By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nov 2006 Patchter: Nintendo is going to "look" like the clear winner in 07.

Desroko on 07 October 2007
Soriku said:
makingmusic476 said:
Soriku said:
@making

No it won't.
Great counter-argument there. ;)

 


 

You want one? Currently in the US 25% of the people in the US have HDTVs. 50% of those (12.5 mil) don't know it has HD. HD adoption rates in the US increase 7% every year. It'll be around 5-7 years before it'll become HD, that's when the new systems come out.

 Half of 25% ofthe US population is a bit more than 12.5 mil. You mean 12.5%.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 07 October 2007

Is there any evidence that demonstrates that the second people buy a HDTV they abandon all standard definition signals? Did Blu-Ray and HD-DVD adoption jump to 30% of the market because all those HDTV owners needed a Higher definition signal? Are all TV stations jumping on the HDTV bandwagon in fear of being obsolete in 2 years?

The answer to all these questions is no ...

Currently it is reasonable to expect that most people are buying HDTVs because they are (pretty much) the only large or flat pannel TVs that are available anymore; in other words the higher definition display is not the main selling feature. It will probably be many years (after all TV signals are not only digital but HD) before people start being overly critical of 480p; currently most people who own HDTVs see their broadcast 480p signal and believe that it is HD.



makingmusic476 on 07 October 2007
Soriku said:
makingmusic476 said:
Soriku said:
@making

No it won't.
Great counter-argument there. ;)

 


 

You want one? Currently in the US 25% of the people in the US have HDTVs. 50% of those (12.5 mil) don't know it has HD. HD adoption rates in the US increase 7% every year. It'll be around 5-7 years before it'll become HD, that's when the new systems come out.

Like I said in my earlier post, HDTV adoption rates have passed up the 30% mark. It happened back in June, according to IGN.  Also, adoption rates have been increasing yearly, with retailer HEAVILY pushing HD in all it's forms (TVs, media, and gaming) this holiday season.  They will push it even moreso next holiday season.

Please read my post next time. 



makingmusic476 on 07 October 2007
HappySqurriel said:

Is there any evidence that demonstrates that the second people buy a HDTV they abandon all standard definition signals? Did Blu-Ray and HD-DVD adoption jump to 30% of the market because all those HDTV owners needed a Higher definition signal? Are all TV stations jumping on the HDTV bandwagon in fear of being obsolete in 2 years?

The answer to all these questions is no ...

Currently it is reasonable to expect that most people are buying HDTVs because they are (pretty much) the only large or flat pannel TVs that are available anymore; in other words the higher definition display is not the main selling feature. It will probably be many years (after all TV signals are not only digital but HD) before people start being overly critical of 480p; currently most people who own HDTVs see their broadcast 480p signal and believe that it is HD.


 It's sad, but so very true.



lolita on 07 October 2007
Desroko said:

Yeah, the Texans don't really suck anymore. They're not an elite team yet, but they're above-average in a tough division.

Edit so I can pretend like I'm not derailing the thread:

To sum up the anti-HD as an unstoppable force argument

1. Picture quality increase is slight

2. Price increase is not

3. HD-DVD/Blu-Ray offers little new content that can't be done on DVD, which was a huge step above VHS

4. The difference in price between the old and new formats is again quite large

5. HD content doesn't actually look like crap on SD

6. Graphics are important to many consumers, but not overwhelmingly so. Nintendo's hardware lineup (and their entire handheld history, in fact) proves this


We seem totally ignored... T_T

Ah well anyways, I agree with you!



Around the Network
Desroko on 07 October 2007
RolStoppable said:
Desroko said:

The comparison loses impact when the two examples aren't really similar. Saying something like "Andy Roddick has a better chance of beating Roger Federer in straight sets" or "Jamaica will sooner win a gold medal in bob-sledding" is better. Both are obviously not going to happen, but they're still more likely that what leo's predicting. I can't speak for the Austrian team, but the Texans example doesn't pack a lot of punch because it's not overwhelmingly, 99.99~% improbable, just improbable.


Okay, I understand. 

At first I just wanted to post the example of the austrian football (called soccer in america) team but then I thought some people might not be familiar with the strength of this team, so I posted an american football example as well.

Does it really require as much impact as in your examples to make a little bit fun of leo-j's predictions? 


I guess not. I'm just worried that since it's so easy in any case, we'll become lazy in our mocking if we're not constantly trying to push the envelope. Actually, I'm just an NFL geek who's being picky.

SnesTea on 07 October 2007
twesterm said:
BenKenobi88 said:
I find it sad that the first 3 posts took up the same amount of space as like, 6 normal posts...

Perfect example why we should limt the sig space. PLEASE.

 NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Though I should make my signature shorter..... 

 



naznatips on 07 October 2007
Desroko said:
RolStoppable said:
Desroko said:

The comparison loses impact when the two examples aren't really similar. Saying something like "Andy Roddick has a better chance of beating Roger Federer in straight sets" or "Jamaica will sooner win a gold medal in bob-sledding" is better. Both are obviously not going to happen, but they're still more likely that what leo's predicting. I can't speak for the Austrian team, but the Texans example doesn't pack a lot of punch because it's not overwhelmingly, 99.99~% improbable, just improbable.


Okay, I understand.

At first I just wanted to post the example of the austrian football (called soccer in america) team but then I thought some people might not be familiar with the strength of this team, so I posted an american football example as well.

Does it really require as much impact as in your examples to make a little bit fun of leo-j's predictions?


 

I guess not. I'm just worried that since it's so easy in any case, we'll become lazy in our mocking if we're not constantly trying to push the envelope. Actually, I'm just an NFL geek who's being picky.

Speaking of being NFL geeks I just got home from the Colts game.  They just dominated the Bucs.  

On topic, in a rare instance Soriku is correct.  Many surveys have been done and they show < 50% of HDTV owners even know what HD is.  I'm sure half of the remaining group only have a vague idea of it being "better."  It's pretty ridiculous to think that anything is overtaking DVD as primary format before 2010 at the earliest.  Honestly I just don't think it's going to happen at all with HD-DVD or Blu Ray.  Both will die to a stronger format that actually makes a difference in your movie watching experience.



soccerdrew17 on 07 October 2007
naznatips said:
Desroko said:
RolStoppable said:
Desroko said:

The comparison loses impact when the two examples aren't really similar. Saying something like "Andy Roddick has a better chance of beating Roger Federer in straight sets" or "Jamaica will sooner win a gold medal in bob-sledding" is better. Both are obviously not going to happen, but they're still more likely that what leo's predicting. I can't speak for the Austrian team, but the Texans example doesn't pack a lot of punch because it's not overwhelmingly, 99.99~% improbable, just improbable.


Okay, I understand.

At first I just wanted to post the example of the austrian football (called soccer in america) team but then I thought some people might not be familiar with the strength of this team, so I posted an american football example as well.

Does it really require as much impact as in your examples to make a little bit fun of leo-j's predictions?


 

I guess not. I'm just worried that since it's so easy in any case, we'll become lazy in our mocking if we're not constantly trying to push the envelope. Actually, I'm just an NFL geek who's being picky.

Speaking of being NFL geeks I just got home from the Colts game. They just dominated the Bucs.

On topic, in a rare instance Soriku is correct. Many surveys have been done and they show < 50% of HDTV owners even know what HD is. I'm sure half of the remaining group only have a vague idea of it being "better." It's pretty ridiculous to think that anything is overtaking DVD as primary format before 2010 at the earliest. Honestly I just don't think it's going to happen at all with HD-DVD or Blu Ray. Both will die to a stronger format that actually makes a difference in your movie watching experience.


 unless blu ray pulls out a strong lead after this holiday tehn it will make less and less of a difference.  also, hd tv is the last big upgrade in visual technology in the near future.  the human eye just flat out cant notice much more.



my pillars of gaming: kh, naughty dog, insomniac, ssb, gow, ff

i officially boycott boycotts.  crap.

naznatips on 07 October 2007

Well that's kind of the point Soccerdrew. It already doesn't make much difference visually. We have hit a wall, and what is going to succeed DVD is going to be a matter of convenience not definition. I can't see Blu-ray getting a strong lead this holiday with HD-DVD's acquisition of Paramount and a $200 HD-DVD player out there. It's just going to be a stalemate.

I think downloadable movies are likely to hit it big before Blu-ray or HD-DVD ever gets much ground. DVD sales still account for 90% + of movie sales. It's just not going to change.