Sony: No plan to launch 3-D support for all PS3 games
by JC Fletcher 
{ Sep 4th 2009 at 8:00PM } 
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.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 4th 2009 8:04PM
I don't really think that jumping on the bandwagon of a somewhat lame gimmick that comes around once every decade or so is a megaton. Except this time, they actually want you to spend ridiculous amounts of money for a new TV compared to just buying a cheap pair of flimsy glasses (oh, they want you to do that too by the way!)
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 4th 2009 8:11PM
Oh and seeing how much they screwed up with firmware 3.0, which added next to nothing...I look forward to having my TV explode or PS3 short out when this 3D update comes.
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ Sep 4th 2009 8:12PM
Once every decade??
ummmm it was big back in the 70's and then as far as I know it died out...I mean every once in a while you would have a 3D movie in the 90's...then ABC's TGIF had an entire nite with all its shows in 3D like back in '97 I think...but there is ONE MAJOR difference here.....3D movies are raking in MORE money than their non-3D counterparts...no to mention the tech is there to put 3D in your homes in a better way than just red/blue lenses.....hell they are MASS PRODUCING TVs with it baked in!! I SERIOUSLY doubt it is going away that easily this time...
Solace @ Sep 4th 2009 8:19PM
I have a 72inch Mitsubishi 3-D ready 1080p FULL HDTV and I wants me some 3-D HD games NOW!
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 4th 2009 8:19PM
My father told me it was big in the 80s for a little while, and I personally remember it catching on for a very short while in the 90s and here we are again. I feel bad for anyone who's going to buy a 3D TV, when it always dies out. Actually, I don't feel bad....when have I ever felt bad for stupid people? It's happened the last 3 decades, so why would anyone think it's going to be any different this time?
rTwelve @ Sep 4th 2009 8:27PM
you're right, this technology sounds rather one-dimensional.
YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
austincb @ Sep 4th 2009 8:29PM
Yes 3D has come and gone multiple times before... but I'd say that this 'go-around' is the real deal. In other words, this particular method (polarizers in combination with an appropriately equipped TV to provide each eye with a different image) is the 'right way' to do it. There's no way to get around having to wear some sort of glasses unless the TV screen itself has appropriate facets to direct images in different directions (this has already been done with various and quite expensive monitors -- you have to sit directly in the middle of the screen and can't really move your head) but those aren't feasible when there's more than 1 person sitting on the couch. Unless/Until holographic stuff comes around, this will be the way to see 3D in your own home.
I know I'd at least like to have this tech to watch the Pixar films in 3D at home. Gaming may or may-not benefit as much... CGI films are now essentially hand-crafted to provide different elements on the screen at specific depths. Live action video in 3D gives me a headache and a free-moving camera in a game may also result in an unpleasant effect.
When 1080p televisions with the ability to send 120Hz to each eye are reasonably priced, I'll be first in line.
braindead360 @ Sep 4th 2009 8:31PM
You're missing a very critical point in your comment. Yes, most of what we have seen in the past concerning 3D was little more that "pop out" gimmicks. However, now we are reaching an era where creative minds like James Cameron are trying to utilize 3D to deliver a much more in-depth experience to the end user. Also, with current technology allowing people to experience 3D without any loss of color or experiencing mind numbing headaches is another plus. I am personally thrilled with the possibility of me owning a 3D HDTV by the end of next year, and I think that if the market is able to pick up, many other individuals will feel that same way.
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ Sep 4th 2009 8:35PM
this is the best 3D by far....there is no color distortion....you simply see the video a bit darker due to the shade-like 3D glasses....Once the price of those 3D TVs comes down then I will most likely get one....I mean what harm is it?? especially if a 65" LCD 3D baked in HDTVis under $3,000......I'm game
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 4th 2009 8:40PM
You go ahead and buy a $3000 3D TV, but I'll be waiting for the inevitable crash to tell you all I told ya so. The harm is spending all that money on something that's not even that good, it was harmless when all you needed was a pair of crappy goggles that you usually could get for free.
But really, you're gonna spend all that money just to sit around with wierd glasses on to get something to pop out every now and then while you game? How does that drastically improve the performance.
Shadowbender (Sweatshop Supporter In Hiding) @ Sep 4th 2009 8:46PM
Tmac, are you an anarchist?
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 4th 2009 8:48PM
No, I'm just a somewhat smart guy with great common sense. I'm not good at economics (barely escaped that class with a C), but even I know better than to invest in something that's failed several times before.
Shadowbender (Sweatshop Supporter In Hiding) @ Sep 4th 2009 8:51PM
Okay, maybe not an anarchist, but a grumpy old war veteran?
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 4th 2009 8:53PM
Probably just grumpy, and cynical. Watching this industry for so long has made me that way though :\
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ Sep 4th 2009 9:00PM
ummmm the TV witl still function without 3D media for this "crash" that you keep speaking right??
so how is it a waste??
you DO know that a GOOD 65" LCD now is around $3,000 right??
if I'm getting a 3D TV for the price of a regular one then whats the waste??
Kinsey @ Sep 4th 2009 9:18PM
You really should research the topic that your criticizing before you make a statement. The 3D technology being used now is different from the the crappy red/blue glasses being used in the 90's and beyond. I have one very dominant eye and those red/blue glasses don't give me any 3D perspective but were successful in giving me a headache. And from my experience I doubt it looks any good with people that it did work for still.
I went and saw Monsters vs Aliens in the theatres in 3D with the glasses they give you at the door and I was amazed how well it worked and natural feeling it was. From what I understand any TV that displays 120 Hz (which is pretty much all new TV's being produced) it is capable of 3D.
If the movies are any indiction of what games will loook like in 3D I'm all for it and look forward to it.
Drakkenfyre @ Sep 4th 2009 9:31PM
The difference being the 3D of the 80's and before relied on Anaglyphic lenses (like red/blue). This does not. It relies on two separate images, and use a pair of polarized glasses. If you get into theater 3D, then you have two flickering images, and synchronized lenses on glasses.
You don't get color loss. The depth of the effect is greater. The difference is amazing. If you haven't seen it, you don't know anything,
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 4th 2009 9:39PM
It's 3D. It's just as pointless and stupid as it was 10, 20, and 30 years ago. Only now, you can add "tremendous waste of money" to the list.
Seeing how much dumber America has gotten over time, I wouldn't be surprised to see this take off now. I'm hoping for once humanity can prove me wrong and still show some intelligence, but I know better by now.
Wiizer ($299) Having BC On Your Launch Console? (Priceless) @ Sep 4th 2009 9:41PM
Exactly, Drakkenfyre!
I watched UP! with stereoscopic glasses, and I absolutely loved it! It was crisp, clear, and I would love if that same precision comes to a home console!
I mean, you have to pay absolutely NOTHING to have this perk if you already own a PS3! It's amazing!
Wiizer ($299) Having BC On Your Launch Console? (Priceless) @ Sep 4th 2009 9:43PM
@ tmac
Don't resort to name-calling. you always get that way when you have nothing left to say.
You do get that the tech behind it is different, don't you?
Dashiva @ Sep 4th 2009 9:46PM
tmac, I can respect a healthy pessimism, but it's getting to the point where I want to physically harm you.
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 4th 2009 9:47PM
Yes I do, and I also realize it doesn't change how gimmicky and a waste of time it is. And I tried to not go the name calling route, but this is testing my patience. I've got people telling me they're going to buy a $3000 3D TV, when even if it works...you're paying out the ass to wear ridiculous glasses and watch something pop out of the screen. I'm trying to understand how that makes sense, and how that would improve anything rather than be a pain in the ass...but I can't.
Giving $3000 to sarah palin's campaign is a better use of the money than that.
acefondu @ Sep 4th 2009 9:50PM
I think it's going to suck balls too tmac. Can't really think of how this will improve gaming, at least it's free though so I won't have any regrets looking like a doofus with glasses on. Still, I'll keep my eyes open for this one, haha.
Wiizer ($299) Having BC On Your Launch Console? (Priceless) @ Sep 4th 2009 9:54PM
Ewww... invoking Palin... this is getting ugly.
Well, tmac, there are cheaper ways to pull off this effect. My laptop uses NVIDIA drivers to pull off the stereoscopic effect. I imagine that since the PS3 uses PhysX, you could achieve the same effect with the addition of glasses for the person viewing it and these drivers in an update.
So, if its not expensive, would you like the idea more? I think not. You just like to hate on the idea altogether.
D:
Drakkenfyre @ Sep 4th 2009 9:56PM
Obviously you failed to see that the TV would cost $3000 ANYWAY. This is in addition to that. Not that the TV only does 3D, and costs that much.
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 4th 2009 10:00PM
Well no, price doesn't really affect my decision since I hated it when it was free. I mean, I know I'm not easily impressed anymore but having things pop out when watching didn't impress me when I was 10 either.
Kodros @ Sep 4th 2009 10:07PM
Tmac - Did you seriously just say that 3-D is pointless and stupid? So...let me get this straight. Viewing a game in the same dimension as the human eye is stupid and pointless? Do you happen to wear an eye patch?
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 4th 2009 10:09PM
It doesn't work like that, but nice try.
The Baron @ Sep 4th 2009 10:11PM
Still probably best for 3D to actually be implemented before you buy the TV though..
Balloonfighter99 @ Sep 4th 2009 10:28PM
I actually agree with you for once. Who cares if they're making 3d capable TVs. That doesn't mean they will take off. Look at Beta , Lazer disc, HD-DVD etc. Early adopters are always risking getting screwed on expensive new techs.Personally I think this is a terrible time to push 3D-TVs when HD isn't even settled in yet. 3D gaming does sound cool though.
Kodros @ Sep 4th 2009 10:30PM
"It doesn't work like that, but nice try."
And how do you know this?
tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 4th 2009 10:37PM
Because it's not a freakin hologram from Star Trek, it's just 3D tech that we've seen before but supposedly a little sharper and cleaner.
Balloonfighter99 @ Sep 4th 2009 10:41PM
How much more do you pay for a 3D capable TV versus a normal HD TV?
Ridgecity @ Sep 4th 2009 11:13PM
3d will always be on the minds of electronic manufacturers and content providers.
I will get a PS3 if they can achieve this since gaming in 3d is freekin amazing, in case no one remembers that flying carpet game from the 90s, I can't imagine what it looks like 15 years later.
Drakkenfyre @ Sep 4th 2009 11:41PM
tmac, let me explain this.
The type of 3D this is using is not the kind you saw. This isn't the red/blue you saw when you were a kid.
There was a 3D IMAX film about the Galapogos Islands. When they were in a cave, it felt like the flashlight beams were sweeping across your face, When they dropped a rope towards the camera, everyone in the audience gasped.
If you have not seen this kind of 3D, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Vidikron @ Sep 4th 2009 11:51PM
I agree with tmac, this is largely a fucking waste of time. Having an occasional theater movie in 3D is one thing, but trying to push it into homes where virtually everyone will be forced to buy new TVs sets to use it PLUS get to have the headache inducing experience of wearing glasses just to play a game or watch TV is stupid. The glasses bit is especially annoying for peoplke that already wear glasses. I just can't see the general public buying into this nonsense on a large scale.
End User @ Sep 5th 2009 1:14AM
Dude, I've had a 3d capable HDTV for two years, and it didn't cost $3000 when I bought it. Basically any HDTV that has a 120Hz refresh rate is 3d capable. It's not like it's some special 3d-only tech that we're paying extra for.
TrendGiveAfuck @ Sep 5th 2009 8:13AM
My father still thinks colour TV is overrated.
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ Sep 5th 2009 9:24AM
comparing 3D to Betamax, HD-DVD etc is pointless....why?? because its not ANOTHER format....it will run off of Blu-ray which is already out there.....so thats no big deal other than an upgrade...non of that "early adopter" getting burned risk simply because the PS3 is ONE of the FEW Blu-ray players that is capable of doing this by a simple upgrade....as for the TV well thats no biggie either.....like I said if it cost the same as a regular 1080p TV does now then I dont see the problem....hell I remember 4 years ago a 46" Sharp like I have now cost $4,000!! I bought it 2 years ago with a higher contrast ration than the model from 4 years ago and more features for only $1,000....fact is Technology is constantly advancing....and in doing so things become cheaper...like I said even IF 3D doesnt "take off" its not going to hurt me any....I will still get plenty of REGULAR HD use out of it....
Jimiisama @ Sep 5th 2009 12:06PM
People forget that we had 3D games during the NES days. In fact a lot of game technology we're coming out with now, we had for the NES; sure it was crappy, but we had it. You think we could have perfected the technology much sooner than now.
Vidikron @ Sep 5th 2009 6:36PM
Wow... apparently a lot of people don't mind replacing all their TVs and wearing glasses to play games and watch TV.
Solace @ Sep 4th 2009 8:04PM
Engadget vs Joystiq
The classic sister vs sister rivalry
Zoot Suit Jedi @ Sep 4th 2009 8:06PM
I like it when they both make out with me.
Zoot Suit Jedi @ Sep 4th 2009 8:07PM
I also enjoy cheating on one with the other. Makes me feel dirty.
Adam @ Sep 4th 2009 8:10PM
@Zoot: And by the sounds of it, you enjoy touching your junk far too often.
sony boy (6 years til sony man child!) @ Sep 4th 2009 8:15PM
zoot, you old, old, sexy, man.
Shadowbender (Sweatshop Supporter In Hiding) @ Sep 4th 2009 8:25PM
It's even funnier with his Avatar as Alec Guinness.
tafuub @ Sep 5th 2009 2:12AM
I just have to ask is this Joystiq writer serious about putting the glasses in from of the cam and expected it to show up in 3D? In order for it to show up in 3D your camera would have to have two eyeballs and a brain. All 3D is, is a trick on the brain. It's not a trick on a camera.
Moron...or really lame joke, seriously can't tell.
Zoot Suit Jedi @ Sep 4th 2009 8:05PM
"Oh yeah, you're awesome. I can't get enough"
You sound genuinely enthused.
Indefinite Implosion @ Sep 5th 2009 3:53AM
Sorry to comment here to get it noticed, but I thought of the MOST AWESOME application of 3D stuff...
This 3D tech combined with motion controller would = win.
Think about it. Y'know how in the motion controller demo they showed that they could superimpose a sword, gun or whatever into the video so it looked like you were holding it, imagine that with 3D, you could look at your motion controller in hand and there would be a 3D representation of what it was meant to be IN YOUR HAND!
(I'm not sure if the 360 can do 3D, but it works for Natal as well if it can)
If they could do that both technologies would take off a sell heaps, I imagine.