Author Topic: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis  (Read 75989 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mario

  • IWATA BOAT!?
  • Score: 8
    • View Profile
RE: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #75 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?

Offline Aussiedude

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #76 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.  

Will Wii Win?  

Offline Grant10k

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #77 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.  
 Without data, you're just another schmuck with an opinion.
     -Chris Anderson, TEC speaker

Offline Aussiedude

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #78 on: June 12, 2005, 05:24:16 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Mario
Quote


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.

Will Wii Win?  

Offline Aussiedude

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #79 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).

Will Wii Win?  

Offline Stimutacs Addict

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #80 on: June 12, 2005, 05:42:29 AM »
yeah.. i know tons of college students who wont buy the rev simply because it is cheap, has amazing graphics and gameplay, and doesnt support HD for their $2,000 60 inch TV **rolls eyes**

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
I'll shut up now...

Offline Bill Aurion

  • NWR Forum Loli
  • Score: 34
    • View Profile
RE: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #81 on: June 12, 2005, 06:52:37 AM »
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
~Former Resident Zelda Aficionado and Nintendo Fan~

Offline Fro

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #82 on: June 12, 2005, 07:20:44 AM »
As far as I know, there should be nothing prohibiting them from selling a HD-compatible expansion to the machine.

Offline PIAC

  • is actually agentseven
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #83 on: June 12, 2005, 07:27:46 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Aussiedude
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).


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.

Offline Hostile Creation

  • Hydra-Wata
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #84 on: June 12, 2005, 07:39:23 AM »
I'll be having enough trouble buying the console and the games.  Screw HDTV up, down, and sideways.  It's not even that amazing.
HC: Honourary Aussie<BR>Originally posted by: ThePerm<BR>
YOUR IWATA AVATAR LOOKS LIKE A REAL HOSTILE CREATION!!!!!<BR><BR>only someone with leoperd print sheets could produce such an image!!!<BR>

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #85 on: June 12, 2005, 08:37:50 AM »
Hm, Wikipedia says DVB is digital broadcast, not HDTV (there's a difference). Digital merely means it's encoded in MPEG2, would be stupid for games as there's very little signal loss and the conversion takes extra time. HDTV means hi-res, which does NOT involve digital broadcast. DVB can merely carry a HD signal. A TV with built-in DVB decoder still isn't guranteed to support HD. Australia apparently has HD but since Europe does not I'd expect companies to cut the HD support for the PAL version anyway. Or did the XBox support HD in the PAL territories?

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.

Offline OptimusPrime

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #86 on: June 12, 2005, 09:00:45 AM »
There's a lot of crap on this subject, most of them useless.
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).
"SOMETHING"

Offline RABicle

  • Used to be The Finisher
  • Score: 9
    • View Profile
    • Pietriots
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #87 on: June 12, 2005, 09:15:12 AM »
Quote

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.
That's gotta be the worst idea ever. Doing that is far more foolish than not supporting HD.

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.  
Pietriots  - Post ironic gaming log.

Offline denjet78

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #88 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.

Offline pudu

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #89 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

Offline Pittbboi

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #90 on: June 12, 2005, 10:47:28 AM »
"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"."

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.

Offline PaLaDiN

  • I'm your new travel agent!
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #91 on: June 12, 2005, 10:59:21 AM »
"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.
<BR><BR>It shone, pale as bone, <BR>As I stood there alone...

Offline Pittbboi

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #92 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.  

Offline ThePerm

  • predicted it first.
  • Score: 64
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #93 on: June 12, 2005, 11:12:49 AM »
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.
NWR has permission to use any tentative mockup/artwork I post

Offline The Omen

  • Forum Fascist
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #94 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...
"If a man comes to the door of poetry untouched by the madness of the muses, believing that technique alone will make him a great poet, he and his sane compositions never reach perfection, but are utterly eclipsed by the inspired madman." Socrates

Offline Artimus

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #95 on: June 12, 2005, 12:28:50 PM »
I just don't get why, if it only costs fifty cents in system price, they don't include it and make it optional for games to support it.

Offline Shecky

  • Posts: 0
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #96 on: June 12, 2005, 12:56:42 PM »
I'm not a 100 percent positive, but if you don't have to display high resolutions, you can get away with a smaller frame buffer.  That means you don't need as much memory.  Altering the memory is more than just chump change when it comes to component cost.  Rescanning the above posts, some of them simply refer to the difficulty in software, which shouldn't be all that significant.

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.

Offline Aussiedude

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #97 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.


Will Wii Win?  

Offline nemo_83

  • Dream Master
  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
RE:No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #98 on: June 12, 2005, 02:22:04 PM »
I would have to say that the way this topic and many others online have gone on this subject is proof Nintendo keeping secrets can backfire.  Why, because if they had come out at E3 and told everyone then there would be no HD support; but then offered news that they were doing something else to make up for it then gamers wouldn't be having a freak out right now because of all the mistery.  We still have not recieved any word from Nintendo on what they're going to give back to gamers; only what they're taking away.  That is, I am assuming there is something they are still planning on giving back.  All you hear from the media these days is how Nintendo's REV will be underpowered ; and its Nintendo's fault for not saying otherwise.  If you look only at their track record you would assume REV would be like Cube, N64, or SNES; uniquely beautiful games.  Nintendo is the one telling us the system will be less powerful; even if it is it could still pull off better graphics but Nintendo won't say anything about that either.  Like could there be other chips besides the CPU and GPU in the REV?  A PPU alone would free up a lot from the CPU allowing for the system to do many things 360 and PS3 can't do.

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.
Life is like a hurricane-- here in Duckburg

Offline mantidor

  • Score: 4
    • View Profile
RE: No Hi-def resolution, Nintendo's cost benefit analysis
« Reply #99 on: June 12, 2005, 03:09:02 PM »
"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."

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.
"You borrow style elements from 20yr old scifi flicks and 10 yr old PC scifi flight shooters, and you add bump mapping and TAKE AWAY character, and you got Halo." -Pro