StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Naturally, then, you might assume gamers with machines now are aware of their HD capabilities, right?

Right?

As it turns out, not so much. The NPD Group released results from their "Next Gen Functionality & Usage" report and some of the numbers are surprising.

According to the results, only 40% of PlayStation 3 owners polled were aware the machine had a Blu-ray player and about 50% of that number had popped in a Blu-ray movie during the last 10 times they turned on the machine -- the other half didn't use the feature. The study didn't poll about Xbox 360's HD-DVD add-on, as it's not a standard feature with the Xbox 360 SKU. For reference, about half polled knew about the DVD-playback potential of Xbox 360.

The lack of awareness (or interest) isn't limited to movie watching, either -- and here's where you should start paying attention for an idea on how the mass market will respond in the next few years. Only 30% of Xbox 360 owners were aware of the HD graphics capabilities of the machine, whereas that number rises to 50% with PS3. Considering the inclusion of a cheap Blu-ray player in the PS3, that's not so surprising, but, either way, a startling number of "HD gamers" don't know about -- or don't care about -- HD.


"The industry is still in its infancy with regard to this "next-gen" and all the expanded capabilities of the systems," said NPD analyst Anita Frazier to 1UP. "Gameplay is still king, and it may take awhile for the awareness and usage of the additional features to really take hold with consumers."



If so few are even aware of the HD functions, how many who are in-the-know are even taking advantage of it? Speaking anecdotally, my Dad picked up an HDTV a few years ago from Costco and every time I'm home, he's watching everything in SD because he doesn't know better. To him, he's watching TV on the "HDTV" and actually switching to a HD-capable channel doesn't cross his mind -- it's the illusion of having the HDTV feature that makes him think he's actually watching a better picture. In fact, he's making standard definition look worse!

According to the results, only 40% of PlayStation 3 owners polled were aware the machine had a Blu-ray player and about 50% of that number had popped in a Blu-ray movie during the last 10 times they turned on the machine -- the other half didn't use the feature.

Only 30% of Xbox 360 owners were aware of the HD graphics capabilities of the machine, whereas that number rises to 50% with PS3. Considering the inclusion of a cheap Blu-ray player in the PS3, that's not so surprising, but, either way, a startling number of "HD gamers" don't know about -- or don't care about -- HD

weemadando wrote:Being aware of this stuff, I spent money on a cheap, genero-brand 720p capable 81cm LD HDTV. Why? Because I also just bought a 360 without HDMI capability, so I don't need 1080i or p at the moment.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:

weemadando wrote:Being aware of this stuff, I spent money on a cheap, genero-brand 720p capable 81cm LD HDTV. Why? Because I also just bought a 360 without HDMI capability, so I don't need 1080i or p at the moment.

HD is HD, and those brands are a lot cheaper, but having had an hour to kill at Best Buy one day, I noticed that the difference between one of those brands and say, the Sony Bravia at the same resolution is stunning. It's like the difference beteween SD and HD.

chitoryu12 wrote:Until HD is the standard, I have no reason to shell out extra cash so it may or may not look nicer. I've seen two TVs of similar sizes. One HD, one standard. They barely looked different. Unless it can make a movie from the eighties look like it was made just a few years ago, why should I spend hundreds of dollars on it?

chitoryu12 wrote:Until HD is the standard, I have no reason to shell out extra cash so it may or may not look nicer. I've seen two TVs of similar sizes. One HD, one standard. They barely looked different. Unless it can make a movie from the eighties look like it was made just a few years ago, why should I spend hundreds of dollars on it?

chitoryu12 wrote:I've seen two TVs of similar sizes. One HD, one standard. They barely looked different.

Darth Wong wrote:For the same reason that you should buy a car with a 300 horsepower motor. Not because you need it, or can even use it in most situations, but just because it's better and you have a Duty to Consume.

MKSheppard wrote:And yes; if I had the money, I'd buy a truck with a 300 hp Cummins Turbodiesel. Just because.

chitoryu12 wrote:Until HD is the standard, I have no reason to shell out extra cash so it may or may not look nicer. I've seen two TVs of similar sizes. One HD, one standard. They barely looked different. Unless it can make a movie from the eighties look like it was made just a few years ago, why should I spend hundreds of dollars on it?

InnocentBystander wrote:

chitoryu12 wrote:Until HD is the standard, I have no reason to shell out extra cash so it may or may not look nicer. I've seen two TVs of similar sizes. One HD, one standard. They barely looked different. Unless it can make a movie from the eighties look like it was made just a few years ago, why should I spend hundreds of dollars on it?

There is no way you didn't notice the difference between HD and SD unless the broadcast you were watching wasn't in HD. Planet Earth is especially impressive. Take a look here to get an idea as to the difference you should see.

And these days its not like HD tvs cost that much money, our Zenith 56" dlp was like $800, it can't do 1080p, but 1080i is still damn impressive to watch.

InnocentBystander wrote:

chitoryu12 wrote:Until HD is the standard, I have no reason to shell out extra cash so it may or may not look nicer. I've seen two TVs of similar sizes. One HD, one standard. They barely looked different. Unless it can make a movie from the eighties look like it was made just a few years ago, why should I spend hundreds of dollars on it?

There is no way you didn't notice the difference between HD and SD unless the broadcast you were watching wasn't in HD. Planet Earth is especially impressive. Take a look here to get an idea as to the difference you should see.

And these days its not like HD tvs cost that much money, our Zenith 56" dlp was like $800, it can't do 1080p, but 1080i is still damn impressive to watch.

InnocentBystander wrote:

chitoryu12 wrote:Until HD is the standard, I have no reason to shell out extra cash so it may or may not look nicer. I've seen two TVs of similar sizes. One HD, one standard. They barely looked different. Unless it can make a movie from the eighties look like it was made just a few years ago, why should I spend hundreds of dollars on it?

There is no way you didn't notice the difference between HD and SD unless the broadcast you were watching wasn't in HD. Planet Earth is especially impressive. Take a look here to get an idea as to the difference you should see.

And these days its not like HD tvs cost that much money, our Zenith 56" dlp was like $800, it can't do 1080p, but 1080i is still damn impressive to watch.

chitoryu12 wrote:

InnocentBystander wrote:

chitoryu12 wrote:Until HD is the standard, I have no reason to shell out extra cash so it may or may not look nicer. I've seen two TVs of similar sizes. One HD, one standard. They barely looked different. Unless it can make a movie from the eighties look like it was made just a few years ago, why should I spend hundreds of dollars on it?

There is no way you didn't notice the difference between HD and SD unless the broadcast you were watching wasn't in HD. Planet Earth is especially impressive. Take a look here to get an idea as to the difference you should see.

And these days its not like HD tvs cost that much money, our Zenith 56" dlp was like $800, it can't do 1080p, but 1080i is still damn impressive to watch.

I was going to say what Zod said, but he beat me to it.

As for your link, I have a very standard 38'' TV. I checked the HD pictures on the site, and guess what? They look exactly like my normal TV.

Ypoknons wrote:

chitoryu12 wrote:Until HD is the standard, I have no reason to shell out extra cash so it may or may not look nicer. I've seen two TVs of similar sizes. One HD, one standard. They barely looked different. Unless it can make a movie from the eighties look like it was made just a few years ago, why should I spend hundreds of dollars on it?

Because you have a X360 or PS3 and want to play 720p or higher resolution games. And honestly I'm not seeing all these "there's no difference" comments - if I can clearly see the difference on a 15.4" MBP (albeit at close range), there's no reason why a good, high-end HDTV should look the same as a non-HD. Whether it's worth the substantial money outtake depends on your financial situation and requirements. There's also HDTV broadcasts - in Hong Kong TVB is going over to 1080p in 2008, iirc. While it'll take time for content to catch up, it's getting there.

Which size was that?

General Zod wrote:

chitoryu12 wrote:

InnocentBystander wrote: There is no way you didn't notice the difference between HD and SD unless the broadcast you were watching wasn't in HD. Planet Earth is especially impressive. Take a look here to get an idea as to the difference you should see.

And these days its not like HD tvs cost that much money, our Zenith 56" dlp was like $800, it can't do 1080p, but 1080i is still damn impressive to watch.

I was going to say what Zod said, but he beat me to it.

As for your link, I have a very standard 38'' TV. I checked the HD pictures on the site, and guess what? They look exactly like my normal TV.

The difference was obvious, but not enough to justify the cost. The HDTV was far clearer and less blurry than the standard DVD images.

chitoryu12 wrote:
I will admit that there was a very obvious difference, but I have the movies on DVD, and when I use them in a standard TV, they look exactly like the HD shots he used.