| bdbdbd said: @WereKitten: Better compatibility with HDTV:s and higher graphical detail. What good did upgrade to HD bring to PS360? Now, there's really no reason for the console to equal 360 in specs. We could use the same logic to point out why 360 should have equaled PS3 in specs. Even if Wii would have half of the processing power of 360, it would still be "in the same ballpark", but cheaper. Or third and it still would output HD without any problems. |
360 and PS3 are balanced upgrades over the previous models, where the whole package (GPU, CPU power, memory, multithreading, storage) allows a whole new scale of technical achievements. Reaching HD resolutions is nice, but it's not the main result, however people may like the "HD" checkbox ticked. And as I said it's also not always worth the increase in costs unless the whole upgrade allows you to improve your development processes in some measure.
A Wii with a third of the CPU power of the 360 but in HD would output SMG at 1080p, but would not be able to cope with the scale of Oblivion or Fallout 3, or the crowds of Dead Rising or Heavy Rain, or the mass action scenes of Gears 2 or Heavenly Sword. Nothing of what people feel is really a new technical achievement of the current generation of consoles over last.
The upgraded GPU and CPU would have cost Nintendo somthing in the order of extra $80-$150 per console at launch. To date that would mean what, a $2-3B less profits if we factor in hardware depreciation? And major increse in assets costs for developers. And still someone wanting to play Oblivion or Fallout or GTAIV would have to go to PC, PS3, or 360.
Really, HD itself is not a magic bullet. It's about convenience for the developers.
