and David. They bring up many of the things we argue about here from day to day. I liked it when Matt brought up the fact Nintendo hasn't been launching original IPs this generation.
Post by: 31 Flavas on June 24, 2005, 09:02:09 AM
QuoteI understand where the idea comes from I just don't agree it's Nintendo's position, at all.
Originally posted by: Kairon
But the "and" idea also grows out of Nintendo's recent pricing history and their positioning themselves as not opposite Sony and MS. With a low price point and games that have an innovative concept and interface, the Revolution could stand as a very desirable purchase even if you grab a PS3 or X360.
Post by: xts3 on July 03, 2005, 04:30:45 PM
Good high rez monitors are cheaper and higher resolution then any HDTV ever will be.
back in 97-98 you could do 640x480 and 800x600 and even 1024x768 with Voodoo2's, then Nvidia TNT was released doing 32-bit color and high rez all in a single package. Fact is, consoles would be nowhere near as powerful if it wasn't PC graphics card revolution started by 3Dfx and later Nvidia when nvidia finally became comeptitive with 3dfx with the TNT and finally Geforce 1.
The "HD era" for next gen consoles will look only slightly better then Xbox, it won't be the panacea people are making it out to be. Next gen consoles are always over-hyped they always have been, for anyone old enough to remember the Sega vs Nintendo, it's all the same marketing crap.
It's All In the (Vertical) Resolution.
Standard-definition (SD) TV -- the sort most of us have been watching for years -- has 480 visible lines of detail, whereas HDTV has 1,080i visible lines of detail. This is the number of horizontal lines found on your TV screen. Remember, TVs are measured on the diagonal: The width of the screen changes, while its height remains more or less constant. Thus, it is the number of pixels on the vertical axis that really determines how much detail is visible.
Theoretically, higher resolution plasma TVs should always look better with an HD signal, but with video picture signals - signal processing, interpolation, conversion and contrast(i.e., how an image is displayed) has more to do with picture quality than resolution does.
Case In Point: At past Consumer Electronics Shows (2001 and 2002), manufacturers would stage "plasma shoot outs", often pitting earlier-generation HD sets against ED ones. The outcome? A Panasonic 853X480 plasma beat several other manufacturers with higher resolutions (1024X768 or 1024X1024) even with an HD signal displayed. Contrast, video processing, and conversion have much to do with plasma technology.
So, is it really worth it to shell out extra for an HDTV?
Certainly there is more and more HD content available out there - and it will only increase from this point in time. There are dedicated HD channels. There are upconverting DVD players. And As you decide whether you want (or need) an High Resolution plasma, you might want to consider the following:
(1) DVD material may look better on an a good brand of EDTV 853 X 480 than it would on a third tier brand in a 1024X768 resolution. At DVD quality resolution, the image output quality depends more upon the manufacturer than it does the resolution.
(2) 80% of the content available to viewers -- whether on TV or on DVD -- is NOT high definition. However, this story is changing.
(3) If deliberating between a 1st tier EDTV resolution plasma purchase compared with a 1st tier HDTV plasma resolution purchase, consider that you will likely get around a 20% bump in picture quality with the HD unit when watching a good incoming HD signal. An EDTV plasma can display and HD signal, but only at its native pixel resolution after down conversion.
(4) The manufacturer quality should be of more concern than the resolution of the plasma display. Purchasing a plasma from a quality manufacturer can make the biggest difference of all. I would rather have an EDTV 853X480 plasma TV from Sony, Panasonic or Pioneer than an 1024X768 HDTV plasma from lesser Taiwanese, or Korean manufacturers even for the same cost.
(5) The best case quality scenario is an HD plasma from a 1st tier manufacturer.
(6) Displaying computer images will look much better on the higher resolution display (50%) than lower res displays. This is especially the case for static images. The extra expense of the higher resolution plasma display will be well worth it for these uses.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on July 03, 2005, 11:09:14 PM
Why are you so focused on plasma TVs? Firstly, though plasma is cheaper and usually has higher contrast/brightness than LCDs, as I understand it, LCD tends to have a better overall picture (though a dark room is probably more important). From what I've heard, plasma TVs are not a good purchase largely because they are likely to break much more quickly than other HDTV types due to their gas-based technology.
That said, if you can accomodate more bulk, CRTs are cheaper and can provide a better picture at MULTIPLE RESOLUTIONS, since they aren't dedicated to one "native" resolution. Or you can go the DLP route, which is like CRT only better (I think they only do 720p, though). You can get the sharpness of 480p + EDTV and still get 720p goodness. Yey!
Post by: KDR_11k on July 04, 2005, 02:24:35 AM
Post by: xts3 on July 06, 2005, 11:25:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TheYoungerPlumber
Firstly, a disclaimer: I've reasearched HDTVs, but don't own one myself. Unless you count that LCD projector I get to use two weeks a year up in Montana...
Why are you so focused on plasma TVs? Firstly, though plasma is cheaper and usually has higher contrast/brightness than LCDs, as I understand it, LCD tends to have a better overall picture (though a dark room is probably more important). From what I've heard, plasma TVs are not a good purchase largely because they are likely to break much more quickly than other HDTV types due to their gas-based technology.
That said, if you can accomodate more bulk, CRTs are cheaper and can provide a better picture at MULTIPLE RESOLUTIONS, since they aren't dedicated to one "native" resolution. Or you can go the DLP route, which is like CRT only better (I think they only do 720p, though). You can get the sharpness of 480p + EDTV and still get 720p goodness. Yey!
My point was that traditionally A) gamers aren't rich and b) PC games have had "HD Gaming" for a long time, much, much longer then any console and it didn't make the PC gaming market any hotter for it either, especiallly when you see old crappy 2D games like Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo still being played... to this very day! Also lets remember look at what happened to every single add-on to consoles (Sega CD, 32X, etc). My point is no one is going to buy a console just for HD when most of them most likely won't be forking out $ for a new TV anytime soon when their current TV does exactly what they want it to do already. Expecting game consoles will sell HDTV's and it will be a "big market" which have always been seriously behind PC's in resolution and graphical prettyness in every respect is pretty ludicrous. All TV's released still will support SDTV as well as HDTV. This is not the PC world where video cards are released every 8 months and you can get people to upgrade their hardware for the release of games, a $1000 TV you dont need and where digital TV isn't available everywhere yet isn't going to be penetrating the market very fast in North america. North america has historically been a slow adopter. Video games are more mass market and scrape among the most price conscious game consumers among us: Parents and teens.
How many people wait until games go to 29.99 players choice? or buy used? Or wait a year or two before picking up a console because of lack of games? Many of us do.
I think the only reason Nintendo should have HD support is just to be even with everyone else. The biggest problem I worry about for Nintendo is botching the adoption of superior storage media, I dont want 20Gigs worth of full motion video in Japanese RPG's on a PS3 Blu-ray gamedisc not being able to fit on a standard DVD or DVD9 of a revolution, they better not screw up the storage again or sony is going to spank them silly. Thats the sole reason no one developed RPG's for the N64 the lack of space was just killer, that was also the same reason for the cube, you'd never see 9 Gig games like champions of norrath or all the japanese RPG's that were using DVD9's on the gamecube, too much expense and work to chop up the game and re-engineer it for yet another platform for multi-disc release with questionable sales potential.
Post by: Draygaia on July 07, 2005, 07:49:52 AM
