-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Update on the Revolution HD stuff (Nintendo's response)
- Thread starter Justin Bailey
- Start date
Wouldn't a simpler soultion simply be to put HD support into US based systems? If the adoption rate truely is pitiful in Japan I don't see this splitting their userbase. And then once the adoption rate goes up in future they can just start using US manufactured systems in Japan (with regional changes or course)
radioheadrule83
Banned
I still haven't seen a confirmation, what the fuck is everyone moaning for?
radioheadrule83
Banned
Redbeard said:
thank you. Trawling through the moaning was headache inducing.
Can someone explain something for me while we're here? I've never seen a TV in the UK that's actually marked "HDTV". All I've seen is a lot of expensive Plasmas, LCD tvs and super incredibly expensive large-CRT sets.
Now, I can hook my PC up to the 42" plasma at high resolutions - does that mean the game systems will work?
I can see how this bothers some Americans, but other than me, there won't be many people who give a shit elsewhere in the world imo.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Initially I felt that the lack of HD from Revolution would really hurt Nintendo.
However, while out jogging, I gave it some thought. I think that it's actually a gamble that might pay off and very out-of-the-box, Nintendo-like thinking:
1. Essentially what leaving HD out means is that Nintendo will need a much lower spec processor to push the same level of graphics with same effects on.
2. A lower spec processor will give Nintendo several benefits day one: a much lower price, higher yields, less heat, less power consumption.
3. Nintendo's gamble is based on the assumption that HD will not take off and will not prove valuable to the mainstream consumer in the next 5 years. They also assume that it won't be a significant marketing and image benefit - unlike Sony and Microsoft.
4. All in all, dismissing HD allows Nintendo to create the smallest, cheapest and most efficient console of all three, and still run games that appear to have similar visual quality to everyone with a regular TV.
A very bold strategy, and with a high risk, high payoff - I would say revolutionary, indeed!
I must say that as an owner of a 42" HD plasma (and soon also a 26" HD LCD) owner, not being able to play next gen games in HD pisses me off to no end, and I don't think I'll buy Revolution based on what I know at the moment. No more muddy visuals for me next gen.
But for business, a very innovative approach that truly builds on market and architecture analysis and deliberate choices - unlike the "just-stuff-shit-in" approach of some other players.
However, while out jogging, I gave it some thought. I think that it's actually a gamble that might pay off and very out-of-the-box, Nintendo-like thinking:
1. Essentially what leaving HD out means is that Nintendo will need a much lower spec processor to push the same level of graphics with same effects on.
2. A lower spec processor will give Nintendo several benefits day one: a much lower price, higher yields, less heat, less power consumption.
3. Nintendo's gamble is based on the assumption that HD will not take off and will not prove valuable to the mainstream consumer in the next 5 years. They also assume that it won't be a significant marketing and image benefit - unlike Sony and Microsoft.
4. All in all, dismissing HD allows Nintendo to create the smallest, cheapest and most efficient console of all three, and still run games that appear to have similar visual quality to everyone with a regular TV.
A very bold strategy, and with a high risk, high payoff - I would say revolutionary, indeed!
I must say that as an owner of a 42" HD plasma (and soon also a 26" HD LCD) owner, not being able to play next gen games in HD pisses me off to no end, and I don't think I'll buy Revolution based on what I know at the moment. No more muddy visuals for me next gen.
But for business, a very innovative approach that truly builds on market and architecture analysis and deliberate choices - unlike the "just-stuff-shit-in" approach of some other players.
krypt0nian
Banned
To me this looks again like Nintendo caters to Nintendo's bottom line, while SONY/Microsoft stumble over each other to do right by Gamers.
This makes my decision to grab 360/PS3 on Day 1 all the sweeter.
Nintendo gets the shaft next gen - I may pick it up after a year or two just for Zelda.
This makes my decision to grab 360/PS3 on Day 1 all the sweeter.
Nintendo gets the shaft next gen - I may pick it up after a year or two just for Zelda.
krypt0nian said:
Well, it's not like it's about the gamers with Sony and MS, either. HD has more to do with them trying to be the company that finally wins the convergence battle. They would not include this things if there wasn't so much at stake for them in this regard.
Chittagong--that's my feeling on the matter. With 60fps locked finally and enough fill rate to do whatever the hell you want they might be able to pull off a lower spec. It seems kind of odd considering that they have supposedly spent as much as MS did for their own GPU, however.
In the end, though, I think they should bite the bullet on this one. There already isn't going to be a harddrive and a shit a load of ports, so at least give 3rd parties the option to go higher. Don't give them another reason to think that Nintendo is clueless so they can once again scale back or drop support altogether.
radioheadrule83
Banned
I just finished reading that IGN cube article and they bring up some good points about why its a good thing or why it doesn't matter.
Just for anyone thinking the rest of the world is like America:
We have a 42" Plasma 3000:1 contrast ratio, 853x480 (can handle 1280 x 1024 on inputs), progressive scan, Component, Scart (x2), D-Sub 15 (PC VGA/SVGA).
We got this about a year ago and it cost over £1000. That's over $1800.
In the UK and parts of Europe you can pick up sets of a similar spec now (still slightly over £1000) or you can pick up smaller LCD sets for the same price for the benefit of a clearer picture. I can tell you now - £1000 is still fucking insanely high. People DO NOT want to spend that on their TV sets here. All they give a shit about is if whether or not they can hook up their Sky box and their DVD player. Nobody knows what high-resolution is or gives a shit.
While there are a hardcore quotient of people (gamers & audio/videophiles) that will spend hard cash on their entertainment systems.... the IGN article brings up another good point. 30/60 full frames of 1080i/p content is harder for a system to do than what it can do at lower resolutions. Why not use the extra power on other things? A revolution game might well be more likely to run at a good framerate. There's a good chance people will see Rev footage later in the year and stop giving a shit about this. What I don't get about this though is that Nintendo has already said it can connect to a computer monitor... whats the point of this if not to benefit from higher resolutions?
Plus - here's a question for you. Has anyone looked at X360/PS3 footage on a TV at normal SD TV resolution? Do you think it looks shit or something?
It doesn't. I've had all of them playing in XBMC and they look fucking hot.
Just for anyone thinking the rest of the world is like America:
We have a 42" Plasma 3000:1 contrast ratio, 853x480 (can handle 1280 x 1024 on inputs), progressive scan, Component, Scart (x2), D-Sub 15 (PC VGA/SVGA).
We got this about a year ago and it cost over £1000. That's over $1800.
In the UK and parts of Europe you can pick up sets of a similar spec now (still slightly over £1000) or you can pick up smaller LCD sets for the same price for the benefit of a clearer picture. I can tell you now - £1000 is still fucking insanely high. People DO NOT want to spend that on their TV sets here. All they give a shit about is if whether or not they can hook up their Sky box and their DVD player. Nobody knows what high-resolution is or gives a shit.
While there are a hardcore quotient of people (gamers & audio/videophiles) that will spend hard cash on their entertainment systems.... the IGN article brings up another good point. 30/60 full frames of 1080i/p content is harder for a system to do than what it can do at lower resolutions. Why not use the extra power on other things? A revolution game might well be more likely to run at a good framerate. There's a good chance people will see Rev footage later in the year and stop giving a shit about this. What I don't get about this though is that Nintendo has already said it can connect to a computer monitor... whats the point of this if not to benefit from higher resolutions?
Plus - here's a question for you. Has anyone looked at X360/PS3 footage on a TV at normal SD TV resolution? Do you think it looks shit or something?
It doesn't. I've had all of them playing in XBMC and they look fucking hot.
Bluemercury
Member
I will sure has hell wont be buying an HD tv, for christ sake i play my ps2/Gc games on a tiny TV........and its fine.
radioheadrule83 said:
...
I hope you don't honestly think that the benefit of not including HD will just be that Xbox360 and PS3 games will have "worse framerates." I really do.
radioheadrule83 said:
And this is just ridiculous. Would it look like shit? Of course not. Would it look inferior? Yes. And we've already discussed the implications with multiplatform titles and third party support.
In the end, there is absolutely nothing at all positive with avoiding HD. Whether the adoption rate is high or not, those who do have it will get the benefit of a superior visual experience and those who don't will always have the option of upgrading at some point. That's a benefit. It's a great one. And not including it is negative. Pretty much that simple, I don't even see the reason to look at it any other way.
If we're putting it in terms of market value, it probably won't have any affect on Nintendo's loyal market. But it's still a negative.
Bluemercury
Member
Îm going to say that in Europe its going to be irrelevant...i mean most GC and Ps2 games here have the Progressive scan mode removed.............
Bluemercury said:
In my opinion, this is yet another example of Nintendo's shortsighted plans in the console sector. They avoided online and while it's arguable just how "major" it was, it still proved to be a great commodity. Now the situation is the same with them avoiding HD, while the competitors will have it. Throughout the Rev generation they will say what they did about online, that they just don't think it's feasible or that it's worth getting into at the moment. And when Evolution comes they'll include it because they were hounded the entire previous generation for not doing so.
krypt0nian
Banned
The fact that there is a FULL BLOWN mutiny at the IGN Nintendo boards should tell you that this is a fucked up decision. Kicking in the heads of (former) fans, one skull at a time.
Bluemercury
Member
Read my post again.......
krypt0nian
Banned
Bluemercury said:
Let me know when the industry gives a shit about Europe.
Hell even the Japan market has gone to shit.
krypt0nian said:
Well that's not fair, the industry should give a shit about Europe because it's a massive market. But in the end, it doesn't matter because HD is still a good idea that should be utilized by all systems - period. No use spinning it, not including it is dumb. It's as dumb as not including a HDD in PS3.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Amir0x said:
Of course not, but it's not impossible. Higher resolutions will have to be an option... SD will still have to be available if either of those systems are to be successful in the rest of the world. I'm not assuming anything, but neither should anybody else.
Well this generation we had a situation where Xbox games did better than the GC equivilents because quite frankly, they looked better, and lots of them could be played online. But, even without HD, it's not a given that Revolution will suffer from the same kind of thing. What if Revolution games at SD resolution look as good as X360 games in SD resolution? When Nintendo removed the digital out on Gamecube for cost saving, was there anyone aside from a persistant few who pissed and moaned? Incidentally, the digital out was present in the European Gamecube - and totally fucking useless. NEVER used.
I do think that Nintendo had better be using this to keep ground at a cheaper price ie. great visuals at SD resolution. Otherwise we will see that Xbox/GC trend continue. I really don't think we can assume anything either way.
And in this discussion about multiplatform titles and third party support - did anyone suggest the margins on Revolution might be better because of things like this?
Did anyone consider that a LARGE majority of people will be playing in SD anyway?
I agree with you. The option on the other systems is most welcome.
I don't care about this though. A lot of the public wont really either imo.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Bluemercury said:
Exactly. I won't be surprised if similar things happen on the new console in Europe.
Project Midway
Member
HD its not irrelevant in Europe. People are already moving to flat screens and flat screens are moving to HD resolutions. I would guess 720p 32" flat screen doesnt cost more than 1000 euros in 2006. At the moment you can get a 720p 26-27" screen with that price.
radioheadrule83 said:
I'm assuming it's a bad idea because it is. That's all that's being assumed. It's short sighted on Nintendo's part. Very short sighted. As a Nintendo fan, it's a big disappointment.
radioheadrule83 said:
I think next generation the situation will be dramatically enhanced, but not necessarily for the same reasons. I hope Nintendo doesn't continue to get marginalized in the console sector, but decisions like this are just absolutely perplexing. Sometimes it seems like Nintendo learned something, and others like this just leave me wondering if they ever listen to fans.
And remember, Microsoft is making sure kiosks are all HD supposedly, which is step one in altering public perception toward its superior visual capabilities. This is something Nintendo can not compete on now.
And the HD and digital out comparrison is not really apt for many reasons.
radioheadrule83 said:
Cheap price and the massive back catalog of games are pretty much Nintendo's only competitive advantage at the moment (for the sake of fairness, we can add the "Revolutionary controller aspect" if it lives up to the hype). One can argue it's a significant one, but at least in part of this equation we know it doesn't matter as much if consumers perceive that a hundred dollar gap yields a product which a much better value.
radioheadrule83 said:
A pipe dream, imho. You can believe in it, and it'd be a great thing if it happens especially for smaller, independent developers.
Again, I'm not going to continue humouring this "large majority" shit. It doesn't matter if 99.9% of the world uses the inferior system, the option should be there. On Rev, it is not. Pretty simple, a negative again. Which you agree with below.
radioheadrule83 said:
Well, I'm sure you don't care about, and that plenty of other people won't as well. Doesn't change anything if people like you want to stick with entirely inferior forms of output.
Project Midway said:
Quite true. CRTs are lacking here. Thank god the flat panels are ok. I'm hearing we'll have quite afew 1080p panels at the end of the year.
I'm also annoyed that in Europe we get shafted for progressive options by consoles. Although Sony have the capability with PS2 unlike GC or Xbox. Only afew games support it like the Namco games. Hopefully we get the HD options here and they arent removed for 60Hz options.
radioheadrule83 said:
If you haven't been keeping up with news HD sales are growing and the FCC news just hit a couple days ago and they are moving up their mandate to make every TV sold digital/analog. Nintendo needs to start doing whatever it takes to get their systems in households and missing out on what should be standard features now is insane. Current gen I wouldn't have had any problems getting games for the gamecube over the Xbox EXCEPT for the lack of component and progressive scan. Honestly, what kind of moron decided to include progressive scan on a system and then only make the component cables available at a premium price and only from your online store. As big as HD is going to get in the next year you better believe alot of people will be taking this into consideration. Even if they don't have a HD set they will know eventually soon they will, and after July 2006 just about any TV they buy will be digital/analog.
Ponn01 said:
This is probably part of the reason that they may be skipping out this time. It was expensive because Nintendo jumped ahead of MS and Sony and introduced a digital port for video, thus the cable called for a DAC--that is mainly the reason that no 3rd parties bothered to release a cable. They anticipated at least a moderate adoption in TVs with digital input, and got burnt in the process. As the article states, this issue isn't quite cut and dry.
I think that Nintendo could do fine just with SD resolution, but I emailed them about the issue anyway because they should be keeping up with the Joneses as much as possible. I can understand their choice of skipping out on a harddrive or not supporting a next gen video format (that battle is still going on), but HD is something that shouldn't cripple their ability to profit and it is something that will at least find some traction in the US (500 dollar HD sets are even widely available at Wal-Mart these days). This is more of 3rd party issue than it is a quality issue IMO. If this is something that is going to make multiplatform development difficult, than Nintendo needs to rethink it.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Ponn01 said:
The FCC isn't governing the people in the rest of the world though is it. This will be a bigger thing for America than the rest of the world. At least initially. I'm in no doubt it'll catch on elsewhere... my question is: when? And at what cost?
I'm just calling it like I see it - Normal people simply do not have the disposable income to throw wads of cash down on new TVs just because new gaming systems support some nice new resolutions. People on a normal wage in the UK, that aren't living rent-free with their parents, just can't realistically expect to be mounting a 1080i television on their walls anytime soon. I'd bet a lot of people would rather put their money into going out, actually buying the DVDs/Games these things are supposed to benefit, or maintaining their car or something.
It's another thread entirely but what are the motivational vehicles for upgrading? Because there are no HD transmissions here. People will be reluctant to stiff themselves and replace DVD collections anytime soon as well imo.
The British government is forcing out standard analog transmissions and phasing out older standard TV sets too by the way, but you don't need to buy a new TV to enable their move to digital. Just a set top box from a freeview / cable / satellite provider.
Furthermore, just because the FCC said something the other day, that doesn't mean that it's the final word. I expect that there is going to be more debate about phasing out analog transmission and possible a delay in that change if things don't pick up with the year.
This whole matter is lot more complicated than many make it out to be, though I can understand that many are ready to make this jump and they want their new consoles to take advantage of this next step.
This whole matter is lot more complicated than many make it out to be, though I can understand that many are ready to make this jump and they want their new consoles to take advantage of this next step.
you really believed the nintendo fans? 'cause nintendo never said any of that. they said things like development is too expensive, games are too long, games are too complicated, etc. their console looks and is designed for a "second system" or kids bedroom.suaveric said:
Not a knock but they sell to KIDS. their audience is KIDS. they develop to specs expected in use by KIDS.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Slurpy said:
You forget about that Purple was going to be the only color at launch last time around until the uproar. Maybe won't do a thing this time around but something needs to be said.
BTW, I got my black Gamecube on launch day.
ge-man said:
This was actually done way back years ago, it's been a time table and the only thing they have been doing is moving it up more and more. There really is no reason not too move it up since most of the TV's will have both signals available. Then after a year or so of enforcing all TV's to have both built in they can then phase the analog signals out. The key to all this is that everyone, even the FCC is pushing to get these digital TV's into households so one way or another people and businesses need to plan on it happening.
Biggest mistake ever by Nintendo... casuals love their graphics. Without HD, the Revolution games will look inferior in print, in kiosks, and will score worse in mags.
As an HDTV owner, I will pass on Revolution. This will be the first Nintendo console that I have never owned.
As an HDTV owner, I will pass on Revolution. This will be the first Nintendo console that I have never owned.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Eh? When was the last time you saw a kiosk with an hdtv?
SolidSnakex
Member
jedimike said:
I don't think this will come close to the disaster that was choosing carts over a CD format.
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
By the way, I woke in bed today feeling so very down. Honest. This whole no-HD nonsense has gotten me so sour on the Revoltuion, and well.. the future in general.
Oh man, this news sucks.
Oh man, this news sucks.
radioheadrule83
Banned
jedimike said:
There are different 360 kiosks available IIRC. The HD one is a deluxe one. It'll cost more to setup. Again IIRC. I can't remember where I read this... i think it was a part of the image or something that broke the kiosk news.
Radiohead - your plasma is not HD - its only 480 lines, so 720p/480p/1080i should all look the same. However, good HD sources nearly always look better when downsampled, as you get free AA with it.
Maybe the rest of the UK don't give a shit about TVs more than £1000, but my first Widescreen CRT was >£1k, as was my current LCD. Sure, I'm not normal, but then neither are many people on here - eg Chittagong with his HD plasma.
As for Nintendos strategy being potentially brilliant, I don't see it. Yes, the simple fact is that most people will play the next gen on SD, simple TVs. But how does that help Nintendo? I don't buy the 'cheaper tech' argument. The only saving with SD Vs HD is fillrate, and then its only 3x the pixels in 720p. Fillrate isn't really an issue on graphics chips/consoles these days. You'll still need to generate similar levels of polys, and texturing, and shader effects. And you lose the benefit of free AA you get from downscaling from 720p to 480i. So PS3 and 360 will still look better.
Maybe the rest of the UK don't give a shit about TVs more than £1000, but my first Widescreen CRT was >£1k, as was my current LCD. Sure, I'm not normal, but then neither are many people on here - eg Chittagong with his HD plasma.
As for Nintendos strategy being potentially brilliant, I don't see it. Yes, the simple fact is that most people will play the next gen on SD, simple TVs. But how does that help Nintendo? I don't buy the 'cheaper tech' argument. The only saving with SD Vs HD is fillrate, and then its only 3x the pixels in 720p. Fillrate isn't really an issue on graphics chips/consoles these days. You'll still need to generate similar levels of polys, and texturing, and shader effects. And you lose the benefit of free AA you get from downscaling from 720p to 480i. So PS3 and 360 will still look better.
Firest0rm said:
I don't think anyone here should... react at this level. It's still early, there's a lot of variables we don't know. I think Nintendo just has a different corporate strategy, not necessarily not wanting to compete. Don't get me wrong, no HD support is a horrible decision... but it's also worth stating that not following your competitors line is not the same as not competing.