Revolution: HD Discussion Thread

S

steviep

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
4,985
As many of you claim I'm the most hardcore of Nintendo fan-boys and should probably die for not wanting an XBox 360 yet, I thought I'd start a discussion about one of the disappointments I have with Nintendo currently.

As the title states, it's about their announcment about "no HD" a while back. Yes, there have been rumblings of them reconsidering, but they haven't changed their official stance. My question is - why?

If you read my "speculation of power" post, and read all the rumours that are floating around.... AND use some common sense, there is no doubt that the console will have enough power for HD resolutions on most games, or at least 720p. A 1.5ghz PC with a 9800 pro can do it... Hell, a few games on XBox 1 can do it. Of course the Revolution will be more powerful than either of those, and it is safe to say that it won't be noticably (visually) underpowered, as Nintendo has gone on record saying that there won't be major differences. So again, I ask - why?

It has also been confirmed that the Revolution will support 480p, just as Gamecube did, using component cables. It was also originally announced that it would have VGA out as well - and I'm not sure if they've retracted that statement since, but the component is still for sure. As you know, anything capable of component output can do up to 1080i. So... why?

To summarize... the CPU(s) in the Revolution will likely be a minimum of 2ghz, but more likely to be around 3, and the ATI GPU (codenamed the RN520) will likely be at least equal to that of the other systems. There will be component video output. It seems like a no-brainer that if they wanted to make a 720p game and output it, the hardware is there. So why bother telling people there will be no HD?

Maybe some people with specific technical knowledge can help me out here... because to me, it seems that all developers would have to do is literally just include the option to run in HD. Fine, if Nintendo wants to keep costs down and develop in 480p, I wouldn't care. But why not just go out and say "Nintendo Revolution can do HD, but it's completely optional, and will be at the developer's discretion"?

There has been speculation in some of the other threads here recently as to why it's possible (i.e. "no video encoder capable of it" - what does that upgrade cost them, $2/system?), but I'd like to see if we can come up with more than just speculation, without the usual flaming I get here, as to why they were adament about announcing "no HD" early this year?
 
No mandatory HD on rev sucks. No mandatory 16:9 on rev sucks even more. Not getting one because of these two things and my HDTV.
 
While it's your perogative to purchase systems solely for reasons that don't include the core of gameplay, that's not what this discussion should be about. The developers working on revolution games say that 16:9 will be there, anyway. Just because it isn't a forced standard, doesn't mean it won't be there. My question is - do you have any insight as to why there is no HD when the hardware is capable?
 
What, does no one in here want to touch upon the technicalities of what could be going on? This is an enthusiast forum! :p
 
steviep said:
But why not just go out and say "Nintendo Revolution can do HD, but it's completely optional, and will be at the developer's discretion"?
Click to expand...

My guess is because the thing can't do HD. Yes, I know, RN520. But there's a reason why Nintendo is getting a special version of the R520. I really doubt that, given the Revolution's form factor and the immense power draw of the R520, that somehow the RN520 will be at least as powerful as the regular R520. There's no way: the Revolution would explode in a plume of heat, the disc in the main drive would embed itself in your face, and your living room would catch fire.

Okay, I'm exaggerating Nintendo's new way of burning your house down.

But seriously, I really don't see how the Revolution would be able to reliably output in 720p. I suspect that Nintendo is trying to spin this technical shortcoming as proof that they're trying something different. On a side note, I suspect the Revolution's release date is going to be dictated by how successful ATi is at creating a low-power R520.
 
If you read the 'speculation' thread, or even my own speculation that a 1.5ghz machine with a 9800pro could do those resolutions, I don't know if you can really say that this machine won't have the power to do 1280x720, at least as an option. I'm willing to wager that it will, at the very least for some games. Look at the Gamecube compared to the XBox. Much smaller, less mhz, pretty much comparable graphics. Keep that in mind.
 
steviep said:
While it's your perogative to purchase systems solely for reasons that don't include the core of gameplay, that's not what this discussion should be about. The developers working on revolution games say that 16:9 will be there, anyway. Just because it isn't a forced standard, doesn't mean it won't be there. My question is - do you have any insight as to why there is no HD when the hardware is capable?
Click to expand...
Just cause it's 16:9 doesn't mean it's HDTV resolution. DVDs are 16:9 mostly and they aren't HDTV.

The idea of forcing the standard is to make sure the graphics quality will be there. If developers don't need to do it chances are they won't unless it's a really big game.

Gotta remember that Nintendo ain't for the hardcore gamer. They're pushing the system for kids. Notice the buttons on the GameCube? The shapes and the colors. I mean come on the system was purple when it was released.

Nintendo is anticipating that the system will be sold to children. Hence it will be hooked up in the basement to a 13 inch color TV.

It's to cut costs. Both for Nintendo and for the developers.
 
I don't buy the "kid" system theory either, especially for the controller. Between the PS2 and the Gamecube, I get all my multiplatform "adult" (very loosely used word) on the cube just fine. But it's your opinion. The demographic aimed for the revolution is much more broad than "just children", anyway. If the component output (confirmed) and the power (likely) is already there, how much of a cost savings is there? Sounds like none to me.
 
The Revolution, X360 and PS3 can render games in HD just fine right now. The real question is whether they're capable of doing the same thing in 4-5 years time, before they're replaced with the next generation.

I think that Nintendo's approach is the most sensible, as there's no hardware powerful enough right now (capable of being crammed in a small console enclosure) to ensure that Doom 4 (for example) can be rendered in HD, even 720p@60, when it's released 3-4 years from now.
 
Elledan said:
The Revolution, X360 and PS3 can render games in HD just fine right now. The real question is whether they're capable of doing the same thing in 4-5 years time, before they're replaced with the next generation.

I think that Nintendo's approach is the most sensible, as there's no hardware powerful enough right now (capable of being crammed in a small console enclosure) to ensure that Doom 4 (for example) can be rendered in HD, even 720p@60, when it's released 3-4 years from now.
Click to expand...

You're right. Not even the mighty PS3 is that future proof. But do remember that with time, developers learn to exploit the hardware better, and can make games look better as such. I still don't understand why Nintendo would outright say "no HD" when the system is most probably capable. Just don't say anything, and leave it up to the dev whether or not to implement it!
 
Just because a 9800 can spit out a 720P signal does not mean it can output that with high quality AA and AF with all the trimmings like X360 and PS3 will.
It certainly won’t do it with a 1.5 GHz machine.

The fact is DukenuckemX is right; the console is made for kiddies.
Nintendo has had nothing to offer me since I was 12 years ago.
I mean, really how many times can you play Mario does Dallas or Zelda the teenage whore?
The crap is old and Nintendo is going to see their numbers continue to fall.
Because they fail to see that in this day and age you have to have a different business model then what they are pushing.
You have to push a console and games that are made for a very wide audience, one that is a huge step forward in technology.
Not a queered out purple piece of crap with a controller made for Romper Room.
For me the eye candy is part of the package.
I want fun game play, but I also MUST have sweet eye candy or it is boring to me.

Anyways it is just my opinions, but I think it boils down to they chose not to include at the bells and whistles because of what DukenuckemX said.
I certainly won’t buy one, because I want all those bells and whistles.
 
What exactly are they saying about the HD though? Are they saying that the system will not do it, or are they saying that they are not making it mandatory for the devs to implement it?
 
steviep said:
You're right. Not even the mighty PS3 is that future proof. But do remember that with time, developers learn to exploit the hardware better, and can make games look better as such. I still don't understand why Nintendo would outright say "no HD" when the system is most probably capable. Just don't say anything, and leave it up to the dev whether or not to implement it!
Click to expand...
I vaguely recall similar discussions regarding Nintendo's decision to leave online play as an add-on feature with the GC. This time around Nintendo has put a lot of emphasis on online play, both with the Revolution as well as with the DS.

What puzzles most people, I guess, is that Nintendo is very progressive at times, yet seemingly overly conservative as well. Their strategy, however, does make a lot of sense. Take the Gameboy (original) vs the Gamegear and similar offerings around the same time. The GB was very conservative in terms of hardware and hence graphical capabilities. It had a monochrome screen, whereas the Gamegear offered vibrant colour. Yet the Gamegear is little more than a lingering memory by those who've owned one, while the GB is undoubtedly the most popular handheld electronic 'gadget' ever sold.

Nintendo's real strength lies apparently in innovating in areas where it really matters. A controller with a slightly different shape and/or button layout isn't innovative, adding a D-pad, analog stick and rumble pack is. Judging from the responses from game developers so far, the Revolution's 'TV remote' controller is yet another innovation.

Meanwhile what do the PS3 and X360 offer in terms of innovation? An overly complex architecture (Cell) or an architecture which becomes anaemic the moment it is confronted with branch-intensive code, such as AI (Xenon)? HD? Pushing more pixels.

Feature-wise the PS2 and PS3 are virtually the same. Ditto for the XBox and the X360. It's like upgrading your gaming PC to a more powerful system. Unless you add something truly new and different, the experience won't change much, only getting prettier.

For this reason I call HD something which is nice, but completely overrated for the time being. There's no doubt in my mind that by the time the new consoles arrive, HDTVs will be far more common (especially in the EU) and HD will actually make sense. Even for Nintendo.
 
Maximus825 said:
What exactly are they saying about the HD though? Are they saying that the system will not do it, or are they saying that they are not making it mandatory for the devs to implement it?
Click to expand...
At this point it seems like the maximum resolution the Revolution will be capable of is 480p. I can see them adding support for 720p as an option for developers, but nothing beyond that.
 
JRT said:
Just because a 9800 can spit out a 720P signal does not mean it can output that with high quality AA and AF with all the trimmings like X360 and PS3 will.
It certainly won’t do it with a 1.5 GHz machine.

The fact is DukenuckemX is right; the console is made for kiddies.
Nintendo has had nothing to offer me since I was 12 years ago.
I mean, really how many times can you play Mario does Dallas or Zelda the teenage whore?
The crap is old and Nintendo is going to see their numbers continue to fall.
Because they fail to see that in this day and age you have to have a different business model then what they are pushing.
You have to push a console and games that are made for a very wide audience, one that is a huge step forward in technology.
Not a queered out purple piece of crap with a controller made for Romper Room.
For me the eye candy is part of the package.
I want fun game play, but I also MUST have sweet eye candy or it is boring to me.

Anyways it is just my opinions, but I think it boils down to they chose not to include at the bells and whistles because of what DukenuckemX said.
I certainly won’t buy one, because I want all those bells and whistles.
Click to expand...

It's quite obvious that you are in the "extreme hardcore" market. Please see my latest post on the analysis of customers like you :)

In the mean time, I'm going to go and enjoy my "kiddy queercube", as it has so many exclusive games that I can't get anywhere else. So how old are you again?

Nintendo hasn't said whether the 720p is locked out completely, or if they just won't support it and it 's there. They've just simply said "no HD". And I'm puzzled as to why.

BTW, good posts Elledan - you're actually adding to the discussion, unlike some others here. I'll look forward to your next post :D
 
It could be that the media that they will be using wont be able to hold enough information for the HD. I would actually say that this is the most likely reason. The developers were complaining about Microsoft's HD requirements because they simply didn't have enough space to store all the data...
 
steviep said:
Nintendo hasn't said whether the 720p is locked out completely, or if they just won't support it and it 's there. They've just simply said "no HD". And I'm puzzled as to why.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that Nintendo is (in)famous for their absolute secrecy, revealing only the things they want to be revealed (unlike Sony with that blabbering fool of a Kutaragi. What? It's true ^_- ). There's also a long history of underpromising and overdelivering associated with Nintendo (e.g. the PS1's specifications vs the N64), which is why I'm not discounting 720p as a possibility.

BTW, good posts Elledan - you're actually adding to the discussion, unlike some others here. I'll look forward to your next post :D
Click to expand...
It's what happens to you when you read all of the analyses produced by the crew at Arstechnica on these topics :p
 
For me I lack an HD set and have no plans to buy one in the near future thus HD output is not even worth caring about. If you try to say I can hook up my monitor you are indeed correct except that kills what a console is. There is a reason they have more capacity than just one controller :rolleyes:

I think the vast majority of people who buy consoles are in the same boat as me I don't wish to get into the marketing potential of HD so don't bring it up please.
 
I honestly dont thing anyone cares too much about the Revolution on the threshold of the Xbox 360 launch... Except you. :p
 
Maximus825 said:
It could be that the media that they will be using wont be able to hold enough information for the HD. I would actually say that this is the most likely reason. The developers were complaining about Microsoft's HD requirements because they simply didn't have enough space to store all the data...
Click to expand...
Don't forget that (referring to the big N's secrecy tactic) we know virtually nothing about the media the Revolution will be using.

We know that the PS3 will use Blu-ray, especially since Sony is one of those who developed the technology. The X360 uses standard DVDs (a possible upgrade to HD-DVD would only be used for movies, according to MSFT).

So far all we know about the Revolution's media format is that it's roughly 12 cm in diameter (CD/DVD-sized) and the drive won't be big, or expensive. Any guesses as to the capacity and such intricate details are mere speculation.
 
airiox said:
I honestly dont thing anyone cares too much about the Revolution on the threshold of the Xbox 360 launch... Except you. :p
Click to expand...
Many people buying an X360 will also be buying a Revolution, according to polls. Weird, eh? :)
 
Elledan said:
Many people buying an X360 will also be buying a Revolution, according to polls. Weird, eh? :)
Click to expand...

True if its any good I will so myself. But its a long, long, long way off. I mean the name isn't even finalized yet. If they have any brains whatsoever they will make sure it is HD native or else their console will fail in the US and everyone will point and laugh at them. I doubt it will be a huge point of frustation in Japan though, at least nothing like it would be here if they were to have it only be 480i.
 
Elledan said:
Don't forget that Nintendo is (in)famous for their absolute secrecy...
Click to expand...

Except that "no HD" comes directly from the mouth of Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo Vice President of Sales and Marketing.
 
Terpfen said:
Except that "no HD" comes directly from the mouth of Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo Vice President of Sales and Marketing.
Click to expand...

Did nintendo not say somthing about going online with the gamecube as well? Statements can be changed and I am sure depending on how the 360 HD is taken it may or may not be added. Why learn from your mistakes when you can learn from others?
 
Darakian said:
Why learn from your mistakes when you can learn from others?
Click to expand...

Because big corporations never learn from another's mistakes.
 
Put simply; it could do 720p just fine...the hardware is nowhere near restricted enough to NOT put out at least 720p...it will be a lot more ppowerful than the Xbox1, and the xbox1 can pull off 720p, and in rare instances, 1080i....so I don't want to hear "it can't do it" from anyone! :) If a machine with a 700mhz processor and 64mb of RAM can pull it off...then the Revolution can pull it off for sure, no problems.
 
steviep said:
I don't buy the "kid" system theory either, especially for the controller. Between the PS2 and the Gamecube, I get all my multiplatform "adult" (very loosely used word) on the cube just fine. But it's your opinion. The demographic aimed for the revolution is much more broad than "just children", anyway.
Click to expand...
Think of how Hollywood works. It's aimed for all ages. From kids to adults. Where the PS3 and 360 will average from teens to adults.

I own a GameCube. Same reason anyone does. Original games and I grew up on Nintendo. You know it pissed off people when the hero of Zelda The Wind Waker was a child. It was still a good game but people wanted a grown up Link. Plus lets not forget Mario SunShine.

The demographic is broad but it's mostly aimed for kids. Would be suicide for Nintendo not to allow some adult games on their machines.
If the component output (confirmed) and the power (likely) is already there, how much of a cost savings is there? Sounds like none to me.
Click to expand...
How about license fees? A good deal of the cost for the HDTV component output is to pay the license fee for using this technology.

Think of it like how the Xbox doesn't support DVD playback without paying for a remote. The actually cost of the remote is just you paying for the license fee to actually be able to decode the DVD video.

You're right. Not even the mighty PS3 is that future proof. But do remember that with time, developers learn to exploit the hardware better, and can make games look better as such. I still don't understand why Nintendo would outright say "no HD" when the system is most probably capable. Just don't say anything, and leave it up to the dev whether or not to implement it!
Click to expand...

Developers don't really exploit the hardware. They just lower the quality of the textures and use less filtering in the rendering. You just don't notice this on a TV since the TV blurs everything to hell.

You'll notice that on the PS2 games get more and more washed out textures every year. It's not your eyes. They're just using less detailed textures.
 
who cares.

No HD cuts down costs, which Nintendo wants to do. Lower costs for them = lower price for us. Noone likes a 400 dollar console.
 
For a console named the revolution, the decision no offer no 16:9 HD output is anything but revolutionary.
 
Draax said:
For a console named the revolution, the decision no offer no 16:9 HD output is anything but revolutionary.
Click to expand...

The "revolutionary" aspects of the system have nothing at all to do with its output criteria.

If a machine with a 700mhz processor and 64mb of RAM can pull it off...then the Revolution can pull it off for sure, no problems.
Click to expand...

QFT

Because big corporations never learn from another's mistakes.
Click to expand...

They sure as hell do! Marketing 101, my friend. In terms of consoles, Nintendo used this era as a "learn how to do online good and free". And they looked at both Sony's decentralized system, and Microsoft's centralized system, and used this generation to see how it all panned out. XBLive is great, but it's far from perfect, and not free. We still don't know how much NFC is going to evolve over the course of the next year (from the DS, to the Revolution for instance) but with all the studies that Nintendo did in the online field, and all the big companies they have on board to deliver it, I personally expect a good final product.

You know it pissed off people when the hero of Zelda The Wind Waker was a child. It was still a good game but people wanted a grown up Link.
Click to expand...

Funny, I don't remember people being pissed on the first Zelda game... nor through one of the best games in the series (A Link to the Past on SNES), where he was a child the whole way through. People are just too picky. I found Wind Waker to be fantastic, other than the sailing. Everything else was top notch, especially the graphics. But I really don't buy this "maturity" thing. I don't play games to "feel cool" like the majority of the teen demographic does. A game rated M means nothing to me, but I guess I'm in the minority.

Don't forget that (referring to the big N's secrecy tactic) we know virtually nothing about the media the Revolution will be using.
Click to expand...

We do know that it will offer DVD playback, though, using a similar purchased dongle as the current XBox... so we can at least infer that the drive will either be some kind of DRMed standard DVD-9 disc (like the gamecube was a DRMed standard mini-DVD), or that the laser will be capable of reading both their custom 12cm disc and DVDs. Not sure what to make of it. What I do know is that if Microsoft is making it mandatory to do HD with a 9GB worth of space, developers have to stop being lazy and use sound/video compression. Most computer games are still 2CD affairs today, and most offer much higher resolution textures than 720p provide. I don't think it's a space issue, either.

How about license fees? A good deal of the cost for the HDTV component output is to pay the license fee for using this technology.
Click to expand...

While you're right about DVD being a closed standard, and therefore requires licensing fees, from what I understand, HD (720p, 1080i, etc) is an open, free standard. This is what confuses me to hell about everything, but if anyone else wants to correct me on this point, feel free.
 
steviep said:
They sure as hell do!
Click to expand...

No, they don't. The history of corporate screwups is the history of large faceless organizations not learning from what the others have screwed up. Nintendo's online service has been smoother than others, but they're already experiencing difficulties with keeping Mario Kart players connected. Nintendo should've learned from Blizzard's launch of WoW, in addition to Microsoft's launch of Xbox Live. Debuting at a brand-new system with a killer app is just asking for trouble.

On the bright side, the Revolution's online services should be fine at launch, given what Nintendo is learning now.
 
Terpfen said:
No, they don't. The history of corporate screwups is the history of large faceless organizations not learning from what the others have screwed up. Nintendo's online service has been smoother than others, but they're already experiencing difficulties with keeping Mario Kart players connected. Nintendo should've learned from Blizzard's launch of WoW, in addition to Microsoft's launch of Xbox Live. Debuting at a brand-new system with a killer app is just asking for trouble.

On the bright side, the Revolution's online services should be fine at launch, given what Nintendo is learning now.
Click to expand...

We're both right, in this sence Terpfen. Some companies haven't a clue, others watch the competition. For instance, in terms of video gaming, Nintendo brings out new controller techs all the time, and companies like Sony then follow. (i.e. D-pad, analog stick, rumble, etc). I think the same was true about online play, but in reverse. Unfortunately it seems they underestimated server capacity for Mario Kart, but I'm sure they'll have that cleared up soon.
 
steviep said:
Funny, I don't remember people being pissed on the first Zelda game... nor through one of the best games in the series (A Link to the Past on SNES), where he was a child the whole way through. People are just too picky. I found Wind Waker to be fantastic, other than the sailing. Everything else was top notch, especially the graphics. But I really don't buy this "maturity" thing. I don't play games to "feel cool" like the majority of the teen demographic does. A game rated M means nothing to me, but I guess I'm in the minority.
Click to expand...
When they show kid shows it's always kids that are the hero. So it's only natural for adults to wana see adults in stuff they watch. People generally like to be able to get involved in what they watch. The more they have in common with the character the more interactive it becomes.

Nintendo just didn't plan for a lot of NES and SNES owners to grow up and still play their games.

What I do know is that if Microsoft is making it mandatory to do HD with a 9GB worth of space, developers have to stop being lazy and use sound/video compression. Most computer games are still 2CD affairs today, and most offer much higher resolution textures than 720p provide. I don't think it's a space issue, either.
Click to expand...
It could be. Nintendo is famous for making console systems with funny media.

When Sony used CDs they still used cartridges for the N64. When Sony used DVDs they used mini Discs.

While you're right about DVD being a closed standard, and therefore requires licensing fees, from what I understand, HD (720p, 1080i, etc) is an open, free standard. This is what confuses me to hell about everything, but if anyone else wants to correct me on this point, feel free.
Click to expand...

Then there should be no reason for Nintendo not to support HD.
 
i do belive one of these 2 things
a) nintendo is saving money on production costs by putting in cheaper video ENCODER chips
b) its up to the dev and no first party games will feature HD
 
Ballz, you could be right. But traditionally, first party games are the ones to use the latest tech. For instance, almost all current Gamecube first-party titles support 480p, however many of the 3rd party games do not. If HD was optional, don't you think they'd come out and say "HD is optional" instead of "Revolution won't have HD"? :)

Video encoder chips? The ATI GPU is what encodes it, though, isn't it? And that will be latest-tech. Besides, how much money could an encoder chip cost?
 
theres a differnce between a encoder chip and a gpu, just for example i do belive all video cards have encoder chips(i did notice my ti4600 has the same brand as the one in my xbox, mabey its for the svideo out)

video encoder
conexant.jpg

The Xbox features a Conexant video encoder chip that supports the following TV output resolutions: 480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i. However the input of that chip is governed to a maximum (according to Conexant's tech-docs) of 1024 x 768. Note that the input resolution and the resolution outputted to your TV don't have to be the same, but if they are not the same you're just going to be scaling or shrinking the image and won't get any additional quality out of it
Click to expand...
 
Yes I know, but the encoder chips are all pretty standard and are also quite cheap. A connexant/brooktree encoder capable of doing up to 1080i isn't uncommon, and cheap. I don't think they'd save all that much money by including an encoder that does 480p but not 720p.
 
DukenukemX said:
It could be. Nintendo is famous for making console systems with funny media.

When Sony used CDs they still used cartridges for the N64. When Sony used DVDs they used mini Discs.
Click to expand...
Remember all those 'Loading...' jokes about the PS1? Exactly.

The GC uses DVDs, only 9 cm DVDs and not the full-size, 12 cm ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top