Joystiq Poll Results: HD Ready?

by Blake Snow { Nov 28th 2005 at 11:00AM }

Roughly 59% of Joystiq readers currently don't have an HD TV set. It should be noted that HD is considered a luxury item, so some individuals may have voted "yes" out of shear want rather than for poll accuracy.

Regardless, thanks to all those that voted.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Chris @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I don't think it's luxury any more. I've seen a few HDTVs that are now $500 less than the 52" "regular" TV I bought 3 years ago. You can get 40"+ HDTVs for $1000+ when they used to be $2000-$3000

epobirs @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

A good followup question would be how many of those not 'HD ready' are planning to buy within a new TV within the next year and whether they'll spend more for HD based on the growing sources of material to display.

Also, for the same amount of money, would you buy a significantly smaller HDTV over a NTSC or EDTV monitor. For instance, a 42" 1080i capable screen vs. a 55" EDTV display?

Osiris @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Does it count if you plan on using a CRT monitor to play 360? Surely thats Hi def, and very affordable.

Frank @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I don't have an hd yet and probably won't for about another year or so but i do have a pretty sweet computer moniter that i will utilize for the next gen consoles. As for just watching tv it does not yet matter too much to me but since everything is supposedly going to switch to hd in 2009(?) then i will eventually make the switch.

mat @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

This proves Nintendo's point.

Glenn @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

mat - how so? It's an internet poll, it means nothing. But still, despite the way Joystiq spins it, anywhere near 41% would be a huge number. A far smaller number of Xbox owners subscribe to Live, does that mean MS should have scrapped that?

gjd @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Chris, you've done nothing to convince me that they're not Luxury anymore. Maybe where you live that's not luxury, but no way would I consider a $1000 or more TV *not* a luxury good. Oh, and a 52" Standard Definition TV several years ago, I would consider a luxury good, too.

mike @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

#3 i agree but even 26" HDTV's can be had for sub �500 now

and before people say you can appreciate HDTV on a 26" tv how have pc owners coped with 17" monitors for all these years ;-) and a 26" LCD TV is equivalent of a 28" CRT

mike @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Mat how does this prove nintendo is right when the MAJORITY either are ready for or plan to get a HDTV?

Just image in 3 years time it coul dbe 70% or more

Tim Marman @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I'm actually sort of surprised the number is so low on a site like this. (Well, certainly say Engadget would be higher than Joystiq readers, but even still).

I've had a 36" (Sony) CRT for a few years now. At the time, I got a GREAT deal with pricematching etc that brought total cost down to something like $1,700 after taxes. This was like $500 below MSRP. Earlier this year I added a 26" Syntax Olevia LCD to replace my old 26" from college - at a cost of a little more than $500.

So like Chris said, I hardly consider HDTV a true "luxury" item anymore. It amazes me that anyone would buy a new television and NOT get HDTV.

Like TiVO (DVR) and the Tablet PC, I think it's truly one of those things you don't appreciate until you experience it - and once you do there's no turning back!

MosquitoControl @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Why would anyone buy a 26" HDTV? You get no real noticeable benefit.

I live in a house with a 51" incher, thanks to a roommate, and its beautiful. I suppose I'll lose it in a year and a half, haha, hopefully then I'll get my own.

Nintendo neglecting HD is painful. Going from the 360 to the Revolution might not be easy on the eyes. But we play the GC without progressive scan (and the Xbox in 720p when supported) and still spend the vast, vast bulk of the time with the GC. Smash Brothers is unstoppable regardless of resolution.

SilverSurfer @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Keep in mind the 41% is highly inflated with respect to the general population. Remember this site is for techies that love the latest electronic toys and if its only 41% here you can be sure that the percentage of HD users are far less overall.

fatalhashbrown @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Of course you do. I have a 26" Toshiba HDTV in my room that I bought and trust me, there is a benefit. Sure, it's not practical for a home theater or large room solution, but perfect for someone who just has a dorm room or wants to game in there bedroom.

Leomar @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Personally my 57" HDTV isn't going anywhere but there are plenty of places you can get a good HDTV for less than $500, it just matters what size and how badly you want a bulky crt compared to an lcd among other things. Also this post would be better served at Engadget or even HD Beat.

mat @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Look, the poll should read 100% etither HD ready or will be. HD is the future, no doubt about it, but it is not the present.

Consoles are a temporary even disposable product. Why should Nintendo charge for HD support now, when the majority (vast majority) of gamers don't even have it. I guarantee they'll support it next gen.

As far as MS scrapping Live, maybe they should. With a small percentage of gamers even getting on Live, even for the flagship Halo 2, maybe thjey should evaluate their strategy. Hell, maybe they should evaluate their entire Xbox strategy.

Art Guy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

SilverSurfer - Thanks, I was just about to say the same thing.

I think the biggest reason that HDTV hasn't taken as fast as it could is lack of programming. There are only a few HD channels available right now. I think the Xbox 360 and PS3 will definitely encourage people to go out and buy HDTVs.

Lets not also forget that the average age of a gamer these days is 30. Most 30 year olds can pretty much afford to buy what ever they want within reason.

jake @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

SilverSurfer nails it, the average reader here is -not- representative of the average person out there.

Is it still very much a luxury item, TV networks are late at adopting HD format at large for all broadcasts because the average person out there doesn't have a HD set; considering how it's not mandatory for any kind of entertainment (yes there are benefits, but a traditional set does the trick just as well, and costs a lot less).

My 2004 24" flat-screen TV (non-HD) is fine, I have no reason to buy an HDTV yet so I don't even consider myself "I will be". 24" is the max that fits in my flat anyway, the day I move out so I can fit a bigger TV in my livingroom hasn't come.

Art Guy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

mat - Based on your logic:

� Since not everyone uses the internet, shut it down.
� Since not everyone has a surround sound systems, games and movies should be limited to mono.
� Since not every game on the Revolution will take advantage of the movement sensors they should scrap the whole "wand" controller.
� Since not everyone is sick, so we don't need antibiotics.

When did being innovative become a bad thing?

turtle @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I can believe that most people do not have HDTVs. It's not an item you go out and buy every day. My TV just died after 16 years, so I went out and bought a new one. And I almost didn't get HDTV, but I ended up with one thinking that I probably won't make a TV purchase again for a while.

This is why I don't understand Blu-Ray or HD DVD. Most people aren't going to be able to exploit them yet, so I think it's going to take years before they catch on and outsell DVD.

Also, there's one thing I didn't realize when going to high definition. There's only like about 15 possible channels out of a possible 500 that are in high definition! And most are not in high definition all the time. You end up spending a lot of your time in standard definition.

This is still technology in it's infancy.

Lordgavin @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I still think it's luxury because you can still watch tv without it. I definately will not have a set up for about a year. Things like rent, food, and gas are still important to me.....just a little.

Blue Balloon @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Too expensive to get HDTV right now. SVHS is still good enough for next few years.

Get it straight @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Ugh, Frank #4

In 2009 TV broadcast will fully switch from ANALOG to DIGITAL....not HD silly buns...goes to show you how misinformed the average shmoe is and how HDTV makers will capitalize on their stupidity.

Todd @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

A decent 32" CRT HDTV is still going for around 600 bucks. You can get some for less, but you get what you pay for. Most people are confused about HDTV (heck even the tech savvy are, just look at the comments on the poll post). Once all broadcasts go to digital this will free up a lot of bandwidth so cable companies can provide more HD channels. Once we start seeing more HD formats we'll start seeing more HDTV�s in people�s homes. Until then it will just be early adopters and those people that want the latest and greatest (as per examples of owning multiple sets shown in poll posts). We have 8 channels in HD available where I live and 2 are pay-per-view. Until that number goes up drastically or there is an inexpensive HD media format widely available I'm not going to waste my money. I�d really love to have a HDTV, but only when there is a nice section at my local Wal-Mart/Target for HD media will I drop the cash for one.

mat @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Hey Art Guy...

Based on my logic, if something isn't profitable, it can not and will not sustain itself.

Innovation is vital to progress, but the market decides what innovations are relevant. Innovation for innovations sake is bogus.

* The internet makes money
* The MAJORITY of consumers have at least
stereo sound.
* Don't even know how to address your
rediculous Revolution example.
* Antibiotics save lives, and make MONEY.

But, with a name like Art Guy, I'm sure you have little understanding and not much respect for the market forces that drive capitalism...

elmer @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

It's not the same point.

Not including HD might save up to $100 per unit (40$ dollars on RAM, 50$ on GPU, 10$ on connections - a big deal) on something that adds very very little to gaming. Everything needs to be added up and compared in a COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. And as an example, this frankly is exactly how government spending on drug purchases operate in countrys that provide free health services: the NHS wouldn't buy a drug for a million pounds that saved 50 people suffering a rare disease, if that same million pounds could improve the shelf life of 10 million bandages that results in 75 extra lives saved. Heck they'd trade 50 deaths for 1000 lives improved by 40% (they 'can' quantify quality of life). It's all about the greater good.

In this respect, from a business standpoint Microsoft should have actually considered pulling the plug on Xbox Live. Heck they should consider pulling the plug on Xbox 360. Honestly; 4 billion down the drain, little prospect of winning the market, market gains will only be at further incredible financial loss, future generations will only make the project teneble if they recoup those losses. If I was a Microsoft shareholder and understood the real numbers behind the games market, I'd be very unhappy with what their entertainment division was doing.

The point Nintendo made wasn't that since some people don't have HD, it shouldn't be supported. The point was that ALMOST NO ONE has HD (this poll is hardly reflective of the average), it costs a lot, it barely makes things better and wouldn't sway or disuade people from them anyway. That's why it's not supported.

mat @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

thank you elmer, if I were gay, and in the same room with you, I'd kiss you...

A well made point.

JD @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

okay, everyone thinks they have HDTV, then who here can say they actually own a 1920x1080 native hdtv? you know, that little res known to be full HD...the res that Blu-Ray / HD-DVD and some broadcasters use...

remember kids, scaling 1080i/p to a 1366x768 panel is not '1080' res.

mike @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

JD what a dumb post 720p look so much better than standard def simple as, 1080p tv's are very very expensive

and for the poster that sau 26" is not big enough total rubbish pc gamers have been marveling at the 21" lcd monitors of years a 26~" lcd is the equivalent of a 28" crt

not everyone want there room dominated buya huge tv and remembet a 42" 720p set is just begger pixels compared to a 26" one no more details you just have to site further away or the quality is less

John Lucas @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

The HD argument is stupid.

Listen guys.
HD will be viable once a substantial amount of population owns one.

I don't wanna hear about tech-lovers who buy EVERYTHING technology-wise whether it's worth it or not or that so-called hardcore gamer who invests a lot of money into his gaming experience.

Think OUTSIDE of your own group for once.
Think about everyday people.
People have JUST made the leap into DVD not too long ago.

When you go to stores you see $59, $69, $79 20-inch ol-school TV's & $500, $600, $700 HDTV's. Most people are not willing to pay that much just to have a TV. Those who have a TV and want to trade up may get one, maybe. Sure they might think it's cool to look at but are they gonna buy it?

And someone else had it right in this commentary board.
COST-BENEFIT analysis.

How MUCH of an improvement is noticable from everyday users from regular TV's & HDTV's? They may see a sharper clearer picture but HOW MUCH sharper & clearer & will that difference translate into the 100's of dollars mark-up to make them purchase the HDTV?

Nobody is saying HDTV ain't cool.
They're saying it ain't common.
Until it becomes more common it won't work to focus so heavily on that aspect.
Sure Sony & Microsoft are willing to go in the red just to stay in the game industry but Nintendo is not. And no business that's smart should EVER seek to operate in the red. You're bleeding. In the red.

When TV's went from Black & White to Color you saw a worthwhile difference that made people adopt the new technology.
It's not quite as strong between the TV's we have now & the HDTV's.

Yes it is STILL a luxury item. Only people in gated "exclusive" communities, the jones' keepers & the hood rich will see a reason to want to buy this at this level of price right now & in a few years to come.

Most people use their TV's until they go on the blink. That's usually when people make the tradeup. There are still people using their old living room woodgrained floorset monsters to this day. The old-style TV that could be used as furniture with trinkets & knickknacks sitting on top for decoration. Probably bought in 1981 & they still use it 'cause it works.

I didn't buy a new TV until a couple of years ago when my old one from 15 years or so back went bad. My old one was still made in the style with the big square box that could hold stuff on top of it.
The new one? Went to Wal-Mart. Looked for a 20" or so. Looked for the lowest price. Made sure it had the audio/video hookups. And bought it for about $79 (if I remember correctly).

Still using it. It works fine & I'm in no big hurry to spend 100's to 1000's of dollars just for some slightly sharper visuals.
When I see my digital channels on cable they look just fine.
The same for my games.

After 2009 it'll become more common & THEN the argument will be worth it.
By then the prices will have come down to a more reasonable level & people will be more willing to buy them.

John Lucas

nick @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I said "i will be"!

I BOUGHT OBNE LAST NIGHT AT COSTCO!!!! WOOO HOOOO

madd_matt @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

I have a 27" CRT (with only a coax cable hookup!).

After this Christmas, i may seriously consider an HDTV.

Where I have my TV is a brightly lit room with lots of windows. I can view my current TV fine, but all the big ones seem to have washed out pictures, not as bright.

Does anybody have any advice for buying a TV? Is there a definative guide to shopping for an HDTV out there somewhere? Whats good? What isn't?

Deejay Knight @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM

Dammit if John Lucas didn't just post everything i've thought about HDTV in the back of my mind (even though i've been secretly planning on getting one).

My goal was to wait until Fall of 2007 when the broadcast signal was 'supposed' to shift to digital, THEN buy an HDTV. Why wait? They'll be cheaper then because they need mass-market saturation for them to be profitable.

Well, now that it's been moved to 2009, my TV is gonna have to do me for a lil longer...