Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

So I can now play video games in 3d.

2

Posts

  • TurboGuardTurboGuard Registered User
    edited March 2010
    Current 3-D still sucks for people who already wear glasses.

    I'll wait for my direct brain stimulation, thanks.

  • StiltsStilts Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Stilts wrote: »
    I don't have the budget for fancy-shmancy stereoscopic 3D, so I tried Burnout Paradise, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, and Mirror's Edge with the regular old anaglyphic method. I gotta say, I'll be pretty excited when stereoscopic 3D (or better methods) becomes affordable. Having a sense of actual depth in some of those games is pretty cool.
    Anaglyph is stereoscopic, and is affordable. But nonetheless, I get your point.

    Oh, yeah, you're right. I was using "stereoscopic" as a synonym for 3D that uses polarized glasses, because I'm a silly goose that didn't do my research. Sorry if I caused other people confusion.

    Also, the headache issue is probably the second biggest problem 3D faces if it wants wide adoption (the first being cost). There doesn't seem to be any method that won't cause headaches, and the time it takes to get one can depend on the person. I sat through most of the last half hour of Avatar with a headache. My dad, however, had no problems through the whole movie.

  • EliteLamerEliteLamer __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Every time I've watched a 3D movie, 10 minutes in I've had a killer migraine and spent the rest of the movie trying to have a nap, because if I have my eyes open the blurry pictures hurt my eyes.

    I may not be the most impartial observer, but 3D is shit and I hate it. Unless they improve the tech, and do something more interesting like that headtracking demo we've all seen for the wii, I don't really understand the point of it.

    I highly doubt you were wearing active shutter glasses as they cause almost no strain at all. Most people here have never wore active shutter glasses so the point that it makes their head hurt is mute.

    SEGA
    p561852.jpg
  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I went to some video gaming thingy in Leeds and played a racing game in 3d and Batman: Arkham Asylum in 3D. I've since been saving up the cash to pick up one of the new (released in June) 3DTVs from Sony.

    Most people see it as a fad, personally I think it's an incredible effect and one that adds a considerable amount of immersion.

    Also someone said games need to be made with 3D in mind...not really, converting 2d films to 3d is one thing, but with a video game you have all the information there regarding depth and size of an object.

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Xbox Live: SirGrinch X
  • XaviarXaviar Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Unless you are 1-5% of the population.

    steam_sig.png
  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I don't quite understand the hate that 3D generates though, with people saying they hope it dies a quick death.

    Surely you could...y'know, just not use it?

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Xbox Live: SirGrinch X
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Uee Citizen Record #2051 Über Star CitizenRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Moioink wrote: »
    EliteLamer wrote: »
    Kinda getting off topic but does anyone know how I can watch the world cup in 3d?

    Chances are some pubs will be, maybe even some cinemas. Sky have already started demoing premiership matches in 3D at some pubs.

    He could also go to South Africa and see the games in person. But that would be a lot more expensive.

    Anyways, I have an actual, real, constant migraine problem, and I loved Avatar. Had no trouble with it. Looked great.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • Jam WarriorJam Warrior Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'm more on board the idea of 3-D gaming than I am TVs/Cinemas.

    TingleSigBar.gif
    WiiU: JamWarrior
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    For the PC gaming market? I doubt it'll take off, but who knows. Anything is possible.

    For the home television and entertainment group? Hah, not a bloody chance in hell. We've only recently finally got people to start getting rid of their old CRT's and be upgrading to HD tv's with the appropriate cable boxes and signals. You think they're going to do it AGAIN so soon for 3D?

    "Welcome consumer and congrats on your new plasma tv! Now you're watching television, sports, and movies in crystal quality 1080p. Would you like to take it to the next level and watch all those in immersive 3D? Oh I'm so sorry! Your $1000 tv doesn't support it! But don't worry, because the new line of tv's are coming out soon, and they're only ~$2000. There'll also be an extra charge for the special glasses you'll have to always wear too to experience the effect."

    It's going to crash and burn.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065 (Trainer name Christopher)
  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'm placing my bet on "success" with this generation of sets being adopted by enthusiasts, then the prices on them slowly dropping and adoption rising. The technology will slowly find it's way in to every tv so when people buy a new set, it'll be 3d ready if they realise it or not.

    Then the next "generation", for want of a better phrase, will come around and won't need glasses (there's some work going on already for these sets). Eventually it'll just become a standard.

    With regard to expensive glasses people have a choice there. Use a tv with shutter glasses (in my opinion the most comfortable way to watch 3D) which ARE expensive, or pick up a polarising set, like the new Panasonic is I believe, whereby the glasses are the same as the ones they give away at the cinema. Cheap.

    It seems this time around the general public are behind this and the more tech-savvy are against it. I know people are comparing this to the change from SD to HD but it's not like that. Some people just can't see the difference in resolution, however nearly everyone can see a marked difference in a 2D and a 3D image. Most people I know have upgraded their CRT to an LCD/Plasma not because of the difference in quality but because of the physical size of the set.

    If, however, this is completely wrong and five years go by and 3D is dead you can feel free to dig up this post, show it to me and I'll post up a picture of me wearing nothing but a pink tutu and my original shutter glasses.

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Xbox Live: SirGrinch X
  • EliteLamerEliteLamer __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    For the PC gaming market? I doubt it'll take off, but who knows. Anything is possible.

    For the home television and entertainment group? Hah, not a bloody chance in hell. We've only recently finally got people to start getting rid of their old CRT's and be upgrading to HD tv's with the appropriate cable boxes and signals. You think they're going to do it AGAIN so soon for 3D?

    "Welcome consumer and congrats on your new plasma tv! Now you're watching television, sports, and movies in crystal quality 1080p. Would you like to take it to the next level and watch all those in immersive 3D? Oh I'm so sorry! Your $1000 tv doesn't support it! But don't worry, because the new line of tv's are coming out soon, and they're only ~$2000. There'll also be an extra charge for the special glasses you'll have to always wear too to experience the effect."

    It's going to crash and burn.



    WRONG.. I waited years and still use a CRT for gaming but the TV I will be watching only cost 950.00 for 60 inches of DLP 3d goodness. I didn't have to pay 1000's for 3d.

    SEGA
    p561852.jpg
  • ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Threepio wrote: »
    TV is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.
    Colour is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.
    Digital Cable is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.
    HD is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.

    Clue in, folks, it's not going away. With every major manufacturer on board, plus all of Hollywood, you're in it now. Get used to it. I'm still amazed that people on a forum dubbed "Games and Technology" exhibit such reactionary tendencies. It's like the feeling is "I want progress... but not too much."

    I've checked my crystal ball and, nope, you're wrong. It's definitely going away, just like last time. Remember that? How it went away once? Which makes it totally unlike any of those other things you listed? That and the fact that you need a separate device? One that you have to wear on your face?

    Thank you Drez. I've put a note in my calendar to repeat on this day for the next five years. It includes a link to this post. We'll revisit this once a year for the next half decade a) to see that I'm right b) to see that you're once again kicking back against a technology that's going to become mainstream and c) mostly just for me to flip you the bird.

    See you in a year.

    142.jpg
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    EliteLamer wrote: »
    For the PC gaming market? I doubt it'll take off, but who knows. Anything is possible.

    For the home television and entertainment group? Hah, not a bloody chance in hell. We've only recently finally got people to start getting rid of their old CRT's and be upgrading to HD tv's with the appropriate cable boxes and signals. You think they're going to do it AGAIN so soon for 3D?

    "Welcome consumer and congrats on your new plasma tv! Now you're watching television, sports, and movies in crystal quality 1080p. Would you like to take it to the next level and watch all those in immersive 3D? Oh I'm so sorry! Your $1000 tv doesn't support it! But don't worry, because the new line of tv's are coming out soon, and they're only ~$2000. There'll also be an extra charge for the special glasses you'll have to always wear too to experience the effect."

    It's going to crash and burn.



    WRONG.. I waited years and still use a CRT for gaming but the TV I will be watching only cost 950.00 for 60 inches of DLP 3d goodness. I didn't have to pay 1000's for 3d.

    Well I just hit up Futureshop.ca and their brief listing of these 3D capable tv's all started at around 2k.

    Either way though, the price isn't really the crux of the issue. It's telling people their fancy tv that they bought only a few years ago is wrong, and they have to replace it if they want 3D. Simply put, "normal" people don't go replacing their television sets every few years. So they're going to flip the bird at the notion of having to do it again after less than 10 years.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065 (Trainer name Christopher)
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    TurboGuard wrote: »
    Current 3-D still sucks for people who already wear glasses.

    10,000% yes.

    They need like little films you can place over your current lenses or something, that you can take on/off as needed. That would be nice. (So long as they don't scratch your glasses, of course.) In that case, I'd be very much in to 3-D, most likely.

    As it stands now, though, having to place the darn things over my glasses is just a pain. It's fine for Avatar, but otherwise just sucks.

  • IconoclysmIconoclysm Registered User
    edited March 2010
    I've used a pair of e-dimensional 3d shutter glasses with a Nvidia 5700 ultra a few years back and gaming was a no go. It gave me headaches after about 10 minutes and most games I tried had problems with flaky 3d positioning for things like menus, HUDs, gauges and stuff not "nativiely" rendered in 3d space by opengl/ direct3d.
    When it did work the 3d depth perception was pretty weak, though it could be increased with the nvidia driver control panel 3d applet, but increasing it produced bigger headaches, faster.

    YMMV though as this was a few years ago on a 19" CRT running at 120hz, so maybe the newer tech has improved matters. Plus it all depends on the viewer I guess, and the glasses (wired rather than wireless) were pretty cheap (about $50 IIRC)

    The included software for viewing 3d photos was genuinely pretty cool too.

    t=54717
  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    EliteLamer wrote: »
    For the PC gaming market? I doubt it'll take off, but who knows. Anything is possible.

    For the home television and entertainment group? Hah, not a bloody chance in hell. We've only recently finally got people to start getting rid of their old CRT's and be upgrading to HD tv's with the appropriate cable boxes and signals. You think they're going to do it AGAIN so soon for 3D?

    "Welcome consumer and congrats on your new plasma tv! Now you're watching television, sports, and movies in crystal quality 1080p. Would you like to take it to the next level and watch all those in immersive 3D? Oh I'm so sorry! Your $1000 tv doesn't support it! But don't worry, because the new line of tv's are coming out soon, and they're only ~$2000. There'll also be an extra charge for the special glasses you'll have to always wear too to experience the effect."

    It's going to crash and burn.



    WRONG.. I waited years and still use a CRT for gaming but the TV I will be watching only cost 950.00 for 60 inches of DLP 3d goodness. I didn't have to pay 1000's for 3d.

    Well I just hit up Futureshop.ca and their brief listing of these 3D capable tv's all started at around 2k.

    Either way though, the price isn't really the crux of the issue. It's telling people their fancy tv that they bought only a few years ago is wrong, and they have to replace it if they want 3D. Simply put, "normal" people don't go replacing their television sets every few years. So they're going to flip the bird at the notion of having to do it again after less than 10 years.

    The overall populace are buying new TVs constantly. Just because they're not selling to someone who bought their TV last year, doesn't mean they have no one to sell to. They're also in it for the long haul. Many people ripped Blu-ray for the exact same reasons you're stating and yet the format gains every year.

    As for the price, the 3D TVs out there are the LED 240hz ones which cost 1700+ even without 3D so it's not 3D that's jacking up the price. They're just adding it to their newest models. The same way you can now buy 40"+ LCD TVs for under $800, in a couple years those expensive LED 3D televisions will be relatively cheap while the next type replaces them.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • TurboGuardTurboGuard Registered User
    edited March 2010
    Fuck LCD.

    My next TV is going to be a Plasma.

    Better PQ + cheaper = win.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Rakai wrote: »
    EliteLamer wrote: »
    For the PC gaming market? I doubt it'll take off, but who knows. Anything is possible.

    For the home television and entertainment group? Hah, not a bloody chance in hell. We've only recently finally got people to start getting rid of their old CRT's and be upgrading to HD tv's with the appropriate cable boxes and signals. You think they're going to do it AGAIN so soon for 3D?

    "Welcome consumer and congrats on your new plasma tv! Now you're watching television, sports, and movies in crystal quality 1080p. Would you like to take it to the next level and watch all those in immersive 3D? Oh I'm so sorry! Your $1000 tv doesn't support it! But don't worry, because the new line of tv's are coming out soon, and they're only ~$2000. There'll also be an extra charge for the special glasses you'll have to always wear too to experience the effect."

    It's going to crash and burn.



    WRONG.. I waited years and still use a CRT for gaming but the TV I will be watching only cost 950.00 for 60 inches of DLP 3d goodness. I didn't have to pay 1000's for 3d.

    Well I just hit up Futureshop.ca and their brief listing of these 3D capable tv's all started at around 2k.

    Either way though, the price isn't really the crux of the issue. It's telling people their fancy tv that they bought only a few years ago is wrong, and they have to replace it if they want 3D. Simply put, "normal" people don't go replacing their television sets every few years. So they're going to flip the bird at the notion of having to do it again after less than 10 years.

    The overall populace are buying new TVs constantly. Just because they're not selling to someone who bought their TV last year, doesn't mean they have no one to sell to. They're also in it for the long haul. Many people ripped Blu-ray for the exact same reasons you're stating and yet the format gains every year.

    As for the price, the 3D TVs out there are the LED 240hz ones which cost 1700+ even without 3D so it's not 3D that's jacking up the price. They're just adding it to their newest models. The same way you can now buy 40"+ LCD TVs for under $800, in a couple years those expensive LED 3D televisions will be relatively cheap while the next type replaces them.

    Exactly, just as HD was really top end while people were just moving over to proper digital, and then 1080p was top end when most sets did 720i, we're going to see the people catch up to 1080p while the new top end emerges with sets that support 1080p 3d or something. Oh, and the broadcast will eventually come with a 3D/non 3d version just like shows now have HD/non HD.

    Clearly it won't be truly huge until it is not dependant on glasses, just like HD wasn't huge until sets existed which could get decent quality in varying light levels at a reasonable price.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    TurboGuard wrote: »
    Fuck LCD.

    My next TV is going to be a Plasma.

    Better PQ + cheaper = win.

    I bought a plasma recently too, blew away EVERY LCD I've seen under every possible metric, even in high light. The colors are just astounding compared to LCD.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Dear lord, this thread is filled with common sense all of a sudden. I am filled with joy.

    For prospective 3D buyers there are two avenues they can take: if they don't want 3D now they can get a "3D Ready" model; it's ready for 3D but doesn't come with an external sync signal transmitter (that's the IR gadget that controls the glasses) nor does it come with the glasses. Prices are lower to reflect this.

    3D Integrated comes with everything you need to get started for the display itself.

    3DTVs can upconvert 2D material. Early reports are optimistic about how successful this is, but consumer opinions may contradict that when 3D begins to gain more market penetration.

    3DTVs are first and foremost the best HDTVs on the market. Even if you don't want to do 3D, you'll still be buying the best TV out there for the price. That's why many customers who are replacing old sets will move to 3D, it's simply an added bonus.

    This isn't DVD, where Disney and Fox waffled on it for three years. This isn't Blu-ray, where there was a competing format. This is every major manufacturer putting out a compatible, interchangeable technology - with ALL of the content providers on board.

    3D isn't coming. 3D is here. It's going to take about a year to gain enough momentum to see price drops, but make no mistake, this one's going to be big.

    142.jpg
  • AumniAumni Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    EliteLamer wrote: »
    Anyone play 3d pc games?

    Left 4 Dead is amazing with Nvidia Vision

    That and Painkiller are fucking awesome.

    WoW is probably the best example of the technology though, being the only game that supports out-of-screen 3d (outside of the calibration tool)

    I don't use the 3D vision too much because on long sessions my eyes hurt, even though I'm adjusted to the mid-high depth setting. However, whenever I play L4D or any game in 1-2 hour bursts I definitely bust them out.

    The price for the monitor/glasses was justified the second I had a horde of zombies rush down a hospital corridor in full 3d. Jaw dropped.

    http://steamcommunity.com/id/aumni/ Battlenet: Aumni#1978 GW2: Aumni.1425
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'm curious about what Spore is like in 3D. That seems like the perfect application for it.

  • EliteLamerEliteLamer __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Aumni wrote: »
    EliteLamer wrote: »
    Anyone play 3d pc games?

    Left 4 Dead is amazing with Nvidia Vision

    That and Painkiller are fucking awesome.

    WoW is probably the best example of the technology though, being the only game that supports out-of-screen 3d (outside of the calibration tool)

    I don't use the 3D vision too much because on long sessions my eyes hurt, even though I'm adjusted to the mid-high depth setting. However, whenever I play L4D or any game in 1-2 hour bursts I definitely bust them out.

    The price for the monitor/glasses was justified the second I had a horde of zombies rush down a hospital corridor in full 3d. Jaw dropped.

    Thanks

    SEGA
    p561852.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Threepio wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Threepio wrote: »
    TV is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.
    Colour is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.
    Digital Cable is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.
    HD is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.

    Clue in, folks, it's not going away. With every major manufacturer on board, plus all of Hollywood, you're in it now. Get used to it. I'm still amazed that people on a forum dubbed "Games and Technology" exhibit such reactionary tendencies. It's like the feeling is "I want progress... but not too much."

    I've checked my crystal ball and, nope, you're wrong. It's definitely going away, just like last time. Remember that? How it went away once? Which makes it totally unlike any of those other things you listed? That and the fact that you need a separate device? One that you have to wear on your face?

    Thank you Drez. I've put a note in my calendar to repeat on this day for the next five years. It includes a link to this post. We'll revisit this once a year for the next half decade a) to see that I'm right b) to see that you're once again kicking back against a technology that's going to become mainstream and c) mostly just for me to flip you the bird.

    See you in a year.

    You know I don't really care that much, right? The crystal ball thing actually just there to mock you, since you are 100% convinced that it will 100% take flight this time. You're the one with the crystal ball, my friend.

    The fact is, some technologies are gimmicks while others are important evolutions. Not all technologies get adopted. Your argument throws out a bunch of examples of technologies that WERE adopted, as if their adoption proves that THIS one will be adopted. Well, no, they don't. I see this as a gimmick. And I find it annoying to wear glasses. So I hope it doesn't take flight. If it does, it does. It doesn't bother me in any substantial way. I am not foaming at the mouth at the prospect of it either being adopted or not being adopted. All I can recommend, 3P0, is to not get your hopes up lest ye want to foam at the mouth at some point in the future.

    steam_sig.png
  • KaseiusKaseius Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    TurboGuard wrote: »
    Fuck LCD.

    My next TV is going to be a Plasma.

    Better PQ + cheaper = win.

    Careful about burn-in. Mine's still got a bit of the Borderlands HUD on it, even after a break-in process and other stuff.

    www.youtube.com/user/kaseius -- Let's Plays
  • TurboGuardTurboGuard Registered User
    edited March 2010
    Kaseius wrote: »
    TurboGuard wrote: »
    Fuck LCD.

    My next TV is going to be a Plasma.

    Better PQ + cheaper = win.

    Careful about burn-in. Mine's still got a bit of the Borderlands HUD on it, even after a break-in process and other stuff.

    How old is it?

    I've heard modern plasmas are very resistant to burn-in and image retention, as long as you don't play for like 24 hours straight or something absurd.

  • ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Awww, Drezzy, it's okay. There's no foaming, sweetie, just an opinion that's informed by a more intimate knowledge of the space that these products are playing in. You acknowledge that Blu-ray is a successful technology, yet only a year ago folks on this board were proclaiming it dead. I wasn't wrong then, and I'm not wrong now.

    Look for this post in a year! :)

    142.jpg
  • JubehJubeh Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    TurboGuard wrote: »
    Current 3-D still sucks for people who already wear glasses.

    Dunno if anyone mentioned it, but I had to do this 3D training for work and ended up trying out the panasonic 3D plasma and the glasses are designed to where it fits over your current glasses perfectly. It is pretty slick. Cardboard 3D has never worked for me but this did.

    They still look dumb though but its not like you're wearing them to go out.

  • BixBix Registered User
    edited March 2010
    What we really need...




    is 3-D Porn!

    We're all OD'd on the Olden West,
    seein' who's Cowboy clothes look the best!
  • floodo1floodo1 Registered User
    edited March 2010
    every time that i've experienced 3d displays i've been impressed. seems like everytime I goto mac world or CES someone somewhere has some 3d display of some sort.

    every time I walk away wishing I had it at home. Sure most games and apps aren't optimized for 3d, but tons of games don't need to be in order for the effect to be sweet. FPS especially. just making the enemy character model 3d is cool and that's not hard for NVIDIA to support at all.

    factor in that some things ARE (or will be) made for 3d setups, ESPECIALLY if people invest early on (aka NOW), and it's all to the good :)



    too bad I can't afford it for the foreseeable future :(

  • ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Drez wrote: »
    Threepio wrote: »
    TV is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.
    Colour is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.
    Digital Cable is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.
    HD is the dumbest fad, I hope it goes away.

    Clue in, folks, it's not going away. With every major manufacturer on board, plus all of Hollywood, you're in it now. Get used to it. I'm still amazed that people on a forum dubbed "Games and Technology" exhibit such reactionary tendencies. It's like the feeling is "I want progress... but not too much."

    I've checked my crystal ball and, nope, you're wrong. It's definitely going away, just like last time. Remember that? How it went away once? Which makes it totally unlike any of those other things you listed? That and the fact that you need a separate device? One that you have to wear on your face?

    I made a note in my calendar to check back in a year and a day to see if 3D was dead yet. Ironically 3D is now supported on PS3, Xbox 360, and both major video card camps for PC, along with a 3D handheld system launching in just 3 days time.

    Drez, if this gets to you, you might want to trade that crystal ball in for something useful. Like a 3DS.

    142.jpg
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    The question is, would you still have necroposted if 3D had quickly died?

    And was this really necessary considering we already knew 3D would be a major focus of the next Nintendo handheld at the time? Of course this meant that 3D would be around for at least another 5 years. The question still remains as to whether it will be around after that, which it probably will, but a year is simply not enough time to judge these things. After all, 3D has come and gone in stages of 5-10 years or more since the effect was first possible in entertainment.

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    The question is, would you still have necroposted if 3D had quickly died?

    And was this really necessary considering we already knew 3D would be a major focus of the next Nintendo handheld at the time? Of course this meant that 3D would be around for at least another 5 years. The question still remains as to whether it will be around after that, which it probably will, but a year is simply not enough time to judge these things. After all, 3D has come and gone in stages of 5-10 years or more since the effect was first possible in entertainment.

    The answer is that yes, I would have posted. I don't mind be wrong in an argument and I do enjoy closure.

    And yes, it clearly was necessary. You're stating it'll be around for at least five years. That's five years longer than most people were giving it last year :)

    142.jpg
  • mspencermspencer Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    What Threepio hopes we think after reading his post:
    Wow, a year ago Threepio was right and Drez was wrong. Not like a little bit wrong, but really really wrong. LOL @ Drez

    What we actually think after reading his post:
    Wow, Threepio's a goose. This post matters to nobody but him, contains no useful information for anyone but him. What a waste of time.

    Maybe this would have been better handled in PM with Drez?

    MEMBER OF THE PARANOIA GM GUILD
    XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
    QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
  • ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Thanks for the insight Michael. I think you and I will disagree on this one. Sorry for wasting your time, I hope you find more fulfillment in other posts on the G&T board today.

    142.jpg
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I didn't make any notes in my calendar to check this thread later and gloat if some evidence appeared to support a position of mine, but cloudeagle just dropped this in the industry thread and I thought it was appropriate to the topic:
    In just a year, 3-D has gone from the cutting edge of television technology to a simple feature that will be one of several considerations for potential buyers of the 2011 models rolling into stores in the next few weeks.

    Evan Ramstad tells us why Samsung and LG are waging a war of words over 3-D technology and the use of 3-D glasses, while data point to the greater issue at hand: 3-D TVs haven't sold as well as manufacturers have hoped.

    But that hasn't stopped the two largest makers of TVs—Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Co., both of South Korea—from engaging in a bitter war of words over 3-D technology this month.

    The dispute is over the best way to process three-dimensional images, whether to let the TV screen do it, as LG favors, or to let special viewing glasses do it, as Samsung does.

    For consumers, the battle will determine whether they need to buy sets that require special glasses for about $100 a pair or simpler frames that cost about $10. But unlike previous video-industry squabbles, such as VHS versus Betamax videotapes, the outcome doesn't affect programs or the purchase of other video devices.

    For the TV makers, the fight is important because they have traditionally counted on new features like 3-D to justify premium prices, which boost profits in a business with razor-thin margins.

    At the end of 2009, when the movie "Avatar" gave consumers a fresh taste of 3-D technology, manufacturers hoped that 3-D TVs would sustain margins that were given a boost from the introduction of ultra-thin screens earlier that year.

    Instead, consumers shied away from 3-D models, put off by the lack of 3-D content, the extra cost and the inconvenience of the glasses needed to watch such TVs. The result was an inventory glut that forced manufacturers and retailers to cut the prices of 3-D TVs, reducing the hoped-for profits.

    Already, retailers in the U.S. and elsewhere have dismantled special displays and sections that highlighted 3-D TVs. As new models emerge in stores in coming weeks, 3-D will join features like Internet connections and app-style interfaces that will distinguish the most expensive TVs.

    The average price of a 3-D TV in the U.S. was $2,990 in February, according to research firm IHS iSuppli. But the premium that TV manufacturers and retailers can charge for the most feature-filled TVs will be narrower this year, analysts say. "It is basically like the industry has given up on profitability to gain market share," says Riddhi Patel, video analyst at IHS iSuppli.

    The division that includes TV manufacturing at Samsung had revenue of just over $50 billion last year but an operating profit margin of less than 1%. In the comparable unit at LG, the operating margin was around 2%.

    Electronics retailers are also hurting from competition from online sellers and low-price chains like Costco Wholesale Corp. In the U.S., Ultimate Electronics, one of the last specialist chains, is being liquidated.

    And last week, the chief executive of Best Buy Co., the largest U.S. electronics retailer, pointed to the fact that demand for 3-D TV "did not materialize as the industry had anticipated" as part of the reason for a 16% decline in quarterly profit. To help recover, a Best Buy executive said the company will boost its online offerings of TVs.

    "For some part of the market, people no longer feel the need to go into the store to look at TVs," said Paul Semenza, vice president at DisplaySearch.

    In such an environment, Samsung and LG are betting that the viewers' perception of 3-D technology could make a difference in sales and profits. Samsung sold 45 million TVs last year, compared with 30 million for LG. Samsung forecasts slower growth this year than LG does, a sign the gap between them will narrow.

    To consumers, the chief difference between the two companies' approach to 3-D is in the glasses needed to view images. Samsung uses battery-operated glasses that flicker dozens of times a second in time with the alternating images on the screen to produce the 3-D effect. LG uses non-battery glasses to reconstruct images that are divided on the screen, the same as in movie theaters.

    Samsung for months lobbied industry-standards groups to reject LG's approach as unsuitable for high-definition pictures. But the LG method was ultimately recognized as meeting high-definition standards in the U.S., Japan, China and Europe.

    The dispute grew particularly tense earlier this month when a Samsung executive used an expletive in describing LG engineers to a group of Korean reporters, leading LG to threaten legal action. The Samsung executive sent an apology letter to LG this week, and LG accepted.

    "It's very embarrassing that the No. 1 and No. 2 players are in this fight," said Kwon Young-soo, the chief executive of LG Display Co., a supplier of video components to LG and other manufacturers, after the expletive incident hit the Korean media.

    Samsung in the past has hedged its bets on video technology, offering, for instance, videodisc machines that played both Blu-ray and HD-DVD formats. For 3-D, the company chose to concentrate on the battery-glasses approach because, a spokesman said, it "offers viewers the best combination of picture quality and viewing angle."

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576230594269604696.html?mod=dist_smartbrief

    So Drez's crystal ball was actually working pretty well, at least the part about the separate device you have to wear on your face being a big deterrent.

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    So here we are, another year has gone by. The 3DS has better sales numbers than its predecessor, Sony has released a 3DTV with PlayStation branding, and quite a few major titles are now shipping with 3D included in the console space (Assassin's Creed: Revelations, Uncharted 3, Call of Duty, and Gears of War 3). Both NVidia and AMD now support 3D for many PC titles.

    For my own experience, irony is laid on thick. I have a PlayStation 3DTV that I got from a gaming community deal for about a hundred bucks. I also have my 3DS. I play both with 3D turned off as the drop in quality isn't something I'm prepared to deal with right now (3DTV) and any movement ruins the 3D effect on my 3DS... Nintendo just sent me a copy of Kid Icarus to review - it comes with a small stand, so that might help.

    I spent some time checking all five local major HDTV retailer flyers and 3D is still a top 3 feature listed in the bullet points, which indicates that either consumers are still looking for it, retailers are STILL dedicated to the idea that it's a box mover, or manufacturers are paying for it. I'm no longer in that space for employment, so I can't speak to it authoritatively.

    Anywho, that's another year down. See you in 12 months, and we'll see if 3D is dead yet!

    142.jpg
  • Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch Registered User regular
    Also I have a 3DTV now, which I love. I think it'll -really- take off with the next round of consoles.

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Xbox Live: SirGrinch X
  • TheSonicRetardTheSonicRetard Registered User regular
    mspencer wrote: »
    What Threepio hopes we think after reading his post:
    Wow, a year ago Threepio was right and Drez was wrong. Not like a little bit wrong, but really really wrong. LOL @ Drez

    What we actually think after reading his post:
    Wow, Threepio's a goose. This post matters to nobody but him, contains no useful information for anyone but him. What a waste of time.

    Maybe this would have been better handled in PM with Drez?

    I was saying boo-urns.

  • eobeteobet Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Last summer I saw a 40 inch 3D TV which didn't require any glasses at a convention. It had pretty good viewing angle and the effect was OK. The technology was the same as in the 3DS, but you weren't allowed to buy it yet (not that I could afford it, probably).

    Recently, I saw a demo of a TV that required glasses, but the scene depth of the effect was incredible! Things appeared both a meter or two in front of the screen and several meters into the screen, rather than just the ever so slight change of depth which makes everything feel like cardboard cut-outs in regular 3D TVs.

    I think 3D has quite a bright future for the next couple of decades, at least. Remember, TV started out black and white, and then color, and along came lots of technologies like computer screens, mobile device screens, etc. 3D tech will probably have a similar effect and impact.

    EDIT: To append something to do with gaming to this post, the most impressive 3D effect I've ever seen in a game is the blood in Dungeon Defenders on the PS3. I mean, the PC version is superior in every way, but damn if I don't long playing the PS3 version a little just because of that.

    eobet on
    Heard the proposition that RIAA and MPAA should join forces and form "Music And Film Industry Association"?
2
Sign In or Register to comment.