[Hawkeye_a]

HDTV sales might be higher than SDTV sales, but new TV buyers are merely a tiny subset of households with TVs (any kind). The number of households with SDTV, im willing to wager, are a heck lot higher than homes with HDTVs. so when you make a 'platform' dont cater to a niche cater to the majority, thats how to run a business.

Graphical quality.....GoW looks amazing. Zelda looks amazing. GoW was developed for a next-gen system. Zelda was developed(graphically) for a last gen system. The Wii is capable of better, just by looking at the specs. Heck even Okami (PS2) looks amazing and its ona PS2....i think the graphics on the Wii will improve...but if they dont and all i get are Zelda-looking games, ill be happy.

And 3 or 4 years from now, when HD standards are set and a format victor emerges, i wont mind paying $250 for a new console, as opposed to $400-$600 now for same old trype of games and the uncertainty of a HD format.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Let's try and keep the discussion on track.

Sorry my bad.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Sorry my bad.

Passionate, heated arguments-- What are forums for?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Most people have SDTVs, most people DO NOT have HDTVs (we're talking the whole world, not just the U.S. or Japan).

Nintendo makes a console with the purpose of appealing to that much larger untapped lapsed-gamer and non-gamer market.

So do they focus on the minority:
-HDTV owners
-few 18-35 year old males obsessed with graphics ?

Are you saying that 18-35 year olds are NOT "obsessed with graphics"?

Please quote your source.

Nintendo could have EASILY supported 720p without any kind of major upgrade to how their software works. The hardware's capable of it.

[Hawkeye_a]

Oh good point...so that makes the target niches of Sony and Microsoft even smaller since, as you think (and rightfully so) there is a large overlap in those two sets.

And yeah...i do know the Wii is capable of 720p, and ill give that to you, they SHOULD have enabled it. And as a design considerating, i know they are using some really fast and expensive ram & vram.... it would have been a reasonable compromise to include cheaper n slower ram to maybe 720 or even 1080i/p possible.

To balance out that perspective, what effect would slower ram and vram had on load times ? cause after playing Zelda, CoD3's load times (although shorter than any PS2 game ive seen loading up) is a little painful.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

HDTV sales might be higher than SDTV sales, but new TV buyers are merely a tiny subset of households with TVs (any kind). The number of households with SDTV, im willing to wager, are a heck lot higher than homes with HDTVs. so when you make a 'platform' dont cater to a niche cater to the majority, thats how to run a business..

There are at least 30 million HDTV's in American homes putting them higher than the number of total worldwide GameCube sales.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

Nintendo has never been one to go for the bleeding, cutting-edge technologies. They usually wait until its matured and price has come down, innovating within that margin. And with the two other console choices already going that route (Sony most of all) I think consumers appreciate, a third, different and innovative and affordable choice.

False. Nintendo has always been on the cutting edge of graphics. I have no idea where all of this "Nintendo has always been about Gameplay over graphics" stuff comes from, because it simply isn't true. All of the nintendo classics, and I mean ALL OF THEM, had cutting edge graphics when they were released.

And like you said, by the time HDTV is big, Nintendo will be there too, again probably more affordable than the other choices. I have an HDTV, by the way, but the Wii is the only next-gen console I can justify buying.

I can go buy an Xbox or PS2 for $129 and they can play games in hi-def. The brand new $250 Nintendo Wii cannot? How is this not a big problem? If Microsoft can sell an HD capable system for $129, then surely Nintendo can for $250. How much could it possibly cost? Nintendo should be able to match the features of 5-year old consoles. The fact that they can't is pathetic and short-sited.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I can go buy an Xbox or PS2 for $129 and they can play games in hi-def. The brand new $250 Nintendo Wii cannot? How is this not a big problem? If Microsoft can sell an HD capable system for $129, then surely Nintendo can for $250. How much could it possibly cost? Nintendo should be able to match the features of 5-year old consoles. The fact that they can't is pathetic and short-sited.

$125 isn't necessarily the cost to produce.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by ort888 

False. Nintendo has always been on the cutting edge of graphics. I have no idea where all of this "Nintendo has always been about Gameplay over graphics" stuff comes from, because it simply isn't true. All of the nintendo classics, and I mean ALL OF THEM, had cutting edge graphics when they were released.

To say that Nintendo never cared about graphics is a bizarre revisionist viewpoint that seems to have been cooked up to justify the Wii's lack of graphical prowess. I think you can make an argument that the Wii's approach is a valid one, but it's very much a new direction for Nintendo to take.

I also think the idea that Nintendo has never been on the cutting edge is laughable. The Wii itself is on the cutting edge when it comes to motion sensing -- so much so that NOBODY really knew if they could pull off a system based around such a controller. (Apparently they can.)

I can go buy an Xbox or PS2 for $129 and they can play games in hi-def. The brand new $250 Nintendo Wii cannot? How is this not a big problem? If Microsoft can sell an HD capable system for $129, then surely Nintendo can for $250. How much could it possibly cost? Nintendo should be able to match the features of 5-year old consoles. The fact that they can't is pathetic and short-sited.

Can we PLEASE stop referring to the PS2 as an HD-capable system? Pretty please? One game in 1080i does not make the PS2 an HD console. It's a great system, but it's not a graphical powerhouse. As I have said before, the decision on the part of Nintendo to not support HD is not a technical one. Maybe it is philosophical, maybe it is pragmatic (they realize that not supporting HD won't cost them that many customers, makes development and hardware costs lower, and will make their next system look even more impressive when it finally does support HD). I argued earlier that given Nintendo's position in the market, releasing a $400+ system would be suicide, and I still think that's true. Do you think people would be flocking to a $400-$500 Wii, even if it did support HD? I don't. They needed to keep costs low, so they could devote develop time and money to the control scheme.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Can we PLEASE stop referring to the PS2 as an HD-capable system? Pretty please? One game in 1080i does not make the PS2 an HD console.

Yes it does. Even with 1 game it shows that the cheap, small hardware CAN DO HD. End of story.

It also does 5.1 audio and progressive DVD playback.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Yes it does. Even with 1 game it shows that the cheap, small hardware CAN DO HD. End of story.

So can the Wii. It just doesn't. End of story.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So can the Wii. It just doesn't. End of story.

And the story sucks.

[pyrite]

Originally Posted by starman 

Are you saying that 18-35 year olds are NOT "obsessed with graphics"?

Please quote your source.

Nintendo could have EASILY supported 720p without any kind of major upgrade to how their software works. The hardware's capable of it.

thankyou starman! T-H-A-N-K-Y-O-U!!!!

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by ort888 

False. Nintendo has always been on the cutting edge of graphics. I have no idea where all of this "Nintendo has always been about Gameplay over graphics" stuff comes from, because it simply isn't true. All of the nintendo classics, and I mean ALL OF THEM, had cutting edge graphics when they were released.

Originally Posted by icruise 

To say that Nintendo never cared about graphics is a bizarre revisionist viewpoint that seems to have been cooked up to justify the Wii's lack of graphical prowess. I think you can make an argument that the Wii's approach is a valid one, but it's very much a new direction for Nintendo to take.

I also think the idea that Nintendo has never been on the cutting edge is laughable. The Wii itself is on the cutting edge when it comes to motion sensing -- so much so that NOBODY really knew if they could pull off a system based around such a controller. (Apparently they can.)

I've never said that Nintendo's never cared about graphics, nor that their consoles haven't been on par with the competition. Let me explain:

Yes, the SNES had more graphics-power than the Genesis. Even the GameCube was rather impressive graphically. But I think Nintendo's always understood how to balance their systems. This time the innovation is the controller. And it is cutting-edge. But contrary to Nintendo, Sony seems to be going over the top with their new console, without regard for balance, which puts it beyond the grasp of many potential gamers.

It reminds me a bit of how Sega always went bleeding, cutting-edge and ended up paying for it afterwards, with reduced battery life and games too fast for the screen on the Game Gear, while Nintendo slowly updated its Game Boy line with more and more features as they matured, for instance.

Graphics are not my number one priority, but I do care about them, and I wouldn't have minded if the Wii were even more capable in this regard. However, I find he tradeoff to be rather acceptable for the unique, innovative controllers and price, just for starters.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I argued earlier that given Nintendo's position in the market, releasing a $400+ system would be suicide, and I still think that's true. Do you think people would be flocking to a $400-$500 Wii, even if it did support HD? I don't. They needed to keep costs low, so they could devote develop time and money to the control scheme.

I agree with that. Also, releasing a HD capable consome would mean competing on visuals with XB360 and PS3, something the Wii just cannot do. that would have been marketing suicide. Also no one is saying the Wii cant do HD. Any machine with some memory can do HD, as long as you limit:
-vertex data and polygons
-textures
-draw distances

And with GT on the PS2 they did just that.

30 Million HDTVs in the U.S. thats awesome....so that's roughly 10% of the population, why would a company develop and price a "platform" for 10% of the population ? what value would the other 90% people gain from a HD console ? Also, the HD adoption rate is probably higher in the U.S. so what does that mean for customers outside the U.S. without HDTVs ? is it worth the hike in price ?

My point is...when you are deploying a platform, the added price , to keep a mere 10% of the population happy is not worth it. At worst, if they alienate that 10%, they still have the 90% to focus on (which is what Nintendo are doing) and not the other way around, wich is what Sony is doing.

[pyrite]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I agree with that. Also, releasing a HD capable consome would mean competing on visuals with XB360 and PS3, something the Wii just cannot do. that would have been marketing suicide. Also no one is saying the Wii cant do HD. Any machine with some memory can do HD, as long as you limit:
-vertex data and polygons
-textures
-draw distances

And with GT on the PS2 they did just that.

30 Million HDTVs in the U.S. thats awesome....so that's roughly 10% of the population, why would a company develop and price a "platform" for 10% of the population ? what value would the other 90% people gain from a HD console ? Also, the HD adoption rate is probably higher in the U.S. so what does that mean for customers outside the U.S. without HDTVs ? is it worth the hike in price ?

My point is...when you are deploying a platform, the added price , to keep a mere 10% of the population happy is not worth it. At worst, if they alienate that 10%, they still have the 90% to focus on (which is what Nintendo are doing) and not the other way around, wich is what Sony is doing.

ppl are talking like sony and xbox are choosing the 10% over the 90%, but arent they just catering for both by creating systems that have the ability to display HD content?

it's not like their alienating SD customers by giving people the ability to run HD if they have the display for it.. that seems smarter to me, as they're covering all of the market, instead of losing the 10 who are very often the people who will buy into new technologies, including game consoles.

people with HD = people with money = people who can afford to buy another console... why alienate the 10% of the population who are probably the most likely to buy up on new machines?

[pyrite]

^ to add to the above, however, i do agree hawkeye that sony have taken this philosophy a little too far by creating a console only the well-off can afford. a little too much expensive technology in one box

[- - e r i k - -]

After acquiring a Wii for myself and playing it for about a week or so I have come to the conclusion that it is not actually PARTICIPATING in the console wars at all. It has carved a niche all on it's own. It's not about graphics, it's not about tech, but purely about the fun you get from interacting physically with the game.

The comparisons to Xbox 360 or the PS3 are rendered completely meaningless by this as it does not even compete in that niche. Shame it took 69 pages of nerd-politics for people to realise this. The fact that both managers of the "competition" both recommended the Wii as a "second console" should have clued people in.

There is no competition here, the Wii is in a league of it's own. Now please continue with the 360 vs PS3 discussion.

[pyrite]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

After acquiring a Wii for myself and playing it for about a week or so I have come to the conclusion that it is not actually PARTICIPATING in the console wars at all. It has carved a niche all on it's own. It's not about graphics, it's not about tech, but purely about the fun you get from interacting physically with the game.

The comparisons to Xbox 360 or the PS3 are rendered completely meaningless by this as it does not even compete in that niche. Shame it took 69 pages of nerd-politics for people to realise this. The fact that both managers of the "competition" both recommended the Wii as a "second console" should have clued people in.

There is no competition here, the Wii is in a league of it's own. Now please continue with the 360 vs PS3 discussion.

i think all we're trying to say is that HD support would have been a nice gesture, and a thing that would make the machine hold its own for more years to come, we're not saying that it needs to compete with 360 or PS3 in terms of detail or graphical horsepower.. i, for one, am not saying it needs to compete, i don't mind the simplistic graphics at all..

but simplistic graphics in HD? it's can't be that hard!!

[- - e r i k - -]

Note that in no way, shape or form did I mention HD-support in my post. I was merely arguing that this whole debate and in fact the whole "console war" is meaningless to the Wii and it's owners.

And for the record, I would have appreciated HD resolution from it as well.

[pyrite]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Note that in no way, shape or form did I mention HD-support in my post. I was merely arguing that this whole debate and in fact the whole "console war" is meaningless to the Wii and it's owners.

And for the record, I would have appreciated HD resolution from it as well.

my mistake, point taken

[pyrite]

in that light i agree, nintendo have put themselves out of the war and started their own niche, and wii gamers don't really need to enter into (or care about) the argument at all

[icruise]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

The comparisons to Xbox 360 or the PS3 are rendered completely meaningless by this as it does not even compete in that niche. Shame it took 69 pages of nerd-politics for people to realise this. The fact that both managers of the "competition" both recommended the Wii as a "second console" should have clued people in.

I and (I think) a few others have already made that point, but I guess it bears repeating. I think the question of whether Nintendo is actually expanding the gaming population is a very good one to ask. If they are actually appealing to non-gamers and to gamers who buy it as a second console, then even if the Wii sells fantastically, it won't necessarily mean that fewer people will be buying the Xbox or PS3. We tend to think of this as a zero-sum game, where every sale of one console is a lost sale for the other two, but that's not necessarily true.

[Dark Helmet]

Nintendo said from day one they aren't competing with the others. We all get it.

The thing that gets everyone is the HD thing. Competing or not it sucks!

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by pyrite 

ppl are talking like sony and xbox are choosing the 10% over the 90%, but arent they just catering for both by creating systems that have the ability to display HD content?

it's not like their alienating SD customers by giving people the ability to run HD if they have the display for it.. that seems smarter to me, as they're covering all of the market, instead of losing the 10 who are very often the people who will buy into new technologies, including game consoles.

people with HD = people with money = people who can afford to buy another console... why alienate the 10% of the population who are probably the most likely to buy up on new machines?

I agree for the most part, however there have been some 360 games that are basically unplayable on SD TVs - because they were designed with HD sets in mind the text on SD sets is too small to read.

[pyrite]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Nintendo said from day one they aren't competing with the others. We all get it.

The thing that gets everyone is the HD thing. Competing or not it sucks!

bingo.. it might have cost nintendo another 30-50 bucks per console to get them to a level that confidently puts out HD, they may have even initially lost a few $ per console sale for the first 12 months like M$ and Sony, but in the end it would have made a lot of people a lot more happy at the presentation of the games. and like i stated earlier, the "10% of the population" that have HD are a very important 10%, as they are early adopters of new electronics, including consoles, and are people with money to buy more games etc

[pyrite]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I agree for the most part, however there have been some 360 games that are basically unplayable on SD TVs - because they were designed with HD sets in mind the text on SD sets is too small to read.

i've heard this, it's disappointing.. but thats in the hands of the game developers. they really shouldn't be making games too hard to play in standard def, it's way too early for that

[Hawkeye_a]

pyrite, good point. and i agree with you about the HD thing actually...the PS3 and XB360 are trying to cater to everyone. but like u mentioned the high price doesnt seem justifible to the other 90%. thats my point. And if 3-4 years down the line, HD is what the norm is, Nntendo can release a Wii2 with HD and release it at $250(presumably), and the total cost will be $500 (the price of a PS3 today). so instead of spending $500 today for a HD console when most ppl dont have HDTVs, they spend $250 now, and $250 3-4 years from now.

At WORST it'll cost $600, which is the same price as the PS3, and knowing console cycles...4-5 years from now, Sony and M$ will have a new console on the market as well (if they deem it worthwhile since they are loosing a lot right now, and M$ still hasnt turned a profit).

Also some news sites are reporting the Wii has sold through 3.19 million consoles worldwide. pretty good for 40 days.

Also, DH...would u honestly want to see a WIi game in HD, there arent as many polygons, and high-res textures o make it look that much better at the higher resolution. it'll probably look sharper but all blocky, wont it ?

IF Nintendo had made the Wii capable of outputting in HD...there would be a tendency to compare the Wii's visulas to the other 2, and in all honesty, the Wii just wouldnt be able to compete, and would be a marketing disaster.

[Dark Helmet]

"Metal Gear Solid creator Hideo Kojima let out a few choice tidbits in a recent issue of GamePro magazine. His big, huge title MGS 4 is currently a PS3 exclusive and should stir up much interest in Sony's new console when it is eventually released. So, Hideo, what do you think about Blu-ray? Dish!

You may hear Blu-ray is huge, gigantic, 20 GB or so, but that's not really that big to us. One basic [gameplay] with HD visual and 5.1 sound takes up so much space that the capacity will become too small in no time."

[Calimus]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

"Metal Gear Solid creator Hideo Kojima let out a few choice tidbits in a recent issue of GamePro magazine. His big, huge title MGS 4 is currently a PS3 exclusive and should stir up much interest in Sony's new console when it is eventually released. So, Hideo, what do you think about Blu-ray? Dish!

You may hear Blu-ray is huge, gigantic, 20 GB or so, but that's not really that big to us. One basic [gameplay] with HD visual and 5.1 sound takes up so much space that the capacity will become too small in no time."

Interestingly, in the same interview he says he can't wait to finish up MGS4 so he can work on Wii, and his comments on HD

"We’re not the ones who are saying we want HD. I’m not interested, myself, about HD at all. MGS games tend not to care about how clean the screen looks…we deliberately make the graphics look dirtier to give the atmosphere more life."

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Calimus 

Interestingly, in the same interview he says he can't wait to finish up MGS4 so he can work on Wii, and his comments on HD

"We’re not the ones who are saying we want HD. I’m not interested, myself, about HD at all. MGS games tend not to care about how clean the screen looks…we deliberately make the graphics look dirtier to give the atmosphere more life."

Ya so?

"I’m not interested, myself"
Good thing there are million who are as they are the ones BUYING it.

And please tell me how you got the fanboy line of "He can't wait to finish up MGS4" from this sentence:
"Wii! [laughs] Yes, I want to do it. I'm saying this everyday. But first, I have to face this giant that is called Metal Gear Solid 4, so until I'm finished with that, I can't do anything."

[pyrite]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

"His big, huge title MGS 4 is currently a PS3 exclusive

maybe not...

IGN: MGS4 Rumored for Xbox 360

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by pyrite 

maybe not...

IGN: MGS4 Rumored for Xbox 360

Good thing I got all system and don't care what is exclusive to what.

[pyrite]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Good thing I got all system and don't care what is exclusive to what.

u lucky bastard!

[ort888]

Hear is a snippet of a conversation I heard today between two 40 somethings in my office building...

Man: Blah blah Nintendo Wii...
Woman: Oh right, the nintendo Wii
Man: Yeah, it's really cool, you just move your arms around
Woman: Yeah, I heard it was even better then the Playstation 3

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Hear is a snippet of a conversation I heard today between two 40 somethings in my office building...

Man: Blah blah Nintendo Wii...
Woman: Oh right, the nintendo Wii
Man: Yeah, it's really cool, you just move your arms around
Woman: Yeah, I heard it was even better then the Playstation 3

Finally, conclusive proof the Wii is outselling the PS3.

[pyrite]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Finally, conclusive proof the Wii is outselling the PS3.

yeah, conclusive they might as well say a banana is better than a hedgehog

[icruise]

Originally Posted by pyrite 

yeah, conclusive they might as well say a banana is better than a hedgehog

I can say conclusively that bananas are better than hedgehogs. Hedgehogs are WAY harder to peel, and their spines hurt your gums when you put them in hedgehog splits.

[Dakar²]

They're also better dancers.

[pyrite]

sonic has way more personality tho... let these be the symbols of the console wars;
the banana for his tastiness, his milkshake applications and peelability.. and the hedgehog for his personality and incredible speed

[cSurfr]

Well, my local Target has a few of the 60gb PS3s in stock. . . I saw a couple people looking at it and decided they'd rather have the 360 and bought one of those instead. . . though I'm sure it'll be gone tomorrow. And besides, everyone knows the banana is better than sonic. . . see below.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Interesting article:

ABC News: PlayStation 3 -- a Bust or a Boon for Sony?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Interesting article:

ABC News: PlayStation 3 -- a Bust or a Boon for Sony?

And here comes the post-Christmas steep demand drop off...

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Good thing I got all system and don't care what is exclusive to what.

Exactly why I bought a PS3 to go with my 360. Well that, and my 360 crapped out on me after 355 days.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by goMac 

And here comes the post-Christmas steep demand drop off...

...and a raging hard-on in your pants at the thought.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Exactly why I bought a PS3 to go with my 360. Well that, and my 360 crapped out on me after 355 days.

Surprisingly even though I have the first run of 360's and it was one of the units that got the "Extended warranty" a months ago my 360 is still kicking.

But... the other day I turned it on and it gave me the ring of death. I turned it on and off a few times but it didn't help. Finally I unplugged everything for a minute and tried it again and all was fine.

I have an extended 3 year warranty so eventually I am going to send this one back either way to make sure I get one of the newer units. Perhaps I'll wait until there is a true rev B though. The stupid thing about the MS warranty though is I have to pay for shipping the unit TO them (luckily within my city though).

On the same note though my first 360 was messed up out of the box as it crashed 7 times in one day. Returned that one to the store and got a new one, which other than the one problem above has been perfect.

However out of the 5 people I know that got a 360, FOUR of them have died out of the box or within a few months. Eug's is the only one I know that hasn't gone belly up.

[Eug]

^^^ Interesting. I've never even had a single crash during gaming. Quite frankly I'm shocked. I would have expected a crash by now, cuz games always have bugs. I did have one lockup once in an HD DVD menu though, but I suspect that is software related, as I wasn't even playing the movie at the time. A reset cleared everything.

When did your friends buy their 360s? Note that I got mine in April, a very long time after the 360 was released, and after many of the game updates were already released too. I do play my 360 less than most people I'd guess also. I don't even have Gears of War yet.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Eug 

When did your friends buy their 360s? I got mine in April, a very long time after the 360 was released. Note though that I play my 360 less than most people I'd guess. I don't even have Gears of War yet.

The weird thing is they all got them within the last 4 months so I would have thought they would be trouble free.

It is not that the games just crash though as that isn't so bad. The problem is the red lights and the system not turning on.

Anywho, about that rev B xbox I was hoping for:

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/05/th...ducing-zephyr/

[Eug]

^^^ Holy crap.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Eug 

^^^ Holy crap.

Question though. If I have that above Xbox and use HDMI for video where do I put the optical out as that is built into the current Xbox cable?