Doom 4 dev: 3D needs more time

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 24 August, 2010

id: "3D TVs are f***ing expensive."

Legendary first-person shooter developer id Software says gamers will have to wait before 3D gaming will have any serious impact on the industry.

The Doom 4 and Rage developer said the price of 3D tellys will have to come down before it makes sense for videogame companies to invest in the tech.

"Maybe we're getting to the point where the people who have been pushing 3D, or are pushing 3D now, have figured out a way to make it cool and not so nerdy that nobody wants to do it," id Software boss Todd Hollenshead told Eurogamer.

"My most recent, oh, okay, this is really cool experience with 3D was with the movie Avatar, which everybody has seen. Even then, I was a little annoyed that I had to wear these glasses for two hours in a movie. My nose hurt by the end of it.

"I know the stuff in your living room is different. You can get higher quality glasses that fit. But you still gotta sit in your living room wearing these glasses. And then if you're playing games and move your head then it can get out of phase, which is a major issue.

"And, also, the TVs are f***ing expensive. Is there enough content to justify?"

PlayStation 3 manufacturer Sony is pushing 3D gaming more than most, and has already updated its console so it can output games in 3D.

While Sony and a number of other high profile developers including Crysis 2 creator Crytek are enthusiastic about 3D gaming's relevance now, others are less convinced.

Last week EA Sports president Peter Moore told Eurogamer 3D gaming wasn't right for FIFA.

"It's just cool," he said. "Is cool good enough in our world where this is not an inconsiderable expense, and in a world where you expect us to deliver FIFA every single year? Do I have to hire more people to do 3D, and then can I sell more copies of the game?"

Hollenshead echoed Moore's comments.

"At the very uber end of the videophiles, those guys are going to adopt that," he said. "But that's not going to be wide enough adoption to create substantial change within the gaming market.

"It has to be more pervasive and more widely adopted before it makes sense for videogame development companies to invest.

"You may have one or two that are like, oh, we're going to fly the banner of this and we're going to make our name on this one thing. But to have really meaningful differences is going to require some more time. The price is going to have to come down and you're going to have to have more widespread adoption."

id has two first-person shooters in development: Rage, due out next year, and Doom 4, which is without a release date.

The Bethesda-owned studio is yet to confirm 3D support for either title.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (71) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • bratmandu #1 1 year ago

    Nope - it needs no time whatsoever. Please don't let gaming get caught up in this fad.

  • alimokrane #2 1 year ago

    I said it before, I will say it again. 3D gaming won't take off unless you DONT have to wear 3D glasses.

  • Dolly #3 1 year ago

    Until they bin glasses off, 3D is never going to be more than a hobbyists pursuit for home use. We need a cross between Kinect (hear me out!) and the 3DS. TV's that can scan and recognise where the viewers eyes are, and pump the images out to the seperate eyes. That would be complicated enough, but god knows how/if you could ever do that for multiple people in the same room.

    I'm sure some clever bugger will crack it eventually mind.

  • NorUraeus #4 1 year ago

    @alimokrane: and you can keep saying it a million times, doesn't mean its true.

    3D is here to stay, glasses or not, and the people who say no are probably the same people who said Blu-Ray would never go anywhere because upscaled DVDs where good enough.

  • butler` #5 1 year ago

    I hate 3D, but you guys do realise glasses-less TVs are due out before the end of the year, right? Using the same tech as the Nintendo 3DS.

  • JJrabbit #6 1 year ago

    @pswii60: I don't necessarily think it's because 3D is expensive from a one-off purchase POV. Moreover, it's the fact that people have only recently (re: last couple years) switched to HDTV. At least with HDTV, you can get high quality films and TV. With a 3D tv, you have access to a limited number of films, games and channels. For approx £1000, that's expensive.

  • brseg #7 1 year ago

    man speaks sense.

  • Spydy #8 1 year ago

    Well, yes, it's expensive and the glasses are nerdy, but it's a great tech. I had a demo of a 3D TV last week. White water rapids, fly through of the grand-canyon....It was incredible. Better than the cinema experience. People can call it a 'fad' all they want. As soon as the price is right and / or it can be done without glasses, it's going to be standard on most TV's.

  • cw- #9 1 year ago

    And by that time Spydy... 4D will be out, and then we'll all be plugging in like the matrix or those cool glasses (which name escapes me atm) from Caprica... and then we won't have to worry about how to watch our tv/ games.. because the Cylons will attack and we'll be off looking for the 13th colony..

  • woodnotes #10 1 year ago

    Is Doom 4 official yet?

  • HisDudness #11 1 year ago

    Thanks for that link pswii60. All this time I had assumed that 3D TVs were much more expensive than that. Yes the glasses requirement may not stick around, but to deny that 3D isn't going to penetrate the market is a bit naive. It's only a question of how quickly. Maybe by next Christmas all forthcoming games will have 3D features. I think id is a bit silly to dismiss it so quickly - given how far away RAGE is from being released.

  • peak_performance #12 1 year ago

    @woodnotes: I believe Doom 4 has been official for two years now, they just haven't shown any of it.

  • clearblue #13 1 year ago

    Right on

  • HistoryTeller #14 1 year ago

    They speak about (3D) glasses as if it was somekind of disease. Lots of people wear glasses on a daily regular basis. Believe it or not - hot shot game dev.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #15 1 year ago

    I don't care about 3d in the slightest but 3d TVs really aren't that expensive. Price is the least of my concern, at least when it comes to the TV.

    If you just recently bought a TV and now want a 3d TV then yes, it might be expensive - but upgrading every year is expensive no matter the technology.

  • Spydy #16 1 year ago

    @ cw-. Indeed. In fact, Sony have the patent to that 'matrix' technology.

  • IonOnion #17 1 year ago

    @JJrabbit
    3DTVs are HDTVs too, more precisely 'HDTV that can do 3D.' Just because its called 3DTV doesn't mean you are always stuck watching 3D.

  • Singularity #18 1 year ago

    Do we expect FIFA every year...?

  • riceNpea #19 1 year ago

    i want to play the chess game from Star Wars. is that 4D?

  • rotmm #20 1 year ago

    @"Not more than Eurogamer"

    Roofle :D

  • Gromit #21 1 year ago

    I think maybe a lot of the people criticising 3D may not have seen it in action yet and really just don't like the idea of the glasses or the fact that Sony are behind it. Who cares? If it doesn't give me health problems, enhances my gaming time & doesn't stop developers spending time on other features which everyone can enjoy, I'm all for it.

  • JJrabbit #22 1 year ago

    @IonOnion - But if people have recently purchased HDTVs (which, presumably, is the majority) then they're theoretically paying £1000 for just 3D. At the moment, 3D media is limited and so it's not worth it IMO. I'm not going to say it's a fad, but it's certainly not something I'd consider a worthwhile purchase at the moment.

  • Gromit #23 1 year ago

    Also the three dimensions in 3D are height, width and depth (depth being the third).

    What dimension are people talking about with 4D???

  • monty2k #24 1 year ago

    @ IonOnion and JJRabbit:

    I agree with you JJRabbit. The upgrade from HDTV to 3DTV, according to the Amazon 3D section, currently gets you 18 blu-ray films (4 of which haven't come out at the cinema yet!) and 3 games and a demo (only if you own a PS3).

    Viva la revolucion 3D!

    I saw Piranha 3d yesterday. The Film and Game industries are gonna have to do a helluva lot more to convince me to upgrade :p

  • Dolly #25 1 year ago

    "What dimension are people talking about with 4D???"

    I'll take your brain to another dimension. Pay close attention.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #26 1 year ago

    It's all just a matter of time. Even today a lot of TVs are 3d capable and eventually everyone will end up with one whether they like it or not because you simply can't buy anything else (unless you look really hard). This is not necessarily a bad thing - it just means that it will take another 5 years or so until there are enough 3d capable TVs in the homes of people so that investing in 3d content actually makes sense (for developers).

  • ZiL #27 1 year ago

    3D Gaming isn't going anywhere with those glasses.
    Nintendo isn't stupid (see 3DS).

    Don't get carried away by the hype created by certain manufacturers.

    Glasses-free TVs are coming.

    http://ww w.engadget.com/2010/08/24/toshi...
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 16:05

  • dsmx #28 1 year ago

    The 4th dimension is time.

  • GamesConnoisseur #29 1 year ago

    I was one of the first to get DVD (inc region 1), HDTV, and HD consoles, I also darned let myself be the early adopter almost every new device that comes out.

    3DTV and PSPGo are both in my sinbin, not gonna get em unless they get well taken off and I becomes the follower at the back of the great huddle.

    Best wishes to 3D tech but I still dont believe that 3DTV will be able to take off as much and as fast as HDTV, DVD etc but also not a dismal failure, just in between.

  • riceNpea #30 1 year ago

    " What dimension are people talking about with 4D??? "

    want your brain to melt. read about string theory.

    according to string theory there are 11 dimensions.

    also The Prodigy claim that they can ' take your brain to another demention '.

    they don't mention what becomes of your body. scandolous really. don't try this at home kids

    EDIT: i see Dolly has already mentioned this. Darn
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 16:10

  • Iain815 #31 1 year ago

    You don't think £800+ is expensive? Are you mental?

  • kestral #32 1 year ago

    In the time where you can get the equivalent 40inch HDTV for about 450 pounds, paying double for the 3d version is expensive.

  • BritishBlue1 #33 1 year ago

    Anybody else here couldn't give a flying monkeys about 3D in it's current form...?

  • Collymilad #34 1 year ago

    Finally someone speaking some real-world sense.

  • DavoTheDiv_2010 #35 1 year ago

    Gromit - The 4th dimension is time

  • IronGiant #36 1 year ago

    3D tvs are not f*cking expensive, so he's talking bollox. The problem is having to wear glasses, something which Toshiba and Phillips are close to rectifying.

  • udat #37 1 year ago

    I can only see 3D gaming being compelling when it is married to head tracking. Then, for FPS games at least, I think we'll see another level of immersion. Without head tracking it's just "slightly cool" but not really a game changer.

    (and yes, I have tried a few of the current 3D technologies, with and without glasses)

    Edit: Ooh, yeah, and driving games with head tracking... those would be good too.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 16:59

  • Seehuusen #38 1 year ago

    With big companies like Nvidia and Sony, a lots of others, trying to make 3D the next big thing, i doubt it will fail. Just imagine playing gran turismo 5 on PS3 with 3D on a 50 inch TV, that is pure awesomeness

  • Mkwone #39 1 year ago

    I know glassesless 3D tech is possible (evidently by big companies nearing releasing the tech) but i thought i was for 1 user only. Is it possible for multiple viewers?

  • butler` #40 1 year ago

    In AV circles 4D tends to mean touch http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/4-D_film

  • bratmandu #41 1 year ago

    Holodecks or gtfo.
    Edited by 2 at 24/08/10 @ 17:06

  • gerald #42 1 year ago

    3D is a relative simple addition. Its just another display mode and doesn't chance gameplay or controls. There will be no 3D-only games.

    So why not start laying eggs know instead of waiting for the hens (eggs=3D-modes in games; hens=3D TVs).
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 17:08

  • riceNpea #43 1 year ago

    forget 3D gaming. when are we getting 3D porn?

  • rhinoxious #44 1 year ago

    It's not a format till there's porn on it ... if those guys can't make money yet then no one can.

  • Mkwone #45 1 year ago

    riceNpea Thats the directors cut of Avatar sorted then.

  • riceNpea #46 1 year ago

    no thanks. i don't want to see giant smurfs fucking.


    sigorny weaver however....

  • space_ace #47 1 year ago

    meh-D

  • JJrabbit #48 1 year ago

    @djronz - I think part of the problem is that 3D games just aren't ready to be mainstream on current consoles. This ends up with developers shoe-horning 3D into a game, thus spreading resources thinly across the entire game. Not only that, but worthwhile 3D requires more processing power and CPU time, thus taking away those resources from other aspects of the game such as graphics (ironically), AI etc...
    I don't think it's comparable to stereo sound because stereo sound has matured and is generally accepted. It also doesn't require nearly as much effort to produce stereo sound compared to 3D engines and once '3D' is the thing to do, games will suffer since the engine is not designed to squeeze out every ounce of the system. I'm not anti-3D, but I'm just 3D when it's worthwhile and right now, it's not worthwhile.

    My 2p

  • thomaspower0 #49 1 year ago

    "And, also, the TVs are f***ing expensive. Is there enough content to justify?" true.

  • bluetoothion #50 1 year ago

    THE NEW THING NEEDS MORE TIME

    WOW now i mean really ....lets make an article.... christ

  • Bleemo #51 1 year ago

    "With big companies like Nvidia and Sony"

    Ah yeah because Sony have never failed at anything they've pushed *cough* Sony Ericsson, Sony Mp3 players, PSP Go.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 18:17

  • Munster #52 1 year ago

    My only problem with current 3D tech is something that doesn't seem to get talked about much.

    The 3D effect in cinemas seems to wear off, so by the time you're into the last half of the film, you're seemingly wearing a pair of glasses for no benefit.

  • JJrabbit #53 1 year ago

    @djronz - My bad, sorry, I had 'stereo' in my head for some reason when typing that. I'd still maintain that surround is a lot easier to implement than 3D and I have to inject cynicism if Sony say that it's relatively easy to implement 3D. They're one of the few 3DTV manufacturers and they'd say anything to get developers on board. I can't help but feel if 3D was so easy to add, then developers wouldn't be wasting time complaining about it and simply adding it. After all, it can't do anything except act as another selling point? I don't doubt the capabilities of current consoles and I don't doubt that games can look amazing in 3D, but with GT5 having been delayed for so long, it begs the question if it was because they had '3D' on the roadmap? I'd hate to have to wait for first party games to be delayed because they're adding a niche feature. I look forward to 3D games and tv's when they're at a reasonable price and don't require glasses.

  • Notez #54 1 year ago

    @Munster

    I read somewhere that most 3D films are made quite "flat" in depth by purpose (for whatever reason - to not cause eye strain to more sensitive people I guess), so maybe it's just when you're not paying that much attention anymore the effect seems to kind of wear off (I've had some of the same happen). Console solutions and games at least should have an adjustable level of depth, like the 3DS does. I haven't tried any 3D games, but I think I would prefer a bit more pronounced effect as well.

  • monkfishjoe #55 1 year ago

    @riceNpea

    [link url=http://gizmodo.com/5614433/this- is-the-first-imax-3d-porn-movie-yes-imax-3d-porn
    ]http://gi zmodo.com/5614433/this-is-the-f...[/link]

    Check it out...!

  • hiddenranbir #56 1 year ago

    Not enough 3D content. Hell, there isn't enough HD content yet, TV-wise yet.

  • mumblyjoe #57 1 year ago

    Always wondered this is it a) ID software or b) I. D Software?

  • Verwandlung #58 1 year ago

    @poster above:
    [link url=http://all psych.com/psychology101/ego.html
    ]http://all psych.com/psychology101/ego.html
    [/link]


    ----

    I have enjoyed 3d games since Wolfenstein. Don't need 'more 3d'.
    Edited by 1 at 24/08/10 @ 23:31

  • Kaminari #59 1 year ago

    Uber end of videophiles only swear by 2D. Like uber end of audiophiles, who will never listen to music other than in stereo.

    But I get his point.

  • Stuz359 #60 1 year ago

    3D is great, it just doesn't have a standard yet and for most people it's coming too soon after the adoption of HD screens.

  • Mopzey #61 1 year ago

    Id talk pure awesomeness

  • Sunyavadin #62 1 year ago

    I was looking at the 3D TVs in my local big store's electronics department on saturday and the image quality was atrocious compared to a decent HD LED backlit set.
    The sony ones had poor framerate, you could see the same flickering I get on my old 1960s black and white set - while the competitors' ones had very washed out colours. Made all the more noticeable by the fact that the film they were showing was a bright, neon colour cartoon one. Perhaps choosing a Tim Burton one would have worked a bit better, as the washed out colours would seem intentional.....

  • Sunyavadin #63 1 year ago

    "They speak about (3D) glasses as if it was somekind of disease. Lots of people wear glasses on a daily regular basis. Believe it or not"

    As one of those people - I resent having to wear an even bigger set on top of the existing ones. Sorry, but I'm not enduring the pain contacts cause my eyes, just for a visual gimmick.

  • smelly #64 1 year ago

    HDTVs were "f**king expensive" when the 360 & ps3 came out. Didnt stop them from being caught up in that "fad".

    BTW - I dont see why 3D (Which will improve gameplay as you'll be able to judge depth better) is seen as a "gimmick" by some of you, but HD, which just adds some more pixels and makes things look a bit less blocky isnt seen as one?

    Presume something is only a gimmick if it's something you dont own?

  • pinochet_cz #65 1 year ago

    "And, also, the TVs are f***ing expensive. Is there enough content to justify?"
    Not in gaming, but...I know at least 4 people bought even fkin BR because they want these "3D movies" at home. Yes..they are idiots, but idiots with money.

  • Drpwnage #66 1 year ago

    "I was looking at the 3D TVs in my local big store's electronics department on saturday and the image quality was atrocious compared to a decent HD LED backlit set. "

    You do realise that manufacturers have built 3D into their current 2010 top-line models? And apart from Panasonic the best 2D picture quality available in 2010 model lines comes from 3D capable sets.

    I didn't purchase my TV for the 3D function and have barely used it - although impressed with Super Stardust in 3D, GT5 will be the proper extended test of 3D gaming.

    Oh and the 3D glasses from most manufacturers are will sit comfortably over an existing pair unless you have particularly large frames!

    Judge 3D in 2 years time when capable sets have reached more mainstream pricing and we can tell if content has taken off.

  • IkariW #67 1 year ago

    3D will take off once TV companies roll out LCD's/LED's that don't require you to wear glasses, and that are cheap enough.
    Sharp have one, Toshiba release on at xmas, but once all the big boys - Sony/Panasonic/Samsung release, and the price comes down for bigger sets, thats when you'll see 3D gaming becoming a more mainstream feature.

    I would have thought after that, it wouldn't be long until you saw a Sky+HD3D box.... then things will really take off, although, TV is still playing catch up with the whole HD thing at the moment.

    Only in my opinion of course, but one of the things putting me off 3D is wearing those d@mn glasses.
    Ikari

  • potter73 #68 1 year ago

    3D TV's are epensive (in an earlier link £800+ for 40" 3D TV, where I purchased a 42" LCD a few months ago for just over 500)

    Then you have to add the cost of the glasses onto this. The passive glasses (like you get at the cinema) are dirt cheap...Ive see quotes of £2 per pair....not a major issue.

    However, the active ones (which most manufactures seem to be favouring.....funny that) can be from between £50 per pair, up to £120.

    So a £800 TV, could end up a lot more.

    Don't get me wrong, I am a 3D convert.....I can really see the plus side for this tech. (even after watching some decidedly dodgy 3D films at the cinema) I can see how it will be great for gamers.

    But until it (and peripherals) come down drastically in price OR they manage to bring out 3D TV's that do not require glasses I think its one tech that I'll be leaving alone for home use


    *And its not about the wearing of the glasses that's the issue (jeez...I wore glasses for the best part of 30 years) Its the fact that everyone in the room who wishes to watch a 3D movie (for example) would have to wear a pair. So if you were to have a load of people round, unless you went out and bought some additional glasses...your're screwed. Like I said though, don't think it would be a major issue if all you're goign to do is game in 3D
    Edited by 1 at 25/08/10 @ 12:05

  • Scrumhalf #69 1 year ago

    As an owner of a 3DTV some of the stuff written here is not entirely accurate - some is :)

    In general the 3DTVs on the market today are adaptations of the highest-end kit that each manufacturer offers, including Panasonic the one I own (theri top end 2D is V20 and the 3D is VT20) - and as such the quality of the result is directly related to the cost. Interestingly IMO and others (read AVForuims) the quality of TVs has gone down over the last few years as well as the cost - so it is not necessarily true to say the cost will reduce then I will buy in.

    The blur/flicker you see on 3D demo TVs (as with a lot of shop TV demos) is often caused by bad set up (or overused active shutter glasses), but the cheaper end televisions will suffer more from this. It is caused by the refresh rate not being quite fast enough to keep up with the left/right eye switch, this can leave part of the image left over from the other eye and appears as a blur - called crosstalk.You will get practically zero on the Panasonic as it is Plasma and it has specially formulated phosphors that react quicker to reduce this effect - I can categorically state that all the games I have played on 3D on the PS3 I have not noticed any blur, often it is no more different than 1080p/720p difference which is imperceptible in a lot of cases. Using Sky 3D it is somewhat different as this uses side-by-side rendering so it is sub-HD and relies on the TV more to do the processing and therefore the TV quality is more pronounced, PS3 uses Framepacked.

    The glasses are really no issue to me, but I do wear glasses all the time and have done for 20 years, they quite neatly sit on top of mine and feel slightly heavier for the first couple of minutes. One strange side-effect with active-shutter glasses is that if your TV is near a window (or any strong light-source) that does flicker which can be annoying - but curtains are a great invention so not a massive problem.

    If anyone has sensible questions about what it is like to own a 3DTV, what are the games/Sky 3D like (I don't currently have 3D-Bluray,waiting for the PS3 upgrade), or whether it is worth it - I am happy to answer them

  • Quixz #70 1 year ago

    The price of 3D TVs does not bother me all that much, the problem i have is what will happen to my current HD TV?
    Edited by 1 at 25/08/10 @ 16:41

  • witchdrash #71 1 year ago

    I think as a requirement 3d should be a no, as an easy add for almost every 3d games (esp. fps) in existence, absolutely, why lock yourself out of a growing market??