Revolution will not support HD (official)

[Shark Sandwich]

But limiting the allowed resolutions doesn't save developers money either.

I think the point was that, when designing games for HD, you "need" to make higher-resolution textures and more detailed models. Nintendo is trying to keep the focus on making fun, simple games and keeping development costs low.

I know it's a lame reason to not even support HD, but I think this is Nintendo's idea.

 

[Teasy]

No but you need 1/3 of the fillrate and pixel shader computation rate to get "equivalent" graphics since 480p has 1/3 the pixels of 720p.

But surely you don't think that Revolution won't have enough power to support these resolutions?

 

[Teasy]

I think the point was that, when designing games for HD, you "need" to make higher-resolution textures and more detailed models. Nintendo is trying to keep the focus on making fun, simple games and keeping development costs low.

I can see how allowing developers to use normal resolutions will let smaller developers develop cheaper games on the console. Which can lead to more creative and unique games. But not allowing developers to use higher res if they wan't isn't going to help creativity or save anyone any money. Its only going to limit developers, which is why I don't see this happening.

 

[PC-Engine]

And online gaming isn't the end all be all to this generation, yet it still hurt Nintendo.

Really? How did it hurt Nintendo? Having online didn't help SEGA and DC.

The fact remains that, in a game like CC, there is a LOT of detail you just can't see most of the time becaue the resolution isn't high enough.

Uh no it's not a fact sorry. A game like FF:CC looks fine at 640x480 it might look slighty better at higher resolutions though like any other game.

Wow. Revolution is fast turning into a joke.

I don't understand at this point why Nintendo is even releasing a new console. It's the technological progression that makes new systems worth buying... at this point, Rev isn't offering anything in that regard.

If the graphics are really good then it doesn't matter that it doesn't support HD.

 

[Inane_Dork]

This makes me think that the controller, whatever it is, will be very costly. A system that only needs to output 480p will be dirt cheap to make in 2006.

 

[Shark Sandwich]

I think the point was that, when designing games for HD, you "need" to make higher-resolution textures and more detailed models. Nintendo is trying to keep the focus on making fun, simple games and keeping development costs low.

I don't think even Nintendo could use that reasoning. Allowing developers to use any resolution they want will allow smaller developers to develop cheaper games on the console yes. That could allow developers to focus on the gameplay rather then thinking about the resolution. But actually forcing them not to use high res isn't going to do anything. If EA are porting NFS to Rev they're not going to make it a more unique game by using a lower resolution..

I agree it's lame. But what else could Nintendo have possibly meant by "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"?

It's just Nintendo saying "The graphics will be good enough. We want developers to focus on making fun, simple games, rather than focusing on graphics, so we won't even allow HD resolution on our system." This comes as no surprise. It's the same philosophy Nintendo has had since the N64 days and even earlier. They've already demonstrated that they're willing to go against the grain when it comes to the latest technology (and lose a lot of the market share in the process) in order to stick to their own unique vision.

 

[Teasy]

I agree it's lame. But what else could Nintendo have possibly meant by "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"?

It means they won't force developers to use HD resolutions like MS and Sony are doing (to allow for cheaper development) and they won't include a HDTV output (to save costs in the console itself).

It certainly doesn't say they will not allow higher resolutions on a PC monitor (which they've already said Revolution supports).

 

[Magnum PI]

how many have hidef tv sets ? in this forum it might be a majority .. but amongst the gamers ? only a minority, especially if you count globally .. like here (france) with still no HD content to play and very few HD tv set model, 2000 € for the cheapest one.. (you can get a pretty sony WEGA 32" for 400 €)

where nintendo and sony strategy is somewhat based on the technological hype and their consoles reflect that. their console reflect that and (if their propaganda turns to be true) will need HD to express is full power, so only a minority will be able to do that..

and like most people i don't intend to "invest" in an HD tv set in the near future, so why should i spend more for a console that is HD ready ?

whereas nintendo makes their console for the need of the gamers, not for the needs of a weak minority of the richest..

you can claim that nintendo is always late like with the online, but how many used the online feature of their xbox/PS2/GC ? very few people .. it looks the strong majority of consoles gamers didn't care about online this gen, even if online seems very important for the average beyon3der...

with have the PS3, the PS3 bis (xbox 360), do we need the PS3 ter ? no thanks ! and thanks to nintendo for doing something different.

 

[ERP]

FWIW - they probably did their market research and decided that the cost wasn't worth the bullet point on the box.

I think they're probably right, HD is still very niche and it's likely to stay that way for the majority of this "generation". Not that people won't own HD sets, more that they will still be gaming on older TV's.

I own 2 HDTV's and early adopted pretty much every new and cool technology (I bought my first DVD player when there were <10 discs availabe) and I still play games on an older SDTV.

Let me pose this question would you rather play at 60Hz in SD resolutions or 30Hz in HD? (I have no idea what developers are actually going to do, but it's a resonable comparison if a developer chooses to max out performance for SD). My preference is the former.

 

[Magnum PI]

give me games that exploits the SD at its max..i don't care for games with with lots of eye candy and a framerate that goes 10-30, i have my pc for these games..

i expect console games to be close to the "arcades" feeling, and to be at least a solid 30 fps, the best being 60 fps...

next gen i'm happy with 60 fps SD if you have so much graphic power add AA.. i won't care about HD until i get HD.

 

[Shark Sandwich]

why should i spend more for a console that is HD ready ?

Why do people keep saying this? A console that is capable of HD output doesn't have to cost any more than one that is incapable of HD. Even Xbox and PS2 are capable of outputting HD through their analog outputs! It doesn't cost you any more to buy a console that supports that.

It certainly doesn't say they will not allow higher resolutions on a PC monitor (which they've already said Revolution supports).

So they won't allow HD output to an HDTV, but they will allow high-resolution output to a PC monitor? This makes even less sense! If they have a multipurpose analog output like PS2 and Xbox have, and it could support high-resolution output through a VGA adaptor, how could it possibly make sense to not allow HD component output through that same multipurpose analog output? This is crazy.

 

[Teasy]

Shark Sandwich

To be clear Nintendo have said that Revolution will be able to connect to a PC monitor out of the box. But they haven't actually said "we will allow higher res gaming through a monitor". Though as I said I see no reason not to allow higher resolutions if a developer wanted it. As to your question, I'm really not sure. Is it more expensive to have a connector that can connect to a TV/Monitor and HDTV compared to one that can only connect to a TV and Monitor?

 

[Magnum PI]

Why do people keep saying this? A console that is capable of HD output doesn't have to cost any more than one that is incapable of HD.

if course it has to:

* components that are able to output HD cost more
* you have to pay some royalties to who owns the IP
* if you want HD to be something else than a gimmick on your console, you'll need more fillrate so a more expensive GPU.. (like ERP said 720p need 300 % the fillrate of 480p..)

i don't think SD is a bottleneck.

 

[Shark Sandwich]

Though as I said I see no reason not to allow higher resolutions if a developer wanted it.

I agree with you 100 percent. However, it seems like Nintendo does not agree, and that's why they aren't allowing HD compatibility. I know it doesn't make sense, but then again, Nintendo has made many decisions that don't make sense. This is not the least bit surprising to me.

As to your question, I'm really not sure. Is it more expensive to have a connector that can connect to a TV/Monitor and HDTV compared to one that can only connect to a TV and Monitor?

I'm not an expert on this, but it can't possibly cost that much. Like I said before, PS2 and Xbox have multipurpose analog outputs that can output HD through a component cable adaptor. If this was not a price-related concern even 5 years ago when these systems came out (and almost nobody had an HDTV), then I can't imagine it being a price-related concern today.

Like I said before, I believe the "no HD support" decision from Nintendo is purely based on their philosophy of what video games should be. It has nothing to do with the cost of the actual hardware. This is why I highly doubt they will allow high-resolution gaming on a PC monitor. I hope I'm wrong about this, but based on what we know right now, it would make even less sense to allow high-resolution gaming on a PC monitor while at the same time prohibiting HDTV gaming.

 

[Teasy]

I agree with you 100 percent. However, it seems like Nintendo does not agree, and that's why they aren't allowing HD compatibility. I know it doesn't make sense, but then again, Nintendo has made many decisions that don't make sense. This is not the least bit surprising to me.

But how do we know they don't agree? At the moment all we know for sure is that they won't be supporting HDTV. Until they actually say that they won't allow higher resolutions at all then I'm not going to assume it.

BTW I think while Nintendo do make some rather questionable decisions there are always reasons behind them. Reasons I sometimes don't agree with, but reasons none the less. There's no reason not to allow developers to use any resolution they want to use.

 

[jvd]

Perhaps nintendo wont support hdtv because the rev wont use a tv set to broadcast its image (runs away before vr talk starts happening )

 

[SanGreal]

But how do we know they don't agree? At the moment all we know for sure is that they won't be supporting HDTV. Until they actually say that they won't allow higher resolutions at all then I'm not going to assume it.

I think you're confusing crap like HDMI w/ HDTV/HD. "Nintendo doesn't plan for the system to be HD compatible" is not ambiguous. HD = High Definition = Higher Resolutions.

 

[mckmas8808]

I have witnessed the worst debate in history. *shakes head* I thought this board was for the thoughtful and enlighted. Nintendo not having HD support only hurts them, it does not help at all. Comments like the following make no sense.

where nintendo and sony strategy is somewhat based on the technological hype and their consoles reflect that. their console reflect that and (if their propaganda turns to be true) will need HD to express is full power, so only a minority will be able to do that..

whereas nintendo makes their console for the need of the gamers, not for the needs of a weak minority of the richest..

I think they're probably right, HD is still very niche and it's likely to stay that way for the majority of this "generation". Not that people won't own HD sets, more that they will still be gaming on older TV's.

give me games that exploits the SD at its max..i don't care for games with with lots of eye candy and a framerate that goes 10-30, i have my pc for these games..

Its obvious that HDTV is a growing more every year bigger than it did the previous. If the NR doesn't have HD support than I think its over for them.

 

[Inane_Dork]

Let me pose this question would you rather play at 60Hz in SD resolutions or 30Hz in HD? (I have no idea what developers are actually going to do, but it's a resonable comparison if a developer chooses to max out performance for SD). My preference is the former.

Overall? The latter. HD is a plus in basically every game, but 60 fps is only a plus in some games. That "some" may even be the majority, but there are still many games that would not really benefit from it.

'Course, I think the people who base buying decisions on 60 fps over 30 fps are morons, so I'm not exactly unbiased.

Besides, if PC benchmarks are any indication, 720p and 60 fps is very possible.

Also, Rev developers can easily choose 30 fps and put double the amount of work in per frame. Limiting your resolution does not make 60 fps automatic.

 

[Farid]

First thing, I'm a true marketing talk master. Behold my power!

Let me pose this question would you rather play at 60Hz in SD resolutions or 30Hz in HD?... My preference is the former.

Amen!

Personaly, I think that running games in high resolutions, is a waiste of resources, as long as higher resolutions come at a significant fillrate cost. Mandatory HD resolutions should had waited next-gen. But that's just me.

About Revolution, supporting HD resolution, at least on the paper, as a marketing checkbox, would (have been) be wise. Or else MS and Sony PRs would have field day with this.