Standard Def: The Forgotten Generation

By Richard Leadbetter Published 25 July, 2009

Have developers and platform holders neglected most of their userbase?

Page 1 of 2

In an interview on Eurogamer this week, Epic Games' Mark Rein dropped what you might call a technological bombshell: over half of the Xbox 360 owners who played Gears of War 2 did so on a standard-definition television.

Of course, there are certain caveats attached to Rein's information, but if anything, it paints an even bleaker picture of the take-up of high-definition displays. The only way Epic is able to make this determination at all is down to the information relayed back to Microsoft HQ via the Xbox Live connection, which phones home with all manner of intriguing, but apparently non-personal information about how you use your console. The means of this data collection suggests that while the standard-def gamers in questions may be display-challenged, they're not Luddites - they have either the nous to connect up their 360 to the internet via a LAN cable, or else they've invested in Microsoft's supremely expensive wireless dongle.

While no similar information is available about the PlayStation 3, gut feeling tells me that the situation is similar, even assuming that people with more money to spend on a premium console should be more capable of affording an HD display. While the platform holders are making headway into getting their consoles into the living room (where HDTVs are far more likely to be situated), a ton of them are actually being located in the bedroom/office. Gaming remains a mostly solitary experience that ties up a TV for hours at a time - not good when the wife/parents have pencilled in a Coronation Street/Midsomer Murders double-header for the evening.

While I'm fairly confident in suggesting that Eurogamers en masse are most likely HDed up to the max (or at least to 720p), the questions I want to ask consist of the following: how do developers approach the SD modes in the games? And, are there any performance penalties over and above the reduction in detail? More than that, bearing in mind that less than half the resolution needs to be rendered, are there actually any performance benefits in dropping down to SD, or indeed 480p? In short, assuming that SDTV owners are indeed around 50 per cent of the audience, are they getting the attention they deserve?

Let's start by taking a look at the game Mark Rein was talking about: Gears of War 2. In this test (and along with all the others), I'm measuring performance based on progressive scan output. While "classic" 576i or 480i might offer different performance, it is highly unlikely: both PS3 and Xbox 360 render the framebuffer as a progressive image before letting their TV compatibility systems interlace the signal. The same thing holds true for 1080i/1080p - you get the same effective frame-rate even if actually pixel throughput is being halved on the interlaced signal.

Gears of War 2 SD vs HD. The green line and the left FPS indicator follows 720p performance, while the blue line and the right indicator measures 480p. Bottom line: there's not much in it.

As you can see, there is effectively no difference at all in terms of frame-rates, even though the Xbox 360 has fewer than half the pixels to render. The implication is that the console is scaling down the HD framebuffer to provide a "super-scaled" image for SD users. This pretty much always guarantees a superior image than rendering natively, with vastly reduced anti-aliasing issues. However, what it also means is that the same frame-rate issues that affect the HD version impact the SD game too. Just as with PC gaming, there's nothing to stop developers rendering to a smaller resolution and using that to provide superior or more stable frame-rates. In most of my Xbox 360 tests, this didn't happen. There is a disparity in torn frames you'll notice though. This may well be down to the fact that detecting torn frames programmatically on a scaled image is actually bloody hard, or it could actually be a small advantage in SD's favour.

Two more tests then. First up, some Call of Duty: World at War, followed by some Far Cry 2. The idea here was very straightforward. World at War runs at a sub-HD resolution already. I was curious about how much performance might be increased by dropping down to SD. The answer was that in this case, there was no benefit at all. Far Cry 2 was utilised in order to see whether torn frames could be reduced by dropping to SD. Again, no dice, but more about FC2 later as the same game is analysed in its PS3 incarnation.

Call of Duty: World at War and Far Cry 2 performance analysis. Once again, the left indicator and the green line measures 720p frame-rate, while the blue line and the right FPS counter follow 480p.

So, right about now then, we see no evidence whatsoever of any benefits at all for SDTV users. The news is actually about to get a whole lot worse, particularly for PAL PS3 owners, but before we get to that, there is one ray of shining light. Take a look at this Sacred 2: Fallen Angel performance analysis I carried out last month across the range of supported resolutions: 1080p, 720p and 480p. There you'll see that there is a clear advantage in terms of frame-rate and v-sync by playing in standard definition, on Xbox 360 at least. If the will is there, developers could provide some tangible performance advantages to gamers using older display technology and if that market is as massive as Mark Rein's stats say it is, perhaps it is worth some thought?

Page 1 of 2

Comments (102) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • SEVQA #1 3 years ago

    Should have been a choice from the start that allowed to make text bigger for all SD supported content. Red Alert 3 I have to sit right in front of the screen to decipher the text. Cheers.
    Edited by 1 at 25/07/09 @ 12:37

  • bimbom #2 3 years ago

    games being developed are mostly concerned with hd while developing, but QA depts still test on sd with various different leads . If text is unreadable the QA dept should at least find that issue if the developers dont

    i dont think any developer would add any extra fx/polish/enemies for sd , its purely reducing the amount of flicker on art and making the font readable.And a few issues with brightness but they also present between different consoles.

    changing text sizes can cause a lot of difficulty so its usually 1 size fits all (resolutions/languages etc)..it makes it much easier to test on every console/resolution/language avoiding one off safe frame issues or subtitles overlapping button prompts.

  • Weebleboy #3 3 years ago

    All PAL PS3 releases will work on any PAL TV because devs have to support PAL50. Not all 360 releases will work on any PAL TV because there's no MS requirement to support PAL50.

    Fair enough, Sony should make them support PAL60 too, but at least the consumer knows that any PAL game they buy for their PAL PS3 will work on any PAL telly. 360 owners have to check the back of the box each time, and miss out on releases that aren't compatible.

  • McLovin85 #4 3 years ago

    Just buy an HDTV. They're not really that expensive, especially the ones that are a good size for ur bedroom (as the article said, quite a lot of people play in their bedrooms).

    [link url=http://www.ebuye r.com/product/158731
    ]http://www.ebuye r.com/product/158731
    [/link]

    Really nice Samsung 19" HDTV for £170. If you've bought an Xbox 360 or PS3 then ur pretty serious about gaming (i would think) so an extra £170 to enjoy gaming in HD for the next 5 years really can't be that much of a tough choice can it?
    Anyway, interesting and well argued article. Tbh i totally forgot about the people who still play with SDTV then again if all they are looking for is to play Singstar or Guitar Hero then i guess they don't really need to experience that in HD.

  • DaemonSpawn #5 3 years ago

    2 Weebleboy
    I know just one such game - Hitman: Blood Money. Good I've got it for PC.As for "others" without PAL 50Hz support - can you name them?

  • Xerx3s #6 3 years ago

    I don't know. I reckon that in technologically less developed countries HD uptake is probably behind but over here I haven't seen a SD TV or CRT screen in the shops of over 7 years now. The average economical lifetime of a telly is about 5 years or so. I also don't know anyone who still uses a SD tv. Why would you? Those things cost a fortune in electricity and you can get a Full HD TV for around 500 euro, let alone a HD ready telly.

  • Weebleboy #7 3 years ago

    @DaemonSpawn. Oblivion, FFXI, Test Drive Unlimited

  • Cappy #8 3 years ago

    It's easy to say buy a new TV.

    I'm still on SD though because a) my TV still works and b) I'm still seeing a lot of problems with HD displays that don't make them entirely an upgrade.

    I'm not going to just throw away a TV that works perfectly well, it's dead man's boots, I buy a new TV when one breaks unfortunately we haven't had a TV break for so long now the house is full of TVs and I'll get killed if I buy another.

    Large, flat screen HD displays look nice at a glance but I'm seeing lots of stuff like artifacting and poor tonal ranges. Worst of all is the unpleasant judder when the camera pans quickly on a horizontal axis. I was watching the latest Bond film in HD, looks lovely but suddenly when somebody walks across the screen from left to right they're juddering along like a sprite in a poorly coded 8-Bit game. I'll stick with what I've got for now, it may be SD but it works in a consistent manner at least.

    Some clarification on the NTSC PS3 + SD display issue, yes there are quite a few PAL games that won't work with my launch NTSC PS3 because they default to 576 lines in SD. The opposite doesn't happen though, the PAL PS3 is perfectly capable of displaying 480i and 480p, whilst the PAL games default to 576 lines in SD, backwards compatible games in 60hz mode and NTSC games outputting 480 lines are supported.

  • Moz #9 3 years ago

    Given that HD is now pretty much the only option when buying a new TV it's really not going to be long now until the majority have HD, so really don't see the point in going to any extra efforts to improve the SD gaming experience. The likely hood is that people who don't have HD aren't "harecore" enough to notice or care about a little controlle lag or a few less frames anyway.

    As for "well clearly there's no need to push the envelope on consoles" - what a load of rubbish! Even at SD res there's alot of visual improvement still be had, more AA, better lighting, higher res shadows, even higher res textures will all give better looking games even at SD res. Not to mention that more processing power will allow better AI and Physics, and let you v-lock whilst producing better visuals then we currently have.

  • IneptPercy #10 3 years ago

    "Fair enough, Sony should make them support PAL60 too, but at least the consumer knows that any PAL game they buy for their PAL PS3 will work on any PAL telly. 360 owners have to check the back of the box each time, and miss out on releases that aren't compatible."

    I partially agree with this, but how many PAL TVs don't support PAL60 these days? it most cases having a scart socket will mean you probably have this. My old 15 year old portable supports PAL60 as an example.

    Basically if you TV doesn't even support PAL60 go and buy a 28"-32" CRT which nobody wants any more, I got a 32" Toshiba for my parents quite recently for £60 as there old TV died and they have no interest in HD.

  • uiruki #11 3 years ago

    One thing not taken into account in the article for the SDTV resolution percentage is the number of people who have component or D-Terminal cables switched to the 'SD' setting on the 360. I've had to switch it for two different 360 owning friends myself, and I suspect that most people will know someone who at some point hooked up a 360 to an HDTV without realising it was still in SD mode.

  • bad09 #12 3 years ago

    While many have not upgraded, HD is pretty much all you can get now and they are reasonable in price so it's only a matter of time for everyone to upgrade (just in time for the next really expsenive thing they will want us to upgrade to). Like all tech it prices itself out of most peoples market for a long time, when it's affordable people finally get in droves. DVD, Blu...PS3 it's always the same circle.

    Mind you, sure I'm pretty tech savvy, but the levels of ignorance on HD and how it works is quite surprising. Even DVD was a struggle for some but HD people just don't seem to understand it. So many people still think you buy the TV and that's it HD all the way.

  • anephric #13 3 years ago

    This is interesting because for a very long time I was running my 360 in 480p on a CRT, and I was positive I wasn't getting slowdown in games like Tomb Raider Legend that my friends were in 720p. Similarly, running Lair in 576p seemed to reduce framedrops a lot.

    It must have been my imagination.

  • Moz #14 3 years ago

    @anephric earlier games like those were probably written in a more standard way with res changing being delt with at the core, so like PC games you get better performance at lower res cos every thing is rendered at the lower res from the start.

    More recently games will have gone through alot more optimisation and it's likly the most studios will have taking the approach of optimising the whole engine to a fix res and then scaling up or down as required, which then results in an equal performance at all res's (with maybe a slight improvement at the engines native res depending on how they handle the scaling)
    Edited by 1 at 25/07/09 @ 14:03

  • Genji #15 3 years ago

    It doesn't matter if most people will use HD "in the future". In the most important timeframe to think of - right now - multitudes of people still play games in SD, for whatever reason. It makes sense (to me, at least) to offer better support for them, up until we all reach our bright and glorious HD future.

  • Keivz #16 3 years ago

    Good article. Although, I don't fully understand why the consoles don't render their games at SD when set to SD like the PC. The framerate increase would be substantial, and wouldn't expect the image quality difference to be that great.

  • Jocho #17 3 years ago

    What bugs me to a degree is the thinking that everyone would *want* to upgrade to a HDTV at this time. The higher resolution brings a bit of crispness to the display, but that's it. Currently high-definition movie-sets are not too common-place (or so my gut feeling says due to having not seen any sales reports since HD-DVD died) and there's very few channels who broadcast in HD. The only uses would be if you have a 360 or PS3, none which really uses true Full HD yet. So, if you would buy a TV now, you would look at some intersection-tech that HD Ready seems to be or just keep the one you have until it breaks or until HD is more common-place in movies and television. Getting crisper display in one of the items many areas of usage isn't incentive enough to buy something for the price of a new computer.

    So I'd say even calling Rein's statement a bomb-shell is somewhat elitistic.

  • monkeywithnoeyes #18 3 years ago

    "have developers and platform holders neglected most of their userbase?" - bit of a pointless question when EVERYBODY in the games industry knows that the best selling console this generation by several million is the Wii... which is SD.

  • RobTheBuilder #19 3 years ago

    Whoa whoa whoa.

    PS3 doesn't support Pal60?

    ...

    ...

    Bloody hell.

  • aidey6 #20 3 years ago

    I cannot understand why the PS3 doesn't have PAL60 for SD users; as IneptPercy said, there cannot be many SDTV's which don't support PAL60.

    I played VF on my Sega Saturn which came with a RGB Scart cable back in July 95 on my Sony Trinitron. But that's SCE all over; produce the hardware then hamstring the users by supplying RF/Composite cabling..... I guess so they can fleece gamers for the RGB/HDMI cables through the years.

  • BraveArse #21 3 years ago

    I only recently moved across to HD and I've had both HD consoles for years now. The biggest shock to me was seeing Fallout 3 on my HD TV after having persevered with SD mode on that game. SD mode didn't even support widescreen. It was like a slap in the face I have to say.

  • PlugMonkey #22 3 years ago

    If there's anybody out there still with an SD TV playing Xbox 360 games, I really cannot recommend highly enough the buying a decent fully wired RGB SCART cable to replace the crappy composite one that comes in the box.

    The difference in quality is enormous, and text in games like Dead Rising is perfectly readable using one, as I found on my old 28" CRT and several of my mates also found when they took this advice. You can get one off Play or Amazon for under a tenner.

    In my opinion, the difference between composite and RGB SCART is as noticeable as the difference between SCART and component HD. Less than a tenner! No excuse at all not to do it.

    DO IT! DO IT NOW!

  • neonemesis #23 3 years ago

    I still use CRT and have no plans to upgrade. Half of the things plugged into my telly are older machines such as the Megadrive and Saturn so I'd have compatibility issues. Also, I will eventually get some lightgun games such as the PS2 Time Crisis games and I hear that they don't work properly with newer screens.

    If it dies, I'll just get another second-hand CRT.

  • MightyMouse #24 3 years ago

    The whole problem with HD TVs is that most tv channels don't transmit in HD and displaying SD on an HD TV looks pretty bad. I think MS and Sony can just wait it out since there won't be another console generation for a good few years and by that time the situation will probably have sorted itself out. Equally it's hard to blame them for the mess of SD/HD.

    What MS and Sony should really do to support customers is to bundle decent cables with their products since most people don't replace those and it makes a world of difference.

  • anephric #25 3 years ago

    "If there's anybody out there still with an SD TV playing Xbox 360 games, I really cannot recommend highly enough the buying a decent fully wired RGB SCART cable to replace the crappy composite one that comes in the box."

    What you'll find is that there are quite a few people with the last generation of reasonably top-spec CRTs (like Philips or Toshiba) that are capable of 480p/576p and which look pretty nice in SD. For games like Cod4 and the like that aren't rendering natively at 720p and above, the difference is neglible anyway, imo I reckon CoD4 looks worse on my plasma and my mate's LCD than it did in 480p on my CRT.

    Anyhoo. I wasn't tempted to upgrade my CRT for years simply because it had cost me so much and most of my games looked really nice, with none of the drawbacks of plasma or LCD. I only upgraded when I bought a PS3 for teh bloo-rayz.
    Edited by 4 at 25/07/09 @ 16:04

  • Moz #26 3 years ago

    @ MightyMouse
    The whole problem with HD TVs is that most tv channels don't transmit in HD and displaying SD on an HD TV looks pretty bad.

    I don't know what cheap ass HD TV's you been looking at, any half decent HDTV has a decent upscaler in it that displays SD broadcasts just fine.

  • GWH #27 3 years ago

    I don't know what cheap ass HD TV's you been looking at, any half decent HDTV has a decent upscaler in it that displays SD broadcasts just fine.

    That's the problem. It's all very well to say HDTVs are dirt cheap these days, but when you've got an old 32" CRT there's not much incentive to spend €200 on a bottom-of-the-range 16" HDTV that'll do a worse job of displaying TV broadcasts and DVDs. Decent HDTVs are still expensive enough that it's really difficult to justify the cost, particularly if you've already got a big TV that works perfectly well.

    Anyway, I'd be happy if Microsoft included something in the 360's firmware that automatically increased the brightness for SD displays. You'd be amazed how many games don't let you adjust the brightness manually.
    Edited by 1 at 25/07/09 @ 16:59

  • anephric #28 3 years ago

    It also depends on source material, i.e. an ugly-ass low-bitrate channel that looked bad at 32" is going to look much worse at 42" through an interlaced composite input.
    Edited by 1 at 25/07/09 @ 17:00

  • FogHeart #29 3 years ago

    "What you'll find is that there are quite a few people with the last generation of reasonably top-spec CRTs (like Philips or Toshiba)"

    That'll be me. 37 inches, SD only, weighs more than an elephant. Over seven years old and as good as when first bought.

    I always try to play in PAL50. Why? Zimplez....when using PAL50 the 100Hz, pixel plus system kicks in. It interpolates an extra line between each given one, and doubles the refresh rate at the same time. It won't help for games that drop frames but what you get looks MUCH better than PAL60.

    I don't own a 360, but I hooked up my PC to it via S-Video and it displays 1028 by 768, meaning I can play PC games at HD resolutions....and many 360 games are available for PC....

    ...so why would I buy a new TV?
    Edited by 1 at 25/07/09 @ 17:15

  • bad09 #30 3 years ago

    @ neonemesis

    I feel your light gun pain in the HD world. There is a way round this though. It's called the LCD topgun (I think). Had a blast on Time Crisis 2 on my HDTV, you can even hook it to Xbox and PC. Check out Playasia it's about £25-£30 if I remember correctly.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #31 3 years ago

    I went around to my uncle's house once. He has a HD TV, but isn't very tech-savvy. He had his 360 connected up, but running at the default settings - i.e 480p. I corrected this, and he could see a definate difference, but I'd be suprised if there weren't more people doing this - they own a 'flat screen TV' but don't know much about it beyond that, and are assuming it uses that 'HD' thing that everyone is talking about.

    Hell, imagine the amount of people with a PS3 that must be using Composite, because Sony didn't think to include a HD cable of any kind.

  • hahayou #32 3 years ago

    Disagree that SD players should be getting a better framerate: *everyone* should have smooth gameplay as a matter of course.
    Scaling that to whatever res is a different issue.

  • djm99 #33 3 years ago

    i've tried several Hd tv over the past 3 years,currently got a Sony. Every HDTV i've has has had awful colour smear/blur, so would much rather stick with a decent CRT, but can't due to space.

  • Ged42 #34 3 years ago

    I've been having increasing problems viewing with tiny text on games in SD.

    Red Alert 3, Battlefield '43 and worst of all Dead Space, I loved the game but couldn't read the text logs for the life of me.

  • KrissAkabusi #35 3 years ago

    I remember getting my PS3 two years back and hooking it up with the composite from the off. The results on my 42 inch couple of month old plasma samsung were worse than what I was getting using the wii on it.

    Needless to say, ordered an HDMI capable within a day, and the difference was night and day. But I'm relatively tech savvy, I wonder what the more "should work out of the box" customer would've thought in the same situ. Seriously, composite PS3 to me - might as well have plugged in the PS2.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #36 3 years ago

    I think it's unfair to rip into Richard for the "meaning that there is a clear, golden opportunity for PC to establish itself once again as the frontiersman of super high-end gaming" comment. He is clearly talking from a technological standpoint. PC hardware has traditionally been at the bleeding edge of consumer hardware, whereas consoles were more convenient. The gap has shrunk in this generation, but Richard is suggesting that this could change. Given the technology focus of Digital Foundry, that observation makes sense.

    I don't necessaily agree, I don't see it's relevence to the topic in question, but it's hardly intended to be biased fanboyism.

  • electrolite #37 3 years ago

    Finally, some acknowledgement that HD isn't the be all and end all of this generation. Like the kid in the emperors new clothes sometimes saying it's not that much of an issue. Especially as for it to be a factor means having HDTV's in every room.

  • smelly #38 3 years ago

    The "performance increase" thing is missing the point somewhat.

    The amount of memory required (For example) to run a game at 1080p, means that you're left with LESS memory to do something interesting and visually simualting with the textures.

    1920×1080 = 2,073,600

    For RGBA -> Multiply by 4
    Add a second back buffer and depth buffer.. multiply by 3

    1920×1080x4x3 = 24 meg.. BEFORE you try to do anything.

    Add to that rendertargets for effects and stuff..

    And it's no surprise games like halo 3 run at 640p.


    Potentially if you ONLY support lower resolutions (say 480p) on a 360, then you could probably make the game look better than its higher def counter part anyhow (Due to having more memory/fill rate to play with).


  • Shakey_Jake33 #39 3 years ago

    Was anyone actually expecting a performance difference when the games use the same size framebuffer either way? As noted earlier, some games do actually use a lower resolution framebuffer when running in SD, though this practice is understandable becoming less common.

  • stevetuck #40 3 years ago

    The only game company that i know who is obsessed with HDTV's are capcom... Unless your tv is massive games like dead rising are really hard to play as i cant read what im supposed to be doing... and the street fighter 4 commands list is really stupidly hard to read on a SDTV

  • lolife.se #41 3 years ago

    Couldn't care for the performance, but the small textsize in some games is just stupid. I hade no problems with Dead Rising, but Fable II on th other hand... Holding off that game until I have a new TV, which will be when I'm done studying, or find a part time job. And yes, an RGB-SCART cable make a world of difference compared to the composite.

  • StooMonster #42 3 years ago

    First television I bought that had PAL60 support was for my Amiga, and it was in 1988. More than twenty years ago.

    I've always thought that the majority of owners plugs their PS3 and 360 into SD displays, moreover, with composite connection too, so this is no surprise to me. However, the lack of decent options for SD support is shocking from reading this article.

    In addition, I've always though most regular people incorrectly setup their PS3 and 360 with HDTV sets too -- I've seen composite cables and people thinking it's in HD. HDMI and or component cables or RGB Scart should be free in the box but more importantly the Xbox in particular should be smarter about HDTV set up. Instead of user selecting mode -- because they would have to know what they are doing -- the initial setup should go through a "Can you see this?" Y/N choice and then the console knows which modes it can display; maybe it could even read the EDID over HDMI and pick the best mode?

  • Eraser #43 3 years ago

    I don't care much for performance. HD performance should be right up there anyway, so it shouldn't be something to worry about. Readability of on screen text is a much bigger problem.

  • Nocturne #44 3 years ago

    I tried playing Grand Theft Auto IV on a SD once; the text was so small, especially when accessing the in-game internet, that half of it couldn't be read. I was surprised, since it was as though Rockstar had not tested it with an SD.

  • ukgamer #45 3 years ago

    Microsoft is spying on you...


    teehee :D


  • CrumpetBoy #46 3 years ago

    I use a VGA cable and my PC monitor for my 360, as I can't afford a HDTV: this works well most of the time but with some games still falls between the SD and HD stools - for some reason some games assume that all PC monitors must be widescreen and so output a widescreen picture, which is squashed sideways on my monitor. Oblivion was a prime offender, and could only be cured by switching from 1280x1024 to 1024x760 (despite this last obviously not being a widescreen resolution either!)... Viva Pinata actually switched between normal and squished modes at every load screen. I do sometimes wonder if VGA is some kind of forgotten third cousin that never gets proper QA.

  • Dogstar060763 #47 3 years ago

    I do sometimes wonder if VGA is some kind of forgotten third cousin that never gets proper QA.

    I also use a PC monitor (a flatscreen TFT) with the official MS VGA cable for my 360. Generally, I'd say I get excellent results - after years of using a CRT TV for me the visual gain was immense - for starters, I could actually read most of the menus on my games. I wouldn't go back to a CRT TV now but refuse to pay the ridiculous prices being asked for high-quality HDTVs, so I bought a good quality PC monitor exclusively for my 360. I'm happy (the monitor came in at just over £100), but I agree that it often seems games developers don't seem to give their VGA users any thought at all. It's just the luck of the draw whether or not your game will be formatted correctly for VGA play.
    Edited by 1 at 25/07/09 @ 21:36

  • jonbwfc #48 3 years ago

    "A US PS3 owner who buys a cheap game in the UK and takes it back to the US could well find it completely unplayable if he only has an SDTV."

    This is an entirely hypothetical example right? I mean you have seen the price of PAL PS3 games compared to US ones, haven't you?

    Jon

  • Chazmeister #49 3 years ago

    I honestly can't see the point in supporting PAL50, you'd have to own one hell of an ancient TV for it not to have PAL60 support. When I first got my 360 I was borrowing a mates 10 year old 20" TV and even that had PAL60 support. If you're still using the 20 year old portable you plugged your PS1 into then its time to buy a new TV.

  • Nocturne #50 3 years ago

    justanotherdave,

    My brother bought a massive HD flatscreen TV, but he played his 360 in SD. He didn't know how to change the 360's output settings. If I hadn't changed it for him, I bet he would still be playing in SD. One of his friends did the same thing. I think it is very common.

  • smelly #51 3 years ago

    "I honestly can't see the point in supporting PAL50, you'd have to own one hell of an ancient TV for it not to have PAL60 support."


    But pal50 is higher resolution at lower framerates... The HD brigade will tell you therefor it's better!

  • VandelayIndustries #52 3 years ago

    It isn't really about being tech savvy. Personally I find it staggering that anyone who buys an HD TV and either HD console wouldn't know how to set them up to achieve the best possible results. They come with all the information you need within the instruction manuals, and if people are paying out that kind of money and not reading that stuff, then really it's their own fault.

  • Mannie #53 3 years ago

    I splashed out on a HDTV just over 7 months ago as I told myself that I couldn't enter 2009 without one. I knew already that games would loo better in HD as i had hooked up my 360 to a flat screen monitor via vga. When i did get my new tv i used HDMI to connct and was amazed with the display without changing the settings. Like most people that dip into HD i thought all I had to do was hook up the cable and presto best resolution. Eventually I did tweek with the resolution and the tv and got a setting that I feel is impressive for the set I have.The image looked sharper,vibrant and more crisp than when i just connected and turned it on.

    With the experience i have gained in the 7 months I do have to stress that HDTV's have moved on since the current gen consoles were released. Most older sets and still some current sets have motion bluring, most sets still can't show "Full HD" and alot of content isn't available to the masses. HD tv's are still in its infancy and evolving. Soon enough they will become cheap enough for all to have. As for me once you game in High Def you just don't go back.

  • michaelius #54 3 years ago

    This is crazy.

    22" LCD full hd monitor with hdcp cost something like 150 euro.
    Even if you don;t want to spend big on your living room tv you can have very nice display for gaming cheaply.

  • AusFreelancer #55 3 years ago

    I agree michaelius - If you can spend on a new console, surely you can buy yourself at least a low-end TV, or monitor. I believe compatibility with long-gone technologies is a complete waste of time and a hindrance to quality....just ask the Microsoft Windows teams.

    I can sympathise with people stuck with old tech - but you knew, you wouldn't be getting the entire "picture" when you bought the 360/PS3 home.

  • smelly #56 3 years ago

    @michaelius : What on EARTH is the point in a 22 inch HD tv?!?!

    Some people just get bought into marketing hype i guess..

  • smelly #57 3 years ago

    "I can sympathise with people stuck with old tech - but you knew, you wouldn't be getting the entire "picture" when you bought the 360/PS3 home."



    They didnt.. they all bought wii's...

  • domoslaf #58 3 years ago

    @smelly

    What on EARTH is the point of 19-inch computer monitor? Use your SD TV instead and bleed your eyes out trying to read text.

    Come on, it wasn't so long ago that people displayed resolutions like 1024 x 768 (not that much different from 720p) even on 15-inch monitors and you definitely could tell the difference between that and using SD TV.

  • smelly #59 3 years ago

    interlaced maybe - because of the flicker.

    And with a monitor you sit a hell of a lot closer to it than a tv.

    Sure - a 22" hd tv would suit you well if you sit in front of it like a computer monitor. But if you sit 5 or 6 feet away like a normal person does - it'd make f-all difference.

    Especially for watching tv/movies... That said, im strange in that i can barely tell difference between bluray and dvd on my tv - that may be because mine upscales lowdef properl, or may be because it's shit at displaying hidef... or maybe there is just little difference?

  • comissars_handgun #60 3 years ago

    Yeah I started out on SDTV for my 360, but after playing Dead Rising I got hold of a 19" CRT monitor my friend was throwing out and it was a huge improvement. Not as good as my current HDTV, but a lot lot better than SDTV. So I'd recommend that route for anyone who is too broke to get an HDTV- you can get an old CRT monitor of a decent size for like £20 in a charity shop.

  • electrolite #61 3 years ago

    It's like banging your head against a brick wall! Posts on this thread asking why you wouldn't have a HDTV when they only cost e.g. 150 Euro.

    Is it really that difficult to understand? How stupid are you? The problem is that you spend however many hundreds of pounds on a console and for the first generation ever, you have to spend e.g. 150 Euro on additional electronics to get the best out of it. The reason concoles took over from home computers in the 90's was their accesibility. Great graphics and could be hooked up to any TV in seconds. However, MS and Sony have gone "fuck logic and precendent, we'll attempt to make people buy HDTV's". The arrogance is mindblowing, but all it's resulted in is the current situation with the Wii battering them both. Idiocy, utter idiocy.

  • electrolite #62 3 years ago

    "I agree michaelius - If you can spend on a new console, surely you can buy yourself at least a low-end TV, or monitor. I believe compatibility with long-gone technologies is a complete waste of time and a hindrance to quality....just ask the Microsoft Windows teams. "

    Do you live in, or even have any way to relate to, the real world? The one where people are losing jobs all over the place, have kids etc.? What on earth is this logic where if you can raise 300 notes for a console you can raise another 200 for a new TV. It's like the antithesis of maths. Like taking the concept of numbers and throwing it out of the window. £300 is not the same as £500 so what is so difficult to understand?

  • KrissAkabusi #63 3 years ago

    Couldn't agree more with electrolite, far too many spoilt bastards on here. I'm in the position I can buy whatever the hell I want now, but 15 years back when I was a kid, saving up the money to get an N64, Playstation etc was a monumental task. Getting a new game was a major event back then. I'm sure that hasn't changed for this generation of children. If they can easily drop 500 euros on a console, screen and still have spare cash for the games, then I'd be amazed. Especially with a recession on.
    And VandaleyIndustries, I find your position fairly arrogant. Look at it another way, when consumers are stumping up so much cash for things that use to work out the box, they are being short changed that the likes of Sony don't offer them the best set up. Knowing the cables in the box aren't the best for the machine IS tech savvy. You're average joe consumer wouldn't even consider it.

  • Eisenstein #64 3 years ago

    "The amount of memory required (For example) to run a game at 1080p, means that you're left with LESS memory to do something interesting and visually simualting with the textures. "

    True, but I hope this problem is solved with the next generation (which might be a long way away, since the current generation is still "good enough";). For the price of the RAM for the 360 when it was released you nowadays can get 1-2 GB of VRAM (more expensive because of the faster timings) or 4 GB of RAM.

  • Vordred #65 3 years ago

    thats was one thing i really liked when i bought my 360 was that it had a 50/60 switch. all consoles should have them i think.
    i remember back with the PS1 i imported all my games for it in the end because i got fed up with the terrible PAL conversion we got (that and the 6 month or more wait). they were almost always slow as hell and had nasty boarders top and bottom. i remember playing the PAL tekken 3 when it first came out after owning the jap tekken 3 for like 6 months, it felt like you were fighting in treacle. when they did the platium version they did optimise it a little but still wasn't as good as the 60hz version.

    and well there maybe some people out there that dont have 60hz compatible TV's they should be pretty rare. you have to have a really bloody old tv for it not to be 60hz.

  • masterson #66 3 years ago

    I really do not get all the whining - both the 360 and the PS3 work on an SDTV just fine. If, however, you're fussy about picture quality, then an *optional* HDTV will make it look all shiny. I could understand all the nerd rage if an HDTV was required to play either console, but it's not.
    This is really no different than back in the early nineties when to get the most out of your Amiga/imported SNES/whatever it was preferable to have a 60hz TV with a SCART socket...
    Edited by 1 at 26/07/09 @ 10:01

  • VandelayIndustries #67 3 years ago

    @KrisAkabusi

    Here's the thing though, we're a long way past the 'it works straight out the box' days of N64 or even PS2. When you first turn on the 360/PS3 you're confronted with reams of T&C's, account set up screens, audio visual option lists and screens and numerous other settings. All fairly intimidating if all you're used to is simply plugging in a RF lead and switching it on.

    I agree with your point about the the PS3, it should at least come with a component lead, but you are told in the manual that the included lead will not give you a HD image (it also tells you what leads will). If someone blags their way through the setup of these consoles without checking the included information it is their fault.

  • GWH #68 3 years ago

    @ masterson

    I really do not get all the whining - both the 360 and the PS3 work on an SDTV just fine.

    Not always. You end up with a murkier picture (often with no way to increase the brightness without fiddling with your TV's settings) and small fonts become illegible. What's the idea with all the tiny writing these days anyway? Even in HD, I find larger text much more comfortable to read.

  • KrissAkabusi #69 3 years ago

    Vandaley, you are contradicting yourself. First post you say it's not about being tech savvy, then second post you outline exactly how much you need to understand these days to get your console operating.
    It is certainly not in Microsoft or Sony's interests at all to take the approach that consumers should know what to do get the best out their machine. If I was releasing a console, I'd sure as hell want to make that sure that everyone buying it saw the absolute best it had to offer.

  • VandelayIndustries #70 3 years ago

    Not really. All I'm getting at that, is this is not about privileged information, but rather the common sense to read through the instructions provided. The examples above regarding poster's friends and family illustrate that some people are not doing that, hardly the fault of the companies making the consoles.

  • septimus #71 3 years ago

    SDTVLol basically. You can get a 19" 720P TFT for £90 now, and a 22-23" 1080P for £220, 720P/1080i 28-32" for just over £300, and although not the best makes, the images displayed are absolutely fine and easily better than SD. Some even have decent scalers. What is the problem?
    Edited by 1 at 26/07/09 @ 14:21

  • Dr_Wadd #72 3 years ago

    Realistically, how many televisions are there out there now that are used for gaming that don`t support 60Hz in some capacity? About 15 years ago I bought a bog standard 14" television from Tandy to use with my Amiga, a mega-cheapo no name model, and that support 60Hz over SCART. I`m sure I recall using my first A500 with a TV modulator on an even older set with it set to NTSC output with no problems (although the modulator may have been doing some funky stuff there, so I`m not sure if it was actually true 60Hz).

    The Microsoft approach may mean that there is a very small minority of players that can`t play particular games, but to me that is far preferable than Sony's approach of forcing a large number of players in to experiencing their game in a substandard fashion.

    Worst example of a set-up using semi-decent tech in a woefully poor configuration I've seen wasn`t a television, it was a surround sound system, with all of the speakers arranged on the floor right in front of the television.

    @VandelayIndustries: Ironically, my N64 is no longer just plug in and work, at least not in an ideal fashion. It's an NTSC unit modified to output RGB over SCART, and there is something about the signal that my latest television (LE46A656) just doesn`t like. I can get a picture, but it is substandard, I can only assume that something about the mod pushes part of the signal just outside of the official spec and my older televisions were more tolerant of it.
    Edited by 2 at 26/07/09 @ 14:44

  • Demiath #73 3 years ago

    Thanks for this article. I'm a reasonably (hard-)core gamer who've so far played all of my X360 and PS3 titles on an SD TV, and since I only rarely get to see the games in full HD action it's a bit hard for me to judge just how much of the full experience I'm actually missing out on. Perphaps because I don't really have anything to compare with (even wonderfully high-res embedded videos here on Digital Foundry can't really tell me that much about the ordinary living room HD experience), I haven't felt that any of the 30 or so 360/PS3 games I've bought and played so far have suffered from any really annoying/potentially game-breaking display-related problems (just minor things like slightly difficult-to-read fonts etc.). Also, all my North American PS3 imports up to this point have worked fine.

  • GWH #74 3 years ago

    @septimus

    The problem is that everyone already has a TV. So spending £300 to replace a decent 28-32" CRT with a fairly bad 28-32" HDTV isn't a priority for a lot of people in that situation. Particularly when TV and DVDs look fine in SD.

    Even £90 for a bottom of the range HDTV is too much for kids that play on a portable in their bedroom (and who else would want such a piddly screen?). Even if they were to so HARDCORE! that they exclusively spent their money on gaming, the opportunity cost of upgrading their telly would be four or five 360 games.

  • KrissAkabusi #75 3 years ago

    @vandaley

    I take it you're not in anything sales related from your comments. I find it astounding that you expect "common sense" from all consumers. Such tact really narrows your market.

  • Collymilad #76 3 years ago

    Surely the point of having an HDTV is to have a better experience?

    Whether you agree with it or not, like anything in life if you pay more for better tech you are entitles to expect better.

    I'm not saying that SDTV user should be ignored, and the issues with tiny text etc is not acceptable at all, but specifically trying to give SDTV users pros over HDTV users seems a little dumb to me.

    I never had a problem with any 360 games when I used to have an SDTV (which I used till Nov 2008)

  • Jelloblimp #77 3 years ago

    It's just the luck of the draw whether or not your game will be formatted correctly for VGA play.
    I have yet to find a single game that does not work properly with the VGA-cable (around two years on a CRT and now on a widescreen lcd, both through VGA-cable) or even heard of a game not working correctly.
    (To the other guy: I played some Viva Pinata but can't recall any funny business with/while loading screen).
    Edited by 1 at 26/07/09 @ 19:19

  • Shakey_Jake33 #78 3 years ago

    ^There are a small handful of games which are intentionally rendered with a black bar on all sides (Burnout Revenge being one). This is an attempt to compensate for the overscan that occurs when playing the game on a CRT. A lot of 720p/1366x768 HDTVs attempted to 'emulate' this overscan internally for Component content, meaning most 360 games (which are rendered to the entire picture) get cropped. My 32" Sony Bravia 32S2030 does this over Component. Playing the game over VGA solves the problem (because there is no overscan compensation) but does mean that games with artificial CRT overscan compensation such as Burnout Revenge will always render with black bars on all sides when playing over VGA, or on any decent TV with 'full scan' (or whatever marketing name the manufacturer chooses to use).

    To be fair, this is the exception rather than the rule. That issue aside, I've never had an issue playing 360 games over VGA @ 1360x768 on my HDTV.

  • peterfll #79 3 years ago

    What surprised me most is the surprise so many consoles are hooked up to SDTVs. How many kids are playing these consoles? How many of those kids use them on TVs that have been handed down? How many kids have £150+ burning in their pocket to go out and buy a new HDTV?

    The CRTs that I and my family have owned over the years have all lasted forever, they were all still working when passed on / replaced.

    In fact, I had an Aunt who, when she died about 10 years ago, still had one of the first Sony colour TVs. It was 25+ years old and still going.

  • 3william56 #80 3 years ago

    So if most PS3/360 folks are still in SD, as are all Wii folks, does this mean that we can finally say the pixel counting Face Offs are finally, truly shown to be completely meaningless and can be safely consigned to the frame buffer of history..?

  • poopmonster #81 3 years ago

    Our last PS3 game had to contain assets for HD and standard resolution - namely readable fonts and icons. It's in the Sony TRCs. It wasn't in the Microsoft TRCs (it wasn't raised at their end as an issue anyway).

  • nea #82 3 years ago

    Dead Rising, until today I have to sit half a meter in front of my TV. And I am sorry but I won't buy me a new one until mine is broken. It is definitely not too hard to make the Font larger. Especially Dead Rising has a very small one even in HD.

  • TheTingler #83 3 years ago

    I didn't know about that PS3 only supporting 50Hz thing. That's utterly ridiculous. I haven't had a 50Hz-only TV for years, and that didn't even have a SCART socket. Are they even available anymore?

  • jmg123 #84 3 years ago

    My grandparents are still using a massive square crt from the 70's as their second tv, it still works, the picture quality is sitll better than any of the last crt's available in supermarkets and the like, and it still works. So why bother changing? and to people who say what is the point in a 1080p 20" hdtv? why not? people use 20" pc monitors, so if you have a small room and sit close to the screen you wouldn't want to sit 12" away from a 36" hd screen to play games, it would look rubbish and make you hurt after a while.

  • superdelphinus #85 3 years ago

    i've got a big posh sony bravia and i think HD is a leetle bit overrated if i'm honest

  • smernicki #86 3 years ago

    my 360 was a present. due to recession i got made part time from work. can't find alternative job for similar pay.

    tbh spending £150+ on a new telly ain't happening any time soon.

  • Darren #87 3 years ago

    It's very surprising that the Sony still do not support PAL60 for their consoles, especially when you consider that Microsoft did a very job of ensuring that support for it was included in the original Xbox back in 2002. That meant the vast majority of Xbox games ran full speed and full screen whereas you were stuck with a slower, bordered game on the PS2. When you consider than 60Hz support is a requirement for high-definition games anyway, you'd think it'd be a relatively easy thing to support PAL60 for standard definition. Not so apparently and like a few things about the PS3, it's a bit messy and poorly thought out.

    As for high-definition... well it's a term that stretched a bit on the current consoles where a good number of games can't even run at 720p nevermind the "true HD" 1080p that Sony was so fond of when they were trying to make their PS3 sound better than the Xbox 360. In that respect I can't help wondering if the HD generation perhaps arrived too soon, a generation to early; that developers would have been better coding their games for 480/576i and using the extra power of the 360 and PS3 to achieve higher framerates without tearing, add AA as standard for all games plus pack in more detail for the enviroments.
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/09 @ 15:46

  • smelly #88 3 years ago

    quote : "True, but I hope this problem is solved with the next generation (which might be a long way away, since the current generation is still "good enough";). For the price of the RAM for the 360 when it was released you nowadays can get 1-2 GB of VRAM (more expensive because of the faster timings) or 4 GB of RAM."


    But next gen - microsoft and sony will support 3d tv's.. requiring everyone to upgrade again.. and this time you'll need 1 gig of vram to support the 3d buffer.

    Games will run at 10fps... no-one will care because they're "better".

  • smelly #89 3 years ago

    "i've got a big posh sony bravia and i think HD is a leetle bit overrated if i'm honest "


    Ah.. your first mistake was buying sony.. I bet all the SD stuff you watch on it looks like lego!

  • smelly #90 3 years ago

    "would have been better coding their games for 480/576i and using the extra power of the 360 and PS3 to achieve higher framerates without tearing, add AA as standard for all games plus pack in more detail for the enviroments."

    +1!


    As for the 150 quid tv thing.. as i said earlier.. unless you're sat 6 inches from the screen (like you do with a monitor) you WONT be able to tell anything "hi def" about a cheapo small screen. You may as well buy a big standard def screen.

    And lets not forget that the majority of gamers are still teenagers playing games in their bedroom using the "old" tv from the living room to play games on.

  • pinochet_cz #91 3 years ago

    what? you can buy an aquarium, but don't attach it to xbox man...

  • leeram #92 3 years ago

    There are some people who need SD televisions because the majority of their games are SD. For instance those with Japanese shoot 'em ups on PCB, or PS2 or whatever. The HD LCD TVs generally render SD very badly, especially through SCART RGB and S-Video. Moving to an HD TV for the sake of the 360 and PS3 when you have many more SD consoles and systems is a very hard choice. Some that some are just not prepared to make.

    Cheers

    Lee

  • MrScruffier #93 3 years ago

    lol, the fact that this guy is shocked that there are people who don't have an HDTV and aren't elderly/blind really sums up my image of him as someone a bit blinkered and into his own view point.

    Seriously though, developers, please please put something in the options to allow bigger text. I couldn't list the number of games that are rendered a complete chore to play because the objectives are unreadable on standard def!

    Sure it'll take longer to make sure it fits, but it's no worse than localising german :)

  • IneptPercy #94 3 years ago

    "The HD LCD TVs generally render SD very badly, especially through SCART RGB and S-Video"

    I run my PS2/Xbox/Wii on component cables, yes this doesn't make them HD but my HDTV does seem to like being fed properly and they look great.

  • electrolite #95 3 years ago

    "As for high-definition... well it's a term that stretched a bit on the current consoles where a good number of games can't even run at 720p nevermind the "true HD" 1080p that Sony was so fond of when they were trying to make their PS3 sound better than the Xbox 360. In that respect I can't help wondering if the HD generation perhaps arrived too soon, a generation to early; that developers would have been better coding their games for 480/576i and using the extra power of the 360 and PS3 to achieve higher framerates without tearing, add AA as standard for all games plus pack in more detail for the enviroments."


    I whole-heartedly agree with this!

  • xtremeboat #96 3 years ago

    Is anyone apart from the writers of this blog surprised that the majority play in SD? For me living away from home and just finished uni, I game in my room. I have a PC that uses the monitor and a big old CRT for TV, DVDs and my Xbox360. It's a happy medium, in that low res/bitrate Freeview looks passable on it - unlike on most LCDs, DVDs look great on it, and games look great on it. If I were to 'upgrade' to LCD my TV and DVD viewing would suffer. If I used my monitor I couldn't be on the PC at the same time.

  • VandelayIndustries #97 3 years ago

    "...that developers would have been better coding their games for 480/576i and using the extra power of the 360 and PS3 to achieve higher framerates without tearing, add AA as standard for all games plus pack in more detail for the enviroments."

    That's pretty much what IW did with CoD 4 (slightly higher resolution, I know). Having played the hell out of that game I still struggle to see that much difference between it and a game that just runs at 720p, except that CoD 4 runs at 60fps, whereas many 720p games are a variable 30fps.

    IW's method makes some sense I think.

  • leeram #98 3 years ago

    "I run my PS2/Xbox/Wii on component cables, yes this doesn't make them HD but my HDTV does seem to like being fed properly and they look great."

    That doesn't help with Dreamcast, C64, Pioneer Laseractive, Panasonic Q, Supergun, Atari 8-bit, Atari ST, PC Engine, PS1, Atari VCS, Atari Jaguar, NES, SNES, Master System, Mega Drive or N64 unfortunately.

    :-(

  • Badassbab #99 3 years ago

    If you can afford to buy a PS3 than you can probably afford to buy a decent HD tv. Funny how the PS3 is the most feature rich console yet has issues like this. Let's hope the slimline sorts this out.

  • electrolite #100 3 years ago

    "If you can afford to buy a PS3 than you can probably afford to buy a decent HD tv"

    PS3 - £300
    Decent HDTV - £500?

    So if you can afford £300 you can afford £800? Doesn't make sense.




    It is ridiculous though that such a sophisticated machine can't do 50HZ or even VGA. Sony are losing their collective mind

  • PezzaDispenser #101 3 years ago

    You can't polish a SD turd and if developers try... things will just get messy!

  • lukaz #102 2 years ago

    It was already mentioned here: The PAL PS3 outputs 480i/p@60Hz if the games doesn't support 576i/p (some NTSC games). So it should be easy for Sony to implement a 60Hz switch and it could work even for already released games.

    My guess is they fear additional support costs. But the price is many unhappy SDTV gamers.

    This missing 60Hz SD support is even more outrageous if you see that some games have broken 50Hz modes that stutter. GT5P since Spec III in time trial modes, Soul Calibur IV and others I've forgotten.
    Edited by 1 at 29/10/09 @ 10:49