Revolution will not support HD (official)

[Confidence-Man]

From IGN

http://cube.ign.com/articles/624/624200p1.html

"It is accurate that at this time we will not support high-definition [on Revolution]," confirms Nintendo of America's vice president of corporate affairs, Perrin Kaplan.

"Nintendo's Revolution is being built with a variety of gamers' needs in mind, such as quick start-up time, high power, and ease of use for development and play. It's also compact and sleek, and has beautiful graphics in which to enjoy innovative games," Kaplan says. "Nintendo doesn't plan for the system to be HD compatible as with that comes a higher price for both the consumer and also the developer creating the game. Will it make the game better to play? With the technology being built into the Revolution, we believe the games will look brilliant and play brilliantly. This can all be done without HD."

I'm pretty surprised by this. Even if they don't want to make their own games in HD, at least give the machine the capability so others can. :?

 

[PC-Engine]

Well as long as they support widescreen output like FZeroGX and Eternal Darkness with AA then I could live with it.

 

[MechanizedDeath]

Cost? That's a load of bologna. PC cards have supported resolutions beyond 1080p for years, and with video-out to boot. It's perfectly within ATI's capabilities to give them that functionality on the cheap. Cost is not a good argument. PEACE.

 

[Sovere]

Note to myself avoid Nintendo and their revolution like the plague. Same old Nintendo Same Old Nintendo.

 

[V3]

Iwata was using cost argument too when talking about HD, this is the same old argument they make about N64 using catridge. Because generating content to fill up CD was expensive.

It maybe true that its more expensive to create HD content, and no doubt its not necessary. But being one of the most profitable company around, they could at least dig down their pocket and give some nice extra like, like HD to their customers.

 

[Shark Sandwich]

This sounds like the same old Nintendo. "We don't care what people want, we'll give you what WE want."

This is a dumb move on Nintendo's part. It reminds me of their decision to make N64 cartridge-only. People wanted to play games like Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc., and that was impossible on their cartridge format. (Yeah, I know they put RE2 on a 512 MB cartridge, but that's an exception.) We had to pay 10-20 dollars more for N64 games compared to PSX games, with no real advantage over CDs.

HDTV is finally catching on, and there is absolutely no reason not to at least enable support for HD resolution. This is a decision that will cost Nintendo yet again. I love Nintendo's games, but I cringe every time they make some stupid, inexplicable decision like this.

 

[Fox5]

Yeah, I know they put RE2 on a 512 MB cartridge, but that's an exception.

512Megabit = 64 Megabyte. Conker had the same sized cart.

BTW, 480p with 2x AA should be the minimum res for revolution, with 720p optional for those who want to use it.(come on, if the rev really hooks up to a computer monitor like they said it really should have higher res)

 

[-NakedZ-]

Speaking of PC monitor. Is it me just me, or I never really heard anything regarding that from Nintendo after they announced it?

Why Nintendo? Why to do you guys always choose to lag behind (technologically)? And just when I plan to purchase an HD set next year. I guess playing SM3 on high def is just a dream.

- Z

 

[BlueTsunami]

Yeah, I know they put RE2 on a 512 MB cartridge, but that's an exception.

512Megabit = 64 Megabyte. Conker had the same sized cart.

BTW, 480p with 2x AA should be the minimum res for revolution, with 720p optional for those who want to use it.(come on, if the rev really hooks up to a computer monitor like they said it really should have higher res)

I wouldn't mind it if they supported 480p at least. I wish they would add HDTV support, I really want to see what next gen Zelda looks at 720p or 1080i but I guess if they did that they would be giving in to the hardcore gamming crowd and they don't want that.

 

[GwymWeepa]

They love to pinch pennies.

 

[darkblu]

BTW, 480p with 2x AA should be the minimum res for revolution, with 720p optional for those who want to use it. (come on, if the rev really hooks up to a computer monitor like they said it really should have higher res)

or good AA.
imo sony made a mistake with the mandatory 1080 support (if it turns out to be true). as it seems ninty went the other direction - no HD support at all (aside from 480p). if i have to choose between those two, i'd pick the ninty way - i see no reason why developers should be forced to literary waste fillrate and bandwidth to indulge marketing, instead of using that for better SD output. actually i'd have picked the x360 way, had they provided enough edram for full-res fp buffers at their mandatory resolution (720p). as things seem to be now, x360 may turn out to be yet another bad latency system at HD res, not much unlike the way its predecessor was at SD res. hope not, though.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Bad move for Nintendo. They seem hell bent on becoming a niche player.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Being able to output 1080p doesn't impact the SDTV quality. If anything, if PS3 can manage 1080p, they can downsample the output for SDTV and give a HiQ image. And you'll get hi-res textures for HDTV downscaled for SDTV, instead of lo-res textures upscaled.

 

[Shark Sandwich]

imo sony made a mistake with the mandatory 1080 support

Where did you hear this from? I'm pretty sure Sony said they weren't going to have any requirements regarding resolution or aspect ratios. It's up to the developers, as it should be.

 

[darkblu]

imo sony made a mistake with the mandatory 1080 support

Where did you hear this from? I'm pretty sure Sony said they weren't going to have any requirements regarding resolution or aspect ratios. It's up to the developers, as it should be.

i may be mistaken, but i seem to remember sony marketting trying to 1080-outgun ms' with their '720p out of the box'. could be wrong, though, would be only glad to be.

Being able to output 1080p doesn't impact the SDTV quality. If anything, if PS3 can manage 1080p, they can downsample the output for SDTV and give a HiQ image. And you'll get hi-res textures for HDTV downscaled for SDTV, instead of lo-res textures upscaled.

high res textures (and SSAA in general) are not the 'end-all-be-all' of good computer graphics, you know. HDR with MRT are way more important to the future of photorealistic rendition. you can mark my word for that.

 

[Blade]

What Johnny said. Seriously.

Cartridges at least had an advantage.. load times, or the lack thereof. A big issue, IMO.

Excluding HD from a "next-gen" console in the HD era has no explanation.

 

[Shark Sandwich]

i may be mistaken, but i seem to remember sony marketting tried to 1080-outgun ms' with their '720p out of the box'. could be wrong, though, would be only glad to be.

I know they used "oh yeah, well PS3 can support 1080P!!!" to try to outgun MS. I don't think they're making it mandatory, though. I think someone from Sony said in an interview that requiring HD wasn't a good idea. They support HD but they don't require it. I'll see if I can find a source for that.

 

[mckmas8808]

You're right Shark Sony NEVER said that. Some rumor that someone wants to start so hundreds of thousands of people can go around talking stupid. I think this will be a death move of Nintendo's part. Notice the trends in videogame consoles.

94-96: The introduction to true 3D games.

99-01: The introduction of online gaming.

05-06: The introduction to HD gaming.

Thats how big this HD gaming thing is. HD gaming actually does offer a different gameplay expirence and isn't just a cosmetic change. Having the ability to see more things on the screen, seeing further into the level, and things on the screen being more clear and crisp gameplay can change competely.

Imagine Burnout 5 in 720p or 1080p. Going 200 mph zipping through city traffic is not easy, but its fun as hell. Doing it in HD will be triple the fun. Only people who have actually seen HD programming can vouch for this. Watching a sports game on SD has absouletly nothing when you can watch it in HD.

Sorry Nintendo but you would be lucky to hit 18 million next-gen. Just because of their ignorance I'm starting to lose respect for them. And I thought missing the DVD/Online train was bad.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

high res textures (and SSAA in general) are not the 'end-all-be-all' of good computer graphics, you know. HDR with MRT are way more important to the future of photorealistic rendition. you can mark my word for that.

:? When did I say hi-res textures are the be all and end all of good CGs? Plus AA is more important than HDR. If given a choice between existing visuals at 4x AA or HDR at no AA, I'll take the AA thanks. Jaggies do more to destory the quality of visuals than absence of HDR, much of HDR's optical effects being readily fakeable.

 

[Geeforcer]

This move makes sense if you system power is simply not up to par. Then the cost argument is then indeed valid: you can save a bundle on GPU if your target resolution is 640x480

BTW, where are all those people who heaped ridicule on Times article during E3?