| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (37)

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 3:06PM Wiizer said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report

Mike, as a moderator, I feel you should have abused your powers and disqualified Michael Pachter as a gaming panelist participant on the grounds that HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE GLOBAL 3D LANDSCAPE.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 10:25PM Extinction said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Get it so every TV uses a standard set of glasses/protocol so all glasses work on all tvs.
And so it works on any 120 hz tv.

And it will succeed. Do not get these 2 things, and it will fail
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 3:19PM Shadowbender said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm scared. 3D is very entertaining some times, but if I'm just hanging out with my brother late at night, playing some games old and new, I don't want to go through the physical hassle of having this kind of experience. "Physical" meaning I'm tired and don't want to strain my eyes with this feature. Maybe if it's the middle of the day, but when I play games as a form of relaxation, this is like backfire of what I want. 3D isn't something I'm really craving for right now. I think we should focus on something truly "game-changing", like virtual reality. Here me out with this. If you want immersive, than this is the way to go. In the end, 3D is distracting and a gimmick, even if it is fun at times.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 3:26PM Wiizer said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report

The good news is that 3-D sets can view all things in 2-D, as well.

There's nothing to fear, these devices are just giving you a third dimension of viewing.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/23/hd-101-3d-faq/
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 3:34PM WiredKnight said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
We *are* focusing on virtual reality. 3D brings us one step closer. Whether its projected from a screen or inside a set of googles, if you want VR you're going to have to get used to 3D.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 3:59PM liquidsoap89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
3D looks to be the first step TOWARDS virtual reality to me. I would rather get there in incremental stages than wait a mega long time to get there in one giant step. Plus these stages could help fine tune and improve the end result of whatever all this turns into.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 3:34PM Granger said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
3D is turning into a format war of sorts to rival that of Blu-ray and HD-DVD, except I doubt much of it is true. All these competing technologies and claims of 'only capable on Brand X or Brand Y,' eventually one spec is going to be the majority rules and people with the others are going to face yet another upgrade. I'm sitting it out for that reason. It took nearly 10 years of increasing HD adoption before games started to take advantage of higher resolutions, so it's kind of troubling that they are moving so quickly into 3D / working so closely to make 3D commonplace before the public even has a chance to accept the tech.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 4:46PM Tachyonic Cargo said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED!!!

Granger, I have been saying this exact thing for what seems like forever now, even though it has only been for just over a year.

Too many differing 3D techs, all so each consumer electronic giant out there can lay claim to having their own proprietary 3D tech, in a vain attempt to quash out the competition for the sake of maximizing royalties.

The end consumer gets caught in the middle of this, and ultimately screwed when the $3,000 3DTV set they just purchased, is completely obsoleted at the end of the format war.

You would think after HD DVD vs/ Blu-ray, or for that matter, after SACD vs. DVD-A, both the consumer electronics industry and the entertainment industry would have learned that EVERYONE loses with a format war. Gone it seems, are the common sense days that led to the formation of the DVD, from two competing formats, to prevent a format war. And with 3DTV, it gets worse in the fact that there are more than two formats in this war. I've counted half a dozen formats already, and still more are due to show up at some point in the near future, like Sharp's 3D glasses-less format. If the consumer electronics industry think that two competing formats was enough to cool the adoption of the ultimate "winning" format, then what do they expect to get from half a dozen competing formats.

And then there is the matter of entertainment itself. Has anyone actually watched what passes for 3D entertainment to date. With the exception of maybe James Cameron's Avatar and Pixar's UP, almost all of it is atrocious. 3D in films so far, is a great, big gimmick, and is not even taken seriously be film creators yet. Many films that are in 3D, like Clash of the Titans (one good example) were not even shot in 3D, and had 3D forced onto the film as a last minute after thought by the studio - and it shows when you see them. If film creators are not yet taking 3D seriously, then why should I as a consumer rush out to spend several grand on a new 3DTV set and goggles, risking the format I invested in won't be rendered obsolete in a couple of years, just to watch gimmicky 3D content? And that is the film industry, who has already invested about 3 years into 3D. Game creators are only now beginning to get on the 3D uptake. How long before tons of actually built from the ground up, 3D game content show up in the market . . . and how long after that before any of it is any good, compelling and innovative enough to take advantage of what 3D truly brings to the table, and is something more than just the gimmick that every 3D game to date has been?

It's more than clear the industry is rushing head long into something that is not going to pay fruition for maybe another hardware generation. Don't get me wrong, I am all for 3D gaming. But I honestly feel their needs to be some standards set in stone before everyone goes jumping off the deep end of the 3D pool. I would hate to see 3D gaming turn into the next Wii - great idea; shit execution. And I'd really hate to see consumers get burnt in a 3D format war. Or even worse than that, 3D is stillborn, because there are too many confusing formats for consumers to have to pick and chose from. If they screw things up, we could be another 15 years before 3D catches on properly.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 5:07PM Wiizer said

  • 1 heart
  • Report

Wow, Tachyonic Cargo, if you hate the 3-D industry that much you should avoid video game consoles altogether...

I mean, one day, everyone will have a Wii with all games from both Sony and Microsoft on it. Thus, making both the PS3 and 360 obsolete.

Hell, you should avoid capitalism while you're at it. I hear it's pretty bad for consumers, too.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 5:39PM WiredKnight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There's nothing wrong with experimentation. You can't set standards before you know what works best and what offers the most versatility. Sure, some early adopters are going to end up losing out, but you know what, that's their fault. Your whole post serves as proof that some people are smart enough to wait it out and stay informed about the situation. Then when the dust settles, they've save a whole ton of money and will be able to go with the best solution. I myself never bought a single hd-dvd or blu-ray until hd-dvds were deemed 100% obsolete.

Oh, and FYI. Game developers have been into 3D longer than you think. It's not like this is a new technology, there've just been some big strides in it in the last several years, making it higher quality and more easily distributable.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 8:21PM Hedgeson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This format war won't give the consumer the same problems as Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD, since the signal the TVs will receive is a standard. No matter what 3DTV you buy, you will be able to view 3D content from your console or computer. HDMI 1.4 has stereoscopic 3D.
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2010 1:24AM McDuckScrooged said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tachyonic Cargo ..

You are making 1 huge huge huge major mistake here.. There is no format war, there is an implementation war and in all products there is always different ways of implementing technology and that benefits the consumer.

There is no war against plasma or LCD both can exist side by side, because both are capable of displaying the same content.. Its up to the consumer to buy whatever implementation they prefer by whatever brand they prefer..

The films are all shot the same way and the 3d effects are all recorded in the same way (or added in the same way) and the standard will be bluray 3d, there wont be multiple recordings or editing of films to match certain formats there is only 1 format.

The display technology may rapidly improve, but that is like how 1st gen plasma tvs suffered from huge burn-in problems and burnt out really quickly, I always preferred lcd, but hey people should be entitled to buy whatever tech they like.

I really dislike people that argue against change, your the wave of old moany gets that will sit there and moan and groan about every advancement .. boo hoo cry me a river, just because its gimmick now who is to say it wont be awesome in the future ?.. How is the technology meant to advance if they just sit on the tech ? It has to be released and the money that it generates to be pumped back in to fund future advancements..

Also the people that are early adopters the people that take risks in the implementation are the same people that push technology and push implementation..

Why dont we just stop every advancement all go back to living in caves and start slinging shit at each other ?

Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 3:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i dont think im alright with this 3-D mania going on. its cool and all, but at what expense? im perfectly fine with 2-D. 3-D should be kept to the movies.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 4:02PM liquidsoap89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But what about the movies in your home?

I would like to be able to have the same options in my home as I do in a theater (maybe with the exception of a super massive projector and screen, I can just scale that down a bit and be happy).
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2010 5:39PM Dustin F said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
At what expense?

At the expense of the people buying the 3D stuff. And the profit of the people who make good content, which obviously means 2D and 3D content.

Do you really think surround sound systems make a good hi fi stereo system worse? No, the provide needed revenue streams, and a chance to improve your setup if you're interested. Most people don't bother. And a great stereo system can be very good, just as a cheap but great 2D TV (which is so much cheaper now because 3D is coming), is also just fine.

You have nothing to complain about. NOTHING. You should be thankful this is coming out of you're truly not interested. Everything you need just got cheaper.

BUT the truth is, you know you're going to have to get this awesome stuff. It's just awesome in gaming. If the movies are as lame as Avatar, I won't get 'em, but I know first hand some of the games will be much improved.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 3:41PM eat it said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I don't like tricking my eyes into seeing 2-D images in 3-D. My eye sight is important to me. The last thing I want to do is something that might harm them.

They should think about making TVs thicker again but have different levels of screens. Make it so the screens actually have physical, depth. Perhaps instead of a sheet of pixels it could be a block of pixels Put the background images in the far back and have the foreground images in the front and if something moves in between the images will actually MOVE inbetween. They could exaggerate tone, value, and saturation to give it a little more depth.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 5:29PM WC said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Then don't watch TV at all. It's bad for your eyes.

Virtual 3D isn't any worse for your eyes than real 3D and saying so is just fearmongering.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 6:37PM eat it said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm speaking for myself. After I watch something in 3D for about 20 minutes my eyes hurt and they feel strained and fatigued. Maybe they are giving my eyes a work-out and the glasses are actually strengthening my eyes but that's not a gamble I'm willing to take.

also I can honestly say my vision takes a good 10 minutes to adjust after I take the glasses off. That's scary!

Normal TV does not hurt my eyes.
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2010 4:39AM Titus8705 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm in the same boat as Space. After watching a movie in 3D, my eyes feel fatigued/strained (can't really think of a good way to word it). I have never had the need for glasses before in my life (for daily activities, reading, or watching TV), and don't think that is the issue here.
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2010 5:41PM Dustin F said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
eyestrain is an old wive's tale. Your eyes do not need exercise and unless you physically damage them (like super bright light or rubbing them or filth) you are not harming them. They also age, but they do not get worse because your read a book in dim light or watched a 3D movie.

Many medical journals have looked into this, and I thought everyone knew this 20 years ago, but I guess there's money to be made scaring the bajesus out of folks.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 4:01PM rigmutton said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Am I alone in having absolutely no interest in 3D? I'm fine if I am, just curious. Movies and games that I've seen it in, I just sort of have an "oh neat" reaction for a minute or less, and within a few minutes past that, usually switch back to a standard display when available. Up, Coraline, Avatar, and that PSN Kung Fu game, looking at all of you.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 4:08PM liquidsoap89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you have managed to read a single comment on ANY website/blog/news source regarding 3D you would clearly see you aren't alone in your opinion of 3D.

I personally enjoy 3D, if it adds to the immersion experience (like color screens, surround sound, HD, and now 3D IMO) than I'm all for it.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 4:49PM sho220 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
xaos, i too echo your sentiment. over the last 2 years at CES (2009, 2010) i have experienced all of the 3D tech that will be available to the consumer, including playing the PS3 in 3D. while it is cool to see things explode and come flying at you, at the end of the day, i don't find it a necessity and have no urge to buy 3D hardware.

basically, i look at it like this:
3D has been around for a very, very long time. it was in movie theaters in the 1940's and 50's. and that was about it. granted back then they didn't have the technology to bring it into the home with the level of detail they do today. but the point is, the overall effect is essentially the same and still not necessary. it's just an accessory that is cool for a minute then doesn't matter after that. even when you go to disneyland and see their truly spectacular 3D (a bugs life 3D), when it's over, you'll talk about how amazing it was but, you aren't wishing for that in your home.

if 3D doesn't totally own then why is everyone talking about it?
a couple years ago, there was a meeting at a large consumer electronics company. the boss asked, "ok, what's the next big thing, what you guys got?"
the employee who's the office clown said, "3D!".
however, instead of everyone laughing, they thought it's a wonderful idea and now 3D is being pushed down our throats.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 4:50PM Titus8705 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have no interest in 3D either. Not only is it extremely gimmicky, but it tends to put strain on your eyesight from extended viewing. Not only that, but can you imagine coming home from a long day at work, sitting down on your couch, turning on your TV, and finally putting on some 3D glasses? Yeah, cause that sounds fun. I realize you can still watch movies/play games in 2D, but if I throw out a lot of money for 3D technology, I would feel obligated to use it for 3D. At the same time though, I wouldn't want to wear some 3D glasses every time I watch TV/movies or play games.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 4:42PM BlackedOut said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, Sony is taking this 3D stuff serious...
Lets see how this plays out.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 5:29PM WhatIsThatThing said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Unfortunately, it seems like even though they're 3D glasses, wearing them indoors STILL makes you look like a d-bag.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 5:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The audience member that scolded the panelists was mostly scolding the Capcom panelist because of how the demo for 3D in Lost Planet 2 was extremely off. The two stereoscopic images were sometimes yards apart which did not produce a 3D effect at all and caused a great deal of pain on all of our eyes. (Yes, I was there.) But aside from Lost Planet 2 and one of Unreal 3 Engines demos, the 3D presented by the panelist were amazing. Very little ghosting occured and I was stunned with the quality of sharpness and expertise put into the efforts of games such as Metro 2033 and Everquest 2. The fact that you can adjust the level of 3D to fit to an individuals eyes for Everquest 2 really showed that these developers did really care about how comfortable the consumers would be, and showed that they were completely ready to show this technology. The Lost Planet 2 3D demo was only worked on for 2 weeks, and I believe should not have been shown at this 3D Game Summit, but it's quality should not skew the opinions of others about how impressive the other games looked. I sat in the back/middle of the room, which may have given me a better view than the viewers directly in front of the screen.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 7:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Im happy with what i have. High five for standard Tv!!!
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 7:11PM calgaryaltahotmailcom said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@ William

TV is not bad for your eyes, that's an old wives tale.

Any strain or pain experienced is just that, not the damaging of your eyes.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 7:19PM tenacioustoaster said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Looks like it's time for another damn TV...
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 8:28PM Avolii said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
$75-$100 games here we come!! Activision of course will charge $120. Can't wait to see the DRM for only allowing one set of eyes to view it at a time.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2010 9:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
First of all 3D is not out of reach for the average gamer. You can buy an IZ3D monitor for about $300 and other setups for around $500. If you are an advid gamer and like stereoscopic gaming then this is well within anyone's budget.

Secondly the above type of 3D does not put a strain on your eyes since it is not using active shutter glasses but instead polarization. I have gamed on my IZ3D for 5+ hour with no problems at all. Before that I had an old shutter setup. If your eyes strain then you have the separation set up incorrectly.

Thirdly if you don't like 3D gaming then stay away, for those of us that enjoy it we will continue play. How can you judge gaming in 3D if you've never actually done it or only played for 30 minutes?
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2010 12:51AM Jacksy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah i'll just wait it out like always -_-'
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2010 4:47AM Titus8705 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why hasn't the obvious question been asked? Instead of plopping a ton of money down on a 3D TV/game console, couldn't we just wait for the inevitable HD Wraparounds in 3D? It will make it seem like everything you look at is in HD AND look 3 dimensional! Just wear those and watch everything on an SD TV set. Problem solved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H486w6C6Yk
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2010 5:10AM Beaujon85 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I went to a demonstration of the Sony 3D HDTVs last week and I was really impressed.
The Sony TVs all use active shutter glasses and they are able to display 100 frames (120 in NTSC regions) per second to each eye in 1080p. I was able to try it for about 30 min and it didn't strain my eyes, but I can't say how it would feel after several hours of gaming.
As for the pricing, I saw that the lower end 40 inch model went for 2100 euros, while the high end 60 inch model was 4000 euros. I would agree that those prices are a bit too high for the average consumer, but it's much lower than I had though. If the price were to drop by 30-40% in the next 2 years I would definitely pick one up (if Sony lives up to their promise of releasing 150 3D games said to be in development).
The biggest downer are the glasses. They use those really flat batteries (half inch diameter), which only work for 48 hours. And they go for 100 euros a piece (!).
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2010 11:32AM MasqueradeRed said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm not sure I'm very keen on having Mario fly out of my television screen or the executioner from RE5 pop out ( he will be in 3D in the new RE movie). When does the immersive experience stop? Whats next? Smell-o-vision, so realistic you can practically taste the garlic on Luigi's breath?
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2010 5:44PM Dustin F said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Indeed, I tried a demo and it actually was scary. And I was just driving a car.

If you get scared easily, this might not be for you, and I'm not being sarcastic.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW