Analysts discuss 2006, console futures

all sony and microsoft big talk about HD has made me NOT by their product yet, because i still have an SD set. on the other hand, i have a wii. i want ps3 to win over xbox360 because games like Shadow of the Colossus shows me what Sony's production team is capable of. Locoroco was really fun too. My PSP is stashed away somewhere though, waiting for Crisis Core and I'm enjoying Castlevania:PoR on my DS.

So much talk about how HD will change gaming means I will save up for an good 1080p HD set (probably westinghouse 37" or 42") before i'll get a PS3. I'm sure i'm not alone in this sentiment and labelling HD as neccesary for next-gen gaming has pushed away many buyers. Anyone agree?

For me personally, I was waiting HDTV. My brother got a 360 not too long ago and I wasn't overly impressed. He got Dead Rising and Call of Duty and we didn't think they were that impressive graphically since we had it hooked up to a 27" standard def television.

On Black Friday though I got my HDTV, a 37" 1080p screen from Westinghouse for $900. Now the 360 looks awesome and I'm starting to see what the big deal is. Gears looks amazing and I can finally read the text in Dead Rising.

In my opinion, getting the right tv should come before picking up your next console, unless it's a Wii then it doesn't matter.

people are waiting to buy?

arent the consoles still selling out??


and i love wii but dont shun HD grahpics, they do live up to the hype but on tht token

1080i and 1080p are not 200-300 dallars diffrent

bull. i just got a 360. i have a SD screen with damage to it that causes the sides of the screen to be cut off (ex. only like 2/3 a radar in halo) and i can honestly say the games look much better, not simply slightly. heres hoping for a hd though. dead rising reading kills the eyes.

Well with taxes the Westinghouse came out to about $970. But the sweet thing was I still had by tax return check from late spring.

I tried, but couldn't wait out on getting a 360 before my HD set. Well like raging_evil, i bought my HD set on Black Friday. There is a drastic difference in image quality with an HD tv and an Xbox 360. The games looked good before, and I was on a flat screen EDTV before, but man are they sweet now. I just picked up Gears yesterday, and...OMG. It's crazy...So yeah. Buy the tv first, then get the 360. Also make sure your set up right..make sure the 360 is set to at the least 720p along with the tv. Sorry i do have to recommend the 32" Olevia tv's. They are beautiful and you can find them around for about $500 or so now.

Ive bought every system at launch since the snes, but this round I decided to wait. One because every generation the hardware gets more advanced, and breaks down more often due to the rush to get out the door, and cheap components, and two because there are alot of really great games for the xbox and ps2 that are dirt cheap now, and hold up well if not better than most of the new "next gen" games.

I just got an HD set last week, after playing my 360 on an SD set for over a year. It makes everything clearer, and the text easier to read on most of the games, but it's not a generational leap, just a nice (albeit, very nice) bonus.

This, "gamers with standard TVs will see little difference in graphic quality over the previous system.", is complete bull.

i am saving up money for a 40 inches 1080p. i'll hook it up with my computer and next gen console. my SD tv works fine with my wii. but I'll wait for next gen system second price drop before consider to buy them.
I did check PS3 at Target on a HD TV. To be honest, it looks really beautiful. Game play graphic looks even better than PS2 CG movies. I doubt it will be completely different on SD tv.
Go buy yourself a HD set before consider any of Next gen.

for the last time, stop pinning graphics to only hd sets. gears of war on my 20" cheap-o sdtv could roundhouse kick halo 2 on the aforementioned set any day of the week. you guys are just sounding like ignorant advertisers. sheesh.

Personally, i think HD-TV is the stupidest unneeded invention since bowties, yet somehow it managed to become widely popular in, no surprise there, America-land.

The quality difference is next to none when compared to a 100hz TV (which was a 'big thing' a few years ago) or plasma/LCD. (in which' the contrast is slightly too much on the light side, even, especially showing in white color's eye-burning bright.)

Why do people get "High Definition" TVs, i do not know. And i certainly do not know why in the blue hell should we call this High-Definition "Next Gen", since in my honest opinion, the only console of this batch of consoles that really brings something innovative, was the Wii.

Playstation 3 and Xbox 360, well, they're just cheap PCs that were named consoles because they do not have a native choice for operating systems. Which is still the only single difference(processing power does not matter here) between these 2 and your computer, plus the lack of freely changeable parts.

I'm done rambling, the bottom line still is as such;
High-Definition--Useless like a propellor hat, except this doesn't get you the comic geek image just yet, believe me, it will later.

"We also wonder how the HD-expectations of the PS3 and Xbox 360 impact the market; gamers with standard TVs will see little difference in graphic quality over the previous system."

Joystiq, have you ever actually PLAYED a videogame?

This is such a load of crap it's not funny. It's not just higher resolution to the screen. New gen consoles are capable of:

Higher resolution textures
More polygons
More advanced lighting
more advanced shaders
etc.

I can see a huge, huge difference between Xbox and Xbox 360, on both my SD screen and HD screen. If they're the same without high definition, don't you agree that all Xbox or PS2 games running on 360\PS3 (in HD) look just as good as the new 360\PS3 games? No? Didn't think so. What aout all those Wii VC games? Wii isn't 'HD' but it's capable of higher resolution than the consoles it's emulating. Do SNES games now look as good as 360 ones?...

P.S. This all being said, I do wish my 360 would be capable of a better framerate.

Kanakotka is a tool. Seriously, get your eyes or head checked because something is wrong with one or both. High definition is a beautiful thing, just watch Discovery Atlas and you will not only be amazed at the picture quality and detail, but how much more engaging it is because of how much more realistic the picture is. You almost feel like you have been to the places they are showing and have seriously made me consider taking a vacation to Australia because of how beautiful it looked on my tv. HD is not just about resolution but more colors and more accurate colors at that, better saturation and tones. A better picture in every way possible. If your going to compare xbox and ps to computers than the wii must be as well because it uses a IBM cpu that is based off of their desktop line and a GPU developed bu ATI which, which makes computer GPU's. Of course all three are computers without the OS, except the PS3 which has linux, as many electronics today are such as cellphones. Hell it even has a web browser coming to it your moron. You really need an education. Just because you don't like HD doesn't mean it's not worthwhile, just your worthless opinion and nothing more. Myself and others love it and I am so happy I bought my HDTV. I personally don't see the point in the wii and find it gimmicky. Some people love it, that's fine it's really not for me and I feel I'm getting ripped off paying $250 for it where as someone may feel ripped off paying $400 for a 360, which I consider money well spent. If you cannot justify paying for high def that's fine but there is a big difference in quality there and to deny such is absurd. America-land, WTF? God your dumb.

#10. People are buying HDTVs just as people like you with BW TVs buying Color TVs.

My 360 is currently hooked up to an SDTV and I can definitely see a noticeable deference in graphical quality.

"gamers with standard TVs will see little difference in graphic quality over the previous system."

What a load of crap.

As i thought, someone would snap randomly and start calling people stupid, how mature.

My eyesight is

That
"gamers with standard TVs will see little difference in graphic quality over the previous system"
is the most STUPID comment i've ever read from analyst !
You don't need HDTV at all to see the incredible visual improvment between previous gen and new one.
It's like saying there wasen't any differences between PS2 and PS1 (or even Super NES while we're at it) because it was the same regular TV rez...
Somebody really needs to get a new job !

(odd cut there) below 0.2 for both eyes.

The main 2 differences between a good LCD TV and a HD-TV are as follows: 1. Price 2. The name "HD-TV".
We have tested this on various setups, and between a good LCD TV and a randomly HD-TV, the HD-TV won over quality a few times more, but the maker of the TV matters greatly more than just the plaque stating it's a HD-TV.
Some LCD-TVs just utterly, well, "pwned" HD-TVs in quality and image sharpness, however, of the wide "rogue test's" best TVs put next to eachother, the HD-TV won with a length of a hair.
However, that HD-TV by unmentioned brand (i'm not one for advertising) cost 1200$ more than the best LCD-TV in our tests. I would've picked the LCD-TV anyday.

#10, good sir, before making yourself a complete and utter idiot in front of everyone that reads joystiq, please complete the following checklist.
[]Google before saying stupid stuff you're not sure of.
[](i will say it again so you won't forget it, or miss it accidentally)Do research.
[]Use proper languange.
[]Believe in rule 34.
[]Know that internet arguments are like trying to fist fight a kung-fu master, your girly slaps come back like an iron shovel to the forehead.

Lastly, i never denounced Wii to not be a computer in disguise, however, it is currently very clunky, if not impossible to emulate Wii due to it's innovative controls on a computer, thus i did not refer to it as such.
However, the main difference between most of the consoles for the past few years and PCs are the following:
#No native OS (playstation 3 makes a difference here, making it more of a computer than another consoles, thus even more pointless, really.)
#No changeable parts
#The controller.

Have a nice day.

There's two ways to judge graphics: visual detail and visual quality.

More polygons counts as visual detail, and to an extent, pixel shaders. You're not going to notice it much on an SDTV. It also rarely affects gameplay.

Visual quality consists of things like anti-aliasing, filtering, and texture resolution. This makes a HUGE difference even on standard TVs. Framerates count here, too. This affects gameplay a lot.

Unfortunately, I'm not impressed with the framerates of many games when running in HDTV. Too many slowdowns ruins the graphics no matter how good the still screenshots look. These are consoles, not PCs, and nothing short of perfect 60Hz sync should be acceptable these days.

BTW, the Wii suffers from a lack of visual quality, not just detail. That's what bugs me the most about it. SDTV is just fine for me, but I can't stand blurry textures and jagged edges, especially in freakin' 2006.

Kanakotka:

HDTV matters more once the screen gets big. You haven't mentioned what size TV you were looking at.

A 52" standard definition TV looks like crap. But give it more pixels and a good high definition feed and it really shines.

Also, most LCDs 32" and larger are high definition these days. I'm not sure why you are comparing "LCDs to high definition TVs" because LCD technology can be applied to either standard definition or high definition TVs. Every display technology (CRT, plasma, LCD direct view, LCD projection, LCOS projection, DLP, SED, you name it) can be applied to either SD or HD televisions. So it doesn't really make sense to compare a technology to a class of televisions like HDTVs. Apples and oranges. Or, rather, it is like comparing a type of engine to an entire car or an entire line of cars.

sounds like somebody, not mentioning any names (Kanakotka), is all pissy cause he doesn't have an HD set. therefore has to make the MILLIONS that have embraced the technology seem stupid for their decision. well, i had a 32" PHILIPS SDTV, and the graphics looked worlds better than the xbox and the ps2. i got a 42" HD Westinghouse and it is absolutely gorgeous. so to tell me that HD doesn't matter in terms of the gaming experience, is BS. it comes down to the people that say this are imbeciles and don't have an HD set.

Speaking of analysts, does anyone remember this little gem from last January?

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2118&Itemid=2

I bet someone got fired there...

I payed particular attention to this quote from an analyst.

"I'm pretty disappointed in the Xbox 360. I think Microsoft is doing everything right: Games are good; Xbox Live is amazing; and the console is not prohibitively expensive. Yet people are just not buying"

Overall; each analyst said that the PS2 was the biggest seller. A last gen system continues to outsell the Xbox 360.

Sony has positioned itself admirably. They have a 129.00 affordable PS2 which shows no signs of slowing down at least until 2008. And they have the PS3 which has already crushed the xbox 360 sales in Japan (where microsoft had a one year head start) and the ps2 and PSP that continue to outsell the xbox 360.

To date:

Playstation 1 - 102,000,000 sold
Playstation 2 - 111,000,000 sold
PSP - (Released March 2005 in the US) 22,000,000 sold

Xbox 1 - 24 million units (released November 2001 in the US)
Xbox 360 - (Released December 05 in the US)6,000,000 Shipped

Neither the xbox 1 or the Xbox 360 are competing with Sony's PS2, PS3 or it's portable console (the psp)

This is clearly a Sony PS3Peat!

I don't personally get the hype about HD sets.

Is there a diference? Sure. Is it SUCH a mind bogglingly stark contrast between what you get on a SD set that it's like your girlfriend cheating on you and having sex with a black guy and she'll never go back to your small, white penis again?
...
No.


And to those of you with standard def sets saying it's ignorant to say you won't notice a difference...shoosh. You don't know what you're saying.
Yes, you'll notice a difference on the polygon pushing front. You get that in EVERY new system (including the Wii)...but you WON'T see the clarity like you would if you own an HD set.
Like someone else said, there are two ways of judging graphics these days.

@ Kanakotka as you can see everyone here claims to see a difference so I guess that would make you the idiot. Where on earth do you find a 640x480i LCD these days? Answer they don't exist. All LCD are going to be Enhanced Definition as they natively use progressive scan, which is not SD moron. Unless your "study" (cough bullshit) was conducted many years ago then you were comparing ED to HD you may have not seen a difference because AT THE TIME the new tv technologies was so immature and there was a lack of good source material to view such things. Do a current "study" and you will see a drastic difference. Just because you cannot afford a HD TV is no reason to denounce it as a good technology. Like I said before it is not just about the resolution but the colors as well. If you agree that the wii is a computer also than why bring up the point answer: because you don't even have one and your a tool. The wii interface has already been put onto a pc and even PS3, just go to youtube moron. How can you say is it hard to emulate the wii controls on a pc, this system has barely been out a month and there are so many videos circulating the internet of normal people having their way with the system, moron. All nextgen consoles today are stripped down computers. Educate yourself please or I will continue to make you look like the tool you are.

I'll try to find it but I read a statistical report that white men got bigger penis than black men. The average white man is 6.4 and the average black man is 6.2. The average asian man is 5.8.

So stop with those stupid rumors samfish.

DM, what are you even doing? That was the most out of context, fanboyish post I've seen in a long time.

Wow, Kanakota. As an home theater installer, I say....wow.

Kanakotka, ANYBODY that has ANY inclination about high-def knows that you are the most severly misinformed (maybe 'misinformed' is the wrong word as you are so incredibly wrong about everything that it seems as though you are just making everything up) individual posting on this thread.

To anybody that doesn't know anything about HD yet, PLEASE do not listen to his terrible rambling, as his posts are not even worth picking apart. Wow.

People who say they cant see the difference between HD and SD on the 360 probably forgot to flip the switch on their output cable to to turn the component cables to HD mode. Sure the 360 looks better than an xbox1 on a SD, but Its just not the next-gen wow factor until you have it on HD.

People who say they can't tell the difference in general have probably never seen a proper HD signal. No matter what the sales man in best buy tells you, they often run a SD signal to HD sets. (same goes for most any big chain) The difference in detail is shockingly different. Especially so with broadcast signals.

Good sir internet popularity whore, aka jaysins.

For the latter(which should've been in different paragraph, mind you) part you just mostly copied what i said and re-worded it.
Nor i understand how "tool" can be used as something to insult, tools are rather useful, anyway...
Now, let me bring you very shocking news, jaysins, this might blow off your seat, so get some cooling under your ass now.

-
The Wii's interface was coded on a PC...!
-

Wow! Wasn't that amazing? You learn something new every day, do you not?
So even before the official release of Wii, it has been on a PC, that is totally shocking news...for you.
And for that people of the internets stripping their systems apart and, quote, "having their way with it".
Well, a horny orangutan with a screwdriver could easily do that.


Now, about the LCD TVs pitted against the so-called High Definition ones.
The test was performed about a month ago. And for your knowledge; High-Definition TVs existed only in development phase about a year or 2 back from now, to claim a test of is High-Def worth it would've been performed any longer than a year ago is highly absurd, and naive.

Stop your childish bantering, it's the internet you know, nobody cares if you advertise the untrue superior quality of High-Definition TVs.

Of course a PC was used you moron. But you said "it is currently very clunky, if not impossible to emulate Wii due to it's innovative controls on a computer, thus i did not refer to it as such." So you just contradicted yourself again moron by saying the code was designed on a computer further crediting my point tool. HD tv's have been around way more than two years you idiot. God you are so dumb it hurts for someone so much more intelligent than yourself, like me, to read such idiotic comments.

"HDTV is broadcast digitally, and therefore its introduction sometimes coincides with the introduction of digital television (DTV): this technology was first introduced in the USA during the 1990s"
and
"HDTV has at least twice the lineal resolution of standard-definition television (SDTV), thus allowing much more detail to be shown compared to analog television or regular DVD."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television#Comparison_to_SDTV

HD has been in the US since the 90's which, because your math skills probably aren't competent enough I will do it for you, is at least 7 years assuming it was introduced in 99, but in fact was more towards the early middle of the decade. And if you cannot a picture several times the resolution than get glasses. See not only have I proven that I am more knowledgeable than yourself but that I am generous by doing the math for you and showing you how much of a loser you are. You really should thank me.