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

Reader Comments (110)

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:04AM TheSaiyan said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
3D is going to do wonders for gaming. Could you imagine in a couple years when we have Avatar-esque levels of 3D in gaming? Wholly cow...
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:17AM Grey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
from what I have read, 3d games have less visual disparity than their 2D counterparts. I'm thinking your going to have to wait more than 2 years for your Avatar fantasy to become a reality.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:18AM Cap Morgan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah. I can't wait to die because the rest of the game was out of focus because I wanted to look at the wrong thing!
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 6:40AM iFester said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you want that Avartar realism there's always LARPing. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk2vR8w2sjc&feature=youtube_gdata
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 11:34AM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Some of you need to try NVIDIA 3D Vision (on a good set up - not some kiosk at Frys that's been all jacked with) before you completely write it off. It's way more accurate/natural than what you see at the movies. There is no camera focus that "forces" you to keep your attention on a certain object. In games, it's just like real life. You focus on something in the distance and your eyes are doing it naturally and you're free to look anywhere you like.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 12:53PM 01 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
This article is completely ridiculous; we all know that porn will drive 3DTV sales.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:06AM Grey said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
why can't you have a simple No option. i don't care about the glasses but I really can't afford a 3D tv. 2D gaming has served me well for all of my life. If it ain't broke don't fix it. It seems fun, but I doubt it will be worth all the money you will have to throw down. I might wait for a price drop. Maybe....
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:51AM PlatinumSkeet said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I can see it every now and then or for casual gamers but, honestly 3D messes with my eyes after a while. I'd rather just have improved graphics then my gameplay being limited because I decided to play in 3D and my eyes got tired...
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:53AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I also wish there was a simple "no" option. As a film fan, 3D is my new enemy. Not every frigging movie needs to be released in 3D, and I'm now going out of my way to see the 2D version of movies or else I will not see them.

Games in 3D makes more sense than movies, but how about we just skip right over this gimmick and actually start working on virtual reality? Hello, it's 2010, where's my damn future?
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 11:21AM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wanted a basic "no" option as well. I just don't see using 3D a lot as being convenient or pleasant for those entering the room to see what you are playing and hang out. It just doesn't captivate my interest at all. Besides that, I don't want to get into a multi-hour gaming day with my eyes being subjected to this. I doubt it is comfortable for the long haul.

So, no, 3D gaming will not make be get a new tv. Call me when we have Fahrenheit 451 video walls.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 11:46AM SpaceJock said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes, because progress has always been made with that mindset.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 11:54AM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What mindset are you referring to?
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 12:02PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
^ Probably the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" mindset. I agree with that for some things, but TV tech and interactivity ain't one of 'em.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 4:24PM redjack said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Yes, because progress has always been made with that mindset."

Is it progress or the movie industry making you rebuy your entire damned movie collection over and over again? I'm a bit tired of these format cycles designed to fleece us of more money. And this one is happening a little bit too fast compared to the other cycles.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:09AM CaramelZappa said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
How about: I think 3D is an awful gimmick and I wouldn't spend any amount of money on it. Not for movie tickets, not for shutter glasses, and not for a new tv.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:20AM Cap Morgan said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
That's what she said
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:24AM Acosta02 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
3D isn't just for gimmicky "pop out of the screen" effects. Up didn't have any, and looked wonderful in 3D.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:44AM Vidikron said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Up was also a great movie without 3D.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 2:24AM JohnAHD said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Cap Morgan

LOL! 3D porn! ... then adults will also wave their hands in the air in hope of grabbing something,just like children
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 3:18AM Tiptup300 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
These new double screen tvs with the shutter glasses support co-op mode full screen for both players. That's worth it. kinda......
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 8:44AM abelpc said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
total agree.. Not interested in 3D gaming or Movies..PURE GIMMICK.

I got a better idea!

How about spending money to make INTERESTING GAMES and MOVIES instead?
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 9:04AM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's not about pop-out, it's about pop-in, to give the image on the screen the illusion of depth. Similar to all the hype around head-tracking before. Putting head-tracking together with 3D could make something on a new level of visual immersion.

I'm no great fan of 3D, but i understand its merits.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 11:51AM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, 3D is such a gimmick. It's good thing we don't have to actually see like that in real life. That'd suck!!
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:10AM Lekko said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I don't see an option for "I'll wait for it to become affordable and more widespread". You know, like what most people did early on in the HD wars.

As for the whole 8-12 inch gaming market, well no. That's just stupid since it's not really a handheld at that point, so it would have to be a convergence device to make any sense carrying one around.

Besides, we already have gaming devices with 8-12 inch screens that already kick ass - laptops.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:20AM Giroro said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, there's only ONE gaming laptop with a 8-12 inch screen.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:17AM Modulos said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Where's the "I can't see 3D movies / games" option =(
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:19AM Grey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why can't you? I'm curious?
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:26AM Modulos said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
http://www.mediacollege.com/3d/depth-perception/stereoblind.html

I'm steroblind. Hard to describe, but basically because of strabismus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabismus) until I was in 7th grade, my right eye dominates my view. It is as if you covered your left eye all the time. My left eye acts purely for peripheral vision. Basically, means I have a lack of depth perception, which causes me to not be able to do those images where you stare at and the image pops out, and 3D movies and stuff.

(I don't know what the world in 3D looks like ... a movie and the real thing look identical, if that makes sense)
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:34AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Well for me personally some 3d systems work and others do not. I have lazy eye which means I really one use one eye, I mean I sorta use the other eye but not much its hard to explain exactly how it works. Anyways the traditional 3d setup of having one eye with a blue lens and one with a red lens, doesn't allow me to see 3-d at all the image still looks flat. However I tried on some samsung 3d glasses at best buy and as much as I am a skeptic about 3d I have to admit it looked pretty good. So that could be this persons reason?
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:35AM The Aquacharger said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have the same exact thing! It does suck.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:35AM Grey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
that really sucks dude. At least I learned something new and am not ignorant to this issue. Hope they invent something that can help people like you out.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:36AM Fromps said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Also have to take the fact that some people only have the use of one eye, the whole "3D" thing is lost on them completely.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:38AM Modulos said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you have an uncorrected lazy eye, like I did until 7th grade, you can't form a 3D image in your brain because your brain is receiving two completely different images as opposed to 2 marginally different images. Because of this difference, the brain has to choose which eye to be dominant so that you don't have blurry, "double vision".
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:40AM The Aquacharger said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually, I 'm going to elaborate more.
I kind of have the same exact thing. My right eye is more dominative and ruins my depth and 3D, but I can still see 3D, but barely. My left eye keeps getting weaker and weaker. It's due to some birth defect for me, so when I'm in my mid 20's to early 30s my left eye is suppose to just be worthless to me.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 2:06AM Modulos said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Greg - to an extent yes, but at the same time, I've never known what a "3D world" looks like, so from my perspective, I don't know what I am missing out on. It could be revolutionary, it could be extremely minor. Because I haven't known anything else but a "flat world", I can't imagine this extra dimension... if that makes sense. At this point in my life, my eyes are corrected, and if I wear contacts (in my left eye), I have corrected to normal vision. What that means, is it is because of my brain, not my eyes, at this point in my life that doesn't allow me to see stereoscopically. In the last couple of years, especially this last year, 3D is the new craze, so I've looked into in a bit more. Because it's just my brain, apparently there is vision therapy that "trains" your brain to see correctly. I'm graduating college this year, so hopefully in the next couple of years I will be able to look into it a bit more. I've heard some amazing success with it, but I guess we will see.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:19AM Cap Morgan said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
That's what she said.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:21AM Cap Morgan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
doh
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:22AM ArchiGamer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
2 cents; I feel like FPS can benefit more in 3D than, say, Adventure games. I'd elaborate more, but I'm tired right now to give a winded example.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:37AM The Aquacharger said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I feel Japanese H games have the most to gain.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:24AM foxhoundadam said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I just bough a stupid HDTV. At least give me 3-4 years before I feel like it's obsolete damnit.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 3:29AM R Planteer said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Seriously. My current TV isnt even a year old, and since then weve gone through 120Hz getting popular and 3D gaining speed.

How often am I supposed to buy a new TV?
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 11:24AM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Really, 3D is in the early adopter stages. Like everything else that just hits the market, most people can't buy it, usually because of price. If you JUST bought a TV, well that's probably partly yourself to blame for not doing some research first which may have lead to 1.) Waiting to get a 3D capable TV, 2.) Buying a 3D capable TV, or 3.) Deciding you don't think 3D is worth it anyways and buy a non capable 3D w/out regret.
Reply

Posted: May 1st 2010 12:24AM jamesFF said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't even have an HDTV.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:24AM Engerz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dang it, I wanted jetpacks first than 3D tech. Oh well.

But to answer the question: No, I'm perfectly happy with my HDTV. For the moment. No way I can afford another TV when I just bought this one.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:26AM logicbus said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Bold prediction: 3D TVs will never catch on.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 12:07PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Every major electronics company, movie company, and their market research disagrees. Just sayin'.
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:14PM Snarf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That is why it is a bold prediction. Anybody can make a timid one...
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 7:23PM calgaryaltahotmailcom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Chibi Chaingun

Really? Every major electronics company and movie company thinks it will catch on? Or do they pretend it will catch on, promoting it like the next big thing just to get us to give them more money.
Reply

Posted: May 1st 2010 1:21PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Cowtown: You mean like every other new enhancement to sell more TVs? HD, Blu-Ray, HDMI 1.X, Full HD, 120hz, 240hz, XXXXX:1 contrast...

This is no different. It's an option for an enhanced experience, just like all the others listed. Your TV won't be obsolete, you can still watch the same movies. Upgrading is still optional.

Welcome to consumer electronics. This is how it works. A company makes something to make people buy their product. Whoa!
Reply

Posted: Apr 30th 2010 1:28AM Giroro said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I want to select the 'No, because it's a stupid expensive gimmick' option.
3D tech still isn't good enough or cheap enough to work at home yet, and they've been trying to make this work for years and years. Is the tech better than it was in the 80s? Sure, but people are going to get bored of the gimmick and it's going to drop out of existence again. This isn't anything new, I mean studios first started trying to push 3D in what, the 1950's?

Also, the guy who thinks they're going to sell 20 million iPads this year is an idiot, who's probably going to lose some money over that prediction.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW