Would it have killed Nintendo to add a HW scaler to the Wii?

[blckgrffn]

http://forums.gametrailers.com...ad.php?t=102322&page=1

If we could have seen that kind of smoothing/AA like improvement with a scaler, that would have been pretty awesome.

Nintendo could have covered the relatively few HD TV owners, and done a better job of "future proofing" there console.

The only consoles I own are a GC and a Wii - I just wish the Wii would have had this one more feature, the costs would have been so minimal and the games wouldn't have needed to even know it was going on. (Ok, maybe it wouldn't have been that slick, but close...)

In the end, I guess I am just jealous of PS2 games getting this kind of kick in the pants while relatively superior GC/Wii titles can't enjoy the same benefits despite the console being less than a year old.

And while I am complaining, having the wii home (and the browser, etc) displayed at a native 720P would have been awesome too

Nat

 

[PricklyPete]

You're console cost $250 and the company is still making a healthy profit off each sale. Why? Because it is essentially last gen hardware (developers have said it is on par with last generations Xbox with a few tweaks) with a new controller. Stop complaining or buy a true next gen system.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
You're console cost $250 and the company is still making a healthy profit off each sale. Why? Because it is essentially last gen hardware (developers have said it is on par with last generations Xbox with a few tweaks) with a new controller. Stop complaining or buy a true next gen system.

So helpful!

You can go ahead and buy me a PS3 or 360 if you don't like the complaining. Nintendo won't up the ante hardware wise unless they get the response of people grumbling about being disappointed with the Wii hardware wise - so I plan to remain vocal.

Maybe the "Wii2" will come at a time when many people have HD sets, and with the combination of possible user base and negative feedback, perhaps the system will rival current "next gen" systems. I'd be happy with that.

Anyway, I suppose they could add a scaler in a upcoming rev of the Wii - it *shouldn't* affect the rest of the consoles operation.

Nat

 

[Born2bwire]

Sony did a good job on the upscaler, but the Wii only supports 720x480p, there's no resolution for them to upscale to.

 

[Ichigo]

All the consoles have last-gen hardware (excluding Cell, I guess). PC's have surpassed them. The one thing PC's can't do right now is what the Wii provides.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Sony did a good job on the upscaler, but the Wii only supports 720x480p, there's no resolution for them to upscale to.

Yeah, but putting a scaler would enable it to support higher resolutions. It's not like its exactly a hardware issue as it does have component out, so it could do HD.

Even with a scaler, the Wii wouldn't be able to compete. That thread you linked to is kinda odd, as I've heard that upscaling really isn't necessarily better as it blurs everything, which sometimes is good and sometimes not. Some of the before pictures in that thread look unusually bad and that's why there appears to be so much of a difference. Also, some of them, like RE4 they exclaim about how much different it looks but their pictures don't really support it. It looks better, but its still interpolating which can only do so much.

Personally, I am kinda sad about Nintendo's path, as they used to be foremost in competing hardware-wise, and I see this as them giving up on that front. Its not like they don't have the money to compete. At the same time, I see the Wii as being the same as the DS, its just an experiment that Nintendo is doing to see how well it fares. If it fails, they're not out much and by the time they get a replacement, they can make a more powerful console than Sony and MS for the same price they're doing. If it succeeds then they'll milk it as long as they can. The DS is not a real Game Boy, Nintendo planned to bring a real successor there in just a year or two after the DS came out, but it did (and still is doing) so well that they had no reason to.

While I personally don't agree with Nintendo's choice, as you can tell its not hurting them at all. I really could see Nintendo having two systems in a couple of years (when HD really takes off), with the Wii selling for $100 (or maybe lower) and their powerhouse system selling for $200-$300 and having equal or slightly better graphics than the 360 and PS3.
I would love to have a Zelda and Metroid with audio/visual presentation on par with the high caliber 360/PS3 games. However we will have to wait a bit for that.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Sony did a good job on the upscaler, but the Wii only supports 720x480p, there's no resolution for them to upscale to.

Yeah, but putting a scaler would enable it to support higher resolutions. It's not like its exactly a hardware issue as it does have component out, so it could do HD.

Even with a scaler, the Wii wouldn't be able to compete. That thread you linked to is kinda odd, as I've heard that upscaling really isn't necessarily better as it blurs everything, which sometimes is good and sometimes not. Some of the before pictures in that thread look unusually bad and that's why there appears to be so much of a difference. Also, some of them, like RE4 they exclaim about how much different it looks but their pictures don't really support it. It looks better, but its still interpolating which can only do so much.

Personally, I am kinda sad about Nintendo's path, as they used to be foremost in competing hardware-wise, and I see this as them giving up on that front. Its not like they don't have the money to compete. At the same time, I see the Wii as being the same as the DS, its just an experiment that Nintendo is doing to see how well it fares. If it fails, they're not out much and by the time they get a replacement, they can make a more powerful console than Sony and MS for the same price they're doing. If it succeeds then they'll milk it as long as they can. The DS is not a real Game Boy, Nintendo planned to bring a real successor there in just a year or two after the DS came out, but it did (and still is doing) so well that they had no reason to.

While I personally don't agree with Nintendo's choice, as you can tell its not hurting them at all. I really could see Nintendo having two systems in a couple of years (when HD really takes off), with the Wii selling for $100 (or maybe lower) and their powerhouse system selling for $200-$300 and having equal or slightly better graphics than the 360 and PS3.
I would love to have a Zelda and Metroid with audio/visual presentation on par with the high caliber 360/PS3 games. However we will have to wait a bit for that.

Clearly, it will happen eventually. It only took a little over 3 years from the release of the GBA before the DS came out, so I wouldnt be surprised to see a more powerful home console come out in 3 years either.

By that time they could pull off something 360/PS3 level at a reasonable price point as well, and like the DS/GBA, the two systems could overlap for some time. But thats not going to happen until the sales of the Wii start slowing down.

Really though, nintendo has so much cash in the bank and piling up more and more, while Sony/MS are bleeding money off of their systems - I wouldnt put it entirely past nintendo to just take all those billions, put out a system in 3 years that blows away the 360/PS3 and sell it at a loss for $250. They could probably corner the entire market like they did back with the NES.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
You're console cost $250 and the company is still making a healthy profit off each sale. Why? Because it is essentially last gen hardware (developers have said it is on par with last generations Xbox with a few tweaks) with a new controller. Stop complaining or buy a true next gen system.

You can go ahead and buy me a PS3 or 360 if you don't like the complaining. Nintendo won't up the ante hardware wise unless they get the response of people grumbling about being disappointed with the Wii hardware wise - so I plan to remain vocal.

Based on sales figures, you are in the minority and people just don't care as much about graphics as you think they should. You knew what you were getting when you bought it, so what's the problem? It's like buying a 6 cylinder car from one competitor when you could have bought a 6 cyl turbo from another and then complaining that the one you bought should have had a turbo also.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
All the consoles have last-gen hardware (excluding Cell, I guess). PC's have surpassed them. The one thing PC's can't do right now is what the Wii provides.

That makes no sense. the "generations" referred to are console generations...not PC...PC is a moving target, so generations "change" every 6 months and little bits in between.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: Ichigo
All the consoles have last-gen hardware (excluding Cell, I guess). PC's have surpassed them. The one thing PC's can't do right now is what the Wii provides.

That makes no sense. the "generations" referred to are console generations...not PC...PC is a moving target, so generations "change" every 6 months and little bits in between.

Plus, it's pretty unimportant if PCs surpass them as being more powerful. You won't find any 360 or PS3 owners who are disappointed by the power or graphics of their system. Because developers get better at using the hardware as time goes on, games also tend to improve as if the console was being upgraded.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: blckgrffn

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
You're console cost $250 and the company is still making a healthy profit off each sale. Why? Because it is essentially last gen hardware (developers have said it is on par with last generations Xbox with a few tweaks) with a new controller. Stop complaining or buy a true next gen system.

You can go ahead and buy me a PS3 or 360 if you don't like the complaining. Nintendo won't up the ante hardware wise unless they get the response of people grumbling about being disappointed with the Wii hardware wise - so I plan to remain vocal.

Based on sales figures, you are in the minority and people just don't care as much about graphics as you think they should. You knew what you were getting when you bought it, so what's the problem? It's like buying a 6 cylinder car from one competitor when you could have bought a 6 cyl turbo from another and then complaining that the one you bought should have had a turbo also.

That isn't a perfect analogy, but I'll play along.

Let's say I had to choose between two cars - let's say two sport coupes, designed for fun. Now, one is $25,000 and the other is $50,000. The difference here could be, say, a TT and Corvette (close enough). You would buy them for obviously different reasons. But lets say, that as a consumer, I think the TT should have something like better seats like the corvette has (let's not get to bogged down in that) that make it more fun for some people to drive while others don't care. I would complain that the seats should be better. Maybe if enough people did, the seats would be better the next time around or in a special model.

What your saying is I should just be happy with what I got, and not express a negative opinion because "I knew what I was buying." That's a pretty lame argument, and I think if you take a step back you'll likely agree.

I am pretty disappointed that the 360 doesn't have integrated wireless, and I am not likely to shut up about that either.

As for the scaler not making every game better, I can buy that. But you can definitely tell that some scalers work better than others, so it isn't like the functionality would be wasted if implemented right, and many wii games have a fair amount of jaggies as it is @ 480p. It would be nice to have the option, and I'll leave it at that.

Nat

 

[PricklyPete]

You have a point that complaining is one way to get Nintendo to improve their product. You could also choose not to buy the system based on Nintendo's choices to use last generation tech.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
You have a point that complaining is one way to get Nintendo to improve their product. You could also choose not to buy the system based on Nintendo's choices to use last generation tech.

If only it wasn't so darn fun for party games

I would just have been likely to use it more had it been more impressive. That's all. For the price, I am still fairly happy over all.

I understand your point though - probably enough people complain about different aspects of the Wii, then if we rolled those complaints up we would have something more expensive than the PS3.

To top off this thread, I had always wondered why they hadn't included a scaler for the Wii, even if marketing it as an HD capable was all that it gained. The small cost, coupled with what I would argue is better IQ and a more robust feature set, would have warranted the inclusion of a scaler to me.

Even if Wii2 has significantly better hardware, yet does everything at 480p internally and upscales, I wouldn't complain. My guess is that is where the Wii2 will head, so that the hardware will best utilized for both SD and HD consumers. The hardware difference to drive 480p vs even 720p is not to be ignored.

Personally, I would prefer higher AF levels to actual resolution many times. It makes the existing art and level design look more polished without the need for the developer to spend more - which is a big plus in my estimation.

Nat

 

[PricklyPete]

Yeah...for some reason the "party" aspect of the Wii never caught on with me. I lost interest after only a few sessions. But that is neither here or there with regard to the topic.

I agree that any video that has been "upconverted" generally looks better as I find jaggies on screen to be the most distracting of all 3D artifacts. This seems to be the same for you. Other people will complain about texture blurring and the such much more...something that an upconverter that "blurs jaggies" is likely to make worse. It also isn't a $1 piece of hardware...so you're not talking about just an extra $10 on top of the current price. With that in mind and the fact that some users may complain. Not to mention the fact that most users buying the Wii (or the 360/PS3) do not have HD sets...so it would only "benefit" a few. Remember Wii in particular is meant to target the "casual" gamer who is more likely to still be playing on their 27" Magnavox.

All of these factors likely kept Nintendo at their current design...which is working for them very well from a business perspective...just not my perspective where visuals play a large part in my game "immersion" factor. Honestly, this is the first generation of consoles I've ever embraced as the resolution has finally come close to the resolutions being supported on the PC for all of these years. Playing games on a SD screen always left something to be desired to me...now I'm happy with the 360/PS3 in terms of resolution. To each their own.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Yeah...for some reason the "party" aspect of the Wii never caught on with me. I lost interest after only a few sessions. But that is neither here or there with regard to the topic.

I agree that any video that has been "upconverted" generally looks better as I find jaggies on screen to be the most distracting of all 3D artifacts. This seems to be the same for you. Other people will complain about texture blurring and the such much more...something that an upconverter that "blurs jaggies" is likely to make worse. It also isn't a $1 piece of hardware...so you're not talking about just an extra $10 on top of the current price. With that in mind and the fact that some users may complain. Not to mention the fact that most users buying the Wii (or the 360/PS3) do not have HD sets...so it would only "benefit" a few. Remember Wii in particular is meant to target the "casual" gamer who is more likely to still be playing on their 27" Magnavox.

All of these factors likely kept Nintendo at their current design...which is working for them very well from a business perspective...just not my perspective where visuals play a large part in my game "immersion" factor. Honestly, this is the first generation of consoles I've ever embraced as the resolution has finally come close to the resolutions being supported on the PC for all of these years. Playing games on a SD screen always left something to be desired to me...now I'm happy with the 360/PS3 in terms of resolution. To each their own.

Well, I guess I was considering the kind of up-conversion that you can get from a ~$100 DVD player, and the type you could turn on and off (basically, set your screen resolution in the Wii home screen and let it handle the rest), discerning users would obviously be welcome to turn it on or off. I have no idea what a good up-scaler would cost, I guess, but I figured in the kind of bulk/long term agreement Nintendo could pull, it would be ~$10-$20. Is that too conservative? I think we can agree that most people like good up-conversion on things like DVD movies, why would these games be much different? The market really seems to be liking those upconverting DVD players too, judging by how many of them there are.

I have no doubts that this feature would appeal to the actual percentage of all people who could be considered "casual gamers" and what Nintendo seems to largely be targeting now, but if implemented well, many of Nintendo's long term followers would also be happy about it. Nintendo has a past of delivering some decent hardware power wise, but they have dropped the bar considerably with the release of the Wii in its current form. Really, they are sending somewhat of a mixed message. 480p but no up conversion? Not many can use 480p and but not a higher resolution?

I agree with your analysis of where Nintendo has taken the wii, and it is great for gamers and developers a like. It just would be nice for Nintendo not to complete forsake "the core gamers" to pursue all of the possible other customers. Then again, money talks

Thanks for engaging in a good chat.

Nat

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn

Well, I guess I was considering the kind of up-conversion that you can get from a ~$100 DVD player, and the type you could turn on and off (basically, set your screen resolution in the Wii home screen and let it handle the rest), discerning users would obviously be welcome to turn it on or off. I have no idea what a good up-scaler would cost, I guess, but I figured in the kind of bulk/long term agreement Nintendo could pull, it would be ~$10-$20. Is that too conservative? I think we can agree that most people like good up-conversion on things like DVD movies, why would these games be much different? The market really seems to be liking those upconverting DVD players too, judging by how many of them there are.

I have no doubts that this feature would appeal to the actual percentage of all people who could be considered "casual gamers" and what Nintendo seems to largely be targeting now, but if implemented well, many of Nintendo's long term followers would also be happy about it. Nintendo has a past of delivering some decent hardware power wise, but they have dropped the bar considerably with the release of the Wii in its current form. Really, they are sending somewhat of a mixed message. 480p but no up conversion? Not many can use 480p and but not a higher resolution?

I agree with your analysis of where Nintendo has taken the wii, and it is great for gamers and developers a like. It just would be nice for Nintendo not to complete forsake "the core gamers" to pursue all of the possible other customers. Then again, money talks

Thanks for engaging in a good chat.

Nat

Honestly I'd be talking out of my ass to tell you how much a good up-converter costs. Since you can get a DVD player for your PC for ~$10 and the chip needed to convert run a DVD player is dirt cheap (they sell whole DVD players for under $30)...I assumed the up-converting chip was the most expensive part in the venture...but that is a complete guess. So a guess of at leat $10...maybe $20 is reasonable...but that would easily translate into a $270-$290 console as Nintendo was pretty adamant about making a profit on hardware sales out the gate.

Who knows..maybe they'll implement something like that in a future version for "HD gamers". It certainly would make me more likely to get one.

A good chat every once in a while is why I come to AT.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: blckgrffn

Well, I guess I was considering the kind of up-conversion that you can get from a ~$100 DVD player, and the type you could turn on and off (basically, set your screen resolution in the Wii home screen and let it handle the rest), discerning users would obviously be welcome to turn it on or off. I have no idea what a good up-scaler would cost, I guess, but I figured in the kind of bulk/long term agreement Nintendo could pull, it would be ~$10-$20. Is that too conservative? I think we can agree that most people like good up-conversion on things like DVD movies, why would these games be much different? The market really seems to be liking those upconverting DVD players too, judging by how many of them there are.

I have no doubts that this feature would appeal to the actual percentage of all people who could be considered "casual gamers" and what Nintendo seems to largely be targeting now, but if implemented well, many of Nintendo's long term followers would also be happy about it. Nintendo has a past of delivering some decent hardware power wise, but they have dropped the bar considerably with the release of the Wii in its current form. Really, they are sending somewhat of a mixed message. 480p but no up conversion? Not many can use 480p and but not a higher resolution?

I agree with your analysis of where Nintendo has taken the wii, and it is great for gamers and developers a like. It just would be nice for Nintendo not to complete forsake "the core gamers" to pursue all of the possible other customers. Then again, money talks

Thanks for engaging in a good chat.

Nat

Honestly I'd be talking out of my ass to tell you how much a good up-converter costs. Since you can get a DVD player for your PC for ~$10 and the chip needed to convert run a DVD player is dirt cheap (they sell whole DVD players for under $30)...I assumed the up-converting chip was the most expensive part in the venture...but that is a complete guess. So a guess of at leat $10...maybe $20 is reasonable...but that would easily translate into a $270-$290 console as Nintendo was pretty adamant about making a profit on hardware sales out the gate.

Who knows..maybe they'll implement something like that in a future version for "HD gamers". It certainly would make me more likely to get one.

A good chat every once in a while is why I come to AT.

That kind of upconversion on the ps3 is almost definitely done in software. If it was hardware, it would have been ready from the start.

Its pretty much looks like lanczos or maybe even some elements of an Hq2x filter...if you were really that bothered and technically inclined, you could always run the feed through an HTPC and do it yourself, but its just not worth it for nintendo to bother adding in extra hardware (because the CPU is busy running the actual game) for something that theoretically could and should be done by your TV.

Besides, if they were going to "upscale" their games with hardware, theres a much more obvious and elegant solution: SLI (or crossfire, since were talking Ati here). All they need to do is basically add a second GPU to the system and slightly overclock it, and render the game in higher res. The bandwidth requirements for 1280x720 vs. 848x480 are only a little bit more than twice, and since its a fixed function gpu theres no shaders that get in the way of just doubling the fillrate to make it happen. Its a bit more complicated than that in reality, but itd be doable, and I wouldnt be surprised to see it happen.

Doing so would be fairly trivial - 3d graphics are essentially resolution independent and emulators have been freeing older games from horrendously low resolutions for years...OoT looks fantastic in 1080p I must admit.

I'm still putting my money on a new system in 09 that is backwards compatible with wii/gc that can scale them rather than a half assed WiiHD, but it could really swing either way.

But yeah, in conclusion, your TV sucks for 480p.

 

[Thraxen]

The problem with having your TV do the scaling is that you get HDTV lag. Most people won't notice it, but some will. TVs usually focus on quality and not speed since they are normally used for TV shows and movies. That's why a lot of TVs have a special game mode that is supposed to be used to reduce the lag.

 

[RaiderJ]

As long as Metroid is good I'm willing to put up with 480p.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
The problem with having your TV do the scaling is that you get HDTV lag. Most people won't notice it, but some will. TVs usually focus on quality and not speed since they are normally used for TV shows and movies. That's why a lot of TVs have a special game mode that is supposed to be used to reduce the lag.

Exactly. I've read quite a bit about this, so it seems more likely that any upscaling that would be very useful would need to be done on the Wii.

I don't really care that the PS3 is leveraging it's excess hardware to do the upscaling, might point was that it would be a nice piece of HW for the wii. That seems to be what most upscaling appliances (including TV's that feature it) do.

Nat