High Definition for Revolution

Some of you might have already read this but nintendo is not planning on having high definition on the revolution. IGN is trying to get nintendo to get high definition on it and they need your help.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/625/625423p1.html

Do your part and make sure that nintendo puts hd in their system.

I've seen HDTV, and while different than they strandard it really dosen't add to my exprience in gaming. I'm pretty much okay with Nintendo's decision not to include it.

Yeah but the general gamers would look at that and probably decide to buy another console. Its just like this generation of consoles: every system could play dvds except for the gamecube and I think that hurt it a little bit.

HDTV is overrated. It's not that great.

I see what Nintendo is trying to do. It's trying to please everyone, because, if you didn't know, very few people have HDTVs.

I could care less. Looks are the last thing I care about in a game.

Whats High Definition?

For some games, even Progressive Scan makes a huge difference though. I have a Home Theater system myself and when I heard about this news, decided then and there to start with a PS3.

And have you seen 1080p? THAT IS AMAZING. 1080i, what most HD TV is, bites, IMO. It's just slightly more vibrant.

You know what? HD really doesn't matter. The problem is that now Nintendo is behind in features yet again. People like features. It doesn't matter if they don't know what it means (honestly, I have an idea, but I don't know much about it) or that they don't even own an HDTV. It just matters that PS3 and Xbox 360 have it and Revolution doesn't. People want more features for their purchase, so this is a problem. Obviously it doesn't affect the game experience at all (in fact, I read that it can actually cause framerate drop and makes game development more cumbersome) but this fact is irrelevent. If Nintendo were smart, they would support it. The lack of HD will come back to bite them. Whatever, it doesn't affect me at all, and only serves as fodder for the anti-Nintendo crowd.

Originally Posted by Shiek 84

You know what? HD really doesn't matter. The problem is that now Nintendo is behind in features yet again. People like features. It doesn't matter if they don't know what it means (honestly, I have an idea, but I don't know much about it) or that they don't even own an HDTV. It just matters that PS3 and Xbox 360 have it and Revolution doesn't. People want more features for their purchase, so this is a problem. Obviously it doesn't affect the game experience at all (in fact, I read that it can actually cause framerate drop and makes game development more cumbersome) but this fact is irrelevent. If Nintendo were smart, they would support it. The lack of HD will come back to bite them. Whatever, it doesn't affect me at all, and only serves as fodder for the anti-Nintendo crowd.

I totally agree with opinion on the subject. It was said in a IGNCube article about the drop of frame rate. If you think about it, does HD really add to gaming?

Ditto to what Shiek 84 said. People get hung up on features. It's a source of joy for some consumers.

Ideally, consumers want a machine that can do everything. If Sony found a way to add a cappuccino maker to the PS3, people would point that out. I can see the argument now. Xbox360? That's has nothing! My gaming system can make me coffee! Maybe that's a little extreme, but it illustrates the point.

Businesses continue to add on new gadgets in order to increase their market share. That's the only reason. The more stuff you cram on, the more likely a consumer will find a feature they want. Sure, High Definition isn't a big deal to the majority of gamers. However, by adding that feature cost-effectively, Sony or Microsoft gains appeal to new consumers, specifically the HD crowd.

It's not that big of a deal to me personally, but I don't see why Nintendo is so resistant to the newest technology. Unless HD technology is incredibly expensive to implement, it's probably not going to kill them to add it on. I mean, Nintendo's already flip-flopped from the Gamecube and added a DVD player. Does high definition really hurt the integrity of the gaming system, Nintendo?

I don't know which is less intelligent:
- The Revolution apparently not supporting HD.
- IGN encouraging their readers to email Nintendo en masse about it.

Once you go HD-DVD you won't go back. People downplayed the quality advantage of CDs versus cassettes and DVDs versus VHS when both technologies were introduced. It's just another manifestion of cognitive dissonance: I'm okay with current quality, so improved quality must be irrelevant!... Which is all well and good, but we've heard the exact same umpteen times over the course of gaming history. Mostly from companies that don't exist anymore.

That being said it's still too early to judge. There's been a hefty handful of false rumors out of NOA recently that NOJ has disproven shortly after. The console's still a way off, so we'll see.

For all you people claiming that you have seen HD TVs or played a game in HD and says it doesn't make a difference, I have two things to ask you. Did you have the High Definition cables plugged, and was it specificaly made for high definition. If you said no to either one of those questions, then you don't know what you're missing. YES, it does matter, if Nintendo is doing this because of costs of the console, how much do they think it will cost to add that feature per console? I doubt it would be over $20 (and $20 is pushing it) and is there anything wrong with adding $20 to a system to make the system sell more? This is an extremely bad decision made by Nintendo thats going to come back to them and bite them in the ass, just like no-DVDs on the Gamecube, and cartridges on the N64.

Personally I don't mind if the Revolution has HD or not.

High Definition really doesn't matter in Australia. The number of people that actually have a HDTV could be counted on one hand. That's an exaggaration, but, it is still a low number. In fact, the federal government has had to push back the date for switching off analogue signals. Originally intended to be 2008, not enough people will have HDTV (required to receive the digital signal) by then, so the date was pushed back a number of years.

Why has HDTV not taken off? It's expensive for one. Also, there's nothing new for the consumer. Increased picture quality and audio quality are the only incentives thus far. There's no new content. You may think, 'what about DVD vs VHS, CD's VS Cassettes?'. Well, they offered something different to their predecessors. DVDs had new content on them, easily accessible bonus features for example. With CDs, you could immediately skip to the song you wanted and not have to bother fast forwading it.

HDTV can have extra features, but the networks aren't giving them to the public in Australia. FOXTEL Digital, a pay TV service, however, does give new features such as multiple camera angles for sporting events.

HD isn't really that important, at least, in the Australian market. Of course, it could hurt Revolution just for the fact that it's not there.

I dont have an HDTV, so it doesnt affect me at all. But im sure there are many people that really care.

Most of you who say you dont need it probably havent ever seen something in high definition. Its not like it would be hd only though, you would still be able to hook it up to a regular tv and to put the hd wouldnt cost a lot like Alex Riddle said. The number of people that have hdtvs is going up at a pretty fast rate. From 2003 to 2004 it went from 2.7% to 4.4% and is expected to skyrocket up from there because they are getting cheaper and are becoming the standard in tvs. In a few years regular tvs will be out of date and you guys will be like "I really wish nintendo would have put in that cheap part to run in hd." and all the xbox 360 and ps3 owners will laugh in your face and say that your system sucks because it is behind on the technology. For all of you that say you dont need hd find a graphics card for your computer that has s-video and find a tv (that isnt hd) that has a s-video and try to play a pc game with it like counter strike, you wont be able to see people across the level and they will kill you and you wont even know where they were because everything that is far away is all blurry and you cant make out if something is a guy or a barrel.

Then again, a lot of people who say they don't need it are saying that because they don't have a HDTV and don't intend to get one anytime soon. Even if they are getting cheaper, people are going to ask themselves, 'what's in it for me?'. If it's only a clearer picture and better audio then a lot of people won't see the point in buying one. If it did anything extra that current TVs can't do (HDTVs still show you the same shows), then more people would consider it. If free-to-air networks offered extra services that HD allows, I would suspect more people would be willing to buy a HDTV.

Eventually, HD will be the norm, yes. But, for the moment 4.4% isn't exactly an inspiring figure. Also, in the Australian market at least, the government is going to turn off the analogue signal eventually, forcing people to buy a HDTV or a Digital Set Top Box. People are traditionally resistant to the government forcing them to fork out money. The only extra thing offered by free-to-air stations at the moment is ABC 2, a second ABC channel that is just repeats from the first ABC channel. Yeah, that's a selling point.

Originally Posted by Mr Spork

If it's only a clearer picture and better audio then a lot of people won't see the point in buying one.

Most current HDTV owners don't own HD-compatible TVs so much for the clearer picture than for HD being standard in higher-end TVs which in turn almost always offer other compelling features as well. Hence over 10% of the American market owns an HDTV despite a relative lack of HDTV content at present. These factors make it hard to judge whether consumers will be swayed by higher quality picture; on the one hand they get other features, and on the other hand they haven't been properly exposed. And I'd actually bank on it: Historically consumers like their shiny pretty things.

While certainly different in other markets, that 10% with HDTV sets is roughly 30 million Americans willing to spend quite a lot of money on high-end entertainment products. Which is why Microsoft and Sony aren't so much pushing HDTV in their systems as killer features, but rather, their systems almost as if they were killer HDTV features.