Microsoft still hesitant on 3D

By Fred Dutton Published 27 June, 2011

"Does it add to the gaming experience?"

While Sony has dived right into 3D gaming with the PlayStation 3, Microsoft has been much more hesitant to dip its toes in the water.

Though a small handful of Xbox 360 games can be played in 3D if you have the necessary kit, it's not the same full 720p stereoscopic effect that Sony boasts with the PS3.

Speculation earlier this year pointed to an E3 announcement for additional 3D support, but that came and went without a peep. So what gives?

Well, Xbox senior product manager David Dennis told Eurogamer that Microsoft is still weighing up whether it's something consumers really crave.

"3D is an interesting space," he said.

"There was a big rush by some other folks in the industry to convince people they want to play in 3D. You can question the motivations of why they want to make everyone go buy a new TV perhaps, but I think 3D has to fit in a natural way where it fits with the gameplay.

"Something we're watching and wanting to understand from consumers is whether this is something they actually want.

"Does it add to the gaming experience? Does it distract from the gaming experience? Is it something they want to play long-term? Or is it something they try a few times and then go back to regular 2D modes?"

Despite clearly remaining sceptical, Dennis added that if it deemed the demand was there Microsoft will consider adding greater 3D support in the future.

"You watch the market penetration of 3D TVs, you look if it's something people are buying and you adapt and innovate, just like we've done by deploying different system updates and features. If there's other things we want to do with 3D because consumers are asking for we would explore it."

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (62) Latest comment 11 months ago

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

  • darkos87 #1 11 months ago

    If nintendo and sony have jumped on the 3d bandwagon, microsoft will too.

  • Geowolf #2 11 months ago

    /\ Nintendo haven't jumped on the bandwagon for home consoling though. Not even with WiiU.

  • harzo #3 11 months ago

    I have no desire (or funds) to pay for a 3D TV but its still a nice option for those that can afford it! As long as adding it doesn't detract from the 2D experience then I am all for it!

  • JeffGerstmann #4 11 months ago

    shut up and release the update
    yes trolls will come out and rant but they will do so regardless, just tell them that it doesn't hamper anything if you'rer not using it. They will turn to stone.

  • ronuds #5 11 months ago

    It hampers MS working on other things that will make them money.

    3D movie ticket sales are declining and TV sales are less than expected. I think MS have made the right move to wait. Obviously Sony have more of a vested interest in pushing 3D, but lucky for MS they don't have to worry about that.

  • bad09 #6 11 months ago

    Who needs 3D when you have ads you can tweet!

  • Lucodeath #7 11 months ago

    Home consoles are not powerful enough for 3d, lower resolution an dodgy framerates. Ps3 cant do 3d movies with hd audio at the same time.

  • king26 #8 11 months ago

    judging from Killzone 3 and the last two Motorstorm games YES 3D does add to the experience!

  • Vergis69 #9 11 months ago

    Does kinect?..

  • waggy79 #10 11 months ago

    You tell us...

  • kimchibaka #11 11 months ago

    It's optional on all games right now, so what's the complaint about at least offering it?!

    “3D is an interesting space”

    Not so much if you don't offer it...

  • Stuz359 #12 11 months ago

    I dunno, it seems like if you can add it to existing games why not?

  • Shabbaranks #13 11 months ago

    Rather see efforts put in to next gen hardware rather than fannying around with 3D.

    Given the choice to buy 3D tv or next gen console what would you spend your wages on?

  • GooseUK #14 11 months ago

    Depends, does nausea, eye strain and dulled colours make a game better? If yes - then 3D is awesome for games

  • SleepyMagpie #15 11 months ago

    3D this iteration: The emperor's new clothes. Anyone saying otherwise either wants to generate new market revenue, or fell hook line and sinker for the hyperbole and splashed out on a new set.

    Funny how people get all religious about their purchases!

  • PixelPirate #16 11 months ago

    daft company drone quote of the week came around early this week

  • Nazo #17 11 months ago

    “Something we're watching and wanting to understand from consumers is whether this is something they actually want. "
    Ah you mean like Kinect based advertising, right? Because everyone wants more ads.

  • Canyarion #18 11 months ago

    @Geowulf Even though Nintendo has not mentioned anything about 3D on Wii U, I bet they will one day add the functionality if it becomes popular.
    But yeah, at the moment they're not promoting it.

  • Jamiesan #19 11 months ago

    I dunno, the whole "fullscreen local multiplayer" thing Sony talked about at E3 sounds pretty nice, and a 3Dtv for 500USD, although very small, is pretty tempting for me.

  • Yossarian #20 11 months ago

    If only you applied this thinking to Kinect...

  • lockload #21 11 months ago

    I played resistance 3 in 3d at E3 and i had to stop after 5 mins it gave me a headache, im ok at the cinema though

  • gjgjg #22 11 months ago

    Yea yea, your still going to do it sooner or later :p

  • Mister-Wario #23 11 months ago

    Hmm. Personally I really like 3D but I also admit that a lot of the time you simply tune it out after a while. Unless it's really in your face, and you don't want to be adding flashy scenes into films just to show off 3D capabilities. It's a tricky one, especially if 3D is in decline right now.

  • customfirmware #24 11 months ago

    i can bet this guy hasn't played superstar dust in 3dtv, pursuaded me to buy one.

  • Subdominator #25 11 months ago

    3D will be the same short term eye candy that it has always been. I doubt we'll see many 3D games 5 years in the future. 3D with glasses is just too annoying as is glasses-free 3D with its small viewing angles. 3D is just something the TV producers want us to want because they want to sell us new TV sets every five years instead of every ten to fifteen.

  • BlinkeredAxis #26 11 months ago

    I've only seen 3D on the Nintendo 3DS, which is really cool, but I'm unsure about seeing it in serious games. The health warnings with 3DS are about right - play for 30 minutes, then take a 10 minute break. It can get a bit woozy if you play for a long session without that discipline.

    I'd struggle to keep to that regime with something like Assassins Creed or a Racing game...

  • Kaonazhie #27 11 months ago

    No sir, I don't like it. I don't want 3D and I don't want motion controls of any sort.

    I want them to focus more on creating good games than trying to hide the fact that they are essentially re-making the same product year in, year out, with the latest buzzwords and gimmicks.

  • dirtyvu #28 11 months ago

    wearing glasses sucks. i sat for 15 minutes playing wipeout and thinking, this is supposed to be special with 3D?

  • RevanNL #29 11 months ago

    No it does not add something to the experience. But on the other hand neither does Kinect and MS can't get fucking enough of shoving that down people's throats

  • anix #30 11 months ago

    I've played Killzone 3 in 3D on my new Samsung LED TV (the old TV just died recently). It was an awesome experience, significantly better than 2D, fighting under this huge mawlr, walking through that maintenance hall, facing the enemies, watching these amazing landscapes... it is different from what I've expected, much better. Can't wait for more movies and many more games (Uncharted 3 FTW). I feel lucky.

    My guess is, Microsoft is trying to spread doubts about 3D to their customer base. They keep them in the dark, because they have nothing compatible to offer (in 3D!). Perhaps XBox 360 has not the hardware capabilities, but the next-gen XBox will have for sure. Either way, on that day, Microsoft will tell everyone how awesome 3D can be. Meh meh. ^^

  • Les #31 11 months ago

    No.



    That's my answer to MS's good question. Just a fad that hopefully will go away soon, so that movies will be watchable again and theater ticket prices will come down a bit.

  • savant #32 11 months ago

    If they refine the Kinect + head-tracking tech, it could be a viable alternative to 3DTV, while retaining full HD resolutions and without ghosting or any other side effects (except maybe some lag). Isn't Forza 4 going to have this sort of thing built in?

    Sort of the natural successor to Johnny Lee's Wiimote tracking demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

  • metalangel #33 11 months ago

    There was a great article about 3D by Dave James in PC Gamer the other month, and his anecdotal evidence of it working (or not) in games was excellent.

    Bad Company 2, for example, was fantastic. Except it was hard to render a crosshair in 3D.
    Burnout Paradise was genuinely good, with the added depth helping to judge obstacles.

    The best example, though, was World of Warcraft. Yes, it looked amazing, the bright and chunky graphics with lots of depth looked great. However, the menus were all rendered as being very close, in contrast to the huge and varying depth of the 3D view. The result was his eyes constantly having to shift between focusing on the menus in the foreground and the world in the distance. They got very tired, very fast.

  • savant #34 11 months ago

    @pinkyrocks - side-by-side 3D is a mandatory requirement in HDMI 1.4 (see the Wikipedia article). The PS3 currently supports 3D in higher resolutions and in different formats to SxS (such as frame-packing), but the HDMI 360 models certainly support stereoscopy. The question in the article is whether it's actually something important to gamers.

  • VibratingDonkey #35 11 months ago

    Think if he was told they could make 3D ads he'd be more excited about the prospect.

  • Dave52 #36 11 months ago

    3D is coming whether you like it or not. There is no doubt that Sony has an agenda to shift it's new TVs, but the Playstation 3D monitor they announced at E3 is a pretty cool piece of tech that most 15 year olds would love in their bedrooms (and even the most ardent anti-3D types would have to admit that the full screen couch co-op thing is a neat idea).

    If it picks up over the next year (and it is already pretty well established in Japan), the WiiU will support it and the NextBox will have it built in as standard. And David Dennis will be telling everyone that Microsoft were always gonna embrace 3D.

  • dot.dot #37 11 months ago

    3d doesn't make sense on a home console at this point. I don't think that anything less than having a holographic image projected from different points around your living room will be enough for a convincing home console experience and that is years away. We're very much in the Laserdisc era of 3D.

  • drumbaby #38 11 months ago

    I'm guessing that when they decide to jump in as it were it'll be the best thing since motion control

  • Arwin #39 11 months ago

    @locodeath: yeah, when playing back 3D movies the PS3 has to drop back audio to the best the 360 can manage (or no wait, it still has a higher bit rate).

    Would love to play Uncharted in 3D but don't know if I can afford it.

  • Murton #40 11 months ago

    As an owner of a 3D TV I have to say that it both adds and distracts depending on the game type and the implementation. In GT5 and Motorstorm you can better judge the distance between two points which gives you a better idea whether that gap between the cars in front is something you can negotiate or if you should wait for the next corner to create some space. In KZ3 the snow and debris seemingly flows from the screen for heightened immersion and so on.

    Then you have games like Crysis 2, where the 3D only serves to "split" the foreground, background and middleground layers with no variation between.

    Home 3D is still in its infancy and I'm glad that more studios are experimenting with it as we're seeing some really good results, but MS should really drop the pretence here. The sole reason that they're taking this line is because their console doesn't support it to the same level as its competitor. HDMI 1.3 isn't capable of high def 3D and as a result we have this question of whether 3D improves or degrades the experience when of course it's fully down to implementation and everyone knows it. PR plain and simple.

  • dfooster #41 11 months ago

    If 3D is a step nearer to believing you are actually in the game or in an actual fantasy environment then I'm all for it. Whilst 3D may have some current issues such as the glasses only a fool would dismiss it as they are failing to realize this is the first baby step towards full immersion in games and movies which is surely the holy grail we are all striving for.

    Good and bad games will always be made regardless of what I said above, not having 3D is not a pre-requisite for every game or film being of the highest quality.

  • Rodster #42 11 months ago

    I'm still not interested in 3D, still a gimmick and i'm not going out to buy another TV. When 3D doesn't require additional glasses then I may consider it.

  • des #43 11 months ago

    Sony is hyping 3D because they want to sell their shitty 3D TVs.
    3D or not 3D,MS and Nintendo gain nothing.

  • mhadfi #44 11 months ago

    3D movies are hit and miss, trying to force things "out" at you is the worst gimmick.

    3D games, as Murton said... it's implementation that counts. Motorstorm Apocolypse is in 3D and it helped them to run the 2D game at 1080p :D 3D platformers are much easier as you no longer need to guess by looking for a shadow, de blob 2 is a better in 3D for this, however it goes from 60fps to 30fps to be able to generate the images. GT5 is an average 3D implementation as cars don't look right.

    3D helps push the visuals for 2D,

  • HoloDust #45 11 months ago

    I haven't believed it until I saw it with my own eyes. Yes it does adds to gaming experience, and for me it adds a lot.

  • Murton #46 11 months ago

    "I'm still not interested in 3D, still a gimmick and i'm not going out to buy another TV. When 3D doesn't require additional glasses then I may consider it."

    This argument is always trumped up and it's never backed with reasoning, it's HDTV all over again. The reason you aren't rushing to buy a TV isn't because 3D is a gimmick, it's because you can't afford or can't justify the expense and that alone is a perfectly valid reason not to buy without an ignorant denial about 3D being the future of digital entertainment.

    Also glasses free is at least 5 years from being home ready at domestic prices and 7-8 years from being at mainstream prices. As the average LCD/plasma HD set has a lifespan of around 5-6 years (considerably less for core gamers who use their TVs longer than the average person) it stands to reason that you'll be replacing your current TV before glasses free 3DTVs hit the market, and as pretty much every new TV coming out now is 3D enabled allow me to be the first to welcome you to the "gimmicky bandwagon" that is 3DTV, a couple years premature perhaps, but you will buy a 3DTV, it's simply a question of when.

  • mAc062 #47 11 months ago

    3D is good but current TVs are HDMI 1.4 and can only do 60FPS at 720P or 24hz at 1080p so for consoles its fine for PC its not. The only option for pc is a monitor and they are all LCD with ghosting issues. Im waiting on a plamsa monitor with dual DVI inputs and then im sold, oh and any one thinking about a 3d tv it has to be plasma as the ghosting on LCD is really bad because of LCDs 2ms responce time compared to plasmas 000.1 ms, Ive seen this for myself as I brought my ps3 into my local TV shop and tried both plasma and LCD and they guy in the shop said all LCDs have the ghosting issue and plasma have very little or none.

  • DAN.E.B #48 11 months ago

    I see this is a typical eurogamer 3D thread

    Im too poor or too tight to buy a new TV so

    3D is a gimmick
    3D is shit
    dont like glasses
    ads nothing ect.......
    the same shit will be said about the new 4000 TVs when they come out,

  • Inmediasress #49 11 months ago

    Until the tech is ready 3D is gimmick that is somewhat working, just like the various motion sensing shit that console makers put out for their respective consoles. Then again most people are easy to impress.

  • Mr_Brown #50 11 months ago

    Nintendo and Sony are doing 3D, MS doesn't need to, most people who want it will own the 3DS anyway. It doesn't add anything, not even to movies. Its a cool feature but over a long period I would probably just turn it off.

  • alcides #51 11 months ago

    "3D is an interesting space"

    ho ho ho.

  • knightmt #52 11 months ago

    I think that ms will wait and see how the smaller sony 3d tv will perform.
    I wonder how many consoles do not use the main house tv?

  • Murton #53 11 months ago

    Britannia's newest sock: "The PS3 has HDMI 1.3. The 360 is capable of HD 3D. It already has games that you can play in HD and 3D. Please stop talking shit about something you clearly know fuck all about. It's always Sony fanboys too!"

    An excellent post with only 5 minor flaws, you like lists so I'll list them for you:

    1: PS3 is HDMI 1.4 capable
    2: 360 is only HDMI 1.3 capable which supports 3D by doing a side by side arrangement which halves the resolution, so not HD
    3: owing that it can't support a 720p minimum in HD, there are no HD 3D games on the 360, count them, none
    4: you can't call my knowledge of 3D tech into question when you make errors 1 and 2
    5: it's not "Sony fanboys" it's people understand how 3D works trying to explain to people who can't afford it and therefore don't want to understand

    I suggest you practice what you preach and read up on the subject before you post in future, might make you appear less foolish next time.

  • geeza2020 #54 11 months ago

    lol, I like the ideas here from the obvious early adopters that anyone who doesnt want a 3d tv is too poor or tight to buy one. "I've overspent on a tv so I must defend that decision by insulting all who disagree!" Stuff your technological elitism up your arse, 3d does nothing for me but give me headaches and sickness, I watched killzone 3 in 3d at a mates house for 5 minutes and felt physically sick. If you want it, great, enjoy whats out there but dont label everyone who doesnt want this vomit inducing gimmick as a cheapskate. I for one really do think 3d is a bubble that will burst when people realise that anyone with an imagination and the ability to squint while drinking copious amounts of alcohol can get the 3d effect for free! :)

  • coolbritannia #55 11 months ago

    All 3D adds for me is unwanted cost. Do not want.

  • Goldenb19 #56 11 months ago

    I really hope they do. After seeing the Sony headman from ces I want one!!! I could use my console in the lounge without stopping the missus from watchin glee :) proper immersive 3d Microsoft I want one!!!

  • darc #57 11 months ago

    "Does it add to the gaming experience? Does it distract from the gaming experience?"

    Sometimes yes, and sometimes yes.

    Motorstorm Pacific Rift 3D is about the only game I ever break out the funny glasses for. Then again, that one game was worth the price of admission. (For the record, I already had a 3D-ready TV, so price of admission was a couple hundred bucks, NOT a couple grand.)

  • darc #58 11 months ago

    "3D or not 3D,MS and Nintendo gain nothing."

    Let's be clear - Nintendo ARE pushing 3D in their own way. They're bundling cost into the 3DS and trying to leverage the fact that no one else has glasses-free technology (nor 3D in a handheld.) It's not like they're claiming no one wants 3D. Quite the opposite.

  • stanthaman #59 11 months ago

    i can't believe not one person has corrected you lot yet.
    PS3 is HDMI 1.3, XBOX 360 is HDMI 1.2, however HDMI 1.3 has enough bandwidth to deliver a 3D HD image.
    Also, earlier in the topic one person mentioned the ps3 has to drop hd audio when playing 3D movies. BULLSHIT! You can have high bitrate (higher than xbox anyway) dolby digital 5.1 through optical cable or uncompresses linear pcm 2.1 (at least, im not really sure) through hdmi.

  • PhoenixElemental #60 11 months ago

    translation "Xbox360 can't do 3D very well at all, so were gonna save it for the next machine!"

  • Spydy #61 11 months ago

    With questions like "Does it add to the gaming experience?" and "Does it detract from the gaming experience?" is a mighty head scratcher. Being a tech company you would expect MS to have these questions answered already, no?

  • Lucodeath #62 11 months ago

    @stanthaman
    The ps3 cant play the hd sound tracks when in 3d mode. Thats the dts ma an dd true tracks. Doesnt matter if you have not got a decent receiver though cos it downgrades to the normal or core tracks which can be higher than normal bitrates, still not hd though. Optical cable can ony support 2 channel pcm but hdmi supports the full 7.1 pcm. So it drops the hd sound support as I said first time round. BULLSHIT to u!
    Edited by Lucodeath at 30/06/11 @ 02:37