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

Reader Comments (65)

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:01PM Prboi said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I thought this was evident already?

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:04PM wunwunx said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Prboi
Someone needed to make it official so that Sony would make a tv someone will buy.
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:39PM spartandre217 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Prboi
And in other news, bear $#1t$ in woods.
Reply

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 12:40AM Mmmmz said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Prboi
You'd think people would agree that touchscreen only gaming is shallow and pointless, but the masses continue to prove that wrong. So sometimes things like this can be reassuring.

Still, losing brightness (is that an issue with shutter glasses or just theater glasses?), content, and restrictive pricing is why I don't care.

Reply

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 12:41AM Faceless Troll said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Prboi It's so obvious I'm amazed that Michael Pachter wasn't explaining it. Not that I want to see more of him mind you.
Reply

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 1:59AM bones8677 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@spartandre217 Gasp! What?!
Reply

Posted: Sep 11th 2010 7:56PM annohathie said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@wunwunx @wunwunx This can all change as for the 3D experience. The playstation 4 will go out in it as well, with its new trailer. http://minyurl.org/35r
Reply

Posted: Sep 12th 2010 7:06PM clarkkirfball said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@wunwunx ..fixed link for the PS4: http://minyurl.org/7bvq
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:02PM HybridPara said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
A release date for a release date. Nintendo knows what it is doing

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:03PM NoirR said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The thing that's kept me from buying a 3dtv is the lack of content (specially were i live cause is not the states) more than unconfy glasses

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:30PM Themoreyouknow said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@NoirR
And the fact that it's gimmicky. For every Avatar that uses great 3D, there are 50 other movies that just have "Ok, the axe they threw looks like it came out towards me. I've seen it 100 times already"
Reply

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 2:32PM sigma8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Themoreyouknow
I'm completely uninterested in watching 3D movies. I'm much more interested in watching sports and playing games in 3D. Strange as it may sound, I think 3D would also be a better fit with "edutainment", like national geographic specials or NOVA or things like that. Having a Planet Earth in 3D would be pretty cool.

I think Planet Earth would work better than a typical movie because nature documentaries focus on the scenery, whereas movies tend to focus on actors. Actors don't need to be in 3D and don't benefit much from it. Even action movies are actor-centric.

Another strange and somewhat improbable example: I'd rather watch Lord of the Rings in 2D, but then have the "special features" be in 3D. I don't need all those closeups of Frodo's face to be in 3D, and the panoramic shots are too few and far between to justify glasses for the whole ordeal.
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:07PM MGTrey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"A study by the Nielsen Company found that the glasses required for the 3D television experience -- which includes 3D gaming -- appear to be the tech's greatest hurdle."

Lol, I read this as "yes, this is relevant to gaming...say something to the contrary and I'll kick you in the shin."

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:12PM Halwende said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
On the plus side they look funny on dogs...

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 11:05AM B0FF said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Halwende
Don't dogs have black & white vision or something?

"Ze goggles don't verk"
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:13PM Ryan P said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Surprise, surprise, Hedgehog.

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:14PM Ezio Auditore da Firenze said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't mind them at all.

They're just glasses, something I wear every day.

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:20PM Brando Calrissian said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ezio Auditore da Firenze
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:22PM Acosta02 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ezio Auditore da Firenze

I wear glasses every day, despite near perfect eyesight.

...I think that asshole doctor just wants my money. So I guess I could deal with 3D glasses, which would literally do more for me than my actual glasses.
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:26PM MGTrey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Acosta02: You'll get 3D glasses to see things...that are already in 3D?
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:31PM Themoreyouknow said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ezio Auditore da Firenze
I hate wearing glasses. I started wearing contacts about 9 years ago and never want to go back to glasses. They are uncomfortable and hurt my ears.
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:48PM Acosta02 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@mywhitenoise

No need to be rude! >: (
Reply

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 11:04AM B0FF said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Themoreyouknow

3Dcontact lenses!

It's the future.
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:16PM NuttyBalls said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The content isn't the issue for me; it's the dang 3D glasses. Sure the initial response and quality may be great, but after hours of wear (we are gamers, after all), it would get tedious and tiresome wearing them.

I'll look at 3D when the tech gets good for them in about 3 years. I'm happy with my current hdtv now, like most gamers.

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:17PM mywhitenoise said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't like 3D in general.

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:34PM Apsac D said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@mywhitenoise

At first I was like you.

Then I saw Ocarina of Time is going 3D.

Now I am on the 3D bandwagon.
Reply

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 12:20AM KinseySS said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@mywhitenoise

Than remove one of your eyes and sell it to someone who does like 3D.
I hear you can get great coin for an eyeball
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:21PM aughscreennames said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The glasses arent going anywhere, the technology used in the 3DS isnt suitable for television use because of the extremely limited viewing angles. It will be a really long time before we get glasses quality 3d without glasses for tv's.

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:21PM Brando Calrissian said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
It's the 21st Centry. Where are my 3D contacts?

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:35PM Apsac D said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Brando Calrissian

I would also like to see reality in 3D.
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:28PM VTPhil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This seems relevant somehow... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6rtfedFlk

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 10:14AM RagingStormX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@VTPhil

Thanks....that alot of weight of me mind
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:32PM GamesandGadgetz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you want a different twist in watching TV then maybe it's worth trying it.

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:43PM Mezstizo said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
As a new user to the 3D technology I would like to comment that the use is seamless and impressive. I had to buy a TV anyway and Best Buy had a Samsung 3D package that I just couldn't pass up. It turns just about any 2d image into 3D. Including my Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii games. So the content IS there. The glasses are comfortable and after a while i forget they are even on. What's more impressive is the Blu-ray movies that are designed for 3D use. I was sold by watching 'Monsters vs. Aliens' in 3D at my local Best Buy. Looks even better than the theater.

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 6:48AM Uraeus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Billyrap Yup, just like color. The movie is just the same in black and white, yet people tend to still pay for the luxury of color :)
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:50PM Oxyrt said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
NEWS FLASH: Maybe try making them cost less than $80 to own a pair!

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 1:25AM SoCoolCurt said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Oxyrt

yea that's the turn off for me. i don't know why companies do this every single time some new tech comes out. instead of just standardizing something, they all have to create their own iteration that only works with their products. $80 for glasses that aren't universal for 3D is reckless.
Reply

Posted: Sep 9th 2010 11:55PM Breakdown said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I believe a "Well, duh," is in order here.

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 12:06AM Orangekun said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Damn! I wish I got paid to tell companies the obvious!

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 12:08AM WiredKnight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I could care less about having to wear the glasses.

I would however, like them to be cross-compatible.

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 12:15AM Goaliegeek said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Boo who.

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 12:27AM Cougarcat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They should just skip right to 4D. I'd like to be able to view a hypercube without being mindfked.

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 12:39AM Chrono951 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
So intrest in the tech is dropping, people hate the hassle, there's no standardization, and it has very limited content.

Yeah, 3D is doing soooo well. Good riddens, let it die. It already ruined many movies for me this year having to deal with dim colors and stupid gimmicks.

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 12:49AM jamesFF said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I still have an analog TV. I might consider a 3D TV if it's cheep enough and I could view it without glasses.

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 2:05AM sonicspike41 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jamesFF

According to representatives at the CES 2010 expo 3DTV without glasses are only about 2-3 years away for the commercial/consumer models. They didn't specify prices of course, but my guess is that over the next 3-4 years after that the prices will fall significantly.

Think you can wait until 2015-2016 for cheap "no-glasses" 3D?
Reply

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 5:50AM Premature ejaculation man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sonicspike41
Depends if that's their way of making sure you buy the current models
Reply

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 12:59AM Jason B said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I can't do 3D with glasses because they won't fit over my prescription glasses and I would prefer to see actual content on the screen and not blurry things that I can't make out in 3D.

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 3:19PM Stitches said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jason B

That's surprising since pretty much everyone I've ever talked to has 0 problems with their active shutter glasses fitting comfortably over prescription glasses. I've actually tried 3 different pairs of ASGs (Xpand 102s, Panasonic, and Mitsubishi's) and had no problem with any of them over my corrective specs. The glasses used in the movie theaters are a different story though.
Reply

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 1:02AM postpwn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like using them in Batman: AA GOTY. They go over my glasses just fine.

Posted: Sep 10th 2010 1:11AM Demachine said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
3D is a joke, a gimmick that will soon die.

Standardization and hassle along with the tech is their biggest flaws, bigegr than the cost which eventually drops.

Featured Stories

Image

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Posted on May 25th 2012 7:30PM

Image

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Posted on May 25th 2012 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW