You're comparing 1080i with 720p. Interlaced and progressive are two different ballgames. 720p does indeed have some advantage there.
1080p, is what people are talking about when they want "full" HD. And it's a superior standard in every way. I specifically stated I was looking forward to 1080p.
My bad, haha.
In any case, I'd rather have 720p than 1080i or p. 1080p would add a few hundred dollars to the cost of the console (and subsequently the games to recover lost profits) as well as suggest that you buy a 1080p tv, which are currently expensive as hell, and all for a bump in definition you can't really see unless you're right up against the TV. It's just not worth it in my opinion, I'm more than happy with 720p.
It wouldn't make the games cost anymore, I don't think. Developers already build their assets for high resolution, and then scale them down as needed. So I don't think development costs would go up much at all. The console would definitely be more expensive to make, but I'd also definitely pay a bit more for a system that will be technologically relevant longer.
I mean, the Wii U is going to launch for probably around $300 and be outdated on day one. I'm guessing a year later we'll see XBox 720/PS4 packing grossly superior hardware and probably costing at most $400. Each person has to determine for themselves what constitutes a good value for the money, but right now I'm thinking it's the other guys.
Also -- and again, everyone has to determine for themselves what is too expensive -- but 1080p TVs have seriously come down in price over the last five years or so. It's about the standard these days if you buy a decent TV. I bought one a year and a half ago: LED, 26 in, 1080p, N wifi built in for integrated Netflix/Hulu/Amazon widgets, two HDMIs, one component, and a VGA input for less than $300. I wouldn't call spending $300 on anything cheap, but I wouldn't call that "expensive as hell" either.
If you're still gaming on the ol' CRT, then yeah, 1080p will be meaningless to you. But if you've got HD tech, it's nice to have games that actually take advantage of it. But again, to each his own. If you have no use for 1080p I can see why you wouldn't want to be forced to pay for it.
I figure it's the framerate of the Upads. I think the wireless connection is the limiting factor here, so they have to halve the fps to stream to 2 Pads.
From what we've heard about the hardware, I don't think it's the wireless. I think its the extra resolution of adding another Wii U pad.
Which in that case likely means that a framerate dip anywhere will hit both controllers and the TV equally. A framerate drop is caused when a scene is over budget. I don't see how they could isolate the effects of that to just one screen.
( Edited 11.06.2012 23:03 by Jacob4000 )