Why all this HD craze?

[Chone]

Why is everyone getting so upbeat about this "high definition" deal, I mean names like 720p are very stupid (why can't they say 1280x720?) and the end customer usually ends up being very uninformed on the fact that they are just resolutions.

I mean everyone goes crazy about MS being able to implement 1080p in X360? Hmm... what is so special about it? You'd think a GPU that advanced could display 1920x1080... hell the PS2 could display at 1920x1080, now if it had to run SNES games to run smoothly at that res is entirely another matter.

Which is why I tell you, the Wii IS capable of high definition, in fact, if the developers wanted they could have N64 games display in all 1080p glory and many Wii games in 720p and 1080i, its just that this HD has become an industry fad and everyone is uninformed about it and just how simple a concept it really is.

|end of rant|

[joshysquashy]

Why is everyone getting so upbeat about this "high definition" deal, I mean names like 720p are very stupid (why can't they say 1280x720?) and the end customer usually ends up being very uninformed on the fact that they are just resolutions.

I mean everyone goes crazy about MS being able to implement 1080p in X360? Hmm... what is so special about it? You'd think a GPU that advanced could display 1920x1080... hell the PS2 could display at 1920x1080, now if it had to run SNES games to run smoothly at that res is entirely another matter.

Which is why I tell you, the Wii IS capable of high definition, in fact, if the developers wanted they could have N64 games display in all 1080p glory and many Wii games in 720p and 1080i, its just that this HD has become an industry fad and everyone is uninformed about it and just how simple a concept it really is.

|end of rant|

i think names like 720p refer not to an exact pixel size, as they can be various different ratios (16:9, 4:3 etc) so perhaps thats why they create these (rather random) names for them.

as for HD, the Wii is not HD because it does not have the correct output physicaly for HD TV's this is where people are ill informed about HDMI as opposed to scart or composite. HDMI is the only one capable of true HD as far as I know.

the only benefit is that if you have a HD capable TV, you can benefit from the 360 as it will display at full quality, as opposed to the Wii which will be less crisp.

does this make sense, correct me if im wrong.

[zap2]

I agree an HD Resolution can be nice, but most people don't have any idea what it means. There was an ad with Jessica Simpons for DirectTV which was about how the send out HD shows, she say "I don't what that means, but I sure want it" They make a point on how almost NO one knows what 1080p or 1080i like its a good thing that few understand what it is!


Not to say it can't be a good thing but few people know about what it really is

[greatdevourer]

It's called 720p because it's easier than saying "twelve eighty by seven twenty progressive scan" :p

Joshysquashy - "True HD" (a marketing term created by Sony that they then failed to live up to... :rolleyes:) can be taken over Component as well

The reason is because it's finally a time when consoles look as good as desktop PCs

[WillMak]

Cause everything is going towards HD and video games have to ride the wave as well. There was HD porn before HD consoles.

[wako]

Why is everyone getting so upbeat about this "high definition" deal, I mean names like 720p are very stupid (why can't they say 1280x720?) and the end customer usually ends up being very uninformed on the fact that they are just resolutions.

I mean everyone goes crazy about MS being able to implement 1080p in X360? Hmm... what is so special about it? You'd think a GPU that advanced could display 1920x1080... hell the PS2 could display at 1920x1080, now if it had to run SNES games to run smoothly at that res is entirely another matter.

Which is why I tell you, the Wii IS capable of high definition, in fact, if the developers wanted they could have N64 games display in all 1080p glory and many Wii games in 720p and 1080i, its just that this HD has become an industry fad and everyone is uninformed about it and just how simple a concept it really is.

|end of rant|


Umm.......



Have you seen the differences between games that are played in HD and then played on a normal TV screen?!



Only reason why I recently started playing console games because they FINALLY have begun raising the resolution. Before I couldnt even stand playing PC games on 800x600.

[Chone]

I agree an HD Resolution can be nice, but most people don't have any idea what it means. There was an ad with Jessica Simpons for DirectTV which was about how the send out HD shows, she say "I don't what that means, but I sure want it" They make a point on how almost NO one knows what 1080p or 1080i like its a good thing that few understand what it is!


Not to say it can't be a good thing but few people know about what it really is

Exactly.

i think names like 720p refer not to an exact pixel size, as they can be various different ratios (16:9, 4:3 etc) so perhaps thats why they create these (rather random) names for them.

as for HD, the Wii is not HD because it does not have the correct output physicaly for HD TV's this is where people are ill informed about HDMI as opposed to scart or composite. HDMI is the only one capable of true HD as far as I know.

the only benefit is that if you have a HD capable TV, you can benefit from the 360 as it will display at full quality, as opposed to the Wii which will be less crisp.

does this make sense, correct me if im wrong.

720p refers to the vertical height, that is one each row has 720 pixels and the aspect ratio determines how many rows there are (horizontal width), in 16:9 case that number would be 1280 which is a lot more complicated than just saying, see this TV has a resolution of 1280x720.

Where exactly do you draw the HD line? I mean, thats the problem with it, thats why we've called them resolutions until some jerk decided to start this HD craze, there are higher resolutions on PCs (2560x1600) so is 1080p "true HD", is 2560x1600 "true hd"?, nah, they are just resolutions, one is bigger than the other and there will come another bigger than that and so on and so forth and the stupid industry hype-makers will start calling them "Xtreme High Definition" "Ultra Super Giga Leet Definition, its like a whole new thing", educate the consumer on the concept of resolutions and you might have a winner right there.

As for the Wii... there is another trap of HD marketing right there, component can carry 1920x1080 and I think it still has more bandwidth left (I'm not familiar with component but I think it has the same bandwidth as VGA) for even higher resolutions. People are led to believe they need the latest hardware, the latest TVs (well this is true to an extent) and the friggin later quirky innovation the market puts out there.

I'm just bothered by it, 1080p and HD are marketed as the best thing ever ultra cutting edge technology when computers have had 2560x1600 (which gives you almost double the pixels 1920x1080 does) for at least 3 years in the consumer market and even more so in the professional monitor level, progressive scan has been around since the very early days of personal computing and "high definition" (which I don't even know how to define it as) has been around for a long time (depends on what limits you put on "high definition".

What a joke.
Umm.......



Have you seen the differences between games that are played in HD and then played on a normal TV screen?!



Only reason why I recently started playing console games because they FINALLY have begun raising the resolution. Before I couldnt even stand playing PC games on 800x600.

Yeah the difference is quite appreciable, I'm no saying "HD" is not noticeable, I mean, it is, its just that I'm upset at how the industry has turned it into a fad and customers are falling right into it, not knowing what it is and letting the companies play their game (Sony with True HD, HDMI, no HD on Wii, no 1080p on X360, etc, etc, etc)

It's called 720p because it's easier than saying "twelve eighty by seven twenty progressive scan" :p

Joshysquashy - "True HD" (a marketing term created by Sony that they then failed to live up to... :rolleyes:) can be taken over Component as well

The reason is because it's finally a time when consoles look as good as desktop PCs

Well not even that, sure the resolutions might be "similar" (top notch is 1920x1080, PCs still have higher resolutions) but even if they were the same I'm sure you know resolutions do not make graphics (though I bet Sony and MS wanted you to believe otherwise) and the truth is, desktop PCs are already faster and games look better than on consoles and the gap will only widen more and more.

Its nice that we have higher resolutions, its just we don't need to make such a fuss about it.

[bobber205]

Umm.......



Have you seen the differences between games that are played in HD and then played on a normal TV screen?!



Only reason why I recently started playing console games because they FINALLY have begun raising the resolution. Before I couldnt even stand playing PC games on 800x600.

So what did you play before pcs were in higher res than 800x600. How did you know the difference?

[FleurDuMal]

So what did you play before pcs were in higher res than 800x600. How did you know the difference?

Well, I think the standard for even low range PC's has been higher than 800x600 for quite a while now. Since I've been playing on PC's (about 8 years now I guess), I don't think I've ever had to play a game in under 800x600.

But then again, my memory isn't all it could be :p

[psycoswimmer]

I agree an HD Resolution can be nice, but most people don't have any idea what it means. There was an ad with Jessica Simpons for DirectTV which was about how the send out HD shows, she say "I don't what that means, but I sure want it" They make a point on how almost NO one knows what 1080p or 1080i like its a good thing that few understand what it is!


Not to say it can't be a good thing but few people know about what it really is

I saw that commercial. It's what everyone that's not tech-savvy is really thinking.

For example: My aunt just got a Sony Bravia 42" 720p LCD. She was going on an on about how great the picture is. And then she put on an analog SD channel and told me if I thought it was really nice looking. :rolleyes:

[Yvan256]

One of the problem is companies giving up decent framerates for the sake of higher resolution... The Xbox 360 was upgraded via firmware to allow 720p (if I remember correctly) but the GPU itself isn't more powerful... What good are high-definition graphics if they run at 15-20 images per second? :rolleyes:

[Dagless]

Why this craze?

Because TV has been stagnant for a long time. And IMO the push has been too soon. Why? I was playing Tony Hawks Project 8 on a 360 before in 1080i, hello stuttering frames. Funny too as these machines should be able to run these big games in super high resolutions without any problems.

It also seems like America is really pushing HD. Maybe it's because they've been stuck in 480 compared to the 576 of PAL? Who knows. What I do know is nobody in the UK really cares about HD at the moment. Sky have come out with a HD service (better late than never?) which is full of crap. A handful of channels for a stupid amount of money.
I would like more shows to be filmed with HD cameras though. The colours they get are stunning. But I'm, along with a massive number of people here, perfectly content with a 576i/p image.

If HD was adapted quietly. No fuss from broadcasters or TV manufactures with no price increase on services or products then brilliant. But it isn't. It's being dragged kicking and screaming full of people who bought too soon, over the top prices etc.

[WillMak]

So what did you play before pcs were in higher res than 800x600. How did you know the difference?

lol. I remember when games were played in the 640*480 standard. Then they finnaly started making video cards that could run 800*600 smoothly and WHOA! I thought 800 * 600 was awesome! Then I went up to 1024*768 and WHOA!!!!!!!!!! Then I played Doom 3 at 1600 * 1200 on my friend's alienware and DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyways, I think 20 years from now we'll be complaining that our games aren't at 3000 resolutions.

[Dagless]

One of the problem is companies giving up decent framerates for the sake of higher resolution... The Xbox 360 was upgraded via firmware to allow 720p (if I remember correctly) but the GPU itself isn't more powerful... What good are high-definition graphics if they run at 15-20 images per second? :rolleyes:

Yup. I'm playing Prey at the moment, currently in 1024*768 in 16:10. Now, I could play it in my monitors native resolution but it looks and plays like crap. In my current resolution I can stick on loads of AA, Anisotropic filtering etc.

Lower res and all the bells and whistles? I'll take that over jittery high resolutions any day. :) sure it's the same with many people too.

[psycoswimmer]

lol. I remember when games were played in the 640*480 standard. Then they finnaly started making video cards that could run 800*600 smoothly and WHOA! I thought 800 * 600 was awesome! Then I went up to 1024*768 and WHOA!!!!!!!!!! Then I played Doom 3 at 1600 * 1200 on my friend's alienware and DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyways, I think 20 years from now we'll be complaining that our games aren't at 3000 resolutions.

20 years from now, there will be no resolution. :eek: Lol. I think in 20 years virtual reality will have become standard (Nintendo leading the way :D) and developed into something that is really good.

[bluebomberman]

I agree an HD Resolution can be nice, but most people don't have any idea what it means. There was an ad with Jessica Simpons for DirectTV which was about how the send out HD shows, she say "I don't what that means, but I sure want it" They make a point on how almost NO one knows what 1080p or 1080i like its a good thing that few understand what it is!


Not to say it can't be a good thing but few people know about what it really is

Hit the nail on the head. You know there's a lot of marketing hype when Jessica Simpson's trying to sell you a technical standard for graphics resolution.

Personally, I don't see the point of complaining about the excessive marketing. It's American capitalism at work: HDTV's going to sell a lot of expensive flat screen TVs, a lot of next-gen consoles, and maybe even a whole lot of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD movies. We should just be thankful most of us on this thread were born with enough marbles in the noggin' to see through the marketing.

[wako]

So what did you play before pcs were in higher res than 800x600. How did you know the difference?



The last game I played at a low resolution was Starcraft, because it simply didnt even have a option. Anything before that, there wasnt even a graphics accelerator, so I was pretty much stuck with whatever there was.



How do I know the difference? Uh... for one you can SEE it, and secondly you can SEE what resolution you set... duh....

[wako]

Yeah the difference is quite appreciable, I'm no saying "HD" is not noticeable, I mean, it is, its just that I'm upset at how the industry has turned it into a fad and customers are falling right into it, not knowing what it is and letting the companies play their game (Sony with True HD, HDMI, no HD on Wii, no 1080p on X360, etc, etc, etc)



going HD is by far NOT a fad. It is becoming a STANDARD. A fad is like bell bottoms on a guy, an afro on a white guy, women being plump is considered sexy. A fad is something that will fade away in the future and be forgotten. HD will not. HD is something that wont just dissappear and suddenly we find ourselves playing at 720x480.


Even many companies are selling HD while consumers dont really understand it, its not like they are selling useless technology, or something they wont come to appreciate.


I personally dont mind the industry selling off HD like this because it is about time the standard changed. It is about time when ALL channels should be able to come in HD. The more the people buy it, the more I will come to appreciate watching shows on a big screen TV, since there would then be more of a demand for HD.

[Zwhaler]

Anyways, I think 20 years from now we'll be complaining that our games aren't at 3000 resolutions.
Oh they will. Already out is "UHDV" (Ultra High Definiton Video) which has resolution in the 7 and 8 thousands, and it takes up four terabytes of storage for a 2 hour movie. But hey, just give it a few years.

[it5five]

I don't care about the HD craze either. My SD TV works well enough, I really don't care about playing my consoles in HD since I don't have a "next-gen" console. Even if I did, I still wouldn't care about playing in HD. I have before with some friends and I don't really think it's a big deal. I'll buy an HD TV when my SD TV breaks and if I can find an HD TV at a reasonable price. Odds are it will be years before I even begin to care about HD.

[risc]

Which is why I tell you, the Wii IS capable of high definition

Sweet you tell me where to order my HD enabled Wii and I'll order it right now! :rolleyes:

[risc]

One of the problem is companies giving up decent framerates for the sake of higher resolution... The Xbox 360 was upgraded via firmware to allow 720p (if I remember correctly) but the GPU itself isn't more powerful... What good are high-definition graphics if they run at 15-20 images per second? :rolleyes:

The 360 had an upgrade recently to allow 1080p it has always done 720p as for the 15-20 FPS comment... LMFAO! Yeah right!

[Chrispy]

I'm still content with my SD tv. The only thing that is starting to bother me about it now is not the low resolution but the fact the lower right and lower left of the screen make text kinda blurry in Final Fantasy XII haha. That is a truly beautiful game for being on the PS2 and still blows me away every time I start it up. Eventually I will make the HD plunge but I'm still waiting for prices to come down before I do. I must say, my parents have a really big HD projection tv and watching Colts games on that thing is a joyful experience haha ;)

[GFLPraxis]

Sweet you tell me where to order my HD enabled Wii and I'll order it right now! :rolleyes:

He's actually right, Nintendo simply hasn't supplied developers with tools to output higher than 480p, so it'd be a big pain for any developer to do with little advantage and it would affect performance so why bother?

The Blitz Games guys at E3 basically confirmed that nothing in the hardware prevents HD output, it just doesn't have that much RAM or power so Nintendo figured the best decision was just to restrict everything to 480p for performance.

If the freakin' PS2 can have a game run in 1080i (Gran Turismo 4), so can the Wii.

[sikkinixx]

because HD gaming rocks. Period. Playing a game on a 24" or 27" SDTV is all well and good, but playing Gears of War with my buddy on my 50" 720p tv is freakin awesome. Finally games actually look good on a bigger tv. And a big tv with surround sound gives action games and especially sports games a whole new vibe.

And besides, its not like this is limited to HD. Look at computers.

"Get the new Dell XPS32389430 with Intel Core 2 Duo technology with Hyper Threading Centrino Mobile Windows Xp Professional Media Centre Edition Student-Teacher Edition Office Package 2006 Pro!"

All they do is all new lines and junk to it to confuse the crap out of ignorant consumers. My friends my age (20's)don't even know what Dual Core means, or what a dual-layer DVD is. Most people probably don't. But if buddy at Bestbuy says "but THIS model has [insert trademarked technology]! Makes it much more futureproof for a mere $150 extra" the most people will probably fall for it.

[ChrisBrightwell]

Only reason why I recently started playing console games because they FINALLY have begun raising the resolution. You've missed out on hundreds of phenomenal games, then.

Sucks for you.

[takao]

plenty of TV manufactures realized that they'll make more profit if they can get their customers to upgrade instead of replacing broken TVs thus the big push towards HD _again_ , this time in digital

in the 90-ties quite a few TV producers, especially in europe, died because the TVs they made before simply wouldn't stop working and nobody were interested in the analog hdtv in europe or other new fancy stuff


and it's quite clear how this time america alone is pushing it since, i guess, americans have a different attitude towards TV... it's considered much more important
for example: having a TV in the kitchen is something i never have seen around here

[takao]

You've missed out on hundreds of phenomenal games, then.

Sucks for you.

well i completly ignored starcraft and diablo 2 on the PC because the resolution couldn't be changed and they looked like rubbish on my screen .. i've been playing too much with 1024x768 to tolerate those blunders at the time

thanks to that i actually went from "love blizzard" to "i don't care about them"


thing is: higher resolution is good if you sit really close (PC) or have a really big screen
i don't see what the big fuss is about.. i mean higher resolutions have been around on PCs for ages, why are we supposed to pay through the nose for it ? for 900-1000 what a HDTV costs (without full resolution or actual hdtv tuner) you can get a PC screen which displays the same resolution _including_ a PC ... why do they charge so much for those HD-TVs ?

[greatdevourer]

Oh they will. Already out is "UHDV" (Ultra High Definiton Video) which has resolution in the 7 and 8 thousands, and it takes up four terabytes of storage for a 2 hour movie. But hey, just give it a few years. 7680p :D

One of the problem is companies giving up decent framerates for the sake of higher resolution... The Xbox 360 was upgraded via firmware to allow 720p (if I remember correctly) but the GPU itself isn't more powerful... What good are high-definition graphics if they run at 15-20 images per second? :rolleyes: Incorrect on all 3 counts. It is very powerful (more powerful than any card you can buy for under £500). 720p is compulsary and most games get about 30fps, with some achieving 60.

[MacRumorUser]

Because TV has been stagnant for a long time. And IMO the push has been too soon. Why? I was playing Tony Hawks Project 8 on a 360 before in 1080i, hello stuttering frames. Funny too as these machines should be able to run these big games in super high resolutions without any problems.

Jimmi stagnant too long - push too soon... Bit of a dicotomy there.

Tony Hawks Peoject 8 sucks, pick a better game - there are many like GoW, COD3 etc that are all perfect in 1080i

We can all take 1 bad example and then make a general claim - does it make it true ?

For example if I said...

Red Steel go generally bad review scores.. oh well I think Nintendo have totally fecked the control system thing up and crap graphics from 5 years ago, please lets have some progress. They should just go out of business now.

Does that make it true ? NO.....

[MacRumorUser]

And as for the original question why HD?

Because it evolution.

Things constantly evolve, if your not happy about it, convert to being Amish and go and live in a world without modern bounds.


Your argument is facetious and utterly moribund, especailly when your posting it on a forum which only exist because of technical evolution

[takao]

And as for the original question why HD?

Because it evolution.

Things constantly evolve, if your not happy about it, convert to being Amish and go and live in a world without modern bounds.

why replace a TV which isn't broken ?
if you buy a HD around here at the moment you are getting screwed hands down and you will have very likely buy a new one again in 5 years which is exactly what the TV industry wants you to do ... that's why there are so few TVs with HD tuners,crap cheap, or real hd resolution or even without european 720p50, 1080i50 etc. support

i can ask the same question why hardly anybody is using ISDN which is clearly better than old analog telephone lines ... do you have ISDN MRU ? did you have analog HDTV which was evolution from the old analog ? did you have laser-disc ? etc.

all people will buy HDTVs if they see a real advantage for them, if they don't, they won't buy it and the old TVs get replaced at the rate they stop working (which actually is happening at the moment around here)

and yeah i have seen 1080 footage in stores: i honestly don't see enough difference to justify spending 1000+ euro (for 1080 you pay more like 2.5-4k anyway)
and believe it or not: i'm not the only one

[MacRumorUser]

i can ask the same question why hardly anybody is using ISDN which is clearly better than old analog telephone lines ... do you have ISDN MRU ? did you have analog HDTV which was evolution from the old analog ? did you have laser-disc ? etc.e

Yes I had laserdisc. Bought it in 1995 and remember paying £250 for the starwars box set.
I bought the expensive model which meant you didnt have to flip the disc.

And yes I currenty have ISDN in our house ? So your point ;)




And if you do a little bit of research

Retailers continue to be surprised by huge sales of flatscreen TVs


Julia Finch, City editor
Thursday November 23, 2006
The Guardian

Shoppers are nervous: unemployment and interest rates are rising, utility and council tax bills continue to increase and personal indebtedness stands at a record £1.2 trillion.
It is little surprise, therefore, that retail sales are wobbly. But the gloom has not extended to the UK's living rooms: flat panel televisions are flying off store shelves at a rate that has surprised even seasoned retailers. According to research group GfK more than 480,000 flatscreen televisions were sold in October - the equivalent of one every six seconds, night and day, every day of the month. So far this year some 3million flatscreen sets have been sold to UK shoppers.


Article continues

It is a trend that runs counter to the current fad for shoppers to opt for more environmentally-friendly products. Flatscreen TVs use up to 40% more energy than old-style sets, and the bigger the screen, the more power they eat up.
The big surprise in the bumper level of October sales was that it had no obvious cause. Television sales normally take off ahead of big events - such as Christmas TV schedules or this year's World Cup. Last December some 420,000 flat panel TVs were sold and nearly 350,000 in May this year to soccer fans prepared for a month of football.

The first fortnight of November suggests that October was not a one-off - sales are running at just the same rate.

It is a market where bigger is better. "Not so long ago, a 20 inch (screen) would have been a large TV," said a spokesman for DSG, the parent group of Currys and Dixons.co.uk. "Now that's the size of a portable. The average size in store now is 37 inches."

The catalyst for the huge increase in sales has been the rapid decline in prices. When the first flatscreen, manufactured by Pioneer, went into UK stores in 1997 it cost about £10,000.

Now they start at just £129 for a 15 inch LCD at Argos. The Curry's range starts at £150, the same for a 15 inch screen, and rises to £5,000 for a 60 inch monster. Most shoppers, however, spend between £650 and £850 and select a TV that is far larger than the one it is replacing.

According to DSG, which yesterday unveiled its first half trading update, the average price of a large flatscreen has fallen 16% in the past year - and its unit sales are up 170%.

Kesa, which owns the Comet chain, is expected to reveal similar growth figures today and earlier this week Argos singled out the rush for new tellies as one of the main drivers of its near 5% like-for-like sales growth.

Even Marks & Spencer has been benefiting. M&S only recently started selling electrical goods, testing a limited range in a handful of stores. But when the group posted its half year profits earlier this month chief executive Stuart Rose said the store chain had already sold several hundreds of TVs.

Despite the big fall in prices, however, the amount of cash being poured into bigger and better viewing is substantial. Last year some £1.7 billion worth of flatscreens were sold to UK householders. So far this year, and with Christmas sales still to come, shoppers have spent £2.3bn - enough to build 23 hospitals or about 36 supertankers.

At the same time sales of traditional cathode ray TV sets have all but evaporated. "We do still sell the odd CRT TV," said a DSG spokesman, "but only really in the portable, combination market - with a built in DVD". Chief executive John Clare said the old technology was now "pretty much out of the equation".

Mr Clare said the boom has only just started - because despite the runaway sales, still only one in five households have a flat panel as their main living room TV set.

Changes in TV technology are also expected to fuel the explosive growth. DSG reckons next year will be "the year of HD (high definition TV), with SkyHD, Blu-Ray and HDDVD all exerting positive pressure on the market".

The number of programmes in HD is currently relatively limited - to mainly big sporting events and natural history programmes - but there will be far more in the months to come and that is expected to fuel further growth.

The analogue-digital switchover, which starts in 2008 and scheduled to end in 2012, will also encourage viewers to upgrade their sets.

"I expect the market to remain strong for several years," said Mr Clare. "The backdrop is that there is a transition going on."

Jut because you arent running out to replace your CRT - sales clearly show that people arent buying them anymore. period.

[Dagless]

Jimmi stagnant too long - push too soon... Bit of a dicotomy there.

I didn't mean "stagnant too long" as that sounds like I'd love HD to be more readily available. It's just there has been huge pushes with sound, 5.1? Perfect. 7.1? a little overkill but meh. What's happened with video? Something had to be done eventually but I still think it's too soon (slow broadband speeds, expensive LCD's, no providers etc).

And I say it's too soon because look at some 360 games? The most noticeable to me is the new Tony Hawks. I'd rather play it on my DS with it's solid framerates. jumpy frames just remind me of playing games on my PC, when I'd buy a game that was too powerful for the hardware. GPU's can't give us 1080p 60fps for everything, call me picky but until the image is absolutely flawless then I'm not going to invest a penny, only having to re-invest it when it gets better.

[kuyu]

I have an HDTV (see sig) and absolutely love the thing. If you can't see the difference in the store I'd bet that the store isn't showing an HD signal. When I picked up my set the store was REALLY pushing 1080p down people's throat. To move those models they hooked them all up to a 1080p signal and turned all the 720 sets on standard def video. Shady...

HD can be confusing, but not really. There are 3 types. 720p, 1080i and 1080p. All three are sweet but 1080p is overkill right now. At CES this year it was unveiled as a technology for screens over 50 inches. Smaller than that and the difference is not really noticable.

People are getting confused by all the marketing terms (plasma, LCD, DLP, LCOS, SXRD, TrueHD). Just pick one that you like. Only a true videophile can tell the difference anyway. Any of them with an HD source will pwn the picture you have now.

[Chone]

going HD is by far NOT a fad. It is becoming a STANDARD. A fad is like bell bottoms on a guy, an afro on a white guy, women being plump is considered sexy. A fad is something that will fade away in the future and be forgotten. HD will not. HD is something that wont just dissappear and suddenly we find ourselves playing at 720x480.


Even many companies are selling HD while consumers dont really understand it, its not like they are selling useless technology, or something they wont come to appreciate.


I personally dont mind the industry selling off HD like this because it is about time the standard changed. It is about time when ALL channels should be able to come in HD. The more the people buy it, the more I will come to appreciate watching shows on a big screen TV, since there would then be more of a demand for HD.

I'm talking about a marketing fad, if we are lucky, it will die soon enough and "high definition" will die, replaced instead by "resolutions" like it works on the computer industry (although sadly, the term "XHD" has stuck to nvidia), of course I'm talking about marketing.

See the problem is where do you draw the line for HD? What is HD and what isn't? The word itself is not very clear, a 640x480 image can be quite defined under the right circumstances and a 1280x720 image can be quite undefined under the wrong circumstances, so why not educate people on resolutions and not definitions, people are led to believe 720p/1080p etc are some kind of "modes" that just make everything look prettier and so they start making assumptions (HDMI only for 1080p, Wii no HD, X360 no 1080p, these are just some of the common ones).

[takao]

And if you do a little bit of research

Jut because you arent running out to replace your CRT - sales clearly show that people arent buying them anymore. period.

so ?
lcds != hdtv
in case you missed it ;)

of course i would buy a flat tv if i had to buy a new one (aka. the old breaks) ... but i wouldn't buy a 1000€ one

so far i have yet to see a flatscreen TV "in the wild": in somebody's living room in the real world ... if so many are sold where are they ? besides being as furniture in every god damn shopping window for displaying ads ...
i mean just because of statistics i would have needed to come across one

edit: and about modes:
there is 720p50, 1080i50, 1080p50, 720p60, 1080i60, 1080p60
then there is dvdb-t,dvb-c,dvb-s, different compressions & encryptions etc.
and then there are tvs with resolutions 1376x etc. 6 different connectors etc.

instead of finally getting over pal/ntsc and all the different connectors of today with flat out saying "HD = 1 resolution (1080 or 1100 don't care) with 1 refresh-rate and this 1 single connector" they continue with the rubbish of the past and then some ...

[mkubal]

I'm talking about a marketing fad, if we are lucky, it will die soon enough and "high definition" will die, replaced instead by "resolutions" like it works on the computer industry (although sadly, the term "XHD" has stuck to nvidia), of course I'm talking about marketing.

See the problem is where do you draw the line for HD? What is HD and what isn't? The word itself is not very clear, a 640x480 image can be quite defined under the right circumstances and a 1280x720 image can be quite undefined under the wrong circumstances, so why not educate people on resolutions and not definitions, people are led to believe 720p/1080p etc are some kind of "modes" that just make everything look prettier and so they start making assumptions (HDMI only for 1080p, Wii no HD, X360 no 1080p, these are just some of the common ones).

The marketing hype will never die down. These companies exist to sell things and that where the marketing/advertising comes in. Nothing can stop that.

That being said, I do agree with you that people need to be educated about what some of the terms mean. But how do you do that? How do you teach someone who doesn't have any clue about "pixels" and "resolutions," what 720p is? Some might have the capacity to learn the meanings, but others will always be lost.

As for defining HD, hasn't that already been agreed to? The broadcast standards are 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. Surely you aren't suggesting that we try to implement an HD standard based on how "defined" a picture is. That sounds rather subjective. As in "I know the resolution is 320 by 240, but the picture is so defined we should mark it as HD and upscale it for consumption on HD sets." You just can't do that.

Anyway, don't take this as me attacking you. I completely agree about the lack of knowledge about HD standards and the marketing terms that confuse people further.

[DrStrangelove]

I agree an HD Resolution can be nice, but most people don't have any idea what it means. There was an ad with Jessica Simpons for DirectTV which was about how the send out HD shows, she say "I don't what that means, but I sure want it" They make a point on how almost NO one knows what 1080p or 1080i like its a good thing that few understand what it is!


Not to say it can't be a good thing but few people know about what it really is

I don't think they were talking about average people. I think they were making fun of Jessica Simpson for being stupid. Which, apparently, isn't an act.

Most people don't know the "technicalities" of HD, true, most people don't need to know or have the desire to understand why they're getting a better picture either. They just want a better picture.

My sister doesn't have the FIRST CLUE as to why her new computer every 2 years is heads and shoulders above the last (at least technically speaking) she just trusts that technology keeps getting better and she wants to take advantage of it.

When it comes to HD sets (of all sorts) there does need to be SOME sort of education, however. I know more people that bought these sets and set them up with analog cables (or any cable that limits to 420) and then complain about "the picture not being that great." I've shown up with cables at many times and walked out a television God in their eyes.

Here's my bling (before setting up the surround sound and the 72" component cabinet):

http://home.comcast.net/~sandfleahost/doc58inplasma.jpg

TH-58PX600U (http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelDetail?storeId=15001&catalogId=13401&itemId=97564&catGroupId=24973&modelNo=TH-58PX600U&surfModel=TH-58PX600U&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702)

[Dagless]

instead of finally getting over pal/ntsc and all the different connectors of today with flat out saying "HD = 1 resolution (1080 or 1100 don't care) with 1 refresh-rate and this 1 single connector" they continue with the rubbish of the past and then some ...


Exactly. I would love to see my grandparents try and buy a HDTV. They're becoming as complex as computers with ports, refresh rates, contrast ratios, resolutions, digital TV etc. It's fine for us computer folk. But my mates parents went out to buy a HDTV (Veira, or something) and were dissapointed as hell when they weren't watching "HD"TV, no source after all. But they didn't know, they just bought one from Argos or somewhere. His 360 works on it of course but there is so, so little education about HDTV standards and what it ensues.

Of course they won't run adverts to promote HD here, not when they're trying to get the same luddite folks to buy plain ol' Digital TV.

I love the mess HD has become in England.

[DrStrangelove]

Cause everything is going towards HD and video games have to ride the wave as well. There was HD porn before HD consoles.

This isn't saying much. PORN, after moving from film to video (all types) has always been on the cutting edge of technology.

I have no proven formula (I actually haven't even searched for one) but my sincere (and I mean SINCERE) thought is that home computing technology would not be where it is today without porn.

The internet would certainly have appeal... but there are TONS of people that rely on the internet almost solely for porn (or at least that's the driving [no pun intended] force).

$230MM in online revenue in 2001... today it's worth about $10BB. Seriously. What industry do you think REALLY drives things like "streaming video" technology? Legitimate film and/or video conferencing companies? Heheh. I'd bet otherwise.

[takao]

I love the mess HD has become in England.

it's the same here ... they now really push hard to sell those digital tv set top boxes and in 4-5 years you have to switch again to another set top box for HD-TV because the set top boxes sold today don't support HDTV ... if they find a way to sell you set top boxes for _not_ watching TV you can expect them within a week

[Yvan256]

The last game I played at a low resolution was Starcraft, because it simply didnt even have a option. Anything before that, there wasnt even a graphics accelerator, so I was pretty much stuck with whatever there was.



How do I know the difference? Uh... for one you can SEE it, and secondly you can SEE what resolution you set... duh....

Actually, Starcraft can only run in 640x480. Nothing lower, nothing higher. Maybe you're thinking of Diablo II, which can run in either 640x480 or 800x600.

And BTW I started playing games in 160x200 with only 16 colors. The display was set in 320x200 but the main graphics were 160x200. Remember the old Sierra AGI quests such as Space Quest? I was just glad I had EGA graphics (16 colors) instead of CGA (4 colors).

[danny_w]

The first games that I played on a pc were 320x240 @ 256 colors. The resolution and colors weren't great, but my point is that there is more to a game than just flashy hd images. I have seen far too many games die because they tried to rely on flashy images to carry a lame story line or bad control scheme. Yes, games look much better now than in the 'old days', but the story and gameplay are still the most important parts of any game. So no, I am not all that interested in the new crop of consoles that can do 'hd'.

And as for television shows, until there are shows that interest me in hd, then my big screen projection crt will do my just fine, thank you. I don't need (or want) to see the nose hairs on the newscaster at 10pm.

[Yvan256]

[...] instead of finally getting over pal/ntsc and all the different connectors of today with flat out saying "HD = 1 resolution (1080 or 1100 don't care) with 1 refresh-rate and this 1 single connector" they continue with the rubbish of the past and then some ...

That, sadly, is the worst part of all. Here's a resume of new the "HD Mess":
- 50Hz and 60Hz refresh rates (PAL/NTSC)
- 480p, 720i, 720p, 1080i, 1080p resolutions
- Blu-Ray and HD-DVD
- 3 CODECs for Blu-Ray/HD-DVD
- DVI, HDMI and component connection (component for 480p only)

So that means more or less 121+ combinations of "HD standards". No wonder non-technical people are confused. Add the display technologies into the mix (CRT, LCD, Plasma, DLP...) and the screen ratios (4:3 vs 16:9, which you have to understand or else you'll be mad that "regular TV" now has "black bars on the sides", or you get people stretching 4:3 into 16:9 to "fill the screen", etc). No wonder it's a general mess. :rolleyes:

I'll just keep my old 36" 4:3 CRT Toshiba set, thank you. It can do 480p via component cables, and that's good enough for me.

[mkubal]

Yes, games look much better now than in the 'old days', but the story and gameplay are still the most important parts of any game. So no, I am not all that interested in the new crop of consoles that can do 'hd'.

Why does this argument keep popping up? High Res and "good game" are not mutually exclusive concepts. Please stop. HD will not make a bad game good in much the same way that the waving around a Wiimote will not make a bad game good. A good game is a good game regardless of presentation. I played Blitz for PS1 on an HD set over Thanksgiving, it was fun as hell even though it looked terrible. If it didn't look terrible would it have been less fun?

The contempt for higher res gaming is simply baffling to me. It's seems like those who have it love it and would never go back. Those who don't insist that it's worthless and they would never make the jump if possible. Like MRU said, "it's evolution." It will happen whether you feel inclined to be a part of it or not.

Note: To those who might have gotten the impression that I dislike the Wii or Nintendo, I will be getting a Wii as soon as they are readily available, which is what I did for the 360 as well.

[mkubal]

- DVI, HDMI and component connection (component for 480p only)


Component is capable of carrying a 1080p signal. The 360 does 1080p over component for games. It's a matter of owning a set that can accept it. And those sets certainly exist, although HDMI is basically the standard for 1080p now.

[MacRumorUser]

I'm talking about a marketing fad, if we are lucky, it will die soon enough and "high definition" will die, replaced instead by "resolutions" like it works on the computer industry

Not a chance as proved by Takao

edit: and about modes:
there is 720p50, 1080i50, 1080p50, 720p60, 1080i60, 1080p60
then there is dvdb-t,dvb-c,dvb-s, different compressions & encryptions etc.
and then there are tvs with resolutions 1376x etc. 6 different connectors etc.
.

Why label with all these. HD ready is all a lay person needs to know. And that's a ll they want to know.

[takao]

The contempt for higher res gaming is simply baffling to me. It's seems like those who have it love it and would never go back. Those who don't insist that it's worthless and they would never make the jump if possible. Like MRU said, "it's evolution." It will happen whether you feel inclined to be a part of it or not.


the thing is that it is an old hat for quite a lot of people who are playing on the PC
seriously why is a higher resolution suddenly the best thing ever happened to gaming... i'm doing it for years now on the PC and i still continued to play console games with lower resolution on the TV and i never sat there saying "ARGHH i'm getting eye-cancer from looking at it"

same with 40 player online multiplayer of resistance fall of man ... welcome to 5 years ago


i'm pretty sure that within a year or perhaps 1 1/2 all this hype about HD in gaming will be pretty much forgotten when console only gamers realize that their "so powerfull" machines can't compete with PCs again

edit: about HD ready: it's a joke ... read up the requirements ... a 500x720 screen might be called HD ready
also it doesn't give clear definitions about connectors..
for example one device might have dvi and the other hdmi and both are HD-ready and yet they are not compatible
also it only has to accept the input .... it doesn't really matter how it displays the content.. it only needs to have 720 lines
also manufacturer themselves are responsible for issuing the label .. theoretically they might get controlled but in practice they don't ... and if they get caught ... well what do they get ? an angry letter ?

[Dagless]

the thing is that it is an old hat for quite a lot of people who are playing on the PC
seriously why is a higher resolution suddenly the best thing ever happened to gaming... i'm doing it for years now on the PC and i still continued to play console games with lower resolution on the TV and i never sat there saying "ARGHH i'm getting eye-cancer from looking at it"

same with 40 player online multiplayer of resistance fall of man ... welcome to 5 years ago


i'm pretty sure that within a year or perhaps 1 1/2 all this hype about HD in gaming will be pretty much forgotten when console only gamers realize that their "so powerfull" machines can't compete with PCs again


Hear hear! I do think it is nice though that consoles are finally catching up. 40 player online? Wasn't HL2 and Counterstrike running 64 player online matches? Wasn't there some jungle FPS game that could run up to 64 from even before HL2?

As I've always said. HD will not make Yoshis Island any better, equally it will not magically make the PS3's launch line up better (it hasn't).
Quake 1? 1024*768 in 1997.

I'm now off to finish Prey in the same resolution, but with *every* graphic option on full. And in 16:10!

[LethalWolfe]

To the OP, the heavy push on HD is there because big electronics manufacturers need something to sell. And after years the market (I can only speak for the US) is still responding well below their expectations so their solution is to beat everyone over the head w/HD advertising to try to artificially generate a desire for HD among consumers that is not naturally generating itself.

"HD" itself is not a fad though and is not a marketing term. HD is a specific set of image resolutions and frame rates defined by the ATSC.

IMO, for what's available in the market place right now I'll wait until my SD TV set breaks before even considering buying an HDTV. I can't justify paying the asking price for a decent HDTV especially when there is so little HD content out there compared to SD. And if I want that HD content (aside from OTA channels) I have to shell out even more money for HD cable channels, an HD video game console, and/or HiDef DVD player+HiDef movies. That's a lot of money to spend just to get a better looking picture, IMO.

I'm also a bit "blah" towards HD in the home 'cause I've worked with production quality HD on TV shows and the like and, just like w/SD, the final product that gets displayed in the home is such a beat down version of the original image that I just can't get excited over it.

Yvan256,
480p is an SD digital TV standard (sometimes referred to as EDTV or enhanced definition TV), but it is not HD. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC#Resolution) is a list of the ATSC digital standards (both SD and HD).


Lethal

[suneohair]

All people need to know is that 1080P is the best. I could try to explain it to some people all day and they would never get it.

The current idea of : Good, Better, Best is what will work for those who don't know much.

I find it particularly sad that some people own amazingly expensive HD sets but are not even using them right. :mad:

[mkubal]

i'm pretty sure that within a year or perhaps 1 1/2 all this hype about HD in gaming will be pretty much forgotten when console only gamers realize that their "so powerfull" machines can't compete with PCs again

You haven't been able to watch HDTV on your PC for years though. Or at least not as easily as you could fire up a high res game. I think the OP was talking about HD in general not about gaming. The thread has just taken a turn to gaming.

You're right about high res gaming being "yesterday's news" to PC gamers though. I think most gamers realize that and, like I said a couple post back, HD doesn't make a bad game good. However, high res IS new to console gamers and it's relatively new to televisions. I just feel like they're two different things that can't really be compared. I like to play turn-based and RTS games on PCs, but I find it awkward to play shooters without a console controller. To each his own, I guess.

As a mac user I've never been terribly involved in PC gaming over the years. So I'd appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable could answer me this: Was there ever a point in PC gaming when people were moving from their 640 by 480 monitors to higher res screens while others sat on the sideline screaming that no one needed higher resolutions than 640 by 480 and thus would forever hang on to their current monitor? And, if so, are those people still hanging on to that belief and said monitor?

[FleurDuMal]

As a mac user I've never been terrible involved in PC gaming over the years. So I'd appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable could answer me this: Was there ever a point in PC gaming when people were moving from their 640 by 480 monitors to higher res screens while others sat on the sideline screaming that no one needed higher resolutions than 640 by 480 and thus would forever hang on to their current monitor? And, if so, are those people still hanging on to that belief and said monitor?

I've never been that involved in PC gaming either (I've never had the money to do so), but I would often go through bouts of interest and read up on other peoples experiences.

AFAIK, PC gaming resolutions stayed pretty much stagnant for a good few years. 1600x1200 was pretty much top end, and stayed that way for a good while. It was usually only found on 19" monitors, and in the CRT days they were usually so monstrously large that only 'professionals' or those really hardcore would get one. I, like most other people, switched between 1280x1024 and 1024x768 according to what what game I was playing and what hardware I was on (the only PC's I ever played on were crappy cheap Dell PC's that my dad would get).

However, now that large widescreen LCD monitors are all the rage and are gradually becoming more affordable(ish) I think people have been obsessing about resolutions a lot more. Graphics card manufacturers are rolling out obscenely priced cards all the time because people are getting massive 1900x1200 monitors and are wanting to play the latest games at their monitors native resolution (where possible), which as you can imagine requires a beast of a card (with a beast of a price).

So yeah, I think PC gamers are just as obsessed by resolutions as console gamers are becoming - but for entirely different reasons - in the same way as PC and console gamers weren't that bothered about resolutions a couple of years ago. However, I think PC gaming resolutions have hit a glass roof now for a few years as current graphics cards can barely push 24" monitors, never mind 30" monitors (regardless of how unattainable a 30" monitor is for most gamers anyway). Then again, the same goes for consoles as TV's are not going to get a resolution upgrade beyond 1080p for a long, long, long time now.

[Chone]

All people need to know is that 1080P is the best. I could try to explain it to some people all day and they would never get it.

The current idea of : Good, Better, Best is what will work for those who don't know much.

I find it particularly sad that some people own amazingly expensive HD sets but are not even using them right. :mad:
Yes, but people do not understand a 720p game might end up looking better than a 1080p game.


AFAIK, PC gaming resolutions stayed pretty much stagnant for a good few years. 1600x1200 was pretty much top end, and stayed that way for a good while. It was usually only found on 19" monitors, and in the CRT days they were usually so monstrously large that only 'professionals' or those really hardcore would get one. I, like most other people, switched between 1280x1024 and 1024x768 according to what what game I was playing and what hardware I was on (the only PC's I ever played on were crappy cheap Dell PC's that my dad would get).

However, now that large widescreen LCD monitors are all the rage and are gradually becoming more affordable(ish) I think people have been obsessing about resolutions a lot more. Graphics card manufacturers are rolling out obscenely priced cards all the time because people are getting massive 1900x1200 monitors and are wanting to play the latest games at their monitors native resolution (where possible), which as you can imagine requires a beast of a card (with a beast of a price).

So yeah, I think PC gamers are just as obsessed by resolutions as console gamers are becoming - but for entirely different reasons - in the same way as PC and console gamers weren't that bothered about resolutions a couple of years ago. However, I think PC gaming resolutions have hit a glass roof now for a few years as current graphics cards can barely push 24" monitors, never mind 30" monitors (regardless of how unattainable a 30" monitor is for most gamers anyway). Then again, the same goes for consoles as TV's are not going to get a resolution upgrade beyond 1080p for a long, long, long time now.

You make a valid point, but 8800 cards are already pushing the 2560x1600 barrier, with outrageous levels of anti aliasing and anisotropic filtering no less... (heck a single 8800GTX can run Oblivion at 2560x1600 at max, 16x af, 4x aa), if someone released an even bigger monitor with a 3840x2400 resolution (which a lil bit more than double the pixel density of 2560x1600) I'm confident SLI 8800GTXs would do more than a fine job handling it (perhaps with some options turned down and some optimization)... and even if they couldn't it would only be a rate of 6 months before we see another card that CAN.

Graphic cards in computers are advancing at an abnormal rate which is why I always burst out laughing whenever someone says consoles have finally given us PC-like graphics... 1280x720 (what most games this gen will run at it seems) is hardly "pc-like" (1280x1024 is piece of cake for any card, hell the 7300GT on my Mac Pro, a sub 100$ card, can play games at 1280x1024 1600x1200 is what most gamers play at and every modest high end card can run at 1920x1200 and then there the maniacs with 1000$ card setups who play at 2560x1600)

Also PCs are not that expensive, for around 2500$ you can get a 24" monitor (1920x1200, higher than any console), a single 8800GTX, 2GB of RAM and a fast Conroe processor. Now tell me how much a PS3 with HDMI and a 1080p TV will run you... and a PC can do so much more than play games (heck, it can MAKE games).

[Dagless]

Also PCs are not that expensive, for around 2500$ you can get a 24" monitor (1920x1200, higher than any console), a single 8800GTX, 2GB of RAM and a fast Conroe processor. Now tell me how much a PS3 with HDMI and a 1080p TV will run you... and a PC can do so much more than play games (heck, it can MAKE games).

An interesting point. People leave out the cost of a HDTV when buying a console, when for most people it IS the only HD source (especially in Europe). To get the most out of each-

PS3- 450
1080p TV- 1400
(option upscaler- 1000)

Core 2 Duo PC- 500
20" monitor- 300
8800- 300

(In pound sterling, keyboard isn't recognising the pound sign under Windows.)


Oh! and talking about craze... http://www.cyberselect.co.uk/product/1104.

[FleurDuMal]

Also PCs are not that expensive, for around 2500$ you can get a 24" monitor (1920x1200, higher than any console), a single 8800GTX, 2GB of RAM and a fast Conroe processor. Now tell me how much a PS3 with HDMI and a 1080p TV will run you... and a PC can do so much more than play games (heck, it can MAKE games).

Well, if 2500$ isn't that much to you, then lucky you :p

Anyway, if you want to play a game on each platform to their potential, then you have to have very deep pockets as a PC gamer. In fact, if you go out and buy a high resolution monitor, you effectively commit yourself to buying the latest top end graphics card every year given that playing a game at anything lower than the native resolution apparantly looks awful on a monitor. So you can't gradually let your graphics card become obsolete, it becomes obsolete as soon as it won't run the latest games at your monitors native resolution, and if you have a high resolution monitor, that's going to be sooner rather than later.

With a 360 (the PS3 example is hardly fair given that it's just come out AND it includes a BluRay player), you put out £270 at the beginning and you're set for the next four/five years. Even if you factor in a 28-30" HDTV you're looking at an original outlay of under £1000 (for both the TV and the console) and your set up will still be able to play the latest games at their full potential in five years time.

Could I buy a PC & monitor now for under £1000 and still be able to play all the latest games in five years time? No way!!

Although there are many things I dislike about console gaming, and many that I like about PC gaming, what I really like about consoles is that it motivates more careful coding as every last ounce of power has to be squeezed from aging hardware - and this is often done quite sucessfully. Look at Jade Empire on the Xbox, for example. A beautiful game running on four+ year old hardware. A game could never look that beautiful on four year old PC hardware as PC developers put the onus on you to buy the latest gear to play their games (and they are limited by the fact that they aren't developing for a specific architecture, which of course isn't their fault).

PC gaming is a rich boys (and girls) game and always will be unfortunately.

[Dagless]

PC gaming is a rich boys (and girls) game and always will be unfortunately.

nope nope nope. I've got a Pentium 3 machine downstairs with Windows 98, just for games that are incompatible with XP and co. Being a crazy PC gamer means you gotta shell out for the latest video card every other Wednesday. I love my PC games and I'm only playing them on a regular old iMac.

[FleurDuMal]

I love my PC games and I'm only playing them on a regular old iMac.

But will you be able to play the latest games on that iMac in four or five years time? No.

Would someone who bought a 360/PS3/Wii be able to play the latest games on their console in four or five years? Yes

[danny_w]

To clarify my earlier post (since some seemed to misinterpret what I said) I never intended to say that hd gaming was bad or that better image quality in gaming or tv was bad, only that IMO it is not the most important aspect of a game. And no, high resolution visuals certainly do not in and of themselves make a game bad; it is just that in the past (most notably when Windows95 came out) too many developers used eye candy as a substitute for good storyline and gameplay. Thankfully those days are mostly behind us, but to some of us older folks the gaming travesties of that time remain seared in our memories, and that is why we keep bringing up the "visuals do not make a game" line that another poster said we should stop. OK, I'll stop (for now at least).

[MacRumorUser]

the question was is HD a craze ?

The answer is no.

with 3 million TV sets sold in the UK last year how is that a craze ?

If the wii or PS3 sold 3 million in the UK in a year alone everyone would be triumphing their success.

HD is here to stay.

[takao]

with 3 million TV sets sold in the UK last year how is that a craze ?

If the wii or PS3 sold 3 million in the UK in a year alone everyone would be triumphing their success.

HD is here to stay.

to repeat myself:
flatscreen doesn't equal HDTV

[Dagless]

But will you be able to play the latest games on that iMac in four or five years time? No.

Would someone who bought a 360/PS3/Wii be able to play the latest games on their console in four or five years? Yes

I didn't mention anything about latest games :D If I never bought a new computer/video card ever again and just played my Windows 98 gmaes I'd still say I'm a PC gamer. That is what I would be doing after all :)

[FleurDuMal]

I didn't mention anything about latest games :D If I never bought a new computer/video card ever again and just played my Windows 98 gmaes I'd still say I'm a PC gamer. That is what I would be doing after all :)

Well I think it was pretty obvious that we were talking about remaining in contemporary gaming.

Old hardware plays old games would hardly be a very interesting discussion now would it :rolleyes:

[Dagless]

to repeat myself:
flatscreen doesn't equal HDTV

Very true. Flatscreen SDTV's are selling very well indeed. There's some kind of pricing region where people are comfortable with in the UK and right now LCD's are slap bang in the middle of it. My sister got a nice 15" LCD TV last Christmas, one of the last in the shop too. HDTV's cost from 3 times as much for the same size.

I keep saying but the UK will go mad for HDTV once they get to the price SDTV LCD's are now and when the BBC launch a free HD service. Which might not be too long off. They tested Freeview HD on my nearest transmitter (Winter Hill) so they're clearly showing they want to go down the Freeview HD route. And on that day HD will take off here.

[MacRumorUser]

to repeat myself:
flatscreen doesn't equal HDTV

The majority - over 90% of flatscreen TV sold in 2006 in the UK are HD-Ready.

Check out the HD forum if you need proof.

Just because your not interested in one doesnt mean everyone shares your opinion.


The fact that CRT sales are practically NIL means there is NO going back. Therefore this is NOT a craze.

[FleurDuMal]

My sister got a nice 15" LCD TV last Christmas, one of the last in the shop too. HDTV's cost from 3 times as much for the same size.


You can get 15" HDTV's?!? I thought the smallers was 24" or something :confused:

[sikkinixx]

Do all the people arguing here even HAVE High Def Tv's? Have you played a 360 in 720/1080? Or watched Football/Hockey/Baseball/Racing/Anything in HD?

Maybe in Europe its not that huge...? You guys are too obsessed with your cell phones to want a fancy new tv ;)

[MacRumorUser]

Do all the people arguing here even HAVE High Def Tv's? Have you played a 360 in 720/1080? Or watched Football/Hockey/Baseball/Racing/Anything in HD?

Maybe in Europe its not that huge...? You guys are too obsessed with your cell phones to want a fancy new tv ;)

It's merely a co-incidence that those that are badmouthing HD are the ones who were championing Nintendo wii and lack of HD... ;)

And HD Ready TV's are the biggest selling home electronic purchase this year in Europe, but of course thats because all the retailers and people buying them are completely wrong ;)

[LethalWolfe]

If the wii or PS3 sold 3 million in the UK in a year alone everyone would be triumphing their success.


That's not an accurate analogy for a couple of reasons. First, you are comparing a specific product (a PS3 or Wii) to an entire field of products (HDTVs) and secondly the sales goals for TVs will always higher than the sales goals for consoles because the demographic for TV sales is much higher than the demographic for console sales.


Lethal

[MacRumorUser]

First, you are comparing a specific product (a PS3 or Wii) to an entire field of products (HDTVs) and secondly the sales goals for TVs will always higher than the sales goals for consoles because the demographic for TV sales is much higher than the demographic for console sales.l

True but were talking craze.

The fact that TV's are selling masses of units to a bigger demographic shows they obviously arent.

[takao]

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2006/gb20060725_384307.htm?campaign_id=rss_null

from july ... but just look at the numbers between europe and USA in july

as usual it's a matter from where the numbers are coming.. if there were 2 mio hdtvs in europe in juli how can there be 3 million 4 months later just in the UK alone .. ;)

[ironjaw]

I read somewhere that all this HD craze is about that consumers can finally see the true quality of movies recorded.

I think the article I read was saying that with HD you will finally be able to watch the true quality of 35mm film as it was recorded (and it was mentioning films recorded back from 1930's).

And as another poster also said, HD has been around since the early 1990s. I don't have one but I sure do want one - the quality is amazing:D

[MacRumorUser]

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2006/gb20060725_384307.htm?campaign_id=rss_null

from july ... but just look at the numbers between europe and USA in july

as usual it's a matter from where the numbers are coming.. if there were 2 mio hdtvs in europe in juli how can there be 3 million 4 months later just in the UK alone .. ;)

read for yourself


http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1954654,00.html

http://money.guardian.co.uk/ethicalliving/story/0,,1823128,00.html

According to research group GfK more than 480,000 flatscreen televisions were sold in October - the equivalent of one every six seconds, night and day, every day of the month. So far this year some 3million flatscreen sets have been sold to UK shoppers.

[ironjaw]

I used to play prince of persia and larry suit 1 at lower resolution

[Dagless]

You can get 15" HDTV's?!? I thought the smallers was 24" or something :confused:

I knew that'd happen :D just a little experiment there. If I say LCD TV people will initially insist it's a HDTV. The TV in question is only SDTV, 4:3. But can run 1024*768 via a VGA port. but most definitely an SDTV.

[Dagless]

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2006/gb20060725_384307.htm?campaign_id=rss_null

from july ... but just look at the numbers between europe and USA in july

as usual it's a matter from where the numbers are coming.. if there were 2 mio hdtvs in europe in juli how can there be 3 million 4 months later just in the UK alone .. ;)

SHHHH!!!!! That was written by somebody who likes the Wii ;) :rolleyes:

[takao]

read for yourself


http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1954654,00.html

http://money.guardian.co.uk/ethicalliving/story/0,,1823128,00.html

the first doesn't even mention hd-tv at all... you simply assume that most are hdtv

the second only talks about hdtv sales when talking about the month leading up to the world cup and then doesn't even use any numbers but only "most" ... which kinda ignores the fact that most TV manufactures were disappointed by the sales

i came across the same problem ... there are simply too few reports about TV sales (for europe)

[Jschultz]

We've got the Magnavox 15Mf605T here at Circuit City...15" 720p HD ready.

I don't quite agree with needing an HD signal on that small of a TV, but people still buy them.

Then again, we sell them for kitchens and BATHROOMS. Yes, you heard me. Bathrooms.

Only in America folks! ;)

[MacRumorUser]

SHHHH!!!!! That was written by somebody who likes the Wii ;) :rolleyes:

That article was posted in frigging July.. :rolleyes:

From the GUARDIAN BUSINESS SECTION from THIS WEEK (not 6 months ago)

According to research group GfK more than 480,000 flatscreen televisions were sold in October - the equivalent of one every six seconds, night and day, every day of the month. So far this year some 3million flatscreen sets have been sold to UK shoppers.

It's stupid to post old from July news and say that it is indicative of the situation now.


the first doesn't even mention hd-tv at all... you simply assume that most are hdtv

I dont assume, just read the other HD fora and retailers analysis.

The majority of sets sold in the UK were HD-Ready.


More reports from UK retailer COMET

By Susie Mesure

24 November 2006
The prospect of digital Britain, which is fuelling demand for flat-screen televisions capable of receiving crystal sharp, high-definition broadcasts, kept consumers flocking to Comet stores for new sets after the World Cup finished, according to its owner Kesa Electricals.

Instead of slowing down, sales of HDTV TVs remained strong throughout August, September and October, Kesa said yesterday, unveiling figures that briefly sent its shares to a new high. Kesa's comments echoed those made by DSG International, home to Currys, on Wednesday.

John Lewis yesterday also said sales of its own televisions were doing "incredibly well", rising by 14 per cent last week against its peak week during the World Cup.

Kesa reported a 9.5 per cent leap in group like-for-like sales, which includes its main French electricals chain Darty and its BUT furniture business, during its third-quarter to 31 October.

Comet's underlying sales surged 10.9 per cent, Darty's by 9.6 per cent, and BUT's by 3 per cent. Its less developed chains in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium grew their underlying sales by 10.2 per cent.

Jean-Noel Labroue, the chief executive, said market conditions had been "positive". He said the strength of the back-to-school market had driven laptop sales, and the white goods market, which is driven by the housing market, had continued to pick up. But he remained cautious going into December and January, which is when the group makes most of its money.

"Although consumer confidence is expected to remain robust in the short term, we have seen a slowdown in the rate of growth towards the end of the quarter," he added. M. Labroue also said margins, which are lower on new technology products because of intense competition, remained soft.

Shares in the group, which briefly touched a new high of 376.75p, closed down a halfpenny at 359.5p despite a series of profit upgrades from analysts. Numis Securities lifted its pre-tax profit expectations to £175m from £160.1m.

On Wednesday John Clare, DSG's chief executive, said that size was "now everything" when it came to flat-panel HD-Ready TVs.

The best-selling models today have 37-inch screens and the 20-inch models, which a decade ago were regarded as large, are seen as portable versions.


If you need more info check out the HD-Ready fora and HD Magazine.

[takao]

That article was posted in frigging July.. :rolleyes:
From the GUARDIAN BUSINESS SECTION from THIS WEEK (not 6 months ago)
It's stupid to post old news and say that it is indicative of the situation now.

that's why the second link from you was from 18. of july .... read your own links for once



I dont assume, just read the other HD fora and retailers analysis.
The majority of sets sold in the UK were HD-Ready.

then give me those and not links which don't even mention hd-tv once (your first one) or are 4 months old (your second)

and you are still equaling flatscreens and hd-ready

[greatdevourer]

Also PCs are not that expensive, for around 2500$ you can get a 24" monitor (1920x1200, higher than any console), a single 8800GTX, 2GB of RAM and a fast Conroe processor. Now tell me how much a PS3 with HDMI and a 1080p TV will run you... and a PC can do so much more than play games (heck, it can MAKE games). Love this comment - "PCs are not that expensive - for around $2500" :eek: $2500 isn't expensive? What planet are you on!

You can get 15" HDTV's?!? I thought the smallers was 24" or something :confused: My little 15"er does 720p :D Although for some reason it doesn't do PAL60...

[DrStrangelove]

We've got the Magnavox 15Mf605T here at Circuit City...15" 720p HD ready.

I don't quite agree with needing an HD signal on that small of a TV, but people still buy them.

Then again, we sell them for kitchens and BATHROOMS. Yes, you heard me. Bathrooms.

Only in America folks! ;)

Yeah, they don't need to be in color either. :rolleyes:

Come on. Doesn't it make sense to have the best picture available regardless of size? Especially at 15"-- they're practically giving those things away.

[FleurDuMal]

Then again, we sell them for kitchens and BATHROOMS. Yes, you heard me. Bathrooms.

Only in America folks! ;)

A TV for bathrooms?!

Some people have too much money :(

Then again, my girlfriends dad bought an iMac for their kitchen. And yes, he's American :p :rolleyes:

[e²Studios]

A TV for bathrooms?!

Some people have too much money :(

Then again, my girlfriends dad bought an iMac for their kitchen. And yes, he's American :p :rolleyes:

I have a iMac in my kitchen, it helps when you are making something and want to watch video or read how to make it. I have found it comes in quite handy.

I have another computer in my living room, my MBP that goes anywhere, a mini in my guest room, and my PM in my office.

I think my neighbours had a TV put in their master bathroom when they remodeled, not too bad of an idea considering they have a huge whirlpool bath thingy.

Ed

[FleurDuMal]

I have a iMac in my kitchen, it helps when you are making something and want to watch video or read how to make it. I have found it comes in quite handy.

I have another computer in my living room, my MBP that goes anywhere, a mini in my guest room, and my PM in my office.

I think my neighbours had a TV put in their master bathroom when they remodeled, not too bad of an idea considering they have a huge whirlpool bath thingy.

Ed

Surely you could just have your PM in your office and an MBP for anywhere? :confused:

[Dagless]

Tch, I only have a TV/VHS combo and a DAB radio in the kitchen :o

[FleurDuMal]

Tch, I only have a TV/VHS combo and a DAB radio in the kitchen :o

Pfft...all I have is cockroaches :o

[Dagless]

Pfft...all I have is cockroaches :o

I'd be more worried about Dick van Dyke popping down 'me' chimney :D

[greatdevourer]

For my kitchen/ironing/etc stuff, I just bring the MBP - I never really thought about it before, but now I've got one, that remote is mighty nifty :)

[Jschultz]

Yeah, they don't need to be in color either. :rolleyes:

Come on. Doesn't it make sense to have the best picture available regardless of size? Especially at 15"-- they're practically giving those things away.

I suppose, but IMHO, most people were sitting/standing around 8 feet away, and at that point, on a small set like that your eyes won't discern as much as a larger set. I tried this trick with two 15" lcd tv's at work from 7 feet away, and you don't notice much, aside from a brighter overall picture. all lines and images appear smooth at that point.

[Dagless]

Mad!

I just put on an EyeTV recording, set it to the normal screen size and exported it as a picture. Pal plus! 1024*576!
When this was first mentioned I thought it was another "meh, European thing, along with super fast broadband". But the BBC is broadcasted in the thing... seemingly.

I'd love to know more about what is being broadcasted. I'll just reiterate - no wonder PAL doesn't care much for HD :D it's already very good.

edit: buggered - 720*576. 50fps.
edit 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD-MAC haha. go Europe! better than 1080 HDTV in the late 80's. You star. Funny though, when I think HD I think of Japanese and American money hungry companies creating a problem and trying to fix it with expensive TV's.

[takao]

pal-plus widescreen only gets broadcasted fro mtiem to time... or depending on channel
the german ard,zdf are sending pal plus only and have quite some wide screen content like sports with 1024x resolution

[Chone]

Love this comment - "PCs are not that expensive - for around $2500" :eek: $2500 isn't expensive? What planet are you on!

I OBVIOUSLY mean according to what you get and compared to consoles.

[savar]

I OBVIOUSLY mean according to what you get and compared to consoles.

I think that's OBVIOUSLY what he meant as well. You're not really making the case for gaming PCs. (5 times the cost of a 360 and 10 times the hassle!)

[Dagless]

I think that's OBVIOUSLY what he meant as well. You're not really making the case for gaming PCs. (5 times the cost of a 360 and 10 times the hassle!)

What about HDTV cost? In most places the console is the only HD source, and some folk buy a HDTV to match their PC/Mac resolutions for gaming.

What's worth noting is PC gaming is years ahead of consoles in terms of free online play with many, many more players, cheaper games and better graphics. Crysis anyone? DirectX 10?
The question is - how much would you pay for a PS4 Xbox 3 these days? :D

[Chone]

I think that's OBVIOUSLY what he meant as well. You're not really making the case for gaming PCs. (5 times the cost of a 360 and 10 times the hassle!)

I'm talking about similar stuff, to get the kind of experience a $2500 PC (with monitor) you need a 400$ Xbox (HDD and component) or a 500$ PS3, and a 1080p TV, that can be pretty expensive and when you factori in the cost of games and acessories plus the amount of extra stuff you can do on PCs (see I don't mind shelling 2500$ on a computer if it allows me to do my work there) I think PCs give a superior value and experience (well as far as technical terms go, games are much prettier on the PC, much more tweakable, etc).

[zero2dash]

What's worth noting is PC gaming is years ahead of consoles in terms of free online play with many, many more players, cheaper games and better graphics. Crysis anyone? DirectX 10?
The question is - how much would you pay for a PS4 Xbox 3 these days? :D

Better graphics is debatable; it depends on the game and the system you're running the game on. That's a console's strong point - the game will look great on the console because it's designed with one system (the console) in mind, meanwhile with PC titles, there is no dedicated hardware setup, only a generalization therefore some games run better on different PCs than others.

As for Crysis - come on. Do you know the requirements for Crysis?
Source (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/720/720538p1.html)
Minimum Requirements
CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP

Recommended Requirements

CPU: Dual-core CPU (Athlon X2/Pentium D)
Graphics: Nvidia 7800GTX/ATI X1800XT (SM 3.0) or DX10 equivalent
RAM: 1.5Gb
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 512k+ (128k+ upstream)
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX10 with Windows Vista

Those recommended requirements (while being somewhat dated now that Core 2 systems are available) are still steep. By the time you pay for a system that high end, you could've bought a 360 and an HDTV which will most likely run the game as well. Then it's all up to the consumer.

I think PCs have their place in gaming but it's a far cry (no pun intended) from where consoles are and will be in the future. Consoles have no threats of viruses, spyware, trojans, being hacked etc. and they are simple to use. Put the game in and play; no need to install, free hard drive space/upgrade the machine if it's not up to snuff, download updates and service packs, restart to apply those updates, etc.

[Dagless]

What's funny is I could build a PC with them specs for less than the price of a 360/PS3 with a HDTV.

[danny_w]

Better graphics is debatable; it depends on the game and the system you're running the game on. That's a console's strong point - the game will look great on the console because it's designed with one system (the console) in mind, meanwhile with PC titles, there is no dedicated hardware setup, only a generalization therefore some games run better on different PCs than others.

As for Crysis - come on. Do you know the requirements for Crysis?
Source (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/720/720538p1.html)


Those recommended requirements (while being somewhat dated now that Core 2 systems are available) are still steep. By the time you pay for a system that high end, you could've bought a 360 and an HDTV which will most likely run the game as well. Then it's all up to the consumer.

I think PCs have their place in gaming but it's a far cry (no pun intended) from where consoles are and will be in the future. Consoles have no threats of viruses, spyware, trojans, being hacked etc. and they are simple to use. Put the game in and play; no need to install, free hard drive space/upgrade the machine if it's not up to snuff, download updates and service packs, restart to apply those updates, etc.
And the biggest (and the most money saving part) is that with a console there is no need for upgrades for the life of the console. This is the main reason that I gave up on pc gaming long ago; I simply got sick and tired of constantly having to upgrade the pc (from both a time and money perspective). But qould I buy an HDTV simply for gaming? No way. I will buy an HDTV (or whatever is available then) when my current tv dies, and I don't expect that to be for quite some time yet.

[MovieCutter]

Why wouldn't you want to game in HD?

Check this size comparison...

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/11/hdtv_res.jpg

[GFLPraxis]

"Why wouldn't you?" isn't a justification for spending a ton of extra money on HD hardware, IMHO. I don't own a HDTV.

Yes, it's a better picture. Does it make the game better? Rarely, just sharper, and it's already in a perfectly playable state on my 54" SDTV.

[Dagless]

Why wouldn't you want to game in HD?

Check this size comparison...

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/11/hdtv_res.jpg

HD would be nice. It just means expensive hardware all around. If the Wii was in HD and had a price to match then I'd be sticking with my DS only.

Wake me up in a few years when HDTV costs as much as SDTV does now.

Oh, and HDTV games cost more and take longer to develop. Would I want to live in a gaming world where only the big studios existed pumping out recycled cack each time? I don't think many would. It isn't black and white you know. Theres more to HD than an increase in resolution.

[Dagless]

And the biggest (and the most money saving part) is that with a console there is no need for upgrades for the life of the console. This is the main reason that I gave up on pc gaming long ago; I simply got sick and tired of constantly having to upgrade the pc (from both a time and money perspective). But qould I buy an HDTV simply for gaming? No way. I will buy an HDTV (or whatever is available then) when my current tv dies, and I don't expect that to be for quite some time yet.

What do you make of the argument that 10 next gen games would cost you £500, compared to £300 of PC games? They have always been cheaper even in shops.

Initial money saved on consoles will be eaten up by cameras, extra controllers, expensive games, online services, microtransactions etc.

[HughJ]

ill confess i know little or nothing about HD TV but from my perspective its a complete con with regard to programme viewing (not gaming) just seems the typical windows mentality....bigger is better..

and here is my reasoning....

if you line up two TV's one HD and a std TV stand back to a reasonable distance perhaps emulate normal lounge viewing distances as far as I'm concerned there is no difference at all in terms of detail in very much the same way a very low resolution image when viewed at a distance looks fine (bill boards being a prime example), although i have noticed the saturation is higher on an HD screen

while i appreciate for gaming where typically the gamer will be sitting inches away from the screen a higher resolution is required.

as mentioned this is my personal view and if I'm wrong I'm sure i shall be corrected.

Hugh

[FleurDuMal]

Initial money saved on consoles will be eaten up by cameras, extra controllers, expensive games, online services, microtransactions etc.

What? Do they give cameras and controllers away free to PC users or something?! :confused:

And what is a microtransaction?!


Edit:

Oh, and HDTV games cost more and take longer to develop. Would I want to live in a gaming world where only the big studios existed pumping out recycled cack each time? I don't think many would. It isn't black and white you know. Theres more to HD than an increase in resolution.

But games have been developed for the PC at higher resolutions for years and that's never resulted in 'pumping our recycled cack'. Or at least none more than was released for standard def consoles.

[TheMonarch]

I wouldn't say it costs a ton of money to display HD...

It cost a lot of money to display it well.

For example:
http://static.flickr.com/119/308078723_e74d5655de_o.jpg
This is an actual screen grab from an actual N64. Back in the day, Zelda ran a crisp 320x240 @ at silky smooth 20fps.

All coming from a 94MHz CPU + 62MHz GPU.

Now, Here's Zelda running at a higher resolution [Not HD, mind you]:
http://static.flickr.com/114/308087122_43c2c87db5_o.jpg

Where am I going? I'm pointing out the simple forgotten fact that running a game in HD does not necessarily mean 50GB of data requiring Blue-Ray with millions upon millions of polygons needing special shaders and crazy particle effects. This is still the 24MB game we know and love, with higher resolution HUD.

Obviously displaying something @ 4x the resolution would require about 4x the power. But, its nothing the Wii can't handle.

This is what I envy the most from the 360's emulation, automatic HD upscale for the original XBox games.

How kick ass would it be to play your favorite classics at a glorious HD resolution? Who says HD has to be for the Wii games? Who thinks adding an HDMI port [or the like] would have tripled the system's price?

[MovieCutter]

"Why wouldn't you?" isn't a justification for spending a ton of extra money on HD hardware, IMHO. I don't own a HDTV.

Yes, it's a better picture. Does it make the game better? Rarely, just sharper, and it's already in a perfectly playable state on my 54" SDTV.

Obviously you haven't played games in HD. And it's not a TON of extra money. There's a premium sure, but for what it gets you, coming from a filmmaker/editor's perspective where appearance counts, it's definitely worth it.

[Dagless]

Obviously you haven't played games in HD. And it's not a TON of extra money. There's a premium sure, but for what it gets you, coming from a filmmaker/editor's perspective where appearance counts, it's definitely worth it.

"The cheaper price may mask fatter profits for developers. Consumers buy Wii titles for 17 percent less than next-generation console games, but publishers say development costs for Wii are only half as much -- or less. THQ Inc. Chief Executive Brian Farrell said that investment in a next-generation video game can run roughly $12 million to $20 million, while a title for the Wii could be in the $5 million to $8 million range."

If I was a developer fresh on the scene (ooh wait) and I didn't have the worlds money, guess who I would develop for? It can cost 4 times as much to develop for the other systems. Ouch. Praxis is right too. Gameplay and graphics are not relative, case in point? Twilight Princess runs at a max of 480p yet it is the highest rated of next generation systems dominating even Gears of War, Oblivion and anything the PS3 has to offer.

[sikkinixx]

Twilight Princess runs at a max of 480p yet it is the highest rated of next generation systems dominating even Gears of War, Oblivion and anything the PS3 has to offer.

and the fact that it is Zelda and Zelda gets good scores no matter what, TP is hardly a 10/10 like most people make it out to be. It is OoT Version 2.0, same fun Zelda gameplay but feels very dated (not just graphically)...

Now cue all the Rabid Nintendo fans hissing....

[Dagless]

and the fact that it is Zelda and Zelda gets good scores no matter what, TP is hardly a 10/10 like most people make it out to be. It is OoT Version 2.0, same fun Zelda gameplay but feels very dated (not just graphically)...

Now cue all the Rabid Nintendo fans hissing....

Windwaker initially got rubbish scores, Minish Cap was heavily criticised along with the Oracle games. INFACT it seems to be the Zelda's with 2 discernible worlds that do well.

[sikkinixx]

Windwaker initially got rubbish scores, Minish Cap was heavily criticised along with the Oracle games. INFACT it seems to be the Zelda's with 2 discernible worlds that do well.

Windwaker: 95% average based on 104 scores

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/469050.asp

Minish Cap: 91% average based on 74 scores

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/920670.asp

Oracle Games: 92.3% and 92.6% based on 20+ scores


Zelda always gets the benefit of the doubt. Wind Wake was fun, but how can people overlook the sailing over and over and over and over and over and over.

Im not saying Zelda games are bad, they are normally good. Just that they get so hyped that a nice unbias score is probably quite hard to come by.

Saying "Well Zelda got great scores and it isn't HD!" doesnt mean anything.

[gloss]

There's a strong element of nostalgia to the games that's difficult for reviewers to ignore. I, for example, have never played a Zelda title all the way through. I played the original Legend of Zelda most of the way through, and about half of Link to the Past (via emulator) and greatly enjoyed both, but I'm hardly a Zelda fanatic. I'm quite enjoying Twilight Princess, but I can say that thus far the game as not affected me as deeply and immediately as, say, Shadow of the Colossus or ICO. I'm immune to the nostalgia reflex.

That's not to put the game down. The production values and design are excellent, and it's a great deal of fun in its own right.

[mkubal]

as mentioned this is my personal view and if I'm wrong I'm sure i shall be corrected.


Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but in my opinion you are very, very wrong. Either you weren't watching a proper HD feed or you were watching it on the worst HDTV ever made.

Of course, that's just my opinion regarding your opinion. :) And you know what they say about opinions...

[sikkinixx]

There's a strong element of nostalgia to the games that's difficult for reviewers to ignore. I, for example, have never played a Zelda title all the way through. I played the original Legend of Zelda most of the way through, and about half of Link to the Past (via emulator) and greatly enjoyed both, but I'm hardly a Zelda fanatic. I'm quite enjoying Twilight Princess, but I can say that thus far the game as not affected me as deeply and immediately as, say, Shadow of the Colossus or ICO. I'm immune to the nostalgia reflex.


You hit the nail on the head.

[coffey7]

If you can't tell the difference between the apple ad in high def vs the standard then I don't know what to say. I love my hd tv and its great to watch hd-dvd movies and play my 360. I have noticed that the biggest difference is that my LCD is so bright and playing night time game settings is a blast compared to playing on an old style bubble tv. Ever try to play SOCOM(night match) on an old tv. Its so dark you can't even play.

[coffey7]

If I was a developer fresh on the scene (ooh wait) and I didn't have the worlds money, guess who I would develop for? It can cost 4 times as much to develop for the other systems. Ouch. Praxis is right too. Gameplay and graphics are not relative, case in point? Twilight Princess runs at a max of 480p yet it is the highest rated of next generation systems dominating even Gears of War, Oblivion and anything the PS3 has to offer.

Oblivion is way better and longer. 400 hours worth. Sorry thats my opinion. I could careless what reviewers say they are all biased anyways. All the game magazines are owned by the same company.

[killr_b]

I'm talking about a marketing fad, if we are lucky, it will die soon enough and "high definition" will die, replaced instead by "resolutions" like it works on the computer industry (although sadly, the term "XHD" has stuck to nvidia), of course I'm talking about marketing.

See the problem is where do you draw the line for HD? What is HD and what isn't? The word itself is not very clear, a 640x480 image can be quite defined under the right circumstances and a 1280x720 image can be quite undefined under the wrong circumstances, so why not educate people on resolutions and not definitions, people are led to believe 720p/1080p etc are some kind of "modes" that just make everything look prettier and so they start making assumptions (HDMI only for 1080p, Wii no HD, X360 no 1080p, these are just some of the common ones).

It's called wikipedia. Free to the world. Educate yourself and others, and then people will know.

HD is at least double NTSC 1953 resolution of 640x480i.
So, that includes any thing over and including 640x480p.
XHD requires the use of Dual-link DVI or better (DL DVIx2).
So component video won't bring that.

If you set you signal aceptance to the max supported by your screen, usually on the box in big print, then it will always use the highest quality available to you. What do people need to know?

This thread is lame.

[GFLPraxis]

Obviously you haven't played games in HD. And it's not a TON of extra money. There's a premium sure, but for what it gets you, coming from a filmmaker/editor's perspective where appearance counts, it's definitely worth it.


Obviously? You're mistaken there, as I game on my PC in HD-resolutions often, but usually turn it down to 1024x768 and max out the effects and framerate.

[GFLPraxis]

and the fact that it is Zelda and Zelda gets good scores no matter what, TP is hardly a 10/10 like most people make it out to be. It is OoT Version 2.0, same fun Zelda gameplay but feels very dated (not just graphically)...

Now cue all the Rabid Nintendo fans hissing....


It hardly even feels like a Zelda game for the first three hours. The wolf mechanic is all-new and the Wii controls feel totally different. If you call it OoT version 2, you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

[Dagless]

...I could careless what reviewers say they are all biased anyways. All the game magazines are owned by the same company.

bwhahahahahah. sorry. I'm so very very sorry! Even my independently run local newspaper gave Zelda a rollickingly good review.
Seriously. Just wow.

If they're all ran by the same company still doesn't explain why Zelda is sitting pretty as this generations (i suppose we're fully in it now) best game.

[danny_w]

bwhahahahahah. sorry. I'm so very very sorry! Even my independently run local newspaper gave Zelda a rollickingly good review.
Seriously. Just wow.

If they're all ran by the same company still doesn't explain why Zelda is sitting pretty as this generations (i suppose we're fully in it now) best game.
Perhaps, as has been mentioned time and again, there really IS more to a game than graphics! Just as in movies, with all of the hd resolution you could want, some movies just stink. And no amount of hd can save them.

[MovieCutter]

Obviously? You're mistaken there, as I game on my PC in HD-resolutions often, but usually turn it down to 1024x768 and max out the effects and framerate.

So your PC can, in effect, only handle games at the PC equivalent of SD resolutions to get smooth gameplay. Try playing on a computer that can handle FEAR and Oblivion and Call of Duty 2 at 2560x1600 on a 30" screen with all the effects turned up (the equivalent of HD XBox360/PS3 to standard def versions) running at a cool 60fps, and then tell me that HD doesn't matter.


If I was a developer fresh on the scene (ooh wait) and I didn't have the worlds money, guess who I would develop for? It can cost 4 times as much to develop for the other systems. Ouch. Praxis is right too. Gameplay and graphics are not relative, case in point? Twilight Princess runs at a max of 480p yet it is the highest rated of next generation systems dominating even Gears of War, Oblivion and anything the PS3 has to offer.

That's great for you, but it doesn't address the "Why all this HD craze" issue. Games are a visual medium obviously. Higher resolutions are inevitable and it takes companies like Bethesda and EA to push the gaming realm INTO the HD environment. You're comparing gameplay to resolution in a resolution-based conversation. Gameplay almost always wins over resolution as demonstrated by games like Zelda, but sooner or later, HD will find it's way into systems like the Wii and make the overall gaming experience better. I mean come on...wouldn't you want the Wii's gameplay with the XBox/PS3's graphics power? Who wouldn't??? Let's not deny the superiority of the XBox/PS3 consoles in the graphics department just because the Wii is more fun. It doesn't make the console, but it sure has hell LOOKS better.

I'm not debating that the Wii is more fun or not. I own a Wii, and sold a PS3 to get it. I'm just saying that all things being equal, HD, to me anyway, makes for a much more entertaining gaming experience than SD.

[zero2dash]

if you line up two TV's one HD and a std TV stand back to a reasonable distance perhaps emulate normal lounge viewing distances as far as I'm concerned there is no difference at all in terms of detail in very much the same way a very low resolution image when viewed at a distance looks fine (bill boards being a prime example), although i have noticed the saturation is higher on an HD screen

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but in my opinion you are very, very wrong. Either you weren't watching a proper HD feed or you were watching it on the worst HDTV ever made.

mkubal hit it right on the head; if you're viewing an HD feed vs a SD feed, there is a very noticeable difference. I don't have the best HDTV in the world, in fact I'm proud of the fact that I bought one of the cheaper ones out there (30" Samsung SlimFit widescreen for $799) and the picture quality over our old 27" Sony SDTV set is incredible. This is based off using the OTA (over the air) HD feeds of my local channels; we're not planning on upgrading to Dish|HD until they offer the HD-DVRs at no upgrade cost. When you factor in the visual difference of the Xbox 360 on an HDTV vs an SDTV, the difference is even greater.

I used to be a skeptic; one of the most SDTV biased skeptics out there. But after experiencing it myself - I cannot deny how great it is to have an HDTV right now (even though there's not 100% support for every channel, or even a third of them, yet). Once you go HD, there's no going back. :)

[MovieCutter]

mkubal hit it right on the head; if you're viewing an HD feed vs a SD feed, there is a very noticeable difference. I don't have the best HDTV in the world, in fact I'm proud of the fact that I bought one of the cheaper ones out there (30" Samsung SlimFit widescreen for $799) and the picture quality over our old 27" Sony SDTV set is incredible. This is based off using the OTA (over the air) HD feeds of my local channels; we're not planning on upgrading to Dish|HD until they offer the HD-DVRs at no upgrade cost. When you factor in the visual difference of the Xbox 360 on an HDTV vs an SDTV, the difference is even greater.

I used to be a skeptic; one of the most SDTV biased skeptics out there. But after experiencing it myself - I cannot deny how great it is to have an HDTV right now (even though there's not 100% support for every channel, or even a third of them, yet). Once you go HD, there's no going back. :)

No kidding. My parents had a 64" Pioneer HDTV for years, and all they watched on it was STANDARD DEFINITION. I finally bought them an HD tuner box, and my dad's jaw dropped when he saw the reflections on the helmets of the UW Badger football players. So did mine, as I've never seen that 64" TV play HD. The beads of sweat on their face, the blades of grass on the Camp Randall field, being able to see the faces of the fans from a wide shot...it all adds to the experience. Switching back and forth between SD and HD, there is ABSOLUTELY no question as to what you would rather spend 3 hours watching.

[zero2dash]

my dad's jaw dropped when he saw the reflections on the helmets of the UW Badger football players. So did mine, as I've never seen that 64" TV play HD. The beads of sweat on their face, the blades of grass on the Camp Randall field, being able to see the faces of the fans from a wide shot...it all adds to the experience.

Yep...HD has put new meaning to Sunday mornings/afternoons for me with NFL games. :D

I cannot belive how vibrant colors are and how detailed things are when you're watching an HDTV broadcast. Most of the network TV shows my wife and I watch, we switch over to the local OTA HD feed to watch the shows (ie last night with Prison Break, tonight I'll do it with House) rather than use our Dish|DVR to record or watch them in SD. Makes a world of difference...;)

[Dagless]

Re this whole "Zelda gets high scores because of nostalgia" -

The first Zelda game I played was Zelda 2 on the NES and even then it was on my cousins NES so I spent about... 15 minutes on it? Got Links Awakening in 1996. OoT in 1998 (maybe 99, it was the UK launch). Pretty much it, way out of the nostalgia field for me but I still rate the series as the pinnacle of modern day gaming. Well maybe...

My first Metroid game was Fusion on the GBA. Then Prime, Zero Mission, Prime 2, NES Classic Metroid, Hunters. Again no nostalgia but I rate the series so highly. Infact if I could only ever play 2 series again it would certainly be these.

And MovieCutter. I would love for the Wii to be HD, but not yet. I'm looking at this realistically and not in some kind of magic world where the Wii could be HD and still be cheap. I'd love to play Twilight Princess in 1680*1050. But if that meant charging more for the system and the game, increasing load times etc. Then no. I don't want that. I'll take HD when it really is flawless in every respect.

[takao]

i simply don't see that much of a difference.. perhaps i'm standing too far away or the stores have too small screens or the difference between NTSC and PAL is too big to offset the whole thing

i found it better sure, but not 1k - 3k € better or jaw dropping

(and yes the TVs were showing HD content)

edit: are americans buying bigger TVs on average ? perhaps that's another reason

[zero2dash]

And MovieCutter. I would love for the Wii to be HD, but not yet. I'm looking at this realistically and not in some kind of magic world where the Wii could be HD and still be cheap. I'd love to play Twilight Princess in 1680*1050. But if that meant charging more for the system and the game, increasing load times etc. Then no. I don't want that. I'll take HD when it really is flawless in every respect.

I wish the Wii were HD as well, but it's not a priority of Nintendo's to ride the "technological mainstream"; hell after Xbox Live had over a million subscribers, Nintendo was still claiming that 'online gaming was a fad' (or something to that effect). Nintendo never grips technology; instead, they stay in the shadows and refuse to accept change. I wish they'd change their tune in that regard, but, I've grown to accept the fact that this is the way Nintendo is, has been, and probably will always be. /shrug

As for HD increasing price points or load times, in reality - it doesn't do either. Nintendo would have you believe otherwise, but the truth of the matter is that graphics cards capable of pushing 60fps at 720p have existed for a long time now, and most cards 4+ years old now could run a graphically simple game like LoZ:TTP at 1080p with no problem...but Nintendo doesn't care about HD gaming right now, just like 4 years ago when they didn't care about online gaming.

(Please note that I'm not trying to berate TTP when I say "graphically simple game", I say that in regards to the amount of polygons the game uses compared to a higher end visual game like Gears of War. Not that TTP needs a high polygon count to be a good game; it's a Zelda game so I'm sure that by its own merit, it's an excellent game because all Zelda games are excellent - no "previous title mysticism" necessary here. ;))

[danny_w]

No kidding. My parents had a 64" Pioneer HDTV for years, and all they watched on it was STANDARD DEFINITION. I finally bought them an HD tuner box, and my dad's jaw dropped when he saw the reflections on the helmets of the UW Badger football players. So did mine, as I've never seen that 64" TV play HD. The beads of sweat on their face, the blades of grass on the Camp Randall field, being able to see the faces of the fans from a wide shot...it all adds to the experience. Switching back and forth between SD and HD, there is ABSOLUTELY no question as to what you would rather spend 3 hours watching.
I can totally agree with this for sports and nature shows and somewhat for gaming. And since I am not interested at all in sports, to me (at least) the main draw of hdtv, I have little reason to want one. I watch very little tv as it stands because in general there are no shows that interest me, and hd isn't going to help a lame sitcom. So if you are into sports then yes, by all means, an hdtv may well be worth it to you. For the rest of us, the advantages are not sure cut and dried.

[MovieCutter]

I can totally agree with this for sports and nature shows and somewhat for gaming. And since I am not interested at all in sports, to me (at least) the main draw of hdtv, I have little reason to want one. I watch very little tv as it stands because in general there are no shows that interest me, and hd isn't going to help a lame sitcom. So if you are into sports then yes, by all means, an hdtv may well be worth it to you. For the rest of us, the advantages are not sure cut and dried.

It's called progress. Watching Heroes last night in HD was great compared to SD. I even had to switch to SD halfway through Studio 60 because my DVR is f***ked up, and while it didn't affect the appeal of the show, it certainly wasn't the much more pleasant viewing experience (crisper lines, better colors, etc.) that HD gives me. Feel free to keep you SD, but HD is the future and it is BEAUTIFUL for ANY television media you watch...NOT just sports. I don't watch sports either but I love my HD programming.

[GFLPraxis]

So your PC can, in effect, only handle games at the PC equivalent of SD resolutions to get smooth gameplay. Try playing on a computer that can handle FEAR and Oblivion and Call of Duty 2 at 2560x1600 on a 30" screen with all the effects turned up (the equivalent of HD XBox360/PS3 to standard def versions) running at a cool 60fps, and then tell me that HD doesn't matter.

Give me a break. Yes, HD matters, but I consider it secondary.

[GFLPraxis]

Re this whole "Zelda gets high scores because of nostalgia" -

Metroid Prime was my second Metroid game (after Metroid Fusion for GBA, which I had just played weeks prior).
There was ZERO nostalgia effect because I had never played Metroid games in the past, yet I consider it one of the best single player games of this console cycle.

[danny_w]

It's called progress. Watching Heroes last night in HD was great compared to SD. I even had to switch to SD halfway through Studio 60 because my DVR is f***ked up, and while it didn't affect the appeal of the show, it certainly wasn't the much more pleasant viewing experience (crisper lines, better colors, etc.) that HD gives me. Feel free to keep you SD, but HD is the future and it is BEAUTIFUL for ANY television media you watch...NOT just sports. I don't watch sports either but I love my HD programming.
Yes, I agree it is the future, and I (like everybody else) will eventually go hd. But for now I will keep my $2800 analog Hitachi UltraVision 50" rear-projection big scren tv. My favorite movies are the old '40s film noirs (The Big Sleep, Murder My Sweet, etc) and I don't expect that hd will do them a lot of good anyway. And I'm not about to repurchase all of my dvd library.

[LethalWolfe]

I don't think anyone is arguing that HD isn't the future, but how relevant HD is now for consumers. IMO, it's not that relevant as the cost/bennifit just isn't there yet (especially when there are so many HDTVs that fail to deliver, link (http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/)). Yeah it looks better than SD, but it doesn't look a few thousand dollars better, IMO. You factor in the cost of a big, good quality set (keeping in mind proper viewing distance 'cause what's the point of buying an HDTV if you sit too far away to see the extra detail), HD cable/satellite channels, BD/HDDVD player+movies and a PS3/360+games and it costs a pretty penny to go HD right now. I just don't see the point of getting an HDTV now for general TV usage when the vast majority of what appears on that screen will be SD. In a few years when the TV prices drop by 50-75% and there is more HD content out there then it will be a different story. But right now I think going HD costs too much and delivers too little.

Like I mentioned in another HD thread maybe part of the reason why I'm not all gung-ho about consumer HD is because I've worked w/production quality HD before and consumer grade HD just doesn't hold a candle to that. I know of at least one prime time, network sitcom (now off the air) that shot in HD, but did post in SD and up-converted their SD master to HD and use that for the HD b'cast.


Lethal

[jdechko]

On the topic of the sudden push to HD, I think that a lot of the issue has/had to do with bandwidth. Transmitting that much data (HD TV signals) was bottlenecked by the lack of infrastructure we have (all over, really). It's not that we didn't have the technology to make the signals, or even transmit them really. We just couldn't do it for the masses in the volume (# of channels) required. Because there was no programming, we didn't make TV's for something that didn't exist. As a result, we didn't have HD consoles. Somewhere along the lines, though, the broadcasting technology and/or infrastructure caught up/is catching up to what we were capable of filming/whatever. PC's are a different entity entirely, really, in that there's only 1 "channel" being broadcast over a very short distance to a single node, which is why we could enjoy higher resolutions in games.

My point is that TV has been lagging behind in technology, but we're finally getting caught up. We will probably always be behind computers as far as resolution because of the bandwidth issues. It will always be easier to transmit a large something over a shorter distance to one place than it will be to transmit a large something over a larger distance to many places. Fortunately we now have multiple HD sources (Movies, PCs, games and some HDTV) which can be displayed on our new TV's, and that should be enough to push to an all-digital, all HD TV era. I also think that the subsequent pushes to UHD or whatever follows HD will be easier, as we will already be digital.

I'll also go ahead and say that the only reason I even have an HDTV is because it was a college graduation gift from several family members (all of them). If that weren't the case, I'd still be watching TV on an SD set, but I would have gone to HD with my next set.

[greatdevourer]

Yes, I agree it is the future, and I (like everybody else) will eventually go hd. But for now I will keep my $2800 analog Hitachi UltraVision 50" rear-projection big scren tv. My favorite movies are the old '40s film noirs (The Big Sleep, Murder My Sweet, etc) and I don't expect that hd will do them a lot of good anyway. And I'm not about to repurchase all of my dvd library. They're actually a lot more likely to benefit, because rather than being computerised and such, the were done on actual film, then scanned in. If you rescan them with a better scanner, then expect better film :)

[afornander]

i think its funny, i wanna look at xbox 360's and ps3's at my closest bestbuy, and when they tell me all the kewl features of them and how they have HD, i will just tell them "i have been playing HD games for years, on a kewl invention called the computer! maby you should pick up on that Great new technology."

[ChrisK018]

i think its funny, i wanna look at xbox 360's and ps3's at my closest bestbuy, and when they tell me all the kewl features of them and how they have HD, i will just tell them "i have been playing HD games for years, on a kewl invention called the computer! maby you should pick up on that Great new technology."

I'm sure the Best Buy employees were impressed by your rapier-like wit.

[takao]

Because there was no programming, we didn't make TV's for something that didn't exist. As a result, we didn't have HD consoles.

well around here they _are_ selling hdtv without real content ( 1 free german HD channel.. who is showing series from the 70-80ties and repeats them 5 times per day)
or the alternative: take premium pay per view for 45+ € a month for a whole additional 3 HD channels ...

as somebody said: it's like the 16:9 craze 10 years ago ... without any content and even today nearly all german shows are 4:3 with only newer US shows being widescreen...

[killr_b]

I knew that'd happen :D just a little experiment there. If I say LCD TV people will initially insist it's a HDTV. The TV in question is only SDTV, 4:3. But can run 1024*768 via a VGA port. but most definitely an SDTV.

NO, it does HD at 640x480p. Double 640x480i is HD.

[jdechko]

well around here they _are_ selling hdtv without real content

Even here we don't get that much HD programming. If you look at the packages the cable/sat people are offering... it's sports, movies and the hit prime time shows. Dish Network has about 12 or so (non-premium) channels that are HD (one of the higher in the US). Even then, not everything is broadcast in HD on these channels.

Sorry, I was trying to stretch it (benefit of the doubt thing going on :D ) in that you could use an HDTV with a computer, upconverting DVD's and video game games. Overall, these sources would make up the majority of HD sources in places that don't have much HD programming. And that was my point; we are getting more HD sources, whether it's rerun-TV or otherwise. I'm not even saying it's necessarily worth it. I'm just saying that the possibilities are growing.

[Antares]

I bought a 1080p LCD TV last weekend. I don't have cable right now, so, it's just broadcast television and my Wii. I was shocked at how many broadcast digital channels there are....almost 3 times as many as regular SD broadcast channels. Example: Standard Definition ABC is 1 channel (channel 7), High Definition has 3 channels of ABC (channel 7.1 ABC HD, channel 7.2 ABC News, and channel 7.3 ABC Traffic and Weather); Besides the regular networks and the multiple additional PBS channels, there are also extra channels like a music video channel, some kind of home/creative channel and plenty of other stations that say "coming soon." Most of these channels are broadcast in 1080i and 720p but a few are still 480i (though obviously now digital). Plus, on all of the old tv's in my house, virtually every broadcast channel came in with some amount of static. On my HDTV, every channel comes in perfectly clear. I guess I'm just fortunate to live in a city where every broadcast channel now has a digital equivalent (and most are in HD). I'm totally giddy about this since I'm not going to have cable again for a few months....

Yes, HD makes a very big difference. It's definitely worth it. I flipped between several 480i channels and their 720p/1080i simulcasts. The upgrade in clarity is huge.

In my opinion, of course.

[aloofman]

It also seems like America is really pushing HD. Maybe it's because they've been stuck in 480 compared to the 576 of PAL? Who knows.

As a whole, we're probably just more obsessed with TV here.

It's not because of the difference between NTSC and PAL though. For one thing, the difference between HD and SD is far greater than between NTSC and PAL. And second, because the average American rarely if ever sees a show in PAL, the difference between them is not obvious to them, and they aren't aware of being "stuck" compared to PAL.

[aloofman]

I read somewhere that all this HD craze is about that consumers can finally see the true quality of movies recorded.

I think the article I read was saying that with HD you will finally be able to watch the true quality of 35mm film as it was recorded (and it was mentioning films recorded back from 1930's).

And as another poster also said, HD has been around since the early 1990s. I don't have one but I sure do want one - the quality is amazing:D

Technically, HD has been around longer than that. Even if you just mean real TV systems, Japan rolled out an analog HD system way back in the 1980s.

And HD still has lower resolution than 35mm film. It just gets you closer to it, with a more film-like aspect ratio too. The irony is that the 4:3 ratio used by television was chosen because that was the most common ratio used by feature films in the 1940s. "Widescreen" as we know it was invented by the film industry to try to distinguish itself from TV.

[saunders45]

Hear hear! I do think it is nice though that consoles are finally catching up. 40 player online? Wasn't HL2 and Counterstrike running 64 player online matches? Wasn't there some jungle FPS game that could run up to 64 from even before HL2?

You're thinking of Joint Ops by Novalogic. It can do up to 150 players, not bad for 3 years old!

[FleurDuMal]

i think its funny, i wanna look at xbox 360's and ps3's at my closest bestbuy, and when they tell me all the kewl features of them and how they have HD, i will just tell them "i have been playing HD games for years, on a kewl invention called the computer! maby you should pick up on that Great new technology."

Yes, but will your mum let you into Best Buy on your own?

[aloofman]

Yes, but will your mum let you into Best Buy on your own?

All the other kids at the bus stop just simultaneously said, "Oooooooooh!" :D

[Dagless]

Yes, but will your mum let you into Best Buy on your own?

He does have a point though. online gaming? I was playing Duke3D online in the 90's. Unreal Tournament '99 too. Consoles are playing catch up and it's quite nice to see they trying to be a computer (well, some of them).

Though just so you know - I sit in neither fully computer or console gaming. I'm a handheld gamer at heart.

[aloofman]

He does have a point though. online gaming? I was playing Duke3D online in the 90's. Unreal Tournament '99 too. Consoles are playing catch up and it's quite nice to see they trying to be a computer (well, some of them).

Though just so you know - I sit in neither fully computer or console gaming. I'm a handheld gamer at heart.

I agree. My brother is a computer gamer and scoffs at the latest and greatest in consoles. I, on the other hand, am a console gamer who never cared much about playing online. I also didn't want a Windows computer and never liked having to learn 20 buttons for each game, but that's just me.

[Chone]

I agree. My brother is a computer gamer and scoffs at the latest and greatest in consoles. I, on the other hand, am a console gamer who never cared much about playing online. I also didn't want a Windows computer and never liked having to learn 20 buttons for each game, but that's just me.

It is kinda bound to happen when people drop their jaw over graphics and resolutions you saw a lot earlier in PCs, consoles will always play catch up to PCs due to the very nature of consoles, unless consoles are upgraded every year, they will NEVER catch up to PCs, some people say they already have... but I mean come on, just look at what cards like the 8800 can do, consoles seem to be comfortable in the 720p game... PC gamers are already experiencing the joy of 16X AA and 16X AF at 2560x1600.

[FleurDuMal]

He does have a point though. online gaming? I was playing Duke3D online in the 90's. Unreal Tournament '99 too. Consoles are playing catch up and it's quite nice to see they trying to be a computer (well, some of them).

Though just so you know - I sit in neither fully computer or console gaming. I'm a handheld gamer at heart.

Well, PC's may have been doing online gaming for a while now, but consoles do it far better (well, Xbox Live anyway - we shall leave the others to be judged in time).

Every time I've tried to game online with my old PC back home, I've just given up in frustration with the whole process. Granted this was a while back (but not that long ago), but if you're not a computer wizard you will find PC online gaming a constant struggle.

[Dagless]

I'm not a PC wiz but I have Steam and a few Doom3 engine games :) really there is nothing hard about it. Instal, go to multiplayer, windows may pop up with a "give this application internet access" warning, click yes, done. Join a game and have some fun. Steam makes it even easier. Friends list, server list for all games.

Sure you don't just put a DVD in and play. But it's not that much harder either.

[Chone]

Well, PC's may have been doing online gaming for a while now, but consoles do it far better (well, Xbox Live anyway - we shall leave the others to be judged in time).

Every time I've tried to game online with my old PC back home, I've just given up in frustration with the whole process. Granted this was a while back (but not that long ago), but if you're not a computer wizard you will find PC online gaming a constant struggle.

Hmm, well I kinda like online better on PCs as well, better servers and options and I don't know, I just don't find online on consoles that appealing, that being said I don't find online in general THAT appealing (my favorite online game is... Gunbound I think or Warcraft 3), I prefer LANs, they are more fun and personal, Warcraft III is pretty fun online as well... but I don't play much FPS online, I just find don't find it as fun, I did get hooked on Battlefield 2 online for like a week or so.

I tried MMORPGs and I ended up hating them, too much time needed, zero skill needed, the better players will ALWAYS be the ones who play the most and for some reason I find that very unnappealing (see I have a life and I don't have time to play 16 hours a day for a few months just to be "okay"), they may have replay value, but damn, playing an hour of a good game is better than 50 of a boring and frustrating MMORPG.

[aloofman]

It is kinda bound to happen when people drop their jaw over graphics and resolutions you saw a lot earlier in PCs, consoles will always play catch up to PCs due to the very nature of consoles, unless consoles are upgraded every year, they will NEVER catch up to PCs, some people say they already have... but I mean come on, just look at what cards like the 8800 can do, consoles seem to be comfortable in the 720p game... PC gamers are already experiencing the joy of 16X AA and 16X AF at 2560x1600.

You're right that since consoles only progress every several years in leaps, PC gaming will always have the fastest processors and graphics cards available.

On the other hand, the Xbox 360 and the one PS3 demo I've seen are pretty impressive, as good as a fast gaming PC to all but the untrained eye. And since consoles are engineered just for gaming (both hardware and software) most of the other issues that go with having a PC are avoided. If you're a computer wizard (as another here put it) it's easy to keep up with such things. For a lot of people who just want to hit a power button and play without seeing a blue screen of death -- or if, like me, you don't want a Windows PC at home -- consoles make more sense.

Dang, I hate that I let myself get sucked into this, since it's a neverending debate.

[greatdevourer]

Dang, I hate that I let myself get sucked into this, since it's a neverending debate. In which case, let me settle this once and for al... DOA4 and Gears! CHAINSAW DEATH! :D

[LethalWolfe]

On the topic of the sudden push to HD, I think that a lot of the issue has/had to do with bandwidth. Transmitting that much data (HD TV signals) was bottlenecked by the lack of infrastructure we have (all over, really). It's not that we didn't have the technology to make the signals, or even transmit them really. We just couldn't do it for the masses in the volume (# of channels) required. Because there was no programming, we didn't make TV's for something that didn't exist. As a result, we didn't have HD consoles. Somewhere along the lines, though, the broadcasting technology and/or infrastructure caught up/is catching up to what we were capable of filming/whatever. PC's are a different entity entirely, really, in that there's only 1 "channel" being broadcast over a very short distance to a single node, which is why we could enjoy higher resolutions in games.
I don't think it's a problem of bandwidth as much as it's a compatibility problem between two standards, SD and HD. SD equipment is completely incompatible w/HD so you need a new camera to shoot HD, a new antenna to transmit HD, and a new TV to watch HD. Before the government mandate to switch to all digital b'casting in the US (not neccisarily HD, but just digital) there was no motivating factor to get everyone to upgrade all of their equipment. That's one of the reasons the shift is going so slow is because of the cost to upgrade. I wouldn't be surprised if after it's all said and done the cost of switching from analog SD to digital SD/HD was in the 10's of billions of dollars.

I also think that the subsequent pushes to UHD or whatever follows HD will be easier, as we will already be digital.

Switching from analog to digital isn't the hard part (DVD players, video game consoles, and DV cameras are all digital devices that easily interface w/analog TVs) it's switching to a completely incompatible format (which itself is made of up incompatible formats). The switch from HD to UHD (or whatever) will be just as painful because none of our HD devices are compatible w/UHD resolutions. It will again require new cameras, new transmission devices, and new TV sets.


NO, it does HD at 640x480p. Double 640x480i is HD.
480p is EDTV, not HDTV.


Lethal

[flopticalcube]

Hate to revive long, old, boring threads, but....
http://www.carltonbale.com/wp-content/uploads/resolution_chart.png

DVDs are all 480p. They look better on an EDTV (480p) than they do on an HDTV because they are matched in resolution. Upscaling doesn't give you finer details, only artifacts. That is also why SD broadcasts (all broadcasting on traditional stations and probably 50% of the broadcasting on HD stations) look better on EDTVs and SDTVs.

Also remember resolution is like 4th on the list of visual importance after contrast ratio, colour saturation and (something else I can't remember). Most people find that the difference between SDTV (480i) and EDTV (480p) is much greater than the difference between EDTV (480p) and HDTV (720p) all other things being equal. But YMMV.

[Dagless]

^ That's what I noticed. I got so excited by the prospect of watching 576p TV, miles more than 1080i. I've never cared much for resolution but the smoothness that is progressive scan is very important to me. Watching my HD downloads of LOST, sat where I am I can't see any difference. Up close I can though.

Like I said about the Wii, so long as it's progressive then I'm very happy. It's always dogged me that the Cube couldn't do it. And best of all, its progressive at less than 200 quid :D

[greatdevourer]

Hate to revive long, old, boring threads, but....
*t3h graph*

DVDs are all 480p. They look better on an EDTV (480p) than they do on an HDTV because they are matched in resolution. Upscaling doesn't give you finer details, only artifacts. That is also why SD broadcasts (all broadcasting on traditional stations and probably 50% of the broadcasting on HD stations) look better on EDTVs and SDTVs.

Also remember resolution is like 4th on the list of visual importance after contrast ratio, colour saturation and (something else I can't remember). Most people find that the difference between SDTV (480i) and EDTV (480p) is much greater than the difference between EDTV (480p) and HDTV (720p) all other things being equal. But YMMV. Nice graph - really puts the whole resolution thing in perspective :)

[Chone]

Hate to revive long, old, boring threads, but....
[nifty little chart]

DVDs are all 480p. They look better on an EDTV (480p) than they do on an HDTV because they are matched in resolution. Upscaling doesn't give you finer details, only artifacts. That is also why SD broadcasts (all broadcasting on traditional stations and probably 50% of the broadcasting on HD stations) look better on EDTVs and SDTVs.

Also remember resolution is like 4th on the list of visual importance after contrast ratio, colour saturation and (something else I can't remember). Most people find that the difference between SDTV (480i) and EDTV (480p) is much greater than the difference between EDTV (480p) and HDTV (720p) all other things being equal. But YMMV.

For games too resolution is not among the list of visual importance, things like textures, polygon counts, shaders, lighting and shadows, visual effects I mean, the actual graphics make much more of a difference than resolution, which is why a 720p game can look leaps and bounds better than a 1080p game... but not many people know that, effect of the whole "HD Craze" I talked about in the earlier posts.

[JackAxe]

Exactly Chone.

And it's why a DVD with real footage looks leaps and bounds better than any game I've seen or played at any rez, and I have an Apple 30". The movie Cars as an example, on my old 36" Trintron looks leaps and bounds better than anything a game console or comp can produce in real time. Tis why I role my eyes when someone uses the term photrealism in the same sentance as game console. That's an oxymoron in my book.

I also need to add that compression makes a huge difference. I download the HD trailers from Quicktime.com and I can see a difference in overall quality. 1080p trailers usually have more compression artifacts than the 720p trailers.

If not for HD sets smaller size and what it does for sports, I can't see HD being as popular. HD certainly doesn't help out SD channels like SciFi. I stopped going to my friends to watch SciFi Friday after he moved to a Samsung 50" DLP. Man it looks like crap on his new TV, where as on a SD TV, that channel looks great. :o

And to ramble some more, this whole digital move is really anoying me. I know it will eventually be better, but as of now, even SD broadcast is going down hill. The overall quality of television is generally worse now, than it was about 5 years ago. Now we have compression artifacts that are visible on even SD TVs, lots of blocking, interupted signals. I've even had frozen channels. Sound will just cut out while the video continues to play. I've had channels skip in and out and this is not just me. A majority of my friends all have HDTVs now, and even though some of them will tell me they don't expereience these problems on their Dish network, other cable provider, or so on, I always encounter it when watching TV with them. I guess they've been blinded by 1080p and the HD buzz.

I recall how many early HD adopters were claimig it was better than real life, when at that time, all content, including DVDs looked like utter crap on them. Talk about falling for the craze. :)

<]=)

[Dagless]

No matter the video card in any games console no matter it's resolution output - still doesn't look as good as a 480i DVD.

I love how studios/companies use HD as a diversion, "well we can't make it look real, so here's fake but sharper!". ho de hum. I just wish Sony/Microsoft bring out 480/576p only games that have absolute christ loads of effects and stuff to make them look *real*. 32x AA, HDR and all that. everything up full. Let's try and make games look as good as Coronation Street.

[e²Studios]

I love how studios/companies use HD as a diversion, "well we can't make it look real, so here's fake but sharper!". ho de hum. I just wish Sony/Microsoft bring out 480/576p only games that have absolute christ loads of effects and stuff to make them look *real*. 32x AA, HDR and all that. everything up full. Let's try and make games look as good as Coronation Street.

^5 I agree with you 100% on this Jimmi :)

[e²Studios]

DVDs are all 480p.

Correction DVDs are all 480i, not 480p. Progressive scan DVD players will upscale to 480p, but the media itself is 480i.

Ed

[flopticalcube]

Correction DVDs are all 480i, not 480p. Progressive scan DVD players will upscale to 480p, but the media itself is 480i.

Ed
Well, yes, but I didn't want to get into Telecine 3:2 pulldown and progressive scanning as I don't think its germane to the discussion. Details can be found in places like this (http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/production_a_z/3_2_pulldown.htm).

[greatdevourer]

^5 I agree with you 100% on this Jimmi :) Same here... except for the Coronation Street bit :D

[FleurDuMal]

No matter the video card in any games console no matter it's resolution output - still doesn't look as good as a 480i DVD.

I love how studios/companies use HD as a diversion, "well we can't make it look real, so here's fake but sharper!". ho de hum. I just wish Sony/Microsoft bring out 480/576p only games that have absolute christ loads of effects and stuff to make them look *real*. 32x AA, HDR and all that. everything up full. Let's try and make games look as good as Coronation Street.

Norris playing the lead in Gears of War would be to die for :)