Full stereoscopic 3D hitting Xbox 360

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 23 May, 2011

"It's more capable than the PlayStation 3."

Full stereoscopic 3D is set to hit the Xbox 360, Eurogamer can reveal.

This stereo 3D support works exactly like the PlayStation 3's 3D effect. In other words, full-on HDMI 1.4 stereoscopic 3D in the 1280x1470 twin 720p framebuffer configuration.

This would mean a 720p image per eye.

When asked for information on this planned improvement, a source familiar with Xbox 360 development hinted at an E3 announcement.

"They'd be mad not to do it, is all I can say," said our source. "The machine is not only very capable, it's more capable than the PlayStation 3 of doing stereo, assuming you don't have one of the old crappy ones with the composite leads... assuming you have a HDMI Xbox.

"The bottleneck is more on the graphical throughput for rendering out in stereo."

So, when will Microsoft announce full stereo 3D support for the Xbox 360?

"E3 is coming up," is all our source would offer. "Microsoft is going to have to go on stage to say something, aren't they?"

Stereoscopic 3D gaming is one of the PlayStation 3's most-touted features.

It was unlocked on the machine in June last year with a firmware update, making it the only console on the market with support for full stereoscopic 3D gaming.

A number of PS3 games run in 3D, including Gran Turismo 5 and Killzone 3.

A handful of Xbox 360 games have launched under the "stereoscopic 3D" banner, including Crytek's Crysis 2 and Treyarch's Call of Duty: Black Ops.

But they all render using 3D techniques based on the principle of two distinct images crammed into one 720p framebuffer.

This new change is set to occur through a firmware update. While it is unclear exactly how Microsoft will enable full 3D, there is more than enough bandwidth to sustain it, even on HDMI 1.1, let alone the 1.2 the Xbox 360 uses.

"We're a fully 3D-capable console today. We support 3D games that are in the market today," Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg told VG247 last year.

"The capability is there. The question is whether or not the consumer demand is there. That's the unanswered question. We're not a consumer electronics company that's trying to sell 3DTVs, so we have the benefit of waiting until the market responds. We're going to take probably more of a pull than a push approach."

Microsoft told Eurogamer this afternoon that it "does not comment on rumour or speculation".

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 (92) Latest comment 9 months ago

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

  • Deckard1 #1 1 year ago

    Couldn't give a shit.

  • agparrot #2 1 year ago

    I can't see it, so I don't want it, but more power to those of you who have not-broken eyes.

  • coolbritannia #3 1 year ago

    I'm just not bothered about 3D. it's a gimmick in cinema's that reduces the visual clarity of the film, I don't want it in games either.

    Gimmick.

  • miiiguel #4 1 year ago

    I have no interest in 3D, but, I have to admit "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides", the movie, has a very good 3D implementation, recommended.

  • HyperTails #5 1 year ago

    The 4 people that make use of it on PS3 say its good.

    The 4 people that will use it on 360 will probably like it, too.

  • arcam #6 1 year ago

    1280x1470

    I'm really not convinced this generation of consoles is ready to handle that resolution. The type of games/graphics that can push that many pixels are not the sort of games that will kick off a 3D revolution.

  • jjolley #7 1 year ago

    Article Wrote:
    ""They'd be mad not to do it, is all I can say," said our source. "The machine is not only very capable, it's more capable than the PlayStation 3 of doing stereo, assuming you don't have one of the old crappy ones with the composite leads... assuming you have a HDMI Xbox."

    I'm not convinced by that argument at all. Sony's been spending a long time in that 3d space, they understand implementation from an API point of view, not to mention they're already improving. Typical MS marketing, lie to consumers and hope it sticks. MS are twats anyway, never will buy another console from them, apple all the way for me in terms of computers so Windows can fuck.

  • The-Bodybuilder #8 1 year ago

    Legally blind in one eye.
    Finaly tried the 3DS to see what the effects are. Nothing? Fine, I expected that.
    What I wasn't expecting was a throbing headache and a twitchy blind eye for about 10mins (after only a minute of play).

    Keep your 3D.

  • dirtysteve #9 1 year ago

    jjolley - you realise that just because you have a PC, doesn't mean you have to use windows , right?

  • SeesThroughAll #10 1 year ago

    As far as cartoons go, "Megamind" and "Despicable Me" have very good 3D too. :)

  • ruslan74 #11 1 year ago

    Just to prove that the X360 is more powerful in anything the PS3 can try to do and still do it better.

  • Feanor #12 1 year ago

    3D is shit, and especially shit on 5 year old consoles like the PS3 and 360 that have enough trouble running games at 720p & 30 fps.

    No thank you.

  • randompanda #13 1 year ago

    I thought the majority of (earlier, at least) 360s were HDMI 1.3 only?

    Isn't that a barrier to "full-on HDMI 1.4 stereoscopic 3D"?

  • thebuttonz #14 1 year ago

    FINALLY! I can now justify buying the HD-DVD add-on and I can play all those 3D HD-DVDs I bought...

    Oh, wait.

  • RodHull #15 1 year ago

    I'd be interested to know how many 360s are still in the wild that do not have the HDMI connector, as these ills presumably would be barred from the 3D party. My 20gb pro RROD'd twice, the first time MS fixed it and it came back as it was sent: without a HDMI connector. The second time it was out of the 3 year warranty so I bought a 250gb slim.

  • Daeltaja #16 1 year ago

    Nothing to see here, move along.

  • zedzee #17 1 year ago

    Microsoft seem to have a sensible approach to 3D; wait and see how successful Sony will be.

    It's not like they will miss out on anything - they, like Sony, have a console that can push some kind of 3D out, despite the fact that neither console was originally designed with 3D specifically in mind - so much for the "10-year roadmap" plan of Sony's.

    They don't have a vested interest in 3D displays, unlike Sony, so they're quite happy for Sony to fail. But if there is a shift, then I'm sure a firmware update with 3D capabilities is ready to roll out, as I'm sure Microsoft are not stupid enough to not have done the R&D needed and extend their APIs to support this feature.

    Now, it will be interesting to see if Nintendo's Project Cafe will have more grass roots support for 3D.

  • StooMonster #18 1 year ago

    @randompanda

    So long as you can offer one 3D feature over HDMI, even 1.1 or 1.2 not just 1.3, you can claim that you are HDMI 1.4 compatible.

  • snick #19 1 year ago

    @rodhull
    I've got a 5 year old 360 without hdmi, I've also got a two year old TV without 3D.. the chance I will upgrade both to get 3D, about zero.
    Edited by snick at 23/05/11 @ 14:31

  • jjolley #20 1 year ago

    At dirtysteve:
    I'm aware of that yes. I'd not use linux on principle, don't like the culture. I use macs for mathematics work because that's what I was brought up with.

    I did use windows for many years, got sick of the £125 here £130 there to upgrade screen readers. VoiceOver on mac gives me accessibility as part of the system, saving me money.

  • Walkerj #21 1 year ago

    What does Eurogamer think of the new Passive 3d tv's in terms of gaming? Anyone have a passive 3d tv instead of an active 3d?

  • Ignatius_Cheese #22 1 year ago

    Full stereo 3D Halo:CE remake please! :o)

  • schnide #23 1 year ago

    @ruslan74

    You're my first Ignore in some time now, fanboi.

  • Shinetop #24 1 year ago

    Legally blind in one eye.
    Finaly tried the 3DS to see what the effects are. Nothing? Fine, I expected that.
    What I wasn't expecting was a throbing headache and a twitchy blind eye for about 10mins (after only a minute of play).


    That's nonsense. It's not shooting lasers in your eyes. You'd get a headache perhaps when the two 3D images aren't aligned properly, but since you're only seeing one of the images, it's exactly like looking at any other screen for you.

  • des #25 1 year ago

    3D is a pointless gimmick,nobody gives a shit about it,total waste of money.
    And 360>PS3...water is wet but who cares,can't wait for Cafe
    Edited by des at 23/05/11 @ 14:44

  • Gearskin #26 1 year ago

    Awesome! Played some ps3 games in full 3D and a few of them looked straight up fantastic!

  • Inmediasress #27 1 year ago

    Great another pissing contest.
    This time without a prize.

  • slippysloppy #28 1 year ago

    I haven't got a 3DTV but I think it's good MS are implementing this feature, as when the time is right and I do finally get a 3D TV (mostly likely when I my HDTV pops) then it'll be nice to know there's some content already there.

    It also doesn't cost us anything so I'm not sure why some people are complaining. e.g. I couldn't give a shit but I've still read the article and responded to it.

  • ruslan74 #29 1 year ago

    @schnide

    My bait post just goes to prove how sensitive PS3 gamers are and will always be. Test successful!

  • mss99 #30 1 year ago

    So with myself owning "one of the old crappy ones with the composite leads", I assume my PS3 is actually more capable than my 360.

    Also at least with the PS3 if I get a 3D TV in future I have the option of watching films in 3D via Bluray.
    Edited by mss99 at 23/05/11 @ 14:57

  • chrisjm #31 1 year ago

    3D is amazing, if only the real world was in 3D

  • MJHaylett #32 1 year ago

    as soon as I buy a 3D HDTV (ni about 5 years or so) then I will try out my PS3 and 360 in 3D to see which is best. No wait I don't care.

  • knightengale #33 1 year ago

    I have an idea for the developers, save the power of creating twice as many frames and make the game look twice as good in 2D.

    (Granted there isn't that much power used to create the extra images, but it would be a better use for the 95% of gamers that dont have / want a 3D TV)
    Edited by knightengale at 23/05/11 @ 14:58

  • freedumb #34 1 year ago

    I know all you punks ain't gonna like the 3D.

    But don't be hatin on me, cos I like it you see.

    But only when I can afford a 3DTV.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjy_7haflaM
    Edited by freedumb at 23/05/11 @ 15:01

  • ronuds #35 1 year ago

    Hooray for the 8 people who own 3DTVs!

  • The-Bodybuilder #36 1 year ago

    @Shinetop

    Are you my optician? Are you EVEN an optician? If not, then I suggest you sit quietly in a corner with a dunce hat, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
    I know my condition (I said "LEGALLY BLIND", I didn't say completely blind. My eye can still take in light) and I know how I reacted. I also know that it wasn't "just like looking into 2d" as I could clearly see that the image was showing me was "clearly wrong" (like the cloud in mario kart "detached" from rest of the game.

    I don't even know why I'm trying to explain it to a doofus.

  • K1LLAY #37 1 year ago

    I got both active (PanasonicVT30) and passive (LG650t). Resolution goes 'softer' for both in 3D imo. The only difference is active has more 'ghosting' than passive does on the strongest 3D setting, but both give you eyestrain after a few hours (like the 3DS)...

  • FireMonkey #38 1 year ago

    @RandomPanda - "I thought the majority of (earlier, at least) 360s were HDMI 1.3 only?

    Isn't that a barrier to "full-on HDMI 1.4 stereoscopic 3D"?"

    HDMI1.4 is a software specification based upon the 1.3 hardware specs.

    Physically neither the PS3 or 360 have HDMI1.4 ports. The PS3's firmware upgrade it so that it could support 1.4 spec 3D games and Blu-Ray playback. That is the only part of the 1.4 spec that the PS3 currently meets.

    I'm guessing that this 360 update is also updating the 360 to meet the 1.4 spec.

    Incase you are interested, the 1.4 spec for 3D is basically that it can do 1 of a range of 3D outputs including the 1280x1470 res (with one eye view in the top half and the other in the bottom). All displays that support 1.4 3D need to be able to handle ALL the different modes and some others for backwards compatibility.

  • FireMonkey #39 1 year ago

    @Knightengale - "I have an idea for the developers, save the power of creating twice as many frames and make the game look twice as good in 2D."

    Good news! If the devs are optimising the engines to work better for 3D that actually means they should end up with better framerates when running in 2D!

  • mcmothercruncher #40 1 year ago

    I wish the industry would stop trying to shoehorn unproven technology into our counsumery mouths.

    There are very few 3D sets at home and in movies it's all a bit dark and blurry since you're basically wearing shades in a darkened room. Plus many people will always be unable to view 3D due to their eyes prescriptions.

    Just get on with making decent bug free games- that is what the industry needs to focus on at the moment.
    Edited by mcmothercruncher at 23/05/11 @ 15:28

  • Shinetop #41 1 year ago

    Plus many people will always be unable to view 3D due to their eyes prescriptions.

    Are you saying that many people have no depth perception whatsoever in everyday life?

  • castertroy #42 1 year ago

    I have just got a 3D tv. Films seen to fare better than games. Tron legacy looks stunning but a demo of motorstorm 3 looks very low res and the effect don't pop out at you.

  • NorUraeus #43 1 year ago

    Sounds like a very trustable source, actually the source sounds more like a hopeful fanboy than anything else

  • SavageEvil #44 1 year ago

    I don't understand this crap at all, they was to cram twice as much resolution into half to space to create 3D, but they have yet to make a regular game in normal old 1080p? These guys really like over stepping their bounds, I dislike 3D because wearing glasses causes undue strain on my eyes and when I remove them my eyes get treated to a blurring of the image because of the secondary outputted image. I saw 3 3D movies and I tired of them all. They do nothing but cause me strain in an already dark environment for watching movies which is going to screw my vision up faster than normal in the dark movie watching. They can keep that crap as an option but don't force it on me as I'm not going to like that.

  • Toothball #45 1 year ago

    I got myself a 3DS and a laptop that does 3D in the last few months, and I'm totally converted. I'd quite like a 3D TV at some point, but I got a new 2D TV last year so would like to get a but more use out of it for now. It would be handy if the Xbox started doing 3D too, although one of my favourite discoveries in the world of 3D PC gaming is that quite a lot of existing games still work in 3D. Finally got round to playing Mass Effect following the Steam sale a few weeks back, and it's looking very nice there.

    Either way, it's not affecting 2D game output in any way, so why not?

  • StooMonster #46 1 year ago

    SavageEvil: but they have yet to make a regular game in normal old 1080p?

    There's plenty of games that are in 1080p on Xbox 360 and PS3, try Beyond Good and Evil HD for one.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #47 1 year ago

    Don't care. I do have a 3d TV but no necessary glasses or anything else. Not even a blu ray player. The 3ds is nice every once in a while but 3d on the big screen hasn't convinced me yet.

  • soviet_ #48 1 year ago

    Fuck you and your 3D implementation! Pointless waste of time unless done properly and we all know it's used as a gimmick the majority of the time

  • coldfoot #49 1 year ago

    3D support requires to have games that take advantage of it. Sony has first parties that push impressive 3D effects like Killzone 3 and Motorstorm 3, not to mention upcoming Uncharted 3, while multiplatform 3D efforts like Black Ops and Crysis 2 are an utter joke. So I wonder what MS is doing about the software support part of the equation.

  • Jolly_Armadillo #50 1 year ago

    *has 3DTV*

    Yes you may touch me

  • WinterSnowblind #51 1 year ago

    This isn't surprising, 3D is becoming a bigger thing and Sony are regular touting "PS3 version features 3D" as a plus point for games that are multiplatform.

    Most people may not have 3D TV's at the moment, but the same thing was said a few years back about HDTV's. "It's pointless because nobody has one". Although that was obviously a bigger deal, it's still a similar situation.

  • Subdominator #52 1 year ago

    This will make them win E3!!! ;)

  • IronGiant #53 1 year ago

    Exactly, the demand isn't there.

  • phAge #54 1 year ago

    3D starts when Sony etc. etc.

  • PixelPirate #55 1 year ago

    Not enjoyed 3D in the cinema, anymore than a 2D film. Didn't add anything, and its all a bit darker and more expensive ticket price to watch.

    Not things I look to want to have in a £40 game.

    Think ill pass.
    Edited by PixelPirate at 23/05/11 @ 17:00

  • Zozzilla #56 1 year ago

    Yay, more gimmicks!

  • phAge #57 1 year ago

    @Astro:

    No - "a source familiar with Xbox 360 development" did.

  • drumbaby #58 1 year ago

    "3D Has always been a gimmick, but what i like about MS is that their giving me the option to go 3d & not forcing it on me . "

    Yep, I'm having to play all my games on PS3 in 3D now, even though I've only got a 2D telly. Those naughty Sony types!

  • irrational-gaz #59 1 year ago

    I am long sighted and have a lazy eye. I have worn glasses all my life and I'm not about to start wearing a second pair on top of those I already have just to be left thoroughly disappointed with a massive headache. 3D is a fad and it's being pushed down our throats by the hardware manufacturers in a bid to try and squeeze more cash out of strapped consumers.

  • makattack #60 1 year ago

    Yay... so, in say 5-10 years, when I get a new TV that will no doubt have 3D capabilities (with no glasses), I'll be all set! Oh wait... I probabbly won't be playing the same 360 nor PS3 I currently have... drat.

  • smelly #61 1 year ago

    >it's a gimmick in cinema's that reduces the visual clarity of the film,

    Most of the problem with film relies on the fact that film naturally has a depth of field. Games dont have that problem, so your eyes can focus on whatever they like. The darkness problem doesnt happen on home tv's as the glasses tend not to be polarized.

    3D *CAN* improve gameplay on the right games - i.e. ones where you judge distance.

    That said, fps games (For example) wont benefit from it much at all... So not sure what the idea behind ptuting it on the 360 is.
    Edited by smelly at 23/05/11 @ 17:44

  • Sid-Nice #62 1 year ago

    This is fantastic news; please Microsoft announce a new Xbox 360 with Blu-ray. The 360 has to be the best console of all time; especially when the first crop of games struggled to display 720p without button lag or tearing. Give me Dance Central 3D and I'm sold.

  • Chufty #63 1 year ago

    Not much 3D love here, but I like it. Other people do too.

    Live and let live?

  • Miths #64 1 year ago

    I bought a plasma 3D TV last week - one of the new Samsung 2011 models, PS51D550 - and I must say that so far I'm unfortunately starting to doubt a bit how likely I am to make extensive use of 3D for gaming. And that was actually my main reason for buying a 3D TV at this time (although it's turning out to be a fantastic TV in general, so no real complaints there).

    Sure, Motorstorm Apocalypse, KZ3, WipEout HD, GT5 and even something a bit more pedestrian like Hustle Kings (pool/snooker game) do have very impressive 3D depth.
    But unlike 3D Blu-ray movies or even the, when it's at its best (and used with HD movie/video content), surprisingly impressive 2D to 3D conversion feature, I so far find that 3D in games is significantly harder on my eyes and the typically low console game resolution (plus assorted graphical tradeoffs to accommodate stereoscopic 3D) make for a slightly fuzzy image that I just don't find go particularly well with 3D.
    A full Blu-ray movie 1080p 3D image however (eg. Resident Evil: Afterlife), that's a thing of beauty, razor sharp clarity and phenomenal depth.

    I've been testing a ton of 3D and 2D video and game material with the TV the last several days though, so I haven't actually had time yet to sit down for a lengthy session with a 3D game, so I'm still hoping - and finding it fairly likely - that I just need an adjustment period.

  • SHPanda #65 1 year ago

    How are they doing HDMI 1.4 Stereoscopic 3D without HDMI 1.4?

  • witchdrash #66 1 year ago

    If it's a feature you can offer, why not

  • DRUNK3N-_-DRAGON #67 1 year ago

    yin-poole just wet him self...i have got to say being a new owner of a samsung 46"3d smart tv that you have to see games in sterioscopic, it is totally incredible to the eye and i think 3d has a big future coming and it doesn't strain or "break your eyes",
    i just wish there was more 3d movies and 3d games on the market! but i suppose time will tell "BRING ON THE FUTURE".

  • penhalion #68 1 year ago

    Had a 3D Plasma for a while but, only recently tied a 3D game with it. KillZone 3 had some serious ghosting but, I was suprised by morotstorm armageddon, which was movie quality.

    So I'm still a bit mixed about 3D but, if they can do it with the quality of Motorstorm I think it can only be a good thing.

  • penhalion #69 1 year ago

    Had a 3D Plasma for a while but, only recently tied a 3D game with it. KillZone 3 had some serious ghosting but, I was suprised by morotstorm armageddon, which was movie quality.

    So I'm still a bit mixed about 3D but, if they can do it with the quality of Motorstorm I think it can only be a good thing.

  • Penguinzoot #70 1 year ago

    How are they doing HDMI 1.4 Stereoscopic 3D without HDMI 1.4?

    HDMI 1.4 is a software spec. Firemonkey explains all in a post on the first page.

  • Claudiov1.0 #71 1 year ago

    Bit skeptical about it... but whatever, if everybody is happy, so be it!

  • MeBrains #72 1 year ago

    so this is one unnamed source mentioning that 360 is more capable than ps3 and that is used as a tagline for the front page?!

    and this while the source says there is a bottleneck in graphical capabilities? it's a strange story to say the least....

    roll on E3!

  • captainBlahBlah #73 1 year ago

    Microsoft laughably claimed in the past that the Xbox already did proper 3d (of course nobody in the media would dare point out the falsehood of this, as magically advertising dollars dry up if anyone would dare criticise anything Xbox)

    [link url=http://www.mcvuk.com/news/37115/Xbox-360-is-fully-3D-capable
    ]http://www.mcvuk.com/news/37115/Xbox-360...[/link]

    Secondly, this is only really partial catchup with the PS3, as clearly the Xbox still won’t do Blu-Ray, nor 3D Blu-Ray.

    The reality is, Microsoft know their potential “new” user-base has all but dried up, and is basically relying on feeding the channel with incremental hardware upgrades that force Xbox owners to continally upgrade.

    In all the time I have owned my lauch 60GB PS3, that’s always been bang upto date, poor Xbox owners have had to rebuy the following upgrades to stay current, and even then, they still don’t have Blu-Ray (perhaps next year – eh Microsoft?)

    1st upgrade HDMI
    2nd upgrade Sled HDD upgrade
    3rd upgrade Working system
    4th upgrade slim
    5th upgrade 3D

    Perhaps by the 6th revision, they MAY have caught up to the spec of my 2006 PS3.

  • andrewsqual #74 1 year ago

    More capable, so the 360 is finally getting blu ray support. Awesome.

  • dfooster #75 1 year ago

    I'm blind so 3d is a waste of time for me. I also think surround sound was a stupid invention too because I am also deaf.

  • andrewsqual #76 1 year ago

    Also "The capability is there. The question is whether or not the consumer demand is there. That's the unanswered question"
    The consumer was there for god damn standard built in wifi support for 4 and a half years and you ignored that "answer". What the hell is next, controllers with built in batteries??????

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #77 1 year ago

    "Microsoft told Eurogamer this afternoon that it "does not comment on rumour or speculation".

    Ooooooooooooohhhhhh they did did they?! Aye? Aye? Know-what-a-mean? Aye?...

    ..oh forget it

  • MARKIV #78 1 year ago

    It's gotta be Gears of War 3 3D then. Guess Epic in January said we can't do it, not enough disk space. MS: OK we'll give you another gig ( firmware update ). EPIC: give us another 5 months ( release date moved from April to September ). BEZ: Job's a good'un! :)
    Edited by MARKIV at 23/05/11 @ 21:54

  • SvennoJ #79 1 year ago

    I too thought they couldn't upgrade the HDMI 1.2 output of the 360 with a software update. If they can then please give me uncompressed 5.1 or 7.1 sound first through HDMI 1.3 I don't care much about 3D, current console hardware already struggles enough with 2D. Being limited to a 640 kbps dolby digital stream is far more annoying then lack of proper 3D.

  • Ryze #80 1 year ago

    I enjoyed Thor's digital 3D at the cinema, and I've TRIED active shutter tech - it works great for me! Better than the cinema as well.

    The REAL question is... am I going to upgrade my kit for 3D...? No.

    Can the current gen of consoles REALLY pull off 3D at decent levels of detail... No.

    If they'd accept paring back graphical detail in order to make the games run more smoothly, then that'd be different... BUT they don't.

    Best hope for decent 3D now is those PS2 and PSP remakes. They could pull off decent, smooth 3D.

  • ThePentatonic #81 1 year ago

    nvidia vision ftw, screw consoles!

  • Miths #82 1 year ago

    @Ryze

    Thor was actually a post production 2D to 3D conversion, but from what I've heard it was one of the better ones (so far the other 3D movies I've seen myself have all been filmed in 3D).

  • Mister-Wario #83 1 year ago

    "The capability is there. The question is whether or not the consumer demand is there. That's the unanswered question".

    It really isn't an unanswered question. I have a perfectly good TV, as do the vast majority of people, and have no desire to drop a lot of money on something restrictive and underutilised.

    I should probably clarify: I really like 3D. It's just that it really isn't practical to have it on the main TVs in my house right now.
    Edited by Mister-Wario at 23/05/11 @ 23:12

  • riseer #84 1 year ago

    LOL..i really dislike this guy,3D is something idc about.The Ps3 does it and from what i seen it does ok.The 360 will have the same results thats if devs will invest the time to even add it in.I know this guy is a MS ex even still thats just silly to even think the 360 is vasly better then the Ps3.Both of em have their good and bad,i think Ps3 has better looking games.Even still both consoles are dated and it does not matter it's all about software.

  • riseer #85 1 year ago

    The 360 is HDMI 1.2 Thats why it couldn't fully support it.Idk how they can just skip to 1.4 but i think it will be more to the way the Gpu will draw the image or something close to that.

  • Murton #86 1 year ago

    Looks like this is going to be a software revision up to 1.4 in a similar fashion to the PS3 software update to 1.4 last year.

    This is good news for me as a PS3 owner as it may mean 3rd party developers use the proper 3D implementation in their cross platform titles rather than stick with me inferior implemenation because of their shitty porting. And those not currently doing 3D because they don't want to invest in it for a single platform will see some benefit in doing so, which means more 3D games which means my 3DTV will become fully justified (though Sony 1st party titles justify it enough already in my opinion)

  • wanderingkid #87 1 year ago

    Funny how there's over 80 comments for something that most people are apparently not bothered about.
    Just saying ...
    Edited by wanderingkid at 24/05/11 @ 12:34

  • 32768Colours #88 1 year ago

    On a practical level, I won't be buying into 3D until they solve the glasses issue, potential headaches etc as this smacks of a technology still very much in its infancy.

    But perhaps more crucially in the long term - I would like to see a more compelling reason to play in 3D beyond the technological chest-beating that is currently taking place. Sure it might look nice, but will 3D really enhance gameplay? It just seems like we're going to spend yet another console generation chasing looks over content.

    Like motion control, these features are developed by hardware manufacturers to create new markets, rather than a desire to tap into a fresh and meaningful creative avenue. This of course, doesn't mean 3D will fail commercially (in fact the marketing-heavy approach to these technologies probably guarantees success) but it does mean that most 3D implementation will be little more than aesthetic for a long time to come.
    Edited by 32768Colours at 24/05/11 @ 13:12

  • BonzoBanana #89 1 year ago

    I'd like to see 3D games that also support anaglyph so anyone can play them whatever their tv. Yes it may not be as good but its still ok and wouldn't be hard to implement in games. On youtube there are a lot of anaglyph videos and many work very well.

  • minimong #90 1 year ago

    Instead of push tech that the vast majority cant use or don't want, how about giving us all true HD gaming ie 1080p, like you promised for our next gen consoles.

  • sores #91 10 months ago

    here is sohbet odaları ndan ciktik yola
    chat
    kameralı sohbet
    sohbet odaları
    muhabbet odaları
    video izle la basvurduk bu sapa
    oyun oyna
    football manager sonuna geldik
    forum
    çocuk sohbet
    chet

  • o0cacoto0o #92 9 months ago

    The interesting thing about xbox having 3D is that it can actually help in the market. However, to those who really care about 3D content in their systems, (movies and games) the ps3 can do both. As for movies, I hope the xbox can get a rental service that can also give out 3D films to rent. Now I am curious and excited to see Halo in 3D, and how microsoft is going to work on it.

    I have the panasonic viera 42" gt25 (600 dollars at costco), and playing prince of persia trilogy does give me the depth between jumps so I know how far I have to jump or run to reach the next area. Other games don't add that much content, and in films some is forced 3D, which makes ghosting more aparent, (clash of the titans is a perfect example).As for 3D content, it involves how it is implemented and how its being used. Ghosting not only depends on the tv, but on the features of how the movies and games are made.

    To reply to k1llay, I have tried both the lg tv and different tvs on stores. The vizio 3D tvs are given the worst reviews due to ghosting issues.But the problem with passive tvs is that the image is cut giving you a lower resolution of 3D. At high pace images the active shutters refresh the image on both eyes at different paces. To some people it can cause bigger strain, while to others it doesn't.

    To answer to people who say that 3D is a gimmick, it can be in a lot of things, but it doesn't cost that much to make 3D content in games. It is an option and not something that you have to have to play 3D games. With that said, happy gaming everyone.
    Edited by o0cacoto0o at 02/09/11 @ 16:08