Support NeoGAF

[Datawhore]

I will be honest. I haven't read every single thread regarding Nintendo's stance on the "no HD" support for Revolution, so some of my points below may have been stated many times before. If so, mods, please lock this thread and send it to the pits of doom.

First of all, this isn't damage control. I think Nintendo should support HD resolutions with the Revolution. However, from their perspective I can understand why they don't feel they need to.

1) Hardware Cost
By supporting HD resolutions, you need a much more capable GPU that can sustain significantly higher fillrates. Both the PS3 & X360's fillrates are faster than previous gen, but they are not orders of magnitudes faster. By increasing the standard resolution to 720p or 1080, the number of pixels increases 3x and 6.75x respectively. Unless fillrates increase much faster than that (which they aren't) developers are going to be facing similar problems they did last gen with performance simply because of increased resolutions. (A similar argument can probably be made for graphics memory bandwidth)

Since Nintendo is not supporting those resolutions in hardware, they can produce a significantly less expensive GPU yet get similar 'game performance' albeit at non-HD resolutions.

2) The types of games they make
Nintendo has rarely tried to create the most visually realistic games. Visual fidelity is not the highest priority for their games. One could argue that cartoon realism is much closer to their eventual goal. They don't need HD resolutions to make prettier Wind Wakers (though it would be awesome!). However, the holy grail for a Mario title (IMHO) would be visual fidelity approaching The Incredibles; HD resolutions could certainly help towards that goal. Perhaps this is not a goal Nintendo wishes to (or can) achieve this generation.

3) Their audience
Face it, Nintendo is moving farther and farther away from the cutting edge hardcore gamer and much more into the mainstream casual player. They have also consistently targeted children much more overtly with their branding and gameplay. As some would say, they are a kids company.

I expect that HDTV adoption among casual gamers and 6-12 year olds TV sets will be extremely low over the next few years. How many parents on GAF are planning on buying a 2nd HDTV set for their kids to play games on anytime soon?

Die hard gamers who are Nintendo fans will buy the Revolution regardless of whether or not it supports HD, so they aren't a factor even though they are a core part of the Nintendo audience.

When you consider those factors (and I'm sure there are more that I've missed) I can understand why Nintendo has made this decision.

 

[Firest0rm]

It all comes down to this for the hardcore fan:

 

[sly]

And this couldn't fit in all the other "Nintendo: no HD" topics?

 

[radioheadrule83]

I sent them my concerns and said that a U turn on this whole HD thing would be welcomed by their more hardcore fans as well as by those of the buying public who own (or plan to own) HDTV sets. I got this scripted company-line reply in return:

"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! "

...deep down, I know they're probably right.

 

[sol5377]

I'm sure in the end the Revolution will be more than capable of displaying next-gen graphics on regular TV sets and it'll have a unique controller to boot. Ports will probably be downgraded a bit and/or left off the system, but there'll be plenty of great looking first and 2nd party games to be played. Playing Mario Kart and SSBM online on Revolution will be hard to resist for hardcore nintendo fans and for the youth market.

Nintendo will be fine. DS is doing pretty well, GBA micro will do nicely and GBA 2 will be awesome in '07.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm not sure no HD really matters to me, but this strikes me as another instance of Nintendo bucking the trend to their own detriment.

See also-- CD format, DVD playback.

 

[ThongyDonk]

and GBA 2 will be awesome in '07.

Someone else is seeing Kap-Man too!!

 

[teruterubozu]

HD won't matter because the Revolution is a VIRTUAL HELMET.
There you go.

 

[krypt0nian]

They can rationalize all they like. Same with the fanboys.

Bottom line - this is just another Nintendo kick to the head for gamers.

Vote with your dollars next gen. If you need the Revolution, buy it second-hand. If you have to play Nintendo games, buy them used.

 

[LUNA]

It all comes down to this for the hardcore fan:

...

Maybe it is not Ok for the hardcore tech. fan, but it should be Ok for the harcore fungamer fan. Even hardcore Nintendo fan should be used to this kind of aproach for the last years were Nintendo has never been on improving graphics

 

[The Shadow]

First of all, this isn't damage control.

I'm convinced!

 

[Pseudo judo]

The less Nintendo try to compete with Sony/MS in hardware capabilities the more they proclaim the Revolution to be a niche gaming platform. Sure that'll make them money, Nintendo always makes money, but it puts them outside the main stream and essentially makes them give up on the majority of the gaming market, imo.

 

[Gahiggidy]

....

1) Hardware Cost
By supporting HD resolutions, you need a much more capable GPU that can sustain significantly higher fillrates. Both the PS3 & X360's fillrates are faster than previous gen, but they are not orders of magnitudes faster. By increasing the standard resolution to 720p or 1080, the number of pixels increases 3x and 6.75x respectively. Unless fillrates increase much faster than that (which they aren't) developers are going to be facing similar problems they did last gen with performance simply because of increased resolutions. (A similar argument can probably be made for graphics memory bandwidth)

Since Nintendo is not supporting those resolutions in hardware, they can produce a significantly less expensive GPU yet get similar 'game performance' albeit at non-HD resolutions.

...

Bullshit. The freaken' Xbox 1 could play games in 720p. And some pretty substantial games like Soul Calibur II. Are you suggesting that the Revolution might not even be up to the levels of Xbox 1?! And just because the hardware may not run optimally at that resolution, doesn't mean you shouldn't make it available. Even the N64 supported 640x480....with most games running at 256 X 224. With the expansion pack they could do 480i with only 8MB ram. Are we to gonna be happy with a Nintendo console that can't display at a higher resolution than a console that was released in 1996?

 

[impirius]

I to the B to the H-A-T

Gahiggidy is spot on. I appreciate the concerns with fillrate, but Nintendo should at least give developers the option of supporting 720p. Just don't force them into it. Isn't that more "open arms" than anything else?

 

[wonderfuldays]

Bullshit. The freaken' Xbox 1 could play games in 720p. And some pretty substantial games like Soul Calibur II. Are you suggesting that the Revolution might not even be up to the levels of Xbox 1?! And just because the hardware may not run optimally at that resolution, doesn't mean you shouldn't make it available. Even the N64 supported 640x480....with most games running at 256 X 224. With the expansion pack they could do 640i with only 8MB ram. Are we to gonna be happy with a Nintendo console that can't display at a higher resolution than a console that was released in 1996?

640i? What the hack is that? :lol
At least we can expact 480P will be there.

 

[dark10x]

I really hope they do end up supporting HD resolutions and I hope the hardware is actually quite a bit more powerful than we are expecting. Retro is stuck with Nintendo, and I'd hate to see a Metroid Prime 3 (or something else from them) held back by weak hardware.

 

[Gahiggidy]

640i? What the hack is that? :lol
At least we can expact 480P will be there.

Don't be so sure about 480p. As far as aI can figure, the only way to cut the manafacturing cost on this mess of a decision is to ALSO cut out progressive output... ie the GameCube revision.

 

[ImNotLikeThem]

Don't be so sure about 480p. As far as aI can figure, the only way to cut the manafacturing cost on this mess of a decision is to ALSO cut out progressive output... ie the GameCube revision.

That would be a perfectly valid concern, except for the fact that the Revolution mockup ONLY had the GC digital port on the back, and didn't even have the analog output. Now unless they messed up with that and didn't intend for that to be there at all, then they are, once again, sending very mixed signals.

 

[Ponn]

Good crash course

 

[Gahiggidy]

That would be a perfectly valid concern, except for the fact that the Revolution mockup ONLY had the GC digital port on the back, and didn't even have the analog output. Now unless they messed up with that and didn't intend for that to be there at all, then they are, once again, sending very mixed signals.

Show me pictures of that.

 

[ImNotLikeThem]

Show me pictures of that.

There aren't. This is according to a few people who had the "hands on" behind the scenes, Matt included.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Well then, they should go back and get pictures.

 

[krypt0nian]

There aren't. This is according to a few people who had the "hands on" behind the scenes, Matt included.

That was an empty plastic box. I'm not sure you can take anything away from it.

 

[chinch]

Good spin and damage control. This entire saga unfortunately makes no sense whatsoever.

In all seriousness it's true that, in a shortsighted perspective, Nintendo kids don't and won't benefit from HDTV and HD games. The major problem is public perception. Before the 1/2 way point of next-gen, Nintendo will look tired and old... in stores, kiosks, at your friends house, etc. There is no escaping this fact.

Nintendo will now lose more (if not all) pre-teens and they'll be relegated to the "i was just a toddler a few years ago" category of early grade schooler gamers (under age 10).

Anyone kid with an older brother playing 360/PS3 on dad's HDTV will loathe Nintendo.

Adding HD is essentially "free" in the next gen. Nintendo has $$$ cash-o-plenty. Stop rationalizing cost savings like this is Sega battling for it's corporate life. Nintendo is simply trying to save FIRST PARTY DEVELOPMENT costs first and foremost.

Unfortunately they are targeting pay-per-download of old games on Revolution, which will look horrible compared to a HD Revolution game (if one were to exist in theory). Nintendoids seem to think you can't have both. Same goes with a TX100 ethernet port.

I will be honest. I haven't read every single thread regarding Nintendo's stance on the "no HD" support for Revolution, so some of my points below may have been stated many times before. If so, mods, please lock this thread and send it to the pits of doom.

First of all, this isn't damage control. I think Nintendo should support HD resolutions with the Revolution. However, from their perspective I can understand why they don't feel they need to.

1) Hardware Cost
By supporting HD resolutions, you need a much more capable GPU that can sustain significantly higher fillrates. Both the PS3 & X360's fillrates are faster than previous gen, but they are not orders of magnitudes faster. By increasing the standard resolution to 720p or 1080, the number of pixels increases 3x and 6.75x respectively. Unless fillrates increase much faster than that (which they aren't) developers are going to be facing similar problems they did last gen with performance simply because of increased resolutions. (A similar argument can probably be made for graphics memory bandwidth)

Since Nintendo is not supporting those resolutions in hardware, they can produce a significantly less expensive GPU yet get similar 'game performance' albeit at non-HD resolutions.

2) The types of games they make
Nintendo has rarely tried to create the most visually realistic games. Visual fidelity is not the highest priority for their games. One could argue that cartoon realism is much closer to their eventual goal. They don't need HD resolutions to make prettier Wind Wakers (though it would be awesome!). However, the holy grail for a Mario title (IMHO) would be visual fidelity approaching The Incredibles; HD resolutions could certainly help towards that goal. Perhaps this is not a goal Nintendo wishes to (or can) achieve this generation.

3) Their audience
Face it, Nintendo is moving farther and farther away from the cutting edge hardcore gamer and much more into the mainstream casual player. They have also consistently targeted children much more overtly with their branding and gameplay. As some would say, they are a kids company.

I expect that HDTV adoption among casual gamers and 6-12 year olds TV sets will be extremely low over the next few years. How many parents on GAF are planning on buying a 2nd HDTV set for their kids to play games on anytime soon?

Die hard gamers who are Nintendo fans will buy the Revolution regardless of whether or not it supports HD, so they aren't a factor even though they are a core part of the Nintendo audience.

When you consider those factors (and I'm sure there are more that I've missed) I can understand why Nintendo has made this decision.

 

[Datawhore]

Bullshit. The freaken' Xbox 1 could play games in 720p. And some pretty substantial games like Soul Calibur II. Are you suggesting that the Revolution might not even be up to the levels of Xbox 1?! And just because the hardware may not run optimally at that resolution, doesn't mean you shouldn't make it available. Even the N64 supported 640x480....with most games running at 256 X 224. With the expansion pack they could do 480i with only 8MB ram. Are we to gonna be happy with a Nintendo console that can't display at a higher resolution than a console that was released in 1996?

You're missing the point (and taking my argument to places I didn't even begin to suggest!). Displaying games at HDTV resolutions is significantly more taxing on a GPU in terms of fillrate and bandwidth. Yes, it's possible on some current gen games but not most because of the technological challenges. Halo 2 didn't run at 720p because of performance reasons.

Nintendo can save a lot of money in manufacturing by including a lower SPEC GPU in the Revolution compared to the X360 & PS3 because they are not making HDTV resolutions the standard. They don't need as much fillrate or bandwidth. It's not just about cable connectors.

 

[Datawhore]

And honestly this wasn't meant as damage control. I think they should include it and am super disappointed that they're not.

I was simply thinking about why they must have come to this conclusion and didn't see many people discussing Nintendo's reasoning in any kind of rational way.

 

[Dilbert]

You're missing the point (and taking my argument to places I didn't even begin to suggest!). Displaying games at HDTV resolutions is significantly more taxing on a GPU in terms of fillrate and bandwidth. Yes, it's possible on some current gen games but not most because of the technological challenges. Halo 2 didn't run at 720p because of performance reasons.

Nintendo can save a lot of money in manufacturing by including a lower SPEC GPU in the Revolution compared to the X360 & PS3 because they are not making HDTV resolutions the standard. They don't need as much fillrate or bandwidth. It's not just about cable connectors.

I think you're missing HIS point. If Nintendo is claiming that the Revolution is ANY kind of "next-gen" console, isn't it reasonable to expect that it will at least a) match up comparably with offering from MS and Sony which have HD games and b) outperform current-gen systems like Xbox which offer limited HD capability? Hell, even the "lowly" PS2 offers 16:9 480p on some games (Soul Calibur 2 comes to mind).

 

[Datawhore]

Good spin and damage control. This entire saga unfortunately makes no sense whatsoever.

In all seriousness it's true that, in a shortsighted perspective, Nintendo kids don't and won't benefit from HDTV and HD games. The major problem is public perception. Before the 1/2 way point of next-gen, Nintendo will look tired and old... in stores, kiosks, at your friends house, etc. There is no escaping this fact.

Nintendo will now lose more (if not all) pre-teens and they'll be relegated to the "i was just a toddler a few years ago" category of early grade schooler gamers (under age 10).

Anyone kid with an older brother playing 360/PS3 on dad's HDTV will loathe Nintendo.

Adding HD is essentially "free" in the next gen. Nintendo has $$$ cash-o-plenty. Stop rationalizing cost savings like this is Sega battling for it's corporate life. Nintendo is simply trying to save FIRST PARTY DEVELOPMENT costs first and foremost.

Unfortunately they are targeting pay-per-download of old games on Revolution, which will look horrible compared to a HD Revolution game (if one were to exist in theory). Nintendoids seem to think you can't have both. Same goes with a TX100 ethernet port.

I never said it wouldn't have a detrimental effect. It certainly will.

Clearly, Nintendo disagrees (for some of the reasons I've stated above and likely others).

 

[Datawhore]

I think you're missing HIS point. If Nintendo is claiming that the Revolution is ANY kind of "next-gen" console, isn't it reasonable to expect that it will at least a) match up comparably with offering from MS and Sony which have HD games and b) outperform current-gen systems like Xbox which offer limited HD capability? Hell, even the "lowly" PS2 offers 16:9 480p on some games (Soul Calibur 2 comes to mind).

Yes it's reasonable to expect that it will match up. (I expected it to, but am being disappointed)

Yes it's reasonable to expect that it will outperform current gen systems in terms of resolutions (This too is disappointing.)

They still might support 16:9 @480p though; I haven't heard that they won't. Even some GC games do.

To clarify, I'm not saying and have never said what they are doing is the right thing. I think it's a big mistake. I'm just trying to explaing where they may be (misguided or not) coming from.

 

[impirius]

You're a brave man for playing Devil's Advocate for such a hopeless case.

 

[duckroll]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that not including HD support isn't a good BUSINESS move for Nintendo, but it's also a big "fuck you" to all their older fans who've been supporting them for years. Just like the N64 being cart-based was a big "fuck you" to fans way back. Just like taking progressive-scan out of the new GC revisions. Nintendo has always been about the bottom line and making as much money as possible regardless of how the consumer is limited by their decisions. They don't care. That's why people are so upset. Sure we UNDERSTAND why Nintendo is doing it, for higher profits. Do we have to like it? Hell no.

 

[jedimike]

I've already beaten this horse to death, but WTH, a few more licks in him won't hurt...

It's obvious that Nintendo's focus is on profitability. They think that maintaining huge profit margins is more important than gaining marketshare.

The problem is that Nintendo fails to understand that marketshare (at least in the US) is a combination of elements. The best games in the world will not gain you marketshare.

When Joe Consumer walks into Walmart and sees a Revolution game, he's going to say "Wow, sweet graphics." He's not focused on Mario, or the fancy touch pad controller... he's looking at the television. Now, that same guy is going to look at the PS3 or 360 kiosk and go "Holy Mother of Christ!" and his jaw will hit the floor. He won't even consider buying a Revolution.

Yes, the visual difference between HD and SD can be that dramatic.

So, now Nintendo's marketshare falls further than it did with GC. It happened this gen with on-line gaming. There isn't a doubt in my mind right now that Nintendo would be sitting well ahead of MS in the console race if they would have had on-line gaming.

Why? Even if less than 10% of the people use it, there is a perception that GC is not as good because it lacks features. To gain marketshare you need games, you need cutting edge features (DVD, On-line gaming, HDTV, etc.), and you need the mindshare of the largest group of spenders... which is not kids 10 and under. It's the people out buying HDTV's, wireless routers, and DVD's.

 

[Link316]

they can't keep it up forever, they've actually had 2 quarters of losses during this gen, their userbase is eventually going to shrink to the point where it won't be large enough to sustain their profits

 

[Bob White]

When Joe Consumer walks into Walmart and sees a Revolution game, he's going to say "Wow, sweet graphics." He's not focused on Mario, or the fancy touch pad controller... he's looking at the television. Now, that same guy is going to look at the PS3 or 360 kiosk and go "Holy Mother of Christ!" and his jaw will hit the floor. He won't even consider buying a Revolution.

And thats all that really matters.

 

[Gahiggidy]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that not including HD support isn't a good BUSINESS move for Nintendo....

Actually, I am!

Allowing the GPU to output at higher resoltuions will not add to the cost of manufacturing in any way, shape or form... so long as the video-connection allows for digital-out (480p). There's that b/s argurment that "well, then they gotta add more to the GPU to make games run smooth in HD"... but that's a convolute way of getting around the fact that higher resolution in modern GPU's are basically FREE.

 

[jimbo]

This does sound like damage control. I can see your point, and even if it wasn't flawed, it does matter. Why does it matter? Because I'd love to see a Mario game in HD and I am not alone on this one. Simple as that. It matters to everyone else who has an HD set and are playing HD games on their Xbox 360 and PS3 and wish that their Rev would also support it. No it doesn't matter to the hardcore Nintendo fanboys, because they are NEVER going to NOT like something Nintendo does or doesn't do. That or they would never admitt it here.


As far as pixel fill rate, if that was an issue with the Rev graphics chip(heck if true, they must be putting a 64 chip in there), then Nintendo would simply just not make it a standard and leave it optional for developers. If your game can support HD, go for it. Not having the option is just big N trying to cut corners again. And for every reason you give me as being a great business move I'll give you one that isn't good(obviously, just check out the backlash).


But I thought this was speculation. I don't even understand why we're having these discussions. Has it been officially announced that the REV won't support HD, not even OPTIONAL?

If so, I've said it before and I'll say it again.... that controller better be God's gift to gamers.

 

[Hellraizah]

No it doesn't matter to the hardcore Nintendo fanboys, because they are NEVER going to NOT like something Nintendo does or doesn't do. That or they would never admitt it here.

You're sure about that ?

Actually, I am!

I guess that if Nintendo didn't lie when then said it could be connected to a VGA screen, it at least proves that they will do 480p. If they DON'T do 480p, then the first-generation of GameCube will have an advantage over Revolution, which wouldn't make much sense to anyone. You gotta remember that Revolution is supposed to be backward compatible, imagine if you take F-Zero GX in your Revolution, and it looks worse than on your GameCube because Revolution wouldn't support 480p.

 

[mrklaw]

Jedimike makes a good point if Sony and MS get their point of sale in order, they can kill revolution right there, whether people have HD sets at home or not.


And I don't see the technical benefits. Really its just fillrate, which isn't a major issue right now, its polys and shader ops. To get games that look 'as good' as PS3/X360 games on a crap TV, you still have to draw the same number of polys and have the same levels of shaders. You just draw a few less pixels.

There is little saving in memory, just a bit less bandwidth. and where will Nintendo get that tech from? If they use a last-gen unit from ATI, it'll be PC based and so will have plenty of fillrate, but less poly pushing - the exact opposite of what they need.

 

[ToyMachine228]

I don't really care which consoles support HDTV's. I'm not going to buy an HDTV. I don't plan on it.

 

[Amir0x]

2) The types of games they make
Nintendo has rarely tried to create the most visually realistic games. Visual fidelity is not the highest priority for their games. One could argue that cartoon realism is much closer to their eventual goal. They don't need HD resolutions to make prettier Wind Wakers (though it would be awesome!). However, the holy grail for a Mario title (IMHO) would be visual fidelity approaching The Incredibles; HD resolutions could certainly help towards that goal. Perhaps this is not a goal Nintendo wishes to (or can) achieve this generation.

Not to ignore your other points, because they're pretty much all bullshit, but this is by far the most offensive from a logical perspective.

Your claim is "You don't need resolutions to make prettier Wind Wakers." Uh, yes you do. In every example you listed - guess what - they look substantially better in High Definition. You're trying to claim that because their goal might be more cartoonism, that high-definition isn't as important. That's bullshit. It is just as important as any other style.

 

[Gahiggidy]

I don't really care which consoles support HDTV's. I'm not going to buy an HDTV. I don't plan on it.

What if you win one in a contest?

 

[El_Victor]

Well, how unlikely is it that Nintendo will change their minds? I don't want to fucking rant about this and then in 3 months read that it will support it anyway - my english isn't good enough for that.

 

[Drek]

I don't really care which consoles support HDTV's. I'm not going to buy an HDTV. I don't plan on it.

Guess what, no one gives a fuck.

Why no HD support in the Rev? Because 5 year olds and Nintendo geeks who live in mom and dad's basement don't have the money. Why throw features in there that your target audiance can't use? Smart move Nintendo! All us 20-30 somethings with college degrees, HDTVs, and spending money in our pockets will definately avoid your console, so you don't need to worry about "questionable" content on your system stealing hype and sales from twenty different shitty Mario games.

Oh wait, I just let Nintendo's secret out of the bag. Hope Shiggy and Reg aren't mad at me.

 

[Datawhore]

Not to ignore your other points, because they're pretty much all bullshit, but this is by far the most offensive from a logical perspective.

Your claim is "You don't need resolutions to make prettier Wind Wakers." Uh, yes you do. In every example you listed - guess what - they look substantially better in High Definition. You're trying to claim that because their goal might be more cartoonism, that high-definition isn't as important. That's bullshit. It is just as important as any other style.

As I said in my original post, Nintendo's titles would certainly benefit from HD resolutions, but not nearly as much as a sports games and FPS from a visual fidelity point of view.

Every single game would benefit visually from higher resolutions - that is by definition what higher resolution would offer. My argument is that Nintendo's bread & butter titles are not nearly as dependent on increased visual fidelity given their target market and style of game.

The HD to non-HD comparison in stores will really freaking hurt them though. I doubt Nintendo has taken this comparison into enough consideration.

 

[Chittagong]

Great thread - I'll post again my earlier post:



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.

 

[TheDiave]

I dunno, I see all this HD talk and it leads me to say one thing; The percentage of people out there playing games on high-definition capable TV/monitors is not all that high. I mean even the lowest end Plasma monitor will still run 1500-2000 dollars, and that's not an investment many people can make.

But that's just my opinion... Take it for what it's worth.

 

[Tellaerin]

Guess what, no one gives a fuck.

Yet we should care that you plan to buy (or currently own) an HDTV and are upset that Nintendo's not supporting it? Guess what? I don't give a fuck. Stop whining.

Why no HD support in the Rev? Because 5 year olds and Nintendo geeks who live in mom and dad's basement don't have the money.

I'm neither five years old or a Nintendo geek living in mom and dad's basement. I also have more important things to spend my money on than an HDTV at the moment. I'm sick of hearing people here throw around insults like this whenever someone says they're not in a hurry to run out and buy the latest high-end audiovisual equipment to play their games on/spend money on content downloads/whatever. It's the first thing out of some of your mouths. 'You're not buying _________? You must be poor!' Well, if by 'poor' you mean 'having the good sense not to waste your money right now,' then yes, I must be.

Why throw features in there that your target audiance can't use? Smart move Nintendo! All us 20-30 somethings with college degrees, HDTVs, and spending money in our pockets will definately avoid your console, so you don't need to worry about "questionable" content on your system stealing hype and sales from twenty different shitty Mario games.

Audi e nce. Defin i tely. I hope your college has a refund policy.

And lest you get the wrong idea, I actually do feel that Nintendo should be making some effort to support HDTV. Even though I'm in no hurry to buy one myself, it's eventually going to become the new standard, and it's nice to see hardware manufacturers future-proof their products that way. I just take exception to the bloated sense of entitlement I see at work in some of you. Companies don't owe it to you to support your HDTV purchase. Likewise, buying an HDTV doesn't make you 'special', and it certainly doesn't give you the right to go around lording it over people who for whatever reason aren't in the same headlong rush to buy one. Next time, try making your points without insulting the shit out of everyone who doesn't share your buying habits.

 

[Zaptruder]

HD Support for next gen will be like broadband support this generation.

Definite tangible benefits, that will require explicit support from the get go.

 

[Ruzbeh]

The only thing that can justify this no HD stuff is less cost for both consumer and developer, but I'm wondering how Iwata and the Nintendo gang thought high-def games will bloat of development cost.

How did he and his staff reach this conclusion? (Please, no retarded replies like "Because he's an idiot")

 

[El_Victor]

How did he and his staff reach this conclusion? (Please, no retarded replies like "Because he's an idiot")

Iwata wanted to see exactly how far he can go and yet have his fans love Nintendo.
.. that was a retarted reply, I suck.