James Cameron: Games will "drive" 3D

By Robert Purchese Published 26 April, 2011

Filmmaker predicts "stampede" of releases.

Avatar creator James Cameron does not see movies as the cardinal preachers of 3D.

That role, he said, belongs to video games.

"Video games are going to be the drivers, but they haven't done so today because the cycle creation has lagged behind," said Cameron at the NAB 2011 conference in Las Vegas (reported by Yahoo).

"The consumer electronics companies introduced these screens last year, so we're a year into this and it takes 18 months to two years to author a high quality video game. So you're going to see a stampede of video games and then that, in turn, is just going to catalyse more broad scale adoption in the home of these big 3D screens."

Before people reach that point, where they're comfortable forking out hundreds or thousands of pounds on a 3D telly, Cameron thinks they'll play a 3DS.

"Video games are going to help propel the autostereoscopic (glasses free) play because that's going to be the entry level for most people," he said.

"These single-viewing devices that are engaging the person to play these video games will drive a lot of investment in autostereoscopic displays for that very reason.

"That technology will trickle up to the larger 3D displays that will be used for home viewing and gaming," he added.

Eventually, homes will have large autostereoscopic 3D tellies. They're more convenient, Cameron reckons.

"I don't think we'll ever get rid of the glasses in movie theaters - not in my lifetime, anyway. But we're going to get rid of them at home because it's a different viewing model type," he explained.

"You're distracted at home. You're doing other things. You're pausing a game or a movie and going to get pizza or whatever it is. It's not the same very-dedicated sort of consciousness that you have in a movie theater, so getting rid of the glasses will be a big deal."

Why should we care what Cameron thinks? Because he's put a lot of stock (millions of dollars) into 3D. He created Avatar, the most successful movie ever, and a pioneering champion of stereoscopic 3D.

He also oversaw the development of the mediocre Avatar game - the first simultaneous cross-platform 3D release of the medium. That Avatar game has sold nearly 3 million copies now, and Cameron's not finished with games yet.

"I'd love to do an MMORPG experience inside the Avatar universe and I would like to see it authored in 3D," declared Cameron. "I'd like to see people doing gameplay in 3D, so that's something that we're looking to do. But we're not active on that yet."

Today, Cameron keeps himself busy writing Avatar 2 and 3 (yes they have a story). The films carry hopeful 2014 and 2015 releases, respectively.

Cameron will also be involved with games based around those movies.

Avatar DVD sales were the second best selling form of entertainment last year. What was the best? Call of Duty: Black Ops.

Avatar 2D versus Avatar 3D.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (32) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Weezer #1 1 year ago

    I'm still not convinced by 3D; with glasses or without. My next TV may well be 3D-ready, but I'm still largely ambivalent to the whole thing. I've managed to play videogames for 20 years+ quite happily without it...

  • GamesConnoisseur #2 1 year ago

    Great that such person very much associated with the 3D medium cements the important role gaming plays in driving the medium forward, as an owner of 3DS i can certainly see the usefulness of 3D extra plane to make Shadow Wars a true table top tactical war game and Ridge Racer bumper cam a joy to play.

    Though the fact that a poll last month or so at Gamesfaq with hundred of thousands of gamers or so and only 3% got 3DTV and more importantly only another 7% or so planning to get it in future.

    So seems that 3DTV ll takes off faster if the more HDTVs out there died or malfunctions! As the larger motivations out there to get 3DTV would be to replace broken HDtV rather than working ones I would interprets from that snapshot poll.

  • arcam #3 1 year ago

    I agree with him about games being a better driver of 3D than films. I'm never going to want to watch Goodfellas or Magnolia in 3D, but for games I can see the appeal.

    I'm not convinced either though, even though I'd usually consider myself an early-adopter. Not personally offended by it like some seem to be, but I'm happy to sit back and wait and see if it goes anywhere interesting.

  • AliRay #4 1 year ago

    "Pocahontas remakes will drive 3D"

  • Tonne #5 1 year ago

    i'm still not impressed by the 3d hype, i mean it's fun at the movies but it does nothing to add to the movie. it will not be the new standard like CGI has become
    with or without 3d avatar sucked balls. just like alice in wonderland was typical burton/disney movie

  • stevetuck #6 1 year ago

    I hate this 3D shit.... why would i want to play my games in blurrivision?

  • Haloboy #7 1 year ago

    Avatar the game was pretty damn awesome in 3D. Shame the game got utterly mauled as I really enjoyed it personally.

  • Murton #8 1 year ago

    He's right of course, but not for quite the reason he gives. The key reason as to why games will drive 3D is because the implementation will often be better than it is in movies. Avatar was "filmed" in 3D from the get-go, making it a properly engaging 3D experience, but since then most 3D movies have been filmed in regular high-definition 2D and then fudged to 3D in post-production because it's cheaper. The cost difference to the games industry isn't anywhere near as much as it is for the movie industry so they can afford to do it properly.

    The only drawback is the different implementations between devices. The 360 is capable of stereoscopic 3D under HDMI 1.3, the PS3 under 1.4 and the PC can do either depending on its graphics card or go down NVidia's 3D Vision route and brute force it. As supporting various formats is expensive some developers will support the lowest standard to save costs, as we have seen recently with Crysis 2 and Top Spin 4.


    As for the takeup of 3D TVs, we're going to reach a point later this year where every new TV on the market is 3D capable, as the LCD and Plasma screens bought in the mid-noughties begin to fail (life span on a regular LCD HDTV is around 5 years or so) they'll invariably be replaced with new 3D capable units. Accounting for retained stock and last generation of ultra-thin LED models we'll probably see 3DTV become more and more popular each year until around 2016 when it will probably become the new standard in the same way that HD became the standard in 2008.

  • bad09 #9 1 year ago

    God they're not letting it die quietly this time around are they. According to surveys done hardly anyone is planning on buying a 3D TV, in the cinema 2D ticket sales have apparently once again risen above 3D.

    Just let it die like the gimmick it is...just like it did 30 years ago and 60 years ago and like it will in 30 years time when it gets rolled out again.

  • Olemak #10 1 year ago

    Avatar was pretty bland. Saw it in 2D though. Maybe the 3D gimmick somehow makes it good. But I dont really need gimmicky tech that turns crap games and movies into huge box office hits. I want good movies and games, period, 3D or not.

    Can't see that a game like CoD (or Avatar the game!) being made any better by the inclusion of 3D. More "ouch my eyes are burning out like graying embers", maybe, but I cant see the gameplay itself being much better. Like Killzone 3, they had menues in 3D, whoop-de-doo!

  • Gambit1977 #11 1 year ago

    @Murton

    Great post and infinitely more interesting than the somewhat Peter Molyneux approach of Cameron.

  • Stoatboy #12 1 year ago

    Yeah, go on - blame the games industry for this unwanted gimmick, why don't you?

  • sega #13 1 year ago

    Avatar is a great 3D film but it's the other films that are ruining the 3D experience. I think Tron Legacy is the only other 3D film since Avatar where the 3D impressed me. Films like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans and every other 3D film I have seen since were extremely poor to the point I couldn't tell if my 3D glasses were even working or not.

    You need a bunch of quality 3D films, not just two, to make it worthwhile. Even if we all have glasses-free 3D TVs in the home, we will still be saying "so er, Avatar or Tron Legacy tonight....again?"

  • KujiGhost #14 1 year ago

    No thanks Mr. Cameron, I'll take quality writing over 3D any time.

  • obscured021 #15 1 year ago

    3d games rock, I have had an Nvision setup for the last few years, and now have a 3dtv, it would be like playing games in black and white on an old CRT TV to go back to non 3d games, at the moment the only way to play proper 3d games is to get a PC, its a shame the PS3 dose not have the power to do 3d justice, i played about 10 mins of kill zone 3 in 3d and switched back to 2d cause of FPS drops.

  • menage #16 1 year ago

    Fuck this fake hype bullshit gimmick.

    I literally watched 1 3D movie once, Avatar, and it already made me realize it's just a handy gimmick too masquerade the absolute lack of depth in the story instead of the visuals.

    No one cares about 3D at home, the only reason people have it is because it's in virtually every high end tv made now. But otherwise people really wouldn't give a crap, especially since 3D glasses will exit soon well.



    Edited by menage at 26/04/11 @ 11:06

  • Murton #17 1 year ago

    @Gambit1977

    Thanks, I try to bring the positive side to the 3D argument while laying out the facts as they are. It's become fashionable to bash 3D recently and I think a lot of people who deride 3D haven't really experienced it. They've perhaps been to a cinema and seen a movie with poor post-production implementation and not been impressed and think that's what the home setup will be like, a bit of a damp squib, a disappointment, and it just isn't.

    Firstly the 3D game content that I've seen so far on PS3 is jaw-dropping, especially Tumble which becomes a totally different game thanks to the immersion boost from stereoscopic 3D. Motorstorm Apocalypse is equally impressive, powersliding around a corner narrowly missing a landslide or collapsing building just looks awesome and if you thought the particle effects in KZ3 were good enough already you need to see those blizzards in 3D, I'm not going to say that it looks like you're actually there but the snowflakes especially look like they're in front of the TV rather than on it and that just looks cool. Contrast to Crysis 2 where there seems to be just 3 planes, the HUD and weapon, the horizon and the ground in front of you and it just looks poor, implementation is just that important. Do it right and you change your game, do it wrong and people will wonder why you bothered at all, in that respect it's much like the movie industry.

    Secondly, home 3D systems that use an active setup, ie shutter glasses as opposed to polarised give a much better effect. Once you understand the science behind how 3DTV works it just makes sense. Depth perception in the real world is achieved by each eye seeing the same object from slightly different angles a fraction of a second apart due to the relative distances between each eye and the objects you see, the brain then interprets this information allowing us to judge distance, see texture etc. A TV screen is a flat surface so the light from the TV hits both eyes from the same angles and at the same time, resulting in a 2D screen image. The passive system in the cinema polarise that image and the glasses then filter it so each eye see the image differently and the brain interprets the 3D image, active shutter glasses better mimic the real world conditions by only allowing one eye to see the image at a given time, 1/120th of a second or less to be precise, this means that each eye sees a each and every frame independently of the other, which allows the brain to interpret that 3D image in a more realistic way. And that's essentially cinema experiences shouldn't be compared to home setup, it's a different and quite flawed implementation that gives a very different result.


    I will say though that the TV manufacturers aren't really helping things either, the content used in store demos is quite poor. They're showing the visuals but not giving you the context to that experience. There's a big difference between experiencing 3D and merely seeing it, and I believe that those who get the chance to experience it properly, to actually play a game or watch a movie or TV in 3D rather than just looking at the 3DTV will be converted almost instantly, though they probably won't buy straight away in the current climate.

  • Miths #18 1 year ago

    I'm looking forward to indulging the 3D "gimmick" in May or June - I currently have my eyes on the 2011 Samsung PS51D6900 plasma, or alternatively the cheaper D550. I was initially leaning towards LED, but it sounds like plasma is still the best option for 3D viewing when it comes to minimal crosstalk and motion artifacts - and you get a larger screen for the same or less money than LED.

    Every store demo I've seen of 3D TVs so far (and that was with last year's TV models, reviews indicate very clear improvements for many 2011 models in regards to crosstalk, image brightness, glasses synchronization etc.) has left me thoroughly impressed - and that has always been in far from ideal conditions under harsh lighting and usually terrible factory default TV settings.

  • ubergine #19 1 year ago

    Batman Arkham Asylum GOTY was in 3-D, but you won't see James Cameron mention a tech he doesn't get a license fee for.

  • Ryze #20 1 year ago

    I wonder how well the new Nintendo console will be able to handle 3D at today's levels of graphical detail...?

    Otherwise - it needs new consoles, so 2015 and beyond is when it'll happen. This'll also give the TV manufacturers time to incorporate it as standard into the majority of new sets.

    It also allows them to progress with new lenticular set tech - with multiple, changing viewing angles.
    Edited by Ryze at 26/04/11 @ 13:38

  • spekkeh #21 1 year ago

    I'm no fan of 3D with glasses, so won't make the jump anytime soon, but I do like James Cameron. You can tell that deep down he's a complete geek and very enthusiastic about it. His movies are often about tech (whether the narrative or the interface) and he's been dying to do an adaptation of Japanese manga Battle Angel Alita (Gunnm). Dark Angel was of course pretty geeky too.

  • funkateer #22 1 year ago

    "Depth perception in the real world is achieved by each eye seeing the same object from slightly different angles a fraction of a second apart due to the relative distances between each eye and the objects you see"

    Hm, I'm pretty sure the 'fraction of a second apart' bit is not really accurate. In stereophony (stereo sound), yes it de distance between your ears makes a slight time difference, but light is almost a MILLION times faster!
    The brain is surely not fast enough to notice the time difference between left and right eye.

    The reason active shutter glasses work better than passive polarised glasses (as found in the cinema) is that there's better image separation in all conditions: For example active glasses still work if you turn (tilt) your head a bit to the left or right (where you'll get image bleeding with passive polarised glasses). This is more an issue at home, because at the cinema you typically sit straight, right before the screen.

    Just being pedantic here :)
    Edited by funkateer at 26/04/11 @ 17:41

  • TheDarkFurie #23 1 year ago

    and it takes 18 months to two years to author a high quality video game
    Nice to see he thinks that new game engines grow on trees and any high auqlity game is authored from the ground up in 18 months...

  • stuntmaster #24 1 year ago

    my eyes will be mullered if i play a game in 3d for like 2 hours a night

  • TRUTH #25 1 year ago

    I saw Avatar in 3D, saw Tron 2 in 3D...and both times I was disappointed. It did not feel 3D and nothing really gave the impression at things coming out at you!...I also found wearing glasses added the dim tint that sacrificed color and resolution; added with blur due to wearing glasses, also this added eye strain. The reason 2D is still better watching movies...Watched Avatar again in 2D and enjoyed it more...The Green Hornet, Clash Of The Titans, The A Team, Toy Story 3 andFootball in 3D (Sky) is so crap!...just a excuse to push up cinema ticket prices.




  • funkateer #26 1 year ago

    "I saw Avatar in 3D, saw Tron 2 in 3D...and both times I was disappointed."

    I have to say I don't share this experience. I only watched Avatar in 3D and I thought the 3D effect was awesome and really added to the immersion.

    The only real problem I see with 3D ('real' 3D like in Avatar as opposed to the post-production stuff) is that subtitles are really off-putting. Sometimes they show them on top of something that you see nearer, which really makes your eyes hurt as you can't focus on the subs.
    They do try to prevent that, which typically means subtitles are displayed all over the place. Sometimes at the top, sometimes even in the middle. Od course in english speaking countries this is not a problem as there are no subs displayed, but I just wish they would play 3D movies without subtitles in my country...

  • SvennoJ #27 1 year ago

    I used to be an early adopter. I played Descent 2 with active shutter glasses in '98 on a 72 inch screen with a CRT projector. It was pretty awesome at first and there were plenty other games compatible with Nvidea 3D. But after a month the wow factor was gone, and after another month I didn't bother to use it anymore other then to demonstrate it.
    After the initial 'magic' has gone you're left with lower resolution, lower frame rates and eye strain with prolonged use.
    I might get into it again for movies when circularly polarized 3D tvs come out and work well. I'm done with shutter glasses. Glassless 3D tvs require you to keep your head in the same spot all the time, no thanks.
    Games will have to include head tracking to get me interested again. Sure it might look cool with thumble but all magic is gone when the perspective stays the same when you move your head.

    Anyway a good 2D movie still looks better then any 3D movie. I recently watched Baraka again on blu-ray, scenes in that movie look more 3D then actual 3D movies in the cinema. There is a clear quality difference between film footage shot on IMAX and the regular stuff. Instead of 3D why not start filming more in IMAX and maybe 48fps?

  • Freek #28 1 year ago

    3D still feels like something being forced by technology companies rather something that is asked for by gamers or consumers in general.

    They keep telling us we want it, but the reception is luke warm.

  • misinformed #29 1 year ago

    Doubt it.

  • dfooster #30 1 year ago

    So many I don't want 3d I want quality scripts and storyline comments.

    It is possible to have both I hope people realise this. Wait until films like the hobbit are released in 3d and then we will have a viewing experience. People are too quick to dismiss things these days before giving them a chance. Was the xbox 360 and ps3 a failure based on their launch line up? No, but the games then were quick cash ins to the power of these machines but it took 4-5 years to start seeing next generation games reach their peak.

    3d is no different. Studios will shoe horn it in, Cameron was the first to dip into the toy box properly, and avatar was a showcase for 3d but inevitably in the coming years the format will mature and the films will improve. ( unlike some naysayers on here)

  • Junglist95 #31 1 year ago

    @bad09
    "God they're not letting it die quietly this time around are they. According to surveys done hardly anyone is planning on buying a 3D TV..... Just let it die like the gimmick it is...just like it did 30 years ago"

    No chance of em letting it die now the tricknology exists, HD3D Tell-Lie-Vision brainwashes better!!!

  • TRUTH #32 1 year ago

    Avatar a showcase? I saw this on Imax 3D - the 3D hardly impressed me, hardly ever noticed any 3D that the hype and fuss made it to be!!!...It just seemed layered on occasion rather the real depth or immersion. If Avatar was meant to be a revolution in 3d, I and many others didn't notice.

    Tron 2 was the next big 3D film and was crap too!
    Edited by TRUTH at 27/04/11 @ 19:15