Wii could get HD?

[rye9]

I know how the Gamecube went thorough 2 revisions... as did the DS (DS->DS Lite). Might Nintendo first launch the Wii then about a year later release an HD capable one?

[plinkoman]

it has usb ports on it, so there's no reason you couldn't hook up an external hard drive to it.

[rye9]

it has usb ports on it, so there's no reason you couldn't hook up an external hard drive to it.

Sorry, I shouldve been more specific :o . I meant a High Definition, not Hard Drive... sorry for the confusion.

[plinkoman]

Sorry, I shouldve been more specific :o . I meant a High Definition, not Hard Drive... sorry for the confusion.

oh, well in that case, I highly doubt it. If they released an hd one, then it stands to reason that hd games for it would be incompatable with the original wii; and that would be very unlike nintendo.

[kinesin]

oh, well in that case, I highly doubt it. If they released an hd one, then it stands to reason that hd games for it would be incompatable with the original wii; and that would be very unlike nintendo.

Not quite true tho. Adding HD to a future Wii wouldn't stop the game working in SD - it would still be designed to run at either resolution.
WiiHD would just enable the option within the game - assuming main CPU/GPU stayed standard and any RAM upgrade (required for the higher res) was only available as framebuffer etc of the output - not general work.

More likely that their next console would be backward compatible but also with HD support (upscaled) much like halo on xbox360

[Dagless]

Wouldn't happen. For HD games will require higher capacity discs, I'd imagine games like Zelda and Metroid on 2 discs.

I think I'm the only person on this forum who really doesn't care about HD. who hasn't since the mid 90's. To summarise the 'moment'
Mate: Hey play Quake on my PC in 800*600
me: magic!
*goes home* booo I can only play it in 640*480 on my monitor.
me: IT'S THE SAME GAME!

:rolleyes:

[sam10685]

I'd imagine games like Zelda and Metroid on 2 discs.

i don't necessarily think that's true... Metroid for the Cube has incredible graphics all on one 1.5 gigabyte mini disc and the wii will have regular 4.7 gigabyte disc's. (8.5 gigs if u make it double layer.)


I think I'm the only person on this forum who really doesn't care about HD.

wrong again my friend. i don't give a crap about HD. you'd need to spend $1000+ on an HD tv anyway. plus, from the wii graphics we've seen so far; some of them look close to 360 and PS3 stuff. (particularly Excite Truck. that to me almost looks better than the Motorstorm that we saw at E3 for the PS3.)

[ddrueckhammer]

Yup, I really don't care too much about HD right now either. I'm just not that eager to plop down a few grand right now before the standards have been ratified and even more importantaly before Verizon Fios is available at my home...I really could care less if they have to use a couple of disks. My old copy of FFVIII has 4 disks and I think VII had at least 3! Who cares really, its not that big of a deal to change the disks out every 7 or 8 hours...

[Killyp]

HD games don't generally require bigger disks. If I run Quake 4 in 640x480 on my MBP, it doesn't take up any less space than when I run it in 1440x900...

I know what you're saying about textures, but it's more the jaggies along model wires that cause problems...

[Dagless]

Thing is I've sorta have a HDTV, my 2005FPW offers 720 and 1080 (missing 15 pixels one way and 100 another). My cousin has twin 50" HDTV's that he's willing to sell to me if I ever wanted a *real* HDTV at a very generous price.

but it's not just the cost of the TV.

To run HD the Wii would need 3x as much video ram, it would need a faster video card too. Load times would increase. 512mb internal memory wouldn't be enough all of a sudden. not for caching at least. Up goes the (unannounced) cost of the system.

Just to reiterate what I've said countless times. I'm British. All my systems are bought in England. All we have ever had is 480i. I've sampled 480p with EyeTV and it's incredible. Stuff resolution (480p TV looks excellent on my screen) I just want progressive scan :) I don't even run the 360 in 1080i. I care not for HD video players, the game/film trailers I've seen in 720p don't bowl me over as much as they should be doing.

[Tommyg117]

I doubt it will get HD for the reasons jimmi stated. But I do not care that much. I am already expecting lower resolution graphics than xbox 360 and PS3, but I don't really mind because that controller is just so dang innovative.

[thechris69]

ya as long as the game is fun and innovative, then a HD tv doesnt even matter... you get next to the same graphics on a regular tv

[dukebound85]

yea lets get hd on the wii so the games will cost even more to develope and more expensive to buy. I have a 360 and when playing it on a hdtv, i dont like it. the reason being hd makes the games look not as smooth graphically in my opinion. you can easily see more sharp edges and the like. the games im talking about is madden 06 which sucks in my opinion anyways

[it5five]

I wouldn't like it if the Wii went HD, and I certainly wouldn't upgrade like I am with the DS.

The appeal of the Wii, to me, is the innovative controller, and the fact that they aren't stuffing high end useless technology into their system like PS3 and the 360. I don't buy games so I can play them in a "super cool hi-resolution", I buy them because they are enjoyable.

[sk1985]

I know how the Gamecube went thorough 2 revisions...
The gamecube's second revision took out Higher Def support. On a side note if you want to play your wii in high def you could always buy one of the expensive video processing units for HD TVs. Those processing units can take STD def signals and pump them out at a higher rez. So basically it will scale up the video.

[Mord]

Just to reiterate what I've said countless times. I'm British. All my systems are bought in England. All we have ever had is 480i. I've sampled 480p with EyeTV and it's incredible. Stuff resolution (480p TV looks excellent on my screen) I just want progressive scan :) I don't even run the 360 in 1080i. I care not for HD video players, the game/film trailers I've seen in 720p don't bowl me over as much as they should be doing.

PAL is 525i.

which is why HD is not all that amazing over here as our TV is so crystal compared to american TV.

it really does make a large difference with games as you just see more detail, and no the games will not take more space, my original xbox games run fine in 720p.

The gamecube's second revision took out Higher Def support. On a side note if you want to play your wii in high def you could always buy one of the expensive video processing units for HD TVs. Those processing units can take STD def signals and pump them out at a higher rez. So basically it will scale up the video.

thats pointless, thats exactly what HDTV's do normally, they turn the input picture into a native picture for the screen, you'll just be replaceing something you already have.

[BlizzardBomb]

I actually think Nintendo's timing is great. By time they're ready to launch Wii 2, HD will be in pretty much everyone's home.

[Dagless]

PAL is 525i.

which is why HD is not all that amazing over here as our TV is so crystal compared to american TV.

Mad, so my TV is 525p, I wondered why US TV always looked so low quality over here. Very blurry.
For the upscaler bit- regular HDTV's do upscaling but it's without filters or anything special, merely an image resized. Dedicated upscalers cost a fair bit and do a much better job. There's an article in this weekends Live talking about HD myths. Saying again that even if your TV has HDMI/HDCP (whatever it is) and has the "HD Ready" logo you still may need to buy a new one. Especially if it has bad contrast and brightness issues. I can't remember the exact details but it basically spelled doom for early adopters.

HDTV is so far from ready. when equipment for HD is costing this much and having this many problems and doubts, it's a sure sign that we've pushed it a little too far too soon.

[ddrueckhammer]

I still think that if DVD quality online content delivery (iTunes Movie Store or equivalant) is released in the next year at a reasonable cost it will hurt both HD camps tremendously. Most people don't have HDTVs and don't want to spend the money on it despite its advantages. Online content can be used today and people love more convenience (downloading a Movie while making dinner instead of going to Blockbuster or waiting 24-48 hours for a Netflix). Tons of people I know are getting Verizon Fios with a 15Mbps fiber optic connection. This makes big downloads far more feasible, especially if used in concert with a queue system (ala Netflix) and bittorrent technology (to save the provider money on bandwidth). An 802.11n Video Airport Express rather than a computer set-top box could be really nice here as it could lower the costs for people to get video on their TVs from the internet (assuming they already have a computer).

[PlaceofDis]

it doesn't need HD, its not spread enough to warrant the need.
the next gen after the Wii probably will need it though.

[Mord]

for me and many others it would need HD to be a buyable console.

early adopters of consoles are way more likely to own a HDTV and by the time most people buy a wii they will be far more widespread, i just cant play an SD game any more.

[ddrueckhammer]

Hector,

While it is true that for hardcore gamers who would be the most likely early adoptors of a console are more likely to have HDTVs, Nintendo is aiming to expand the market to non-gamers. The non-hardcore/non-gamer market care much more about cost than graphics and are a much larger demographic than the hardcore market. Free (not an extra $10 per month) HD channels with cable and a $200 HD-DVD, a Blue-Ray player are needed before HD will be become widespread. I realize that sub-$1000 HDTVs exist but most buyers want 36"-50" flatscreens. These are still a ways from being below $1000 (the magic number for TVs) as well. I spent over $2000 for an ED plasma a couple of years ago but I am a technophile compared to most I know. This is 2-3 years off and nobody wants to pay for something they won't even use for 2-3 years.

BTW, basic cable looks like *ss on my ED, I can't even imagine how bad it would look on an HD set. European basic TV is much nicer than what we have here in the States. (corporate greed screws us on the technology front) DVDs look fabulous though.

[Mord]

the thing is it's not all that hard to go HD, sure the price tag would go up a hundred bucks or so but it's well worth it, everything is going HD nintendo is makeing a huge mistake not doing so.

[ddrueckhammer]

Yeah but there is a huge mental barrier between a $200 console and a $300 console and if you don't have a $2000+ HDTV it's a waste of money.

[Dagless]

the thing is it's not all that hard to go HD, sure the price tag would go up a hundred bucks or so but it's well worth it, everything is going HD nintendo is makeing a huge mistake not doing so.

Everything is going HD? Which is why HD sales are so low in our country, Hector?
I've read so many articles even from BBC chiefs saying that "HD is premature" and that the golden age of the big HD taking off is many years away.

Plus HD has the "super sharp" problem. After playing Tomb Raider on a mates 360 in full 1080i, then seeing my brothers 480i playing the same game. It was a world of difference. Video cards aren't powerful enough yet to render everything in 1080p without massive amounts of AA to tidy it up. Whereas 480 can offer loads of AA, Anisotropic etc. Everything to make that image more like TV, more natural rather than the super sharp of HD.

Systems don't need HD. They need to look real in 480 before trying to compensate by moving to higher resolutions.

[it5five]

I wouldn't buy the Wii if HD were forced upon me and cost 100 extra dollars. That's almost enough to get two extra games when I get the Wii, which I'd much rather do.

[zero2dash]

Man some of you are seriously misinformed. :)

Gamecube supported 480p on the first model/hardware revision with the digital AV port. Nintendo stopped shipping Gamecubes with that port in 2002, so technically, yes the Gamecube supports HD.

The Wii has long been said (by Nintendo) to support 480p. The most recent spec sheet leak/rumor has me second-guessing this, however. The rumored spec sheet claims that the AV out on the Wii is analog only, which would mean that if it does output 480p, it's not a true digital signal and therefore will look like crap. I'm hoping that they do put a digital AV port in the Wii, or they make the one port a switching digital/analog port so it does both. Either way they're looking at probably (crude estimate) $5 extra console cost, so not putting in a digital AV out is retarded.

As for HDTVs being $1000+, that's utterly ridiculous. Our 7+ year old Sony set crapped out on us two weeks ago and we bought a 30" Samsung widescreen SlimFit CRT HDTV set from Sears for $800 and it's friggin' awesome. It natively supports 480p, 720p and 1080i. (I could care less about 1080p because I'm not buying a Ps3.) There are HD sets that are even cheaper; I've seen Philips 30" widescreen sets at Walmart for $600-$700. HD sets have went down in price A LOT.

And all of these people saying "HD doesn't matter", here's my argument to you. Now that I own an HDTV, I'd like to have the capability. If Nintendo doesn't want to support higher HD resolutions (ie 720p) then I can accept that, but if it costs them $5 more to support it, then frickin' do it. All of you HD naysayers - have you seen games on an HDTV in progressive scan? I seriously doubt it if you're all hating on it because games look incredible in HD and it will only get better.

As for HD gaming requiring larger media/size, that's also BS. Gamecube supports it on their smaller media, and the Wii is reportedly using close to a standard DVD format, so there's no reason to not have at least a minimal HD support there either.

I see a lot of FUD about HD requiring this and that.
If HD required so much, then how'd the Gamecube do it? How does the Xbox support 720p on 6 year old hardware?
HD support does not require higher speed/capacity RAM or video cards; at this point in time anything that comes out should natively support 720p. I don't even think some of you know the ins and outs of HD, either. (Don't get me wrong, I'm still learning myself.) 720p equals out to a display of 1280 pixels x 720 pixels. How long have some of us been running PC games in 1280x1024 (or higher)? A long time. Hell I was running Quake 3 Arena at that resolution on a frickin' Voodoo 3 card back in the late 90s. How would the Wii cost extra or require extra parts when it's more powerful than other consoles (Gamecube) that support HD themselves? Come on guys...HD support doesn't take thousands of dollars and gigs of parts.

I'm not trying to attack anyone or be rude, I'm just trying to educate. If you don't know about HD, don't spread FUD about it or speculate; educate yourself. If I read some of the things in this thread about HD, I'd think I needed a $3000 tv and a system with 2 video cards and 2 gigs of RAM to display in HD and that's rubbish. Until you've played games on an HDTV, you haven't seen the light. The majority of my friends have been ranting and raving about HD gaming for the last two years and I'd play at their houses and be like "yeah whatever, it's not that great", but now that I can do it myself and I've had more time with it, it's awesome. There's nothing like playing a racing game at 480p in widescreen, where the game is sharp, runs at 60fps, and because of the widescreen, you see more of the game and have a larger viewpoint, like you would in real life in a car. I don't have a component cable yet for my Gamecube, so my HD gaming right now is restricted to my original Xbox, but it's still really cool.

Yes, I want a Wii because I've been playing games for 20 years and the system is something different in a sea of mish-mash BS sequels and boring gameplay. I want a Wii for fun, not for the graphics; I could care less if they're "slightly better than Gamecube" like some people say. Hell, RE4 on the Gamecube is still one of the best looking titles ever created, and it's on hardware that is severely crippled compared to its competition. But my problem is - if Nintendo says they're going to support 480p, then don't halfass it with an analog port. :(

[Mord]

100 bucks is nothing, and in three years or so 90% of you will have HDTV sets, future proofing is a good idea.

[sk1985]

thats pointless, thats exactly what HDTV's do normally, they turn the input picture into a native picture for the screen, you'll just be replaceing something you already have.
I think you're confused a bit. The video processing unit I'm talking about costs around 3 grand and makes almost a crystal clear upscaling of just about any video media. Actually I don't think their is a video processing unit for HD TV that costs under 2.5 grand (one company makes them and they get their products re-branded to a brand name). They work amazingly well for standard DEF DVD's and you can convert the signal to as high as 1080i. They also drastically clean up HD Video content. That's pretty impressive and to my knowledge not even a 10,000 dollar HD TV can do that (most manufactures expect you to buy them, in fact some HD projection TV's won't run with out one of these units).

[poppe]

Wouldn't happen. For HD games will require higher capacity discs, I'd imagine games like Zelda and Metroid on 2 discs.

I think I'm the only person on this forum who really doesn't care about HD. who hasn't since the mid 90's. To summarise the 'moment'
Mate: Hey play Quake on my PC in 800*600
me: magic!
*goes home* booo I can only play it in 640*480 on my monitor.
me: IT'S THE SAME GAME!

:rolleyes:

I think you and alot of people don't care about HD.... Its just so fricken exspensive and really I dont think its main stream ready yet.

I mean this just by the everything still being so expensive. Sure you can go get a HDTV for 800, and have a contrast ratio of 500 to 1. But to me I'd rather have a SD 60" TV than a 30" TV that is HDTV, because for one not only am I getting a way bigger screen, but also if I went with HDTV i'd have to get an up converter, or a new HD player (blue-ray, HD-DVD), and I'd also have to get HD satelite to get a nice quality. Which HD satelite anyways DirectTV is lacking in quality. The audio has a lag of about a second with the video, about a third of the time...

It was a waiste of money...

[jdechko]

Man some of you are seriously misinformed. :)

Gamecube supported 480p on the first model/hardware revision with the digital AV port. Nintendo stopped shipping Gamecubes with that port in 2002, so technically, yes the Gamecube supports HD.

Technically, though 480p isn't considered HD, it's ED (enhanced definition). 720p/1080i are accepted as HD with 1080p being the best/truest HD signal possible.

There is a small jump in processing capabilities from 480i to 480p, but a much larger jump from 480p to 1080i (540p), 720p and 1080p. Also, it's not just the video chip being capable of displaying/transmitting frames in HD, it has a lot to do with the processor as well. The Wii is rumored to have about a 700 MHz processor in it, which most likely doesn't cut it for the true HD resolutions. And HD textures (in order to look good) are larger than SD textures. For example, take a look at a 854x480 picture (480p), a 1.3 MP (1024x768) picture and a 1920x1080 (1080p) picture. Resize the 480p picture and compare it to the 1080p picture and tell me how it looks. It's not gonna look good. As much as I'd like to have HD support (I have a 1080i TV) it would cost a lot more than $5 to make it (plus markup).

As for the gamecube component cables, call up Nintendo (on the phone... don't go to the website) and see if they have any. They're about $35 including shipping, and well worth it.

[Dagless]

[snip]

Just a rough reply to a few things I noticed.

The euro Cube didn't even output an S-Video signal, let alone 480p. Even though I have the Digital T port I cannot use it with PAL games. Silly Nintendo.

I think the reason why systems need better cards now is that with systems like the Xbox, Cube and old video cards - they didn't have super high resolution graphics. they effectively upscaled smaller size textures. Whereas now HD doesn't mean just "high definition|" but now also includes massive texture support, fancy lightning effects etc.

Oh and the Wii most certainly outputs through component. the Nintendo site says it is which I'd believe a whole load than some already debunked rumour stats. I'm hoping for an optional VGA output personally. That would be dandy for me, or DVI for overkill.

[Abulia]

Technically, though 480p isn't considered HD, it's ED (enhanced definition). 720p/1080i are accepted as HD with 1080p being the best/truest HD signal possible.Yea, the irony of calling people "misinformed" when getting it wrong himself was pretty good. :D
As for the gamecube component cables, call up Nintendo (on the phone... don't go to the website) and see if they have any. They're about $35 including shipping, and well worth it.Presuming your Cube even has the port. Imagine my surprise when I tried to find out what it would take to hook up my daughter's Cube to my HDTV for 480p and couldn't. :(

[Mord]

it's the lack of clarity that bugs me, i mean halo 2 looks great on my 360.

[BurtonCCC]

100 bucks is nothing, and in three years or so 90% of you will have HDTV sets, future proofing is a good idea.
I, for one, will be in that 10% of people who doesn't have an HDTV for probably another 10 years. I just don't really care about seeing the pores on someone's face. Maybe I need forgiveness for that? :rolleyes:

Daniel.

[jdechko]

Presuming your Cube even has the port. Imagine my surprise when I tried to find out what it would take to hooke up my daughters Cube to my HDTV for 480p and couldn't. :(

Did you call and ask Nintendo for a cube with the digital out? As far as I know they will replace it for you for free or just S/H.

And forgive me if I am wrong, but aren't all component signals analog anyway? So the Digital out port is really a "Digital" out (outputting an analog signal)? If so, then who cares what they call the thing. You still have to use the A/V out to output audio (as there's no audio from the digital out port).

[bmb012]

I think you guys are confusing HD resolution with HD textures. Halo 2 running on a 360 runs in HD no sweat, with the same textures and everything. However, the only reason it can do that is because it's emulated. You can't just put the same disk in slightly different hardware and have it run in a higher resolution at the same rock solid framerate (and I have a feeling that the term 'rock solid framerate' will only be applicable to the Wii this gen) without being emulated. It has to be written into the code of the game itself.

[Dagless]

I, for one, will be in that 10% of people who doesn't have an HDTV for probably another 10 years. I just don't really care about seeing the pores on someone's face. Maybe I need forgiveness for that? :rolleyes:

Daniel.

You do! You have to see pores and everything! don't you know it's all about the unnecessary detail?

anywho. I'm off to watch Hollyoaks in 525p :p when games consoles can look that realistic I'll give a damn. then I'll give more a damn when HD gaming looks *real*.

[zero2dash]

Technically, though 480p isn't considered HD, it's ED (enhanced definition). 720p/1080i are accepted as HD with 1080p being the best/truest HD signal possible.

As for the gamecube component cables, call up Nintendo (on the phone... don't go to the website) and see if they have any. They're about $35 including shipping, and well worth it.

Last I heard, Nintendo didn't have them anymore, even if you called in. I heard they went out of stock a long time ago. I'll double check though; it's certainly worth a shot when the alternative is importing one and paying the exhorbitant amount for shipping from Asia, or paying $60+ on eBay.

You are right about component being an analog signal; I assumed it was digital since the Gamecube without the digital port can't use component video cables, so...blame them on that one. :) I wonder why they did that, though - I'm sure I can't be the only one confused by their labeling of that port as a "digital" one. <shrug>

Yea, the irony of calling people "misinformed" when getting it wrong himself was pretty good. :D
Presuming your Cube even has the port. Imagine my surprise when I tried to find out what it would take to hook up my daughter's Cube to my HDTV for 480p and couldn't. :(

I also said I was still learning about it. :rolleyes:

[Mavimao]

And forgive me if I am wrong, but aren't all component signals analog anyway? So the Digital out port is really a "Digital" out (outputting an analog signal)? If so, then who cares what they call the thing. You still have to use the A/V out to output audio (as there's no audio from the digital out port).

Yes, component video is analog. Therefore all of those DVD players and Xbox 360s with component video hooked up to your HD monitors are pumping out an analog signal.

[Haoshiro]

And just in case nobody else pointed this out, every game shown for the Wii so far has been in widescreen format.

That's all I really care about, 480p in Widescreen! DVDs with that format already look excellent on my set (only 27" widescreen) so I'll be quite satisfied with that for Wii as well.

[jdechko]

Last I heard, Nintendo didn't have them anymore, even if you called in. I heard they went out of stock a long time ago. I'll double check though; it's certainly worth a shot when the alternative is importing one and paying the exhorbitant amount for shipping from Asia, or paying $60+ on eBay.


I got mine back in March. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=186702&highlight=component+gamecube+cables

The number is on the first post in that thread.

[zero2dash]

And just in case nobody else pointed this out, every game shown for the Wii so far has been in widescreen format.

That's all I really care about, 480p in Widescreen! DVDs with that format already look excellent on my set (only 27" widescreen) so I'll be quite satisfied with that for Wii as well.

w00t! awesome! I didn't know that and I never noticed it from the footage I've seen online. Thanks for passing that along, that's sweet.

I got mine back in March. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=186702&highlight=component+gamecube+cables

The number is on the first post in that thread.

And thanks again for mentioning that they still have them; I gave up hope after seeing a lot of newsgroup posts that said they were out a year or so ago. I guess they either made more to catch up with demand, or they held onto some and just recently started selling them out again. Either way it saves me $30 bucks so if I ever meet you I'll buy you a beer (or whatever alcoholic beverage you'd like). :D

[ddrueckhammer]

As stated earlier, 480p is ED Enhanced Definition and not HD. You can get sub-$1000 HD CRT Televisions and I think I said that in my last post. The problem. Nobody wants CRTs anymore. People want Plasma or LCD. You can get ED plasmas for close to $1000 which show regular DVDs in perfect quality and the games on the GC/Wii in perfect quality. Whats the difference between ED and HD screens? The amount of pixels or information that they are capable of displaying. Regular TV signals looks like *ss on these TVs and will look worse on HD screens. Also, HD games don't look too hot on non-HD screen. If you don't believe me run to Target and play one of the 360 games on their non-HD setup.

You can have HD content on non HD-DVDs but the media doesn't have enough space to hold that much content. All HD-DVD and Blue-Ray are really about is having a content capable of holding the vast quantities of information needed to encode in 1080p (true HD). HDMI cable doesn't break-up the information like component does but component still offers a very clear picture with minor errors. Unless you are lucky enough to have Verizon Fios in this country your "Digital" cable is still sent over the same old co-axial lines with error correction. HD may or may not take off in the next few years depending on if web content delivery takes off. Personally, I can buy another TV is a few years if HD becomes mainstream but I don't want to pay for something that I have no use for right now. The Xbox 360 is a pretty good reason for wanting HD right now but personally I have played most of the games out on that console and don't think the HD content adds that much to the experience. I purchased an ED a couple of years ago because I didn't want to waste money on technology I wouldn't use and in a couple of years when HD is predicted to become mainstream I can still upgrade.

Finally, Hollywood hasn't really found a way to still make all of their stars look fantastic while filming in HD. You can see much more clarity in the backgrounds of movies but you can also see every freckle and pimple. They will probably need to come up with an image processing algorithm that airbrushes or blurs the skin on the actors to hide imperfections if HD filming becomes standard. Most of the films on HD-DVD & Blue-Ray disks weren't filmed in HD anyway.

[mkubal]

I still don't understand why hardware that is, by all accounts, more capable than the xbox can't offer HD like the xbox did. It doesn't have to be standard, just an option. I know there weren't many games that supported it with the original xbox, but I know of one that I owned, EA's MVP baseball. As someone who owns both standard and HD sets I can tell you it looked way better running in HD res than 480i or 480p.

Support for 720p resolutions didn't make the game unplayable for people with standard TVs. They went along as normal.

So how much more expensive could it be for Nintendo to implement it as an option for consumers and developers? If MS accomplished it with what is now a very outdated GPU in the xbox, why couldn't Nintendo do the same with something more powerful? Could it really be that expensive for old xbox quality tech? Obviously not.

I'm not saying HD would have to be mandated like the 360 and PS3, but the option would be nice.

Before I get e-assaulted for questioning "the Big N," please note that I own a 360, and will likely be buying a Wii as well. The above questions should not be taken as trolling. ;)

[ddrueckhammer]

I'm just guessing but I would say that the Wii doesn't have enough processing power to push that kind of bandwidth. My whole point is that it doesn't matter if content is in HD or not as the majority of the Wii's target audience don't have HD screens so it would be wasted money anyway. The reason Wii probably don't have the power to push HD is that Nintendo doesn't take a loss on their hardware (much like a computer company named after a fruit I know).

[mkubal]

I'm just guessing but I would say that the Wii doesn't have enough processing power to push that kind of bandwidth. My whole point is that it doesn't matter if content is in HD or not as the majority of the Wii's target audience don't have HD screens so it would be wasted money anyway. The reason Wii probably don't have the power to push HD is that Nintendo doesn't take a loss on their hardware (much like a computer company named after a fruit I know).

But it's more powerful than the xbox. I realize that they sell at a profit, but it really shouldn't be significantly more expensive for 720p.

I realize that most people don't have an HD screen. The same was true for people that bought an xbox, but the support was still there and was taken advantage of in some cases. My point is that it should be seamless like the xbox was. You tell the console what the res of your screen is and it displays the highest resolution supported by the game. Most were in 480p, but if a 720p game was played you were displayed that signal.

[Abulia]

We need GFLPraxis or someone to quickly jump in here and put you all back in line! :D

How dare you question the wisdom of the Big N? They can do no wrong! :D

/sarcasm

I tend to agree with the past few posters: there's no technological reason why the Wii can't do what the Xbox did 5 years ago. The cost of adding HD support has to be minimal at worst. Thus, I suspect Nintendo refuses to do so for the sake of reducing confusion and having their developers focus on a unified (SD) gaming experience.

[Mavimao]

HDMI cable doesn't break-up the information like component does but component still offers a very clear picture with minor errors.

Component doesn't "break up" information - at least on DVDs (I don't know anything about how GPUs process video on gaming consoles). DVDs are encoded in Component video - this is why you get the highest quality analog signal from DVD -> TV. The last thing you want for video is to mash it all together into one signal. You end up with Composite, or god forbid, Coax.

HDMI, as far as I know, sends the digital MPEG video stream over the wire, resulting is the clearer picture. (no DAC involved).

[7on]

Component doesn't "break up" information - at least on DVDs (I don't know anything about how GPUs process video on gaming consoles). DVDs are encoded in Component video - this is why you get the highest quality analog signal from DVD -> TV. The last thing you want for video is to mash it all together into one signal. You end up with Composite, or god forbid, Coax.

HDMI, as far as I know, sends the digital MPEG video stream over the wire, resulting is the clearer picture. (no DAC involved).

HDMI is DVI+audio for all intensive purposes.

[zero2dash]

As stated earlier, 480p is ED Enhanced Definition and not HD. You can get sub-$1000 HD CRT Televisions and I think I said that in my last post. The problem. Nobody wants CRTs anymore. People want Plasma or LCD. You can get ED plasmas for close to $1000 which show regular DVDs in perfect quality and the games on the GC/Wii in perfect quality. Whats the difference between ED and HD screens? The amount of pixels or information that they are capable of displaying. Regular TV signals looks like *ss on these TVs and will look worse on HD screens. Also, HD games don't look too hot on non-HD screen. If you don't believe me run to Target and play one of the 360 games on their non-HD setup.

Yeah, many people don't want CRTs, but for many other people, it's a cheaper alternative and a way to get an HDTV without spending tons and tons of money. Basically we bought our SlimFit CRT because we didn't want to buy something that wouldn't fit in our entertainment center, but at the same time wasn't too expensive - so it was a perfect fit for us. Since it's a SlimFit, it's a lot thinner as well, so that was a nice addition.

Eventually we'll probably get a 51" or 60" LCD or LCoS projection set, but that will require a new tv stand and whatnot, so we wanted to wait. Really the only reason we have an HDTV right now is because it was only a few hundred more than a regular SDTV, so we figured 'why not'. :)

[mkubal]

We need GFLPraxis or someone to quickly jump in here and put you all back in line! :D

How dare you question the wisdom of the Big N? They can do no wrong! :D

/sarcasm

I tend to agree with the past few posters: there's no technological reason why the Wii can't do what the Xbox did 5 years ago. The cost of adding HD support has to be minimal at worst. Thus, I suspect Nintendo refuses to do so for the sake of reducing confusion and having their developers focus on a unified (SD) gaming experience.

I know you're agreeing with me in general, but Nintendo could surely manage to overcome the confusion. I have a cable box that displays all of the different resolutions one after another and you select whether or not you can see the image on your TV which allows the cable box to set the correct resolution.

As for developers, like I said no one would be forced to use HD resolutions, much like the xbox. I'm sure an HD capable game is more expensive to develop, but it would be the choice of the developer as to whether or not the expense is worthwhile.

[jdechko]

But it's more powerful than the xbox. I realize that they sell at a profit, but it really shouldn't be significantly more expensive for 720p.


Yes and no. The processor is rumored to be approximately the same clock speed as the original XBox (~733 MHz). The Wii will use a PPC variant, but for argument's sake, lets call them equal. We really don't know what the GPU on the Wii will be, but again, let's just assume it's on par with the XBox. Yes, those specs would indicate that the Wii should be able to handle HD (720p/1080i) graphics just fine.

However, there is another big difference between the systems that hasn't been considered (at least in light of this discussion) and that is the system RAM. The XBox has 64 MB of ram whereas the Wii (according to the Wikipedia article) only has 24 MB of RAM. Now the Wii's ram is supposedly ultra-fast, but that still isn't enough when you take into accound the extra size for the HD textures that would be required for the game to look good. And let's face it, if we're worrying about HD, we obviously want the game to look good.

Anyway, if we think about it, with only 24 MB of ram we'd have a lot of loading times using HD textures (BAD) or we'd have to step up the ram which would increase the price by a presumably large amount (otherwise, Nintendo probably would have done it). Also, there's no guarantee that the extra RAM will be fully utilized for HD textures alone, so we will probably still have more/longer loading times.

[ddrueckhammer]

Component doesn't "break up" information - at least on DVDs (I don't know anything about how GPUs process video on gaming consoles). DVDs are encoded in Component video - this is why you get the highest quality analog signal from DVD -> TV. The last thing you want for video is to mash it all together into one signal. You end up with Composite, or god forbid, Coax.

HDMI, as far as I know, sends the digital MPEG video stream over the wire, resulting is the clearer picture. (no DAC involved). I was more refering to the cableing than on the actual media. Component does separate the information and passes it along three separate cables...Because the cables use analog there is some loss due to the properties of the material it is being sent along.

I agree, for under $1000 30" HD CRTs are a good bet. I had one and gave it to my dad. But for a few hundred more you can get a nice 42" ED plasma which still are the best bang for your buck currently given the media that is available at a reasonable cost today. The ED plasma looks just as good as an HD one with regular DVDs and as I said before, until Fios is widespread I really don't want to pay $10 for a few HD channels that aren't even broadcast on a true digital signal. I know videophiles like to think in the way of future proofing themselves but there is a pretty good chance that HD might not take off (especially if DVD quality online content delivery does first) and then the extra $1000 people spend on an HD plasma or LCD will seem like a waste. Especially, if you aren't using if for a year or two. I just looked at Circuit City's website and 42" ED plasmas are running around $1500 which is in the realm of feasibility for most people and offer a very nice experience with today's technology (not betting on any future formats). By the time HD media/channels become ubiquitous in a few years time the HD Plasmas/LCDs will be around $1500 or less just like ED is today.

[mkubal]

The XBox has 64 MB of ram whereas the Wii (according to the Wikipedia article) only has 24 MB of RAM. Now the Wii's ram is supposedly ultra-fast, but that still isn't enough when you take into accound the extra size for the HD textures that would be required for the game to look good. And let's face it, if we're worrying about HD, we obviously want the game to look good.

Anyway, if we think about it, with only 24 MB of ram we'd have a lot of loading times using HD textures (BAD) or we'd have to step up the ram which would increase the price by a presumably large amount (otherwise, Nintendo probably would have done it). Also, there's no guarantee that the extra RAM will be fully utilized for HD textures alone, so we will probably still have more/longer loading times.

Ah, I didn't realize the machine only had 24 MB of RAM. Ok, so I understand why it can't manage an HD resolution, but I would have to argue your point about it costing significantly more to up the RAM. I could be wrong, but RAM should be cheap. Even super fast RAM.

Are they going back in time and buying RAM in the 1980s? :D

***And cue angry response from someone who can't take a joke about the RAM Nintendo is using***

Edit: Off topic, does the Wii support 5.1? And if so is it optical or coaxial?

[NewbieNerd]

So, uhh... sounds like Nintendo should pay to use the xbox hardware from Microsoft, paint it white, put some BT in, and call it a Wii. Why am I wanting a Wii again?

[eva01]

So, uhh... sounds like Nintendo should pay to use the xbox hardware from Microsoft, paint it white, put some BT in, and call it a Wii. Why am I wanting a Wii again?

What the hell are you talking about. You do know how indepth the controller is correct?

[NewbieNerd]

What the hell are you talking about. You do know how indepth the controller is correct?

I'm not talking about the controller. What happens within the controller, yay for Nintendo, that's all great and good. It all gets transfered over via BT anyway.

[Dagless]

I'm not talking about the controller. What happens within the controller, yay for Nintendo, that's all great and good. It all gets transfered over via BT anyway.

almost right. it gets transferred via BT (which the Xbox doesn't have) and a sensor bar, connected via some funky cable.

So, uhh... sounds like Nintendo should pay to use the xbox hardware from Microsoft, paint it white, put some BT in, and call it a Wii. Why am I wanting a Wii again?
I think you missed the bit about HD games costing more to develop. Seen the Wii dev kit prices? a fraction the cost of PS3/360 costs. Seriously they are around $2k where the others are in $20k+ (IIRC). Dev time is shortened too as the CPU and GPU are merely extensions of previous hardware. bam. oh and you have a mini-CD slot loading drive (first of its kind?), Gamecube ports for backwards compatibility etc...

[Haoshiro]

To those saying there is no good reason for the Wii to not do at least 720p...

While the hardware is likely capable of it, it would degrade performance. That is, you can do more in 480p then you can with the same hardware in 720p. Running in 720p requires 300% more pixel processing power. In other words, you can do three times as much in 480p then you can in 720p on the same hardware.

Obviously those aren't going to be perfect figures, but it stands to reason that if Nintendo just goes ahead and doesn't even allow 720p that developers won't even try to use it, meaning they'll be able to get more out of their hardware.

Banking on the presumption that most consumers will be running SD/ED TV sets for the life of the Wii, Nintendo can essentially ensure they get the most of their hardware by not allowing developers to strangle it trying to achieve HD resolutions.

Just my two cents :)

[ddrueckhammer]

almost right. it gets transferred via BT (which the Xbox doesn't have) and a sensor bar, connected via some funky cable.


I think you missed the bit about HD games costing more to develop. Seen the Wii dev kit prices? a fraction the cost of PS3/360 costs. Seriously they are around $2k where the others are in $20k+ (IIRC). Dev time is shortened too as the CPU and GPU are merely extensions of previous hardware. bam. oh and you have a mini-CD slot loading drive (first of its kind?), Gamecube ports for backwards compatibility etc...

To expand on this, don't forget that the Wii will most likely have at least 1 wireless controller out of the box. (it would be nice if they packaged it with two) For the Xbox you have to pay for the premium one for this. Oh and wifi out of the box. That is extra on the 360 as well...

[it5five]

I was surprised (I shouldn't have been, though) when my brother had to pay 100 to get wifi for his 360.

The Wii is going to be so much better than the PS3 and 360 in every way.

[Haoshiro]

I was surprised (I shouldn't have been, though) when my brother had to pay 100 to get wifi for his 360.

The Wii is going to be so much better than the PS3 and 360 in every way.

Minus the "games it won't have" way. (ie, there will be great exclusive games on all platforms).

[jdechko]

OK, so just to correct myself, the Gamecube only had 24 MB of 1T-SRAM (Plus 16 MB of aux RAM). We don't know how much RAM the Wii will have but the XBox 360 has 512 and 3 cores to pump out the HD graphics. In any case, I still think that Nintendo weighed its options (cost vs. profit, % of HD users) and decided that HD wasn't worth it this gen. Still, I'm sure that Twilight Princess at 480p will be wonderful.

(The GameCube's 324 mHz main 1T-SRAM, at 2.6 GB/sec, has lower peak bandwidth than Xbox's 200 mHz DDR-SDRAM, with 6.4 GB/sec, however it does have greater bandwidth efficiency, up to 90% versus about 75% for Xbox, and the lower access latency helps compensate for the lower bandwidth since it increases effective bandwidth achieved.)

[Mord]

how hard would it be to offer a wii that had twice the speed/memory which was capable of 720p...

[srobert]

how hard would it be to offer a wii that had twice the speed/memory which was capable of 720p...

I would have loved 720p for the Wii but I still prefer game consoles to be released in a single configuration (same specs) throughout their generation. So do game developers and publishers.

I would hate having to say something in the lines of: "Golly, I'd love to try that new Megaman ZXY256™ but the minimum Wii specs required are 1GB RAM and 2.0 GHZ. I only have the 1.66 GHZ Wii :(" This is one of the aspect I find annoying about PC gaming.

[poppe]

I would have loved 720p for the Wii but I still prefer game consoles to be released in a single configuration (same specs) throughout their generation. So do game developers and publishers.

I would hate having to say something in the lines of: "Golly, I'd love to try that new Megaman ZXY256™ but the minimum Wii specs required are 1GB RAM and 2.0 GHZ. I only have the 1.66 GHZ Wii :(" This is one of the aspect I find annoying about PC gaming.

I agree with you. I'd even say that its a turn off even when a system offers things like hard drive as an option and/or HD-DVD drive... (Xbox 360). I loved my original Xbox, but I really hate how 360 is like two models. Just makes me not want one... I suppose I might want one when Halo 3 comes out, but not over the Wii

[Dagless]

how hard would it be to offer a wii that had twice the speed/memory which was capable of 720p...

Not hard, but as irritating as the Amiga systems were (sorry, won't work on your Amiga system) or how PC/Macs are now. also as irritating as if Microsoft released a HD-DVD drive for the 360 and sell games in HD-DVD format. forcing consumers to upgrade.

Also. again. the development costs/time would go up. unless you'd be happy playing a high res game with low res textures which seems to miss the point of HD altogether.

[jdechko]

I agree with you. I'd even say that its a turn off even when a system offers things like hard drive as an option and/or HD-DVD drive... (Xbox 360). I loved my original Xbox, but I really hate how 360 is like two models. Just makes me not want one... I suppose I might want one when Halo 3 comes out, but not over the Wii

Yes and no. I don't mind extra peripherals as long as they're either a) not required to actually plan or b) included with the game. For instance, there's a FF game (is it FF X) on the PS2 that requires the HDD, so it includes it. (Or Donkey Konga with the DK Bongos, DDR with the Dance Pad, etc) In response to raggedjimmi, yeah, that would be totally wack if MS forced people to buy the HD-DVD add-on in order to play games. Really, though, the HD and HD-DVD drive, Bongos, Dance Pads, Light Guns, Microphones, Network Adapters, etc are really all just accessories, and as long as the core system (CPU, RAM, GPU, etc) are the same I don't care. I just don't want to have to start reading system specs to make sure my cube/Wii/Whatever will play the latest game designed for that system. The day that Nintendo makes me look at system specs to see if I can actually play the game is the day that I quit playing video games.

how hard would it be to offer a wii that had twice the speed/memory which was capable of 720p...

But at what expense? I'm not attacking you or anyone who wants/would like 720p/1080i or even 1080p from the Wii. If it costs me $350 instead of $200, I say it's not worth it.

(Almost) Every problem can be solved by throwing more money at it. That's what it seems like MS and Sony are doing--Spend lots of money on powerful components and deliver the **most** powerful machine. And that's great, but there are many other divisions that make the money in those companies. Nintendo only has games, and I'd hate to see Nintendo as a company flop because the got in too deep trying to compete on raw power with MS and Sony only to fall short.

[Haoshiro]

Not hard, but as irritating as the Amiga systems were (sorry, won't work on your Amiga system) or how PC/Macs are now. also as irritating as if Microsoft released a HD-DVD drive for the 360 and sell games in HD-DVD format. forcing consumers to upgrade.

Also. again. the development costs/time would go up. unless you'd be happy playing a high res game with low res textures which seems to miss the point of HD altogether.

As for development costs rising, that can really depend on the studio's workflow. There are a lot of studios that design their assests at very high quality and then scale that down based on the target platform. Not all studios do this, but it's a good practice.

[Phobophobia]

Add another to the list of people who don't care about HD.

[srobert]

I don't think HD is essential. Plus, higher definition doesn't translate into more fun. But it sure looks nice. Same with computers. One can do everything he wants on a 640 x 480 display ("TV" or Wii def) but I sure do prefer working on a 1680 x 1050 display (still lower resolution than HD).

As for the Wii not supporting HD debate. It's been discussed in lenght in these threads and it seem we're repeating old arguments…*me included ^_^:

Revolution will have some power! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=182315)
Who's buying the Revolution (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=170450)

Put me in the "Would have loved HD option but Wii will still be tons of fun" category.

[Mord]

1680x1050 is higher than what technically is HD, it's higher res than 720p.

[srobert]

1680x1050 is higher than what technically is HD, it's higher res than 720p.

OK. Agreed. ^_^

But I still love my 1080i Discovery channel.

HDTV is defined as 1080 active interlaced lines, or 720 progressive lines. 16 : 9 aspect ratio in ITU-R BT.709. The term "high-definition" can refer to the resolution specifications themselves, or to media capable of similar sharpness such as movie film.

[benpatient]

whew. lots of FUD in here...

Most of the factual errors have been corrected, but there are still some that haven't been addressed yet.

Component video isn't "the signal DVDs use." DVDs are encoded in MPEG2 480i.

Most modern DVD players will convert this to 480p during the DAC process. Upscaling DVD players will convert to 720p or 1080i from the original 480i source. All of which can be transferred over a Component video cable set, and look wonderful. But the signal is converted to YPB by the dvd player none the less.

I understand that a lot of you don't have HD systems and don't think you'll have one in the apparently next 5-6 years. Interesting. I wonder why upscaling DVD players are selling so well? (they're only useful to people with HD-capable sets) I wonder why home theater installations are through the roof, and any builder in the country will install wiring for surround sound these days? Most people buying a surround sound system (even a crappy HTIB one) will want a bigger TV to watch their movies on. I know 4 families who don't have an HD-capable TV in their homes who are out of college. And one of those are my parents.

I don't even make that much money, but if you people are sitting around paying comcast 50-200 dollars a month for TV and internet, but you aren't watching that TV on a decent-sized widescreen monitor, I have to wonder if you've ever really, truly experienced what it is that you're writing off as "not ready" and "immature."

There are 15 HD channels here in friggin Nashville, Tennessee for crying out loud. You can get more digital channels over the air than you can get analog ones, here. Satellite is even better.

Maybe in europe it is a different story, I don't know, but I've been getting frustrated by the terrible picture my PS2 puts out on my HD set, and I've stopped playing it. It's distractingly bad...even the "1080i" mode in GT4 is ugly. I can't play an FPS unless it's running through my computer because that is the only way I can get enough resolution to actually see what's going on. I hate shooting at "blobs." The 360 should be capable of a lot more than it has shown off so far...none of the developers had full-power hardware before the first batch of games were released. But the hardware is there.

I'd rather play N64 games on my PC with an emulator than drag out the N64 and play them with crummy blurry 480i pixels...

HD isn't by any means "mature" but it isn't "immature" either. It's well on its way and it has room to grow.

[Dagless]

I understand that a lot of you don't have HD systems and don't think you'll have one in the apparently next 5-6 years. Interesting. I wonder why upscaling DVD players are selling so well? (they're only useful to people with HD-capable sets) I wonder why home theater installations are through the roof, and any builder in the country will install wiring for surround sound these days? Most people buying a surround sound system (even a crappy HTIB one) will want a bigger TV to watch their movies on. I know 4 families who don't have an HD-capable TV in their homes who are out of college. And one of those are my parents.

Are upscalers selling well? I've walked around cities and never spotted one. Equally I've never spotted a 1080p capable TV. From what I've gathered nobody cares about HD, people are caring about new, cheap LCD/Plasma TVs that have dropped significantly in price. 30" Plasma display running in an SD resolution is about a third of the price of a HD enabled version.

I don't even make that much money, but if you people are sitting around paying comcast 50-200 dollars a month for TV and internet, but you aren't watching that TV on a decent-sized widescreen monitor, I have to wonder if you've ever really, truly experienced what it is that you're writing off as "not ready" and "immature."

I tell you what is not ready, the only HD service being offered is from Sky, with the box costing £300 and a huge monthly bill to go along with it. How many people do I know with HD sets? quite a few. how many are planning or have bought Sky HD? none. how many use a 360 as the only HD device? all.

I'd rather play N64 games on my PC with an emulator than drag out the N64 and play them with crummy blurry 480i pixels...

just a personal, OT thing but I'd rather use an original with the whole experience, not just "play a game".

HD isn't by any means "mature" but it isn't "immature" either. It's well on its way and it has room to grow.

This is where I contend. HD content is far from ready. It's overpriced, overcomplex and in a too small market to begin with (low numbers of HDTVs) and with terrible reviews about BluRay video quality.
Though you know what is selling tremendously well in the UK? large ED LCD/Plasma TVs with FreeView (the receiver alone is just £40). they are selling by the bucket loads here and HD has that to contend with, the public have just been educated about Digital TV as the UK is shutting down analogue signals in a couple of years. You think people are going to upgrade their kit twice in a small number of years? The response to HD here has been so lacklustre that HD impact counts as negligible. When the BBC start advertising HD and their own service then the public will take notice.

[Mavimao]

The day that Nintendo makes me look at system specs to see if I can actually play the game is the day that I quit playing video games.


uhh...anyone remember Perfect Dark on N64?

[poppe]

uhh...anyone remember Perfect Dark on N64?

What happen with perfect dark? It worked on mine... and I got one for christmas the year it came out...

[Mavimao]

whew. lots of FUD in here...

Component video isn't "the signal DVDs use." DVDs are encoded in MPEG2 480i.

Most modern DVD players will convert this to 480p during the DAC process. Upscaling DVD players will convert to 720p or 1080i from the original 480i source. All of which can be transferred over a Component video cable set, and look wonderful. But the signal is converted to YPB by the dvd player none the less.

OK... How to explain this to the "informed"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG2)

"The video image is separated into one luminance (Y) and two chrominance channels (also called color difference signals Cb and Cr)"

MPEG2 is a codec. It compresses information to make them more efficient. A video image or "signal" as I used to describe it, is within the compression to tell the television what kind of image to present, which colors etc. The video signal used in MPEG2 is YCbCr (component).

Whereas RF, component, RGB, composite, S-video, etc, are all different methods of getting a picture to show up on your screen, MPEG is just a method of compressing how much information shows up on the screen. Makes sense?

The DVD player doesn't alter the video signal when outputting component. It is the raw signal that is encoded via MPEG2 on the DVD. This is why it looks so clean. It will however convert it to composite or S-video or god forbid RF. This is why DVDs are not as good looking when using those connectors.

Now, HDMI vs. Analog component cables is a different quality control issue for obvious reasons.

[Mavimao]

What happen with perfect dark? It worked on mine... and I got one for christmas the year it came out...

You needed the memory expansion pak in order to play it in its entirety.

[Dagless]

You needed the memory expansion pak in order to play it in its entirety.

Oh! you mean how FFXI (was it?) that needed the HDD for the PS2? but then Sony went and dropped support for the HDD with the slimline PS2. Or how a PS1/2/Cube needed a memory card to save the game progress. Or how you feel rumble with the N64's rumble pack?

Many games needed the expansion pack. thats why it was given away with the huge hitters. Majoras Mask was mine.

[Mavimao]

Oh! you mean how FFXI (was it?) that needed the HDD for the PS2? but then Sony went and dropped support for the HDD with the slimline PS2. Or how a PS1/2/Cube needed a memory card to save the game progress. Or how you feel rumble with the N64's rumble pack?

Many games needed the expansion pack. thats why it was given away with the huge hitters. Majoras Mask was mine.

Whoa! Calm down horsie!

i was just stating that Nintendo upgraded their hardware halfway through a consoles lifespan to improve performance on certain titles and requiring it for others. Something jdechko thought never happened chez nintendo.

You don't "need" a rumble pack to play a game. You don't "need" a memory card to save a game (although i can't think of anyone who actually did this).

[jdechko]

Whoa! Calm down horsie!

i was just stating that Nintendo upgraded their hardware halfway through a consoles lifespan to improve performance on certain titles and requiring it for others. Something jdechko thought never happened chez nintendo.

You don't "need" a rumble pack to play a game. You don't "need" a memory card to save a game (although i can't think of anyone who actually did this).

I stand corrected, as I did indeed forget about the Expansion Pack. However, I disagree that it completely changed the way the system played. First off, wasn't the expansion pack port in the first version of the console, meaning that the N64 was designed with the expansion in mind? Also, I consider it to be an essential "accessory" to gameplay in the same manner that the HDD was an essential accessory to FFXI, the Dance Pad to DDR and the DK Bongos were to Jungle beat, though the Expansion pack wasn't bundled. (And only 4 games required it. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_Pak)).

Yes, the Expansion pack was basically just extending the system RAM, but not in the way that it is required for PC games. The core of the system remained in tact, which is what I ultimately meant.

[Mavimao]

I stand corrected, as I did indeed forget about the Expansion Pack. However, I disagree that it completely changed the way the system played. First off, wasn't the expansion pack port in the first version of the console, meaning that the N64 was designed with the expansion in mind? Also, I consider it to be an essential "accessory" to gameplay in the same manner that the HDD was an essential accessory to FFXI, the Dance Pad to DDR and the DK Bongos were to Jungle beat.

Yes, the Expansion pack was basically just extending the system RAM, but not in the way that it is required for PC games. The core of the system remained in tact, which is what I ultimately meant.

I know...I'm just making it hard for everyone. :p

[jdechko]

I know...I'm just making it hard for everyone. :p

Hey, I didn't have all the facts and you called me on it. I'm not mad, but I'm just trying to explan the difference in my mind. And it's not just Nintendo. If Sony or Microsoft updated the PS3 or 360, I wouldn't buy their console either. In my mind, that's why I switched to console gaming in the first place. I was tired of/couldn't afford to keep up with the rapid changes in hardware requirements. I couldn't play splinter cell on my laptop and I wanted to play Metroid Prime and Wind Waker. So I bought a Cube after going a long time with just the NES.

[Mavimao]

Hey, I didn't have all the facts and you called me on it. I'm not mad, but I'm just trying to explan the difference in my mind. And it's not just Nintendo. If Sony or Microsoft updated the PS3 or 360, I wouldn't buy their console either. In my mind, that's why I switched to console gaming in the first place. I was tired of/couldn't afford to keep up with the rapid changes in hardware requirements. I couldn't play splinter cell on my laptop and I wanted to play Metroid Prime and Wind Waker. So I bought a Cube after going a long time with just the NES.

I wasn't trying to be mean. Please excuse my tone if it seemed that way.

And I agree. Console gaming is SO much more convenient - even with expansion paks.

[ddrueckhammer]

whew. lots of FUD in here...

I was more refering to the cableing than on the actual media. Component does separate the information and passes it along three separate cables...Because the cables use analog there is some loss due to the properties of the material it is being sent along.

Sorry, if I was imprecise in my explanation (I don't want to be spreading any FUD). I tried to explain that component separates the signal into color information but I assumed that the information once separated is sent along the three separate cables. I didn't realize though that the feed from the DVD is uncompressed in component mode, though it still seems that the color information would be separated so that it can be routed along the separate cableing. I'm not sure if this is exactly how it works but I was pretty sure that that is the basic premise.

As Raggedjimmi said, ED Plasmas/LCDs are selling well in the UK right now because they are the best value for the money. ED Plasmas, as I said earlier, are $1500 here for a name brand 42" one. I'm sure HD will get in this range in a year or two, about the same time that the HD media players are around $200 and the stars will align. Some people like to pay for technology they won't use for a couple of years. I really don't. I would rather buy an ED panel for $1500 now and another $1500 HD one in two years than $2500 for an HD one now. If I wanted a CRT, HD might be an option but really who wants a CRT anymore? It is dead technology.

To be honest, there are many people (and I'm among them) who don't see anything wrong with current DVDs and don't want to invest in new technology and buy new media collections. Its not really the money, I just don't see a point. There is a point in gaming but that isn't enough to make these formats a success. Maybe I will change my tune if I get an HD LCD and have a BR player hooked up to it, but I can really see online movie distribution cutting into the HD revolution. SACDs didn't exactly take off because like Blueray and HD-DVDs, people didn't know that there was anything wrong with regular CDs. That added to mp3s taking off was enough to squash that format. If online movie distribution never happens it will only be because the studios refuse to cut deals with Apple and others. HD may eventually be online but even the fastest connections aren't fast enough for feature length HD downloads.

Where I live you have to pay $10 a month for about 10 extra HD channels just to see monkeys mate in HD on Discovery. Fios will be here soon enough and then it might be worth it, but for now I'll stick with my ED plasma.

[Mavimao]

Sorry, if I was imprecise in my explanation (I don't want to be spreading any FUD). I tried to explain that component separates the signal into color information but I assumed that the information once separated is sent along the three separate cables. I didn't realize though that the feed from the DVD is uncompressed in component mode, though it still seems that the color information would be separated so that it can be routed along the separate cableing. I'm not sure if this is exactly how it works but I was pretty sure that that is the basic premise.


Yes, you have it correct. The one luminence and the two color signals are three seperate signals - thus why there are three cables for video.

I'll explain this easier: the MPEG2 video file will have three different signals that generate a picture. Y, Cb, and Cr. Say for instance that in order to draw an electronic image of the mona lisa, the MPEG files says Y=1, Cb=2, Cr=3. Your DVD player reads this and sends 1 through the Y signal, 2 though the Cb cable and 3 through the Cr cable. This goes to your television where it draws the mona lisa.

It may not sound logical, but in order to get the best picture quality you actually WANT to seperate colors and brightness. If not, you get ghosting and dot crawl. S-video is actually two different signals in one cable: color and brightness. This is why this format is so much cleaner than composite (basically the single yellow RCA video plug). DVDs took it one step higher and not only seperated brightness from color, they split the color as well. I'm not exactly sure why they decided to use three seperate RCA plugs as the method of transporting component signal. They could have just used one plug à la s-video or DVI. But then again, maybe there are some interference issues... I'll have to research that.

[ddrueckhammer]

Thanks! It makes much more sense now. How all of the formats and different cables work gets pretty confusing fast and pretty technical (working on a degree in Engineering)...

[ddrueckhammer]

Thanks! It makes much more sense now. How all of the formats and different cables work gets pretty confusing fast and I'm pretty technical (working on a degree in Engineering)...

I know a little bit about the differences between composite, s-video, and component vs. DVI and HDMI. Basically, DVI and HDMI are wider bandwidth and transmit digital signals which have less "noise" than analog. The part I'm a little shady on is why. I think it is because analog signals are transmitted in "sin" waves and the "noise" or errors caused by the physical properties of the medium the signal is traveling through are magnified as they travel across that medium. Digital signals on the other hand transmit the data in binary code and errors are rounded to the nearest 0 or 1 in the stream and not magnified as the transmission passes through the medium. Don't quote me on that though. I'm pretty sure HDMI is pretty much DVI with digital audio contained in the signal and HDCP support.

Oops sorry for the double post...I thought I hit edit...

[thegreatluke]

If you want high definition gaming, get a PS3.

[Dagless]

If you want high definition gaming, get a PS3.

Or a 360, or if you want higher res than the comparatively low resolution of consoles get a PC with a high res monitor.

[Hydra]

PAL is 525i.

which is why HD is not all that amazing over here as our TV is so crystal compared to american TV.

it really does make a large difference with games as you just see more detail, and no the games will not take more space, my original xbox games run fine in 720p.



thats pointless, thats exactly what HDTV's do normally, they turn the input picture into a native picture for the screen, you'll just be replaceing something you already have.

576 not 525... Anyway I wish everything would come at least in 720p.

[jdechko]

I think it is because analog signals are transmitted in "sin" waves and the "noise" or errors caused by the physical properties of the medium the signal is traveling through are magnified as they travel across that medium. Digital signals on the other hand transmit the data in binary code and errors are rounded to the nearest 0 or 1 in the stream and not magnified as the transmission passes through the medium. Don't quote me on that though. I'm pretty sure HDMI is pretty much DVI with digital audio contained in the signal and HDCP support.

Yeah, that's pretty much the difference between the analog (sine waves, continuous) vs digital (1/0, and discrete). The intereference for analog comes in the form of EM (electromagnetic) interference, which is just a fancy term for "everything electronic".

Everything from your powerlines to your lights to your appliances (TV, refrigerator, microwave-the worst probably) to your wireless stuff like the DS, wireless network, cell phones and even your cordless phone all put out electromagnetic waves (of the sine nature) which could potentially cause interference to the signal being transmitted. That's why, for analog cables, the companies take such care to shield the cables (that's what "shielded cable" means). This doesn't completely eliminate the EM interference, but it does take a good step in reducing it.

And you're also correct in that HDMI ~= DVI + Audio

Type A HDMI is backward-compatible with the single-link Digital Visual Interface (DVI-D) used on modern computer monitors and graphics cards. This means that a DVI source can drive an HDMI monitor, or vice versa, by means of a suitable adapter or cable, but the audio and remote control features of HDMI will not be available.