Borkachev on 24 December 2007
I'm pretty sure that the implication in this thread is that this shows that HD is already adopted by gamers and that this favors the PS3/360. Or at least, I'm assuming so, since most of the people pushing this thread along are PS3 supporters.
And I think that's odd, because my immediate reaction was: "If HDTVs are already this heavily adopted among gaming enthusiasts, and the Wii is still outselling the PS3 and 360, that means that HD isn't that big a deal to most people." Am I missing something here? Because if people who own gaming consoles already have HDTVs, then Sony/Microsoft can't count on later HDTV adoption to boost their sales.
And I think that's odd, because my immediate reaction was: "If HDTVs are already this heavily adopted among gaming enthusiasts, and the Wii is still outselling the PS3 and 360, that means that HD isn't that big a deal to most people." Am I missing something here? Because if people who own gaming consoles already have HDTVs, then Sony/Microsoft can't count on later HDTV adoption to boost their sales.
That wasn't the point I was getting at. I think the market has already proven that consumers prefer price and innovation to fancy graphics, HD or not. We didn't need this data to see that the Wii is clobbering its HD competition.
My point is that these penetration rates prove that HD isn't irrelevant at this point in time, as many people have argued. For an analogy, suppose that the PS1 had launched in 1994 installed with a DVD player (the DVD standard wasn't actually finalized until the next year, but bear with me). Critics would be saying, "What a waste of money! DVDs aren't going to be widely used for another 5 years!" Meanwhile, Sony and supporters of this move would be saying, "Ah, but in 5 years you'll see that it was worth it!" The critics in this case would be right, because DVD wouldn't be relevant for 5 years. It would be an expensive move that would benefit very few.
This is the situation a lot of people are claiming HDTV is in right now: something that will matter in a few years, but that isn't widely used enough to matter right now. This data shows that they're wrong -- that HDTV penetration is extremely high among console gamers. And whether they think they need HD support or not, that means that a large portion of gamers stand to benefit from it, and therefore its implementation is not irrelevant.
I've never been concerned with how these moves affect sales or profits or purchasing decisions. What I care about is how people's experience can be improved by this technology. That's why I think HD support is a great thing.
To some extent, people's desire for HD video is a different issue from their ability to benefit from it. But on that question, there are a couple things to consider besides just HDTV ownership rates among gamers. First, gamers are actually hooking their consoles up to their HDTVs and not just slapping them on the old TV in the den; and second, they're connecting them with HD cables (component is the most common). If the only reason they wanted an HDTV is because their old TV broke and they couldn't find another cheap one, or because they like the pretty flat design, they wouldn't bother to do these things. This proves that it's more than coincidence that new console owners are buying HDTVs -- they actually are concerned with maximizing their picture quality, and not just pouncing on every new product. I think that's evidence that gamers do care about HD, at least once they have the opportunity to utilize it.
That's my view. Other people might have a different agenda with this data.
