Comments made by Perrin Kaplan, marketing VP of Nintendo USA, regarding High Density TV support for the Nintendo Revolution have caused quite a furore. Mainly because she confirmed that the next generation console will not support it in any way. The Xbox 360 and PS3 will both sport the feature, with the PS3 winning this particular hardware race supporting higher resolutions.
Nintendo have often adopted a ‘wait and see’ attitude over the years with regards to new technology. The N64 stuck resolutely to cartridges while SEGA and Sony went for discs. While cutting loading times out, the decision did cost supporters of the system, with N64 games retailing for up to £70, something which those who whinge about games prices today would do well to remember. One generation later, and while Microsoft and - to a lesser extent - Sony pushed the online market, Nintendo left the Gamecube offline, arguing that the potential amount of online users did not justify the investment. Now, with more and more people having access to a broadband connection, online capabilities have been made an integral part of the Revolution’s strategy. But HDTV’s are still expensive and relatively rare. It is unlikely that an average family looking to invest in a new TV now would consider paying the premium for a HD model, and they are Nintendo’s target audience.
The main reason given by the big N for not supporting HD is that it is expensive for developers to code for, and part of the Revolution’s manifesto is to alleviate the spiralling costs that are suffocating smaller companies. But this could also mean that big titles coming to PS3 and 360 will not be worth the trouble of porting to the Rev, and further, that the best looking games on these consoles will outshine anything to be seen on the Nintendo. The good news is that it won’t affect the experience of the vast majority of users of all machines, who probably won’t have the tellies in the first place.
Kaplan’s comments were in part a response to rumours doing the rounds on the web at the moment, which in addition to the HD issue also claimed that the finalised Revolution specs included two 1.8Ghz IBM PowerPC G5 processors, a 600Mhz graphics chip from ATI and a 7.1 Digital Sound chipset. Also mooted were 128Mb of high speed 1T SRAM and 256Mb of DRAM. The DVD discs will be of a proprietary nature, designed by Panasonic and capable of holding up to 6GB. These claims have not yet been confirmed or denied by Nintendo, and we don’t suggest you hold your breath. Perrin Kaplan has promised more Revolution details soon though, and we’ll bring them to you as they break.
Nintendo have often adopted a ‘wait and see’ attitude over the years with regards to new technology. The N64 stuck resolutely to cartridges while SEGA and Sony went for discs. While cutting loading times out, the decision did cost supporters of the system, with N64 games retailing for up to £70, something which those who whinge about games prices today would do well to remember. One generation later, and while Microsoft and - to a lesser extent - Sony pushed the online market, Nintendo left the Gamecube offline, arguing that the potential amount of online users did not justify the investment. Now, with more and more people having access to a broadband connection, online capabilities have been made an integral part of the Revolution’s strategy. But HDTV’s are still expensive and relatively rare. It is unlikely that an average family looking to invest in a new TV now would consider paying the premium for a HD model, and they are Nintendo’s target audience.
The main reason given by the big N for not supporting HD is that it is expensive for developers to code for, and part of the Revolution’s manifesto is to alleviate the spiralling costs that are suffocating smaller companies. But this could also mean that big titles coming to PS3 and 360 will not be worth the trouble of porting to the Rev, and further, that the best looking games on these consoles will outshine anything to be seen on the Nintendo. The good news is that it won’t affect the experience of the vast majority of users of all machines, who probably won’t have the tellies in the first place.
Kaplan’s comments were in part a response to rumours doing the rounds on the web at the moment, which in addition to the HD issue also claimed that the finalised Revolution specs included two 1.8Ghz IBM PowerPC G5 processors, a 600Mhz graphics chip from ATI and a 7.1 Digital Sound chipset. Also mooted were 128Mb of high speed 1T SRAM and 256Mb of DRAM. The DVD discs will be of a proprietary nature, designed by Panasonic and capable of holding up to 6GB. These claims have not yet been confirmed or denied by Nintendo, and we don’t suggest you hold your breath. Perrin Kaplan has promised more Revolution details soon though, and we’ll bring them to you as they break.
Companies:
Nintendo
Read More Like This
Comments
BustyKrusty 14 Jun 2005 18:33
1/14
I think Nintendo is doing the right thing. First i don't beleive they'll lose money on every console sold and yet have very powerful machine and their software most affordable of the three.
Yes, games would be of a slightly lesser resolution but hey, even now some games like RE4 are looking so real that any more realistic would be too much, at least for me.
If they give good support to gamers and devs alike whilst Sony and Ms keep fighting over "supremacy" by constantly taking prices higher because of the fancy features i beleive more people will choose Nintendo.
Yes, games would be of a slightly lesser resolution but hey, even now some games like RE4 are looking so real that any more realistic would be too much, at least for me.
If they give good support to gamers and devs alike whilst Sony and Ms keep fighting over "supremacy" by constantly taking prices higher because of the fancy features i beleive more people will choose Nintendo.
Ditto 14 Jun 2005 19:32
2/14
I don't think Nintendo really know what they're doing this generation.
How can you claim your controller is revolutionary when you don't know what it does?
How can you develop games for a console that has an unconfirmed controller?
How can third parties start to plan games for Revolution if the spec isn't finalised?
Information regarding the download service was conflicting, information regarding the "power" has been conflicting, information regarding the controller can't be released because it hasn't been decided!
Yeah, the Revo looks great. Best of the three. But look beyond the hype and you see that Nintendo don't really don't have anything to shout about.
Yet.
How can you claim your controller is revolutionary when you don't know what it does?
How can you develop games for a console that has an unconfirmed controller?
How can third parties start to plan games for Revolution if the spec isn't finalised?
Information regarding the download service was conflicting, information regarding the "power" has been conflicting, information regarding the controller can't be released because it hasn't been decided!
Yeah, the Revo looks great. Best of the three. But look beyond the hype and you see that Nintendo don't really don't have anything to shout about.
Yet.
more comments below our sponsor's message
bogfar89 14 Jun 2005 20:36
3/14
The revolutionary part is decided, its just the overall design thats not yet finished (according to the interview) ie the shape and layout.
As for game development, developers can plan storylines, graphical concepts and basic level design. Anything they do make can probably be translated to the new hardware similar to porting a game from 1 console to another. It can then be optimised for to the hardwares capabilities. OK they may not be able to sort out much of the mechanics but for all we know, some developers may already know what is coming.
As for HD, I think they are going down the right path, I don't know anyone with a HD tv, maybe the heads of Microsoft and Sony can afford them but most people can't. Its in Sonys interest to support HD tvs since they make them and want you to buy them.
If not having HD makes the Rev £20 cheaper and the games a few quid cheaper, I'm all for it.
Anyway, most young people (overwhelming majority of console market) have their console in their bedroom or something on a 14incher.
B******s to HD!
As for game development, developers can plan storylines, graphical concepts and basic level design. Anything they do make can probably be translated to the new hardware similar to porting a game from 1 console to another. It can then be optimised for to the hardwares capabilities. OK they may not be able to sort out much of the mechanics but for all we know, some developers may already know what is coming.
As for HD, I think they are going down the right path, I don't know anyone with a HD tv, maybe the heads of Microsoft and Sony can afford them but most people can't. Its in Sonys interest to support HD tvs since they make them and want you to buy them.
If not having HD makes the Rev £20 cheaper and the games a few quid cheaper, I'm all for it.
Anyway, most young people (overwhelming majority of console market) have their console in their bedroom or something on a 14incher.
B******s to HD!
Coxy 14 Jun 2005 21:10
4/14
I agree completely, i have no desire to invest in a HDtv when the next generation consoles arrive and I too think Nintendo have done the right thing, and I can't wait to see what nintendo do with the revolution.
dopedealer 15 Jun 2005 06:32
5/14
I understand that HD implies higher costs for both the consumer and the developer, but Nintendo needs to understand one thing: its hardcore, die-hard fans are always the first to purchase its systems. Keep in mind that its die-hard fans (myself included) have always purchased Nintendo's systems on its launch date at a higher price. We paid $250 bucks USD for the NES in 1985, and by jimminy, we'll pay $250 to $299 for the Revolution in 2006.
I fear that by not allowing developers the CAPABILITY to run in HD, the Nintendo Revolution puts itself into early obsolescence. Imagine developers that want to bring their masterpieces to Revolution, but find that the Revolution's "canvas" is limited specifically by the system's inability to output in HD. These developers may reconsider developing for Nintendo's system, and may bring their titles to xbox360 or overhyped PS3. Subsequently, die-hard Nintendo fans like myself MAY wane under the pressure, and end up playing these games on xbox360 or overtly-ugly PS3.
If Nintendo does not want to implement HD in its own games, fine. BUT PLEASE, GIVE DEVELOPERS THE CAPABILITY TO OUTPUT THEIR GAMES ON HD. I would be plenty happy if the Revolution could output at most 720p. Please don't misconstrue my message: I don't want Nintendo to try and outdo xbox360 or stoopid-looking PS3 by coming out with some super-dooper do-all system. Nintendo, please come out with a comparable but competitive system, but one that would also allow potential developers the option to run their games in HD (720p max would be perfect). If it helps, toss away the idea of using 512MB of onboard flash memory, and instead use 512MB of DDR memory and use it as a frame buffer for HD output! We could always buy flash memory from nintendo as an accessory...
If, after all this banter Nintendo still wishes to ditch HD, at the very least, I hope Nintendo allows 480p through component outputs. If this much isn't given to us, well... then there isn't much of a leap from Gamecube. And I fear that more of Nintendo's die-hard supporters will defect and purchase the xbox 360 or, gulp - that funny-looking, overhyped excuse for a console called PS3.
I fear that by not allowing developers the CAPABILITY to run in HD, the Nintendo Revolution puts itself into early obsolescence. Imagine developers that want to bring their masterpieces to Revolution, but find that the Revolution's "canvas" is limited specifically by the system's inability to output in HD. These developers may reconsider developing for Nintendo's system, and may bring their titles to xbox360 or overhyped PS3. Subsequently, die-hard Nintendo fans like myself MAY wane under the pressure, and end up playing these games on xbox360 or overtly-ugly PS3.
If Nintendo does not want to implement HD in its own games, fine. BUT PLEASE, GIVE DEVELOPERS THE CAPABILITY TO OUTPUT THEIR GAMES ON HD. I would be plenty happy if the Revolution could output at most 720p. Please don't misconstrue my message: I don't want Nintendo to try and outdo xbox360 or stoopid-looking PS3 by coming out with some super-dooper do-all system. Nintendo, please come out with a comparable but competitive system, but one that would also allow potential developers the option to run their games in HD (720p max would be perfect). If it helps, toss away the idea of using 512MB of onboard flash memory, and instead use 512MB of DDR memory and use it as a frame buffer for HD output! We could always buy flash memory from nintendo as an accessory...
If, after all this banter Nintendo still wishes to ditch HD, at the very least, I hope Nintendo allows 480p through component outputs. If this much isn't given to us, well... then there isn't much of a leap from Gamecube. And I fear that more of Nintendo's die-hard supporters will defect and purchase the xbox 360 or, gulp - that funny-looking, overhyped excuse for a console called PS3.
Joji 15 Jun 2005 11:06
6/14
I don't agree with you Dope. The hardcore are not enough to keep Nintendo in food, they have to think of the majority.
Not so long ago with the N64 and GC they made the decision to have some games supported in 60hz only. If it improves a game and the majority have access to it, why not? Most tv's can hand 50/60hz these days anyway.
One the HD tv front I'm a hardcore fan and I too don't know anyone who owns a HD tv. Neither will the majority of Xbox or PS2 owners. Sure it's a nice option but one only worth going back on when HDtv is standard (probably never due to expense). If it's cuts costs to gamers and developers, then bravo Nintendo.
Also how many games can you name that support HDtv off hand in this current generation (and what percentage of gamers use it frequently)? Very few I bet.
Not so long ago with the N64 and GC they made the decision to have some games supported in 60hz only. If it improves a game and the majority have access to it, why not? Most tv's can hand 50/60hz these days anyway.
One the HD tv front I'm a hardcore fan and I too don't know anyone who owns a HD tv. Neither will the majority of Xbox or PS2 owners. Sure it's a nice option but one only worth going back on when HDtv is standard (probably never due to expense). If it's cuts costs to gamers and developers, then bravo Nintendo.
Also how many games can you name that support HDtv off hand in this current generation (and what percentage of gamers use it frequently)? Very few I bet.
ozfunghi 15 Jun 2005 16:44
7/14
I don't agree.
The extra cost of including it into the hardware will be minimal. It's ridicule not to give developers the option. If they think it's best to go for a low cost development and low cost game, they can. If they want to go big-budget, they can too. But say a company like EA or Valve wants to bring a big franchise and wants it to shine graphically, i'm betting revolution will miss these games, or not sell half of them because of this decision. What if 2-4 years into the generation developers figure out to get the dev costs down and want to start making more HD games... AGAIN less 3rd party support, because games look better on other platforms and people buying those versions.
Thing is, this issue isn't really about HD support and whether or not people will benefit from it gameplay-wise (Some games certainly will, multiplayer splitscreen, racing games etc)or a lot of people using it. It's about maintaining credibility as a big player. And Nintendo isn't going to win over long-lost gamers that are now Sony/MS fans with decisions like these, just because they can save 25 bucks on the retail price. Rather the contrary. They paid more for PS2/xbox as well, why wouldn't they pay more next time? For every gamer that bought a cube, there are over 5 that own a more expensive system.
Just let the developer decide when he's ready for it, but at least keep the option open. The 20-50 bucks extra isn't going to make a difference, ps2 and xbox's higher retail price should have made this clear by now. They just shouldn't put theirselves in that position.
Sony and MS will be marketing the feature as it were the best thing since sliced bread, and will be pointing their fingers at the "inferior" revolution, which is unable by default to provide those graphics. This is gonna hurt them in the long run and doesn't justify dismissing the feature in order to save a buck.
There's a reason why Americans still prefer a high muscled car that burns gaz like there's no tomorrow -while they can't use the muscle anyway- over a european car with good fuell efficiency. A lot of gamers share that passion for power, whether or not they can use it. Not one xbox game fully used the system to the limit, yet a lot of xbox owners still babble on about it being the most powerful.
The extra cost of including it into the hardware will be minimal. It's ridicule not to give developers the option. If they think it's best to go for a low cost development and low cost game, they can. If they want to go big-budget, they can too. But say a company like EA or Valve wants to bring a big franchise and wants it to shine graphically, i'm betting revolution will miss these games, or not sell half of them because of this decision. What if 2-4 years into the generation developers figure out to get the dev costs down and want to start making more HD games... AGAIN less 3rd party support, because games look better on other platforms and people buying those versions.
Thing is, this issue isn't really about HD support and whether or not people will benefit from it gameplay-wise (Some games certainly will, multiplayer splitscreen, racing games etc)or a lot of people using it. It's about maintaining credibility as a big player. And Nintendo isn't going to win over long-lost gamers that are now Sony/MS fans with decisions like these, just because they can save 25 bucks on the retail price. Rather the contrary. They paid more for PS2/xbox as well, why wouldn't they pay more next time? For every gamer that bought a cube, there are over 5 that own a more expensive system.
Just let the developer decide when he's ready for it, but at least keep the option open. The 20-50 bucks extra isn't going to make a difference, ps2 and xbox's higher retail price should have made this clear by now. They just shouldn't put theirselves in that position.
Sony and MS will be marketing the feature as it were the best thing since sliced bread, and will be pointing their fingers at the "inferior" revolution, which is unable by default to provide those graphics. This is gonna hurt them in the long run and doesn't justify dismissing the feature in order to save a buck.
There's a reason why Americans still prefer a high muscled car that burns gaz like there's no tomorrow -while they can't use the muscle anyway- over a european car with good fuell efficiency. A lot of gamers share that passion for power, whether or not they can use it. Not one xbox game fully used the system to the limit, yet a lot of xbox owners still babble on about it being the most powerful.
dopedealer 15 Jun 2005 17:01
8/14
Actually, TVs in the US don't support 50Hz. If something's written (or sent) in 50Hz, the screen exhibits vertical rolling.
But enough of that already...
Look, I understand where you're coming from. I never said that HD displays were not expensive. In fact, they are. But, have you seen gran turismo 4 in 1080i? It is simply astonishing. Most of the time I don't give sony much credit, but this game was just fabulous. Not only did it look "real", but it gives the player a greater sense of driving right in the cockpit. Knowing this, I wouldn't want any nintendo fan to miss out on such an experience on the Revolution. Besides, more and more households in the US are only now beginning to purchase HD-capable displays.
So, HD does make a difference. Again, don't misunderstand me: if nintendo doesn't want to use HD in its own games, fine. But, allow the developers the option to run their games in HD. I'm saying this only because I want Nintendo to remain competitive in the next-generation.
But what really irks me about this whole fiasco is that Nintendo hasn't even confirmed 480p output through component connection on the revolution. I fear that if nintendo sticks solely to 480i output using composite connection, that those of us who are fortunate enough to play on an HD monitor will find the visuals blurry and murky. For instance, anyone with an HD display and a dreamcast can tell you that the dreamcast, when connected to an HD display using composite (i.e. red, yellow, white) connection, has awful and downright ugly visuals, despite having extremely sharp and clear graphics when this same connection is used on regular TVs. I don't want to spend $199+ dollars on a new system only to find that its visuals are lackluster when connected to my HD monitor. At least give us 480p with component output, Nintendo!
To answer your question, there are some games right now on other systems that support 720p or 1080i:
XBOX:
Dragon's Lair 3D (1080i)
Enter the Matrix (1080i)
FIFA Street (720p)
PS2:
Gran Turismo 4 (1080i)
Admittedly, there aren't a lot of games that run on HD in this generation, but if anything, it tells us one thing: if this generation of systems have the CAPABILITY to run in HD, then surely, the Revolution should (at the very least) support HD since it will (hopefully) feature better hardware and features than the current Gamecube, and hopefully, the current xbox and ps2.
I ain't goin on no plane, neither...
But enough of that already...
Look, I understand where you're coming from. I never said that HD displays were not expensive. In fact, they are. But, have you seen gran turismo 4 in 1080i? It is simply astonishing. Most of the time I don't give sony much credit, but this game was just fabulous. Not only did it look "real", but it gives the player a greater sense of driving right in the cockpit. Knowing this, I wouldn't want any nintendo fan to miss out on such an experience on the Revolution. Besides, more and more households in the US are only now beginning to purchase HD-capable displays.
So, HD does make a difference. Again, don't misunderstand me: if nintendo doesn't want to use HD in its own games, fine. But, allow the developers the option to run their games in HD. I'm saying this only because I want Nintendo to remain competitive in the next-generation.
But what really irks me about this whole fiasco is that Nintendo hasn't even confirmed 480p output through component connection on the revolution. I fear that if nintendo sticks solely to 480i output using composite connection, that those of us who are fortunate enough to play on an HD monitor will find the visuals blurry and murky. For instance, anyone with an HD display and a dreamcast can tell you that the dreamcast, when connected to an HD display using composite (i.e. red, yellow, white) connection, has awful and downright ugly visuals, despite having extremely sharp and clear graphics when this same connection is used on regular TVs. I don't want to spend $199+ dollars on a new system only to find that its visuals are lackluster when connected to my HD monitor. At least give us 480p with component output, Nintendo!
To answer your question, there are some games right now on other systems that support 720p or 1080i:
XBOX:
Dragon's Lair 3D (1080i)
Enter the Matrix (1080i)
FIFA Street (720p)
PS2:
Gran Turismo 4 (1080i)
Admittedly, there aren't a lot of games that run on HD in this generation, but if anything, it tells us one thing: if this generation of systems have the CAPABILITY to run in HD, then surely, the Revolution should (at the very least) support HD since it will (hopefully) feature better hardware and features than the current Gamecube, and hopefully, the current xbox and ps2.
I ain't goin on no plane, neither...
dopedealer 15 Jun 2005 17:06
9/14
Right on! My point exactly... Keep testifying ozfunghi
Spit some truth on this matter!
Spit some truth on this matter!
way 15 Jun 2005 18:07
10/14
No, not again.
Sony with their SNES game system improvement (latter developed into Playstation) who needs them.
CD on our N64, who needs it.
DVD on our Game cube, no.
N64 like 3D capability on GBA (whatever happened to that).
Ohh, we don't need a big bright beautiful screen and stunning processing and graphic ability, two screens with less total resolution is good instead.
No HD, for our "Revolution".
We don't have to release a less powerful machine in time with our competitors, we can release it after them.
Does anybody see a pattern forming?
People don't want masses of items under there TV's. They have to buy VCR, DVD, game system, and digital TV receiver, and console, then figure how to fit all that onto three TV inputs. A digital TV receiver is cheap today, when revolution gets here, probably even cheaper cost. There are high capacity 1.8inch drives coming out soon, so they will be much cheaper when the revolution comes out. So Nintendo could easily include the cheapest HDTV receiver circuit, and optional swappable 1.8inch drive ports for real time TV recording, and save everybody a lot of hassle. Extra price, probably $10, maybe $50, 1.8inch drives optional.
This thing of HD adding extra cost to developers, lack of HD TV's, as a reason for not including a VGA or HDMI port, is interesting. 3D models are 3D models, you include a lot of detail, if it gets close enough you may see it, so it does not necessarily follow. You can show a SD 3D model on a HD screen. 19 inch Monitors and LCD's are really cheap at the moment. HD TV's, and HDTV ready Wide SD, and large panels (that show up the coarseness of SD TV console, and can use sub pixel addressing to display HDTV) have dropped dramatically in price and there is big interest here. The expected price drops of big screen TV's and HD screens, and cheap big monitors this year and next, are quiet dramatic. You can expect $1000 for 40 inch screen, but I have read about a new technology $400 model coming in a year or two. HD models should not cost much more. It is cheaper to make a machine that for SD games though. So, even if it is SD, please a HD/Monitor output with res upscaling or SD rendered in HD mode, and HDTV/recording stuff?
Sony with their SNES game system improvement (latter developed into Playstation) who needs them.
CD on our N64, who needs it.
DVD on our Game cube, no.
N64 like 3D capability on GBA (whatever happened to that).
Ohh, we don't need a big bright beautiful screen and stunning processing and graphic ability, two screens with less total resolution is good instead.
No HD, for our "Revolution".
We don't have to release a less powerful machine in time with our competitors, we can release it after them.
Does anybody see a pattern forming?
People don't want masses of items under there TV's. They have to buy VCR, DVD, game system, and digital TV receiver, and console, then figure how to fit all that onto three TV inputs. A digital TV receiver is cheap today, when revolution gets here, probably even cheaper cost. There are high capacity 1.8inch drives coming out soon, so they will be much cheaper when the revolution comes out. So Nintendo could easily include the cheapest HDTV receiver circuit, and optional swappable 1.8inch drive ports for real time TV recording, and save everybody a lot of hassle. Extra price, probably $10, maybe $50, 1.8inch drives optional.
This thing of HD adding extra cost to developers, lack of HD TV's, as a reason for not including a VGA or HDMI port, is interesting. 3D models are 3D models, you include a lot of detail, if it gets close enough you may see it, so it does not necessarily follow. You can show a SD 3D model on a HD screen. 19 inch Monitors and LCD's are really cheap at the moment. HD TV's, and HDTV ready Wide SD, and large panels (that show up the coarseness of SD TV console, and can use sub pixel addressing to display HDTV) have dropped dramatically in price and there is big interest here. The expected price drops of big screen TV's and HD screens, and cheap big monitors this year and next, are quiet dramatic. You can expect $1000 for 40 inch screen, but I have read about a new technology $400 model coming in a year or two. HD models should not cost much more. It is cheaper to make a machine that for SD games though. So, even if it is SD, please a HD/Monitor output with res upscaling or SD rendered in HD mode, and HDTV/recording stuff?
soanso 16 Jun 2005 03:47
11/14
aren't people missing the point here?
If you make games to run on HD screens then aren't you going to have to have super high resolution textures, maybe an extra amount of anti-aliasing and whatever other filters you want to put on it over the top of that.
How much memory is that going to use and how much are the processor and graphics chips doing?
If it doesn't make much of a difference over running at a lower resolution then crack on, by all means.
But if you are facing a big performance hit, is it worth it considering it's going to cost you more and only 10% of your customers will notice.
It all seems a bit pointless to me
And from the way that Nintendo have been speaking recently. I don't think they really care about trying to be number 1 again. To me they sound like they want to be in a better position than they are right now, with bigger profits and a better reputation, at least amongst the non gamera and the people who just dismissed them as a kiddie company. But they don't talk like a company trying to outdo their rivals. They sound like they are in their own little world and want to take it at their own pace.......which might be their biggest problem
If you make games to run on HD screens then aren't you going to have to have super high resolution textures, maybe an extra amount of anti-aliasing and whatever other filters you want to put on it over the top of that.
How much memory is that going to use and how much are the processor and graphics chips doing?
If it doesn't make much of a difference over running at a lower resolution then crack on, by all means.
But if you are facing a big performance hit, is it worth it considering it's going to cost you more and only 10% of your customers will notice.
It all seems a bit pointless to me
And from the way that Nintendo have been speaking recently. I don't think they really care about trying to be number 1 again. To me they sound like they want to be in a better position than they are right now, with bigger profits and a better reputation, at least amongst the non gamera and the people who just dismissed them as a kiddie company. But they don't talk like a company trying to outdo their rivals. They sound like they are in their own little world and want to take it at their own pace.......which might be their biggest problem
way 16 Jun 2005 04:04
12/14
I think they care about being number 1, extra money, no bankruptcy.
I don't think they need to go full HD, but unless you get close, the same SD textures can be made to work on higher res displays. It may not look as good on HD as custom programmed stuff, but better than on SD. There are also scalable 3D stuff that can also raise, lower, polygons according to capability of hardware, as shiny used in that game with the floating cherub. The thought of being stuck at 720@560 is silly, remember that the N64 was supposed to have 1024*768 mode.
The performance hit for what I suggested would be around 0% (upscaling in hardware) and 10%.
The number of people on a big screen or HD big screen by end of the products life could be at least 40% in some main markets, maybe 10% in some others. SD on Big screens can look horrible and blocky (unless they have a quality upscaler circuit inbuilt). I think it is a good compromise.
I don't think they need to go full HD, but unless you get close, the same SD textures can be made to work on higher res displays. It may not look as good on HD as custom programmed stuff, but better than on SD. There are also scalable 3D stuff that can also raise, lower, polygons according to capability of hardware, as shiny used in that game with the floating cherub. The thought of being stuck at 720@560 is silly, remember that the N64 was supposed to have 1024*768 mode.
The performance hit for what I suggested would be around 0% (upscaling in hardware) and 10%.
The number of people on a big screen or HD big screen by end of the products life could be at least 40% in some main markets, maybe 10% in some others. SD on Big screens can look horrible and blocky (unless they have a quality upscaler circuit inbuilt). I think it is a good compromise.
tyrion 16 Jun 2005 12:46
13/14
Please remember that the PC has been capable of higher than HDTV resolutions for quite some time now.
With a GeForce4 MX you can get Quake III running at 1600x1200 at a great frame rate. It looks good and the install is 520 MB. It's also about six years old.
HDTV 1080p is 1920x1080 (8% more pixels than 1600x1200) - surely not a ridiculous resolution to run at? Next-gen GPUs will do that no problem. Ditto with shader effects at that res.
I can't see it being a huge problem for artists to get textures out that will look good at 1080p. The models will be slightly bigger and there will be more of them in a scene, but I don't see HDTV being so expensive to develop for that no-body will do it.
With a GeForce4 MX you can get Quake III running at 1600x1200 at a great frame rate. It looks good and the install is 520 MB. It's also about six years old.
HDTV 1080p is 1920x1080 (8% more pixels than 1600x1200) - surely not a ridiculous resolution to run at? Next-gen GPUs will do that no problem. Ditto with shader effects at that res.
I can't see it being a huge problem for artists to get textures out that will look good at 1080p. The models will be slightly bigger and there will be more of them in a scene, but I don't see HDTV being so expensive to develop for that no-body will do it.
Thief 16 Jun 2005 17:57
14/14
"And from the way that Nintendo have been speaking recently. I don't think they really care about trying to be number 1 again. To me they sound like they want to be in a better position than they are right now, with bigger profits and a better reputation, at least amongst the non gamera and the people who just dismissed them as a kiddie company. But they don't talk like a company trying to outdo their rivals. They sound like they are in their own little world and want to take it at their own pace.......which might be their biggest problem"
You may be surprised, but Nintendo actually makes a ridiculous amount of profit. Their sales seem like it would contridict this, however they profit on nearly everything they sell. When the Gamecube first came out, it made a profit on each unit sold, and for a long time after that it made a profit, and it currently is making a profit. The only time I don't know if it was making profit was at the very beginning of it's price drop to $100, however, now ATI gives Nintendo the components cheap enough to profit on units sold. Also I know the DS generates a profit on each unit sold, as well.
You may be surprised, but Nintendo actually makes a ridiculous amount of profit. Their sales seem like it would contridict this, however they profit on nearly everything they sell. When the Gamecube first came out, it made a profit on each unit sold, and for a long time after that it made a profit, and it currently is making a profit. The only time I don't know if it was making profit was at the very beginning of it's price drop to $100, however, now ATI gives Nintendo the components cheap enough to profit on units sold. Also I know the DS generates a profit on each unit sold, as well.