Revolution will not include HD...err HDTV [CONFIRMED] [Archive]

poopnes

06-11-2005, 01:23 AM

Nintendojo (http://www.nintendojo.com/infocus/view_item.php?1118458704)

The news is also on IGN Cube.

Perrin Kaplan of NoA has confirmed there will be NO High Def support for the Revolution. WTF?!!! Seriously, I am hurt. HURT NINTENDO! I don't know why but I just figured this was a given. It was there for GC, why not the Rev. Before I read this I was so hyped for the Rev, but now I just don't know anymore. I know that HD isn't everything, but I seemed like they were making some really smart choices, and then BAM. Nintendo goes and does their own little f*cked up thing like they always do. I really have nothing else to say.

tylerwillis

06-11-2005, 01:34 AM

Being discussed here:

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62263&highlight=pimp

Thought your post indicated lack of Hard Drive... :)

Ed Oscuro

06-11-2005, 01:38 AM

Question,

Why do people still post links to Nintendojo?

Sincerely,
Mystified in Michigan

Poofta!

06-11-2005, 01:42 AM

yeah im dissapointed but hey, youre saying like nintendo hasnt done stupid things before (erhm, broke contract with sony; carts for n64; no dvd playback/internet for GC; ds)

btw, whats wrong with nintendojo?

oh yeah, and ill still be buying the Rev, as long as theres at least 1 game im interested in.

poopnes

06-11-2005, 01:56 AM

Meh, didn't look back far enough. Mods feel free to lock this if you'd like. Posted this because its confirmed now (the other thread's last post was June 3rd).

PS. I posted the Ninendojo link because the IGN Cube article is 3 pages long. The Nintendojo post gets to the point. And I wouldn't have posted the Nintendojo link unless they themselves had a credible source. We all know how those fanboys can be (even when its bad news). ;) Still, its one of my daily stops (along with PlanetGamecube.

Half Japanese

06-11-2005, 02:42 AM

Is anyone else really surprised to see Nintendo taking steps backwards (literally)? They've been milking the living shit out of their franchises for the past two generations anyway, and now that they've got a serious competitor in the handheld division, their attempted distractions are looking a little long in the tooth (not to mention flimsy). Albeit, HD support isn't a system-seller to most folks, it matters to enough people and is simple enough to include that it shouldn't be up for discussion whether or not to include it. Even at e3 this year, save for Zelda, I don't think they really wowed anyone who didn't already enter their conference with a boner anyway. It's still great to see Reggie show all that bark and enthusiasm when his company's output is more or less a...well...Nintendog. Another round of third place for Nintendo, methinks.

Ed Oscuro

06-11-2005, 03:50 AM

Indeed. I'm getting to the point where I don't feel that it's worth going with a Nintendo console just for a few great exclusives, at the expense of missing out on EVERY GAME EVER MADE (so it seems at times LOL ). They might just possibly have something to counter this with; clearly they seem committed to gaming instead of tech and it seems some key developers are on board with the idea of cheaper-to-produce games. So...we'll see. Their steps might not all be backwards, as this one seems; for me the biggest issue is bringing those third-party games to the console.

Push Upstairs

06-11-2005, 04:43 AM

Nintendo is going to be in some serious crap if HD really takes off during the course of this generation.

I know this is going to be sacrilegious but oh well, thier offering the download of thier older games is weak.

I'd rather be shown Nintendo is still a major player, instead i'm just being reminded that thier best games came out 10+ years ago.

Sylentwulf

06-11-2005, 06:21 AM

Bah, HD took off for me years ago, around the time the CURRENT gen came out. If Nintendo isn't going to have a HD console for ANOTHER 5 years, they're just plain stupid.

scooterb23

06-11-2005, 07:50 AM

So, you're saying that the Revolution will not be (High Definition) televised??

ozyr

06-11-2005, 08:00 AM

Ah heck, I personally don't care if any of the upcoming systems have HD or not. The game play is all I've ever really cared for, plain and simple (it's why I like the classics so much).

And if this decision makes Nintendo stay #3, that's is fine by me too. I like the underdog! :D

joshnickerson

06-11-2005, 09:20 AM

I honestly don't know ANYONE at this point who owns an HD TV. Is the difference really THAT great anyway? And even if it did support HD, would the casual gamer even own a HDTV, or more to the point, even bother to hook it up properly? Chances are he'd just plug the A/V cables in and be done with it. HD would be nice for people who own the TVs for it, but I really don't see it being a system killer.

I'm not sure about this next point, so it is quite debatable. Nintendo said they're trying to make the system friendly for smaller, low budged developers. Wouldn't a game's budget expand greatly if they had to worry about tweaking the graphics enough to looks good in HD?

Sylentwulf

06-11-2005, 09:42 AM

I don't know anyone that DOESN'T have one. I think that's almost all they sell in stores around here now. There isn't much of a price difference unless you get into plasma screen, which use more EDTV than HDTV to keep the price down.

Personally, I don't see THAT much of a difference, but there IS a difference, and when I can toggle back and forth in a game like beyond good and evil, I DO notice it clear as day.

Basically my view of the matter is, why NOT put HD on the revolution? Is it the cost? what is it like $3.00 extra per console to manufacture? What the hell is the logic of purposefully NOT including it? Is there ANY benefit?

Ed Oscuro

06-11-2005, 11:09 AM

I don't have an HDTV. Never expected that out of my consoles, and while it'd be nice I'll probably be happy enough with the pretty pictures at the beginning of the next gen :P

Kid Ice

06-11-2005, 11:24 AM

So, you're saying that the Revolution will not be (High Definition) televised??

Why do I feel like that is not the last time I will be hearing that expression applied to the console... :hmm:

Cobra Commander

06-11-2005, 11:31 AM

NEOFREAK9189

06-11-2005, 11:33 AM

Revolution will not include HDTV tha is suck I have HDTV my gamecube look nice

poopnes

06-11-2005, 12:55 PM

The day I can afford to piss away $2,000 on a television, that's the day I start caring. I've never seen one anyway that wasn't in a store. I know nobody who owns one or who cares enough right now. In 10 years when these wonderful hi-def 52 inch screens are $300, then it will mean something. Until then it's worthless.

I know its not the same, but you can get a 27" HDTV (sans tuner) for 294$. I think its a Sanyo. OK seriously not the best brand or anything, but goes to show you that its becoming cheaper by the day. I care. I'm looking for a new TV. I'm not going to buy a standard set when I know what's coming. I believe all the major networks are already broadcasting everything in HD, it just depends on where you live if you get it or not. This is the future, it will happen with this next gen cycle, and its a big deal when Nintendo seems to ignore the quite obvious. You don't have to have a 52" Plasma to get a much better quality picture than you get now. Maybe I'm not the norm, but the increase in quality to me is phenominal, and I can't wait till I get me mine.

Push Upstairs

06-11-2005, 02:00 PM

I honestly don't know ANYONE at this point who owns an HD TV. Is the difference really THAT great anyway?

I can remember a time when people didnt believe there was a difference in quality between a VHS and a DVD.

A good (not crappy VHS transfer) DVD *IS* better looking than a VHS.

Is there a difference between "regular" and HDTV? Yes. My GF and i were at Circuit City and they had a basketball game playing on a HDTV...you could see the faces of the people in the background crowd...everything was sharper and cleaner.

My girlfriend isnt a tech-head and even she knows whats HD just by looking at a TV screen.

Ed Oscuro

06-11-2005, 02:13 PM

So, you're saying that the Revolution will not be (High Definition) televised??

Why do I feel like that is not the last time I will be hearing that expression applied to the console... :hmm:
At the current rate, the saying might as well be "The Revolution will not be Televised." ;O

PDorr3

06-11-2005, 02:15 PM

well i dont have an hdtv so im all fine about it :)

Zubiac666

06-11-2005, 02:59 PM

everyone calm down for godsake!

Rev WILL have VGA output so you will get your damn HDTV picture.Any serious HDTV should feature a VGA input.otherwise get one of those goddamn VGA boxes or a huge f*cking PC-monitor.

personaly I couldn't care less.I played HDTV at my friends place and it gave me nothing.uhhh.... higher resolut�on .....fuck that(for that price).
And I don't know why but no "HD 100 yards widescreen 16:9 superduper �ber TV" has a better picture(especialy in motion) than my 17years old TV(it is even made in austria).The quality of the picture my TV displays is just awesome.

hdtv my ass

Griking

06-11-2005, 03:07 PM

I know its not the same, but you can get a 27" HDTV (sans tuner) for 294$. I think its a Sanyo. OK seriously not the best brand or anything, but goes to show you that its becoming cheaper by the day.

Just out of curiosity, why would anyone want a television set with no tuner? Granted I know that you don't need a tuner to play games but I think at some point i MAY want to watch television on it. Besides, if you're going to buy a set just to play games on it then why not just get a large computer monitor instead?

Gamereviewgod

06-11-2005, 03:58 PM

And I don't know why but no "HD 100 yards widescreen 16:9 superduper �ber TV" has a better picture(especialy in motion) than my 17years old TV(it is even made in austria).The quality of the picture my TV displays is just awesome.

Then you have never seen a HDTV running properly, period, or your eyes suck.

le geek

06-11-2005, 04:29 PM

I'll state it here as well. I do not care AT ALL that the Nintendo is not supporting HD. IMO, if you are a gamer first, videophile second YOU shouldn't care either.

Period.

Now that's just my opinion though, so I'll let y'all have at it.

Cheers,
Ben

Sylentwulf

06-11-2005, 04:53 PM

The day I can afford to piss away $2,000 on a television, that's the day I start caring. I've never seen one anyway that wasn't in a store. I know nobody who owns one or who cares enough right now. In 10 years when these wonderful hi-def 52 inch screens are $300, then it will mean something. Until then it's worthless.

Where the fuck do you live? You can get a 52" HDTV for around a thousand, and as someone else said, you can get a normal sized hdtv for under $300. The price difference between 2 36" TV's, one with high def, and one without, same brand, are so minimal that NOT getting a HDTV would just be flat out stupid at this point in time.

As for wanting one without a tuner, because most DON'T have tuners. The cable box you WILL end up renting has a tuner built into it (imagine that) which would make the tuner you paid SO MUCH extra for absolutely obsolete.

poopnes

06-11-2005, 05:01 PM

The day I can afford to piss away $2,000 on a television, that's the day I start caring. I've never seen one anyway that wasn't in a store. I know nobody who owns one or who cares enough right now. In 10 years when these wonderful hi-def 52 inch screens are $300, then it will mean something. Until then it's worthless.

Where the fuck do you live? You can get a 52" HDTV for around a thousand, and as someone else said, you can get a normal sized hdtv for under $300. The price difference between 2 36" TV's, one with high def, and one without, same brand, are so minimal that NOT getting a HDTV would just be flat out stupid at this point in time.

As for wanting one without a tuner, because most DON'T have tuners. The cable box you WILL end up renting has a tuner built into it (imagine that) which would make the tuner you paid SO MUCH extra for absolutely obsolete.

Bingo, a cable box--if Charter ever brings HD to my area. You only need that tuner for over the air channels. And I can only get 2 over the air regular channels right now anyway, so its a mute point for me (at least). I get free cable with my apartment, but I hardly ever watch TV anyway. Its only for games and DVDs.

SirDrexl

06-11-2005, 06:15 PM

Digital satellite systems like DirectTV also use their own tuners.

BTW, the FCC mandate for digital television will only require that broadcasters transmit a digital signal. It doesn't have to be in high definition, it could just be 480p if they wanted (if it's not 720p or higher it isn't considered high definition). I expect that consumer demand will cause most of them to broadcast in high definition, but it's by no means guaranteed that they will.

DeputyMoniker

06-11-2005, 07:46 PM

everyone calm down for godsake!

Rev WILL have VGA output so you will get your damn HDTV picture.Any serious HDTV should feature a VGA input.otherwise get one of those goddamn VGA boxes or a huge f*cking PC-monitor.

personaly I couldn't care less.I played HDTV at my friends place and it gave me nothing.uhhh.... higher resolut�on .....fuck that(for that price)...hdtv my ass

:devilish: :onfire: :devilish: :onfire: :devilish: :onfire: :devilish: :onfire: :devilish: :onfire: :devilish:
Whoa whoa...calm down. Have you been drinking? LOL

OdSquad64

06-11-2005, 09:59 PM

im glad the Revolution doesnt have HD, just to piss off the the people who wasted their money on an HDTV. I have a regular 32" TV that i paid $290 for and its perfect. I havn't seen a 32" HDTV for more than twice that. If i spent $290 on an HDTV i couldn't get anything bigger than a 27" TV and thats way too small of a TV for me. Also, in my area there are literally 3 HD channels, and you have to pay extra to get them. The picture quality of an HDTV isnt that much better than a regular TV and anyone who says otherwise is trying to justify their spending twice as much for a TV. Im not sure how much clearer the picture needs to be, I can see everything on the sceen in perfect lifelike quality, what am i missing that i should pay twice as much to see? these no way on earth you can justify that. now when i can get a 32" HDTV for $290, i will definitely get one, but not until then, its just not worth it.

Gamereviewgod

06-11-2005, 10:47 PM

im glad the Revolution doesnt have HD, just to piss off the the people who wasted their money on an HDTV. I have a regular 32" TV that i paid $290 for and its perfect. I havn't seen a 32" HDTV for more than twice that. The picture quality of an HDTV isnt that much better than a regular TV and anyone who says otherwise is trying to justify their spending twice as much for a TV

If you've seen a HDTV running in 1080i (or 720p of course), there's no way you can say there's no improvement. The problem is most people see these TV's in stores and the idiots hook them up using composite cables or they're running a standard cable signal. Of course there's not going to a difference. See a NFL game or something running in full glory, and you'll see just what an improvement it is.

For gaming, it's a huge difference. There's a reason PC gaming fanatcis like their games running in 1080 x 800 or some such resolution. It cuts down on all the jaggies, makes enemies easier to identify, and of course, it just looks better.

I paid $500 for my 32' inch HDTV a year ago. Now, you could probably get this same set for about a $100 less, if not more. They're not that expensive anymore. And we didn't waste our money. We're going to have to upgrade eventually, and I was in the market for a TV anyway. Actually, this probably saved me money since I didn't buy another standard set.

Gurn13

06-11-2005, 11:40 PM

I got my 64" HDTV 18 months ago for $1500. :D

On my cable system (Time Warner) I get in HD:

UPN, WB, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, TNT, PBS (x2), INHD (x2) and Discovery HD Theater. These all Kick the crap out of the equivalent SD versions quality wise. Oh, and no extra charge for these either.

Also to all you naysayers... good luck finding a NEW 42"+ non-HDTV. I don't think they make 'em anymore.
:roll:

NEOFREAK9189

06-12-2005, 12:33 AM

so the new nintendo have vga out buy this
Audio Authority VGA to Component (Y-Pb-Pr) Transcoder
frequencies used (1080i or 720p)
soon I have 1 for my pc

http://www.digitalconnection.com/pr.../video/9a60.asp

Half Japanese

06-12-2005, 06:00 PM

Just so we can clear the air here, please make the following substitutions:

"I don't care, I don't have one," "It's not that big of a difference"

-REPLACE WITH-

"I can't afford one, or haven't educated myself on prices," "Being blissfully ignorant is a hobby of mine"

It's like the fullscreen vs. widescreen debate, arguements for the inferior setup are rarely well-defended and are smokescreens for ignorance more often than not. I doubt very many of you will still be using regular tube TV's well into the generation following the upcoming one.

Ed Oscuro

06-12-2005, 06:07 PM

Half Japanese

06-12-2005, 06:32 PM

Arguments for the inferior setup?

a.) Analog is a lifeline for the poor
b.) Digital broadcasts on higher frequencies will use much more power (not an inherent fault of the technology).
c.) Companies playing the rev game with us on newer, higher-def TVs every few years could happen; it's already happened with PC monitors.

I'm not arguing against poor people (what with less than $5 in my bank account right now), I'm just saying that HD support should be there. I'm not saying take out support for regular televisions (though I think coax is about done for), just don't overlook those of us who have HD setups. As far as the pluses and minuses of HD television broadcasts, that's of little to no concern to me (I only use mine for games and DVDs, and in the rare instance I do watch TV, it's on regular-ass cable).

SoulBlazer

06-12-2005, 08:57 PM

I agree. I paid good money for my HDTV setup, the prices are coming down to make them affordable for everyone now, the industry is SLOWLY going that way -- I WANT all my games to be in HDTV support now, but keep it in regular support as well so no one is FORCED to upgrade. Still, Nintendo should realize that HDTV is the wave of the future and catch it -- not limit their options at this stage. I guess this means more of support goes to Sony and Microsoft for thinking ahead. Gee, Nintendo not thinking ahead but relying on their past success -- what else is new? :)

Ed Oscuro

06-12-2005, 09:08 PM

I'm not arguing against poor people
I'm not arguing against you. Just posting it all together for convenience and air-clearing freshness.

poopnes

06-13-2005, 01:06 AM

so the new nintendo have vga out buy this

You know throughout all the E3 talk, I never saw this mentioned again. If Nintendo isn't supporting HDTV because of cost, I can't see them including this either. That just wouldn't make sense.

I know there's people that can't tell the difference or don't want to see the difference between HDTV and regular TV, but the simple fact is, there IS a huge difference. If you're really picky about how things look on your TV, it will matter most. The reason this lack of HDTV support on the Rev bothers me most, is because I'm going to buy one. I want everything that I buy to take full support of it. My TV works fine, except the S-Video port. Its just worn out and no matter how much I jiggle it I can't get the image for more than a second. Right now I can't stand playing games on my TV because the best connection I can use is composite. And to me the difference between composite and S-Video is also staggering. Yes, I'm picky, but I want a nice clear, sharp picture. I want to see those individual pixels in my PS1 and SNES games. I want to know I'm seeing things like I should be.

If you're happy with your regular TV then I'm happy for you. Its your choice, but for me and I'm sure lots of other people we're ready to move on. We don't have to give up anything, and we get something better in return. Nintendo ignoring this inevitable technology change is just, well, stupid. Its not as bad as them forgoing CD's, but its pretty damn close.

Here's to hoping that Nintendo does reveal all of its cards before the PS3 launches. Because now I'm not so sure what system I'm going to buy.

tynstar

06-13-2005, 01:16 AM

WOW! What a surprise some thing Nintendo is doing that may be shooting themselves in the foot. This will now be the 3rd Next Gen console I get instead of the 1st.

Stupid Nintendo. I wish tey would just drop out of the home system race.

tynstar

06-13-2005, 01:20 AM

Anthony1

06-14-2005, 12:49 AM

TeddyRuxpin

06-14-2005, 07:51 AM

Nintendo ignoring this inevitable technology change is just, well, stupid. Its not as bad as them forgoing CD's, but its pretty damn close.

It's interesting to see people's despise for Nintendo's choices that they don't agree with. It's so easy AFTER the event happens to criticize. Unless you were there working at Nintendo and were making an effort to get them to use discs instead of carts on the n64 you can't really complain. The N64 did extremely well and has many excellent titles. So what if Nintendo didn't use CDs and 'may' have suffered slightly for it. Everyone makes mistakes at some point.

Considering all the success Nintendo had in a relatively short amount of time in the US (ie: 1985 to 1998) They haven't had that many failures. Quite the opposite. They withheld GBA because GBC was selling well. Now think about that. People willingly bought GBC when GBA technology existed In hiding). Seems to me that's a great marketing tactic. And it's not like they left GB/GBC behind completely. They included backwards compatibility in GBA as well as GameCube's GameBoy Player.

The few major failures they've had weren't big enough to bring down the company. Let's take an obvious example, VirtualBoy. People complain that VirtualBoy should have had color. Well, If Nintendo had poured the money into that, which would driven the retail cost up dramatically and had it still failed, that might have actually brought Nintendo to it's knees.

Mayhem

06-14-2005, 08:15 AM

It seems to me that Nintendo are taking a fairly world wide look at things as they stand HD wise. And the only country with a fairly significant HD user base (and likely to go up in reasonable percentage terms in the near future) is the USA.

HD has hardly hit Europe and it hasn't done much yet in Japan either. Maybe Microsoft and Sony's support will kick start things, or maybe they won't.

Part of the problem, at least in the UK, is the price. We'd have to pay twice as much to get the same sort of set. Way out of my league at the moment really.

Then there's the standard. I'm sure Sony and Microsoft are not going to have the same minimum standard as each other. So your set will have to support both. And not all sets support all the different types just yet.

It's going to be as tricky to navigate and decide as the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD malarky at the moment.

poopnes

06-14-2005, 02:57 PM

Then there's the standard. I'm sure Sony and Microsoft are not going to have the same minimum standard as each other. So your set will have to support both. And not all sets support all the different types just yet.

Actually all the new consoles will still hook-up to regular sets just fine. So they're all going to have the same minimum standard. Nobody's saying you have to have a new HDTV for these systems, they're just saying for the best picture you do.

And I can critize Nintendo for any choice they make, whether it happened in the past, present or future. And I did complain to Nintendo about the Nintendo 64 and its choice of cartridges. It was January 1997. And I bought a PlayStation, because there were like 3 games worth buying for the N64 at the time (note I bought a N64 at launch). Probably wouldn't have been like that if it took CD's.

Seriously, you don't have to have a HDTV to play the next-gen, but excluding it for neligible cost reasons again is just plain stupid.