Support NeoGAF

[chinch]

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")

Highere developer cost because need to spend more resources on "graphics". More artists, more computers, more programmers, etc. Nintendo has been whining about game development getting too complicated for years.

But what do you expect from a company that butters it's bread with it's SNES Gameboy development.

 

[Of All Trades]

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.

1500-2000, huh?

And I basically just clicked on the first 30" hdtv I saw on the website.

 

[Xellos]

If aiming for 480p instead of 720p/1080i lets Nintendo keep the price around $200 then so be it.

I gave up on expecting Nintendo to compete with Sony/MS a long time ago. To me, Nintendo's consoles are there just to play Nintendo's games. I like Nintendo's games a lot, so I'm willing to buy a secondary console to play them. However, price is a major factor for a console with such a limited use. If Nintendo needs to make a tradeoff with Rev's graphics power to keep the price down, then I'm OK with that.

 

[Ruzbeh]

Highere developer cost because need to spend more resources on "graphics". More artists, more computers, more programmers, etc. Nintendo has been whining about game development getting too complicated for years.

But what do you expect from a company that butters it's bread with it's SNES Gameboy development.

:lol

I think you mean Nintendo has been whining about game development cost and games being too complicated for non-gamers. Not game development being complicated.

 

[Ryck]

OHHHH so it will still be 480p oh thats fine with me +1 purchase...(if so)

 

[MadOdorMachine]

I agree w/what JediMike said. I'm not really too concerned w/HDTV because I've got a kick ass 36" Sony Wega analog set and my PS2, Xbox and GC all look great on it. Like most other Americans, I have been scoping out HDTVs though. The fact that we're all gonna have to upgrade is not something you can ignore. I'm just waiting for the prices to come down before I get one. I've only had my Sony about 5 yrs now and must say it's still a great TV. Now add to that, most people I talk to about games are still happy w/current gen graphics. Bottom of the line, next gen is being rushed onto us. If next gen truly is the "HD era," why not wait another year or two when more people have it and are ready to upgrade to release it?

Now, if this rumor is true (which I don't believe it is) the thing that would piss me off the most is that Revolution is going to get less third party support for no HD. The only system I had this gen was a GC. I bought it at launch and was pretty happy with it. When I found out BO3 and several other games were being cut for no online, I bought an Xbox and a PS2. Now I hardly play my GC. GC was supposed to fix all the problems of N64, but it's done even worse. I've been a Nintendo fan only since the NES. It's going to take quite a lot to get me to support them again next gen.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

1) GCN already does low-end HD visuals on some games, why is anyone expecting the Revolution to somehow be LESS than GCN in this regard?

2) One of the very first things said about Revolution was that you could hook it up to PC monitors...to my knowledge, PC monitor's are of higher definitions over standerd TV's are they not?

3) The Revolution has the same digital output in the back that early GCN's (capable of HD) has...so why is there widespread belief that Revolution won't do HD?

Revolution will do HD. It may "only" be 480p or 720p, but that's still HD. Seriously, it's not like every game coming to X-BOX 360 or PS3 is confirmed as 1080p anyways...and even if they are, only people with too much money to spend will "appreciate" it let alone not be able to tell the difference between 720p or 1080p with thier mere mortal eyes.

Face it, even if Nintendo came out tomorrow and said Revolution were capable of 1080p, only a fraction of the games coming to it would be 1080p, which is only marginalized by the people who only have standerd, 480p or 720p TV's. If Nintendo did everything right and had 1080p or whatver, alot of mainstreamsist wouldn't care or know the difference. They'd still think PS3 & X-BOX 360 were "better" 'cos they're bigger and come from bigger companies. It more/less comes down to games, as the graphics will still be comparable between the three...look at PS2, the technically least impressive this generation yet it gave comparable visuals and still "won" the popularity contest anyways.

This is all about technophiles who have to have the latest this/that versus the NORM...and I'm sorry, but the norm wins. Not too many people have HD, nor could tell the difference between different resolutions. The people who do are the technophiles who are more or less boasting thier expendable income more than they are showing how tech. savvy they are. I'm sorry, but these people are in the minority.

Some people will say Nintendo is "dropping the ball" with "no HD" and trying to compare it to the lack of Nintendo going online this generation. However...online gaming deals with actual gameplay, while being HD or not only deals with graphics resolution which won't effect the mass market 'cos HDTV won't truly reach mass market levels for a while yet anyways.

 

[Ryck]

1) GCN already does low-end HD visuals on some games, why is anyone expecting the Revolution to somehow be LESS than GCN in this regard?

.

Because It's NINTENDO (with them you never know!)

 

[OmniGamer]

1500-2000, huh?

And I basically just clicked on the first 30" hdtv I saw on the website.

He said "Plasma"...that Toshiba set is a tube(CRT).

 

[sangreal]

1) GCN already does low-end HD visuals on some games, why is anyone expecting the Revolution to somehow be LESS than GCN in this regard?

480p is not widely considered to be HD.

2) One of the very first things said about Revolution was that you could hook it up to PC monitors...to my knowledge, PC monitor's are of higher definitions over standerd TV's are they not?

PC monitors are _capable_ of resolutions higher than standard TVs.

3) The Revolution has the same digital output in the back that early GCN's (capable of HD) has...so why is there widespread belief that Revolution won't do HD?

Because Nintendo has said it won't do HD. Also, again, the GCN was not capable of HD.

Revolution will do HD. It may "only" be 480p or 720p, but that's still HD.

It MAY do 480p. It WONT do 720p.

Seriously, it's not like every game coming to X-BOX 360 or PS3 is confirmed as 1080p anyways

True, but every X360 game WILL be atleast 720p.

...and even if they are, only people with too much money to spend will "appreciate" it let alone not be able to tell the difference between 720p or 1080p with thier mere mortal eyes.

There is a substantial, measurable, difference between 480p, 720p and 1080p.

 

[sangreal]

He said "Plasma"...that Toshiba set is a tube(CRT).

He implies that an expensive plasma (or equivalent) set is required for HDTV, which is not true.

 

[OmniGamer]

He implies that an expensive plasma (or equivalent) set is required for HDTV, which is not true.

Certainly(looks at el cheapo Advent 4:3 Tube HDTVs)...but he still said Plasma

 

[RX178]

if they really don't support hdtv. they need
1. full support of wide screen e.g. FZero GX
2. really smooth framerate for every game
3. toy-story like graphic
4. a totally different UI. if not, they can just make it for Gamecube but why release a new console?

 

[Mrbob]

The reggienator needs to be grilled on this topic. I could have sworn he said Nintendo is an AND company. Bulldiggityshznit! I have a hard time believing Nintendo won't embrace higher res widescreen gaming. Ugh....I am saddened by this Nintendo decision and hope it gets reversed before the console is out.

 

[Auron]

I'm guessing the lack of HD is a necessity for Nintendo's console unless they want to be priced out of the market. First you have the built in flash RAM for the game saves and downloads, meaning no free profit on selling those tiny memory cards. Then you have the mystery controller, that very well could end up being priced considerably higher that the standard controller price (let's imagine they end up being $80). If cutting HD support is what Nintendo has to do to avoid selling a $400 box, than so be it.

 

[Gahiggidy]

You are wrong on that. Making the console HD-compatable costs nothing.


They're not doing it to save money. They're doing "on principle". :rolleyes

 

[Of All Trades]

Certainly(looks at el cheapo Advent 4:3 Tube HDTVs)...but he still said Plasma

He said plasma because he's either ignorant of reality or is desperately trying to defend the N-Hive. Frankly, I wouldn't even consider a plasma.

 

[Monk]

You are wrong on that. Making the console HD-compatable costs nothing.


They're not doing it to save money. They're doing "on principle". :rolleyes

Except that it forces devs to make 480p in mind instead of 1080p. HD isn't free on the hardware, it requires more fillrate, and it leaves less fillrate for bumpmapping etc. HD is probably the only thing stopping Rev games looking like hi-res GC games and not like low res 360 and ps3 games.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Err... who talking about "developer cost"? I'm talking about the "cost to the consumer" bullshit that NOA was trying to pass onto us. The fact is that the capability to display in HD won't add to the cost of the machine one iota.

 

[Monk]

Err... who talking about "developer cost"? I'm talking about the "cost to the consumer" bullshit that NOA was trying to pass onto us. The fact is that the capability to display in HD won't add to the cost of the machine one iota.

It's called PR, you know it's bullshit. But adding it would probably make things even worse for Nintendo.

 

[WindyMan]

(Disclaimer: I want HD on the Revolution as bad as anyone else. I didn't pay $1000 for my HDTV and subscribe to digital HD cable for nothing.)

Anyone who is saying that it "costs nothing" to add HD capabilities to hardware has no clue what they're talking about. Adding an HD-capable output to the system wouldn't really cost anything, but that's not what the issue at hand is.

You need more powerful hardware to run a game at a higher resolution. What happens when you turn up the resolution on one of your PC games? The framerate takes a dive. All the power needed to display at a higher resolution is diverted from framerate and general fluidity. If you want a game to run as smoothly at 1200×1600 as it does at 600×800, you will need to increase the system's power to compensate for the higher resolution.

Conversely, if you want to make the Revolution HD, it's going to cost you in one of two places. If you take the current hardware as it is and make it HD-capable, the performance will suffer (in games that use HD). If you want the performance of the current hardware to be matched in hardware that is HD capable, you need to make it more powerful, which costs more money to do. Nintendo, being the tightwad that it is, is currently going for the former rather than the latter.

Of course, this is where the arguement is. The whole "costs nothing" arugement stems from the fact that if you don't use the HD capability of the system, then it really shouldn't cost you anything (price-wise or performance-wise). Only the developers who want to use it need to deal with the problems of optimizing and whatnot. I totally agree with this. Nintendo will probably never use HD in their own games (how we all wish they did, though). If they want to keep third party support for more than two years, they should add the HD functionality so consumers will see continue to see it as a viable console, and so publishers will see a viable reason to continue developing games for it.

 

[Gahiggidy]

I can't imagine 720p is that taxing for a GPU made in 2006.

 

[Monk]

I can't imagine 720p is that taxing for a GPU made in 2006.

Not when you consider it's probably the same size as a laptop graphics card.

 

[sangreal]

Not when you consider it's probably the same size as a laptop graphics card.

Are you implying thats a problem? My laptop does over 720p (1440x1050) no problem, and its not even a desktop replacement. Revolution is small, but its certainly larger than even a desktop replacement laptop sans screen.

 

[Monk]

It is a problem in comparison to regular graphics cards.

 

[mrklaw]

fact that we're all gonna have to upgrade is not something you can ignore.

You know you won't, right?

The FCC is just saying they are switching off the analog system, and new TVs have to have digital tuners (which is fucked up, but a separate topic).

Your analog TV - assuming it has AV inputs - will be fine as a monitor, with a set top box for decoding terrestrial digital, or satellite, or cable TV into SD. It just won't be able to use its built in tuner.

Americans aren't going to be forced to buy new TVs, but when you do, they'll be digital.

BTW, do you guys have OTA digital/HD, via an antenna? And your STBs do output SD as well, like svideo or something, right?

 

[masud]

How the fuck do you all afford HD tv's?

 

[kamikaze]

How the fuck do you all afford HD tv's?

we have jobs with little-to-no debt and/or good credit ratings?

 

[tino]

Typical Nintendo. They always cheap out. Try to find a current cellphone or PDA screen that's worse than DS's screen, you can't. It's the cheapest.

 

[Cooper]

BTW, do you guys have OTA digital/HD, via an antenna? And your STBs do output SD as well, like svideo or something, right?

Yep. Before we had our HD set in our bedroom, we had a standard, 10 year old analog TV connected to an HD STB via S-video. The OTA HD broadcasts actually looked pretty good, better than an SD show.

 

[WindyMan]

I can't imagine 720p is that taxing for a GPU made in 2006.

Until you know that it isn't that taxing, don't base your arguement on that point.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

Show me pictures of that.

LOL! Dude, I saw it with my own eyes, so believe it. There are no pictures because Nintendo didn't allow pictures to be taken in that room.

 

[Datawhore]

I can't imagine 720p is that taxing for a GPU made in 2006.

Like has been said many times before in this thread, it's a bandwidth and fillrate issue. Resolutions are increasing significantly whearas bandwidth and fillrate is not increasing nearly as much as developers would like.

Imagine a flamethrower fire effect that fills half the screen in an Xbox game. This effect would be heavily taxing on the Xbox's fillrate. To take that exact same effect to next-gen consoles at HD resolutions requires at least 3 times the fillrate due to the increased numbers of pixels. Fillrates are not increasing large multiples over the previous generation. This is also why 1080i/p games will be few and far between on X360 and PS3. Surely, there will be some (just as there were some 720p/1080i this gen).

Don't get me wrong, I fully support next-gen HD consoles, but that extra performance does not come free to the developer.

 

[cja]

I can't imagine 720p is that taxing for a GPU made in 2006.

Maybe not a $200 general purpose ATI/nVidia PC GPU but then they're horribly underutilised and inefficient. PC developers have to support various GPUs from different manufacturers, higher resolutions are a cheap way to make PC games look better.

Here is one example of why Nintendo may not be able to do 720P without seriously affecting performance:

If Nintendo have gone with an architecture very much like GameCube's for Revolution then the chances are the Hollywood GPU is following in the footsteps of Flipper. Hollywood in this case will have enough embedded dram on the same slab of silicon to service the frame buffer. It is not economically possible to do this in High Definition modes. How do we know this? Just take a look at both Microsoft's and Sony's next-gen designs.

Microsoft have their supposed edram on a a separate daughter assembly (slooow) whereas Sony have no edram of any kind on their nVidia designed GPU (hello bottlenecks).

It would have been better if Microsoft put the edram on the same die as the GPU, but for cost reasons have not. Sony had 4MB of embedded vram on the Graphics Synthesiser for PS2 but the failure to manufacturer that chip in high quantities led to the halving of launch hardware in the west and led to massive losses for SCEI thanks to that chips low yields. Hardly a surprise they've gone down the cheap route and aren't bothering with embedded ram on RSX this time.

Nintendo may have decided not to make these sacrifices but instead decided to cut out HD support. Its all about trade-offs. Also Hollywood being a "Flipper 2" type-design would make it a lot easier to perfect GameCube emulation.

 

[Gahiggidy]

We need PanaJev to settle this issue.


I can't imagine that increasing the fillrate is more than a few dollars worth of manufacturing cost.

 

[Kai Dracon]

On the "HDTV is still uncommon" issue:

I just upgraded to a 30in Sanyo tube HDTV. Bought for $560 at flippin' Wal-Mart. I saw Wal-Mart get a truckload of them in on one day. I went back the next day to take one home. And found they had exactly one left. Every unit had moved overnight and the following morning at that price. And guess what? The $560 Sanyo *is decent*. It doesn't have DVI or HDMI input. But it's got multiple component, your full and proper range of configuration options, and the image quality of its tube is fine. Tossed GT4 on it in 1080i, and it looked great. Clean as a whistle.

Folks, if HDTV is still "uncommon" as of RIGHT THIS MOMENT, I'm betting it won't stay that way for long. For chrissakes, the stereotypical Wal-Mart customer is snapping them up.

On Nintendo:

If Nintendo wants to make a big fuss over "saving" something by not aiming to push 1080p in Revolution games, fine. Just give me basic 480p and for god's sake, require all games to have a 16x9 mode. I'll be happy. I'll have 360 and PS3 for graphicwhoreilicious wanking. I want Revolution for kooky fun and whatever odd spin Nintendo comes up with for it.

 

[Mrbob]

Maybe not a $200 general purpose ATI/nVidia PC GPU but then they're horribly underutilised and inefficient. PC developers have to support various GPUs from different manufacturers, higher resolutions are a cheap way to make PC games look better.

Here is one example of why Nintendo may not be able to do 720P without seriously affecting performance:

If Nintendo have gone with an architecture very much like GameCube's for Revolution then the chances are the Hollywood GPU is following in the footsteps of Flipper. Hollywood in this case will have enough embedded dram on the same slab of silicon to service the frame buffer. It is not economically possible to do this in High Definition modes. How do we know this? Just take a look at both Microsoft's and Sony's next-gen designs.

Microsoft have their supposed edram on a a separate daughter assembly (slooow) whereas Sony have no edram of any kind on their nVidia designed GPU (hello bottlenecks).

It would have been better if Microsoft put the edram on the same die as the GPU, but for cost reasons have not. Sony had 4MB of embedded vram on the Graphics Synthesiser for PS2 but the failure to manufacturer that chip in high quantities led to the halving of launch hardware in the west and led to massive losses for SCEI thanks to that chips low yields. Hardly a surprise they've gone down the cheap route and aren't bothering with embedded ram on RSX this time.

Nintendo may have decided not to make these sacrifices but instead decided to cut out HD support. Its all about trade-offs. Also Hollywood being a "Flipper 2" type-design would make it a lot easier to perfect GameCube emulation.

Have you seen the bandwith performance between the parent and daughter die? You should really take a look.

I just upgraded to a 30in Sanyo tube HDTV. Bought for $560 at flippin' Wal-Mart. I saw Wal-Mart get a truckload of them in on one day. I went back the next day to take one home. And found they had exactly one left. Every unit had moved overnight and the following morning at that price. And guess what? The $560 Sanyo *is decent*. It doesn't have DVI or HDMI input. But it's got multiple component, your full and proper range of configuration options, and the image quality of its tube is fine. Tossed GT4 on it in 1080i, and it looked great. Clean as a whistle.

Folks, if HDTV is still "uncommon" as of RIGHT THIS MOMENT, I'm betting it won't stay that way for long. For chrissakes, the stereotypical Wal-Mart customer is snapping them up.

Damn right. Amazing as it sounds, I have a friend who is a HUGE nintendo fan. I place him against anyone on GAF for control of the Nintendo fanboy contingent. He bought a HDTV set (Same Sanyo 30" from walmart). HDTV is coming and it is coming big time. When I told him about Nintendos non HD stance he was pissed. He told me this mistake is bigger than betting on carts in the PSONE/N64 era. Thinking about this he may be right. Nintendo needs to change their plans or they are going to get burned big time. Nintendo is spitting in the face of every new HDTV owner.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

Isn't this whole "No HD for Revolution" just speculation at this point based off of some e-mail that supposedly came from Perrin Kaplan? Does anyone know if that e-mail was even legit? From what I remember someone posted the e-mail here on GAF, which wasn't confirmed as being official and before you know it, IGN and other sites are reporting it as fact. Did I miss some news or is this still considered a rumor? Until we hear something official, I don't see the point in getting so worked up about this.

 

[OmniGamer]

Maybe Nintendo is cooking up some way to "simulate" HD on regular SD sets...ala Capcom's Q-Sound :lol

Anyway, how about we predict what dumbass move Nintendo will make next-next gen(assuming the lack of HD support ends up being true for this gen)...next-next gen, Nintendo will finally embrace 720p/1080i, its audio capabilities will still be stuck at Dolby Pro Logic II :lol

 

[Gahiggidy]

Maybe Nintendo is cooking up some way to "simulate" HD on regular SD sets...ala Capcom's Q-Sound :lol

Anyway, how about we predict what dumbass move Nintendo will make next-next gen(assuming the lack of HD support ends up being true for this gen)...next-next gen, Nintendo will finally embrace 720p/1080i, its audio capabilities will still be stuck at Dolby Pro Logic II :lol

Its hard to imagine what will be left to improve the gen. after this. That's when technologies like VR, holograms and motion-cap-control will become absolutely neccessary to keep people interested.

That's why I want to see Nintendo give us some truely next-gen. graphics... because there may never be another chance to play Mario in High-Def. as the industry may have moved onto something else entirely.

 

[etiolate]

Why does the hardcore fan need HD? Shouldn't the hardcore fan want new gameplay and challenge instead of shinier and more expensive images? To me HD is a casual selling point lke the DVD player, in the end it won't realy be sued much but it's something to brag about and create a fuss over.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Not true. Being able to spot details like little pikmin scurrying around from the zoomed-out view would enhance gameplay. With 480p, that view is unplayable.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Why does the hardcore fan need HD? Shouldn't the hardcore fan want new gameplay and challenge instead of shinier and more expensive images? To me HD is a casual selling point lke the DVD player, in the end it won't realy be sued much but it's something to brag about and create a fuss over.

I'd still love me some GameCube if it maxed out at 320x240, but that wouldn't make such a decision any less confusing and frustrating.

 

[DarkCloud]

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

bull...I guarantee that in 5-10 years you will have purchased or at least have access to an HD compatable TV. it's a minor thing now but it will be much different down the line. Sure you could rebel and stick with the set you currently have...at the cost of missing out on the majority of then broadcasted signals, released video media, and game dvices of that period of time. i mean hell i know someone that still has a record player in his livingroom...cd's are a fad.

Wouldn't it be a nice surprise when you pull that favorite rev title from your closet if it looked BETTER than it did on your SD TV all those years back? look towards the fuuture...cause Nintendo sure isn't.

 

[Monk]

5-10 years

5-10 years you would have a new console....

 

[DarkCloud]

5-10 years you would have a new console....

...and?

 

[GaimeGuy]

...and?

That means it'll be next-next-gen, not next-gen, where HD support actually matters much.

 

[mashoutposse]

Hasn't every generation brought a resolution increase? There's absolutely no excuse to miss the boat -- in 3 years when the masses are buying HD CRT televisions at Walmart for $199 on Black Friday, the implications of this decision will really start to become apparent.

I guess Nintendo figures that they can approximate PS3/Xenon level graphics with cheaper hardware by giving themselves that resolution 'advantage.'

 

[DarkCloud]

I repeat...and?

Down the line if you are an avid Nintendo fan you will purchase the rev...you will purchase the N6...the N7...

EVENTUALLY Nintendo will be forced to support HDTV monitors and unless you plan to live ina purchasing vaccum you WILL own an HD compatable monitor at some point in time. Would it not be nice to know that you can pop in a game on your rev (or your N7 via BC) and it won't look like ass in comparison to other 480i products on fixed scale HDtv but will in fact look better than you remembered?

 

[mrklaw]

Its hard to imagine what will be left to improve the gen. after this. That's when technologies like VR, holograms and motion-cap-control will become absolutely neccessary to keep people interested.

That's why I want to see Nintendo give us some truely next-gen. graphics... because there may never be another chance to play Mario in High-Def. as the industry may have moved onto something else entirely.

Nah. Next-next gen is one where for once, resolutions won't be jumping up. They've increased every gen since SNES. So with slightly more static resolutions, they can concentrate on doing *more*