Do Gamers Really Need HDTV? 167
Gamasutra has up an article, their latest in the 'Analyze This' series, exploring whether gamers are really clamoring for the HD era ... or if the only people looking forward to HD gaming are the game makers. All three analysts seem to think HD is very important, but with varying levels of fervency. From the article: "On the Nintendo front, Nintendo has sacrificed graphics that can be viewed by the minority for a price that can benefit the majority. So, no, I don't think that they've made a mistake in the short run. Over the long run, we'll have to see: If HDTV adoption rates accelerate, the differences between the Wii and the Xbox 360 and PS3 may become more important, and it may end up that sell-through of the Wii begins to decline. That's a couple of years away, and my crystal ball isn't quite that clear."
Nintendo will eatch and adapt (Score:3, Insightful)
...umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and No (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I have an "HDTV" in the form of LCD hooked up to Xbox360.
The whole HDTV argument is kind of moot. The status quo of video gamings certainly do not demand HDTVs, but IMHO that's a limitation that game developers are trying to overcome. For years we've been stuck in the world of ultra-huge text just so it's readable on a crappy tube set. We've been unable to communicate detailed information to the gamer. Think about the resolution as a mode of information bandwidth. The more resolution you have to work with (within limits) means the more data you can pass to the gamer. This is why RTS games work on PCs but not on consoles (beyond the obvious control difficulties) - these games demand that a lot of information (unit health, unit selection, unit status, squads, tactics, waypoints, etc) be visible all at once, which before the HD era has simply not been possible.
The way I see it, the HDTV thing is good. It further reduces the gap between PC and console gaming, allowing game developers to put games that would never have worked on a 480i tube TV on a console. To me this is a lot more than being able to see the tiny glint on a suit of armour - there is more to the HD issue than mere aesthetics.
Re:Nintendo will eatch and adapt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've said it once... (Score:5, Insightful)
"...gamers who want HD have been using their PCs as their primary platform with a phat 20"+ LCD attached that can do 1680x1050 or more widescreen."
That's an amazing generalization. Being able to run new top-of-line games on a 20"+ LCD doing 1680x1050 costs quite a bit, both in initial investment and constantly chasing the upgrade curve. I never did it - my PC is still too crappy to play Half-Life 2 at anything above 800x600. I am not inclined to sink thousands into such a machine when now a console can do HD for a fraction of the price.
Assuming a console lifetime of 5 years... $600 for consoles plus some accessories.
vs... $4K+ to maintain a system at good game-ability (ability to run all new games at relative high resolution and settings) over 5 years.
One is affordable for me. The other never was.
Re:Nintendo will eatch and adapt (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the true test is going to be getting TV stations to broadcast in HD and to get less 4:3 content. This is a problem since most HDTVs are widescreen aspects, so the black bars are on the sides now, and that small widescreen TV looks even smaller with 4:3 content showing. I do think Nintendo was smart though. While Microsoft and Sony expect these things to last in the long haul, Nintendo can sit back and sell consoles without HD and make money. They can also avoid the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray war and release their next console 4 or 5 years down the road (if not less) once a potential winner has been anounced. I think they are smart to avoid direct competition so as to avoid the fate of Sega.
Re:Yes and No (Score:2, Insightful)
While I don't disagree with your point as a whole, I don't think this is the best example. RTS games worked well enough back in the days of 320x240 resolutions (Dune 2, Command & Conquer, Warcraft I). Perhaps modern RTS games wouldn't work well at lower resolutions, but that's just a matter of design. If they had to work with a max res of 640x480, developers would continue to advance the genre. They'd just have to be smarter about how they display information.
On the other hand, the current state of HDTV adoption means that console games still have to work well on SDTV sets. Dead Rising is a great example of how to do it wrong. They used smaller fonts to fit more information on-screen, but ended up screwing SDTV customers in the process. As long as developers have to support SDTV as well as HDTV, don't expect text and information displays to take full advantage of the resolution provided by a 720p or 1080p HD set.
Re:...umm... (Score:2, Insightful)
I would sacrifice a big part of the resolution for better graphics often , as you don't see that much of a difference after 1024X768 compared to all the options you can put on to get the same framerate....
Re:...umm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Short answer: No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:...umm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Get the Wii Component Cables.... (Score:2, Insightful)
F-Zero GX is glorious in 16:9 + 480p and it STILL pushes 60 FPS. If you don't have the component cables for the GC, I'd recommend them for the Wii and to replay some of the GC games that support it.
definitely not (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a lot of people now trying to justify their Xbox360 and future PS3 purchases by telling everyone that we need HD and that HD is the future of gaming. It doesn't make a difference gameplay wise. You're not going to get some life altering experience from playing games at higher resolutions.
We don't need it and it's not what the majority of people have, or will have in the next 5 years. When they can deliver consoles that support HD for a reasonable price to consumers who actually have HDTVs, then obviously things will be different...but for now it's just not worth it for the average consumer.
Re:...umm... (Score:2, Insightful)
HD ladies Beach Volleyball