f13.net

I don't know if someone has mentioned this here, but for those who have not seen it:

http://revolution.ign.com/articles/673/673799p1.html

There is a link early on in the article with some earlier comments from developers.  At the end, some developers are speculating that Revolution may be $149, and possibly $99.

Wow.  They may well so under-build their box that nothing will cross platform onto their box, whereas unless the pointer control is required, anything for theirs can go to the others.  That could well kill the box.

Nope, I'd buy it for $99.

If nothing on the 360 / ps3 will port down to the revolution, you won't have a lot to play but Nintendo custom stuff at $99.

Which is no doubt their plan. I'm pretty sure I said that 6 months ago when they said the Revolution would most likely not be high-def.

It won't be a replacement for my 360/ps3.  It will be my Revolution.

As long As I get a ton of those past Nintendo games, and maybe even some Sega or something, I'll be happy to pay, probably.

Not being a huge hardware geek, I didn't realize the Cube had so little ram.  Some fantastic graphics (for a console, hush Sky.) for so little power. 

If it's $99 or even $150 I'll buy it at release, unlike any previous console.   I've always waited 2-3 years for the price to plummet and give me a nice big library of games to choose from at bargin prices.

Like Hat said, it's not a replacement for anything, I'm buying it to have it and the games on it.  At a bargin price, no less. (Which unlike you young, childless, unmarried, non-homeowning folks forget, does matter.)

I find myself less and less interested in the revolution as more info comes out.

I'll wait and buy one when they're listed at $25 in the huge check-out aisle in Frys. Between the beef jerky and the plush toys.

It isn't nearly the deal you guys are making it out to be. To support HD the XBox needs 4x the RAM, fill rate, etc, just to break even. Resolution is the single most expensive thing you can add to a system.

3x better than the GC sounds fine to me.

Now, 3x better than the GC with HD support would actually end up *worse* than the GC. That would be bad. HD support is monumentally expensive as far as performance goes.

The more I hear the more I think I'll wait for the next next-gen, which is a bit of a shame since I'd already taken the perspective a few years ago.  If game publishers want to train me not to buy PC games that's fine too - they're just creating a gaping maw of low/non-barrier to entry for newer hungrier companies.

I don't care about HD, because I don't own an HD TV, nor do I have plans for one until the government rips my current ones from my cold, analog hands.  People who do have them are probably also the people who don't mind dropping $400 down for the 360, or buying one at 2-3x the store price on ebay.  MS wants to be cutting edge, and that's fine.  I don't.

As for the HD, I would like having one in the Rev.  Not all games would need to support it, but they're useful if you want to allow patched content.  Say, for an MMOG, or a NWNesque game.  For performance and support, no game would want to use the HD unless it had do, but it's available if they want it.

I'll buy it at that price.  I'm not getting 360 at its price.  Like said above.  Price does matter.  HD, best of the best, etc. not so much.  If this is Nintendo's strategy, I think it is a good one.  It is where the masses are.  Why fight with Microsoft and Sony for a small piece of the pie?  Go for that big fat chunk at the other side of the tin.

My son and I love Paper Mario 1 and 2, Animal Crossing is fun for him, and Rogue Squadron is fun too.  The party games are fun to play with a bunch of people too.

Will we get this one?  Not yet...fact is we will probably wait for a while to get any of the new ones coming out.

Yeah, I didn't mention that is my plan too.  I'm currently buying up used games for $9.99 or less on the GC.  The kids and I are in heaven with all the "new" games and that will last us quite awhile yet.  Not to mention that the GC games will continue to drop in price as they are phased out.

Mmmm, I like scraps.

Having worked at pretty much every large games retailer since before the gamecube came out up until now, I can tell you that Gamecube prices drop at a far slower pace than every other system (except the gameboy advance). The number one theory for this: there's less. Of every game. That's the only thing that keeps a games prices up on the market. That's why Enter the Matrix dropped to $29.99 days after release in big box and boutique stores. It's why Bad Boys II for the Xbox and PS2 did as well. It's all about the numbers under the counter. The less of something, the higher the value. PS1 games from Atlus/Nippon Ichi or PS2 games like Rez and Disgaea are good examples of this. Hell, even the Gamecube game Cubivore (coincedentally, by Atlus) is so expensive. It's a terrible game, but it went discountinued in the computer the day after it shipped - not even after they could sell it. Same thing happened right now with DDR Mario Mix. There's supposed to be a resupply of that title in February but they aren't admitting that to games press because they simply want people to keep buying Gamecubes. That title could also, single handedly, be the reason the Gamecube went up $10 at EB/Gamestop.

As for the Revolution, I wouldn't be surprised if games are $39-$49 at launch and best sellers (smash bros, etc) come out at $29. They'll corner the market on Nintendo stuff as always, but they''ll make less and less of everything. While you can't sell what's not on store shelves, you can make sure there's less of a used market for your games. Nintendo has managed to do that pretty well. Ship conservatively and ship when there's demand. EB/GS makes a killing off selling old versions of Madden, but there simply aren't enough GC titles in peoples hands for there to be a big used market. So prices on "new" games don't drop as they phase out. Dren's situation is simply the result of things being shipped in bulk - like Paper Mario (which dropped to $29.99 shortly after release because of too much stock and is now BACK up to $49.99) - being reprinted and a slight devaluation in the cost of Gamecube games due to the inevitable release of the 360.

That's a lot of writing to just say used PS2 games are cheaper across the board. And kids are easily entertained.

Nintendo's market may be niche and shrinking, but it's there. I don't like consoles but I have a Cube and I really like (most of) the games I have for it. Mario Sunshine was a big disappointment after Mario 64 imo. But other than that, it's been a great little system for the handful of titles. Revolution will be the same.

However, I'm not sure I could deal with the remote controller nunchaku dongle. That looks completely stupid.

And yes, Schild makes the proper good points about boxes: I wish RE4 would get a bit cheaper ;) Smash Bros has only come down in price, used, since friggin launch, in the last couple months!

I'm a parent, and my kids like Nintendo. I didn't tell them anything, it's what the kids in school talk about. We have a PS1, PS2, DS, GC and N64 (my son asked for this for his last birthday, was the best $20 I've ever spent). The PS1 and PS2 are now in storage (I like the PS2 personally but always end up gaming on the PC). The N64 gets the most use, followed by the GC and DS. Plain truth is that around my world, Nintendo has what kids like to play and there are a lot of kids. We have no plans to buy any XBox, ever. The PS3 is not likely to get purchased. The Revolution, should the kids like it, will be any easy purchase at that kind of price point.

Specs be damned.

Oh one more thing. Any time we go somewhere that the kids will all be hanging out, guess what every kid whips out? GameBoy. They play on that, trading games, all while talking about the GameCube games they have. *That* is worth it's weight in gold. None of them give a crap about  the other consoles.

When people drone on about how the X360 and PS3 wil crush Nintendo bnecause of framerates and graphics and whatnot...

Ask them why more people play simple, unassuming chess than large, complex World in Flames (to take an extreme boardgame example). Ask them why low-res Monkey Island I and II are (fondly) remembered better than, say, Cryo's higher-resolution adventure games.

It's all in the gameplay and "intangibles" like style and story. Cross-platform releases seem too often to go cross-platform because they cannot recoup the costs on one platform alone. Make it cheap to make games on the Revolution (like it already is for the GBA and probably DS), and Nintendo will come out on the plus side.

You know what? Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube (with the stated hardware specs on the GC that I didn't know before I played the game) proves it's not what the hardware CAN do, it's what you motherfuckers can do with it. Fuck Hi-Def, fuck RAM, fuck CPU's and GPU's, if you can program RE4 on the tech specs of the Cube, you don't NEED any of that other shit.

Bullshit. When you see RE5 on an Xbox 360 running on a hi-def screen, you'll sing a different song. That probably won't even be ported to the Revolution at all and if it is, it will be _criiiiiiipled_.

I don't have and won't buy an HD TV for some time yet.  I have a good pc, which I plan on replacing in a year or two with a better pc, which is my game machine.  My kids are only 7 and 9, and they have their own computer.

I will get the Revolution.  I will most likely not buy the pricey consoles.

Jamiko has the right of it.  PS2 may have cheaper used games, but I wouldn't want my young kids (all under 7) to play anything on the PS2, nor have they asked to (except for the older son that see the Hulk or other recognizable character on the cover.)

I might sing a different toon in 5 years if my kids want to play more sport games, but for the current generation of consoles and probably the next, Nintendo fits the bill with this respect.

To address the HD controversy:  Not gonna have it nor get it for the next 5 years.  I certainly am not going to speed up that timeline for a console.  My guess is the MAJORITY of console buyers feel the same way.  My feeling is that at this day and time, keeping things simple will net you more of the market.  I certainly could be wrong.

And an hour after the shiny is over, if the gameplay don't match, I'll throw it the fuck away. Or trade it in at EB.

Seriously. Price point means more to me than HD. Gameplay means more to me than graphics. I've seen the 360. I'm not impressed.

Of course, Nintendo will really have to prove that nunchuk dongle if it's going to get me to purchase it. But at $150, I've a better chance of buying the Revolution at release than I do the 360 or the PS3.

Do you game at 640x480 on your pc? On a 13" monitor?

That's like saying 'Fuck the Model T' because your horse cart has done you just fine for the last eighty generations.

The technology is here, it will be mainstream in a couple years, and it's superior. Stop looking all luddite already ;) HDTVs are flying off the shelves. Even po' folks want them, hell, they especially want them because they need the best matrix they can afford.

Of course the gameplay needs to be there. Who is arguing it doesn't? Of course price point means something. Who says it doesn't? You're just making up arguments, man. That's not like you.

I really wonder if HDTV is going to be mainstream in a "couple" of years. Most average Joe's out there, that I know, pretty much avoid technical stuff. They have barely even heard of HDTV. They are aware of flat panel TVs and if HDTV is part of it they would have no idea. They all say they would like a flat panel TV for their next set, provided they cost about the same as "regular" sets. Most of them buy a new TV every 7-10 years. I buy them even less frequently than that and I just had someone give me a 35" Sony console TV. That was a big step up for me and I'm no country bumpkin. I really have no big desire for HDTV, nor plans to buy a new TV any time soon. Why should I? My current set is fine. I bet most people feel the same way. Sure it's cool, lots of expensive things are. But often cool costs too much when fine will do the job.

In my opinion, HDTV will become mainstream when most every TV available is HDTV. But even then, I'm going to be waiting for mine to break down before I buy a new one.

If you're sitting on the couch ten feet from your TV, HD is going to make much less of a difference.  Resolution matters more on a PC because you're close enough to see the pixels.

Bullshit. Much like most arguments against HDTV.

I was seriously in the market for an HD tv like a month ago.  Then I started looking at the ones I want.  $2000 minimum.  My life isn't just about me, $2000 is a signficant investment with a minimal return. Sure HD programming looks great, regular programming looked pretty much the fucking same if not worse on most of the sets I looked at.  With a new TV I'd have to take another look at my sound system, I'd need to get a new TV stand that matches the furniture.  I'd probably have to get new cabling done.  I'm afraid at how much more blood the cable company would want.  I figure at least another thousand clams would evaporate within a month.

I'm sticking with my 1 ton, 36" antique someone gave me until the sucker curls up and dies.  My console games look fine and dandy right where they are.  I'll buy a new computer instead.

Price point is really everything at this moment.  The new console(s) are fucking expensive even before you get a goddamn game or two for them.  I'm by no means strapped for cash, I just don't see a decent ROI for what I'd be throwing at it.

1024 x 768 on a 17" monitor.



If the horse cart still pulls my shit and I can't afford the Model T, fuck Ford in his tiny little asshole.


Hey, I want one. I never said I didn't want one. But I'm not going to buy or not buy a console, or dog a console because it doesn't support HD. It's stupider if the Revolution doesn't support DVD playback than if it doesn't have HD.

Here's my beef with HD. It's a fucking scam right now. None of the content providers WANT to provide HD, they are being forced to despite its economic infeasibility. So they provide only what they can, and meanwhile they pimp it like it's the second coming of Bruce Muhame Ali Jesus. It becomes the "got to have it" thing for people who have to be bleeding edge and have money to piss away. Meanwhile, the hardware guys continually tweak the formula to come out with the latest big thing (wait, HD is the bestest, 1 week later wait, DLP is the bestest, 2 weeks later, no no it's PLASMA!). It's like fucking MMOG's. PVP! PVP+! INSTANCING!

And all of it costs about 3 billion times more than the regular, ubiquituous tech I already have. Here's a hint for you. I'm not going to pay $3,000 for a television. I'm not going to $600 for an HD Tivo and an extra $10 a month for HD programming. I'm just not. Sure, it looks great. But today, I'd rather buy more games than I would an HD TV.

2-3 years from now when I'm ready to upgrade my TV to a 32" or bigger? Then, yeah, I'll be fine with HD. It'll also be at a saner price, as opposed to this Mickey Mouse bleeding edge sucker price. There will also be more content, the tech will have time to be stressed and perfected, etc. etc.

I refuse to worry about being bleeding edge when I'd rather eat.

EDIT: The same also goes for bleeding edge video cards. Fuck you Nvidia AND ATI and all you suckers who pay $300 and up for a FUCKING VIDEO CARD.

Maybe your eyesight is just better than mine.  At the distance between my couch and my computer (which is about the same as the distance between my couch and my TV), I can't tell the difference between 640x480 and 1600x1200.  Shrug.

Depends on what you're watching. But seriously, that's insane. Play Windwaker or really any Gamecube or Xbox game and then go play any 360 game. There's quite the difference.

Eh, that was years ago. They're not cheap, but they're not ridiculous. Look at flat panel monitors, a 24" flat panel is what, $1200?

The bleeding edge isn't bleeding when I've had one for over two years now. Folks paying 5 figures...that was early adopter bleeding edge pricing.

I was in the market for a new tv and a new monitor at the same time, both my CRTs were dying. I was able to get a superior product for only a little more than I would have buying both seperately. The difference it's made has been huge, I have no buyer's remorse, and I'm pretty tight with my money.

The rest of the stuff you mention is silly. It's been Plasma, LCD, DLP and LCoS with a smaller CRT market for years now, nothing has changed, though the tech (like all tech) is constantly getting better. OMG there's all those Pentiums but then there is a G5 or an Athlon and now they are trying to pull Athlon FX and 64 on you! Sucker? C'mon, man.

But whatever, rage on. I'll enjoy the model T.

Haemish is right.

If you buy a new TV in the next 3 years, if you don't buy HD you do yourself a huge dis-service.

The difference to me really is black and white to color.  I can still get quality television on normal stations (Comedy Central).  But I find myself watching pretty much only HD channels now (thankfully, the big 4 and discovery are all HD).  I don't even have HD-HBO or Showtime.

If you want to see the difference RIGHT now, go download some tv shows (Rome is a good one to check out).  Download the HD version, and the non-HD version, and tell me you don't feel the difference.

As far as HD-compatability on the Revo, it doesn't really matter to me.  But it doesn't matter because my TV upscales signals anyways.

A decent 27" non-HD costs about $300 or less. $300 is really expensive for that. And you think that paying 4 times that price for a smaller TV isn't a sucker price?

I got some land I'd like to sell you. It's in 1080p as well.

Actually if anything it will probably run at a higher framerate.

Why would it be crippled? The only difference would be resolution. Again, increasing resolution if the #1 hardware taxing thing you can do. If you want to support 4x the screen size you need 4x the video ram, 4x texture ram, 4x fill rate and all that, just ro *break even.*

The XBox 360 has a lot of power but that power has to be reserved for running in HD. When you aren't in HD most of that power is going to waste - tons of RAM and cycles are just sitting around unused.

XBox360 games look and perform like XBox games when not in HD. Better framerates, slightly cleaner looking, that's it. The idea that a game would be crippled by running on the Rev is silly, because XBox 360 without HD is essentially what the Rev is. A lot of the extra power the 360 packs is solely for supporting HD.

For me, gaming is not my life. There aren't many shows in HD and they cost way too fucking much.

You guys should look into Mitsubishi TVs. I've had my HDTV for over 3 years now. When I got it, it was $2,200. 48" - 1080i, 480p - no 720p.

16 months of 0% interest. The payments were easy as hell.

Uhhh you're right about a lot of things, but you're so incredibly wrong about all of this.

HD does not compare to DLP does not compare to Plasma

REAR PROJECTION - FRONTAL PROJECTION - DLP - PLASMA - PROJECTION LCD.

All of these can be, and usually ARE "High defination". If you spend any money getting one of the above TYPES OF TVs you better be sure that it supports HD resolutions.

Plus, it's no scam. Don't you have access to a modified xbox? How on earth can you say it's a scam after spending a handful of seconds in front of one of those?

There is no reason to have HBO anymore when you can download the latest Rome episode in HD and stream it straight to the xbox. That and every other TV show that's broadcast, along with an assortment of illegal things.

Shit I've even got a stream of PBS Frontline episodes that are > than PDTV resolution.

IT'S A SCAM! Sure, it's a scam if you're a dumbass. (Hint: most people are. We share the roads with them.)

I can think of a reason: I have better things to do than hunt around for HBO shows, download them and set up streaming to my xbox. Time is money. Money buys convenience and time.

There are a whole lot of things that make a lot of sense to waste time on when you don't have anything better to do. Then maybe sometime in your life you *do* have better things to do and fucking around with things just to get them for free doesn't make sense any more.

HD is a huge scam because you have to pay extra to get the channels (at least around these parts).  In 3 years it will be the broadcast standard, and I'll be getting it for free, laughing at the pay-to-beta testers of today.   Enjoy your bleeding edge.

Yes, that $5/mo comcast charge is so fucking steep. Let me tell you all about it.

And the $0 cable box that comes with component cables, man I'm still paying that off.


"hunt" for HBO episodes?

Edit by schild: Bad Nija. No treat for Nija.

HUNT OVER!

    <bookmark>
      <name>Network Video Files</name>
      <path>smb://xbox:xbox@10.10.87.101/download/</path>
    </bookmark>

XBOX CONFIGUATION COMPLETE.

Time is money, and I'm fucking Bill Gates. Stay out of the left lane.

Yup.

I had a Tivo.  I paid $12/mo for it and loved it to death.  Now I have a HD-DVR from Comcast and pay $8/mo for all the HD channels (not premium, no HBO) and have an 80GB DVR box.

Not seeing the downside at all.

It's really not us HD people that are making the big deal.  It's you guys trying to rationalize not moving into a win-win situation.

So your point is that you have tons of time on your hands? That's great. Most people have better things to do than fuck around with computers. You don't. Want a cookie? I'm tempted to say you'll understand when you get older.

It's the same reason I don't have an emulator on my XBox, and the same reason when I want music I buy CDs. I have money and not time. You have time and not money. To each his own.

I pay $30 a month for cable.. to get HD I'd have to be paying $85 a month.  Hardly a $5 increase, or a win-win.

Again, those of you with tons of disposable income, have fun with your toys. I have cars, a house, kids and college funds to pay for.  I can put the money to better use.

To each their own.

I'm 27 in a few months. You should probably start telling me what I'm doing wrong.

Jan 1st it'll be my 5th year at the same place. Doing IT work in the bay area. Rode out the bust and everything.

Get a job you hippie!

Looks interesting.. lesser specs or no, at that price I'd seriously consider getting one, after it's been out a few onths and had a chance to develop a decent library of games, anyway.

Better than the year+ I'll give the 360 and PS3...

I'll echo the fact that it costs me $7 more a month for an HD DVR over standard no DVR service. Fuck, that's like a big mac and fries once a month!

And then there's the /real/ reason I bought it - to play games on a 61" monitor. So...there's that. The HD stuff is just a nice side effect, really. And the whole home theater thing. And Sundays with my friends watching football on a big screen.

Yeah, what a sucker I am :P

I don't know why I didn't stick with my $150 guitar...I mean it has six strings just like my $1500 Gibson SG!

This thread is chuckleriffic.
edit:
Four times that for a computer monitor. My old CRT monitor was 30", my tv was about the same size. Both were going and needed replacing. I bought one device that could do both superiorly, for more money, sure, but I was an early adopter. I've certainly got my money's worth out of it over the last couple years. But to get a 30"+ tv and a 30"+ monitor, it wouldn't have been $300, man. You've been reaching to be anti-hdtv this whole thread, it's unlike you.

Haemish isn't reaching at all imo.  I'm with him the whole way.

You all are assuming everyone wants flat screens too.  I bought a standard tube non-HD 37" T.V. for our new house in a larger living room for $450.  Comparable prices for the types of T.V.'s you guys are talking about? $2500 or more.  What did I do with the balance?  I've been slowly finishing the basement for the family.

Regrets?  None.

HD will not be mainstream in a couple of years.  People don't have the money on average and will run their current T.V.'s into the ground before they get new ones.  Most people will get tubes and if there HD is at a higher cost (any higher cost, even $20) they will not get it. (Comment made with current pricing staying relatively the same in the next 3 years.)

I know some of you love your toys and those are your priority.  That's awesome.  I'm jealous.  However, you have to look at this from a macro level and the masses don't have what you have. (Either in money AND/OR priority)

Maybe somebody can find a chart that shows me I'm wrong about the tube vs. flat comment, but I'm sticking to that opinion until then.

I might have to disagree.

First the masses now consist of a lot of baby boomers that are now becoming empty nesters. I know my parent's and my wife's parents now have all sorts of disposable income that they don't know what to do with. And this generation of empty nesters is a much more tech savvy and toy savvy than the last.

Second, the age at which people get married and have kids is growing. Used to be people were getting married, having kids right out of college. Mean all tha extra income is going into the family. There is now a much larger population of 26-30 year olds that are still unmarried or are dinks. That is also a good bit of disposable income.

Third, have you seen the amount of credit card debt the average person has? Even people without that disposable income are buying new toys and just putting them on the credit card. Last I looked I think the average credit card debt was around $12,000 or so.

If you're using the TV a lot, which I bet most of us on these boards are, then I don't understand why you're being a cheapskate about it. I rather save some cash on having a sub par car instead of having a bad TV, there's a lot of more to be saved on the car and I spend a lot of more time infront of the TV. Especialy if you're geting the next gen consoles, HD WILL almost be a must if you want to experience it. It's like the diffrence between playing F.E.A.R in 640x480 with 16 bit colors and playing it at 1600x1200 with 32 bits, it simply doesn't compare.

If you had a tent, you could have scammed best buy like a friend of mine did.

You could get a $2,000 best buy gift card that was at 0% interest for something like 28(!!) months. He picked up some panasonic 44" hdtv for $1500 and his monthly payments are like $55.


I CAN'T AFFORD IT MY $300 TV IS OK YOU GUYS ARE JUST NERDS WITH SPARE TIME/MONEY AND/OR IDIOTS.

PS: IT SUCKS ANYWAYS IT'S A SCAM.

I save what I can on my car too.  I'm with Dren; there are lots of other things that I would rather spend money on than personal luxury.  While I have a GC and PS2, one was a gift and the other was bought with money we budget for entertainment.  We can't cover a HD TV with that though, nor do we need it, since the ones we have work fine.  We've seen HD.  Not terribly impressed, and personally I don't see it worth more than maybe a 20-30% premium over SD, but in no way worth the 100% *minimum* premium (just for the set, and most are much more than this) it's at now.  I mean hell, I still have the original NES hooked up to play some old games in it once in a while.  I like them because they're fun to play, just as I watch TV when I find the program interesting.  High dev wouldn't make Jon Stewart's jokes more funny.

I suspect everyone here who declines to purchase an HD for financial reasons knows more than what's neccessary to understand financing, but it sounds more probable that you don't.  They can charge 0% interest because (a) it only applies to qualified participants and (b) they still maintain plenty of profit because it's built into the price.  Oh and by the way, you are establishing a line of credit so it screws with your credit rating.  The 0% is also conditional on several points, and if he breaks any of the conditions, the APR is not favorable.

But yeah, good scam, that.

No, I don't have a modded X-Box. Don't care to really. More money to some 3rd party leech for something I'd barely care to worry about.


I pay DirecTV and HBO so I don't have to go hunting over the slimy parts of the Internet talking with barely coherent geeks in order to get episodes of a program I dig. I don't mind that charge. It saves me time to do other things.

Piracy is great if your 16 and want to FIGHT THE MAN. When I do pirate things, I do it with a minimum of effort. Paying for things means I don't have to expend that effort, and thus have more time to do things I enjoy.

Well, mine was 16 months, 0% interest starting Feb '03. $2200 something total. They mailed me updates monthly, about how much I owed, but my "due ammount" was $0. It was going to be that way for 16 months.

I paid it off in 10 months. My current credit rating is 715. I have about $4 grand in CC debt, no student loans, and 1 car payment. 2 other cars paid off. I don't own a house, I rent. I don't have half a million to throw into a fixer upper. I could probably qualify for it, but I'm not that dumb.

$15 a month over X months is still the same price in the end. (Actually a bit less since you can invest the remainder and make some small interest) It's not that I can't afford a $2000 TV, I just don't want to pay $2000 for a TV. I would just feel silling doing that.

That's the catch of the no-payment, 0% interest thing. You have to pay it off in the time allotted or before. If you don't then you usually will owe back interest. Enough people don't make the deadline and end up owing 12 months of back interest that it is still a very profitable deal for the company to offer.

That's one angle, true. Then you have people like Rasix who are so whipped he can't even use IRC anymore, much less spend $2g on a TV.

Explain to me why people get married or share finances again?

You guys are all fucking crazy, have you completely lost touch with who the avg. console gamer is?

Fucking college students, they dont own HDTV's.

1.  You have roommates, having a $1000+ item in the living room of a house with roommates is a shitty idea.
2.  You have parties, having a $1000+ item in the living room of a house full of drunk students is a shitty idea.
3.  You have no money.  Buying something that is $1000+ when you are poor is a shitty idea.

Every roommate house I've ever lived in has had a hand-me-down tv or three, these people dont yet own their car, you paying rent/books/tuition/car/insurance and you have money for a HDTV when your current TV works?

People who care about gfx are computer gamers, because the latest greatest computer games often require you to spend near the bleeding edge.  Average console gamers dont know what the fuck 1080pp is and dont care.  I hate to burst that fucking bubble for you.  Any more then avg. MMO gamers care that we have reduced their "experience" to whacking MBI's aka Foozles only due to a compulsive love of DING gratification.

Guess I must have... Does it matter that the PS1 came out while I was in college and hooked every one of my friends who despite no longer being in college all have either a ps2 or xbox and are debating the merits of buying the xbox 360 vs. waiting for ps3? I will admit that only about half have HD tv's.... Although my one friend has enough HD tvs and plasma screens in his house to give one to each of the rest of us if that counts.

Personally I just spent $600+ on my Wega a bit over a year ago so probably won't buy the HD tv for 2-3 years. But that could all change once the first friend gets an xbox 360 or ps3 hooked up to his HDtv.


Edit: Oh and despite being married I still have a decent expenable budget for buying toys which is also my poker bankroll. The wife agreed that if I promise to NEVER fund the poker account without informing her, that I could keep whatever profits I make. Little did she know I would only fund it once and would be making $3-4k per year.

You can buy a 30 inch hi-def LCD for $700 now if the timing is right. You can get a 30 inch hi-def CRT for $500 almost every day. Most dorms don't allow tvs bigger than 27 inches in a room. Who is buying a $1000 tv and what the fuck are you babbling about?

I call BS on those prices.  Prove me wrong.  Please. (Linkage?)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007R8YGI/102-1643576-1616942?me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance&n=172282 - $499.99 26" HDTV LCD

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Panasonic-30-HDTV-Monitor-CT-30WX15-/sem/rpsm/oid/120400/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do - $599.99 30" HDTV CRT

That's without trying. Looking a little harder would yield better results.

I'll look at those prices in a minute.  As I was curious to my question of how many people are really buying HD, I went looking.

This article: http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20051206/NYTU06206122005-1.html
Suggest that 16 million homes will have HD by the end of 2005.

This document: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Suggests that in 2000 there were 105 million homes in the US.

When I was talking about the big piece of the pie not being targetted, that's what I was talking about.  Will 2010 be different?  Hell yes. 2008? Probably, but that piece of pie will still be attractive.  I still think Nintendo is smart to go after it.  The others aren't.

Ah, sorry Schild I didn't really read your prices right.  You're talking about 30" or less.  You are probably right for a dorm dweller, but for my house I can't go any smaller than 37".  That's what I have in our biggest room and that is too small.

I did a quick check of my own and nothing even comes close to the $450 I spent on my non-HD tube.  They are all 3x or more the cost.

Again, it isn't that I don't have the money.  I just don't have the money to spend on this.  I feel I'm not even close to being alone on that.  5 years from now when I'm looking to replace I fully expect the prices to be closer and I'll think harder on my choice, but for now, it is a very easy choice for me.

Obviously, from all of the accounts show in this thread everyone has different situations and threshold levels for spending money on T.V's/Consoles.  My opinion is that Nintendo is smart to go after a market where price DOES matter.  The others seem to have gone the other way and I just feel they are jumping the gun a bit.

Cutting edge on computers doesn't feel as bad.  Customers of computers are used to it and are tech savvy enough just by default.  Consoles are for the masses.  The masses aren't tech savvy and aren't buying into these higher end T.V.'s and higher end consoles and everything else that goes with it.  The more they require the masses to invest into getting the most out of their consoles the more they are missing the original market.

Again, totally my opinion.

Ho ho ho. (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3146171)

Here's the thing: I don't want Revolution ports of stuff. I want stuff UNIQUE to the Revolution.

I hope they have a good bass fishing game.

Maybe the limited edition package will come with some lures.

I'm babbling about the fact that in the 3 years I've lived with roommates I have yet to see ONE person buy a new TV hi-def or otherwise.  On the other hand I've seen 5 laptops and two major pc upgrades and one new pc bought not counting my own pc purchases.  I would argue that nobody buys a TV for their dorm/apartment because someone always already owns one.  The only reason to buy a TV is to get a bigger TV if you get a bigger HDTV I am under the impression it will cost someone close to $1,000.

I don't see how I could ever argue with your sample size of maybe 10 people in a dork full of obvious PC Geeks.

Depends if you buy it at Best Buy.   A-boom-tish.

I'm hoping this is a notice that you've bought a 37" LCD HD tv for me.  Otherwise, I'm blocked from work.  Summary?

Reggie Fils says the Revolution makes it easier to port games. I call shennanigans.

Followed by several paragraphs of editorial specuation whether the statement is true or not.

But most of 1Up's writing is piss poor, so why should this be any different?

Well, isnt that what we all use our Game Cubes for now anyway? Their controller is so horrible for most crossplatform games. The only reason I have a GC is for the exclusives.

*edit* woops, didnt see this was 3 pages long. Im sure some one covered what I just wrote already.

No dorm involved, I would bet dorms involve EVEN LESS TV purchases though.

Four apartments, with around ten unique roommates.  I'm not asking you to argue with my numbers, merely pointing out the only information I have, that of personal experience.

My argument can be boiled down to some simple general statements your free to disagree with.  I'm not heavily invested in them as being fact, just personal observations from my limited life experience.

1.  In a roommate situation someone always owns a TV, or knows someone with an extra or can get one from family whatever.
2.  Once you have a TV the only reason people buy a new TV is to replace one that breaks or buy a bigger one.

Since TV's take their sweet time to break, and in every apartment I've lived in and damn near every one I've visited there is a decent sized TV, it would be a large investment to buy a size-upgrade HDTV.

So you can tell me that average college/just out of college people care so much about HDTV that they will buy one just to have HD.  I'll say your wrong, but neither can prove it.  So we'll agree to disagree about a subject I dont really give two shits about because I dont buy console systems/games.

I think my original feeling, that you have lost-touch with just who the average gamer is, and what they can afford and why they will buy is valid.  You dont.  I agree to disagree.

 :hello_kitty:

I very much haven't lost touch. I just don't think that hardcore gamers or even regular gamers should convince themselves that upgrading isn't worthwhile. If you think it is, you're dicking yourself. Upgrading is worthwhile. It's simple a better experience.

I have a shitty black friday $350 HDTV and it STILL gives better a better picture than the two non-HD Sony Wega TVs a couple friends of mine have.

My argument never had anything to do with whether the upgrade was a good idea or not.  I have watched football on HD, I want HD I will have HD sometime soon.  But in the meantime I'll live knowing I'm having an inferior experience while watching the best team sport ever invented.

MY argument had everything to do with, wow this discussion is stupid because most people who are console gamers, by your own admission in multiple threads, because computers are too complicated.  The average gamer will not by a Xbox360 and Madden06 when he already owns a Xbox and Madden06.  When Madden07 comes out only on xbox360 he will be forced to make the purchase.  That is what I believe is the avg. console gamer.

Question on HDTV that has nothing to do with console gaming: do TV stations broadcast in HD, or do you need to have cable to take advantage of an HDTV?

No, you're most defiantly not alone on that, and I agree on the 5-year thing.  You're just not going to convince a bunch of single guys with no obligations on a geekery forum of it.  Particularly not when the majority of them are making above the median or are apparently independently wealthy. Mr. Schild with your no-job-having game-buying habits, you continue to mystify me and my wallet.


Most require cable.. digital cable at that. (Which is why I indicated earlier that my bill is only $30, but to do HDTV I'd need to be paying $80.  Damn thieves.)  I think there's a few that broadcast some shows in HDTV, but you'd be better off actually calling and asking your local TV stations than us.

Do you watch that much TV or are you that much of a shiny whore that you need a HDTV? Screw HDTV's. Instead of spending $700 on top of the $600 I spent on everything I bought for my 360 I just put out 49.99 for VGA cables. I'm sorry to tell you this Schildy, but hoax has a point and you're slightly out of touch. Guess how many people come into EB's and ask how good the HD capability of the 360 is? Next to none. They don't care. HD is not THAT big of a step up and yes I've seen the difference, from a 13" 4:3 TV to a 32" LCD HDTV, and it really isn't worth $700.

If it's not considered minimally acceptable service, my local TV stations probably don't do it.  We don't even get NBC any more because they decided that so many people have cable anyway it wasn't worth maintaining an NBC transmitter any more.  Whores.   :-P

NBC/CBS/FOX/ABC are all avaliable over the air (OTA) in HD.  You almost get a better signal with this (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7322587&type=product&id=1118844608800) than you do with a cable box.

It's a cost-benefit analysis deal, Schild:

I have a decent-sized TV. It works, and I am satisfied with the way games and broadcasts look on it.

I am not rich. There are other things I would rather spend my money on. I have no desire to buy a new TV, regardless of price or HDTV capability. Instead, I'll do something "silly," like buy $200 sunglasses (once, and they'll last....until some idiot breaks them for me  :|)

For me, and I'm sure LOTS of other people, the visual difference simply is not worth the cost. I will not buy a new TV until I can no longer use my current set, for whatever  reason.

I think, at the cost of HDTVs, and many of the people here being gamers, that not wanting an HDTV is insane. It's that simple. I know that a lot of people here spend a LOT of money flagrantly. The two things just don't match up. Even the PS2 looks about 4x better on an HD set with component cables than a regular set, particularly the newer titles (Soul Calibur, Indigo Prophecy, Grand Turismo 4) that all have 480p options.

<--- Not a graphics whore. I've played Xbox on HD. It looks nice.

Doesn't make the games better though.

Again, it comes down to the options laid before me. I can either buy an expensive TV I don't need, or....do something else. I can go to a bunch of NHL games, more if I suck it up and get cheap seats (which I won't  8-)). I can buy a shitton of MTGO cards. I can buy skiing gear.

You love your graphics. Cool beans. This isn't a debate worth having, because no one is going to change their mind, so everyone loses.

Hmm.  So let me see if I get this straight.  HD is worth the still generally outrageous cost, yet Macintosh computers are not?

Obviously

Apple 30" Cinema HD - $2499. (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/StoreReentry.wo?family=AppleDisplays)
Maxent 32" 16:9 LCD - $999.99 (http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11068582&whse=BC&topnav=&browse=). That's at the low end for a 30" LCD.

Here's a 65" 16:9 DLP Sharp HDTV for $2,499. Just to be fair. It's in my nature. (http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11072454&whse=BC&topnav=&browse=)

Are you trying to be silly? There's nothing about a Mac that I can't do more efficiently on a PC. Even after being a nearly pure mac user for 15 years.

Schild, how many games do you buy a month? 15? A lot of people here average maybe ONE a month. If you are buying 10+ games a month getting an HDTV isn't a huge deal on top of that. If you buy one game a month it is. The cost of the HDTV will be more than all the games you buy in a year.

But that's not a money issue. That's a lack of use issue. I didn't own a tv til I got back into console gaming. Even then I didn't buy one til they had a price drop. Seriously. For 3 years I didn't have a personal TV. But to say it doesn't make a difference is a lie. Lie Lie Lie.

I hardly use the 27"(maybe, maybe smaller, I really don't know) normal CRT TV I have.  I don't watch TV except maybe once every other week in order to sit down with my spouse.  I don't have cable at all. (DSL 4tw).  In fact, I probably use the TV more to play DVDs via my computer than anything else, and I don't even do that that much.  If I spend 5 hours a month in front of the TV, I'd be surprised.  The latest console I own that uses a TV is my SNES, which I haven't had hooked up in the almost 3 years since we moved.

I do spend a lot of time in front of my PC...  But I'm about 2 feet from the monitor, I don't need a 30" widescreen LCD.  There's a lot of things I could do with $999 that would benefit me far more than a 30" HD LCD.  I agree with whoever said it above, it's all about priorities.

Alkiera

Then you, obviously, are a Bad Gamer and should ask beg for forgiveness.

I'm not saying HD isn't worthwhile. I'm saying it isn't worth the money they are charging for it. As I said above, I also have problems with paying $300 for a new video card.

I'm a cheap bastard. If you want me to spend that much money on a TV, when I don't really have a problem with regular TV as it stands, you'll have to prove that it's worth it. So far, no one has.

As for the Revolution, it's the one console I think can get away with not having HD. And it's the one console whose release price sounds like it will be a reasonable price, as opposed to the bleeding edge sucker price that the 360 has. If the Revolution is a success as a console, it'll have fuckall to do with whether or not it supports HD, and more to do with how well it leverages the potential of that nunchuk dongle controller, and how many unique games it can put out before next Christmas.

Again, the Revolution is going to be hurt more if it doesn't support DVD playback than it will by not supporting HD.

You also are a Bad Gamer and should be begging for forgiveness.

The Gamer God can suck my cock before I'll beg forgiveness. He did inflict Horizons on us after all.

This argument shouldn't be over what each of us would pay for HD.  That is well known to ourselves and won't change.

The argument is whether there is enough of the population of the USA that views the "deal" that Nintendo is proposing will make it a commercial success.  I'm stating I think it will be.

Now, if it sucks and they don't come out with original content fast enough is up in the air.  That will impact the mature marketability of the Revolution and the next-next-generation of Nintendo.  My prediction is that they will do as well at this as they always have.  Although that controller may be the death of it.  Hard to say without trying it.

That's what those test consoles are for in the brick and mortar buildings.

I don't know anyone IRL that has an HDTV or is planning to get one, so it looks to me like the market is there. The only places I see HD TVs are bars.

What I hear people saying here is not that it doesn't make a difference. What they seem to be saying is that it doesn't make a big enough difference.

When I saw Sauced play Shadow of the Collosus on 16:9 progressive scan, I wanted to cry. It does make a difference. For some things.

We got our DLP on sale (a couple hundred bucks off), after Sauced wanted one for ages and watched and waited for the price to fall. I would never had dropped that kind of cash myself, cuz' I'm just kind of a tightwad when it comes to new toys. But it is a really nice thing to have, if you need a new TV (our old one was starting to crap out anyway).

However! The main incentives for buying the Rev are 1) Nintendo (i.e., Miyamoto) fangirlism and 2) affordability in next gen is rare. These are the same incentives I had for buying the GC and the N64 before that. I'll prolly end up playing a lot of older titles while I wait for more Mario and Zelda stuff, and this way I won't need to have the N64 and SNES hooked up in the living room (they don't fit in the geek room).

Timely comments considering the discussion:

Nintendo's Official Stance (http://revolution.ign.com/articles/674/674611p1.html)

"Our competitors would have you believe that the next generation of gaming will be solely defined by high definition graphics. High definition graphics look fantastic, but come at a price. To shine, high definition games must be played on high definition televisions, which aren't cheap. Games with high definition graphics are expensive to develop because they must be developed in both standard and high definition formats. Those development costs are passed on to you in the form of more expensive software. Finally, playing games with high definition graphics requires a system with loads of RAM and costly high-end graphics chips, both of which make it prohibitively expensive for most consumers."

Follow the link if you want to read the rest.

Is Nintendo actually being sane and realistic for once?

Yes, they are.  Now you just need to pray that they actually get a decent lineup of exclusive third party games.

I probably will only care very little about what they release; I just want the past library.

I don't think they're being sane, but they are certainly realistic. There's no way they could've afforded to make a system that could compete in terms of power with the PS3 or 360. They simply don't have the money or marketshare to do it. Their money is better spent trying to skirt the competition.

If they were being sane, they would have stopped making all hardware other than the gameboy back when the Playstation 1 came out.

As long as they hold Mario and Zelda, they'll keep cranking out systems.  Without those two franchises they probably would have stopped about then.

To a lesser extent Pokemon.

The gameboy survives on pokemon and abstract versions of pokemon alone.

Quiet, you.  I know that I usually have some Miyamoto stuck in my teeth, but I like the gadgetry I can get for the Cube.  Those other two just make controllers and cables, for the most part.  Yes, I have the GB player and the card reader. =)  If nothing else, they provide some innovation which will eventually influence the hardware leader.


Smells like victory.

I'll see your personal experience and raise you a "every gamer I know has an hdtv or is saving for one".

I know guys on welfare with hdtvs. Guys who can't put the money together for a decent pc, they are playing their xboxs on the hdtvs. And they were in line at walmart for the 360 to plug into their hdtvs. A lot of poor people spend a lot of money on home entertainment. And pot.

Just finished RE0 on the Cube. Fun game. Now to get RE4.

I think it really is a console gamer vs. pc gamer thing.

I can't justify spending $700 on a TV when I have one that works when there are so many cool things I could upgrade / add to my pc with that money (more hd space, more cooling -NEVER TOO MUCH- more ram, special gamer keyboard, expensive fps mousepad made of glass etc).  But I spend about 10x more time in front of my pc then my TV.  If it was reversed then I can believe I would want the HD experience.

No. Just no. HD signals are a VAST improvement over SD. VAST. If you don't want an HDTV fine, but don't make silly arguments. 1080/720p movies are so superior to SD it's not even a comparison, whether you're 2 feet or 15 feet away.

BTW go to Best Buy and look at TV's. See how many HD sets there are. Then see how many CRT SD sets there are. That's the future folks. And if you can't find a decent 36-42" HDTV for under $1500 you're a horrible shopper.

Oh and the Revolution will do just fine. It doesn't need HD. That doesn't mean HD is bad.

That's the point - it's just too damn expensive for some people (or it should be).

There are very few things I myself could justify spending that much money on - a TV is one of them.

Let's not forget the fact that CRT has a better picture than plasma or LCD.

I don't think HD is bad. It's just too expensive and not something I'm interested in at the moment. When it's cheaper and more channels are in HD I'll be a lot more interesting.

In the meantime I don't think "we support HD" is a compelling reason to buy a system. The best game in the next 6 months is going to be a Gamecube game (Zelda) and games are what matters IIRC. NBA2k6 with higher resolution? Not so impressed.

I think Nintendo is shooting itself in the foot by not allowing devs to at least use Hi-Def as an option. Who says that devs need to be required to support it like MS insists they do for the 360?

Also, I'm wondering if I'm not interpeting the "no HD" thing right. Does this mean no Progressive Scan even? I don't think supporting 480p would kill the rev too badly.

Does the public or Nintendo really NEED HD support? Not really...it'd be nice to have as an option at least though. You can get a nice 27 inch HDTV for $600-700 if you look around. We're not talking shit brands either, Toshiba, Samsung, and Sony all sell CRT HDTVs at about that pricerange.

That's about 6 weeks' pay for me.

Well, technically it's an infinite number of weeks' pay, when you don't get paid because you don't have a job.

Which brings us back to the point in the conversation where some people don't want to spend that much on a hobby.  Typically we're the same people that hate buying games before they've been dropped down to $20 and hate watching TV for the most part (cable TV to me wouldn't be worth even as little as $20 a month let alone the prices most people pay for it).

You can get a 27" HDTV for $400-500 actually.

This is like deja vu. I thought I already did this. (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7045477&type=product&productCategoryId=cat03003&id=1099396991085)

Who are the people who refuse to drop money on a game before it's $20? Maybe if less people did that shit game developers wouldn't be dropping like flies.

I dunno if I'd buy an HDTV just for gaming. I bought mine because I liked the whole package. DVDs, gaming, and regular HDTV.

edit: Holy shit at that deal. Almost makes me wish I had the cash to replace my current off-brand iffy-quality HDTV with that one.

That's not a deal. That's a regular price. Suriously man. I got my 30" for $599.99 and plan on upgrading to a 32" LCD for $200 more (go go Costco return policy).

You're just going to have to forgive me for not thinking of the poor game developers when it comes to deciding how to spend my hard earned money.  99.99999999% of the games out there just aren't worth $40-50 to me.  I don't drop 20 or 30 bucks at a time to help feed starving children in 3rd world countries let alone lose sleep over not doing enough to help game developers.

But then given that less than half of your 20+ reviews were deemed worthy of buying new, maybe I should just assume that you forgot the green text or were making some sort of joke that just went over my head.

Umm me?  Because most games aren't worth 50 bucks.  20 bucks is more discretionary, and I don't feel bad if I don't finish a game at that price.  Long as I spend a good 5 hours on it I have gotten a better deal than going to see a movie. (Once you put some snacks on the menu.  And thats just for my loser ass going alone.)

Like I said, I just bought a new computer.  A lovely yet overpriced iMac.  (So worth it though.)
I bought some games for it, 11 as a matter of fact. (Ok, Jedi Academy was free if I bought 3 other titles.)
Only Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 cost me more than 30 bones. I think Amazon was selling it for 40.
That's a TON of entertainment for a cheap price.  Most of my gaming purchases are like that.  I get 1 40-50 dollar game for
every 4-5 sub 30 ones on average.  I have a very nice collection of games that way, and am burned less as folks like you
get to beta test or actually play the game first for me. 

Its also another reason I like the N Gage and DS over the PSP.  Games are under 40 bucks, most 20-30. 

I aint a bad person for waiting till games come down in price.  I am a consumer who doesn't like to be ripped off and wants a
better money to entertainment ratio.  Plus I tend not to give a shit if I have to wait a year or 2 to play a game.  Because a great
game is TIMELESS.  Hell, I have been waiting patiently to get a Vectrex system for a good 10-20 years now and I will keep
only bidding up to a certain amount on ebay till I get it at my pricepoint.  I can wait.

Besides, this "Sell huge in 3 months then go away" thing has been proven to be complete ass for the game industry.  Its long
term sales and popularity that truely win the race.  Its why Blizzard games stay solid sellers for years and people still play them.
Its how gaming worked back in the good old days. 

None of this preorder so you can dickwave on day 1 bullshit.

I'll buy a game for $50 if I think it's worth $50. Instead of blaming the consumer, why not blame the supplier? Make your game worth $50, or sell it cheaper. The new version of Madden each year is NOT worth $50. I played Madden for the N64 and 3 years later the Gamecube version was basically the same, and the 360 version is still basically the same. $30 might be a reasonable price for that.

If developers could make fun games with a smaller budget and then sell for a lower price that would probably be a lot better model than spend a lot of money on some utter crap, charge $50 for it and have it sell no copies.

Developers are dropping like flies for tons of reasons, but consumers not buying games really isn't one of them. Consumers buy lots of games, and the market is increasing every year. The reason developers drop like flies is that a developer will spend 10 million on a game that can realistically only hope to sell a couple hundred thousand copies at best. Or because developers chase the "next big thing" by putting out a poor copy of a far superior game that beat them to market by months or years.

Most businesses fail. Game development isn't any different from any other business in that regard. Send too much money and don't make enough is what happens to most businesses in most industries.

I know a mess of people that waited for stuff like God of War to drop because it was only 8 hours long.....consumers get to have their cake and eat it to. But should they?


Probably. But EA won't let them. It's all about who's setting the bar for the masses. The drooling masses. And right now, EA is. For every 100 people on the intarweb that say Madden sucks on the 360, there's 2,000 out in the world that thinks it's just the cats fucking meow.

Capitalism is a bitch.

So are customers.

This situation is no different for most any commodity.  Products are pushed onto the market at their highest prices at launch.  They lower the price as competition increases and/or demand decreases.  For some crappy products, this downward turn is quicker than others.  In the meantime, you work on that next big marketing push for higher margin products, and the cycle continues.

For computer/video games, each new product is a "new" product.  For those that look like games that have already been done, they don't do as well, because the perceived worth of that product isn't there.  For those games that are truly unique, they enjoy a very nice high price entrance into the market and typically see a longer sales curve, unless the game sucks while being uniique. (Uniquely Sucks?)

You have two types of customers.  Those that have to have the next best thing because that makes them feel they have made a good purchase.  Then you have those that worry more about a price tag than status and shiny.

All of this is taken into account when companies prepare to hit the market with a product.  To blame the customers for an environment that is well known beforehand, is unproductive.

The customer is always right.

So what happens when the PS3 comes out next year and you start telling us that playing on a TV that supports 1080p is a soooooooo much better experience than playing in 1080i and it would just cost us a little over a grand for a new TV?

edit: over a grand, not under

The BorgCorp, Inc. marketing department.  If someone puts a "HD" tag on the box, everyone is going to have to do it.

Not without putting another thing on the box ---> A higher price.

That's another thing that prevents me from getting into this HD thing, hidden technical jargon.  I see the great prices that seem to jump from nowhere and still have to hold up and think, "what's the catch."  There seems to always be one.  What the hell is the difference between 1080p and 1080i?  Hell I had to look 2-3 times to even notice the difference in the designation (small "p" versus small "i".)

I had the opportunity to see a nice big 43" HD tube television this weekend.  My wife's cousin, who probably makes $11/hour packing boxes, just bought a brand new one.  He says he spent $1200 on it.  When I was looking at buying T.V.'s, this was too much for me and I make a hell of a lot more than him, but he's living with his girlfriend in an apartment without kids.  Whatever.

He proceeds to do the same thing anyone does that just got a T.V. like this.  He shows me the difference between having the HD on and off.  When I walk in, the HD is on.  He's watching a football game in true HD and sure it looks good.  Did I know it was HD?  Nope, I had to ask.  That's when he switches it to non-HD and sure enough it looks like total ass.  But you know what, it also looked 5x worse than my standard TV at home.  This always seems to be the case.  I assume it has something to do with the HD units not being able to handle analog well or something.  But, it sure makes HD seem teh awesome!!!

No thanks.

Not everyone is good with money, and everyone has different priorities.


It's really that a SD TV blurs the image enough that you don't notice.  It's like the analog TV has really good antialiasing.

Regarding the Rev and "HD" or 480p or whatever... the older GameCubes supported 480p while the newer ones don't, so I had assumed that the Rev was only going to support good old 480i (interlaced).  I don't think any resolution above 480 was ever a consideration.  I might read up on it if I gave a shit, but since I am going to buy a Rev at launch anyway, I'll spend my valuable time making enlightening posts on F13 instead.  Personally, the difference between 480i and 480p to my eyes (on any of my XB/GC/PS2) is minimal enough that I am not going to let it be an issue.

What I really need is a new PC monitor.  That or a UI mod for Dungeon Siege II that lets me read the damned text at 1280x1024 on a 17" CRT.

Me. The games I bought new this year was The Movies, and I got $25 off because I traded in a bunch of games, and ESPN MLB 2k5 which was $20 new. That's it. The wife bought Resident Evil 4 new at $49, but that was new with a Gamecube system and strangely all of my purchases have been worth it. Otherwise, I buy used games at cheap prices because I have other shit to pay for. Like a large credit card debt from my younger days of being a fucktarded consumer who bought all the new shit he could.

Game developers need to stop living hand to mouth, need to stop sucking the publisher's cock for table scraps, and need to stop trying to hope they can cash in on the sales figures from 1 week out of the goddamn year. They need to quit chasing EA's tail and do something different businesswise, because it's obvious what they are doing ISN'T WORKING. Game industry revenue has increased substantially EVERY FUCKING YEAR, yet more Troika's and Looking Glass Studio's are going under every fucking day. That tells you that the money is there, but it's being funneled away from the developers.

The problem isn't the consumer wanting a good value for his dollar, the problem is the developers throwing good money over bad with shitty business plans. Oh, and publishers and retailers. The PC game industry is on fucking life support and will be dead soon, simply because it's relying on the bad business models of the EA's and EB/Gamestop's of the world. Oh yes, and not taking advantage of that Intarweb thingy.

I didn't say I hate HD. I said fuck HD until it can provide a price point for me that is what I consider a reasonable value for the return AND provide me as much entertainment as SD. That's it. I give it a few years. Until then, I let the suckers clear the way for me, just like I do when I buy used games that someone paid $50 for and only played for 5 hours.

Also, read what Margalis said about supporting HD resolutions on a console. In order for the console to do it, it needs to have something like 4 times the memory and/or processing power in order to be able to render that stuff. Which means all your hardware specs have to be better, which is more expensive. So if the Rev is to support (but not require) HD, it has to be a good bit more expensive. A lot more. Obviously about $200 more. So at that point, you might as well require HD support on all Rev games, because you have to throw so much money at the hardware that not requiring that support is assinine. Not to mention that adding all that support would drive the price point of the unit up a great deal, which totally blows the "we want a console anyone can afford at launch" thing right out the window.

Seriously. A $400 console IS FUCKING STUPID. I don't care what it supports, it's retarded. It was one of the reasons the 3DO never made it big. $300 seems to be the tipping point, and I'm amazed at how fervently people are trying to get the the 360.

Me too.  I don't care about developers "dropping like flies" - I care about my entertainment.  I'm not charity for dev houses.  I'm a fan of a lot of them, but when it comes to dropping cash, I'm going to act in my and my family's best interest, which usually does not include dropping $40-50 for every new cool game on the shelves.  I budget for personal entertainment, and I can fit a lot more $20 games into that than I can $50 ones.  And you know what?  A lot of those $20 games are just as fun.  Hell, I have both my NES and SNES hooked up and occationally play those games.

Something has to be really, really good to attract me at the higher bracket.  I did buy RE4 at $40.  I think that's the only console game I have that I've paid more than ~$25 for, although I have a couple that are gifts that go higher.

YEah, having antique consoles really does facilitate the affordable shopping spree. When you can get 5 games for the price of one new PS2 game, it's pretty much guilt-free spending.

Your point? The last two years I've spent with a 61" widescreen pc monitor have been some of the best gaming years of my life. The hd and dvd/theater stuff is just gravy, really. Dell's 24" widescreen is over $1k and you need to have a future pc to push the 1920x1200 resolution, whereas 1280x720 is very playable on my current pc:
(http://home.twcny.rr.com/iamthey/images/kahuna2.jpg)

Anyway, I'm also a cheap bastard. I still won't drop $$$ for a PSP, I won't drop $$$ for a 360. Instead of those two, I'm halfway to a new pc. I also wait for most games to drop, because most games are shit quality, and I simply can't afford to pay $50 for every new title I want to try out, especially with short and/or linear games. Civ4, GTA:SA, BF2; paid full price the day they came out for the pc. Silent Storm, $20, and I still feel I overpaid the $19 for Call of Linear Duty with Shit AI. I have no problem paying the shot for great games, the rest of it I have no problem buying used or bargain bin. I keep a list of B List stuff that I wouldn't mind having. Just put Gun, The Movies and X3 on it.

I'm completely in the same boat except i'm a huge film buff so the HD films and excellent DVD quality is more meat than gravy. Bluetooth Keyboard/Mouse + Couch gaming FTW!

(http://www.moongecko.com/images/screen.jpg)

Great, now I have soiled myself.  Happy?

Soon...

..soooooon....

I still don't see how you can reliably game, or even type, while reclining on a couch. I have to use a PC desk, so I have to be pretty close to it (2-3 feet from monitor). Anything over about 19 or 20 inches would be pointless. Same for many others I suspect.

I will never lean over a damned desk again, I was so happy putting mine in storage. I rest the keyboard on my lap with my feet propped up on my coffee table (which has a little wood strip in the middle that's perfect for it), but the floor or fully on the coffee table is great, too. The mouse is a bit trickier, I have a pillow next to me that I can rest my arm on and the mouse sits on a thin hardcover book with a good textured cover. That's it, it totally rocks. Text is easily readable (1280x720) from about 10' away on the sofa. I've posted here from that pc before, it's a non-issue, really (and I need new glasses, even).

I should update that shot with a more current game :P I just like that Reaver hovering, looking for my cloaked ass. Gaming nirvana, though I guess a high resolution projector on a 12' screen would trump it...but that's a few years off, when I get my house and build a theater room...

That sony front projector 1080p is fucking 12k.

?. People game on their couches all the time. This is after all a thread about consoles no? Do you play your PS2 at your desk too?

People are talking about using a PC on a couch. I don't think I could do that.

It's actually pretty goddamn easy. We used to to it in our old dorm shitty college apartment. Only reason I haven't hooked up the projector in this house is that it's not 720 native. Meh.

The only way to play golf is with $2500 clubs at a $20k a year members-only course while sipping 100 year-old scotch while being chauffeured between holes.

Oh, it's not?

Plebeans, you just aren't in it for 'the full experience.'

Depends on what you're doing. Working or email or even MMORPG? I do that on a 19" LCD. FPS, Flying games or media (movies, music visualizers) are better on on the TV. But irrational dislike is just fine too i guess.

Personally I can't even play console games on the couch.  I have to either be in my chair or sitting on the floor, and just a few feet away from the TV either way, but that's just how I am.

The first link I could find that explains all that shit (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6361600-1.html).

Essentially 480, 720, 1080 refers to the vertical lines of resolution - ie. 720p is 1280x720 - same as your monitor. i=interlaced which is bad, p=progressive which is good. Interlaced is bad because it essentially means that the signal only renders every other line per refresh - so 1080i is really 540 odd then 540 even.

1080p isn't really important right now unless you're doing a lot of stuff with a PC for a number of reasons:

1. HDTV signals are usually 720p or 1080i - more often 720p. This will likely stay the standard for some time as 1080p signals take up more bandwidth and the whole reason the feds are mandating digital broadcast (they aren't mandating HD in anyway btw) is to conserve bandwidth on existing OTA frequencies.

2. It's expensive. 1080p sets are $1500 more roughly than the equivalent 720p native sets.

3. There's no non-HDTV media that can take advantage of it. Until Blue-ray, high-def DVD is defined and penetrates the market all the DVD's we get are 480p anyway.

It's been linked before but if you have any interest in this stuff the premier resource is http://avsforum.com/ - people there are as fanatical about HD/Digital TV as we are about games.

No, I mean I physically could not do it. There is no way I could sit on a couch and use a keyboard and mouse. It's not that I would dislike it - I just don't see how it's even really possible. Putting my mouse on a book on a pillow? I have enough problems with my mouse on a normal mousepad.

How come people only talk about vertical res on HDTV. What about horizontal resolution? With a 16:9 aspect ratio the set is wider than it is tall. 1280x1080 is pretty odd in that case. On 16:9 the pixels will be highly elongated no?

I don't know why the vertical resolution isn't defined as clearly. It might have something to do with the support for the different formats (4:3, 16:9 etc.) In any case the 1080 resolutions are 1920 x 1080.

When I'm talking resolution, it's 16:9. So 780p is 1280x720. When I set that resolution in Windows, I have a pixel-perfect picture, you can walk up close to the screen and see each windows pixel corresponding to a physical pixel on the tv. That's one reason I bought the Samsung DLP: standard resolution. On Plasma sets, I believe they have rectangular pixels or summat, because the set my supervisor is looking at is 1024x768, a 4:3 resolution, but the set is a 16:9 form-factor. Odd imo.
Now. I won't be looking to buy one for at least three years, because (as I said) you'd need a pc from the future to play anything on it. They'll be more reasonable by then. My DLP is selling for about half what it listed (not what I paid!), with better internals. The inevitable march of technology and whatnot.

CNN/Money's Game Over hands-on with the Revolution. (http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/15/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/)

Heck with the couch, I am writing this from my bed with a wireless keyboard and mouse.  The Hidef LCD TV is about 8 feet from me.  Optical mice work well on blanckets.  I have little trouble reading text and the only game that has made me move to the foot of the bed was Battles in Normandy, but that had Apple II graphics.

As for the Revolution, I will prob pick one up as soon as there are a couple of compelling games that use the funcky controller well.  A sword fighing game and a fishing game will do it.  I will likely attach it to the stndard def TV in the living room, as nintendo seems to have some good party games for their systems, and so it will be the public console of the house.