j Allard Speech A Joke(uknown source)
- Thread starter hey69
- Start date
How many people had broadband compared to just dialup when Xbox launched with only an ethernet port?
Sometimes, you have to be ahead of the curve, not behind it.
Anyways, if HD is insignificant, why even do 720p games in the first place?
In fact, why even have a next generation? Maybe there will be other things about the next generation than HDTV. But for now, MS and Sony are emphasizing HD.
Sometimes, you have to be ahead of the curve, not behind it.
Anyways, if HD is insignificant, why even do 720p games in the first place?
In fact, why even have a next generation? Maybe there will be other things about the next generation than HDTV. But for now, MS and Sony are emphasizing HD.
jvd said:
60,000 hours too soon? You are behind the times with regards to plasma TVs.
Also note that LCD TV prices are expected to drop 20-30% this year alone.
But I'm NOT arguing that HDTV sets are going to wipe out good old CRTs anytime soon. Yet you also have to consider that the people that buy current consoles in the first place also are more likely to have HDTVs.
I don't think the article's dishing support for HDTV, only the making of it as central to MS's gameplan. If you're trying to sell your console on the grounds that it's HDTV, you're not going to attract that 80% of potential buyers that don't have an HDTV. Likewise pushing online gaming when the take-up is very low. It doesn't appeal to the mainstream. MS are going in to the next-gen with promises of online HD experience which hasn't mass appeal.
Surely they ought to be promising other things, like bigger, better games? Realism? Diversity? Those should be their spearhead promises, with HDTV and Live! as nice extras for those that care.
Surely they ought to be promising other things, like bigger, better games? Realism? Diversity? Those should be their spearhead promises, with HDTV and Live! as nice extras for those that care.
Shifty Geezer said:
Did MS say this was the entire gameplan?
Yeah, didn't think so.
As for HD TV, remember in 2006 (or 2007?) all TVs above ~27" in the U.S. MUST ship HD TV ready. HD TV is happening NOW in the US. Actually, it became mainstream in 2004 when Walmarts in Hicksville USA were offering a dozen different HD TV models. If Walmart has them then it, and the regulators are mandating new TVs have it on new models, well I do not see the problem.
And this also goes back to the fact it was already stated a long time ago the X2 would work with a computer monitors. I am willing to bet close to 85% of homes in the US have a monitor. That is a HD TV device right there.
And all of this is silly. Ok, yes, a percentage of gamers in 2005 wont have HD TV. But does that mean developers should not support it? What happens when Nin and Sony support HD TV?
HD is something all three are going to have to support because it is a check box. Same with online. While only 1.5M Live customers, of 20M total Xbox sales, are online, the fact is it weighs into the consumer purchasing decision. It offers value and the "I do not have it now, but I would like it next year" factor. If a console does not support HD TV, 5.1, etc... it will get bad press and have all you guys in the forums whinning like babies.
My proof? Look at all the complaining going on about X2 not having BR/HDDVD. This is a game console and many cannot stop griping about this. Since there is no HD movie media available HD movies are a moot point, yet everyone is complaining about it. Yet HD gaming and 5.1 are here NOW and people are complaining that "What a waste of effort". What is a waste of effort is spending a lot of extra money on a media device that has no movie support now, and may just flop anyhow.
Did you read the slides? Those elements were part of their spearhead. They were not ignored. MS has put a lot of ephasis on putting creative control and more of the development time into asset creation, better HW for better physics, etc... Go back and look at the slides, that stuff is there and in previous announcements.
NO-ONE's SAYING HDTV SHOULDN'T BE SUPPORTED! Sheesh, I already said this! The article was referring to to Allard's sound-bite, that Xenon ushers in a new era of HD-Gaming, an era that is lost on most people.Acert93 said:
Did you read the article? That's what I'm discussing! The article explains a POV and where this thread was falling into a "should HDTV be supported or not" argument, I was pointing out that article is saying nothing against HDTV, only MS's marketting strategy - a point of view expressed by games developers at the show. As a marketting campaign you have a few words to decribe your product. MS's is "HD Gaming". "Revolutions is more "New Exciting gaming". In MS's caption as they've described their system so far, they have encapsulated the concept that Xenon is for HD, which is not of benefit to most people. Regardless how many wonderful features you supply, if you don't communicate effectively you'll lose your audience, and MS seemed to have focussed on the wrong strengths to their platform, according to the article and the developers who's conversation left the author feeling such that he'd write that article.
Yes I read the article. But there is more to reality than just that one article. More went on at GDC than what the biased article presents. I mean come on, the guy even exaggerates the PS2 sales rate
He also gets the % of Xbox live users wrong. He also praises up Sony in the article while neglecting the fact one of the major selling points of the PS3 is HD movie playback.I have a hard time just nodding my head at someone who does not name names, gets numbers wrong, and ignores the entire breadth of a conference. So while I read the article, I also read the rest of the released information.
Did you? Or are you basing all your comments on this one article?
Did you listen to the audio clips, read the slides, and look at the press release and look at the total package MS discussed? Or are you just knee-jerk reacting going "Ra Ra!!" to this article because it lines up with your beliefs?
Stay on target. Like I said most homes have a HD display device already, HD TV units have been sold at low end merchants like Walmart since fall 2003 (forgot we were in 2005... my local Walmart in a town of 3k had HD TVs for sale in 2003), and all TVs over ~27" will be REQUIRED to ship HD TV enabled in the next year or so. Read: Not optional, required. So I challenge you, and the articles, assumption that HD is lost on most people".
Consoles last 4-6 years. In 2005 mainly early adopters will pick up the device. These early adopters will either already have HDTVS and/or just want the newest console. But come 2006 and 2007 HD TVs will begin being the baseline of all units sold, and this is when X2 will ship the most units. You look at this fact, and the fact most people have computer monitors, well, HD is definately not lost on most people. If it were Sony would not be including BR and people would not be complaining because X2 does not have HD movie abilities.
I also challenge the idea that HD does not help non-HD users. HD requires the use of more high resolution textures; these high res textures WILL HELP non-HD users. Why? Because this means less blocky textures up close and more detail in the game--so I still not convinced that focusing on providing high resolution gameplay hurts the non-HD player. It is an assumption. Designing games on the PC with higher resolutions does not hurt people who play at 800x600.
But that is besides the point. MS had more to say about the X2 than HD. The author is wanting to pick on one aspect of the GDC presentation and not the entire presentation, let alone all we know, about X2.
The author is allowed to have an opinion, but that does not mean his, or your, opinion is above being questioned. I question this authors accuracy and subjectivity. You and the author question whether HD will be a benefit to most gamers--I think it will be. I also question your repeated statement about how HD is lost on most consumers. If you live in the US, where Xbox is strongest and is MS core audiance, you will know HDTV will have a very profound impact over the next 5 years.
Acert93:
> Stay on target. Like I said most homes have a HD display device
> already
Most? Nonsense.
> and all TVs over ~27" will be REQUIRED to ship HD TV enabled
> in the next year or so.
Don't confuse DTV with HDTV. All TVs with screensizes larger than 13" will eventually have to include DTV tuners. HD support is not mandatory.
> Stay on target. Like I said most homes have a HD display device
> already
Most? Nonsense.
> and all TVs over ~27" will be REQUIRED to ship HD TV enabled
> in the next year or so.
Don't confuse DTV with HDTV. All TVs with screensizes larger than 13" will eventually have to include DTV tuners. HD support is not mandatory.
...which in this case is entirely irrelevant. Monitor-play adoption will no doubt be very low in adoption even if it's provided technically by the console manufacturers. One's PC and one's console center are typically two entirely different areas with two entirely different comfort zones, and most importantly "it's just not the way it's been done!"Geeforcer said:
Consumer mindset in that will be impossible to overcome, though there will be a small percentage who will seek it out, as they want to simplify things and take advantage of the tech they have. But it won't make a dent in the mass market.
Could be referring to 720P as a factor. Regardless, it would be complex from a technical standpoint anyway, and impossible from an adoption point for the mass market. (At least this generation. The culture around the devices has to converge more.)cybamerc said:
Sure. But even 1280x1024 capable monitors aren't that common and there's still a chance, however slim, that either Sony or Nintendo will focus on 1080p.[/quote]cybamerc said:
17" inch monitors are not common? I think 1280x1024-capable monitors make up vast majority of the market. Regardless, I think that 1080p is the way to go. You can always fall back to 720p from there if you have to.
I'm pretty sure they do at this point. No figures I can find on it, but my 15 inch monitor can display that. Maybe not all monitors EVER, but of all monitors likely to be used by their target audience: gamers, casual or not.cybamerc said:
cybamerc said:
1280x1024 native monitors are LCD (usually 15" to 19") because it is (and lcd monitors are) a 5:4 aspect ratio. Most CRT monitors are native 1280x768 which is a 4:3 aspect ratio. Now CRTs CAN display 1280x1024 but it skews (don't think thats the proper word) the image so a circle displayed on a 4:3 monitor with that resolution would look more like an oval because of the difference in aspect ratio.
cthellis42 said:
cthellis42, not you specifically (you are fairly rational), but this just totally confuses the entire "CELL World" arguement. I bring this up because this article praises Sony and chastises MS.
Ok, the PS3 is about convergance--but as you say it is too soon. PS3 is supposed to be this great convergence device, yet many here (like the article) are argueing it is too early for HDTV--and it is a fact that resolution is a killer when it comes to browsing the internet, email, word processing, etc.....
See the mixed messages? On the one hand you have the uber hyping if the PS3 as this great convergence device, yet when MS is doing convergence it either is not practical or not enough install base of HD TVs, computer monitors wont work, they should not emphasize HD even though it is needed to realistically do convergance type tasks, etc.... This is why I pull my hair out!
Alas, I would disagree. Convergence means moniters, especially LCDs, are ending up all over the house. I have a home office, but every other person I know (and I am not exaggerating) either has their PC in the living room or bedroom--and in every case their console is within 5 feet.
Now I have NOT read statistics, so this is my finite subjective observation--I could be totally off on how most people do it. BUT, from those I know who own game consoles would not have this hurdle.
And personally, having played my GCN in progressive mode on my monitor will tell you I wont ever go back
I think when people see the difference, especially EARLY ADOPTERS (i.e. trend setters who want the biggest and the best), they will do whatever they can to enjoy it--and that is why I think monitors are an option for *gamers*. I would not say 50% (or even 25%), but I think for those without HDTVs this is a nice option--especially if it frees up the TV for others in the house.Gamers do all kind of crazy things--like drag $2k computers and 60lb monitors to LAN parties. Gamers are also the Early Adopters who set the tone for initial sales and the "cool" factor of a device. If a gamer cannot buy a HDTV--which are expensive--but can use his PC monitor to get the best out of his console he does it.
I know this because I got a lot of people hooked on HD with their consoles. 480p looks a ton better than 480i. Now imagine games designed to run well at 720p. You are looking at 3x as many pixels on screen.
All I would say is do not underestimate the appeal of HD. TV Manufactureres are pushing it, the FCC is, and large retailers like Walmart are. And you have HD movies coming also. Console support was a given, and I think it will be more impressive than watching a sitcom in HD.
Not hard at all: Letterbox
And the last time I checked 720p was a HDTV resolution, and the one most likely to be used on most next gen games. With a VGA-out designed into the kit all they need to do is output to 1280x1024 and letterbox the extra vertical pixels.cybamerc said:
Are you *serious* when you say 1280x1024 monitors aren't that common Of the PCs *in use* in the US I would be willing to bet close to 70% are 1280x1024 capable.And your logic on the 1080p is totally backwards. Since when would Sony/Nintendo supporting 1080p mean it would not work on lesser resolution devices??? IF (and I only mention this because you bring it up) Sony/Nintendo support 1080i (and that would be interlaced, not progressive; you know what kinda horse power you need to do 1920x1080p with HDR, AA, AF, etc???) as the standard game res on their platform they also MUST support 720p, 480i/p.
So Sony/Nintendo going with 1080 would not prevent it from working on a monitor. It would just need to treat it like a 720p HDTV. Again, supporting HDTV does not alienate lesser devices.
a688 said:
No, 1280x960 is 4:3, not 1280x768. Either way, both would work with 720p.
And a quick check of newegg shows that most monitors that support 1280x"?" are 1280x1024. Which of course means they can do 1280x960, 1024x768, 800x600, etc...
But that is kinda besides the point. The point is the majority of people who will be getting next gen consoles in the US will have monitors that can do 1280x1024 or better.
