Revolution NO HD (Good article on the subject)

[jkam]

This article explains its buisness thats keeping HD out of the revolution. Makes sense. I think Nintendo is making the smart move this gen.

http://revolution.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=6438

VRC: The HD Fallacy March 02, 2006

by: Josh Valone

In this installment of VRC we delve into the financial feasibility of HD in next-generation consoles, and why Nintendo believes it is not an option.

Disclaimer: The proceeding article is editorial content. The views expressed are those of the author and do not neccessarily reflect the official position of the Advanced Media Network.

In the past few months since Nintendo let slip that Revolution would not support high-definition, Nintendo has caught an incredible amount of flack for its decision. With the leaked specs from Revolution development kits, that storm has subsided a bit, but many still consider it a mistake on Nintendo’s part and another example of how they are behind the times. I contend that the decision to not include HD support in Revolution titles was no decision at all, but rather the only reasonable profit-making strategy Nintendo could have pursued.

The first myth that I would like to address is the claims some in the media have made that adding HD support to the Revolution is a simple matter that can be done quickly and relatively cheaply. I have even heard it asserted by some that Nintendo may still consider adding it, as if it is something that is just that easy. If only it were, but the fact is adding HD to the Revolution is costly on multiple fronts. The reports that developers have given concerning the Revolution development kits have revealed that the console should be significantly underpowered in comparison to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. That would simply not be enough to render titles in HD at a graphical level that would be acceptable as “next generation” to the general public. Imagine the PR nightmare that would be. The Gamecube already suffers from the misconception that it is inferior graphically to the PS2; if Revolution supported HD, not only would that be true in comparison to the PS3 or 360 but it would perhaps be even worse. The fact of the matter is that the Revolution hardware was simply not designed with HD in mind. With this being the case, it would be no small task to alter its architecture to allow it to output in HD. This is not a simple case of plugging an HD output socket into the back of the console; this would require the specifications of the machine to be dramatically increased.

The specs on the Xbox 360 are probably the lowest a console could possibly have while still maintaining graphics that are acceptably “next-gen”. The superiority of the 360 and PS3 on paper in comparison to the Revolution is no coincidence. Both competitors were designed from the ground up with HD in mind. That is the reason they appear to be such beasts statistically but output graphics at a level that is not nearly as jarring as the leap from the 32-64 bit generation to the Xbox or GCN. This was not a case of Microsoft or Sony realizing they had processing power and RAM to spare and then deciding to throw HD in because they could; including HD was a calculated decision from the beginning and the hardware was designed for it. With the Revolution, this is not the case, it is likely the hardware would have to be totally redesigned to support HD output. This is obviously incredibly costly, and the compact size of the current Revolution shell would be scrapped altogether for a console more the size of the original Xbox to accommodate the parts that would have to slapped together on such short notice. It could be impossible to get the Revolution out by the end of 2006 if it were altered for HD, that is the worst case scenario and quite possible.

The second point of contention I have with those that still wring their hands over the HD decision is that they do not take into account the financial feasibility of including it. The Xbox 360 has been quoted at costing up to $575 to produce. That means Microsoft is taking an $175 loss on every console sold. The PS3 will suffer the same fate; both manufacturers knew this coming in and have ways of coping with the loss (Ed. Note: A Merrill Lynch report released recently speculates the PS3 could cost as much as $900 per unit to produce at launch. This price does not, however, take into account the delay confirmed in an interview of Sony Chairman Howard Stringer with Variety). Microsoft seems to come into every generation trying to see how much money they can lose, and Sony has other electronic divisions that can make up the loss, as well as the possibility that the PS3 could catapult the Blu-Ray media format into millions of homes. Nintendo does not possess separate revenue streams. Their entire business is tied up in the profit they produce in the video game market. Nintendo does not sell consoles at a loss, not because they don’t want to but because they simply can’t. To sell the HD-ready Revolution, one with comparable power to the Xbox 360, they would have to retail the console at perhaps as high as $600. A console with that price tag will simply not sell. The last one that attempted it was the 3DO and it is known now as the best example of when a company loses its mind in regards to price. The Nintendo Revolution’s rumored specs are close to the best they can possibly be circa 2006 while making a profit and selling at a reasonable price. The 360 and PS3 will both be financially feasible in a few years, but Nintendo does not have the luxury of creating a console for the year 2009 today and selling it as if were nothing. The fact Microsoft and Sony can is wonderful for gamers, but that does not suddenly make it the most logical business decision when it certainly is not. Nintendo plays in the real world in regards to profit on hardware and rule number one is make money. Neither a console sold at a massive loss or one sold at $600 is going to do that and that is the reason neither is an option. It doesn’t get much simpler then that.

The final fallacy in the argument for HD support is those who claim that Nintendo is choosing this path simply to “be different” or because they “march to the beat of a different drummer”. Some have even gone so far as to insinuate that Nintendo is doing this simply to be stingy, as if the company somehow has it out for the hardcore gamers. All three of these theories hold no water when you look at the situation objectively. The reasons I gave above show how adding support for HD is not a trivial matter either in hardware modifications or profitability. The latter reason is without a doubt the biggest factor in why Nintendo will not support HD this generation, they have never been one to throw money into the fire to appease a few. It is not because they wouldn’t like to gain those customers, I would believe any company is open to the idea of gaining new customers, but it is not possible for them to appease these people and still remain in existence. If HD is a requirement in a console for some gamers, then they simply require something at a price that is impossible to give to them without the hardware company taking a massive loss. Nintendo is the hardware manufacturer in the worst position to absorb such a loss. They do not have a separate agenda to push, or a new media format to sell; they only have video games. HD does not make profit on video games, not now, and its profitability in the next five years is questionable at best. There is no hidden agenda here, no ulterior motive, no attempt to tick off the fans; it’s just about making money. That’s it, not so complicated is it? But you might think so if you read the reports on the Revolution not supporting HD.

This is a simple case of a business making a decision to profit rather then to go into the hole, which is really no decision at all if you think about it. Nintendo had a decision to make and something had to be sacrificed, realistic price point or HD, Nintendo chose HD. I have no doubt this is the correct decision at the moment for the financial future of the company. In business you must think with your wallet. Nintendo did and they made the right call. There is no emotion in this decision whatsoever, just the bottom line. It’s just business, not personal.

[shipwreck]

Yeah, it makes sense money wise, but I don't own stock in Nintendo, so I'd rather the Revo be HD.

[jkam]

Yeah, it makes sense money wise, but I don't own stock in Nintendo, so I'd rather the Revo be HD.

I really think the line is being drawn this gen in concerns to HD. Those with HD TV's, those without, and those that want one. I'm in the don't have one, don't need or want one right now, so I could care less. For those that have them or want them I can understand there concern but I think at least this article points to a real explanation as to why they aren't including it. It even talks about what some people are saying in regards to why they aren't doing it.

[shipwreck]

I really think the line is being drawn this gen in concerns to HD. Those with HD TV's, those without, and those that want one. I'm in the don't have one, don't need or want one right now, so I could care less. For those that have them or want them I can understand there concern but I think at least this article points to a real explanation as to why they aren't including it.

Yeah, I won't argue that. It's basically the same theory as to why the X360 didn't come with an HD-DVD drive.

[Cuzza40]

I'd be suspicious before giving the author of this article any particular credit as a definitive source.

"The reasons I gave above show how adding support for HD is not a trivial matter either in hardware modifications or profitability."

Except the author didn't really give any beyond stating it as fact. I'm not wholly disagreeing with the article; there are some valid arguments in there, but there are several argumentative mistakes that suggest this is far from the defacto explanation of Nintendo's missing Next-Gen HD support, like repeatedly stating the same argument as fact, using each consecutive rewording as if it were adding new argumentative value. Furthermore, the author completely neglects the fact that systems are sold at a loss not to create a perpetual money hole for the console makers, but because the overwhelming majority of money available is not in hardware sales, but software attach rates. Every liscenced game that sells sees a piece of the action go into the pockets of the console manufacturer, and with game costs in the neighborhood of $50-$60, it doesn't take much of an attach rate over the life of the system to recoup a few hundred dollars.

Certainly, it may make financial sense for Nintendo not to support HD this generation, but it's not at all ridiculous or impossible that it could have been, as this article would make it seem.

[javeryh]

Yeah, it makes sense money wise, but I don't own stock in Nintendo, so I'd rather the Revo be HD.

Bingo. I'll add that I want Nintendo to be around forever though so if we have to wait until the successor to the Revolution to get it I'm OK with it. As for people not wanting or caring about HD, I just don't get it. HDTV is as dramatic of a leap forward in visuals as going from black and white to color was - probably even greater. If you can't afford one, fine... but to not even want one?

[Roufuss]

Its ok... an employee at Sears told me that Revo isn't HD because it's going to use a VIRTUAL REALITY HELMET!!!!

Yea, pretty weird... I bought a game, he went off on Nintendo and the Revolution, and how it won't even be hooked up to a television, and that instead of playing Mario, you will BE Mario.

I just politely smiled, said thank you, and walked away.

[botticus]

Bingo. I'll add that I want Nintendo to be around forever though so if we have to wait until the successor to the Revolution to get it I'm OK with it. As for people not wanting or caring about HD, I just don't get it. HDTV is as dramatic of a leap forward in visuals as going from black and white to color was - probably even greater. If you can't afford one, fine... but to not even want one?
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, unless my eyes are a lot worse than I think they are. Watching the Superbowl in HD was great, but I didn't cry in resignation when I returned to my non-HD TV. It looked crisper and a little clearer, that's about it. Moral of the story: I'll get it when it's mildly affordable or I make double my current salary so I don't care if its affordable.

Maybe its one of those things where if you watch HD for a week then you're forever horrified by non-HD TV. But if that's the case, it can't remotely compare to B&W vs. color.

[orangecrush]

Does anyone here have there gamecube hooked up to an HDTV? How does it look in progressive scan (the games that support it anyway). It seems the Rev. will look at least as good as that set up.

[ryanbph]

opps...where back to the HD argument. I thought we had beaten that one down to the people that have hd, and those without.

[javeryh]

I find that the article was awful. It sounds like a fanboy rant. Personally, the hard drive is nice, but if nintendo continues with the low load times without one, then it is no big deal.

The numbers on the loss of the cost to sony are estimates by financial analyst. The msft loss number has been changed for less, and they will be cutting cost substantial every year. I really don't care if nintendo loses some on there hardware at first. But then again, I don't really see the need to have a HD if you can make games with small load times.

um, we're talking about High Definition, not the inclusion of a hard drive (although I thought the same thing when I read "HD"). :D

[Michaellvortega]

Nintendo the new Goth Kid now? Trying to be different ,not to be compared to the other systems? Do they have no faith that they can turn things around in the non-handheld market? Your either in the fight or your not Nintendo.

[ryanbph]

um, we're talking about High Definition, not the inclusion of a hard drive (although I thought the same thing when I read "HD"). :D
thanks javery, changed the first post

[adamsappel]

Furthermore, the author completely neglects the fact that systems are sold at a loss not to create a perpetual money hole for the console makers, but because the overwhelming majority of money available is not in hardware sales, but software attach rates.
Microsoft and Sony sell their consoles at a loss because nobody would buy them if they had to pay actual manufactured prices.

[Blind the Thief]

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, unless my eyes are a lot worse than I think they are. Watching the Superbowl in HD was great, but I didn't cry in resignation when I returned to my non-HD TV. It looked crisper and a little clearer, that's about it. Moral of the story: I'll get it when it's mildly affordable or I make double my current salary so I don't care if its affordable.

Maybe its one of those things where if you watch HD for a week then you're forever horrified by non-HD TV. But if that's the case, it can't remotely compare to B&W vs. color.

Yeah, I'm the same way. It looks nicer, but not that much nicer. I think some people put too much stock into it.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I for one, can afford HD, AND simply do not want it. I can afford a $10 S-video cable, my TV supports S-video. However, I use Composite Video. Sure, I know S-video is better, I've seen it. Its crisper, clearer. But I honestly dont care. I am as far as one is likely to get from being a graphics whore. Playing it in S-video honestly does nothing for the experience. Though thats just my opinion, I know a lot of you believe that it does, and I wont dispute your opinion.

When my TV breaks down, I'll get another one just like it on Craigslist for $20, unless the price of an HD is somehow....$30?

Do they have no faith that they can turn things around in the non-handheld market? Your either in the fight or your not Nintendo.

Nintendo insists that what you call 'the fight', which would be between MS and Sony, is an evolutionary dead end. They're expanding the fight, changing the terms of the fight, if you will. Your way of putting it is entirely too black and white.

[Strell]

Microsoft and Sony sell their consoles at a loss because nobody would buy them if they had to pay actual manufactured prices.

Not true! eBay would say otherwise! In fact, Microsoft ought to just sell them straight to consumers via eBay. Then we can all leave them feedback. SUPAR SELLER A+++, WOULD DO BUSINESS AGAIN.

---@@MICRO$OFTPOWERSTOR!!@@--- would have a 1000+ feedback in no time.

[javeryh]

Not true! eBay would say otherwise! In fact, Microsoft ought to just sell them straight to consumers via eBay. Then we can all leave them feedback. SUPAR SELLER A+++, WOULD DO BUSINESS AGAIN.

---@@MICRO$OFTPOWERSTOR!!@@--- would have a 1000+ feedback in no time.

QFT. I'd love to leave some wicked awesome feedback that involved lots of exclaimation points, dollar signs and the number three.

[daroga]

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, unless my eyes are a lot worse than I think they are. Watching the Superbowl in HD was great, but I didn't cry in resignation when I returned to my non-HD TV. It looked crisper and a little clearer, that's about it. Moral of the story: I'll get it when it's mildly affordable or I make double my current salary so I don't care if its affordable.

Maybe its one of those things where if you watch HD for a week then you're forever horrified by non-HD TV. But if that's the case, it can't remotely compare to B&W vs. color.
I agree. Not trying to call javeryh a liar or anything, but comparing HDTV to a color TV from B&W jump is just kinda silly. Maybe you could get away with a VHS->DVD compairson, but even that jump is far greater in my mind than the STV->HDTV. Doing side-by-side comparisons of HD vs. non-HD content on different TVs, and on the same TV have led me to think this way, not just some random rant on the internet by a wholly ignorant guy (just mostly ignorant ;) ).

Don't get me wrong, HDTV is wonderful. I hope to get HDTV cable when I get an LCD TV this summer to enjoy it, but it's just not that big of a deal. And if it means the Revolution will be affordable, then I'm all for it. Each company does what they think is right, and probably all of them will succeed in their own way. This is going to be a fun generation to watch, as for the first time in a while each company seems to have a decidely different agenda and focus. It'll be neat to see how it all plays out, how important HD ends up being to the consumers, and who just has games that are fun to play. :)

[javeryh]

I agree. Not trying to call javeryh a liar or anything, but comparing HDTV to a color TV from B&W jump is just kinda silly. Maybe you could get away with a VHS->DVD compairson, but even that jump is far greater in my mind than the STV->HDTV. Doing side-by-side comparisons of HD vs. non-HD content on different TVs, and on the same TV have led me to think this way, not just some random rant on the internet by a wholly ignorant guy (just mostly ignorant ;) ).

Don't get me wrong, HDTV is wonderful. I hope to get HDTV cable when I get an LCD TV this summer to enjoy it, but it's just not that big of a deal. And if it means the Revolution will be affordable, then I'm all for it. Each company does what they think is right, and probably all of them will succeed in their own way. This is going to be a fun generation to watch, as for the first time in a while each company seems to have a decidely different agenda and focus. It'll be neat to see how it all plays out, how important HD ends up being to the consumers, and who just has games that are fun to play. :)

I stand by my statement. B&W to color was a large leap in terms of having something nicer to look at but the picture is of essentially the same quality and detail. The jump to 16:9 HD is nothing short of incredible. I notice that all of the "HD isn't a big deal" statements are coming from people without HDTVs. Spend a considerable amount of time watching HDTV (I've had mine for 2 years now with zero regrets of being an early adopter) and you won't be able to go back.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm still getting a Revolution at launch because I love playing Nintendo games but I am disappointed it isn't going to be in HD.

[Michaellvortega]

You guys are fools I think Nintendo just wants a leg up on ULTRA high definition, where just like Mario 64, Mario jumped into worlds via paintings we will jump into games via ultra high def TVs and Acid. No but really this argument is getting old HD vs Not HD weve talked and fought about this in many topic already. Nintendo choose not to go that route and only time will tell if that was a mistake (staying with carts?)

[.JPG]

This is sort of old news, it was already annouced that the Rev wouldn't have HD for almost a year now. You guys didn't know?

[Michaellvortega]

This is sort of old news, it was already annouced that the Rev wouldn't have HD for almost a year now. You guys didn't know?

the OP posted a article that explains Nintendo's decision not to go HD.

[daroga]

I stand by my statement. B&W to color was a large leap in terms of having something nicer to look at but the picture is of essentially the same quality and detail. The jump to 16:9 HD is nothing short of incredible. I notice that all of the "HD isn't a big deal" statements are coming from people without HDTVs. Spend a considerable amount of time watching HDTV (I've had mine for 2 years now with zero regrets of being an early adopter) and you won't be able to go back.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm still getting a Revolution at launch because I love playing Nintendo games but I am disappointed it isn't going to be in HD.
And to each his own. :) In the end, it probably won't matter because Nintendo will put out games that are fun enough on their own that I could be playing them as viewed in a mud puddle and be perfectly happy. ;)

[Demolition Man]

You know as a HDTV owner if Nintendo would put 480p support on the Revolution then I'll be more than happy enough. That shouldn't add much of anything to the hardware cost either.

Pretty please Nintendo.... :pray: :pray: :pray:

[Kendal]

I stand by my statement. B&W to color was a large leap in terms of having something nicer to look at but the picture is of essentially the same quality and detail. The jump to 16:9 HD is nothing short of incredible. I notice that all of the "HD isn't a big deal" statements are coming from people without HDTVs. Spend a considerable amount of time watching HDTV (I've had mine for 2 years now with zero regrets of being an early adopter) and you won't be able to go back.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm still getting a Revolution at launch because I love playing Nintendo games but I am disappointed it isn't going to be in HD.


I am sorry, but the leap is is hardly what you make it out to be. I have watched HD on a 120" projector and a 61", it is cool and the picture is nice, but the switch from B&W to color. Yes I have spent tons of time with both TVs and I can honestly say that it makes no difference to me if the Revo is HD or not. I can easily go back to my small 27" CRT flatscreen. I do hate round tube TVs though. The colors look shitty on the round tubes.

[daroga]

You know as a HDTV owner if Nintendo would put 480p support on the Revolution then I'll be more than happy enough. That shouldn't add much of anything to the hardware cost either.

Pretty please Nintendo.... :pray: :pray: :pray:
Isn't that normal progressive scan? I think they said it would support that. Not for sure though...

[Sarang01]

I'd be suspicious before giving the author of this article any particular credit as a definitive source.

"The reasons I gave above show how adding support for HD is not a trivial matter either in hardware modifications or profitability."

Except the author didn't really give any beyond stating it as fact. I'm not wholly disagreeing with the article; there are some valid arguments in there, but there are several argumentative mistakes that suggest this is far from the defacto explanation of Nintendo's missing Next-Gen HD support, like repeatedly stating the same argument as fact, using each consecutive rewording as if it were adding new argumentative value. Furthermore, the author completely neglects the fact that systems are sold at a loss not to create a perpetual money hole for the console makers, but because the overwhelming majority of money available is not in hardware sales, but software attach rates. Every liscenced game that sells sees a piece of the action go into the pockets of the console manufacturer, and with game costs in the neighborhood of $50-$60, it doesn't take much of an attach rate over the life of the system to recoup a few hundred dollars.

Certainly, it may make financial sense for Nintendo not to support HD this generation, but it's not at all ridiculous or impossible that it could have been, as this article would make it seem.

Ummm Sega, nuff said. Nintendo doesn't have the COLLATERAL like Sony and MS. They can't take the loss and have other divisions cover it. Now if those rumored Terrabyte discs were true they could implement that, get the HD and make money off the discs produced.
I really wish the N could pull this off since I've even stated I'd pay $50 extra on a Revo to get with a HDD and I'd easily sub that for HD but if Nintendo must at least require the games be WS standard for the 480p shit. I'm so sick of this P&S shit and devs. like Bioware dragging their feet on this.
Oh and to the people mentioning seeing HD on big screens you have NO valid comparison of HD until you've seen it on a tube or SED properly calibrated watching PBS OTA or Letterman OTA. Once you've done that come and talk to me otherwise you don't know what the fuck you're talking about except maybe if you watched the Superbowl on ABC in OTA on one of those examples as well.

[daroga]

Ummm Sega, nuff said.
No offense, but comparing Sega to Nintendo is really pretty ignorant. Sega was in pretty dire straights when they brought the Dreamcast out. They had wholly lost market confidence with the disasterous bomb of the Sega CD and 32X, followed by the difficult-to-program-for and rushed Saturn. By the time the Dreamcast came out they were largely persona non grata in the game maker world, and to a lesser extent in the game player world. Couple that with crippling piracy issues and Sega was done.

Nintendo on the other hand is doing nothing but increase in popularity and wide-spread appeal. They're making money hand over fist (something neither Microsoft nor Sony can claim) and are just making what appears to them to be the wisest business moves. Developers who wouldn't have been on board for the Revolution have seen how Nintendo made and has supported the DS and figure why not? There's no feeling of dread, "What if this system is gone in 2 weeks?" like the Dreamcast had. Nintendo is here, and is here to stay.

[Ecofreak]

Nintendo on the other hand is doing nothing but increase in popularity and wide-spread appeal. They're making money hand over fist (something neither Microsoft nor Sony can claim) and are just making what appears to them to be the wisest business moves. Developers who wouldn't have been on board for the Revolution have seen how Nintendo made and has supported the DS and figure why not? There's no feeling of dread, "What if this system is gone in 2 weeks?" like the Dreamcast had. Nintendo is here, and is here to stay.

One could argue that Nintendo lost some good will with the "failure" of the Gamecube. Hopefully, their PR is on the rise due to the very successful DS.

Their masterful play of Revolution PR is also doing wonders for their buzz.

[Sarang01]

No offense, but comparing Sega to Nintendo is really pretty ignorant. Sega was in pretty dire straights when they brought the Dreamcast out. They had wholly lost market confidence with the disasterous bomb of the Sega CD and 32X, followed by the difficult-to-program-for and rushed Saturn. By the time the Dreamcast came out they were largely persona non grata in the game maker world, and to a lesser extent in the game player world. Couple that with crippling piracy issues and Sega was done.

Nintendo on the other hand is doing nothing but increase in popularity and wide-spread appeal. They're making money hand over fist (something neither Microsoft nor Sony can claim) and are just making what appears to them to be the wisest business moves. Developers who wouldn't have been on board for the Revolution have seen how Nintendo made and has supported the DS and figure why not? There's no feeling of dread, "What if this system is gone in 2 weeks?" like the Dreamcast had. Nintendo is here, and is here to stay.

Ummm no you're wrong. I was referring to the fact Nintendo learned from Sega's example NOT to sell systems at a loss or break even if you're just a video game company as we can see now that Sammy owns Sega.

[Michaellvortega]

Free dreamcast with internet sign up was MEGA cool.

[Quillion]

That was a poorly written article.

I don't lament the loss of HD. I don't own an HDTV, and even when I will, I'll still play old 8-Bit classics. Graphics just aren't the most important thing to me, I would rather have the system cheap with many good games.

[io]

Does anyone here have there gamecube hooked up to an HDTV? How does it look in progressive scan (the games that support it anyway). It seems the Rev. will look at least as good as that set up.

I've had my GC hooked up to my Sony 51" HDTV for 2 1/2 years now. It looks pretty good, better than the PS2 in most cases. But then I've never had a GC hooked up to a non-HD TV so I can't really say what the progressive scan gives you. From what I understand it certainly doesn't give you more resolution (as the "full" resolution is provided normally, just interlaced) - it just provides a brighter, crisper picture. There are plenty of non-progessive games that look just fine on my HDTV as well. In general, the ones that support progressive scan tend to be better games overall (ie higher quality) so it is hard to say what effect the progressive scan has. I will say that WAY more GC games support progressive scan than PS2 games, so in that sense it does seem that Nintendo is going backwards in relation to Sony. But I fully understand their leaving HD out of the Revo - I just wished they wouldn't have :D. I should also note that I have never actually seen an HD signal on my TV - the best I've done is pro scan through the GC, PS2, and DVD players. I really want some sort of HD-DVD/BluRay thing to catch on YESTERDAY so I can make some use out of this so-called HD stuff :D. My cable does not provide an option for HD and I'm just a bit outside of broadcast range.

I don't follow the Xbox 360 too much, but I remember reading that it only outputs 720p? Is this really the case? Ie, it does not output 1080i? If that is so, then the Xbox360 is no better graphically than the Revo will be in my case as my Sony HDTV clearly states in the instruction manual that 720p signals are DOWNCONVERTED to 480p. Suckage...

[RedvsBlue]

I don't follow the Xbox 360 too much, but I remember reading that it only outputs 720p? Is this really the case? Ie, it does not output 1080i? If that is so, then the Xbox360 is no better graphically than the Revo will be in my case as my Sony HDTV clearly states in the instruction manual that 720p signals are DOWNCONVERTED to 480p. Suckage...

ALL 360 games are required to support at least 720p/1080i but the system is also capable of providing resolution for games that want to output in 1080p.

[io]

ALL 360 games are required to support at least 720p/1080i but the system is also capable of providing resolution for games that want to output in 1080p.

So is it switchable in game menus or something, or does the hardware take care of it? Sorry about the stupid questions, but I just stopped reading about the Xbox360 when I decided not to get one. But with the Revo not providing HD and the PS3 coming out who knows when, I might cave and get an Xbox360 when some more games I like are out. Of course I will still get a Revo, but I've been craving any sort of HD content and the easiest thing to get right now to provide that would be the Xbox360...

[JasonTerminator]

To be honest, I love Nintendo and intend to buy a Revolution on day one, or very soon after it's release.

I just really hope that, if anything, they include 16:9 and 480p support in all it's games. They should recognize that more and more people have widescreen TVs that support progressive scan, at the least. I don't want to have to stretch the new Zelda game to have it fill my screen, dammit.

[io]

To be honest, I love Nintendo and intend to buy a Revolution on day one, or very soon after it's release.

I just really hope that, if anything, they include 16:9 and 480p support in all it's games. They should recognize that more and more people have widescreen TVs that support progressive scan, at the least. I don't want to have to stretch the new Zelda game to have it fill my screen, dammit.

You know, I've grown so accustomed to seeing regular TV and most games stretched that it seems wierd when I switch the TV to 4:3 mode for a minute - everyone seems too thin :D. But it is nicer when a game actually provides you with more content on the wider screen!

[Friend of Sonic]

Ummm no you're wrong. I was referring to the fact Nintendo learned from Sega's example NOT to sell systems at a loss or break even if you're just a video game company as we can see now that Sammy owns Sega.
Yeah, but almost every system from the current and previous gen was sold at a lost. Sega failed not because of what the DC cost to manufacture (Sega once claimed that at launch, a DC cost them something like 202 dollars to make I believe?) but because they were already broke when the DC launched. The DC simply didn't stay popular for long. Them turning a small profit on each system wouldn't of solved anything.

[b3b0p]

HD is nice, but a shitty game is still shitty in HD and there are a lot of shitty games.

I don't really care whether the Revolution is HD or not. As long as it has some nifty fun games I'm in. HD would be nice feature though. I won't argue that.

I have had an HDTV since 2001.

[RedvsBlue]

So is it switchable in game menus or something, or does the hardware take care of it? Sorry about the stupid questions, but I just stopped reading about the Xbox360 when I decided not to get one. But with the Revo not providing HD and the PS3 coming out who knows when, I might cave and get an Xbox360 when some more games I like are out. Of course I will still get a Revo, but I've been craving any sort of HD content and the easiest thing to get right now to provide that would be the Xbox360...

The system itself does an excellent job of determining which version to output in. You have to set the dashboard with your TV's maximum resolution and the hardware takes care of the rest all on its own.

[Autumn Star]

You know, I've had a HD-TV for about a year now, and I can honestly say, it's really not that big of a deal.
Sure, the 360 looks out of this world on it, but when it really comes down to it, it doesn't matter to me. Hell, I still even play Atari 7800 on my HD-TV!
When it comes down to it, HD would be a very nice option, but it's definitely not needed at all. Even 480p is really not needed (Although it does make the game look a lot better.
Nice feature - Not need though.

[Ecofreak]

I'll throw my vote with the "I have an HD but still play older gen games on it - and frankly don't give a hoot" camp.

"A crappy game in HD is still a crappy game, just less of an eye sore."

Word.

[Reality's Fringe]

I'll upgrade to S-Video for the revolution. I love it that much!

[ArthurDigbySellers]

ALL 360 games are required to support at least 720p/1080i but the system is also capable of providing resolution for games that want to output in 1080p.

That is 100% not true. The 360 cannot output in 1080p. 1080i is the highest resolution it can output. I'm not saying that is a big limitation since 1080p displays are just now starting to come out. The PS3 will be the only console that will offer 1080p output out of the box.

[Sarang01]

Yeah, but almost every system from the current and previous gen was sold at a lost. Sega failed not because of what the DC cost to manufacture (Sega once claimed that at launch, a DC cost them something like 202 dollars to make I believe?) but because they were already broke when the DC launched. The DC simply didn't stay popular for long. Them turning a small profit on each system wouldn't of solved anything.

That's debatable. I can tell you it certainly would've allowed them to stay in the bout against the PS2 longer which could have only helped their chances. Here's how I think of it. Sega lowered the price of the Dreamcast too readily to try to make it even more attractive to the PS2 when they really didn't need to. This is just ONE of the things that killed the Dreamcast, the other reason is that Sega can't market worth shit frankly. They were making good games back in the DC days but not enough people saw the GAMEPLAY on ad's to help push the product as well as making it look attractive. Consider when the DC was near launch one of the ad's for Sonic was him DJing and maybe a snip or two of footage. Also does anyone remember NFL2K, ads for it I mean. This game sold like hotcakes. All Sega needed to do for that was really advertise for it. The last game to really wow me like NFL2K in graphics and features is FNR3 for XBox 360.
Also I'd just like to say the terribly amazing thing about the DC is that it reflects the XBox in having very few RPG's, but it didn't have a shitload of ports like it and had some GOOD exclusives at the time something XBox didn't. Also guess what? The DC had VALID and quality Japanese support, something the XBox hasn't had and needed, the DC is the most GLARING example of how a system with the XBox's lack in some games CAN still be solid but that support must be Japanese.
As for the WS comment someone made I'm so big on it because I have a WSTV and I also think it's moronic to put something in P&S when it's not even how the eyes see. WS mimics human site plus you can also provide the appearance of much more distance in certain circumstances if it's terribly neccessary, see 70 mm. film.
Eco I think the problem some people are missing is how much some games can benefit from HDTV because of the style of the graphics. Let me tell you frankly I'm bloodly well pissed Atlus has not done Prog. Scan or WS in any of their SMT games and I would KILL to see those graphics in HD as well I'm sure any CAG would who's a fan. SMT Nocturne and DDS are bloodly well made for HD as well as DQVIII, JMO.

[daroga]

I'll upgrade to S-Video for the revolution. I love it that much!
hehe, I'm in the same boat. I've been using composite for everything from NES to Xbox/GCN. I might even get (dramatic music) COMPONENT CABLES for the Revolution! Holy cow!!! Probably I'll only do that after I've played it with composite for a while though ;)

[SpazX]

I ran my DC on s-video and since my new TV has components, the rev will definitely be hooked up component :-P.

[mercilessming]

I personally have no problem with Rev not haveing HD, I don't understand why people have to say just because they jumped onto a new tech bandwagon immediately that all should be force to caugh up the cash to follow suit. I tend to get newer tech before the masses , but I judge to when to jump I haven't gone HD yet, my tv I love it and and has worked great for over 6 years so far sure the new Sony Wegas Progressive scan crt look great but I know HD is comeing. For me maybe in a year or so. I think teh Masses will be HD in 3 years, but the kids that have consoles will be getting their parents old normal crt tvs, and you know what little kids getting that hand me down 27/32 or bigger inch tv will think it is the greatest. I have a friend whose 10 year is a gameing nut it plays SuperNEs/N64/Dreamcast/PS1/GameCube to this day and plays them on a 19 inch tv and has no complaints he is more than happy.

I would love every game to fully take advantage of true Dolby 5.1 surround or better yet DTS but guess what alot of gamers don't have the right equipment or use 5.1 or even fewer have ablity to use DTS. So I understand companies not provideing the best sound production for 5.1 or better sound for their games.

By the way this is my semi rude opinion if you can enjoy gameing on a 6 inch psp/ds/gameboy screen don't complain, I hate the fact 3 years ago everybody in IT industry wanted big 21 inch monitors now those same people all of a sudden want 15 inch LCD monitors, it was fad and the I have better not what do I really feel I need and will enjoy or use. I remember replaceing a Securitys 21 inch monitor with a 15 inch lcd neither one she really needed all she does 85% percent of the time is play solitair and instant messge..