Yeah… i don’t understand why this is a good move. Sacrificing an element that would noticably improve a core aspect of the games design for the sake of not looking at a picture for a few seconds on startup? Seems completely backwards if you ask me.
You need to toake into account that we’re talking about a Kirby game here, which are all 2/2.5/sometimes 3D platformers. So The real effect of Dolby in such a thing would have been close to zero.
That came out on GameCube back when we were all still using composite cables that didn’t support surround anyway.
Edit: Apparently I was misinformed, still KAR was such a casual arcadey game that I’m sure it got more benefit out of quick startup than it would have from surround support.
This is not true at all and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how surround sound worked.
Nintendo 64 games like Donkey Kong 64 and Conker’s Bad Fur Day supported surround sound. Even Star Fox on the SNES supported surround sound. All through composite cables.
It works by encoding multiple channels into two channels, so it can then decode those channels to send the proper signal to the proper speaker. For Dolby specifically, you need a Pro Logic compatible receiver, which could decode that signal. If you don’t have a Pro Logic compatible receiver then you will only hear stereo output.
Exactly. Until around 2005 with the advent of affordable HDTVs and the war between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, anything more than what came stock with your TV, which was usually standard definition picture and stereo sound, was something of a luxury. Sound bars were only really starting to become a popular thing.
oh, it was the racing game? I must have gone through the text too quickly then. Yet, if we’re pragmatic: How many people would have really enjoyed that game (which wasn’t stellar to begin with) more with properly encoded surround sound, and how many would have enjoyed it a tad less because of the annoying logo spam on startup? I don’t think Surround-Sound-enjoyers were the target audience for that one.
Yeah I did consider that when I made my comment. And keep in mind I do see where they’re coming from. It’s not like I’m calling them stupid for this decision. I personally just see it as a massive overcorrection for something that will, in the grand scheme, have virtually no effect on the quality of the game for literally anyone besides the person who made this decision.
I know it’s not the best comparison, but to me it would be like if RTX support required an RTX logo, and a major studio just removed RTX from their game, not for any performance or quality issues, but solely for a logo. Again, it just seems like an overcorrection for a non-issue. I’ll admit, I sometimes get annoyed by intro logos, but never enough to the point where I’d think it’s worth removing features to get rid of them.
I got the impression that “removing” means removing before it was really implemented. Like, it was planned and decided upon, but it wasn’t ready. He checked the license and went “nope, not having it” and scrapped the feature. It doesn’t truly become clear in the text, of course, but that’s how I read this.
This is Sakurai’s explanation, and it seems reasonable to me:
“I feel very sorry for making the user wait,” he explained. “If you take one second from each user, that means you’ll be taking 10,000 seconds from 10,000 people. The more this repeats over the years, the more time you will cause players to lose."
I remember one of l Hank Green’s older videos when he added up all the viewtime from all of their videos and realized it was longer than the average human lifespan. Of course, he immediately framed it as “We’ve killed a man!”
You realize this is Lemmy, and on Lemmy you have to hate every business and every product produced by a business apparently, right? If it isn’t FOSS, then you aren’t allowed to like it.
Yeah… i don’t understand why this is a good move. Sacrificing an element that would noticably improve a core aspect of the games design for the sake of not looking at a picture for a few seconds on startup? Seems completely backwards if you ask me.
You need to toake into account that we’re talking about a Kirby game here, which are all 2/2.5/sometimes 3D platformers. So The real effect of Dolby in such a thing would have been close to zero.
The context is Kirby Air Ride, a racing spinoff. Not that it changes much, but it is fully 3D and a genre that can take advantage of surround sound.
That came out on GameCube back when we were all still using composite cables that didn’t support surround anyway.Edit: Apparently I was misinformed, still KAR was such a casual arcadey game that I’m sure it got more benefit out of quick startup than it would have from surround support.
This is not true at all and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how surround sound worked.
Nintendo 64 games like Donkey Kong 64 and Conker’s Bad Fur Day supported surround sound. Even Star Fox on the SNES supported surround sound. All through composite cables.
It works by encoding multiple channels into two channels, so it can then decode those channels to send the proper signal to the proper speaker. For Dolby specifically, you need a Pro Logic compatible receiver, which could decode that signal. If you don’t have a Pro Logic compatible receiver then you will only hear stereo output.
Well TIL.
You got me, I didn’t know anyone who even owned a surround sound setup in the gamecube era.
Exactly. Until around 2005 with the advent of affordable HDTVs and the war between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, anything more than what came stock with your TV, which was usually standard definition picture and stereo sound, was something of a luxury. Sound bars were only really starting to become a popular thing.
oh, it was the racing game? I must have gone through the text too quickly then. Yet, if we’re pragmatic: How many people would have really enjoyed that game (which wasn’t stellar to begin with) more with properly encoded surround sound, and how many would have enjoyed it a tad less because of the annoying logo spam on startup? I don’t think Surround-Sound-enjoyers were the target audience for that one.
Yeah I did consider that when I made my comment. And keep in mind I do see where they’re coming from. It’s not like I’m calling them stupid for this decision. I personally just see it as a massive overcorrection for something that will, in the grand scheme, have virtually no effect on the quality of the game for literally anyone besides the person who made this decision.
I know it’s not the best comparison, but to me it would be like if RTX support required an RTX logo, and a major studio just removed RTX from their game, not for any performance or quality issues, but solely for a logo. Again, it just seems like an overcorrection for a non-issue. I’ll admit, I sometimes get annoyed by intro logos, but never enough to the point where I’d think it’s worth removing features to get rid of them.
I got the impression that “removing” means removing before it was really implemented. Like, it was planned and decided upon, but it wasn’t ready. He checked the license and went “nope, not having it” and scrapped the feature. It doesn’t truly become clear in the text, of course, but that’s how I read this.
This is Sakurai’s explanation, and it seems reasonable to me:
I remember one of l Hank Green’s older videos when he added up all the viewtime from all of their videos and realized it was longer than the average human lifespan. Of course, he immediately framed it as “We’ve killed a man!”
You realize this is Lemmy, and on Lemmy you have to hate every business and every product produced by a business apparently, right? If it isn’t FOSS, then you aren’t allowed to like it.