Gamers have no clue about HD res, Bluray

[Ace Pace]

Lolerskates?

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!

[Dominus Atheos]

Did they ask the actual user of the console, or just whoever happened to pick up the phone in a house that has a PS3 or Xbox 360? Also, did they poll people under 18, because most of the pollsters who call my house always ask to speak to an adult, so what if they asked some parents who bought a console for a teenager without knowing anything about it?

[Xisiqomelir]

Swung by my friend's house and he had a new Bravia!....hooked up by composite

The personal experience of most people will be in line with the findings.

[Darth Wong]

I don't know why anybody is surprised by this. We're all tech geeks here; we're not exactly representative of the general population, for which one of the great advantages of DVD players over VCRs was the elimination of the blinking "12:00" time display.

[weemadando]

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.

[Zixinus]

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.

Considering how rare and expensive blu-ray disks are anyway, that is not really surprising.

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

If I understand correctly, "HD" stands for "High definition", a feature that only few TV sets can support.


It's sad that so many people don't read the manual though.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

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.

[weemadando]

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.

Well, for the extra 1000AUD the difference had better be that stunning. In comparison to other brand names (Samsung, Panasonic etc) in a comparable price range and design style, this TV looked quite good, and infact boasted better contrast ratios and brightness than many. And a better response time.

But compared to the actual high end home cinema products? Of course it doesn't look as sharp. But I just wanted an interim measure to get me an HDTV in time for this years gaming seasons. The 127cm 1080p can wait for when I have exceedingly larger amounts of cash.

[chitoryu12]

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?

[Darth Wong]

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?

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. Now be a good little consumer and take out a loan to buy that new HDTV. Don't pay for six months, and no money down!

[Ypoknons]

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.

[Xisiqomelir]

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

Which size was that?

[Uraniun235]

I think the more important question is, was it actually HD content that was being displayed? I could totally see some idiot sales rep throwing in a standard DVD or tuning it to a channel that wasn't an HD channel.

[MKSheppard]

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.

I plan on upgrading to HDTV; but not now. It's still too ridiculously expensive, and standards are a bit tossy. When you can get a good decent widescreen TV that's a bit bigger than our present 28" or whatever Panasonic for about $500-700 then we'll upgrade.

Likewise; our car and computer upgrade cycles are pretty long; we'll hold onto a computer for 4-5 years, and then upgrade it in a big smash; cars last 10~ years or longer; we drove a 1986 Chevy Caprice into 2002; my grandmother drove a 1979-1978 Chevy Caprice into 2005 or so before she had it towed away and sold off some stock to move up to a 2000~ or so Crown Vic.

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

[Xisiqomelir]

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

That would be pretty sweet.

[weemadando]

My TV bought for $1300. Which was fully five hundred cheaper than the nearest brandname models RRP.

[InnocentBystander]

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.

[General Zod]

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.

Maybe it's just me but I can't see spending more than $300 on a decent TV set. Especially when $800 is enough to pay some of our (consumers) bills for an entire month.

[Howedar]

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.

There's a difference between seeing differences and seeing meaningful differences. Why do I care if I can see smaller wrinkles in a map shown on a screen? Why do I care if I can discern each of somebody's hairs? My brain is, actually, quite accustomed to not seeing every slightest detail on objects - it's because my eyes generally aren't a foot away from said objects. Thus, my brain is pretty excellent at upscaling when I know there should be detail there (hairs), or ignoring the issue when other parts of my brain wouldn't give a shit (wrinkles on a map).

[weemadando]

Cost is a big issue, the only reason I could afford this was because of a significant windfall which allowed me to clear my current debts (credit card - fuck paying HECS back) and left enough over to allow me to finally get the HDTV and 360.

[chitoryu12]

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. So either my normal TV is as good as HD, or the guy who runs the site used a pretty shitty TV for his "standard" pics.

[General Zod]

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.

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]

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.

And what games are in that resolution range? Every game I've tried for the Xbox 360, which is going somewhere in the two dozen range, worked perfectly and looked good on my TV. Besides, I don't watch TV that much anyway. I use it for playing games and watching DVDs. The only TV I watch is the Militay Channel, the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, and whatever channel is showing a show with Gordan Ramsay. Maybe I'll catch a random movie or two, though I usually end up buying any movie if I like it enough to watch it on TV.

Which size was that?

Around 38''. One was mine and the other was on display.

[chitoryu12]

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.

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.

[General Zod]

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.

Only because your brain is extrapolating the detail that should be there. Pause the picture and see if it's still that clear.