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

Reader Comments (30)

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 4:40PM SpanWolf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Owning a 3D television, I have to say I'm excited for all these games, because due to the lack of TV programing and good movies coming out, 3D gaming is the only 3D I'm doing on it.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 4:48PM DokiDokiBawanga said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
in store played some games in 3d. not impressed. useless and hard to concentrate. same with movies.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 5:49PM sonyforlife said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DokiDokiBawanga 2 things either you saw the wrong games/movies (Cod: blackops for example) or that you cant see 3D (or barely)
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 5:55PM SpanWolf said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@DokiDokiBawanga Must have not been calibrated correctly.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 6:48PM Raffi256 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DokiDokiBawanga

Also LCDs are horrible at 3D shutter glasses, has to be plasma or there's tons of cross-talk between frames and you get a headache.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 5:01PM Starcade said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
3D is not tracking for me. Sure it's cool in the theaters once in a while, but then we got a bunch of also-ran 3D movies that didn't look great at all, and cost a premium to see. Most people don't have 3D TVs. And I'm not sure I want to wear special glasses just to play a game and I'm certainly not going to purchase glasses for everyone that wants to play/see the game. I think Nintendo has the best approach to date with the 3DS and not requiring any special glasses.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 5:44PM sonyforlife said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Starcade except that you have to be at a certain spot to see the 3d witch means that you have to set the couch at a certain spot, you can not be in the kitchen and watch it from there and can not view it from the side and so on
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 5:45PM sonyforlife said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Starcade except that you have to be at a certain spot to see the 3d witch means that you have to set the couch at a certain spot, you can not be in the kitchen and watch it from there and can not view it from the side if there are many people watching and so on
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 5:57PM SpanWolf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sonyforlife Actually I own one and the range and viewing angle is pretty damn good, you can even lay down and have your head tilted and it still works. Though when your head goes near horizontal then the 3D breaks.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 6:40PM sonyforlife said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SpanWolf what brand is it?
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 7:09PM jackal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Starcade

"but then we got a bunch of also-ran 3D movies that didn't look great at all,"

Most of the movies you are talking about were never filmed with 3D in mind and stereoscopy was later tacked on during editing; I doubt anyone had particularly high expectations for The Last Airbender and Clash of the Titans, so throwing on 3D with the hope of recouping some of the money spent during production through higher ticket prices makes some modicum of sense. Movies like Avatar (as shallow as it was) have shown that, if you film the movie in 3D from the very beginning, stereoscopic films can look amazing (well...for most people; I'm one of the unlucky few who gets a terrible headache and sees "ghosting").
Reply

Posted: Nov 26th 2010 5:24PM Esposch said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sonyforlife

You're confused between glasses-free 3d. with the glasses, you can be at any angle and it works.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 5:13PM pickupdoctor said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think content is a KEY. I am a big fan of 3D movies, I saw Alice in Wonderland, Megamind, How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek 4, Avatar and each of those movies look great in 3D, only Shrek had limited amount of 3D.

If the price is right I will get a 3D TV. I find it interesting how people say they are not impressed by 3D movies or games. But without question they look amazing, better then current movies or games. I think as people master the technology and offer more fulfilling content it will slowly convince people to go with it.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 5:15PM Pure Black World Tendency said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm just not in the market for this. Smell-o-vision, on the other hand...
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 5:44PM Faceless Troll said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Glasses-free 3d or gtfo.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 5:45PM chromekreeper said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
it would be sweet to have, its just that im not the type of consumer who would spend 1000+ on a tv. ill probably get move, considering killzone 3 is going to be compatible with it.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 5:55PM ToTheMoon said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I tried it at a Sony store and I have to say that Stardust HD and Motorstorm were freakin' awesome. I just bought a LED TV back in February so I won't be picking up a 3D one for a while and I use a 1080p projector for gaming.

That being said, I'm glad that companies like Microsoft (Kinect) and Sony (Move and 3D) are pushing the hardware forward. While some of it may seem gimmicky to you, someone has to be first. You might see the Move as a rip off of the Wii or the Kinect as a rip off ot the Playstation Eye but you are missing the point that they are the next iteration in those areas of technology.

Someday we will look back at 3D with glasses and laugh but right now, there someone is offering it and there are people who do love have the latest and greatest in gaming. While there are some who are just starting out in life and can't afford this right now, there are others who have good paying full time jobs and can afford the latest tech gadgets and toys.

If you reason for knocking this technology is based on the fact you have used it and said "nah, not for me", that's fine. But to knock it because it's not in your price range yet, well that to be is not a valid argument. I'm sure there are those on this site who remember a time when a laptop/notebook were affordable for only the wealthy (and strong people - those things were beasts).

I have to say that I agree with Hocking - even though I know he is paid to promote the technology.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 7:01PM Raffi256 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ToTheMoon

The high price is a valid argument because the "value" is created through marketing BS, just like your "LED TV". It's marketing BS to try and trick consumers into thinking its new technology and artificially upsell the price when its really just an LCD with a different backlight, or a 3D TV is just a TV with some different electronics and glasses. Plasma TVs are often a third of the price of LED-backlit LCDs, and look way better. So price has little to do with what you're getting, and more with what you think you're getting.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 6:11PM BlackedOut said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It is in Sony's best interest to sell 3D content as a whole.
- They get licence fees from the Blu-Ray format (which is the only physical media available for 3D content)
- They sell TVs.
- They sell Blu-Ray players including the Playstation 3 (which are the only way to play 3D Blu-Rays)
- They produce movies, a handful of which are 3D

A new creative medium to create some cash more like.

But don't get me wrong, Avatar was amazing in 3D - if they can replicate that IMAX experience in the living room, I wish them all the best.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 6:12PM kcswanko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wish Sony would stop wasting money on this, I've tried it and don't want my games this way and doesn't look like it it taking off. Make more games.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 6:46PM Raffi256 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Maybe 3D is a new medium, but not stereoscopy.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 6:58PM morphinapg said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The cool thing about 3d is, if a game already runs in 1080p, it won't take a performance hit whatsoever in 3d.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 7:09PM BlackedOut said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Lol. I had to read that twice before I realised your sarcasm.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 7:12PM Raffi256 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@morphinapg

Umm, no, the fill rate is doubled.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 7:21PM morphinapg said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Raffi256

at 720p. 1080p @ 60Hz and 720p @ 120Hz take nearly the same amount of processing power. 720p @ 120Hz actually takes less processing power than 1080p @ 60Hz
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 7:25PM morphinapg said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Raffi256

1920x1080x60 = 124,416,000 pixels/s

1280x720x60x2 = 110,592,000 pixels/s

therefore any game that runs in 1080p will run in 3d with about a 12.5% performance increase.
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 7:05PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Eh. It hasn't really generated the consumer buzz to be classed as such yet
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 7:18PM sonyforlife said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SpanWolf what brand is it?
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 8:49PM Jovrick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Remember when people made video games instead of trying to figure out how to make use of a bunch of disparately cobbled together facsimiles of what people in the 90s thought the future would look like?
Reply

Posted: Nov 25th 2010 10:22PM SoCoolCurt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i like what i've seen of 3D even though i think it has a ways to go. it's too freaking expensive for their target market. 18-24's can't afford 3D TV's (generally speaking obviously) and since it's such a new technology, i would be cautious about jumping in so early anyway. i mean how many different sets of glasses are there that only work with certain TV's etc, etc. once they get something standard, as in one set of glasses you know will work on any 3D TV and won't cost a fortune. or better yet, a 3DTV that doesn't need glasses at all. at this rate, i won't be into 3DTV until the PS4 is out.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW