HD era too soon?

I might be talking out my butt, but I actually think the problem is that this gen is not HD enough, for this hardware the HD standard for games should be 1080p, not sub-720p. That would actually cut down the costs for development.

It's not the resolution that makes games so expensive to make, it's all the other crap like lighting and polygons. The lower the resolution they can get away with, the fancier lighting etc. they can and have to implement in the game to compete. And that costs money.

mr_mozilla

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if companies are noting that the following will have to be a minimum for the next generation of consoles:

• 4x/6x BD drive capable of supporting the quad-layer 100GB BD disc (which will probably be standardized in the next couple years).
• Either a large (ie. 500GB) internal hard drive or the ability to play, save, etc. off of external USB drives (IOW, full external function--not just soundtrack playing or whatever) for infinite expandability. If you're going to go the USB route, might as well employ USB 3.0 ports which will be standardized next year.
• Either support for n-class wireless networking or support for an alternative like Powerline Ethernet which would address both security concerns and any lack or inability (ie. in an apartment) to wire up.
• All games on the console must be capable of a sustained fully-native rendering resolution of 1920x1080@60fps completely throughout the game, complete with full or almost-full lighting and visual effects.
• If security protocols can allow it, support for userland servers to remove the big bottleneck that prevents console online quality from coming even close to that of PC online.

and by the way I SAID RETAIL.

not downloadable. downloadable games often don't sell well. hell even ocarina of time on VC probably hasn't sold over a million.

darth-pyschosis

you'd have to name "indie" games that are also in retail format, first.

[QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]

I might be talking out my butt, but I actually think the problem is that this gen is not HD enough, for this hardware the HD standard for games should be 1080p, not sub-720p. That would actually cut down the costs for development.

It's not the resolution that makes games so expensive to make, it's all the other crap like lighting and polygons. The lower the resolution they can get away with, the fancier lighting etc. they can and have to implement in the game to compete. And that costs money.

HuusAsking

1080p games don't need to look crappy, games like The Darkness and Wipeout HD look wonderfull and I'd be happy to see consoles churn out more sharp looking games like that, instead of jaggied 600p games with some uber lighting that you can't see anyway under all the blur and grey.

Okay, maybe 1080p is too much, most people don't have TVs for that so it would be useless.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]

I might be talking out my butt, but I actually think the problem is that this gen is not HD enough, for this hardware the HD standard for games should be 1080p, not sub-720p. That would actually cut down the costs for development.

It's not the resolution that makes games so expensive to make, it's all the other crap like lighting and polygons. The lower the resolution they can get away with, the fancier lighting etc. they can and have to implement in the game to compete. And that costs money.

mr_mozilla

1080p games don't need to look crappy, games like The Darkness and Wipeout HD look wonderfull and I'd be happy to see consoles churn out more sharp looking games like that, instead of jaggied 600p games with some uber lighting that you can't see anyway under all the blur and grey.

Okay, maybe 1080p is too much, most people don't have TVs for that so it would be useless.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]Agreed the HD era came too soon no systems can handle 1080p at good graphics and stability..ect and the same with 720p.SpruceCaboose

And that is not true either. In some cases, that is true. In others, its not.

If that wasn't true then it would mean no game on the ps3 or 360 would have preformance issues at 720p "*pretty much" regardless of the game, at 1080p of which we hardly have any games they are either extremely limited or have preformance issues out the hind end.

at 720p they are limited in some way or they have preformance issues, Simply put at 480i or 480p alot of games like gears of war, or MGS4 could look better and run at 60fps no matter the situtation and thats a fact but because they are 720p or higher certain things are sacraficed or they have problems.

so its true this generation wasn't not made to handle high resolutions.

*pretty much means that the developer isn't idiotic and bad at programming.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]Agreed the HD era came too soon no systems can handle 1080p at good graphics and stability..ect and the same with 720p.WilliamRLBaker

And that is not true either. In some cases, that is true. In others, its not.

If that wasn't true then it would mean no game on the ps3 or 360 would have preformance issues at 720p "*pretty much" regardless of the game, at 1080p of which we hardly have any games they are either extremely limited or have preformance issues out the hind end.

at 720p they are limited in some way or they have preformance issues, Simply put at 480i or 480p alot of games like gears of war, or MGS4 could look better and run at 60fps no matter the situtation and thats a fact but because they are 720p or higher certain things are sacraficed or they have problems.

so its true this generation wasn't not made to handle high resolutions.

*pretty much means that the developer isn't idiotic and bad at programming.

[QUOTE="mr_mozilla"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]

I might be talking out my butt, but I actually think the problem is that this gen is not HD enough, for this hardware the HD standard for games should be 1080p, not sub-720p. That would actually cut down the costs for development.

It's not the resolution that makes games so expensive to make, it's all the other crap like lighting and polygons. The lower the resolution they can get away with, the fancier lighting etc. they can and have to implement in the game to compete. And that costs money.

HuusAsking

1080p games don't need to look crappy, games like The Darkness and Wipeout HD look wonderfull and I'd be happy to see consoles churn out more sharp looking games like that, instead of jaggied 600p games with some uber lighting that you can't see anyway under all the blur and grey.

Okay, maybe 1080p is too much, most people don't have TVs for that so it would be useless.

You're dreaming.

[QUOTE="mr_mozilla"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]

I might be talking out my butt, but I actually think the problem is that this gen is not HD enough, for this hardware the HD standard for games should be 1080p, not sub-720p. That would actually cut down the costs for development.

It's not the resolution that makes games so expensive to make, it's all the other crap like lighting and polygons. The lower the resolution they can get away with, the fancier lighting etc. they can and have to implement in the game to compete. And that costs money.

HuusAsking

1080p games don't need to look crappy, games like The Darkness and Wipeout HD look wonderfull and I'd be happy to see consoles churn out more sharp looking games like that, instead of jaggied 600p games with some uber lighting that you can't see anyway under all the blur and grey.

Okay, maybe 1080p is too much, most people don't have TVs for that so it would be useless.

You do know that digital does not mean HD. It is just the signal not the format that they are changing.

i feel (as someone who loves 2D game programming) that this HD era with PS3 and 360 is a generation too soon and that its hurting the gaming industry.

we get good games from the big companies like ubi, EA, etc. but what about all the independant games? katamari (published by namco i know), strong bad, lost winds, N+, de blob? very rarely do the smaller indie game developers get chances to push their product on a unified gaming platform like a 360, ps3 or wii.

i love my PS3, i do. but i'm tired of being fed shooters and sports games. same for 360.

i want unique games. and when it costs say, $1 million to make a game for the xbox 360 a smaller company may want to take risks with their project, maybe make a long running idea into a more concrete product but coz of high development costs they can't take that risk. so they make a sports, shooter, or something else popular.

they don't have as much freedom, i think thats why even with bigger companies like atari, square enix, capcom, we're seeing a huge crunch of companies merging or buying other companies. it costs too much to make games.

theres no advantage to making artistically driven games on HD consoles unless you make a game into a popular genre or you're company name is Electronic Arts.

why wouldnt capcom expand to the west? their still cranking out ps2 games in japan, so they want to help american make them money too. they will spend millions of dollars on street fighter 4, resident evil 5, just to profit very little.

when if they development costs were as low as say, the ps2, they could profit more, then have more money to give to smaller internal projects like viewtiful joe, okami, killer 7. see what i'm saying?

i feel that wiiware, psn, xbl are helping this situation. esspecially XNA game studio, as i use it.

but it isn't enough.

lets see how many square enix games have come out for wii and ds this year? dozens. world ends with you, final fantasy fables, arkanoid, final fantasy tactics.

on 360/ps3? last remnant, undiscovery and what else??????

coz the costs are too high. i'm not saying quantity is better than quality, i'm saying though that with that quantity there's a better chance for new ideas , where as with IU, and LR we have standard RPGs. nothing original like TWEWY.

darth-pyschosis

You said that you want "unique" games? You just have to look for them, Elefunk, Hail to the chimp. Review dont usually review under the radar games. Also games are afraid to take a chance on games. Unique game are out there, just have to look for them.

"There's no advantage to making artistically driven games on HD consoles" 720 is HD, most games are in 720. The world was going HD, so games pretty much had to too.

I don't think so. All TV broadcasts will be digital in less than 6 months, it was time. This gen will just last a bit longer than any other.

DisPimpin

This will boost HDTV sales, I'm not buying a converter box, I'd rather buy a new T.V., I think a lot of people, not most but a lot will buy new T.V.'s

Edit: But at the same time Nintendo is killing the PS3 and the 360 because its SD. Nintendo said that they would hit HD when they see the need.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mr_mozilla"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]

I might be talking out my butt, but I actually think the problem is that this gen is not HD enough, for this hardware the HD standard for games should be 1080p, not sub-720p. That would actually cut down the costs for development.

It's not the resolution that makes games so expensive to make, it's all the other crap like lighting and polygons. The lower the resolution they can get away with, the fancier lighting etc. they can and have to implement in the game to compete. And that costs money.

blasto65_basic

1080p games don't need to look crappy, games like The Darkness and Wipeout HD look wonderfull and I'd be happy to see consoles churn out more sharp looking games like that, instead of jaggied 600p games with some uber lighting that you can't see anyway under all the blur and grey.

Okay, maybe 1080p is too much, most people don't have TVs for that so it would be useless.

You do know that digital does not mean HD. It is just the signal not the format that they are changing.

So going digital pretty much means going HD at the same time.

[QUOTE="DisPimpin"]

I don't think so. All TV broadcasts will be digital in less than 6 months, it was time. This gen will just last a bit longer than any other.

CubanBlunt

This will boost HDTV sales, I'm not buying a converter box, I'd rather buy a new T.V., I think a lot of people, not most but a lot will buy new T.V.'s

[QUOTE="blasto65_basic"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mr_mozilla"]Imo consoles shouldn't even try to compete with PC in terms of graphics, it's impossible because they can't be upgraded. It was Xbox that started this trend, before it no one even expected PC graphics from consoles. This is why we now have games on massive budgets going back to sub-HD resolutions.

1080p games don't need to look crappy, games like The Darkness and Wipeout HD look wonderfull and I'd be happy to see consoles churn out more sharp looking games like that, instead of jaggied 600p games with some uber lighting that you can't see anyway under all the blur and grey.

Okay, maybe 1080p is too much, most people don't have TVs for that so it would be useless.

HuusAsking

You do know that digital does not mean HD. It is just the signal not the format that they are changing.

So going digital pretty much means going HD at the same time.

No, it doesn't. Cable boxes and DVRs convert digital to analog for older TV sets, which means the vast majority of, if not all, cable and satellite subscribers and DVR/Tivo users won't notice any difference in their service when the switchover occurs. Plus, the equipment to produce and process HD video is many times more expensive than that for SD video, so networks don't necessarily want that, either.

Going HD might be what the electronics industry wants, but no one else will necessarily want it. The networks going digital will give us 90% of the benefit of going HD without the multi-thousand dollar cost of going HD.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

...and have performance issues. :)

mjarantilla

The vast majority of high profile games. Notice that in my original post. Barring sports, fighting, and racing games, which require the fewest resources to run, how many games can you name that don't have at least one of the following issues:

* Screen-tearing (e.g. Saints Row)
* Unsteady framerate (e.g. Bioshock, Mass Effect, Oblivion)
* Memory leak (e.g. Oblivion)
* Low/sub-HD resolution (e.g. Halo 3, COD4, MGS4)
* Texture/object pop-in (e.g. GTAIV, Gears of War, Mass Effect)
* Unreasonably long/frequent load times (e.g. Mass Effect, Oblivion)

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

...and have performance issues. :)

Teufelhuhn

The vast majority of high profile games. Notice that in my original post. Barring sports, fighting, and racing games, which require the fewest resources to run, how many games can you name that don't have at least one of the following issues:

* Screen-tearing (e.g. Saints Row)
* Unsteady framerate (e.g. Bioshock, Mass Effect, Oblivion)
* Memory leak (e.g. Oblivion)
* Low/sub-HD resolution (e.g. Halo 3, COD4, MGS4)
* Texture/object pop-in (e.g. GTAIV, Gears of War, Mass Effect)
* Unreasonably long/frequent load times (e.g. Mass Effect, Oblivion)

I'm not making that mistake at all. Notice how I listed "low/sub-HD resolution" as a completely separate issue in the list of issues that routinely pop up in 360/PS3 games?

I'm not suggesting a direct causal connection between the two, even though it's easy to make that mistake from the way I worded my posts. I'm simply saying that the "high-profile" games on the 360/PS3 suffers from one or more jarring issues that impact playability and immersion, and the only games that seem to be free from those issues (like framerate and load times and memory leaks) are games that run at sub-HD resolutions.

No, it doesn't. Cable boxes and DVRs convert digital to analog for older TV sets, which means the vast majority of, if not all, cable and satellite subscribers and DVR/Tivo users won't notice any difference in their service when the switchover occurs. Plus, the equipment to produce and process HD video is many times more expensive than that for SD video, so networks don't necessarily want that, either.

Going HD might be what the electronics industry wants, but no one else will necessarily want it. The networks going digital will give us 90% of the benefit of going HD without the multi-thousand dollar cost of going HD.

mjarantilla

As for noticing a difference, may I remind you that all HD programming is 16:9 widescreen while traditional TVs are 4:3 traditional? That usually means letterboxing, which is usually noticable.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

No, it doesn't. Cable boxes and DVRs convert digital to analog for older TV sets, which means the vast majority of, if not all, cable and satellite subscribers and DVR/Tivo users won't notice any difference in their service when the switchover occurs. Plus, the equipment to produce and process HD video is many times more expensive than that for SD video, so networks don't necessarily want that, either.

Going HD might be what the electronics industry wants, but no one else will necessarily want it. The networks going digital will give us 90% of the benefit of going HD without the multi-thousand dollar cost of going HD.

HuusAsking

As for noticing a difference, may I remind you that all HD programming is 16:9 widescreen while traditional TVs are 4:3 traditional? That usually means letterboxing, which is usually noticable.

Even if HDTVs are the only kinds offered, it would still take several years for HDTVs to overtake SDTVs in overall usage. Transition to a new and better standard is obviously inevitable, but it is by no means fast.

BTW, no one cares about letterboxing except videophiles.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

...and have performance issues. :)

mjarantilla

The vast majority of high profile games. Notice that in my original post. Barring sports, fighting, and racing games, which require the fewest resources to run, how many games can you name that don't have at least one of the following issues:

* Screen-tearing (e.g. Saints Row)
* Unsteady framerate (e.g. Bioshock, Mass Effect, Oblivion)
* Memory leak (e.g. Oblivion)
* Low/sub-HD resolution (e.g. Halo 3, COD4, MGS4)
* Texture/object pop-in (e.g. GTAIV, Gears of War, Mass Effect)
* Unreasonably long/frequent load times (e.g. Mass Effect, Oblivion)

Why would you so freely toss out sports games as those are some of the best selling and most popular games around? (much to the dismay of many of the posters here)

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

...and have performance issues. :)

ramey70

The vast majority of high profile games. Notice that in my original post. Barring sports, fighting, and racing games, which require the fewest resources to run, how many games can you name that don't have at least one of the following issues:

* Screen-tearing (e.g. Saints Row)
* Unsteady framerate (e.g. Bioshock, Mass Effect, Oblivion)
* Memory leak (e.g. Oblivion)
* Low/sub-HD resolution (e.g. Halo 3, COD4, MGS4)
* Texture/object pop-in (e.g. GTAIV, Gears of War, Mass Effect)
* Unreasonably long/frequent load times (e.g. Mass Effect, Oblivion)

Why would you so freely toss out sports games as those are some of the best selling and most popular games around? (much to the dismay of many of the posters here)

Those games (sports, fighting, and racing), by the very nature of their gameplay, require a minimal amount of resources to produce good/realistic graphics. For ****'s sake, there was a 1080i racing game on the PS2.

By the way, it is funny that the one night I check this board in ages of absence I see mjarantilla still fighting his crusade against any and all things HD.ramey70

Someone has to advocate the interests of normal, well-adjusted people with proper priorities on this board.

[QUOTE="ramey70"]By the way, it is funny that the one night I check this board in ages of absence I see mjarantilla still fighting his crusade against any and all things HD.mjarantilla

Someone has to advocate the interests of normal, well-adjusted people with proper priorities on this board.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="ramey70"]By the way, it is funny that the one night I check this board in ages of absence I see mjarantilla still fighting his crusade against any and all things HD.HuusAsking

Someone has to advocate the interests of normal, well-adjusted people with proper priorities on this board.

Progress? Let's keep in mind exactly what we're talking about here: pixels. Normal, well-adjusted people care more than just resolution. They know that resolution is just about the least important improvement that can be made to a game. That's why they've balked at buying into the HD generation, not because they don't have HDTVs or because they don't see a difference. They just don't care about the difference, and they shouldn't, not when games have so many more serious problems to take care of.

The mainstream intuition is already remarkably accurate at choosing the right path for an industry to take. It doesn't need the colored guidance of technophile fascination.

For full-on 1080p gaming, yes. That's why the sweet spot for game development is 720p. In that case, it's not too early at all. 2 of the 3 consoles are still standard-def-friendly. I don't see a problem here.

In terms of indie developers, PSN and XBL titles have plenty of smaller games, and that library continues to grow. I don't see a problem here either.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="ramey70"]By the way, it is funny that the one night I check this board in ages of absence I see mjarantilla still fighting his crusade against any and all things HD.mjarantilla

Someone has to advocate the interests of normal, well-adjusted people with proper priorities on this board.

Progress? Let's keep in mind exactly what we're talking about here: pixels. Normal, well-adjusted people care more than just resolution. They know that resolution is just about the least important improvement that can be made to a game. That's why they've balked at buying into the HD generation, not because they don't have HDTVs or because they don't see a difference. They just don't care about the difference, and they shouldn't, not when games have so many more serious problems to take care of.

The mainstream intuition is already remarkably accurate at choosing the right path for an industry to take. It doesn't need the colored guidance of technophile fascination.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="ramey70"]By the way, it is funny that the one night I check this board in ages of absence I see mjarantilla still fighting his crusade against any and all things HD.HuusAsking

Someone has to advocate the interests of normal, well-adjusted people with proper priorities on this board.

Progress? Let's keep in mind exactly what we're talking about here: pixels. Normal, well-adjusted people care more than just resolution. They know that resolution is just about the least important improvement that can be made to a game. That's why they've balked at buying into the HD generation, not because they don't have HDTVs or because they don't see a difference. They just don't care about the difference, and they shouldn't, not when games have so many more serious problems to take care of.

The mainstream intuition is already remarkably accurate at choosing the right path for an industry to take. It doesn't need the colored guidance of technophile fascination.

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that buying a brand new $500-$1000 TV is a more palatable option than buying a $100 converter? Because THAT is the real decision they'll be facing.

Anyway, my point is that the adoption rate is going to be far slower than you or anyone here anticipates. Radical adoption only occurs when there is radical change. High definition doesn't offer that kind of change (or rather, not enough change).

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that buying a brand new $500-$1000 TV is a more palatable option than buying a $100 converter? Because THAT is the real decision they'll be facing.

Anyway, my point is that the adoption rate is going to be far slower than you or anyone here anticipates. Radical adoption only occurs when there is radical change. High definition doesn't offer that kind of change (or rather, not enough change).

mjarantilla

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that buying a brand new $500-$1000 TV is a more palatable option than buying a $100 converter? Because THAT is the real decision they'll be facing.

Anyway, my point is that the adoption rate is going to be far slower than you or anyone here anticipates. Radical adoption only occurs when there is radical change. High definition doesn't offer that kind of change (or rather, not enough change).

HuusAsking

Uh-huh.

That's rather unlikely. Unless you know a lot of people with TVs from the 80s. CRTs have a very, very long lifetimes. Back at home, my TV from 1990 still works just fine and shows no sign of breakdown.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that buying a brand new $500-$1000 TV is a more palatable option than buying a $100 converter? Because THAT is the real decision they'll be facing.

Anyway, my point is that the adoption rate is going to be far slower than you or anyone here anticipates. Radical adoption only occurs when there is radical change. High definition doesn't offer that kind of change (or rather, not enough change).

mjarantilla

Uh-huh.

That's rather unlikely. Unless you know a lot of people with TVs from the 80s. CRTs have a very, very long lifetimes. Back at home, my TV from 1990 still works just fine and shows no sign of breakdown.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that buying a brand new $500-$1000 TV is a more palatable option than buying a $100 converter? Because THAT is the real decision they'll be facing.

Anyway, my point is that the adoption rate is going to be far slower than you or anyone here anticipates. Radical adoption only occurs when there is radical change. High definition doesn't offer that kind of change (or rather, not enough change).

HuusAsking

Uh-huh.

That's rather unlikely. Unless you know a lot of people with TVs from the 80s. CRTs have a very, very long lifetimes. Back at home, my TV from 1990 still works just fine and shows no sign of breakdown.

Ghosting? That's a problem with leaving the TV on too long on one image. That has nothing to do with lifetime at all. If you avoid the situations that produce ghosting, a CRT will outlast your family dog.

Most people I know have at least one HDTV in their house. If the technology is commonplace, why not use it? Gamer556

The thing is, HDTVs are NOT commonplace. In fact, I think that less than 10% of TVs owned in the United States are capable of High Definition output.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I'm not saying that. Are you saying that buying a brand new $500-$1000 TV is a more palatable option than buying a $100 converter? Because THAT is the real decision they'll be facing.

Anyway, my point is that the adoption rate is going to be far slower than you or anyone here anticipates. Radical adoption only occurs when there is radical change. High definition doesn't offer that kind of change (or rather, not enough change).

mjarantilla

Uh-huh.

That's rather unlikely. Unless you know a lot of people with TVs from the 80s. CRTs have a very, very long lifetimes. Back at home, my TV from 1990 still works just fine and shows no sign of breakdown.

Ghosting? That's a problem with leaving the TV on too long on one image. That has nothing to do with lifetime at all. If you avoid the situations that produce ghosting, a CRT will outlast your family dog.

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]Most people I know have at least one HDTV in their house. If the technology is commonplace, why not use it? Verge_6

The thing is, HDTVs are NOT commonplace. In fact, I think that less than 10% of TVs owned in the United States are capable of High Definition output.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Uh-huh.

That's rather unlikely. Unless you know a lot of people with TVs from the 80s. CRTs have a very, very long lifetimes. Back at home, my TV from 1990 still works just fine and shows no sign of breakdown.

HuusAsking

Ghosting? That's a problem with leaving the TV on too long on one image. That has nothing to do with lifetime at all. If you avoid the situations that produce ghosting, a CRT will outlast your family dog.

You said 70s and 80s, right? Well, 20 years is about the expected lifespan of those TVs, and according to you, it's been almost double that.

Besides, I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of family TVs owned today were bought in the mid to late 90s.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]Most people I know have at least one HDTV in their house. If the technology is commonplace, why not use it? HuusAsking

The thing is, HDTVs are NOT commonplace. In fact, I think that less than 10% of TVs owned in the United States are capable of High Definition output.

If prices on HDTVs stay as they are now...probably another analog from a retail source outside of the major outlets or online via Amazon or Ebay. I just don't see a massive wave of sales for HDTVs unless the prices are lowered. Considerably.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]Most people I know have at least one HDTV in their house. If the technology is commonplace, why not use it? HuusAsking

The thing is, HDTVs are NOT commonplace. In fact, I think that less than 10% of TVs owned in the United States are capable of High Definition output.

You're talking about two different things: the analog cutoff, and a TV reaching the end of its lifetime. Which situation are you trying to address?

If the former, then a $100 converter will solve that.

If the latter, then a transition to HD because of SD CRTs dying out will occur over many years, certainly well into the next decade if not more.

[QUOTE="darth-pyschosis"]

[QUOTE="ZOnikJJ"]I have a 40" Samsung 1080p LCD in my bedroom. There are two other HDTVs in my house (42" Samsung Plasma, and 60" Mitsubishi DLP). I enjoy HD TV programming as well as games, so I don't think it was too early at all. There are plenty of budget HDTVs out in the market right now. Just look at those Vizio sets.Taylorgc2004

i have a budget HDTV.

i have a ps3 and a wii, DS too

with rising tuition costs, gas prices, and the housing market in american where it is, let alone the entire economy

it isn't easy to own all these luxuries. i haven't had AC in my car for 2 years. why? unneeded luxury.

i want it ever so badly. but $200 on fixing it won't pay my tuition.

thats why it was hard to even buy my wii, ps3, ds.

i'm a gamer, i guess you could label me "hardcore" not that i care, but i can't stay away from gaming

not every household is like that. god forbid people get struck with terrible financial bills like debt, or even worse medical bills for treating a terrible illness

I do. Our AC went out for two days at our house last summer. We lived in a hotel for those two days.

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]Most people I know have at least one HDTV in their house. If the technology is commonplace, why not use it? Verge_6

The thing is, HDTVs are NOT commonplace. In fact, I think that less than 10% of TVs owned in the United States are capable of High Definition output.

That's because most people have a plethora of old TVs lying around their house. Of all new TVs sold, how many do you think are HD? I'd bet it's almost all of them.

Also, I'm sure that 10% figure is dated. I remember hearing the same thing 4 years ago.

And who does this hurt exactly? It's not like people without HDTVs can't play the games.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]Most people I know have at least one HDTV in their house. If the technology is commonplace, why not use it? Gamer556

The thing is, HDTVs are NOT commonplace. In fact, I think that less than 10% of TVs owned in the United States are capable of High Definition output.

That's because most people have a plethora of old TVs lying around their house. Of all new TVs sold, how many do you think are HD? I'd bet it's almost all of them.

Also, I'm sure that 10% figure is dated. I remember hearing the same thing 4 years ago.

And who does this hurt exactly? It's not like people without HDTVs can't play the games.

It was about 5% four years ago. The 10% figure is about...last year. :?

It doesn't hurt anyone, I'm just saying that HDTVs are not very 'commonplace'.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]Most people I know have at least one HDTV in their house. If the technology is commonplace, why not use it? mjarantilla

The thing is, HDTVs are NOT commonplace. In fact, I think that less than 10% of TVs owned in the United States are capable of High Definition output.

You're talking about two different things: the analog cutoff, and a TV reaching the end of its lifetime. Which situation are you trying to address?

If the former, then a $100 converter will solve that.

If the latter, then a transition to HD because of SD CRTs dying out will occur over many years, certainly well into the next decade if not more.

PS. Don't count on those 90's TVs to last too long, either. Remember, Planned Obsolescence, they don't make 'em like they used to.