Wii Preorders Have Begun

[NovaXpress]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site//olspage.jsp?i...1&type=category

The retail price will indeed be only fifty bucks per game! I assume that the 12/1/06 release date is an estimate.

 

Lots of good material in their Wii section, you get a feel for how they're going to market this thing.

[moycon]

Only $50? I would hope so. They are only a step up from the Gamecube.

I didn't see where you could pre-order the system, is it just the games you can pre-order or am I missing the console pre-order? This one might be hard to find at launch if folks don't pre-order.

[+Cobra Kai]

I'm glad the 3rd party games are getting the same price point as Nintendo first party stuff.

[NovaXpress]

The system apparently isn't available yet, just those three games.

 

We'll see how the economics play out. Nintendo is offering lower power at a lower price with a gimmick as the selling point.

[King_Salamon]

Unfortunately, 2 of those games will not see stores until 2007... but it is nice to see activity on the pre-order front for the Wii.

[n8littlefield]

We don't really know the price point of the games either. While I would expect the big guns like Mario or Zelda to be $50, there are likely to be the smaller titles (like Wii Sports) hitting at a lower price point. What generally happens is they put up a place holder price for all preorder games until the publisher gives a definate price point.

[JagFan422]

$50 is lower? The 360 games are starting to get lowered to $39 already. By the time the Wii rolls around, i'd best most of the games will be around $39 new and new games will be around the same price point as the Wii games.

[sega saturn x]

$50 is lower? The 360 games are starting to get lowered to $39 already. By the time the Wii rolls around, i'd best most of the games will be around $39 new and new games will be around the same price point as the Wii games.

It's the HD dev cost driving the price point up, they will probably stay 60$ for a while.

[CPUWIZ]

It's the HD dev cost driving the price point up

 

Do you know anything about matrix math?

Didn't think so.

 

How about aspect ratio?

Yes, good.

 

A simple change in the projection matrix, changes a rendered image from 4:3 to 16:9.

 

Expensive? A few minutes of an engineers time.

[sega saturn x]

Ok then, simply going on what I heard

Edited June 9, 2006 by sega saturn x

[CPUWIZ]

Ok then, simply going on what I heard

 

Which seems to be the problem with a lot of people reading random content on the internet, and then without actually being able to back it up, spread the mis-information all over the web.

 

[jbanes]

Do you know anything about matrix math?

 

There's an explanation of OpenGL's projection matrix here in case anyone is interested in the hard math. All it really does, though, is add projection aspect and bounds to the following calculations:

 

Parallel:

screenx = x;

screeny = y;

 

(Z is not used.)

 

Perspective:

screenx = x/z;

screeny = y/z;

 

How about aspect ratio?

Yes, good.

 

A simple change in the projection matrix, changes a rendered image from 4:3 to 16:9.

 

Generally speaking, you don't want to change the aspect of the view to change the rendering area of the screen. Changing the aspect changes the field of view rather than the number of pixels rendered. A wider FOV results in more of a panoramic view, while a narrower FOV results in only objects parallel to the camera being visible.

 

The FOV is usually set to somewhere between 60-90 degrees, as those angles give the best results. Using wider angles tend to make things appear "wrong", and narrower angles feel too confined. Cinematically, each angle has its own advantages and disadvantages. It's usually best to allow the 3D APIs to automatically figure out the correct aspect, then adjust the FOV as necessary for the (to steal a term from cinema) "shot" of the scene.

 

All of this has very little to do with HDTV. The aspect of the physical projection area would be different, but that would usually be compenstated for by the APIs. (If you use a 4:3 volume on a 16:9 screen, you might accidently "stretch" the objects.) The real issue is that HDTV is of a much higher resolution than standard television. Standard NTSC TV has a maximum resolution of around 640 pixels wide. While this was a very high resolution at one point, it's only about 1/3 the resolution of a 1080i HD screen. At 1920 pixels, a lot more detail can be shown for a given area. Because this detail exists, flaws that might otherwise go unnoticed now stand out.

 

As a result, artists must spend their time creating textures of a significantly higher resolution than what was used on previous generation consoles. Unfortunately, an increase in resolution by a factor of 3 x 2.25 means that the textures will be ~6.75x larger. Depending on how the textures are created, this may mean 6 times more work, or simply an entirely different method of obtaining textures. Either way, it's going to be expensive and time-consuming.

 

This is similar to why the original Enterprise model wasn't used when Star Trek: The Motion Picture was produced. The original model would have looked flawed on a movie screen due to the higher resolution of the film. Long swaths of white would have made it stand out as a model. As a result, a model with more detail (e.g. windows, decals, lights, panelling, etc.) had to be produced at great expense.

Edited June 9, 2006 by jbanes

[CPUWIZ]

Do you know anything about matrix math?

 

There's an explanation of OpenGL's projection matrix here in case anyone is interested in the hard math. All it really does, though, is add projection aspect and bounds to the following calculations:

 

Parallel:

screenx = x;

screeny = y;

 

(Z is not used.)

 

Perspective:

screenx = x/z;

screeny = y/z;

 

How about aspect ratio?

Yes, good.

 

A simple change in the projection matrix, changes a rendered image from 4:3 to 16:9.

Generally speaking, you don't want to change the aspect of the view to change the rendering area of the screen. Changing the aspect changes the field of view rather than the number of pixels rendered. A wider FOV results in more of a panoramic view, while a narrower FOV results in only objects parallel to the camera being visible.

 

The FOV is usually set to somewhere between 60-90 degrees, as those angles give the best results. Using wider angles tend to make things appear "wrong", and narrower angles feel too confined. Cinematically, each angle has its own advantages and disadvantages. It's usually best to allow the 3D APIs to automatically figure out the correct aspect, then adjust the FOV as necessary for the (to steal a term from cinema) "shot" of the scene.

 

All of this has very little to do with HDTV. The aspect of the physical projection area would be different, but that would usually be compenstated for by the APIs. (If you use a 4:3 volume on a 16:9 screen, you might accidently "stretch" the objects.) The real issue is that HDTV is of a much higher resolution than standard television. Standard NTSC TV has a maximum resolution of around 640 pixels wide. While this was a very high resolution at one point, it's only about 1/3 the resolution of a 1080i HD screen. At 1920 pixels, a lot more detail can be shown for a given area. Because this detail exists, flaws that might otherwise go unnoticed now stand out.

 

As a result, artists must spend their time creating textures of a significantly higher resolution than what was used on previous generation consoles. Unfortunately, an increase in resolution by a factor of 3 x 2.25 means that the textures will be ~6.75x larger. Depending on how the textures are created, this may mean 6 times more work, or simply an entirely different method of obtaining textures. Either way, it's going to be expensive and time-consuming.

 

This is similar to why the original Enterprise model wasn't used when Star Trek: The Motion Picture was produced. The original model would have looked flawed on a movie screen due to the higher resolution of the film. Long swaths of white would have made it stand out as a model. As a result, a model with more detail (e.g. windows, decals, lights, panelling, etc.) had to be produced at great expense.

 

I didn't want that kids head to explode, you obviously know the whole process of matrix math needed to generate a 2D image. Bottom line is that the view->screen matrix controls the aspect ratio and it is controlled via the projection.

 

Artists have been creating textures in much much higher resolutions for years, then they get reduced to the target platforms, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

[+remowilliams]

It's the HD dev cost driving the price point up

 

Do you know anything about matrix math?

Didn't think so.

 

How about aspect ratio?

Yes, good.

 

A simple change in the projection matrix, changes a rendered image from 4:3 to 16:9.

 

Expensive? A few minutes of an engineers time.

I wish people would stop with the "HD costs more!" games thing

 

And as noted - I always figured artists worked in a higher resolution than they ever get to display

 

Anyhow on the preorder thing, I think the last EB/Gamestop I was in had a sheet out about the game only preorders.

Edited June 9, 2006 by remowilliams

[n8littlefield]

Here's what annoys me. We have current gen console games at non-high definition textures. They were costing, on average $50. The next generation comes along, and developers say "Hey! This HD stuff is expensive, we need more detailed models and higher res textures, so the games have to go up in price to $60."

 

Now - you have the same developers making PC games. In those PC games are ALREADY the aforementioned higher polygon models and high res textures. Those games cost $50 and don't show any sign of increasing. And, to top it off, the market for PC gaming is already smaller and full of piracy making the PC game already have less of a chance to make a profit.

 

It really feels like the publishers are pulling a fast one with the increased prices.

[jbanes]

I didn't want that kids head to explode, you obviously know the whole process of matrix math needed to generate a 2D image.

 

Ah, but it's so much fun to watch them go "POP!".

 

 

Artists have been creating textures in much much higher resolutions for years, then they get reduced to the target platforms, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

 

Yes, and no. The larger textures have generally been used for anti-aliasing*. These can be used one of two ways:

 

1. Render at a higher resolution than the display, then produce each pixel as a blend of many pixels.

2. Pre-reduce the textures with anti-aliasing included. Any shots that get too close will show blurred pixels rather than the intended anti-aliasing effect.

 

The problem is that the increased resolution comes with an increased size in television sets. Which means that the resolution per inch hasn't changed considerably enough to allow anti-aliasing, mip-mapping, and other, similar techniques to stop using anti-aliasing. The eye will still be able to detect problems. Which means that the resolution of the textures MUST increase, or the graphics will look less realistic.

 

I'll grant you that not all games will bother with increasing their resolution (or at least won't be impacted as significantly). But the premier titles of the system are going to want to show off the graphics capabilities, and will thus need every bit of texture resolution that the machine can muster.

 

BTW, I was kidding about the heads exploding part. Here's something to help out those of you who aren't following what we're talking about.

 

Executive Summary: HDTV == Larger screens == Game Textures need to be bigger.

 

 

* Ten second explanation of aliasing. Aliasing is when incomplete information is captured because the sampling isn't precise enough. In music, this might mean that the bass is too low of a frequency to transmit at ~22KHz sampled radio, and would screw up the sound if it wasn't thrown away.

 

In image sampling, it means that you probably don't have enough info to display the object being sampled. For example, four pixels isn't enough to show a character of text. The best solution is to eliminate the information. The next best solution is to blend lots of pixels from a higher resolution into a single, lower-resolution pixel. This is called Anti-aliasing.

 

Edit: To better explain the resolution differences between a computer and a TV, take a look at this example of a 1080i capable TV. If I'm reading the specs right (sorry, it's a bit cold in the building at the moment, making it hard to concentrate), it's 64 inches wide. That gives a horizontal resolution of around 1920/64 = 30 pixels per inch. Now this computer monitor is a generous 17.8 inches wide. Which means that you have around 1024/17.8 = ~56 pixels per inch. The higher pixel density of the computer monitor means that for the same quality picture as the TV, you only have to use about half the resolution. The viewer will never notice, because the footprint of the monitor prevents him from distinguishing invidividual pixels that would be highly visible on his HDTV.

 

For further comparison, this 27 inch television has a width of 30 inches. 640/30 = ~21 pixels per inch!

Edited June 9, 2006 by jbanes

[CPUWIZ]

Artists have been creating textures in much much higher resolutions for years, then they get reduced to the target platforms, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

 

Yes, and no. The larger textures have generally been used for anti-aliasing*. These can be used one of two ways:

 

1. Render at a higher resolution than the display, then produce each pixel as a blend of many pixels.

2. Pre-reduce the textures with anti-aliasing included. Any shots that get too close will show blurred pixels rather than the intended anti-aliasing effect.

 

The problem is that the increased resolution comes with an increased size in television sets. Which means that the resolution per inch hasn't changed considerably enough to allow anti-aliasing, mip-mapping, and other, similar techniques to stop using anti-aliasing. The eye will still be able to detect problems. Which means that the resolution of the textures MUST increase, or the graphics will look less realistic.

 

I'll grant you that not all games will bother with increasing their resolution (or at least won't be impacted as significantly). But the premier titles of the system are going to want to show off the graphics capabilities, and will thus need every bit of texture resolution that the machine can muster.

 

BTW, I was kidding about the heads exploding part. Here's something to help out those of you who aren't following what we're talking about.

 

Executive Summary: HDTV == Larger screens == Game Textures need to be bigger.

 

 

* Ten second explanation of aliasing. Aliasing is when incomplete information is captured because the sampling isn't precise enough. In music, this might mean that the bass is too low of a frequency to transmit at ~22KHz sampled radio, and would screw up the sound if it wasn't thrown away.

 

In image sampling, it means that you probably don't have enough info to display the object being sampled. For example, four pixels isn't enough to show a character of text. The best solution is to eliminate the information. The next best solution is to blend lots of pixels from a higher resolution into a single, lower-resolution pixel. This is called Anti-aliasing.

 

I just asked several random artists around here and they all say it is much easier and quicker to create high-res textures.

 

The reason why hd-content is more expensive, is the fact that more of it needs to be made. E.g. bigger worlds and more detailed models, textures really have zero to do with it.

[Video]

There's a simple way to get them to lower the price. Don't buy the games at full price. Wait a few months for it to drop a little bit.

 

As for HD being more expensive to program for, I doubt it.

 

Look befor the X-Box come along, with it's ED resolution (true 640x480) on ALL games, your average game console would display at 320x240, which on your average TV, still shows up just as good. But if you get a newer TV, or an HD tv, you really notice the difference. Yes, I'm aware PS2 and Game Cube can both produce 640x480 images, but their natively 320x240 still. The X-Boxes games still didn't cost any more than the others, or previous generations for that matter.

 

Then X-Box had a few HD games come out. Some 720p, and a few 1080i. These games didn't release any higher than the other games, that I'm aware of. At least, the few I got cost $50 at release.

 

Charging $60 for 360 games might be to try to get some of the cost back on the consoles, which their undoubtedly loosing money on, but it's not due to production costs of the game itself.

 

Also, just think back to the early to mid 90's Befor Nintendo put a limit on the price of their games, of $50, some games were hitting $70, regularly, some even hit $80 or $90. So higher than $50 games is nothing new. It's just been so long since anyone's paid that, that people have forgotten.

[moycon]

Here's what annoys me. We have current gen console games at non-high definition textures. They were costing, on average $50. The next generation comes along, and developers say "Hey! This HD stuff is expensive, we need more detailed models and higher res textures, so the games have to go up in price to $60."

 

I think it has more to do with production on the games, it's not like back when Atari 2600 came out. One person isn't programming these things. They have teams and teams of people. Some games are more expensive to produce than a movie.

 

That said....Like JagFan pointed out many 360 games are coming out $39.99 on day one, and so far several have dropped in price from the orginial release. The Outfit (Great game just finished the single player today) Burnout, King Kong I believe they are all $39.99 King Kong might be less. I was honestly hoping the Wii games would be $39.99 but whatever. I'm really getting the Wii mostly for the old school games....provided you can play them online. If you can't I'll more than likely take it back unless that new controller is just "gotta have"!!!

[NE146]

So what I'm understanding then... is it's the HD dev cost that's driving the cost up!

 

 

 

 

 

[+remowilliams]

I think it has more to do with production on the games, it's not like back when Atari 2600 came out. One person isn't programming these things. They have teams and teams of people. Some games are more expensive to produce than a movie.

Yeah, that's the development cost increase. It's not just as simple as saying HD, it's more a matter of nextgen.

 

Oblivion is a good example of something that couldn't be really be done as it exists on previous gen hardware. Given the immense production that went into it, I can't believe that retail wasn't $70

[jbanes]

more detailed models

Unless they've stopped wrapping single textures around objects (in which case they'd just need more textures), a more detailed model needs a more complex, higher-res texture to provide that detail. (Unless you're going so detailed that you don't need textures!) But yes, "more content" is probably a nice, generic way of putting it, since we really are talking about more than just the textures themselves.

[CPUWIZ]

So what I'm understanding then... is it's the HD dev cost that's driving the cost up!

 

 

 

 

 

 

LMAO

[NovaXpress]

I thought that I was paying per polygon!

[CPUWIZ]

I thought that I was paying per polygon!

 

Yep, and since you don't want to spend that much, all you are getting is a Wii.