HDTV buyers want games, movies, not TV shows
Canada's MarketNews Daily has the scoop on a Frank Magid Associates report which says only 47 percent of this year's HDTV buyers have any intention of watching high-definition TV programming on their new sets, down from 63 percent last year. According to the article, many HDTV buyers are "perfectly content using their HD set simply for DVD and video game playback."Why aren't many people watching TV on their HDTVs? Confusion about subscription models and network support is partly to blame -- 40 percent of survey respondents could only name one HD-capable TV network. This is in stark contrast to console makers who are taking pains to tout the superiority of their box's high-def capabilities.
Despite the lack of interest in high-def TV programming, 46 percent of respondents who are planning on buying a TV in the next year reported being at least "somewhat likely" to go the HD route. Which is to say it looks like HD adoption is finally poised to take off. Maybe someone should tell Nintendo.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
kiwi @ Nov 29th 2006 3:16PM
That's pretty surprising, considering that HD TV shows are probably the most dramatic difference in quality out of those 3 medias listed.
Standard def vs High def tv shows are like night and day.
Although, when it comes to DVDs, I'm sure that most people just mean "widescreen", not necessarily HDTV. Since it will be a while before high definition movies (HD DVD or bluray) catch on.
Wargazm @ Nov 29th 2006 3:16PM
can you even buy new SD sets anymore?
TOM @ Nov 29th 2006 3:18PM
for me this is untrue.
I BUY my movies on hd dvd.you cant buy tv shows on hd yet ,other than very few or on xbox live.
I've bought 5 shows , no movies because I cant own them.
Pip @ Nov 29th 2006 3:21PM
HD Television is really awesome, but the lack of inexpensive HD-DVRs and cable companies putting CableCards on "back order" for months on end really throws a wrench into the whole idea.
People DO want to watch HD Television, but they need to be able to watch it when they want, and how they want.
baby sea tuna @ Nov 29th 2006 3:26PM
#1, I totally agree. I go out of my way to not watch SD TV shows because, well, they look like dogshit (especially really dark ones like 24)...though I guess I didn't have a problem with SD until I saw just how much better the HD ones looked.
Yaktastic @ Nov 29th 2006 3:29PM
@2
yes you can,
in fact i am in a bit of a connundrum myself about this. I need a new tv for my bedroom. I am struggling with whether to get a new main TV and move my old on into my room, or just buy a new cheapo small one. Even replacing the main one, i cannot decide whether i want to go the HD route yet... i don't have a whole lot of money to spend and I don't think i can justify the purchase because for all intents and purposes is requires me to upgrade my TV service (an expense that is not small, especially since i have Tivo, so it would require HDTivo in one room plus the service, and something different in my bedroom, etc.)
I was going to buy a nice EDTV for pretty cheap a few months ago but the money didn't appear, and now the model i wanted to buy is no longer available...
the other issue is getting a tv with the inputs you need/want. I know there are patch bays and I could easily build my own, but the amount of signal interference and loss that happens in the switch boxes i have seen is unacceptable to me.
Buying a TV is rough if you have actually needs and desires, and for the 17 people who were able to get the good deals last weekend on all of those 1080i tv's at best buy, etc, may have gotten a bargain, but if you looked at the specs on the models offered (even if there were only about 3 per store) would have seen a lot of shortcommings. (one composite in, one componenet and that's it, nevermind the 1080i +PS3 = 480p problem - though that will likely be fixed before any of these people ever even see a ps3)
El Tiante @ Nov 29th 2006 3:32PM
This really is surprising. Watching “Heroes” in HD and Beck on SNL on my Sony XBR2 40” was transcendent. Sports in HD are simply amazing. It’s hard to watch the SD stuff after you’ve had a taste of HD.
Oh, and Lost Planet Multi is stunning too
Lex @ Nov 29th 2006 3:44PM
This doesn't really surprise me really. I think by now most people realize there isn't alot of HD programing. With digital cable and just about all the channels my household gets maybe 20 to 30 HD channels and then most of what's on those channels aren't worth watching.
Not to mention that many of the programs on the HD channels aren't even in HD. I think people are just looking at what they are getting more realistically and the rosy idea of HDTV with everything in HD is starting to disappear.
Jeff @ Nov 29th 2006 3:44PM
"It’s hard to watch the SD stuff after you’ve had a taste of HD. "
I agree, and I think there's something wrong with this survey. Who doesn't know, in this day and age and with the near-constant advertising wars going on, that you can't just get an HD-capable cable or satellite box and be on your way? It's neither difficult nor expensive - the same phone call you'd make to hook up your cable regardless, and HD is thrown in for free on every cable network I know of. (Satellite does charge extra.)
I can believe that maybe 15-20% of HDTV buyers don't know how to get HDTV. But damn near 50%? And only 40% can even name one HD network? Sheesh, ever heard of ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and the WB, for starters? You could literally recite the alphabet and hit one of these networks by accident. I don't have much faith in humanity, but not even I think the public is this clueless.
Anywho, yeah, I actually bought my HDTV after getting completely disgusted with the compression artifacts I was noticing in my SD digital cable during football games, which actually made them difficult to follow. The ball would disappear into macroblocks on almost every play. The experience watching sports in HD is almost ridiculously better. It's like when you don't realize how bad your eyes are and then you put on your first pair of glasses. All of a sudden, you can see clearly when you didn't even realize how blurry your vision really was before.
Now I just stick up around the 700's on my cable box (I do think *this* is a problem - cable boxes should really just default to HD if they detect an HD connection and an HD feed from that channel is being broadcast), I don't even bother with 2-13 anymore.
Spore @ Nov 29th 2006 3:45PM
This is a poll of "potential" buyers. They obviously haven't gone to their buddies house and switched between SD ABC and HD ABC. Not to mention upscaling SD cable/satellite looks fairly crap on a HDTV.
John @ Nov 29th 2006 3:46PM
It's not all that surprising when you look at the programming content available in HD. I have DirecTV HD service and have had the same basic 10 or so channels the last 2 years. If you like sports it's decent, but overall the programming isn't there yet. Discovery HD is very good. TNT, Bravo, etc. aren't so great.
Put it this way, if everything on TV was broadcast in HD I'd watch it a lot more. I get more use with games and movies (though no HD Movie option for me yet...still wait and see).
Beaudry @ Nov 29th 2006 3:46PM
I have a 65" Toshiba HDTV that only use for video games and movies. For watching regular t.v. I still use a 32" standard set.
HD for t.v. is still such a work in progress. I was spending an extra $35/month or so for the privledge. The cable company's DVR is pure junk compared to my trusty old Tivo. I probably had a total of 15 channels in HD and half of them I would never watch. Basketball and Animal Planet look awsome in HD, but I don't care about basketball or the animals. Besides, only 2 of the 4 networks were in HD in my area.
Yes, it was pretty sweet to watch primetime t.v. in high-def, but it just wasn't worth the hassle.
Jeff @ Nov 29th 2006 3:49PM
"I think by now most people realize there isn't alot of HD programing."
Huh? Every scripted prime time TV show on every network is in HD, plus almost all sports, the major night-time talk shows and even some reality shows. All the movie channels have an HD channel, then you do have 24 hour HD channels like HDNet and InHD. Heck, even our local news here in NYC is in HD now (WNBC, which also broadcasts their morning show in HD).
Next you're gonna tell me that people won't buy HD sets because they're "too expensive". It's time to retire arguments like this; they are no longer true.
Hinkmania @ Nov 29th 2006 3:50PM
I use it for movies, tv and video games. Heck, my cable box is connected via HDMI.
jear-ed @ Nov 29th 2006 3:53PM
those comparisons mean nothing, the games are obviously just being ported over. Why would the developers go through extra trouble to make the games just look barely better, that is if the PS3 even really is more powerful.
Tom @ Nov 29th 2006 3:54PM
So 46% of people buying a Tv in the next year are somewhat likely to get a HDTV? Erm wow do you realise what a low percentage that is. Somewhat likely probably means less than around 70% will, thats only 70% of 46%. Then there are 54% of people who will be buying a tv in the next year who aren't going to get a hdtv. It will probably be at least a few more years before they even consider buying another tv.
Then there are all those people who aren't even considering buying a new tv anytime soon.
If think you guys have an odd view of something taking off.
Robotic House Plant @ Nov 29th 2006 3:56PM
I'd watch more television shows in HD if they offered them. There's just a small selection now, mostly in the evenings and only certain networks and stations. Some of my favorite programs on certain channels don't even offer HD broadcasting, such as SciFi Network or Bravo.
Eddie @ Nov 29th 2006 4:04PM
HDTV ADVOCATES VS SDTV USERS.
GO GO GO
Kamalot @ Nov 29th 2006 4:12PM
"it looks like HD adoption is finally poised to take off"
Cool. When it does take off, Nintendo will have another console ready to take advantage of it. 5 years ins't far away. That's plenty of time for a large chunk of the population to buy an HDTV set.
Nintendo is selling consoles TODAY. As such, they are set to take advantage of the largest number of TVs available (the SD kind) at a very affordable price.
Todd @ Nov 29th 2006 4:13PM
I think this just goes to prove that HDTV isn't going to bring TV out of the dark ages like some uber-geeks would like to think. It still has a long way to go. At least Nintendo understands this.
Also if you can't go back to SDTV once you've seen HDTV then you are pretty pathetic. Sure it's nice and I enjoy watching one while I'm on my lunch break at work, but I don't go home and whine to my wife that our 20" SDTV has to go because I've got a taste of a 50" HDTV. That's like saying you can't watch any old movies because once you've got a taste for color you just can't go back to B&W.
Evil Inside @ Nov 29th 2006 4:13PM
I would imagine the reason for such low numbers of people getting HD sets to watch tv shows in HD can be directly related to how many people use DVRs and the web to watch their favorite TV shows.
TV watching habits are greatly changing with the advent of internet video, DVRs and download services such as iTunes and now Xbox Live.
TV viewers have been given the ablity to watch TV whenever they want, not when the network decides they should watch it.
kiwi @ Nov 29th 2006 4:15PM
"the lack of inexpensive HD-DVRs"
Who actually buys their own DVR? I pay 10 bucks a month for a HD-DVR from my cable company...
bran @ Nov 29th 2006 4:19PM
I had time warner, now it's switched to comcast, but my HD channels are all the way up on channel 800 and up. I have 3 NBC's, CBS's, ABC's, FOX's, and others. They're the have the same shows, but why make it so mind boggling?
I never go to the 800 range for hd. When HD is coming to the regular channel numbers, then I'll watch HDTV, for now, movies and games.
bubba @ Nov 29th 2006 4:27PM
People don't realize that you can hook up a nice, small amplified antenna and recieve a lot of HD shows if your HDTV has a built in reciever. Where I'm at I get NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, CW, MyRDC all in HD and a local UNC channel that airs a lot of documentaries in HD. All for free! I would think that the cost of cable/sat plus the cost of their hd services keep people away. besides, most of those services compress their HD signal and it comes out lookng like crap anyway. They look awful in all the stores too. But the over-the-air channels (at least the ones in my area) are uncompressed and look fantastic. I can actually count the strands of wire on the microphone on Letterman's desk!
Evan @ Nov 29th 2006 4:34PM
Watch tv on my HDTV? I didn't even connect my HDTV to a cable feed until weeks after I bought it, and that was only because a friend wanted to see how well my unit processed a SD cable signal.
I'm fully aware of what shows and networks are available in HD, and I'm still not going to subscribe to it.
Greg @ Nov 29th 2006 4:34PM
Confusion over programming? If you're confused about how to find HD channels, you shouldn't have a job that pays you enough to BUY a HDTV. I bought a 1080p 50" Samsung DLP a few months ago. HDTV is so sick I find myself watching stupid crap like the sunrise at Yellowstone Park and I don't even have to be stoned! I bought about 75% for TV and 25% for the 360.
Tim @ Nov 29th 2006 4:40PM
"HD Television is really awesome, but the lack of inexpensive HD-DVRs and cable companies putting CableCards on "back order" for months on end really throws a wrench into the whole idea."
Is that really an issue for people? Maybe I'm spoiled because I live in the NYC market, but my HD-DVR is $9 a month extra on my bill, and my HD signal is free. I have Cablevision.
hoos30 @ Nov 29th 2006 4:49PM
If the article was written about Canada, I think I read somewhere that most of their local stations are not yet broadcasting in HD. That could explain some of the bias. Here in DC I get all major networks in HD by use of a small antenna and I'll never go back. The only thing I need is to rig up a PC with DVR and I'll be set.
Sanchinos @ Nov 29th 2006 4:52PM
Not sure if the data collected for this was from Canadians, but if so the numbers make more sense than most of you think. In Canada, HDTV has yet to become any sort of standard. The FCC in the US has required all networks to become HDTV digital by 2010. There is no such requirements for Canadian broadcasters. Further to that, there is no incentive for them to make the switch as they have to do it at their own expense. I believe only 3 cities in Canada - Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal even offer HDTV over the air - and even then, it's only one or two channels. To get HDTV in Canada you need a cable box or satellite, which is like taking it in the ass with no lube because the prices they charge up here for that stuff is asinine! The CRTC has handed the broadcasting companies a monopoly and have only helped to stagnate the industry as a whole by not being progressive with HDTV standardization.
Derbeste @ Nov 29th 2006 5:36PM
So less than half of respondents (I say respondents because we have no idea conducted their survey) are SOMEWHAT likely to go HD in an unspecified period of time and that means someone should tell Nintendo the HD era is about to "take off"?
I'm embarrased for you.
I think Nintendo can figure it out all on their own when consumers "tell" Nintendo by putting their money where their mouth is.
Cuz people ALWAYS do right?
Evan @ Nov 29th 2006 5:40PM
Here in Canada, for the months Rogers cable was offering 6 months free HD service (if you sign up for a full year) with 16 HD channels. BestBuy and FutureShop were automatically giving those coupons to everyone who bought an HDTV. Also, BestBuy has a side-by-side demonstration of HDTV vs SDTV on identical Samsung HDTVs, as part of the display for Bell Express View digital satellite tv. They're trying, but people just aren't biting.
SuperChuck @ Nov 29th 2006 6:31PM
Lack of quality HD programming probably plays in, too...
I don't have any interest in watching birds fly over a lake. I want to watch the stuff I watch in SD, but in HD.
Josh @ Nov 29th 2006 7:09PM
I doubt many people don't "intend" to watch HD TV shows on their HDTVs, but it's just that the HD TV Networks and cable and satellite providers have made getting HD TV shows very difficult for the average consumer, in addition to being very expensive.
Thryon @ Nov 29th 2006 7:18PM
Once you watch hockey in HD, you never go back.....
Psaakyrn @ Nov 29th 2006 8:12PM
There's a problem. It's about half of the people WHO WANTS TO GET A TV. Meaning, that since there's no mention of what percentage of people actually wants a new TV to begin with, I'm assuming the working percentage is far lower.
The ZeroCorpse @ Nov 29th 2006 8:44PM
I don't get all the people saying they don't want to pay extra to get their channels in HD... WHAT extra? HD Programming is FREE if you have an antenna and an HD tuner. Once you've watched Heroes in HD, you'll hate having to settle for SD, and you don't have to pay a dime to watch it in HD.
Each of the big non-cable networks is currently broadcasting most of their prime time programming in HD. You just need to have an antenna connected.
The other issue that is confusing consumers is that the retailers are being FRICKING IDIOTS about it. They display their HDTVs by hooking them up to a standard DVD player, and people look at the 480p image on the screen in Best Buy or Circuit City and say "meh" because they think that's HD and it's not (even though a lot of retail sales people say it is because THEY DON'T KNOW, EITHER). It's SD on an HD screen. Once you see HD programs on an HD screen, the difference is instantly obvious, and you resent that the retailers are misrepresenting HDTV so badly.
I don't have cable right now. I get all my network programming in HD over the air. My cable shows are downloaded from iTunes or from Xbox Live, or from other internet sources (The Fix on adultswim.com, for example). I don't have to pay for cable because I get everything I want without it, and in better quality than Comcast can provide with their crappy compression.
Negativecool @ Nov 30th 2006 12:40AM
Hmm...I would be more interested in buying an HD set for TV if the prices in my area are reasonable. And reasonable in my book is 40-50 dollars a month. I can't justify paying more than 600 dollars a year on a "purty picture"...(If you can justify that and you bash the PS3 you're a damn hypocrite)
HD in my area is somewhere in the 60-70 dollar a month range...Waaaaaay outa line for me. Plus the paltry amount of actual HD programming...No thanks.
Derbeste @ Nov 30th 2006 10:08AM
woops....reread the post and noticed it said within the next year.....
That, in fact....does change things.....
1 year is approximately 20% of the Wii's life....
IF 46% of consumers do go HD, that puts Nintendo 26% behind the HD market PER YEAR.
However....if TV is not a big deal to even CURRENT HD consumers, perhaps the Wii market will overlook the lack of HD support for another 2-3 years. I know I would excuse it if the rest of the experience is satisfying. I'd be BEYOND surprised (and miffed) if they don't start supporting HD in their next console outing.
Game Artist @ Nov 30th 2006 5:09PM
Trouble is that HD is pretty worthless on sets smaller than about 30" or so. Well, unless you're practically sitting on top of the set. There is simply a limit to how much detail the human can resolve at normal seating distance. Trouble is the majority of people are still watching TV on relatively small sets. The quality of signal you get with analog cable, etc is another matter. But there is nothing inherrently wrong with 480i on smaller sets. Just look at DVDs.
Navstar @ Nov 30th 2006 11:10PM
Personally, I don't think the price increase in HD cable/sat is worth the limited number of programs available in HD. They want me to pay more just to get a few shows on a few channels in HD.
The majority of stuff is still upsampled and pillarboxed. And the few that aren't don't really give me anything more than normal SD shows.
Oooh -- I can see CNN's set in high-def! I can see every greasy pore on Sawyer's face on Lost!