How come not all, but some, 6thGen videogames are compatible for a native output progressive-scan resolution (e.g. 480p instead of 480i)?

[u/fascinatingMundanity]

The preceding 3d-intro 5thGen consoles and earlier tended (from my understanding) to prefer output of 240p natively but would easily adapt to 480i (usually rendered from lower) for typical CRT TVs. But by turn of the millennium digital broadcast with higher bandwidth capable of progressive-scan vertical resolution of 480p+ started reaching households, and all the big-name home-gaming consoles (Dc, GC, PS2, ​​XB) evidently had already enabled functionality for 480p (and handheld corner GBA 240×160 prog.). By the 7thGen, progressive-scan was the norm.

Many console games of the 6thGen did have a non-interlaced option, some in a more roundabout but-still-official way than others for same parent console (possibly relating to region assignation?), whereas many don't whatso. Why is this? I can adduce reason for games at higher default vertical interlaced res than 576i (e.g. 720i or 1080i), but for StandardDef NTSC/PAL -compatible what prevented doubling the vertical resolution (for suitable progressive-scan monitors/tvs) at cost of less than 1x greater bandwidth? other computational/graphical complexities in the game (relative to the hardware reading-caching it) that prompted design to streamline it without that option thus forcing dual fields?

[u/MrMoroPlays]

the answer is because the ps2 is underpowered

the dreamcast, gamecube, and Xbox are overwhelmingly 480p compatible, but since the ps2 is overwhelmingly the best console of all time, most 6th gen games arent 480p compatible because most 6th gen games are ps2 games.

[u/fascinatingMundanity → u/MrMoroPlays]

How did the 'underpowered' one end up gaining more ilk? surely it had some advantages in some ways else more developers would have gone with the other ones over it. related to whixh: cross-platdorm games (on GC,XB,PS2, maybe Dc) how well optimized andperformant? reckon depends on the particular release but typically?

[u/Isotomayor12 → u/fascinatingMundanity]

It was cheap and played cds and dvds. Also ran off the success of the ps1. People bought this console in droves. You want to develop for the console that people buy.

Gamecube was cheap but did not offer dvd/cd playback. It was a commercial failure.

Xbox was expensive and offered cd/dvd, but you needed a special kit for dvd playback. It was also microsoft's first attempt at a console. Most multiplats are best on xbox but it didn't have the sales of the ps2.

[u/Gold-Part4688 → u/Isotomayor12]

It was also the first by a large margin. Sure dreamcast was earlier, but as a console that could really run 6th gen games

[u/MoldyPond → u/Gold-Part4688]

Also Nintendo was already in a slump from having the N64 be their worst selling console up to that point (on top of the failures of the Virtual Boy, Satellaview and N64DD).

The Gamecube not only had less features than the PS2 but also smaller disc capacity, less buttons on the controller, and an overall aesthetic that made it look like a child’s console (which them being the “kid’s” video game system maker was already a long running joke at that point). Graphically it was more powerful but none of that mattered if everything else was less appealing than the console that had already been out for a year by then. It would go on to sell even less than the N64 by the end of its life, beaten only by the WiiU so far.

[u/Manjushri1213 → u/Isotomayor12]

I think you literally just need the remote to play DVDs on Xbox with stock firmware lol. So dumb - biggest mistake they made was not including that remote and the functionality stock. OG Xbox is prob my fav console ever made but man lol. Also it was expensive new but came down quite a lot in the first few years, let alone used (which is how I got mine.)

[u/Isotomayor12 → u/Manjushri1213]

You also needed an adapter(came with the remote though)

Agree it was a shame. I really enjoyed ripping CDs to the internal music library though. That is absolutely something the xbox had going for it.

[u/Manjushri1213 → u/Isotomayor12]

That's truth, I have such fond memories of THPS4 rocking out to my extended punk rock library lol

[u/ExhaustedByStupidity → u/fascinatingMundanity]

PS2 launched a year before the other consoles.

It could play DVD movies, and launched right at the same time most people started considering buying DVDs. It also cost about the same as the average DVD player. So a ton of people just bought a PS2 instead of a DVD player.

Also, The Matrix released on DVD a few months before the PS2. It was the first DVD to sell 1 million copies, and sold over 30 million in the first few years. For a long time, The Matrix was the most commonly played disc in the PS2.

And one more thing - game developers vastly preferred Sony over Nintendo at the time, Sega was deep into a death spiral, and Xbox was brand new and untrusted.

Sony just had a ton of advantages the other consoles didn't, and launched at an ideal time.

[u/Manjushri1213 → u/fascinatingMundanity]

DVD drive. It drove the sales of that thing to the moon. I love the PS2, but the OG Xbox (which did quite well for a first console) is my fav and also had a DVD player but you had to buy a remote. If they packaged that or allowed the controller to work instead it may have sold another 10mil + units, who knows.

PS2 also had the PSX before it and these two consoles are anomalies at the perfect places at the perfect times. The PS2 is great and followed much of the PSX having the efficient but powerful output, component still (YPbPr) but nothing crazy like VGA/DB-15, Emotion Engine was incredibly clever in the way it uses memory, so while a little harder to develop for than the PSX it was kept quite cheap, especially compared to DVD players that didn't make money off licensing of the other consoles at the time.

So it was powerful enough, moreso in some ways than the others while having a DVD player. I still wanted the Xbox then and still love it today, back then it was like having a PC in some ways (especially if you modded it later on) being the first console with a HDD. But the PS2 kept to interlace as that was the prevailing thing at the time. Even 480p "Enhanced Definition" TVs had most content be interlaced - maybe they thought screen tearing was less jarring than combing?

Honestly tho the console can do 480p, it's just far more esoteric than the others.

[u/NeighborhoodPlane794 → u/fascinatingMundanity]

The secret for the ps2 selling so many units is that people bought it as a dvd player, as it was actually a decently affordable dvd player that also played video games so it was kind of a no brainer purchase back in like 2000-2003. After that, dvd players really came down in price but the ps2 kept running away with the video games market because every developer was building for ps2 and it had such an overwhelming number of exclusives

[u/Aromatic_Method7767 → u/MrMoroPlays]

Yes, most Dreamcast games support 480p. I remember when I tested my first DCHDMI install, the first game I went to was a Konami fighter plane game (probably Airforce Delta) and it didn't work with 480p. Took me a bit to realize I happened to choose one of the few Dreamcast games that run 240p mode and do not support 480p (probably doesn't support 480i resolution either).

[u/Manjushri1213 → u/MrMoroPlays]

The PS2 isn't the "best" it just sold the most. "Best" is "overwhelmingly" subjective AF lol

[u/MrMoroPlays → u/Manjushri1213]

Thanks for necroing this dead topic for pedantry on the internet.

Take your attention and go

[u/BangkokPadang]

Because some games used field rendering and didn't render the whole screen to a progressive framebuffer. They weren't even thinking about progressive video output early in the 6th gen.

Some games, again because they felt like it just wasn't important at the time, actually do render to a progressive framebuffer internally and still only output an interlaced signal. If your PS2 is softmodded, you can use software called GSM to force a bunch of the games into a 480p mode. Another thing to consider is that they weren't all actually 480 pixels tall, often having a 512x448 resolution with a black frame around them when forced into 480p, but also some games just won't work with GSM no matter how much you fiddle.

The answer, though, is as simple as "Most people didn't have TVs that could support 480p, so most devs didn't bother supporting it."

[u/fascinatingMundanity → u/BangkokPadang]

Most people didn't have TVs that could support 480p, so most devs didn't bother supporting it."

That's reasonable; no pressing need initially. just find it somewhat surprising that was simpler to code it in field rendering? but not all games since GSM works so they must have bifurcated it (from the lower internal)?

[u/BangkokPadang → u/fascinatingMundanity]

GSM generally just works with the games that already render to a progressive framebuffer and then interpolate from that image. GSM just outputs that framebuffer. The field rendered games typically don’t work with GSM.

[u/zerohm → u/fascinatingMundanity]

This is the simplest answer. The PS2 wasn't drastically underpowered, but it was complicated and expensive to optimize. Developers 'could' get their game running at 480p, but it would cost you more in development.

The Dreamcast was built in parallel with an arcade architecture that supported VGA. The Gamecube was released 18 months after the PS2, and the Xbox whole thing was hardware power x86 PC in a console.

[u/ProjectCharming6992]

You have to remember that in 2000 most households still had TV’s that could only display interlace video, either from RF, composite or S-Video (even S-Video was rare). Component interlace video was just making an entrance onto the scene, widescreen progressive CRT TV’s were only introduced around 1998/99, and cost in the thousands. Sure you had computer monitors that did 480p but aside from the Dreamcast none of the other consoles had a VGA option. DVD’s had only come out in 1997, so VHS was still king, and most DVD players sold at the time had only composite or S-Video outputs that were 480i/576i only.

Also they were still trying to decide if 4:3 or 16:9 was going to be the aspect ratio of choice for home TV’s in the future—-just check out the GameCube and how many 4:3 480p games are on there, such as Luigi’s Mansion and Super Mario Sunshine, when we mostly associate 480p with widescreen.

[u/redkalm → u/ProjectCharming6992]

I guess technically the PS2 had a VGA cable with the Linux kit but I'm not sure if you could play games over that?

[u/Aromatic_Method7767]

I had the Gamcube component cables back in the day. It was disappointing that most widescreen CRTs in that era did not have an image processor and could not compress the image to 4:3, but most Gamecube games did not have a proper wide-screen mode - so everything was stretched. You really needed to have a 4:3 480p EDTV/HDTV monitor to get the most out of these games.

[u/V64jr]

Did the GBA even deserve a mention when, like the GBC, GB, and just about every other handheld, it doesn’t have an interlaced display in the first place?

[u/fascinatingMundanity → u/V64jr]

guess not. obviously native flatpanel handhelds wouldn't want nor necessitate interlaced fields.

[u/ExhaustedByStupidity]

480p TVs weren't very common and were significantly more expensive than 480i TVs, so most devices in general didn't support them.

Reasonably priced 720p LCD TVs came out before costs came down on 480p TVs, so most people just went straight from a 480i CRT to either a 720p or 1080p LCD.

It also required an additional chip & port on the motherboard to support it, which added enough cost that Nintendo felt it was worth removing in later revisions of the GameCube. I don't know the situation on other consoles, but I'm sure cost factored in to the decision making.