I think the HDTV ability is aimed more at older, full job having, rich folks. I think the majority of gamers is still the youth/teenage/20-something and those usually don't have an HDTV and don't plan on getting one for several years (like me) not by choice, but because we simply can't afford it for a while. I'm completely content with my tube TV for now.

As for that group...I doubt that a few whining net-users are really going to make Nintendo go "Hey, you know, maybe we should make it HDTV...Ok let's start from scratch, push the release date to 5 years later, spend lots of money for no reason just to please those 40 "gamers" at 1080up.org, because afterall, a gamer that is only worried about graphics isn't really a gamer at all." Something like that.

In six months' time, how many more HDTV will there be? What's the expected lifespan of the Nintendo Revolution? (From what I've read, "5 years" is a reasonable game console life) If it is 5 years, isn't it reasonable that there will be alot more HDTV towards the middle and end of its life?

I agree about the HDTV capability is something for older, fulltime job, rich folks. I don't think it'll always be that way. Once upon a time, computers and cars were both for older, fulltime job rich folks too.

From a European point of view: HDTV is not a factor today and won't be for the next 3-4 years.

My guess is that Nintendo could be right to by-pass the next-gen HDTV hype this time.

At least if price for HDTV-sets won't drop radically, most people won't take advantage of PS3's and Xbox 360's advanced graphics - and that could become a problem because people won't see the promised "graphics revolution" on ordinary tv sets.

Unless HDTV becomes more mainstream I don't think its worth shelling out more money in R&D to support it. I am still using my old 35" Tube TV since it still works, a TV is not something we generally buy a new one regularly (at least not before. I hear TVs now suck in terms of longevity, especially the cheap kind.

I'm really looking forward to the Revolution. Just having Gamecube compatibility seals the deal for me alone, and if it hits for $149 then all the better. HD for me at this point in time, not that big of a deal.

Keep in mind that the Gen-Xers (me) are in their 30's. They were the first kids playing video games and now they are raising little gamers.

In my house, Billy and Sally start out with the old 8 bit Nintendo playing Super Mario Brothers while I play with my Xbox. I think the popularity of the first GameBoy shows that kids will play pretty much anything regardless of screen size or resolution.

But, when dad is a gamer, I think the story changes a little.

A few months ago, Dell had it's 20 inch, wide-screen LCD on sale for something like $540 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=320-4111&category_id=4009). Yes, that's still a chunk of change but as Hans and Frans would say, "hear me now and believe me later", that thing is awesome when it is connected to my Xbox. The picture is great and it's small footprint means I can set it up on my computer desk. I get a comfy chair and guys, this is big one, my wife doesn't complain about me hogging the TV. That's almost priceless...

EXCEPT: You can be HDTV compatible without losing the old standard. In fact, the first few generations of GameCube's were. You have to buy a special digital out cable from Nintendo directly, and not every game supported it, but the option for progressive scan and wide screen existed. It just seems kind of silly not to plan ahead this time. How much more expensive could optional HD output be? (Of course, the possibility exists that the answer is "a great deal more" in which case I should shut up.)

Well the ability to draw 3d graphics a higher resolution could require a more powerfull graphics chip and CPU, That is a major part of design and cost of the unit.

The neccessity of hd isn't truly there. Nintendo has much of their stock aimed at younger kids\teenagers, which a lot that do have a tv are those 20in 1986 specials. As for HD in the U.S. the FCC is pushing bigtime for it to become mandatory in the near future.
more info can be seen here about that:
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050610.gtfcc0610/BNStory/Technology/

Bottom line its the games that matter (hell I still love my Toe Jam & Earl on Sega Genesis).

I think Nintendo is making the right decision. The HD market is confusing and even those with HDTVs now complain that it is difficult to get a signal. And I agree with you that a lower price point will make more of a difference in the marketplace than whether or not the Revolution is HD compatible. It's not the sexy choice, but it is a sound one.

I was devastated to hear that the Revolution won't support HDTV!

The high definition revolution is one of the most significant and exciting advancements in TVs since colour TV was introduced. Nintendo has a reputation for being an innovative and forward-thinking company, so it seems out of character, and ignorant, for it to completely ignore the HDTV phenomenon.

It was painful enough when we were told the GameCube wouldn't support widescreen. Widescreens were pretty common back then, but five years on almost everyone has one. If the Revolution isn't widescreen, it will be the last straw, and possibly the last nail in Nintendo's coffin.

I was so looking forward to holding one of those funky new Revolution controllers in my hands, but I don't think I could bring myself to buy the console if it's not HD.

Maybe next year will be the year I buy my first PlayStation?

The VCR and Cable TV were a bigger innovation than HDTV.

I still don't think that HDTV will be worth my money at this point.

The big deal with the Nintendo Revolution will be the price point. It is aimed at a totally different market group than the Xbox 360 and PS3. The Xbox 360 will be $400 plus a $60. The PS3 will probably be more while the Nintendo Revolution will probably be $150 to $200.

Also Nintendo will be around just as long as people play video games and keep buying Nintendo games. I think having a game system that is less than half the cost of a PS3 or Xbox 360 will really help them capture the kid and casual gamer market. Most kids don't have $500 to spend on a game system for a $3000 TV.

Right now i dont care about hdtv, i dont have a tv with hdtv and im happy with normal tv. So what it might look better - but what i think is important is the games and price, For people who already have hdtv well its worth getting the ps3 but i dont no many people that have a hdtv.

I have a 21" tv and thats enough for me.
i know that in the world there are many rich people wastingt their money but tere are oters taa just save up the money.First wii will cost 250$ and ps3 will cost around 700$,XBOX 360 will cost about 400 $ and 300$.
a HD TV cost around 1000- 5000$.
Each game of the ps3 will cost around 100$ because of the blu-ray thing.
If u dont buy a wii youll want to suicide.

Taco Dip taste good with chips, I once designed a house with a candy cane forest, a snake with jim morrison in the stomach singing L.A. Women 24/7, a fat kid in a cage next to food that is out of his reach, a fucking midget pyramid, a black hole, a guy on the couch (as in half baked), a sledding hill (in the house).

That shit would blow your fucking mind -.-