[aderack]

[aderack]

I'm kind of pulling myself out of a several-month-long funk where it was hard to focus on anything. Maybe seasonal.

My most recent (paid) thing is over here. It's not really about Dragon Quest. There are a couple more to follow (one of which I'm writing right now). I'm guessing I'll be doing some more GamaSutra stuff for GDC. That should be a decent change. Get me out of the house, anyway!

Biggest problem is just getting my act together. It's frustrating; were I to take up everything requested of me, I could be pretty set. I guess I've got my pace, though -- and that pace is lethargic.

[aderack]

[aderack]

[aderack]

Better: animate 'em.

[aderack]

[aderack]

And Iron Brew. Of course.

[aderack]

Was anyone else at the final E3? Did you notice the way every single game was hooked up to a HDTV, and every single game was upscaled and horizontally stretched? And nobody fixed any of them for the entire show?

I mean. I don't know what the hell that says. I'm sure I spot irony, however!

[aderack]

[aderack]

[aderack]

The same discussion happens everywhere on the Internet at once. The following (up until the break) is from another forum, from a few weeks back. I pasted it here because some of the above points reminded me of it.

[aderack]

[aderack]

I think the problem in this discussion is that Wes and others are saying these formats are great in that they let people take advantage of their existing HDTVs, whereas I and (I think) Toups and some others are arguing more about the content itself, and whether it warrants any of this new equipment. We're starting in different places, with different intents.

There's no argument that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray do a good job at complimenting other high technology. I don't really see where that need enter the discussion. The real question is to what extent this technology collectively benefits the medium. Surely there are decent arguments to be made on both sides of that question, and all the gray areas in between.

For what it's worth, Kojima doesn't give a shit about any of it. We've got the porn discussion, which actually has implications outside of that realm. I know that a lot of shows (yes; Doctor Who, for one) are avoiding moving to HD because of the increased budget and preparation time it would necessitate for the extra detail that would be required in sets, makeup, and costuming. And again, there's the issue that the increased detail really doesn't add much of substance to the discussion.

I'm interested to see what the aesthetic or practical arguments are for the upgrade, apart from "it looks cool/better". I'm sure there's something reasonable out there! When is "good enough" not good enough? And why?

[aderack]

What you seem to be implying is that actual demand isn't a prerequisite for building a market.

Am I getting this, so far? Because, well. That's kind of silly, if so.

What I'm saying is that there are two ways of looking at this: from the perspective of technology for its own sake; and from the perspective of the medium.

For people who care primarily about the former, demand takes the form of the newest, hypothetically best equipment they can afford. Part of my argument is that this is in essence a niche market: for most people, hardware is simply a tool; they'll take whatever gets the job done. Some people have argued that once the high tech hardware comes down to a price where anyone can buy it, the average person will say "to hell with it" and go with the ostensibly better technology. This is, overall, a reasonable assumption. It's based on a few uncertain factors, though:

1: will the hardware indeed come down to a reasonable level?
2: will there be enough media to warrant the upgrade?
3: will the average person understand the difference? The purported benefit?
4: will DVD still be a thriving format in its own right?
5: will standalone DVD players (without HD-DVD or Blu-Ray capacity) still exist?

All of these depend on the HD formats doing well enough in the short term to enjoy some crossover appeal outside the "geek squad". Which brings us to my argument, based on demand factor #2: the medium. Do the new formats offer enough of a difference for the average person, who just wants to watch a movie or a TV show and otherwise not to be bothered, to give a damn? And in large enough numbers that the market will reach critical mass, crowding out DVD?

And, well. Without going in depth on the wiles of consumer psychology, I think I've made my case about as well as I'm going to on that issue. That strikes me as the central question, though.

Something else I'm not sure if you're picking up is that I'm not saying there will be no market at all for these formats; rather, that the market is going to be more like Laserdisc or DVD audio than DVD video. These are all formats developed specifically for the purist. They're like the Neo-Geo of A/V; they're not populist, inasmuch as there already is a populist format that does its job perfectly well, and in that what they have to offer has little to do with real contemporary concerns. These are simply positioned as high-class alternatives; not as a completely new concept -- which makes their appeal nebulous and qualified, rather than absolute.

So they'll be there, on the periphery, as an alternative. It's just, they're innately that: an alternative.

There will, of course, eventually be a populist successor to DVD. When it does come, it will take a new form that can't even be compared to the three formats we're discussing; it'll be too different, and account for real, organic concerns that aren't even on our radar right now.

[aderack]