Majority, I would say, no. If the majority did care, the Wii would be a non-entity, cause the graphics so far have been all last gen.

Looks like it will be SD signal rather than HD signal.

 Actually there is a converter you can buy for when the signal become digital to put it on a standard TV as we have today.

Graphics are a nice perk but I wouldn't buy a game based on that alone for sure.

Good graphics and great gameplay are both very important to me, but I would rather a good looking game that plays great than the other way around. My opinion of the Wii is that they knew they were gambling with the Wii so they didn't push the graphics envelope. If Nintendo knew then what they know now about demand for the Wii, I think they would have considered a little better GPU and CPU. If they had done so, I'd already have bought one, but there just isn't anything that compelling just yet. I am so thoroughly disappointed in the Wii's graphics capability that I have not bought one even though there are already a handful of games now or on the near term horizon I'd like to play.

In the U.S. I thought I had heard of the converters being subsidized for poorer families making it less likely to see a huge leap after any type of pass over. Also just seems to me that its still kind of a taste thing to a degree since my old dell monitor can technically display in 720p but was a bit of a requirement for games when you sat so close you could notice the smaller details. For the most part I just don't think most people care, I mean I can speak from personal experience of seeing dvd's played on the PS3 in 480p on a 42" HDTV and bluerays on the same set that there is very little difference in quality I mean yes if you focus you can pick out a few sharpness issues if you look for them but the thing is on games and in movies I'm usually not looking for things like this and unless I do they usually just pass over me without me ever caring if it was in 720p 1080i or 480p. Anyways graphics have never really been a big concern for me overall I mean bought a NES because it had games I wanted to play bought a PS1 because it had games I wanted to play and bought an Xbox for games, yeah a game like Ninja Gaiden can look great but its not the selling point to me personally. I mean really haven't been let down in games I considered worth playing since Mario 64.

Yes, and those are in use RIGHT NOW, HOWEVER, this is not an ANALOG converter, as ANALOG signals will be shut off, and there will be nothing to convert.

We will be using Digital Set top Boxes.

Does anyone here believe that the games last generation were better than those released during, say the Genesis/SNES generation? Did anyone who was playing games then feel like they're having more fun now? I bet the answer is "no." If so, then that shows you what graphics are worth. If graphics were a particularly relevant portion of the fun factor, we would literally be able to say: "I am having much more fun with my video games now" every time a new generation of systems is released. Is that the case?

I can't believe people use antennas and stuff still. We just use our cable box since about 20 years ago....

The majority of people own standard definition televisions so for them it probably doesn't matter as much as it does for people with HD tvs. Chances are an owner of an HD who's into videogames would likely want to have either a PS3 or Xbox 360 just to see what his tv is capable of. Also anyone into computer games is likely also into graphics because it's just the way computer games are, constantly getting better looking and raising the bar. Computer gaming also tends to be more expensive and higher end so those people likely take graphics very seriously.