E3 2006: Miyamoto on Wii and HD gaming

I don't think the leap to HD is so much based on current numbers, but on those numbers over the course of the next 5 years. Look at DVD - it wasn't that big before the PS2 came out, but look at it NOW. Over the course of a few years, it went from being an early adopter luxury to a mass-market necessity.

Basically, anyone who buys a TV over the next 5 years will be upgrading to an HD TV. That's going to add up to a LOT of people. The introduction of HD television broadcasts and HD movie formats (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) is only going to speed up the process.

Either way, I think Nintendo have missed a real opportunity. I understand that they're trying to keep the cost of the system down, but dodging HD could have allowed them to bring out a system that could produce similar graphics to the Xbox 360, just in SD.

Besides which, the power of the system is not confined to graphics. It's also about physics and AI - about creating worlds where you can do things that you could never have dreamed of doing on a previous gen system (Grand Theft Auto 3 on N64? Crazy Taxi on Saturn? Halo on PS1? I don't think so...). A faster processor and more RAM could have enabled developers to get the most out of the hardware AND the controller.

They're trying to capture non-gamers by providing motion-based games like tennis, golf, fishing, etc. But I think most non-gamers would prefer realistic-looking versions of those games than controlling super-deformed anime type characters. We as gamers are used to graphic styles like that, while non-gamers are more likely to be put off by them.

Well if you've got a time machine and have seen how many people own HD sets in 5 years time, why didn't you just say so?

It's irrelevant if the person owns an HD set currently or not. If Blu Ray turns out to be the next big thing and I don't have an HD set yet, am I going to buy the console that has it or the console that doesn't?

And besides which, it's not as though these games won't still look fanastic if played on a non-HD setup. I played Oblivion on my SD TV and it still looks light years better than any game on any current gen system.

You're not saying that those figures won't change, yet you're saying that "the vast majority of TV purchases for the next couple of years will still be cheap SD sets?" Which is it? Or you saying the figures will change or not?

If you've been for a trip down to your local electronics store, you'll find that older SD sets are being phased out, at a rate that seems to be escalating exponentially. Small LCD screens are already selling as cheap as their SD counterparts. Within a year or two, as production costs for HD sets go down, it may well be IMPOSSIBLE to buy an SD set, whether you want one or not.

[quote="David"]I disagree with most of the other stuff you said too, but I't opinion so I can't prove it wrong like the stuff above.[quote]

What exactly did I say that you proved wrong? Did I mention specific adoption rates for HD? No. Did I say they'd go up? Yes? Will they? Duh.


If you'd actually taken the time to read my post properly, instead of launching into a kneejerk hissy-fit which required editing after you'd had time to stop and think clearly, you'd see that I wasn't preaching the glory of HD - simply pointing out that if you as a company are going to be saving yourself money by NOT including it, you could at least bump up the RAM or processor speed to respectable levels. They're not removing HD for OUR benefit - they're doing it for theirs. If Sony and Microsoft are losing money on each console sold, why should Nintendo get props for making a big fat profit at our expense?

I don't want games that just look pretty or control differently - I want experiences I've never had before. A new controller is a step in the right direction, but a system that's only a marginal improvement on 5-year old technology is a step backwards. Why should we have to chose between more immersive physics, AI and animation, or a more immersive controller? Why is it an ultimatum - "the controller or the hardware." Why not both?

I guess Peter Moore's solution about buying two consoles is a sound one after all. But I'll always wonder how much more developers could do with Wii games given more powerful hardware, and how much more developers could do with 360 games given more intuitive controls.

C'est la vie.

David: I totally agree with you on the issue of price. And this is where Nintendo's plan is pure genius. They don't expect gamers to purchase a Wii alone - their plan is to be the second choice of gamers. If everyone with a PS3 also buys a Wii, and everyone with a 360 also buys a Wii, then they'll have gained the largest marketshare of all three consoles. And the best way to do that is by being the cheaper second choice. A PS3 and Xbox 360 combo will cost you upwards of $1,450, whereas a 360/Wii combo would run you under a grand (presumably). No matter which of the consoles you buy, the Wii will be inferior graphically, so the inclusion of HD would be of no use in trying to convince you otherwise.

But as part of that grand marketing scheme, we as gamers will be missing out on something (whether we experience it now, or years down the track when we succumb to the HD behemoth), which I think is a real shame.

It's just hard to take these comments from Nintendo about the Wii being "the future" of gaming when - though it may have a very nifty controller going for it - it's lacking in so many other areas that are fundamental to the experience, in terms of graphics, sound, artificial intelligence, physics, game world size and interactivity.

It'll be an awesome experience, no doubt, but there's no way I'd rely on the console alone for my next-gen gaming needs. But I guess they don't care, as long as I buy the console.

Personally? I hope the Wii does well enough that it shows the competition that we DO want improvements in controller interface, but not SO well that game companies come to the conclusion that we don't expect or need any improvements on the technical side of things.