High-Definition: Are We Better Off Without It?
Disclaimer: This article represents the writer's opinion and should not be taken in as fact
Introduction
Ever since Nintendo stated that the Revolution will not likely support HD (High-Definition) content, tens of thousands of people have complained about the decision; many who complain do not even know what HD is. For those who don't, HD is, in short, a technology used on TVs and some computer monitors that allows for more pixels to be displayed on the screen. There are several different 'levels' of HD, each with a different level of quality. In essence, HD content allows for greater clarity when viewing TV or games. However, it comes at the cost of slower framerates, more processing power needed, and more disk-room needed on disk for HD content. Why wouldn't Nintendo want to get in on the HD-craze? After all, Sony and Microsoft are both supporting it...Is Nintendo getting left out in the cold again? Will this alienate Nintendo from the rest of the market? Perhaps...But than, perhaps not.
Is HD the future?
Sony and Microsoft have both chosen to support almost all of the HD formats in their next-gen console. Nintendo, however, has chosen to stay out of the HD-craze. Now, one thing to keep in mind is that by Nintendo staying out, that does not mean that those with HDTVs cannot use the Revolution. It simply means that the content will not have the same clarity as an HD broadcast. For those without HDTVs, HD will only raise the prices that you pay for games and consoles. So is HD the future or not? Sony and Microsoft say that it is, even going to the point where Microsoft refers to the next-gen age of gaming as 'The HD Era'. They claim that by the end of the next-generation consoles, nearly the entire world will own HDTV sets. Nintendo says differently. It should also be noted that at this time less than 20% of America, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, owns HDTVs...Imagine the percentage in other countries. Right now, HD is a luxury, not a must-have and Nintendo believes that it will remain that way throughout the next-generation console wars. Sony has reason to include HD support due to its marketing plan of keeping the PS3 out on the market for 10 years (double the traditional 4-5 year lifecycle of a console). By 2016, HD is sure to be the industry standard. Microsoft, however, has no reason to support HD. Their system will likely last only until 2011 and that generation would be a much more financially sensible time to introduce HD content. In addition, unlike Sony, Microsoft is not giving developers enough disk-space to create large games with HD content resulting in restraining the creativity of developers and the size of the game that they can create.
Nintendo has other reasons than the popularity of HD to back their decision. For example, by adding HD support, the price of a console may rise significantly. This is not only because of the support itself but also because the machine than needs a more powerful processor, larger optical disks to store large amounts of HD content on which leads to a more expensive optical disk reader, and so on. The fact is, HD support significantly increases the price of a console and Nintendo feels that at the current time, the tradeoff is not a favorable one especially considering that not many people would currently use the HD support. Therefore, they see no reason to add HD into the Revolution. From such a standpoint, the decision does make sense but this is not Nintendo's only reason.
Despite what common sense might tell you, Nintendo will likely have much more high-quality games than Sony and Microsoft simply because of the lack of HD support. You see, even if the competition has more powerful hardware, the lack of HD will allow for more content to be stored. HD content takes up MUCH more room than standard content thus allowing Nintendo to cut resources and produce the same game for a fraction of the cost. In addition, developers have stated that without HD, they would be able to do anything on the next-gen consoles. However, since HD will make the consoles lag much easier and will result in poor framerates, it limits the creativity of developers. Combining HD with the strains of developing on a multi-core system, the console suddenly becomes extremely difficult to develop quality games for. Since Nintendo is not supporting HD and will likely stick with single-core processors, the games that developers create for them will be virtually unrestrained. This will also likely gain Nintendo some additional third-party support.
Lastly, as most of you know, Nintendo's Revolution is shrouded in mystery. Though we know some features of it, the console's most important details have not yet been unveiled. We know next to nothing regarding the system....and even less about the controller. Yes, it is the controller that will supposedly bring about a revolution in the industry. Nobody knows anything about the controller except it will be simpler than others. Knowing this, many speculate that the reason for Nintendo's lack of HD support is coupled with the mysteries surrounding the Revolution. In otherwords, maybe the reason that Nintendo refuses to support HD is because it would be incompatible with certain features of the Revolution. Who knows? I sure as hell don't. But I sure wouldn't overlook it...It very well could be a possibility.
So is HD the future? I would say, yes, it is. But is it neccessary for the next-gen consoles? I would have to say no, it isn't. Currently, HD will place to many limitations on the games that developers can create. It will result in poor framerates and smaller games. It will raise prices of nearly all next-gen components significantly. However, by Nintendo staying out of the HD-craze, they are in fact allowing for developers to significantly decrease development time, decrease development costs, and lower prices for games and consoles in the coming generation. I feel that Nintendo is smart to sit out of this craze and I feel that by the 2011 generation, HD will be an essential. Until than, Nintendo will be better off without it.
-Ninty Freak ассортимент квартир вас приятно удивит - Квартиры от застройщика Краснодар
Introduction
Ever since Nintendo stated that the Revolution will not likely support HD (High-Definition) content, tens of thousands of people have complained about the decision; many who complain do not even know what HD is. For those who don't, HD is, in short, a technology used on TVs and some computer monitors that allows for more pixels to be displayed on the screen. There are several different 'levels' of HD, each with a different level of quality. In essence, HD content allows for greater clarity when viewing TV or games. However, it comes at the cost of slower framerates, more processing power needed, and more disk-room needed on disk for HD content. Why wouldn't Nintendo want to get in on the HD-craze? After all, Sony and Microsoft are both supporting it...Is Nintendo getting left out in the cold again? Will this alienate Nintendo from the rest of the market? Perhaps...But than, perhaps not.
Is HD the future?
Sony and Microsoft have both chosen to support almost all of the HD formats in their next-gen console. Nintendo, however, has chosen to stay out of the HD-craze. Now, one thing to keep in mind is that by Nintendo staying out, that does not mean that those with HDTVs cannot use the Revolution. It simply means that the content will not have the same clarity as an HD broadcast. For those without HDTVs, HD will only raise the prices that you pay for games and consoles. So is HD the future or not? Sony and Microsoft say that it is, even going to the point where Microsoft refers to the next-gen age of gaming as 'The HD Era'. They claim that by the end of the next-generation consoles, nearly the entire world will own HDTV sets. Nintendo says differently. It should also be noted that at this time less than 20% of America, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, owns HDTVs...Imagine the percentage in other countries. Right now, HD is a luxury, not a must-have and Nintendo believes that it will remain that way throughout the next-generation console wars. Sony has reason to include HD support due to its marketing plan of keeping the PS3 out on the market for 10 years (double the traditional 4-5 year lifecycle of a console). By 2016, HD is sure to be the industry standard. Microsoft, however, has no reason to support HD. Their system will likely last only until 2011 and that generation would be a much more financially sensible time to introduce HD content. In addition, unlike Sony, Microsoft is not giving developers enough disk-space to create large games with HD content resulting in restraining the creativity of developers and the size of the game that they can create.
Nintendo has other reasons than the popularity of HD to back their decision. For example, by adding HD support, the price of a console may rise significantly. This is not only because of the support itself but also because the machine than needs a more powerful processor, larger optical disks to store large amounts of HD content on which leads to a more expensive optical disk reader, and so on. The fact is, HD support significantly increases the price of a console and Nintendo feels that at the current time, the tradeoff is not a favorable one especially considering that not many people would currently use the HD support. Therefore, they see no reason to add HD into the Revolution. From such a standpoint, the decision does make sense but this is not Nintendo's only reason.
Despite what common sense might tell you, Nintendo will likely have much more high-quality games than Sony and Microsoft simply because of the lack of HD support. You see, even if the competition has more powerful hardware, the lack of HD will allow for more content to be stored. HD content takes up MUCH more room than standard content thus allowing Nintendo to cut resources and produce the same game for a fraction of the cost. In addition, developers have stated that without HD, they would be able to do anything on the next-gen consoles. However, since HD will make the consoles lag much easier and will result in poor framerates, it limits the creativity of developers. Combining HD with the strains of developing on a multi-core system, the console suddenly becomes extremely difficult to develop quality games for. Since Nintendo is not supporting HD and will likely stick with single-core processors, the games that developers create for them will be virtually unrestrained. This will also likely gain Nintendo some additional third-party support.
Lastly, as most of you know, Nintendo's Revolution is shrouded in mystery. Though we know some features of it, the console's most important details have not yet been unveiled. We know next to nothing regarding the system....and even less about the controller. Yes, it is the controller that will supposedly bring about a revolution in the industry. Nobody knows anything about the controller except it will be simpler than others. Knowing this, many speculate that the reason for Nintendo's lack of HD support is coupled with the mysteries surrounding the Revolution. In otherwords, maybe the reason that Nintendo refuses to support HD is because it would be incompatible with certain features of the Revolution. Who knows? I sure as hell don't. But I sure wouldn't overlook it...It very well could be a possibility.
So is HD the future? I would say, yes, it is. But is it neccessary for the next-gen consoles? I would have to say no, it isn't. Currently, HD will place to many limitations on the games that developers can create. It will result in poor framerates and smaller games. It will raise prices of nearly all next-gen components significantly. However, by Nintendo staying out of the HD-craze, they are in fact allowing for developers to significantly decrease development time, decrease development costs, and lower prices for games and consoles in the coming generation. I feel that Nintendo is smart to sit out of this craze and I feel that by the 2011 generation, HD will be an essential. Until than, Nintendo will be better off without it.
-Ninty Freak ассортимент квартир вас приятно удивит - Квартиры от застройщика Краснодар
52 Comments:
Good article. I agree that Nintendo doesn't need HD to be good. But just wait until the fanboys come in and discredit you. >.>
They can't discredit what was just said. He made complete sense and that's all there is to it. Too many people talk HD when they know nothing about it. I've had one for 5 years and know all about them and the simple fact is that this article tells the truth.
I think this about low framerate is totally crap.
I don't think they will release games that run at 30 fps on Playstation 3.
HD may certainly take more processing power, but PS3 and Xbox360 definatly has that power to make sure games still are atleast 60 fps.
We'll see how Gears of War runs when it's released. I'm confident it'll run at 60 fps atleast.
Nintendo said Revolution would support 480p, and connect to computer monitors. That's good enough for me.
now i understand much better
While this is some what of a better researched article than your Playstation fraud-fest, there are still some problems and things you clearly are just making up again:
- HD only increases file size for pre-rendered clips. Real-time rendering does not increase file size. HD is a product of the HDMI output on the console. I suppose extra disc space could be used on higher resolution textures, but those textures are not a requisite for an HD game. It's the way the television displays the game, not the data on the disc.
- Microsoft never said the entire world would have HD TV's ever. The country stated was North America only.
- You made up the year 2016 of HD being standard. Right now HD is increasing at an exponential rate in terms of consumer purchase rate. Check it out.
-Sony uses a format with 50 GB per disc. Sony doesn't need a hard drive for HD "stuff". I could help, but isn't necessary. Both Sony and Microsoft are enabling developers with enough data storage for HD
gaming.
- I'd say your claim that Nintendo will have better games because of no HD is quite asinine. Making a game HD takes a negeligible amount of time compared to the total development period. This claim you make is quite far fetched. The only time HD increases data storage significantly is if it's playing a pre-rendered clip.
- HD does not create choppy frame rates. There is a frame rate drop, but the amount is not noticable. We're talking the drop from 60 FPS to around 54 FPS. The lowest I've seen is 49 FPS. Remember games like RE4 only run at 30 FPS, so even 49 ain't bad. Developers like Capcom are working on this too, and RE5 will be both HD and run at a solid 60 FPS. We will have to wait and see for sure, but this problem is not being ignored, so it's a moot point.
- Multi core systems make development easier, not harder. It isn't a strain in the least.
- HD has nothing to do with being compatible with the controller, no matter what the controller is. They're separate entities.
Other than these things (which is still too many inaccuracies to be a legit editorial), the issue of price is a valid one. It certainly won't bring development costs to some new plateau like you want to believe, but next-gen development costs are going to be an issue for some, but you'd be fooling yourself if you don't think Nintendo's software prices will rise. Definitely not as much as Ps3 or Xbox 360, but keep in mind Gamecube games are cheaper than Ps2 and Xbox games, and that didn't help Nintendo at all this time around.
Your article is full of typos, poor grammar and just downright juvenile language use. How old are you? I can understand if you're a 16 year high school student writing this stuff for fun (though it doesn't justify making everything up and pulling it straight from your ass), but if this an adult writing this stuff, that's just downright inappropriate. Heck, Spellcheck and Grammar check from MS Word would have made the article that much better.
Maybe your next article will feature actual links and proof of your far fetched and fabricated claims.
--Adam M101NWT2 REPLACEMENT LAPTOP LCD SCREEN
True, HD only increases pre-rendered scenes and I may have been mistaken in saying that models and other resources do BUT the size that the scenes take up can grow to phenomenal sizes...I have heard reports of them reaching over two gigabytes. It adds up.
Well, Adam, actually I was saying 2016 as the industry standard because of Sony's decision to keep the PS3 on the market for 10 years (2006+10=2016). Therefore, it makes sense for them to support HD. MS's decision, however, is questionable.
True, the Blu-Ray will have ample room for HD-content but MS has provided developers with less than one fifth of what Sony has (About 8GB disk space).
The lack of HD in the Revolution WILL allow developers to do things that they couldn't do in HD. That is not debatable.
The Xbox360 beta kits have chipsets that are 90% complete. There are still framerate issues. So much for the framerate debate.
Multicores may add power to games but to truly unleash their potential, a developer must be nearly a genius. There have been many articles regarding this including an interview with an employee from Valve (Makers of Half-Life 2).
The lack of HD in the Revolution WILL allow developers to do things that they couldn't do in HD. That is not debatable.
Yes it is. You have not provided a single example or piece of evidence to prove that. Everything without HD, is possible in HD.
The Xbox360 beta kits have chipsets that are 90% complete. There are still framerate issues. So much for the framerate debate.
You're quite mistaken. There are definitely processing speed issues with 90% chip set, but frame rates was not one the reported problems. Frame rate issues come lazy an inconsiderate programming, not the hardware. I have proof, do you?
Multicores may add power to games but to truly unleash their potential, a developer must be nearly a genius. There have been many articles regarding this including an interview with an employee from Valve (Makers of Half-Life 2).
I know who Valve is, you don't need to iterate what games they make. Multicores add power, you just admitted it yourself, and contradicted your own opinion in your editorial. You don'tneed to be a genius to harness the power; all it takes is programming each core to do certain things. It doesn't take a genius, all it is is delegating which processor reads what datum. Quite simple actually. It's the reason why Xbox 360's processors and Cell are heralded as power houses, despite the normalized clock speed.
You can't say "thats the end of the "blank" debate" unless you know what you're talking about, which you clearly don't. If you're going to insist on continuing to scribe editorials about hi-tech issues, you should do your research before hand and make sure your opinion is properly formed. Right now, you don't have a leg to stand on. While this article is by no means as bad as the last, it's still riddled with false information and misconceptions. cordless phone radiation
i have to say there are many things i agree with from both ninty freak and adam, i would like to see HD in the revolution while no it is not necessary the general perception of the general public is that it is very necessary, so i believe it may hurt nintendo, and yes there are advantages and disadvantages to HD, and while we may not know much about the revolution to judge it just yet i believe this system will eaither make or break the companies chances in staying in the console market, if they fail they may just stick to handheld which i hope dont happen cuz nintendo is my favorite video game company and always has been since i got a NES in 1985 and have owned every console they have ever made except for gameboy pocket and virtualboy
The only thing I got out of that comment was "FEAR THE PUNCUATION!".
LOL...The punctuation thing.
Anyway, Adam, just to clear something up, I'm not trying to fight with you, just debate. So try to keep the insults down OK? Thanks.
Now than, moving on...
Yes, everything that is possible without HD is also possible with...BUT, the question is, will it be possible in HD while still maintaining a solid framerate? I think not. I believe it was Team Ninja who stated that if it weren't for Microsoft's requirement to have a minimum 720p resolution (without HD) they would be able to do ANYTHING with these machines. However, they stated that with HD, the things that they can do with games will be limited. And I was saying who Valve was not for you but for anybody who does not know.
I can no longer find the site where it said that the X360's Beta Kits had framerate issues...Perhaps the information was illigitimate. However, I would like to see the 360 have a screen full of hundreds of men, all running advanced AI scripts, maintain a constant framerate in HD...And do not tell me that it does not need to be able to do this because more than one next-gen title is already aiming to accomplish this.
Are you kidding? Multicores do NOT ease development! Here is a link to Valve's statements:
http://palgn.com.au/article.php?id=2736
I would have to support ninty freak on this one especially sense the past generation of consoles had one core processor the ps3 with its 3 core processors will be a significant challenge for developers. And on the issue of hd, it is not the way to go this generation.
dsgamer1@gmail.com
Ninty Freak,
You've definitely taken Valve's comment out of question. All they said was that finding the problem in code becomes harder to find with multicores. It says nothing about making development harder, or only genius coders able to program the Xbox 360.
As for framerates, it's known throughout most of the HD community that at 720p, there is nary a frame rate drop. Most movies and games, at 720p operate at 58 - 60 FPS. That's incredible considering the infancy of the HD era.
You're definitely right, resolutions like 1080i and 1080p do see framrate drops these days if the software is playing on a single core processors running at modestly low clock speeds (1.2 GHz), rather significant ones actually. Keep in mind, the plus side to multi-core processors is that it buffers the frame rate. When you're dealing with 3 dual-core processors, at 3.2 GHz, that's a huge power boost. You can bet your bottom dollar that if 1080i on modest hardware runs at 30 FPS, that three dual cores processors, at three times the clock speed will provide an environment that guarantees 60 FPS on 720p for most games, and a very high possibility for 60 FPS and 1080i/p which most televisions can't even do yet. The issues with framerate and HD are not as drastic as you're making them out to be. There are problems now, but those problems will dissolve in the very near future.
"""Adam said...
Ninty Freak,
You've definitely taken Valve's comment out of question. All they said was that finding the problem in code becomes harder to find with multicores. It says nothing about making development harder, or only genius coders able to program the Xbox 360. """
I used 3 quotes to reiterate the quote, now then on to my post.
If it's harder to find the problem in code with multicores, doesn't that make development harder? And wouldn't you nearly have to be a genius as even the best of today may have problems finding the bad parts in their code? Anything that causes extra or unneeded work make development more difficult. Programming for HD may not take much if what you said earlier is true, but it adds something that need not of been done, because HDTV is not a standard. Most of the people complaining about it don't even own one, they just got caught up in the hype of them. But then again it may become a forced standard in a year when the tv stations make the full switch HD. I don't remember the exact phrasing of it though as I think I've just said something wrong.
Meant to say quotation marks. :)
Actually, HD won't become the forced standard due to the option of people using a digital-to-analog converter to still view digital content on analog sets. Analogs aren't going anywhere just yet.
If it's harder to find the problem in code with multicores, doesn't that make development harder? And wouldn't you nearly have to be a genius as even the best of today may have problems finding the bad parts in their code? Anything that causes extra or unneeded work make development more difficult.
You're making a very dangerous assumption. The reason finding bad cod is harder is because it takes longer, as there are more places to look with multicores. It's not a matter of being more difficult, it's a matter of taking longer. There is a very distinct difference there. Short and difficult is vastly different from Long and moderate.
You see code is code. It doesn't really change. The programming aspect doesn' become so much harder, as it does just takes longer. I suppose I should have worded what I said differently given the context, but hopefully this clears that up.
As for you Ninty freak, if you have to buy a digital to analogue converter, it' isn't the standard now is it?
Finding bugs in the code will take longer, as was stated. As a programmer, however, I fail to see how this does *not* make development more difficult. The bugs in the code take longer to find because they are generally more difficult to unravel and analyze due to the multicore processor. One does not merely "look" through the code... debugging is a tough process.
I'm not dissing the mulicore processor by any means, though. It does provide its fair share of benefits.
As for you Ninty freak, if you have to buy a digital to analogue converter, it' isn't the standard now is it?
Good point...I typed wrong. It may be the standard but due to the converters, you will not need an HD set. I don't care if its the standard or not: People who are on budgets won't go and waste thousands on the 'standard' when they can spend less than $40 instead.
Also, Adam, by your logic, it was just as hard to program for the NES as it is for the Playstation 3. No, code is not code. If this were the case than why did 3rd-party companies leave Nintendo in '96 for the easier-to-develop Playstation? The ease-of-development was a large factor.
You're talking about the jump from the NES the Ps3, consoles made by different companies, who's firmware and middleware are entirely different.
I'm strictly talking bout the jump from say the Ps2 to the Ps3, or the Xbox to the Xbox 360 in this case. Xbox is widely considered an easy platform to develop for, and while yes you could say more time means more difficulty, I don't see it that way. Time is more of a deterrent than an actual problem. Sure you could call them two kinds of difficult, but you didn't make any mention of that differentiation.
So in this case the jump from the Xbox to the 360 is large, the coding procedure hasn't changed much (or so I've heard from the pcvconsole boards, where many emerging programmers congregate). There is just a lot more of it.
Example: A game on the Xbox can run up to 100 000 to 200 000 lines of code, but a game on the Xbox 360 could have anywhere frm 500k to 750k (and higher, but the examples given weren't substantianted). I don't have the link to the thread anymore, as it's a dated discussion and purged from the database, but these aren't things I'm just making up.
While I'd a fool to argue that development won't get hard even in the slightest, the amount it increases is expected. It's the price for leap in technology. This standardized change will unilaterally affect all platforms, so any mention of "difficult development" is over and above that, which this generation won't see a lot of, considering companies like Epic creating middleware for aspiring developers with their easy to use Unreal 3 Engine.
Consoles do not neccessarily need to increase in difficulty of development. For example, the Revolution is supposedly so easy to develop for that many say that we may see the re-emmergence of indie developers. Also, more code is not a good thing. A console should allow for developers to write short, efficient code that will take as little time as possible to create. EA themselves has stated that companies that were previously able to launch 3-5 titles per year will now be limited to 1-2 on the PS3! The addition of multi-cores will only complicate matters for developers resulting in fewer games for us. As far as I can tell, the tradeoff of fewer games for clearer picture quality is not a good one. Besides, are you aware that most people that are pro-HD do not have nor plan on owning one? It has gotten to the point where fans will argue for the incorporation of a feature even though it will never be used. I personally would rather pay less for my games and console in addition to having high-quality games than to have a more expensive machine with higher-priced games with fewer titles. The tradeoff for HD is not a good one at this point in time...The industry is not yet ready.
Adam, think of it this way: Would you rather have 5 titles per year with graphics like Gears of War using an analog signal or have 2 games per year with the same graphics using a digital signal?
Consoles do not neccessarily need to increase in difficulty of development. For example, the Revolution is supposedly so easy to develop for that many say that we may see the re-emmergence of indie developers. Also, more code is not a good thing. A console should allow for developers to write short, efficient code that will take as little time as possible to create. EA themselves has stated that companies that were previously able to launch 3-5 titles per year will now be limited to 1-2 on the PS3! The addition of multi-cores will only complicate matters for developers resulting in fewer games for us. As far as I can tell, the tradeoff of fewer games for clearer picture quality is not a good one. Besides, are you aware that most people that are pro-HD do not have nor plan on owning one? It has gotten to the point where fans will argue for the incorporation of a feature even though it will never be used. I personally would rather pay less for my games and console in addition to having high-quality games than to have a more expensive machine with higher-priced games with fewer titles. The tradeoff for HD is not a good one at this point in time...The industry is not yet ready.
Adam, think of it this way: Would you rather have 5 titles per year with graphics like Gears of War using an analog signal or have 2 games per year with the same graphics using a digital signal?
Consoles do not neccessarily need to increase in difficulty of development. For example, the Revolution is supposedly so easy to develop for that many say that we may see the re-emmergence of indie developers. Also, more code is not a good thing. A console should allow for developers to write short, efficient code that will take as little time as possible to create. EA themselves has stated that companies that were previously able to launch 3-5 titles per year will now be limited to 1-2 on the PS3! The addition of multi-cores will only complicate matters for developers resulting in fewer games for us. As far as I can tell, the tradeoff of fewer games for clearer picture quality is not a good one. Besides, are you aware that most people that are pro-HD do not have nor plan on owning one? It has gotten to the point where fans will argue for the incorporation of a feature even though it will never be used. I personally would rather pay less for my games and console in addition to having high-quality games than to have a more expensive machine with higher-priced games with fewer titles. The tradeoff for HD is not a good one at this point in time...The industry is not yet ready.
Adam, think of it this way: Would you rather have 5 titles per year with graphics like Gears of War using an analog signal or have 2 games per year with the same graphics using a digital signal?
Consoles do not neccessarily need to increase in difficulty of development. For example, the Revolution is supposedly so easy to develop for that many say that we may see the re-emmergence of indie developers. Also, more code is not a good thing. A console should allow for developers to write short, efficient code that will take as little time as possible to create. EA themselves has stated that companies that were previously able to launch 3-5 titles per year will now be limited to 1-2 on the PS3! The addition of multi-cores will only complicate matters for developers resulting in fewer games for us. As far as I can tell, the tradeoff of fewer games for clearer picture quality is not a good one. Besides, are you aware that most people that are pro-HD do not have nor plan on owning one? It has gotten to the point where fans will argue for the incorporation of a feature even though it will never be used. I personally would rather pay less for my games and console in addition to having high-quality games than to have a more expensive machine with higher-priced games with fewer titles. The tradeoff for HD is not a good one at this point in time...The industry is not yet ready.
Adam, think of it this way: Would you rather have 5 titles per year with graphics like Gears of War using an analog signal or have 2 games per year with the same graphics using a digital signal?
Consoles do not neccessarily need to increase in difficulty of development. For example, the Revolution is supposedly so easy to develop for that many say that we may see the re-emmergence of indie developers. Also, more code is not a good thing. A console should allow for developers to write short, efficient code that will take as little time as possible to create. EA themselves has stated that companies that were previously able to launch 3-5 titles per year will now be limited to 1-2 on the PS3! The addition of multi-cores will only complicate matters for developers resulting in fewer games for us. As far as I can tell, the tradeoff of fewer games for clearer picture quality is not a good one. Besides, are you aware that most people that are pro-HD do not have nor plan on owning one? It has gotten to the point where fans will argue for the incorporation of a feature even though it will never be used. I personally would rather pay less for my games and console in addition to having high-quality games than to have a more expensive machine with higher-priced games with fewer titles. The tradeoff for HD is not a good one at this point in time...The industry is not yet ready.
Adam, think of it this way: Would you rather have 5 titles per year with graphics like Gears of War using an analog signal or have 2 games per year with the same graphics using a digital signal?
Consoles do not neccessarily need to increase in difficulty of development. For example, the Revolution is supposedly so easy to develop for that many say that we may see the re-emmergence of indie developers. Also, more code is not a good thing. A console should allow for developers to write short, efficient code that will take as little time as possible to create. EA themselves has stated that companies that were previously able to launch 3-5 titles per year will now be limited to 1-2 on the PS3! The addition of multi-cores will only complicate matters for developers resulting in fewer games for us. As far as I can tell, the tradeoff of fewer games for clearer picture quality is not a good one. Besides, are you aware that most people that are pro-HD do not have nor plan on owning one? It has gotten to the point where fans will argue for the incorporation of a feature even though it will never be used. I personally would rather pay less for my games and console in addition to having high-quality games than to have a more expensive machine with higher-priced games with fewer titles. The tradeoff for HD is not a good one at this point in time...The industry is not yet ready.
Adam, think of it this way: Would you rather have 5 titles per year with graphics like Gears of War using an analog signal or have 2 games per year with the same graphics using a digital signal?
Consoles do not neccessarily need to increase in difficulty of development. For example, the Revolution is supposedly so easy to develop for that many say that we may see the re-emmergence of indie developers. Also, more code is not a good thing. A console should allow for developers to write short, efficient code that will take as little time as possible to create. EA themselves has stated that companies that were previously able to launch 3-5 titles per year will now be limited to 1-2 on the PS3! The addition of multi-cores will only complicate matters for developers resulting in fewer games for us. As far as I can tell, the tradeoff of fewer games for clearer picture quality is not a good one. Besides, are you aware that most people that are pro-HD do not have nor plan on owning one? It has gotten to the point where fans will argue for the incorporation of a feature even though it will never be used. I personally would rather pay less for my games and console in addition to having high-quality games than to have a more expensive machine with higher-priced games with fewer titles. The tradeoff for HD is not a good one at this point in time...The industry is not yet ready.
Adam, think of it this way: Would you rather have 5 titles per year with graphics like Gears of War using an analog signal or have 2 games per year with the same graphics using a digital signal?
With more advenced tech, comes an increase programming difficulty. It's a given. Yes it's true for all consoles.
I'd also like to see this comment from EA. I don't mean a comment saying fewer games will be made per year, because thats a given, but the only that explicitly reserves such a thing only for the Ps3.
And yes, I would prefer 2 games in HD per year than 5 in analogue. First, limiting development to 2 games per year increases production focus, which increases quality. Second, 2 games per year from any single publisher is good, even by today's standards. I don't know many gamers who spend their time gaming playing the new FIFA, NHL, NFL, and NBA games and their respective "Street" versions every year day in and day out.
I look at game publishers like Sony Santa Monica, who created God of War. They released God of War early this year, and have a new game coming out next year. It's a gamer per game basis, no double dipping. THat's the kind of development I chreish, which is kind of why I think Retro's Metroid Prime series is Nintendo's best. Production focus increaes quality.
Besides, are you aware that most people that are pro-HD do not have nor plan on owning one?
Did you know that I know that you made that up? I own an HD TV, and market trends point to 35+% of TV owners to be HD equipped by next year.
Ah, adam, neighborhood anti-fanboi. :)
High definition will necessitate higher texture resolutions, which means substantially higher storage media space and texture memory space (one of the reasons both the X360 and the PS3 are pumping ridiculous amounts of ram and disc space into their systems). Running games at higher resolutions will require more processor power; likewise, the same game on the same hardware running at 480i will run a higher framerate than 1080p.
These are technical givens; try running Doom3 at 640X480 on your pc, and then crank your res up as high as it can go--the higher the res, the lower the framerate.
The question of HD in consoles for this generation seems to boil down to HD penetration in the next five years. MS is banking that HD will move in a big way, both in the US and in Japan (where they are making a big push for the 360). Sony has a little more leeway since they anticipate a life cycle of 10 years. Nintendo is betting that HD will not reach critical mass in the next five years (which may be the case in Japan where their most loyal constituency is).
*If* high def takes off (and I think it will), then the X360 and the PS3 are going to clean the floor with the Revolution (barring Nintendo doing something really freakin cool with this top secret controller). *If* high def does not move as fast as MS and Sony are hoping, then Nintendo might just be poised to earn some serious market share--without HD, the visual difference between the systems will probably be minimal.
Oh, and FWIW, Adam, coding for multiple cores is not quite as easy as you make it sound. While you certainly don't need to be a 'genius' to code for multi-core systems well, you do need fairly advanced programming knowledge and alot of time--and as well all know, that equals money. Which takes us to the basic that I think all parties agree on: the killer games for the PS3 and X360 are *really* going to be killer. The cross platformers will probably all look the same (like they always do).
These are technical givens; try running Doom3 at 640X480 on your pc, and then crank your res up as high as it can go--the higher the res, the lower the framerate.
This is a video card/GPU issue. Not the CPU. There's a very big difference there. Basic 1 GHz processors can resolve 1024 x 780 or 720p. The GPU can't handle it though. Even the lowest recommended video card, of 64 MB, won't run high resolutions or HD that well. The substantial 512 MB of RAM in both xbox 360 and Ps3 will be more than capable. Even more so with the Ps3, since it uses the newer XDR RAM, which is actually faster than the norm GDDR RAM, and is geared towards graphics displays like HD and progressive scan.
"This is a video card/GPU issue. Not the CPU. There's a very big difference there. Basic 1 GHz processors can resolve 1024 x 780 or 720p. The GPU can't handle it though."
Are you serious? Of course it's a CPU issue! Higher res textures take longer to process, high poly counts require more operations/ second, and higher screen resolutions require more clock speed (as well as a larger L2 cache and higher bus speeds).
HD means a hit on performance. Given the specs of the PS3 and the X360, probably not much of one, but it will be a performance hit all the same. And in standard definition, the extra power of the X360 and PS3 over the Revolution will probably not be observable.
Which brings us to the gamble once again: will HD penetration be sufficient to keep Sony and MS on top, or will lackluster HD sales give the Revolution some much needed market share? We won't know till we get there.
"This is a video card/GPU issue. Not the CPU. There's a very big difference there. Basic 1 GHz processors can resolve 1024 x 780 or 720p. The GPU can't handle it though."
Are you serious? Of course it's a CPU issue! Higher res textures take longer to process, high poly counts require more operations/ second, and higher screen resolutions require more clock speed (as well as a larger L2 cache and higher bus speeds).
HD means a hit on performance. Given the specs of the PS3 and the X360, probably not much of one, but it will be a performance hit all the same. And in standard definition, the extra power of the X360 and PS3 over the Revolution will probably not be observable.
Which brings us to the gamble once again: will HD penetration be sufficient to keep Sony and MS on top, or will lackluster HD sales give the Revolution some much needed market share? We won't know till we get there.
Are you serious? Of course it's a CPU issue! Higher res textures take longer to process, high poly counts require more operations/ second, and higher screen resolutions require more clock speed (as well as a larger L2 cache and higher bus speeds).
And we've already covered that a 1.2 GHz processor is enough to run 720p at 58 - 60 FPS. The GPU covers the textures and the polygon rendering (and in the case of movies, the film itself). Cache helps, but even a high level 2 MB cache doesn't help much. Right now I'm running a 3 GHz processor, 512 MB RAM, 2 MB L2 cache, and and 800 MHz FSB on a laptop, and HD movies still run like crap on my computer. I know the reason why it sucks is because I don't have a decent video card. My framerate is around 40 - 50 for HD movies, but on my similar PC with a 64 bit videocard, I get movies to play at 720p at a constant 60 FPS. While you're correct in assuming CPU does matter, it hasn't increased in importance. a 1.5 GHz processor is good enough to run HD, even at moderate framerates at 1080p. The GPU is what is going to make or break the frame rate next generation.
Prerendered video (such as HD movies) are completely different than real time 3d rendering. As much as you like to go on about technical specifications, you should know that.
Yes they're different, but framerate comes down to the GPU/videocard. You should also know that.
The CPU affects the speed of everything the machine does. That includes framerates. Go check out some 3dmark05 results and see for yourself.
3DMark 05 is a graphics performance tool, not a frame buffer. The CPU is not responsible for framerate drops, that's entirely the videocard and GPU, which have their own clock speeds, exclusive of the CPU. You sure like pull crap out of your ass.
What in the hell are you talking about?
3dmark is a benchmarking program. It measures the framerate of 3d rendering on the system it is run on. A system with a higher clocking CPU clocks higher frames/ sec.
I have no idea why you're talking aobut framebuffers.
A system with a higher clocking CPU clocks higher frames/ sec.
Correction: higher clocking GPU. GPU's have clock speeds too. This matter is over, please move on.
"Correction: higher clocking GPU. GPU's have clock speeds too. This matter is over, please move on.
No, CPUs affect fps too. They both have an impact on performance.
If the CPU didn't affect performance, then the next generation of consoles wouldn't have such powerful CPUs.
Is the GPU important? Of course! But it's only one part of the system; the GPU and CPU work together to render video (hence the idea behind AGP and PCI express--connecting your GPU and CPU via a high bandwidth connection to improve overall performance).
The matter is over, and you're wrong. You clearly cannot distinguish between prerendered video and real time video, nor do you understand what happens 'under the hood' when a computer renders 3d video. Go take a college course or something and then you won't look like such a dumbass.
Thank you, I am done mud wrestling with pigs. *bow*
I think it's quite obvious that a lot of people here need to actually talk to a computer coder - for every good point posted in the entirety of this article AND the comments below, there is one that's either fanboyish or pulled out of the arse... Adam included. Did people just totally ignore the single coder that posted here regarding the finding-a-bug-takes-longer-on-multicore comment?
"3DMark 05 is a graphics performance tool, not a frame buffer. The CPU is not responsible for framerate drops, that's entirely the videocard and GPU, which have their own clock speeds, exclusive of the CPU. You sure like pull crap out of your ass."
As do you, Adam. False, illogical and totally disproven by sheer real world performance. Drop a lower-speed CPU into your system and see if all your games run the same. Just do it - see what happens.
Everyone needs to remember that framerate is NOT only determined by the visuals (bump maps, normal maps, high resolution textures - sure, but...), but by the processing required for the sound and even the artificial intelligence. Anything that requires number crunching will have an effect on the overall performance which is perceived by us, the users, as a framerate. Indeed, the GPU - almost all the time - has become THE main driving force behind a high frame-rate. However, benchmarks and real-world performance have shown in the past that even on-board audio decreases performance slightly... why? Because the CPU has to dedicate some cycles to processing the sound. Go to your local extremetech.com, anandtech.com, tomshardware.com or sharkyextreme.com review and benchmarks (or even pick up an issue of Maximum PC) to find the performance hits. Go see any CPU-scaling article from anandtech.com to see how the CPU affects performance. Plenty of quotes abound about how some games are simply CPU-dependent enough such that a small CPU performance upgrade makes a noticeable difference.
That said, for everyone else, though the statement that CPU doesn't affect framerate is TOTALLY wrong, let's be real here. With CPUs running at such a clock speed, multi-core no less, DEDICATED to gaming, why would running a game at 1536x1080 at a steady framerate seem so far-fetched? I still think the time and effort spent to optimize code to run at that speed at such a high resolution will be costly (but that's coming from possibly outdated common sense, I don't have any developer quotes for those who decided that logical thinking just isn't enough). Correction: it will be costlier to optimize code in relation to NOT having to dedicate resources to code optimization. In the future though, I do see the costs being mitigated somehow.
I'm not taking sides here - I think Nintendo should at least pledge to support HD; the statement that was heard from Perrin Kaplan was just atrocious. "We have NO plans to support HD." Couldn't she just have said "mandated"? I also think that with the horsepower the consoles provide, HD games won't be running at some choppy, 20-frame a second clip. That's ludicrous. We also don't know for sure that HD games will be more expensive than Nintendo games. Yet, we don't know otherwise either. I'm betting that Nintendo's games will benefit from lower costs. Unless publishers go with the flow and still charge exorbitant amounts for Revo games that aren't in HD, just because they think they can (Madden DS for $39.99 last year? Please...), it makes perfect sense and is perfectly believable and highly possible that any price increases will be felt harder by PS3/XB360 customers.
"The addition of multi-cores will only complicate matters for developers resulting in fewer games for us."
I also have to comment on this... as much as they complicate multi-cores can benefit in many ways - I'm thinking mainly AI. We still have really stupid AI in some games today that shouldn't have it. I also don't necessarily see "few" games as a bad thing. The Gamecube sees such a slow release trickle, yet I would never say that I have too few games for my cube. In fact, I think have 40 Cube games. I suppose I simply live a different lifestyle than other gamers because I unfortunately have little time to dedicate to my biggest recreational passion, but 40 seems a lot to me.
Out of an entire console's library, do you know how much garbage there is out there? True, some of it's due to the fact that in the past kids bought Mary Kate & Ashley games in droves. (Not a fact anymore since that franchise is pretty much dead, just an example that probably applies to SOME licensed garbage product out there.) But at the same time, it would make sense that if EA could only release 2 PS3 games a year, it'd try it's damned best to make it a beastly effort and not some throwaway. More Freedom Fighters, less Catwoman, if you know what I mean. I'm not inciting a call for, "Less games! Less games!" But in this case I believe less in quantity can possibly help achieve a balance in quality. We'll just, as with EVERYTHING ELSE that's being debated in this article/comment-list, have to wait and see.
The matter is over, and you're wrong.
How am I wrong, you just admitted that the GPU is important? You should also note that I did agree that CPUs are important, but we've reached a point where low level processors can produce 720p at 58 - 60 FPS. This is something I stated long ago. A 1.2 GHz core can easily handle 720p, so 3 CPU's at dual core clocks of 3.2 GHz, is going to make sure framerates don't drop. This has been estabilished before, so I don't see where I went wrong. I've stated through and through that both are important, but the GPU is more important now that CPU's have come to a plateau in HD performance.
Try to keep up.
The current XBOX already supports HD (some games are in 1080i and 720p) - check http://www.hdtvarcade.com. The revolution is the NEXT Nintendo console, don't you thing that it should at least do what the best of the current generation is doing? I have a HD tv since 2004, I own a GameCube and I play my games in Progressive Scan (480p), it was very hard to find the cables, I ordered them from China), Nintendo does not give a great support for its progressive scan games. I don't want to see that again with the Revolution, if Nintendo is not changing its idea approach, I will get a XBOX360 or PS3. I don't thing it costs more hardware or software wise, I just thing it the next logical step for consoles. We don't play our PC games in 640x480 anymore with current PC hardware...
"How am I wrong, you just admitted that the GPU is important? You should also note that I did agree that CPUs are important, but we've reached a point where low level processors can produce 720p at 58 - 60 FPS."
That still doesn't explain how you were wrong about this:
"3DMark 05 is a graphics performance tool, not a frame buffer. The CPU is not responsible for framerate drops, that's entirely the videocard and GPU, which have their own clock speeds, exclusive of the CPU"
"I don't want to see that again with the Revolution, if Nintendo is not changing its idea approach, I will get a XBOX360 or PS3."
Nice immature stance, so you're willing to forego software that you really like just because it's not as crisp. And if you don't like Nintendo software in the first place, why do you have a Cube?
"I don't thing it costs more hardware or software wise, I just thing it the next logical step for consoles."
You should "thing" harder and read what some people in the development world are saying. The statement that it's the "next logical step" doesn't mean it won't be costlier. Get some common sense.
That still doesn't explain how you were wrong about this:
Stop ignoring what I say. I will not repeat myself. Please read the previous post.
Funny.. S/he didn't ignore anything. You blatantly said:
"The CPU is not responsible for framerate drops." That's just wrong, no matter what you agreed was important, no matter what you think a X.X GHz CPU is capable of - all parts of hardware contribute to the final output. Go ask any hardware engineer. You're just afraid to be "wrong".
I've been following the argrument with Adam and this unknown chartacter to know that Adam is in the right. This unknown person started this off by restating the article at Adam and continued to believe that CPU matters more than GPU in GRAPHICS, that was the topic of the little discussion. While since the general topic is games one could hardly argue that a CPU meant more then a GPU in the graphics department.
Francois: How could anything be revolutionary if it were to follow the status quo?
That's just wrong, no matter what you agreed was important, no matter what you think a X.X GHz CPU is capable of - all parts of hardware contribute to the final output. Go ask any hardware engineer. You're just afraid to be "wrong".
Two years ago, I would say the CPU is important, but not today and not in the future. Where CPU's have evolved to have multicores, upwards of 4 GHz, and hyperthreading, and problems in framerate would not sprout from the CPU.
Examples of "Raising the resolution of a PC game" have risen, but you're forgetting that with PC games, the a good part of the processing is used to keep the OS running in the background. The computers BIOS dictates that the computer has to keep the OS running, as the it's the very basic tool for keeping the game running. Firewalls, anti-viruses, and all those other "processes" running the background use up system resources and precious cycles. Consoles do not ecounter this problem. End of story.
Any radical change in hardware configuration slows down development until the programmers learn the new system. Multiple CPU cores should be a relatively minor adjustment, though. Talk to a Jaguar programmer if you don't believe that unorthodox system architecture can be a royal pain in the ass.
As for the non-HD Revolution being able to do more because of its lower output resolution, that's utter crap. That argument only holds up if every other aspect of the two systems is identical. Yes, an Xbox 360 game in 480p resolution could be slightly more complex than an HD game. The Revolution is a completely different system, though, and looks to be less powerful. Nintendo is not going to win any fights with brute force.
James,
To be mature and have common sense means to agree with you? I think you are the one with a big problem... I haven't played my PC games in 640x480 for a long time, I consider that a console that is due for next year and will have a life span of several years, HAS to support HD, it's logical. And your costs argument are dummy, I I do not want Nintendo to MANDATE HD but only to support it. If a company does not need to implement HD fine with me, as a customer I will be free to buy it or not. But think of all the third parties that develop a game for all consoles, they have already invested money on HD textures and coding, they will need to REMOVE it from our Revolution version, do you really thing they will lower the price for it. We will have an impoverish version at the same price (like they do today with on-line). I have many other arguments I can give you but I am not sure you are intelligent enough to understand them!
Post a Comment
<< Home