Revolution release date revealed?
- Thread starter pipo
- Start date
- Status
Powderkeg said:
Taking in account that most gamers (~90%(+?), meybe even more if they really got new gamers), would never see the difference while gaming (at least for some time) one can argue that it is a good trade off, of curse those how will play on HDTV may not think that...
pc999 said:
While we are pulling unrealistic figures out of our asses, I'll say that 87.2845 gamers can tell a complex shader instruction from a singple shader instruction just from a screenshot, so clearly the lower resolution won't help Nintendo since everyone will see their lack of power in action.
If you can find a person who can't tell the difference between 640X480 and 1024X768 I'll show you someone in desperate need of corrective eye surgery. The difference is not subtle in the least, it's quite clear and dramatic.
Powderkeg said:While we are pulling unrealistic figures out of our asses, I'll say that 87.2845 gamers can tell a complex shader instruction from a singple shader instruction just from a screenshot, so clearly the lower resolution won't help Nintendo since everyone will see their lack of power in action.
If you can find a person who can't tell the difference between 640X480 and 1024X768 I'll show you someone in desperate need of corrective eye surgery. The difference is not subtle in the least, it's quite clear and dramatic.
Uhm... To someone with a normal 480i CRT TV (still the vastest majority of gamers), it won't matter. He will get the crappy 480i image whatever happens.
But i'm confident HDTVs will penetrate out homes rather quickly.
I said that because most people will not play on HDTV at 720p, but in normal TVs.
That is way most people will not see the diference, plus I think their shaders should have (more or less) the same instructions but thys will need to calculate ~1/3 of the pixel ence the need of less powerfull HW, so to you run the same game at the same fremerate in a (eg) X1800 at 720p you would need only ~1/3 (~6) of the pixelpipes to run it "equaly good"(same shaders) but at 480p (is this what you are talking about, Right?).
That is way most people will not see the diference, plus I think their shaders should have (more or less) the same instructions but thys will need to calculate ~1/3 of the pixel ence the need of less powerfull HW, so to you run the same game at the same fremerate in a (eg) X1800 at 720p you would need only ~1/3 (~6) of the pixelpipes to run it "equaly good"(same shaders) but at 480p (is this what you are talking about, Right?).
london-boy said:
Not all 480i images are created equal. Pixar's DVD of The Incredibles is "crappy" 480i on a normal TV, but looks infinitely sharper and more detailed than any video game. Mostly because the source material is much higher resolution that's been downsampled to 480i rather than a native 480i recording.
Powderkeg said:
Obviously. That's where proper AA comes into play.
Field rendered PS2 games looked like ass because they were raw even-and-odd lines output like that. 480i Xbox games with AA looked a lot better.
The 720p resolutions of X360 and PS3 will be completely lost of the majority of HDTV-less people, who will get downsampled images with or without AA applied (still not clear at the moment).
Powderkeg said:While we are pulling unrealistic figures out of our asses, I'll say that 87.2845 gamers can tell a complex shader instruction from a singple shader instruction just from a screenshot, so clearly the lower resolution won't help Nintendo since everyone will see their lack of power in action.
If you can find a person who can't tell the difference between 640X480 and 1024X768 I'll show you someone in desperate need of corrective eye surgery. The difference is not subtle in the least, it's quite clear and dramatic.
And the last HDTV penetration numbers I recall seeing were around 10-15% maximum, & that's solely within the US, ww adoption rates will be significantly smaller (60hz & p-scan anyone?) & take an extremely lengthier amount of time to even reach mainstream levels, even in JPN. So how was pc pulling numbers out of his ass again?
Yeah, right! I don't think it makes commercial sense to place the EU first. If you're going to do one territory first it'd be NA, with one language, one packaging, one everything for largest integrated market. Then either EU or home-ground Japan. I'd like to see how they justify a EU first, NA/Japan second/third release schedule. If EU isn't last, it'll be because it's a uniform launch across all territories.
NA and Japan are more "HD Ready" than EU.
"Revolution" is not "HD Ready" console - EU is still very much a SD territory.
So it just kinda makes sense if they release here first.
"Revolution" is not "HD Ready" console - EU is still very much a SD territory.
So it just kinda makes sense if they release here first.
rabidrabbit said:
Nintendo would be out of their minds if they used that as a reason. Thank god you don't work for them.
dopefishzzz
Newcomer
It's hard to believe that Ninentendo won't support HDTV.
Market penetration is growing fast, I saw figures of 30% next year, and 50% in 3 years in the US.
Most HDTV will be LCD, or plasma. Resolution inferior to 720p look like shit (really, I can tell...) on those panel. So anyone with an HDTV CANNOT even CONSIDER a 640 X 480P console.
If Ninentendo added ONLY this feature, they would gain a HUGE market share. I will buy the XBOX360, I WILL buy the PS3, but I WON'T buy the revolution due to lack of HD.
But I would love to give them my money...
Crazy, isn't it...
(and sorry about my so-so english)
Market penetration is growing fast, I saw figures of 30% next year, and 50% in 3 years in the US.
Most HDTV will be LCD, or plasma. Resolution inferior to 720p look like shit (really, I can tell...) on those panel. So anyone with an HDTV CANNOT even CONSIDER a 640 X 480P console.
If Ninentendo added ONLY this feature, they would gain a HUGE market share. I will buy the XBOX360, I WILL buy the PS3, but I WON'T buy the revolution due to lack of HD.
But I would love to give them my money...
Crazy, isn't it...
(and sorry about my so-so english)
dopefishzzz said:
DVDs run at 480p (or 480i if you have an old player), and still look 1000000 times better than anything that will come out of next gen consoles. Whether they output crazy resolutions or not.
My point is, it all depends on what's being shown. And crazy levels of AA also help i guess.
I was just wandering around town earlier this morning, and poked my nose into a couple of tech stores and eyed up the large HD ready screens. They were showing SD media, and it looked really manky. I've yet to see a large HD screen show a good SD TV picture. Contrast, saturation, general fuzzy-blobbiness, has always been manky on every example I've seen. Maybe just the few places I've gone aren't set up right, but there's no way I'll switch from SD CRT to HD plasma/LCD if they can't handle a nice SD picture.
Shifty Geezer said:
Well it all depends what was shown and how it was all connected.
DVDs are SD, but a decent pro-scan player plugged through component or even HDMI will look gorgeous on HDTVs.
Aerial TV is bound to look crap. Also Freeview usually looks sub-par.
Also it depends on the HD display device itself, some are just better at scaling the SD to the HD panel with less artefacts, while some are just crap at that job.
Definitely something to look for when shopping a new HD display.
Of course proper cabling helps too.
Definitely something to look for when shopping a new HD display.
Of course proper cabling helps too.
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 7537
- Games Industry