Figure out how to do it without me having to wear some goofy fucking glasses and I'm game.
Also, why does shit need to pop out of my tv? That's not very realistic. I'd rather have realistic depth perception, as though rather than looking at a tv, I'm looking out a window into another world.
That's largely what James Cameron's been saying all this time. "Bad" 3D is the stuff you see in the old anaglyph flicks designed to "jump" out at you, he's more intent on creating visuals that give an impression of depth and being in the scene.
It'll be interesting to see how Avatar turns out, I've barely heard anything about it.
Coraline was awesome with 3D, the others I've seen...not so much.
Crashmo on
0
mntorankusuI'm not sure how to use this thing....Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
I love 3D technology and whatnot, even with the old anaglyph glasses.
I'm not really interested in 3D televisions though. If I'm going to spend a shitload of money on 3D hardware, I want a huge stereo projector or a 3D head-mounted display with tracking.
The future of 3D is not in glasses, its in autostereoscopy. Of course, you need triple the resolution, but it wasn't long ago when I though 680x460 was fucking uber.
3D is more useful for movies and games, though! At least realistically. With 3D, you can simulate depth so that the tiny people on your screen look like life-sized people who are just far away. For holograms, you'd need them to actually be life-size to appear so, so you'd need something like a holodeck.
I guess that isn't a very good argument, though, because a holodeck would be sweet.
3D is more useful for movies and games, though! At least realistically. With 3D, you can simulate depth so that the tiny people on your screen look like life-sized people who are just far away. For holograms, you'd need them to actually be life-size to appear so, so you'd need something like a holodeck.
I guess that isn't a very good argument, though, because a holodeck would be sweet.
People simulate depth with real 3 demensional objects all the time.
I still think this reiteration of 3d is a fad, and meant to keep the prices of TV's high because they cant push super HD for another 5 years/until broadcast resolution gets that high.
Edit: not the best example, but you can just as easily have a small person sitting a gianourmouse table that is built further in the background.
What steps are they taking backwards exactly? This is a fairly useless feature for 99% of the planet but it's not like it's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use it.
As for 3D itself, I saw Superman Returns in 3D (for parts of the movie at least) and it looked pretty neat. I wouldnt want to wear those glasses while playing a 30 hour RPG but I'm guessing some people might.
What steps back are they taking?
Well, one would think about the Wii vs PS3 debacle that they learned it is gameplay that drives the consumer, not technology. Video gaming is entertainment business, not a hardware business.
I still think this reiteration of 3d is a fad, and meant to keep the prices of TV's high because they cant push super HD for another 5 years/until broadcast resolution gets that high.
I pretty much feel the same way. The only reason Nvidia's been trying to push their "NEW AWESOMER!" 3D goggles on the PC is because developers have finally wised up and stopped pushing graphics just for the heck of it. Graphics hardware has been easily capable of whatever this generation of consoles can manage from the very start, and there's no reason for them to push things further.
Which means there's no reason to buy new hardware since there aren't any games that need it.
Enter: Advertising for a revolutionary new technology that will allow you to see things in 3D! All you need is to double your current graphics hardware and invest in a pair of $200 glasses!
What steps are they taking backwards exactly? This is a fairly useless feature for 99% of the planet but it's not like it's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use it.
As for 3D itself, I saw Superman Returns in 3D (for parts of the movie at least) and it looked pretty neat. I wouldnt want to wear those glasses while playing a 30 hour RPG but I'm guessing some people might.
What steps back are they taking?
Well, one would think about the Wii vs PS3 debacle that they learned it is gameplay that drives the consumer, not technology. Video gaming is entertainment business, not a hardware business.
Seriously? The Wii is your example of a console not being technology driven? The wiimote could have been a GameCube controller, it's the gameplay that's sold millions of consoles?
David_T on
0
mntorankusuI'm not sure how to use this thing....Registered Userregular
3D is more useful for movies and games, though! At least realistically. With 3D, you can simulate depth so that the tiny people on your screen look like life-sized people who are just far away. For holograms, you'd need them to actually be life-size to appear so, so you'd need something like a holodeck.
I guess that isn't a very good argument, though, because a holodeck would be sweet.
People simulate depth with real 3 demensional objects all the time.
I still think this reiteration of 3d is a fad, and meant to keep the prices of TV's high because they cant push super HD for another 5 years/until broadcast resolution gets that high.
Edit: not the best example, but you can just as easily have a small person sitting a gianourmouse table that is built further in the background.
Tricks like that only look natural when they're photographed, or when you have one of your eyes closed. Human depth perception tends to make them look unnatural and strange, which is what makes them interesting a lot of the time. They look crazy.
And, looking at them from the incorrect angle always defeats tricks like that, but the entire purpose of a hologram is that you can see it from different angles.
3D is more useful for movies and games, though! At least realistically. With 3D, you can simulate depth so that the tiny people on your screen look like life-sized people who are just far away. For holograms, you'd need them to actually be life-size to appear so, so you'd need something like a holodeck.
I guess that isn't a very good argument, though, because a holodeck would be sweet.
People simulate depth with real 3 demensional objects all the time.
I still think this reiteration of 3d is a fad, and meant to keep the prices of TV's high because they cant push super HD for another 5 years/until broadcast resolution gets that high.
Edit: not the best example, but you can just as easily have a small person sitting a gianourmouse table that is built further in the background.
Tricks like that only look natural when they're photographed, or when you have one of your eyes closed. Human depth perception tends to make them look unnatural and strange, which is what makes them interesting a lot of the time. They look crazy.
And, looking at them from the incorrect angle always defeats tricks like that, but the entire purpose of a hologram is that you can see it from different angles.
Holodecks. YES.
Give me a pair of glasses and a plastic gun, and so long as everything in my environment becomes part of the game, and I can kill things, I'll never take those glasses off.
I'm only opposed to this because 3D does not work with me. A childhood accident has left me with no depth perception. I see fine out of both eyes, I just don't have that nerve cluster or whatever going on so I'm really effectivally only looking out of one eye at a time. So those gimmick 3D glasses have never worked for shit with me.
But of course, there's always the peripheral side of the equation to consider. Developers have, and always will, take the path of least resistance. Developers will either A) Ignore it completely, since once again it's another peripheral they can't assume is owned by everyone, or Be completely lazy in its inclusion. Remember when 90's sitcoms got into this fad, and the only effect they ever did was moving a stick back and forth? We'll be getting the VG equivilant. The REAL innovation and use, like that James Cameron example above, will only be done by maybe one or two studios and still not justify the gimmick.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
The OP makes it sound like this isn't something developers have to go out of their way to support, just like the PC equivalents which (theoretically) work with any Direct3D game. I had a pair around 10 years ago (came with my video card), and the results were kind of neat, except that menus and 2D effects tended to show up way off in the wrong plane. Plus the whole thing with the game being dark because I'm wearing the shades. If the technology's gotten better then I'd be all for giving it a shot, except that I don't have a PS3.
The OP makes it sound like this isn't something developers have to go out of their way to support, just like the PC equivalents which (theoretically) work with any Direct3D game. I had a pair around 10 years ago (came with my video card), and the results were kind of neat, except that menus and 2D effects tended to show up way off in the wrong plane. Plus the whole thing with the game being dark because I'm wearing the shades. If the technology's gotten better then I'd be all for giving it a shot, except that I don't have a PS3.
You know what's absolutely useless? A video of Wipeout HD being played in 3D, with some schmuck wearing 3D glasses and babbling on about how much fun he's having. Well, that schmuck is this Engadget editor, the video can be found after the break, and we've gotta say: we loved it. Especially for something like Wipeout HD, whose neon-infused tracks make for an almost too convenient example of rapidly approaching vanishing points, we'd say 3D could really be a quasi-"killer app" for consoles going forward -- especially if those fancy new motion controllers don't catch on for Microsoft and Sony. In many ways, 3D just seems to make more sense in a video game than for a movie, and the whole problem of finding content to deliver in the format has already been solved: a software update for the PS3 sometime in 2010 will enable it to provide a 3D viewing experience to "all" existing games on the system. We're sure there will be some exceptions, but it sounds very promising. The console itself pumps out a quite regular signal over HDMI, which the TV syncs up with your 3D glasses. A 200Hz TV, for instance, alternates 1080p frames, with 100Hz for each eye. Of course, you'll need a brand new TV, but at least it won't be restricted to just Sony televisions. Start saving those pennies!
The OP makes it sound like this isn't something developers have to go out of their way to support, just like the PC equivalents which (theoretically) work with any Direct3D game. I had a pair around 10 years ago (came with my video card), and the results were kind of neat, except that menus and 2D effects tended to show up way off in the wrong plane. Plus the whole thing with the game being dark because I'm wearing the shades. If the technology's gotten better then I'd be all for giving it a shot, except that I don't have a PS3.
You know what's absolutely useless? A video of Wipeout HD being played in 3D, with some schmuck wearing 3D glasses and babbling on about how much fun he's having. Well, that schmuck is this Engadget editor, the video can be found after the break, and we've gotta say: we loved it. Especially for something like Wipeout HD, whose neon-infused tracks make for an almost too convenient example of rapidly approaching vanishing points, we'd say 3D could really be a quasi-"killer app" for consoles going forward -- especially if those fancy new motion controllers don't catch on for Microsoft and Sony. In many ways, 3D just seems to make more sense in a video game than for a movie, and the whole problem of finding content to deliver in the format has already been solved: a software update for the PS3 sometime in 2010 will enable it to provide a 3D viewing experience to "all" existing games on the system. We're sure there will be some exceptions, but it sounds very promising. The console itself pumps out a quite regular signal over HDMI, which the TV syncs up with your 3D glasses. A 200Hz TV, for instance, alternates 1080p frames, with 100Hz for each eye. Of course, you'll need a brand new TV, but at least it won't be restricted to just Sony televisions. Start saving those pennies!
3D tech has gotten a lot better, but the fundamental stuff remains unless the devs actively configure for it. Menus, icons and often SFX and lightsources "pop" out of the picture with no correlation to the 3D image, because they're overlaid on top of the image.
Basically those parts also need to be made with 3D in mind as well, a simple software update won't fix them. Games with minimal interfaces have less of an issue with this, but even in-game visual effects can look as if they're floating on top of the scene because of how they're handled. It really depends on the game.
Hold on before you run out to buy a new TV! You may have seen the report on Engadget stating that, according to a Sony rep, all PS3 games will run in 3-D with a software update next year. We contacted Sony ourselves to learn more about what sounded like a major megaton to let slip at a trade show. Sony told us that the company is "conducting a technological investigation" of whether it's even possible to do that. As for specifics: "there is no plan for the market launch of this at this time."
If you're dying to look at a 3-D game right now, Engadget also captured a video of Wipeout HD being played in 3-D, which you can see above. For some reason, the 3-D effect doesn't come through when viewed in an embedded video recording -- even with the glasses in front of the lens. Sony really needs to work on that.
Looks like engadget either misinterpreted what was said or talked to someone that had no clue what they were talking about.
3D isn't always bad. The quality varies greatly from one system to the next.
I saw a 3D movie in a 'regular' cinema which looked pretty nasty.. muted colors and eye-straining perspective. On the other hand, I saw a 3D thing at an IMAX cinema which looked amazing. The difference was night and day. If I could have my games looking like that, then yes please.
3D isn't always bad. The quality varies greatly from one system to the next.
I saw a 3D movie in a 'regular' cinema which looked pretty nasty.. muted colors and eye-straining perspective. On the other hand, I saw a 3D thing at an IMAX cinema which looked amazing. The difference was night and day. If I could have my games looking like that, then yes please.
This.
The theatre we have in town is brand new, and has devoted one theatre to 3D films...looks amazing, and definitely shows off 3D well.
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
I think going forward 3D is going to be the thing we go to movie theatres for, not something we do at home. At least until they can figure out how to do it without glasses.
This 3D "gimmick" (as people have labeled it) allows us to see Video Games similar to how we see things in real life. How is this a bad thing? I'm willing to wear some silly glasses to enable this.
Also 3D anaglyph in HD actually works REASONABLY well. I watched the recent-ish episode of Chuck with the Purple and Yellow glasses and whilst colours weren't perfect (better than I've seen with other coloured glasses) the sensation of depth was pretty snazzy.
This 3D "gimmick" (as people have labeled it) allows us to see Video Games similar to how we see things in real life. How is this a bad thing? I'm willing to wear some silly glasses to enable this.
Also 3D anaglyph in HD actually works REASONABLY well. I watched the recent-ish episode of Chuck with the Purple and Yellow glasses and whilst colours weren't perfect (better than I've seen with other coloured glasses) the sensation of depth was pretty snazzy.
This isn't Anaglyph, this makes use of shutter glasses. The glasses cost around $200 if we go by what Nvidia's currently selling on the PC (although I'd be willing to guess that Sony would sell them cheaper, I'd still expect at least $100 price tag).
And the main issue is performance. Films are OK, but most modern games struggle to maintain a consistent 30 FPS even after the resolution's been dropped from 720p. What you're asking the system to do now is render double the number of frames every second.
subedii on
0
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
I'm just curious: Has anyone ever gotten 3D glasses of any sort (Shutter based or otherwise) to work if you wear glasses for vision issues? I remember seeing some shutter glasses based 3D movies before I got (normal) glasses and being impressed with their effectiveness. Then I got glasses and I've never had a 3D movie work for me after that. Most of my friends attest to the same.
I assume it's because the options are either A.) Take off normal glasses and not see anything, or B.) Put 3D glasses over normal glasses and have the 3D glasses too far away to work.
This 3D "gimmick" (as people have labeled it) allows us to see Video Games similar to how we see things in real life. How is this a bad thing? I'm willing to wear some silly glasses to enable this.
Also 3D anaglyph in HD actually works REASONABLY well. I watched the recent-ish episode of Chuck with the Purple and Yellow glasses and whilst colours weren't perfect (better than I've seen with other coloured glasses) the sensation of depth was pretty snazzy.
This isn't Anaglyph, this makes use of shutter glasses. The glasses cost around $200 if we go by what Nvidia's currently selling on the PC (although I'd be willing to guess that Sony would sell them cheaper, I'd still expect at least $100 price tag).
And the main issue is performance. Films are OK, but most modern games struggle to maintain a consistent 30 FPS even after the resolution's been dropped from 720p. What you're asking the system to do now is render double the number of frames every second.
I know it's not anaglyph, it uses LCD shutter glasses and syncs up with what's on screen. I was just commenting that even anaglyph isn't that bad now.
I heard they had cheaper glasses coming out ($20 to $30 but I'll have to dig out the source). LCD shutter glasses shouldn't be anywhere near that expensive. You can pick up two old fashioned pairs for use on a crt tv and the whole kit for displaying it for around £70 here. Ok the technology used to display it is different but the glasses are still essentially the same.
I'm just curious: Has anyone ever gotten 3D glasses of any sort (Shutter based or otherwise) to work if you wear glasses for vision issues? I remember seeing some shutter glasses based 3D movies before I got (normal) glasses and being impressed with their effectiveness. Then I got glasses and I've never had a 3D movie work for me after that. Most of my friends attest to the same.
I assume it's because the options are either A.) Take off normal glasses and not see anything, or B.) Put 3D glasses over normal glasses and have the 3D glasses too far away to work.
From what I've heard about the Nvidia glasses, they work OK going over regular glasses.
@ Grinch: I have no clue either, I don't really know how much the shutter hardware would cost. I know the set also comes with special software and IR receiver to communicate with the glasses (so you're not tied to the table by a freaking wire or anything), but I wouldn't expect those to push the price that much. I'm guessing it's at least partly to do with the fact that it's a niche item that they didn't expect to sell many of except to a hardcore market, at least initially.
I can feel dorky enough playing some games anyway, without wearing special googles to do so.
Plus PC games have enough hardware issues as it is. Do we really need a game that only works with certain driver revisions of glasses too?
At the end of 2010, Sony plans to release this 3D Bravia for use with its games console. But over the following two or three years, we were told, it wants to build the picture-processing technology into the PlayStation itself. That way, gamers will be able to enjoy 3D gaming on any high-def TV. Plans to incorporate the system into Blu-ray players, and even Vaio laptops, also exist.
3D is going to be the norm. It's just a question of when, and it when perfected will most definatly add to the viewing experiance. Are you people seriously honestly suggesting this isn't the case? Oh right, can't notice a difference between SD an HD.
3D is going to be the norm. It's just a question of when, and it when perfected will most definatly add to the viewing experiance. Are you people seriously honestly suggesting this isn't the case? Oh right, can't notice a difference between SD an HD.
Stupid glasses.
Stupid glasses are so stupid. Over a pair of normal glasses? Oh they are just even stupider now. And hey what's that pounding? Oh it is just a slow-growing headache yay.
I'm pretty consistently against the "wear glasses and look at a diffracted screen" style of 3D. Pop-out doesn't impress me enough to sacrifice comfort. And I don't think pop-out will become the norm in games any more than it will in movies.
Edit: Then, pending evidence of just how uncomfortable this would be for me to experience, I may like it. I've yet to be impressed by a 3D movie, but I also feel like 3D games have at least a little more to offer.
3D is going to be the norm. It's just a question of when, and it when perfected will most definatly add to the viewing experiance. Are you people seriously honestly suggesting this isn't the case? Oh right, can't notice a difference between SD an HD.
Stupid glasses.
Stupid glasses are so stupid. Over a pair of normal glasses? Oh they are just even stupider now. And hey what's that pounding? Oh it is just a slow-growing headache yay.
I'm pretty consistently against the "wear glasses and look at a diffracted screen" style of 3D. Pop-out doesn't impress me enough to sacrifice comfort. And I don't think pop-out will become the norm in games any more than it will in movies.
Edit: Then, pending evidence of just how uncomfortable this would be for me to experience, I may like it. I've yet to be impressed by a 3D movie, but I also feel like 3D games have at least a little more to offer.
Right, which is why I said when, not now. And honestly, in this thread you have a number of people giving a massive shit about a company they likely don't own shares in, pushing a technology to improve a viewing experiance they don't care about. What gives?
I already hide my shameful gaming hobby with the zeal of a man with a freezer full of harvested alien livers in his kitchen, what's some silly head gear on top of that?
Posts
That's largely what James Cameron's been saying all this time. "Bad" 3D is the stuff you see in the old anaglyph flicks designed to "jump" out at you, he's more intent on creating visuals that give an impression of depth and being in the scene.
It'll be interesting to see how Avatar turns out, I've barely heard anything about it.
The blind.
And pirates.
I'm not really interested in 3D televisions though. If I'm going to spend a shitload of money on 3D hardware, I want a huge stereo projector or a 3D head-mounted display with tracking.
Also, Up was so damn good in 3D. The sense of depth was great.
Sorry to be that guy but its 640x480.
And some of us still use it
PSN - sumowot
HAHAHAH gold, gold
PSN - sumowot
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
3D is more useful for movies and games, though! At least realistically. With 3D, you can simulate depth so that the tiny people on your screen look like life-sized people who are just far away. For holograms, you'd need them to actually be life-size to appear so, so you'd need something like a holodeck.
I guess that isn't a very good argument, though, because a holodeck would be sweet.
People simulate depth with real 3 demensional objects all the time.
I still think this reiteration of 3d is a fad, and meant to keep the prices of TV's high because they cant push super HD for another 5 years/until broadcast resolution gets that high.
Edit: not the best example, but you can just as easily have a small person sitting a gianourmouse table that is built further in the background.
What steps back are they taking?
Well, one would think about the Wii vs PS3 debacle that they learned it is gameplay that drives the consumer, not technology. Video gaming is entertainment business, not a hardware business.
I pretty much feel the same way. The only reason Nvidia's been trying to push their "NEW AWESOMER!" 3D goggles on the PC is because developers have finally wised up and stopped pushing graphics just for the heck of it. Graphics hardware has been easily capable of whatever this generation of consoles can manage from the very start, and there's no reason for them to push things further.
Which means there's no reason to buy new hardware since there aren't any games that need it.
Enter: Advertising for a revolutionary new technology that will allow you to see things in 3D! All you need is to double your current graphics hardware and invest in a pair of $200 glasses!
Like all 3D stuff, it looks like shit when filmed.
Seriously? The Wii is your example of a console not being technology driven? The wiimote could have been a GameCube controller, it's the gameplay that's sold millions of consoles?
Tricks like that only look natural when they're photographed, or when you have one of your eyes closed. Human depth perception tends to make them look unnatural and strange, which is what makes them interesting a lot of the time. They look crazy.
And, looking at them from the incorrect angle always defeats tricks like that, but the entire purpose of a hologram is that you can see it from different angles.
Holodecks. YES.
Give me a pair of glasses and a plastic gun, and so long as everything in my environment becomes part of the game, and I can kill things, I'll never take those glasses off.
PSN - sumowot
But of course, there's always the peripheral side of the equation to consider. Developers have, and always will, take the path of least resistance. Developers will either A) Ignore it completely, since once again it's another peripheral they can't assume is owned by everyone, or
This is the greatest day.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I have to wear contacts anyways...
That is how it is supposed to work.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/04/ps3s-new-3d-mode-captured-on-video-coming-in-2010-to-all-exist/
3D tech has gotten a lot better, but the fundamental stuff remains unless the devs actively configure for it. Menus, icons and often SFX and lightsources "pop" out of the picture with no correlation to the 3D image, because they're overlaid on top of the image.
Basically those parts also need to be made with 3D in mind as well, a simple software update won't fix them. Games with minimal interfaces have less of an issue with this, but even in-game visual effects can look as if they're floating on top of the scene because of how they're handled. It really depends on the game.
Looks like engadget either misinterpreted what was said or talked to someone that had no clue what they were talking about.
I saw a 3D movie in a 'regular' cinema which looked pretty nasty.. muted colors and eye-straining perspective. On the other hand, I saw a 3D thing at an IMAX cinema which looked amazing. The difference was night and day. If I could have my games looking like that, then yes please.
This.
The theatre we have in town is brand new, and has devoted one theatre to 3D films...looks amazing, and definitely shows off 3D well.
Also 3D anaglyph in HD actually works REASONABLY well. I watched the recent-ish episode of Chuck with the Purple and Yellow glasses and whilst colours weren't perfect (better than I've seen with other coloured glasses) the sensation of depth was pretty snazzy.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
This isn't Anaglyph, this makes use of shutter glasses. The glasses cost around $200 if we go by what Nvidia's currently selling on the PC (although I'd be willing to guess that Sony would sell them cheaper, I'd still expect at least $100 price tag).
And the main issue is performance. Films are OK, but most modern games struggle to maintain a consistent 30 FPS even after the resolution's been dropped from 720p. What you're asking the system to do now is render double the number of frames every second.
I assume it's because the options are either A.) Take off normal glasses and not see anything, or B.) Put 3D glasses over normal glasses and have the 3D glasses too far away to work.
I know it's not anaglyph, it uses LCD shutter glasses and syncs up with what's on screen. I was just commenting that even anaglyph isn't that bad now.
I heard they had cheaper glasses coming out ($20 to $30 but I'll have to dig out the source). LCD shutter glasses shouldn't be anywhere near that expensive. You can pick up two old fashioned pairs for use on a crt tv and the whole kit for displaying it for around £70 here. Ok the technology used to display it is different but the glasses are still essentially the same.
I've no idea why Nvidia's are insanely expensive.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
From what I've heard about the Nvidia glasses, they work OK going over regular glasses.
@ Grinch: I have no clue either, I don't really know how much the shutter hardware would cost. I know the set also comes with special software and IR receiver to communicate with the glasses (so you're not tied to the table by a freaking wire or anything), but I wouldn't expect those to push the price that much. I'm guessing it's at least partly to do with the fact that it's a niche item that they didn't expect to sell many of except to a hardcore market, at least initially.
Plus PC games have enough hardware issues as it is. Do we really need a game that only works with certain driver revisions of glasses too?
Stupid glasses are so stupid. Over a pair of normal glasses? Oh they are just even stupider now. And hey what's that pounding? Oh it is just a slow-growing headache yay.
I'm pretty consistently against the "wear glasses and look at a diffracted screen" style of 3D. Pop-out doesn't impress me enough to sacrifice comfort. And I don't think pop-out will become the norm in games any more than it will in movies.
Edit: Then, pending evidence of just how uncomfortable this would be for me to experience, I may like it. I've yet to be impressed by a 3D movie, but I also feel like 3D games have at least a little more to offer.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
Right, which is why I said when, not now. And honestly, in this thread you have a number of people giving a massive shit about a company they likely don't own shares in, pushing a technology to improve a viewing experiance they don't care about. What gives?
p.s. those glasses? Retro as all hell.
I already hide my shameful gaming hobby with the zeal of a man with a freezer full of harvested alien livers in his kitchen, what's some silly head gear on top of that?