hsrob said:
HappySqurriel said:
Nabraham said:
Xponent said:
Nabraham said:
Are you kidding me? I mean were talking what 3-4 years from now and they still won't be able to put out a console that can display 1080i/p resolution? How lazy are they? Would be unacceptable in my book |
You do realise that this is just a hypothetical question?
|
Yea i realize its a hypothetical question, i'm just blown away at the suggestion of it even happening. It's like saying what if MS stuck with DVD technology as its media storage format for its next system in 3 years?
I've had a 1080p 57 inch for over 2 years now, i know thats not the norm but more and more people are getting high def tv's, how hard is it to put an output resolution into a machine of 1080i/p and not just 720p?
|
Which looks better Quake 3 Arena @1080p or Call of Duty 4 @720p?
When you're trying to produce a videogame console one of the most important things for its success (and your company's success) is to keep the research and development costs (and manufacturing costs) to a reasonable level. Being that the difference in visual quality between 720p and 1080p is very minor it is one of the places that it makes the most sense to cut in order to keep costs at a reasonable level.
|
You do realise Nintendo made the Wii 480p by choice not because they weren't able to produce a more capable machine as you put it. This along with Vagabond's point about 1080p only being of significant importance on very large TV's and i can see Nintendo making the same choice again. Looking at the market, seeing what the adoption rate of large (i.e. above 40 inch) TV's is and perhaps deciding that 720p is enough.
|
I do know that Nintendo choose the performance level of the Wii, but my point was that Nintendo's next generation console will have its performance level was determined based on a cost-benefit analysis of some kind ... Which is (essentially) what you're saying
