3D gaming is "the future", says Sony dev

By Ellie Gibson Published 17 March, 2010

Compatible TVs to take off in four years.

Sony engineer Ian Bickerstaff has said the rise of 3D gaming will depend on the uptake of compatible tellies - but he reckons it won't take long.

"We're taking a cautious approach," Bickerstaff told Gamasutra, adding that Sony is "very optimistic".

"I think [3D gaming uptake is] going to depend on the uptake of 3D televisions. We're not going to spend crazy, crazy amounts of money [on 3D games] expecting everyone tomorrow to have 3D TVs, clearly. But, we believe this is the future, and three or four years from now, you won't be able to buy a television that doesn't have a 3D capability."

As reported last week, Sony plans to release the first 3D PS3 games this summer - around the same time its first 3D TVs are shipped. According to Bickerstaff, "a lot" of SCE studios are already working on 3D titles and they're all very keen.

"To be honest, we have not had an internal project to throw at people to make their games in 3D, yet there are loads of games in 3D, like MLB 10, Super Stardust HD - that looks fantastic - and so on," he said. "And that's really just because of the enthusiasm from the developers themselves."

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (91) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Dizzy #1 2 years ago

    There is a 99% chance that they are wrong.

  • M_of_the_sys #2 2 years ago

    Will the reviews have 3D screen shots?

  • reality_cheque #3 2 years ago

    Stop trying to sell me stuff you arseholes! I don't give a fuck about blu-ray, and I'm not upgrading my TV again just because you want to shift more units.

  • DoctorZoidberg #4 2 years ago

    I don't think it will ever take off, because of the simple fact you have to wear special glasses. It's a fad. Just like it was 10 years ago, except this time they are made of plastic and not cardboard (the glasses).

    I don't know about anyone else, but I really don't want to have to wear glasses just to sit and watch TV or play games.

  • Powerslave #5 2 years ago

    3D gaming sounds very tempting. It all depends on the prices of the 3DTVs to be honest. If they're very expensive, it will take at least 5 years for the average gamer to get their hands on them, seeing as most of they people who have a console already have an HD TV now.

  • Spekingur #6 2 years ago

    I just hope that people will hold on with buying 3DTVs and not jump on the first one that is released. 3DTVs just feels like a repeat of HDTVs.
    Also, the sub-header of the article mentioned that compatible TVs will take off in 4 years. So, the 3DTVs that are released this year are not compatible?

  • kangarootoo #7 2 years ago

    "three or four years from now, you won't be able to buy a television that doesn't have a 3D capability"

    Well, almost true. I'm sure you will be able to buy non-3D supporting TVs somewhere, but they won't be current HD lines.



    I for one am not buying a new TV anytime soon as I have other demands on my money, but I've seen 3D games and it knocked my socks off. If I had the spare dosh in a year or so, I'd buy into 3D gaming at the drop of a hat. I don't care what anyone else says, I was impressed, end of story.

    Quite often discussions on this subject seem to comprise two sides, one side imagining what 3D gaming must be like and liking it, and the other side imagining what 3D gaming must be like and disliking it. The two sides then argue the pros and cons of their imagined experiences. I'm sure the problems with this approach are clear to all.

  • kangarootoo #8 2 years ago

    @DoctorZoidberg

    "I don't think it will ever take off, because of the simple fact you have to wear special glasses"

    That is what people say before they experience it. Afterwards, IF it impressed you (not everybody will be sold I'm sure), the glasses just won't matter to you. I'm not saying everyone will like it, I'm just saying that the whole glasses thing is a real non issue.

  • Stoatboy #9 2 years ago

    "I think [3D gaming uptake is] going to depend on the uptake of 3D televisions."

    Thanks for the insight. Without this brilliant piece of deduction the rest of us would probably struggle to identify what the barrier to entry is on this complex issue. Next up on the news - Man Buys Toaster, Eats More Toast.

  • tesco #10 2 years ago

    I tried the 3D tv in the Sony centre at Terminal 5. Very impressive, the images seem to go into the TV as opposed to coming out at you. Problem is everyone who tried it felt like they couldn't watch it for more than 20 minutes. And the thought of having to put on glasses to watch tv seems a step to far.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #11 2 years ago

    God theres alot of old men commenting on this forum, nothing must change change is bad, get a grip. You dont want 3D or its too expensive dont buy it, why do you get so angry that companies are developing new and better technologies. The day 3D teles launch your old tele will still work you know. Did you all have this much bile and hate when OLED tvs launched did it make you feel like your LCD\Plasma was inadequate and you had to immediatley run out and buy a new one, cursing the manufacturer all the way.

    I think its good that its the games industry that will be trying to lead the way for 3D entertainment in the home.

  • altitude2k #12 2 years ago

    Until you can get a good quality 3D image from a TV, that runs at 60fps with little distortion without having to wear glasses, I can't see this taking off.

  • woodnotes #13 2 years ago

    Sony wants to sell 1) TVs and 2) consoles.

    3D is the new Blu-Ray for them.

  • ISmoke #14 2 years ago

    Thats cool, by that time i'll wan't a new TV. My current one was top of the range when i got it and that was only a year or so ago (Grr, I hate how fast technology ages!) You can pick up 3D Monitors for quite cheap i I believe. I think my friends one for his PC was about £300 thought it is only about 24"

    You can still use it, as it has a HDMI connection though

  • Widge #15 2 years ago

    By all reports the Sony 3D TVs aren't so hot, suffering from image bleed and other artifacts. Read a review of the Panasonic Plasma's and they sound great. Only come in 50" plus sizes atm though so no use to me.

  • M_of_the_sys #16 2 years ago

    Glasses are a non-issue for me. That is all.

  • ignatiusjreilly #17 2 years ago

    Heh, most EG commenters really seem to hate 3D ;) I agree with him however.

    And I think games will be the product that makes 3D mainstream, much more than movies.

  • Geordiemp #18 2 years ago

    Dont you think they should be putting that 17 studio games effort into something else for now then, and maybe make 3D games in a couple of years.../

  • Drpwnage #19 2 years ago

    Glasses free 3D is where it's going in the longer term, that's probably a decade away though. In the meantime glasses it is, which will be the reason why this current tech stays niche for gaming and home cinema fans only.

  • ignatiusjreilly #20 2 years ago

    Dont you think they should be putting that 17 studio games effort into something else for now then, and maybe make 3D games in a couple of years.../

    Well if they put off making games until it gets popular, 3D will be in exactly the same position in two years as it is now (i.e., nowhere).

  • Gregolution #21 2 years ago

    I don't understand why there's such a backlash about this 3D push. It's not just Sony. Hollywood are bringing out loads of films, Panasonic, Samsung - everyone is behind it. All he's saying in this article is that in a few years every tv will have 3d tech in it. Ok, that's probably true AND yeah it will make gaming a little bit more immersive so whats the problem?

    I'm looking forward to it. And feck it, I'll be an early adopter too. I've wasted money on electronics my entire life and loved every minute of it, why stop now.

  • Dizzy #22 2 years ago

    "God theres alot of old men commenting on this forum, nothing must change change is bad, get a grip"

    We have nothing against new technology... quite the opposite. 3D is just bullshit to make everybody buy new movies/hardware once again. If you like *NEW* I am sure you used WAP as well on your mobile phone? No? Oh....

  • Dave52 #23 2 years ago

    Having seen a numer of 3d Movies recently (and having seen the Football on the Sky3D ad), I have to say that 3D is looking pretty tasty. Can't wait.

  • login_name #24 2 years ago

    Although the effect can be stunning if done right, on the whole I'm not that excited by 3D. I know a few here don't see the glasses as a barrier but for me, I bloody hated wearing them while watching Avatar. I spent far too much time fiddling with them, trying to get them comfortable or in a position where the frame wasn't a distraction. Almost ruined the experience.

    For a one off special, sure, but not for everyday use; at least not for me.

  • RodHull #25 2 years ago

    Lovely. Another reason for game developers to needlesly hike the price of games. That extra dimension costs money, people!

  • Sunyavadin #26 2 years ago

    I don't think it will ever take off, because of the simple fact you have to wear special glasses. It's a fad. Just like it was 10 years ago, except this time they are made of plastic and not cardboard (the glasses).

    I don't know about anyone else, but I really don't want to have to wear glasses just to sit and watch TV or play games.

    Don't worry. There was a seminar at my university recently by one of the leading researchers in the field, and glsses-free 3D is agreed by all the experts to be the only one that will ever really take off in the home market, hence all the investment in it. Right now the only issue is getting the polarised screens to refract in a way that works well no matter where you view it from. Currenly if you watch from outside a 90 degree arc in front of the screen it looks 2D.

    Bu given how much the glasses give me a headache, I'm fine with that.

    (It was interesting watching the 2D Alice in Wonderland, you can see how they filmed it with one particular point clearly in focus, and the rest of the screen slightly out of focus to draw your attention to that spot for the best 3D effect.)

  • ZuluHero #27 2 years ago

    I was watching some TV programme on the BBC the other day and some tech analyst was saying that in 10-15 years most of us will be wearing designer glasses that will automatically be able to decipher 3d images (even if you don’t need to wear glasses). The reason we will all have to wear glasses all the time is because with the way 3D is going and with so many companies ranging from film, media, television and game studios pushing it; won't just be exclusive or restricted to only Cinema for very long. It will filter out in to all aspects of daily life, for example, there will be billboards and adverts and posters. And even talk of mundane stuff like product packaging Everything around us will be able to display an image and more relevant to this discussion, 3D.

    As an already glasses wearer it's not going to be a bother to me, as it would be pretty great to be able to have one set that lets me see 3d stuff AND have my prescription in one. I already think 3D is great and go to see films doing it at every given opportunity. For people who think it’s an inconvenience to have to put on a pair of 3D glasses when they go to see a 3D film - spare a thought for people like me that have to wear 2 sets of glasses one over the other.

    And the crux of the matter is that I still gladly do it - even if its uncomfotable and i look silly - because the result is so worth it! :)

    EDIT:

    Aww.. I’m truly sorry if I offended any one-eyed, depth-perception deprived people. I guess even though i am sight impaired myself it doesn’t stop me from experiencing the wonders of 3D. I feel really sorry for you, and if giving me neg rep helps, than I’m more than glad you were able to vent your frustrations on me! :o)
    Edited by 1 at 17/03/10 @ 12:57

  • hy4000uk #28 2 years ago

    yes because if there's anyone who knows what the future will hold it's the retarded failures at sony

    that's why the walkman is still the most popular music player and the playstation is the most popular console

  • peterfll #29 2 years ago

    Get back to me and the massmarket when you've sorted out getting rid of the glasses. Ta loves.

  • CaptainScarlet #30 2 years ago

    Agreed! Sorry Sony, get rid of the glasses requirement and I'll think about it. Also good luck with convincing the average masses on commuting to it. This is a tech junkies dream and will be niche rather than mass Market for a lot more than 5 years.

  • reality_cheque #31 2 years ago

    @Zuluhero : That would suit me fine, and remove most of my concerns. I won't be buying a Sony screen though, probably Samsung as I've never had a problem with any of their products.

  • ronuds #32 2 years ago

    I don't even have an HDTV yet. I don't see myself splurging for a 3DTV anytime soon. :/

    I'm with reality_cheque, though... I just want to play games on a console, not have to worry about HDs and BDs, this that and the other thing. Sony wants me to spend thousands to play its games. I have better things to waste my money on! :p

  • chrisjm #33 2 years ago

    screw 3D, i'm off to buy some shoes...

  • telboy007 #34 2 years ago

    Why don't they just wire up our brains to some uber Sony mainframe thing and be done with it.

  • Golgo #35 2 years ago

    It's fucking not the future, you know.

  • Banksy #36 2 years ago

    3D is the new VR, which is the new 3D, which is the new 2D, but 2D VR is the real future.

  • oreillymj #37 2 years ago

    My 42" plasma will be 10 years old in Nov2015 and assuming it lasts that long, and I have the €€€€'s I'll be buying a new TV around then.

    I'd hoped that by then the we'd have decent OLED or SED set's at a reasonable price but with the recession TV makers don't seem to want to spend on re-tooling factories or R&D when punters are happy enough with inferior LCD panels.

    3D is a cheap gimmicky add-on that can attract a premium from gadget obsessed spendaholics.
    I'd prefer to spend the premium on better picture quality. Let's hope that the next 5 years bring some real innovation.

  • peterfll #38 2 years ago

    I've yet to experience any 3D gaming yet. But I've seen demos of Sky 3D and seen Avatar et al. And I will not be investing in 3D tech at home on the basis of what I've seen so far. Glasses + eye strain + comprimised 3D effect = no sale.

    And I'm one of those "early adopter" types that had a HD telly in 2003, and upgraded to full 1080p a couple of years ago....

  • GamesConnoisseur #39 2 years ago

    Didnt Sony used to say vibration controller was so passe?!

    Anyway yes correct that 3d gaming WILL depends on the uptake and truth is nobody can accurate predict the ratio of uptake and over what period of time.

    SO some of us doubt it would be as good as Sony and others would like and others believe it will be the next big thing, I suspect it would be somewhere vaguely in between and disappoints both!

  • layleeloo #40 2 years ago

    I couldnt care less about this. 3D will NOT revoulutionise gaming one bit. If the films are anything to go buy then it proves it.

    Avatar for example - a brilliant cinematic experience but as a film on its own, it was only OK. If it wasnt 3D then it would be a fairly generic and boring film. The new Alice in Wonderland I went to see at weekend another example - absolutely beautful in presentation and the 3D was amazing and made it pop. But the film itself, was again only just OK. Sure there are some 3D films where the film itself is as good as the effects like disney's UP, but if gaming goes the same direction as a lot of films then the games themselves will simply be about how they look and lack anything else. But saying that, we have been going down that route a lot with the current gen of games with the minority being outstanding games and the rest just being very pretty, but mediocre games

  • Ryze #41 2 years ago

    Owning a 3D TV will not force anyone to watch 3D programs, or play games in 3D.

    What 3D will encourage, is for the next gen of consoles to push towards 1080p 120fps for the best 3D images.

    I'm sure there will be people who own 3D TVs in the future who only very rarely turn on the 3D functionality.

    Nothing wrong with that if 3D comes as standard in 3-5 years...
    Edited by 1 at 17/03/10 @ 12:54

  • frunk #42 2 years ago

    Before anyone casts stones about this TRY IT OUT...

    If you are in Heathrow Terminal 5 - head to Sony Style store... they have a PS3 running a 3D demo reel.

    It works... it works very well, better than I thought it would.

    It will change things.

  • Darren #43 2 years ago

    I'm not convinced by this 3D thing myself as I remember it being a fad in the mid-80s that quickly died a death. The fact that this tech requires a new HDTV and for the viewer to wear special glasses doesn't appeal to me at all. Also my eyesight means that, unfortunately, this kind of 3D doesn't work too well for me and tends to give me a headache (which I got from watching Avatar in 3D before Christmas)!

    If the tech improves so we can view 3D without the need for glasses - holovision? - then I might be interested. Until then, no thanks.

  • kangarootoo #44 2 years ago

    @Dizzy

    "3D is just bullshit to make everybody buy new movies/hardware once again"

    But but but..... I genuinely LIKE it. How does your grand wisdom explain that one? I like 3D films and I like 3D games. I don't give a shit WHY someone developed it. It matters not whether they did so to make me happy, sell more TVs or feed the world's staving.... I like the end result.

    On that basis, its not bullshit is it. If you have some other measure of bullshit, I'd be interested to know what it is, but I'm going to go out on a limb and bet it includes some principled "them and us" mentality.

  • kangarootoo #45 2 years ago

    "absolute rubbish . Out of the people i know HDTV has yet to take off."

    There is nothing quite like a wide ranging survey of somebody's immediate social circle to determine the future technology needs of the western world. Good work.

  • EvilBob_leeds #46 2 years ago

    At the end of the day no one here has the foggiest whether its going to take off or not. Not Sony, not MS, not anyone of the million pundits and bloggers out there, and least of all any of us. I'm frankly stunned that Dizzy's immensley retarded "99% chance" comment got +12, it speaks volumes about the bog eyed "We hate Sony crew" who have flocked to this thread.

    I hope 3D will take off - I'm impressed by it and I think it will add something to experience of playing games much like 5.1 and HD do. As an argument for it taking off I will say this - look at DVD and VHS. In order to move to a better picture quality, people where willing to give up one of videos greatest features and one which everyone used - being able to record shows while you're out. DVD recorders and Sky + boxes have taken up the slack to some extent, but they came a long time after most people I know had consigned their Video recorders to the spare room. My point is this - if the technology is impressive enough, people will make sacrifices for it. And putting on a pair of glasses is not much of a hardship.

  • kangarootoo #47 2 years ago

    @Dizzy

    And it might stun you to learn that companies only invented games consoles to sell you games, they only invented printers to sell you printer ink and paper, they only set up the BBC to show you programmes, farmers only planted wheat to sell you bread, petrol stations only got built to sell you petrol and cinemas only exiust to sell you film tickets.

    The only companies out there that are doing what they do out of a sense of charity are.... well, charities.

  • Sanxo #48 2 years ago

    3D gaming will be a niche for a good while yet, but I think the barrier to making 3D games is probably quite low. It is going to make such games a little more expensive to produce; not just the 120fps requirement. There's a certain amount of work needed to split the single camera to a stereo camera and give some useful and not eyestrain inducing experience (inter-axial distance, convergence point etc)

    But as the guy said; it will be hard to get a TV in a few years which does not have a 3d display mode. All the relevant standards (bluray, hdmi etc) have introduced the necessary parts to make the producer-adoption straight forward. As far as consumer adoption is concerned it really depends on how hard it is being pushed. Given the TV market is in a slump at the moment, you can expect that to be a top priority.

    I can't see that there will be 3d-only titles though. That doesn't make any commercial sense at all (except to Sony, maybe). They might have the leverage over PS3 devs to 'strongly encourage' delivery of a 3d mode for titles. But they're just a fraction of the market.

  • Maledictus010 #49 2 years ago

    Let's hope the accompanying hardware will be vomit proof then. For me anyway.

  • Collymilad #50 2 years ago

    "@Dizzy

    "3D is just bullshit to make everybody buy new movies/hardware once again"

    But but but..... I genuinely LIKE it. How does your grand wisdom explain that one? "

    Fair enough, as long as you're not too stupid to realise the fact they had this 3D crap stowed away when they released HDTV, but they thought why get people to spend £1000 when you can get them to spend £2000 buying 2 TV's?

    Thats what i take issue with.
    Edited by 1 at 17/03/10 @ 13:40

  • B0MBJ4CK #51 2 years ago

    Phew...I knew it wasn't worth upgrading yet!

    /goes back to playing Uncharted 2 on 14" black and white portable

  • KayJay #52 2 years ago

    Progression & Choice.

    Simple.

  • ignatiusjreilly #53 2 years ago

    as long as you're not too stupid to realise the fact they had this 3D crap stowed away when they released HDTV, but they thought why get people to spend £1000 when you can get them to spend £2000 buying 2 TV's?

    Any evidence for this? 120Hz refresh rates and sub 8ms reponse times took a long time to come around, and new digital fiming techniques have been a big reason for the push behind this. Also, there are still loads of standards that still haven't been agreed upon. What makes you think this was all ready for a consumer release ten years ago?

  • M_of_the_sys #54 2 years ago

    "Fair enough, as long as you're not too stupid to realise the fact they had this 3D crap stowed away when they released HDTV, but they thought why get people to spend £1000 when you can get them to spend £2000 buying 2 TV's?"

    In that case I hope you don't own anything that's the least bit techological.

    Edit: As this is done with everything.
    Edited by 1 at 17/03/10 @ 14:04

  • peterfll #55 2 years ago

    I have nothing against companies trying to innovate to sell us new technology we never knew we needed. Hell, I love gadgets. But if I had a preference I'd prefer companies like Sony to invest in technologies like OLED first. Perfect the HD standard of televisions before giving us the next, big innovation. HD to me was an obvious upgrade, I could immediately see the benefit and it wasn't a hard sell.

    Ultra thin, ultra bright, great contrast and lower power consumption, and perhaps better web enabled televisions. I'd buy one of those in the next 3 - 5 years.

    However, I simply don't feel the same about this 3D technology. Glasses and eye strain for a flawed effect and I am speaking from personal experience.

  • Petulant_Radish #56 2 years ago

    3D movies have been around since 1922, it's hardly a new fad...

  • Arwin #57 2 years ago

    I can't wait. I really love 3D movies and combined with 3D motion controllers it should be downright awesome.

    Too bad that I can't afford it day one - will probably have to wait until somewhere Q1 or beginning Q2 of 2011.

  • Sanxo #58 2 years ago

    @MattDamon

    I think that they must be talking about active shutter glasses; so the TV would need an RF transmitter to broadcast the sync signal and the glasses would be battery powered.

    I find it extremely unlikely that they're talking about anaglyph (red/blue or green) stereo nor polarized light.
    Edited by 1 at 17/03/10 @ 14:57

  • kangarootoo #59 2 years ago

    @Collymilad

    "Fair enough, as long as you're not too stupid to realise the fact they had this 3D crap stowed away when they released HDTV, but they thought why get people to spend £1000 when you can get them to spend £2000 buying 2 TV's?"

    Really?

    I of course can't say either way, but I smell a tin foil hat being polished somewhere ;)

    Besides, another way of looking at it is that tech takes time to develop for market. If whilst Sony were designing and building HD TVs they also had an R&D department somewhere looking into 3D TV... isn't that just normal? I mean isn't that what BMW, Apple and Persil are probably doing right now?

    What else could they do, skip a generation of products and just enter the HD TV market with their 3D stuff?

  • Widge #60 2 years ago

    Now the thing about glasses vs non-glasses will be the quality of 3D that you are able to experience. Glasses should offer a "pop-out" experience where the image can come right out of your TV, where the all in one will be more like a "window into a world".

    I would quite like an Oblivion where you sword and shield is hovering in front of my TV, trying to fend off some bugger from Cyrodil trying to intrude into my front room.

    I guess it will fall to whatever is the most popular method at the end of the day.

  • kangarootoo #61 2 years ago

    @MattDamon

    "So if you're existing HD telly does 120 Hz, then you are fine, right?"

    I think so. You will still need the other bits, but if your telly is already well specced you may not need a new one (not my area of expertise, my current telly only does 1080i :( ).


    @Sanxo

    "so the TV would need an RF transmitter to broadcast the sync signal and the glasses would be battery powered."

    I always kind of assumed that bit would sit somwehere between the PS3 and TV. I'm being a techno thicko too :)

  • Sanxo #62 2 years ago

    @MattDamon

    I think for Avatar they've been using both; a mate of mine saw it with the active glasses but when I saw in a different place they were using polarized glasses:

    [link url=http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/XpanD_3D
    ]http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/XpanD_3D
    [/link]
    [link url=http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Real-D
    ]http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Real-D
    [/link]

    For those interested here is a link to a website with lots of interesting info run by UK company who seem to want to make 3d film not suck so hard.

    [link url=http://www.the3drevol ution.com/
    ]http://www.the3drevol ution.com/
    [/link]

  • Dizzy #63 2 years ago

    "But but but..... I genuinely LIKE it. How does your grand wisdom explain that one? ""

    Of course people can like it. My argument was just that it has a small chance of becoming mainstream because it is actually a rip-off and it needs glasses. Seriously... can you see people wearing 3D glasses in front of TV all the time? It has failure written all over it as a commercial product. That doesn't mean the technology is crap.

  • Widge #64 2 years ago

    There are enough people putting their eggs in this basket to make it succeed. TV manufacturers on board, PC hardware getting on board, Sony getting on board, Sky on board, even Microsoft doing 3D demos. That is a decent push really.

  • Doctor_What #65 2 years ago

    Most games development companies can barely get their games to run at 30fps at the moment, so how likely it is that they'll be able to double their optimisations in the next 4 years?

    Forget the hardware - if people can't get their games working at a solid framerate then that's really not going to help sell 3D to the games buying public.

  • ignatiusjreilly #66 2 years ago

    Getting a game to run at 60FPS isn't difficult if you concentrate on that over the graphics. The next-generation of consoles could easily hit 60FPS with graphics better than today, so they will just make choices about where to spend the processing power.

  • Sanxo #67 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I was just doing a bit of after-lunch armchair engineering too.

    I don't think there needs to be, however having a dongle could be a great solution for the poor sods who brought a normal non-3d HDTV capable of 120Hz+. As long it is was HDMI compliant it could pass through alternating left/right images at 60Hz *and* provide the sync signal.

    Now, how do I patent this...

    Edited for stupidity: not sure any such TV exists
    Edited by 1 at 17/03/10 @ 15:47

  • Spekingur #68 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo: But that's just your opinion. Your opinion does not equal fact ;)
    (edit: comment appropiate to your first post)

    I'm all for non-intrusive 3D - something that does not require me to put stuff on to enjoy it. And I would hate going out with 3D enabled glasses where everyone wears them and be bombarded with intrusive advertising that I couldn't turn off - just because I looked at something.
    Wearing special glasses to watch movies or play games in a certain way just feels gimmicky - and, in its current form, is being sold off to the public as something more ('Teh Graetsts Innovaitonz evurh' if you would like to believe Sony).
    Edited by 2 at 17/03/10 @ 15:46

  • ignatiusjreilly #69 2 years ago

    Don't really agree with your point (people have been saying stuff like this about phones for years - there's always something new around the corner) but you get a +1 from me for getting a Paul Weller quote in your post.

    We are all changing men, waiting for the next bang as the great man said in that very song :)

  • Widge #70 2 years ago

    'Teh Graetsts Innovaitonz evurh'

    So just Sony talking about this 3D thing then.

  • Spekingur #71 2 years ago

    The greatest innovation in gaming is when we get holorooms/-decks.

  • kangarootoo #72 2 years ago

    @Dizzy

    Not all the time, but all the time they are watching 3D content, sure.

    Seriously, if every game on my shelf supported 3D I would happily wear shutter glasses every time I did any gaming. I would probably play through a few of them (Oblivion) again just BECAUSE they supported 3D.


    "It has failure written all over it as a commercial product"

    Glasses based 3D may not make it as a widespread mainsteam product, but a COMMERCIAL produst is something else. The first gen may not end up in every living room, but that doesn't make it a commercial failure. Also, the future of 3D TV depends on slowly building an installed base. The initially small uptake of glasses based solutions means SOME penetration, which means more 3D content being made (games and films) with the home market in mind. Over time this penetration will grow, as will the volume of content.

    Anybody that releases a product that is "good buy" for everyone on day one, probably isn't being very innovative. Even the iPhone was pricey and hardcore when it first came out.



    @Sanxo

    Whilst we are having brainstorms, here is my suggestion for patent potential.

    Make your TV support 240Hz instead of 120Hz. Add two pairs of headphones. Make frame 1 go to my left eye, frame 3 to my right eye, frame 2 to the left eye of another set of specs stuck on the head of my girlfriend, make frame 4 to her right eye. Cycle frames in groups of 4 thus.

    Now I can play a game in 3D and she can watch Sex & the City in 3D... ON THE SAME TV SET!!

    Or how using the same tech so that two players can play split screen co-op without splitting the screen!!

    Exclamation marks!!

    I have seen the future :)

  • kangarootoo #73 2 years ago

    @Spekingur

    I'm not saying its perfect, I'm just saying its not the barrier many suggest it is. Once you've played a few games in 3D, the glasses are a welcome compromise made in the name of increased fun.

    The big downside for me with glasses is not the wearing of them, but the requirement for each audience member to have a set. A friend can't just pop round to watch a film with you if you are one set short. THAT is the barrier for me, but its only a barrier in the more social situations. Lone gaming at home... I don't think glasses will matter to those that care enough about 3D to spend wodges on a new telly.

  • EvilBob_leeds #74 2 years ago

    "My argument was just that it has a small chance of becoming mainstream because it is actually a rip-off and it needs glasses"

    a) And you assign that chance based on what frame of reference? In fact, you gave it a number in an earlier post - a 99% chance of failure. Now either you've got a holographic Dean Stockwell stood behind you punching things into a multicoloured palm top and telling you the odds of things as Ziggy sees them, or you're talking out of your arse.

    b) Steve Ballmer called from the top of an immense pile of diamonds and honey covered lesbian Eva Green clones he bought with the proceeds of selling Windows and Office to point out that producing blatant and shite rip offs won't stop your products from becoming mainstream.
    Edited by 2 at 17/03/10 @ 16:56

  • kangarootoo #75 2 years ago

    A subset of my proposed zany tech above that would work fine on the first gen of 3D TVs is two people being able to watch two different 2D video feeds on the same screen, by having both lenses set "left" on one pair of specs and both lenses set "right" on the other.

    That would allow for the non-split-split-screen I was on about, thought I'm not sure how many gamers would be community spirited enough to sacrifice the 3rd dimension for their buddy :)

  • kangarootoo #76 2 years ago

    @spogges

    If you have to wear glasses when eating the garlic bread, I would imagine not ;)

  • TRUTH #77 2 years ago

    I had a chance to to experience 3D at Term 5...Was impressed - but just did not seem right!...After 20 odd minutes, you feel need to look away.

    3D will not be for everyone, to many problems with input of image so all people can view without having to look away or feel a bit sick because of the images.

  • Les #78 2 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    "THAT is the barrier for me, but its only a barrier in the more social situations."

    I agree that in solo gaming sessions the glasses will be a minor hindrance. However, regular TV watching, as well as movies are mainly a social experience for me in which eye contact is essential. Might be that more people feel that way and that might hinder 3DTV adoption as most people still use their TV for watching TV. On the other hand, it appears that manufacturers have decided that 3D will be a standard bullet point on the future TV spec list regardless of whether consumers care much for it or not. The "build it and they will come.... eventually" approach.

  • Spekingur #79 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo: In my opinion (and this is just my opinion) is that people are just jumping on the 3DTV bandwagon way too soon. The tech is still commercially new.
    The (long-term) effects it can have on people seem to be quite vacant as well.

    Asbestos for example sounded awesome when it was first introduced. A couple of decades down the line they found it can cause lungcancer. Now, I'm not comparing the two, not at all. But if getting dizzy and having a borked up depth perception after only two hours of watching (based on my own experience and a couple of my mates) then something isn't proper. At least, not proper for us who experience these symptoms.

    It just makes me a bit annoyed that some just seem to blindly jump onto praise and promises so soon after all the early-version-HDTV "fiasco".
    Does 3D look good and pretty and make some do a tiny bit of nerdgasm? Yes. But so does Pamela Anderson - and more than half of her looks is fake :p
    Still, you can enjoy both.

  • Sanxo #80 2 years ago

    Curious fact: The 3d film fad reappears roughly every 30 years, and normally in response to technological change.

    1950s: TV
    1970-80s: VCR
    2000-10s: Video streaming?


  • Les #81 2 years ago

    "In my opinion (and this is just my opinion) is that people are just jumping on the 3DTV bandwagon way too soon. The tech is still commercially new."

    No offense, but you really have a weird sense of how the tech sector should work. If there wouldn't be people jumping on the 3DTV bandwagon, the tech would never become 'commercially old' (whatever that might mean).

  • devilmyarse #82 2 years ago

    I don't understand why you need a new TV. I have a Panasonic Viera that runs at 420hz. Almost 4 times the required refresh rate for 1080p60 in 3D (120hz is the minimum). Why don't they just release bluetooth shutter glasses for those with displays already fast enough to cope with.

    I personally think 3D is a complete fad. It will disappear again. I'm just not interested in seeing anything in 3D, I don't see what the benefits are. It doesn't add anything to the experience. The only thing that could add to the gaming experience is head tracking, which can be done with a wii mote and 2D screen anyway...

  • Slipstream #83 2 years ago

    Okay, undoubtedly Sony will try to break into the 3D television market full force, it's what they do, and they will attempt brainwash the masses with clever marketing to dispel the negativity surrounding having to wear 3D glasses when you want to watch your TV.
    If this works for them, then yes, I don't see why 3D gaming wont take off, it is, after all, proven time and time again that people have more money than sense.
    and with that last comment you have my thoughts on the entirety of this project.

  • Spekingur #84 2 years ago

    @Les: Commerically accepted would be the next phase. Then commercially outdated. Commercially new basically means that consumer 'results' are unknown for the product.
    For 3DTVs to evolve and get cheaper consumers need to buy them - but 3DTVs will be pretty expensive to start (much like HDTVs). It's just... how the HDTVs started out with no HDMI connectors. If 3D becomes a standard in TVs then great. But I would just wait till then and not buy one in the first year they get released. I've got burned too many times with hardware not to be cautious (maybe overly so).

    EDIT
    One immediate good thing can come from 3DTVs becoming very popular. "Normal" HDTVs are bound to get cheaper.
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/10 @ 01:25

  • bumgut #85 2 years ago

    Next time I buy a monitor, it'll be 120Hz...

    Thats all the future proofing I need.

  • kangarootoo #86 2 years ago

    @Les

    I think by the time that "all" TV is 3D, glasses will be behind us.

    For special occasions, I don't see glasses being an issue, and I certainly don't see them being much of a barrier for those interested in spending wads of dosh to early adopt. But I agree that glasses would be a problem if everytime you turned on the TV you needed to grab a pair. However, I don't see that kind of usage behaviour for years yet, as it requires consistent 3D content. For now, sitting down to watch a movie in 3D is sort of an "event", even in a family situation.

    I agree also that eye contact is important, but I don't see it as a deal breaker. Compromises will always be made. Online gaming means no eye contact, but its advantages made the LAN party far less commonplace.


    @Spekingur

    I've yet to see proper numbers regarding how many people suffer any sort of eye strain or mental fatigue from watching 3D content, or how long it takes those effects to manifest in those that suffer from them.

    I'm not belittling the negative experiences that some people have, but until someone can give me a percentage of the population type number, I don't know whether that is a serious factor or not in determining market acceptance.

    Bad news always spreads faster and louder, so "lots of people" (some of whom have their own agenda) saying they suffer is not reliable imo.

  • kangarootoo #87 2 years ago

    @MattDamon

    "do dirty stuff like the old bird in sex in city"

    "EDIT: Although those messages could get a bit weird if your mate comes round for two player co-op on same screen."

    Proper lol :)

  • oreillymj #88 2 years ago

    Yeh, this'll never take off

    http://ww w.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...

  • potter73 #89 2 years ago

    To me, the whole 3D bandwagon is nothing more than a gimmick. My concern is, that as with the movie industry 3D is being forced down our throats whether we like it or not (Avatar, is good example....average film that got everyone creaming in their pants over )

    3D in games should not be the the primary concern, and definately if its not going to offer anything more than a cosmetic enhancement. Also, will 3D be as effective on the smaller screens that people tend to have at home (I got a 42", but can't see the impact being the same as if you were viewing on a cinema size screen)

  • oreillymj #90 2 years ago

    yep, definitely a gimmick http://fo otball365.com/story/0,17033,865...

  • Jelly_Head #91 2 years ago

    @oreilleymj

    Yes, because media outlets with such integrity as Sky and the Daily Mail would never jump on a money-spinning bandwagon... oh no.