3D is the new stereo sound, says Ubi

By Ellie Gibson Published 30 November, 2009

"No one wants to go back to mono."

Ubisoft Montreal boss Yannis Mallat has said the company is confident the future of gaming lies in 3D technology.

"3D is to pictures what Dolby Stereo was to sound," he told the Financial Post. "No one wants to go back to mono."

Ubi's first 3D game is Avatar, based on the new James Cameron film of the same name. To play the game in 3D you need a telly which projects polarised light and special glasses. According to Mallat, Ubi wouldn't have bothered putting in the option if it didn't think lots of consumers will end up buying the gear.

In the future, he added, Ubi will use console technology to render images in real-time to the same standard as high-def TV programmes. "That might mean [Ubisoft] releasing movies and video games at the same time," he said. "Why not?"

James Cameron's Avatar: The Game will be released on 4th December. For the full lowdown visit the gamepage.

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 (69) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • matrim83 #1 2 years ago

    I like the idea but till we have decent display options that can do it justice its a long way away.

  • bad09 #2 2 years ago

    No no no.

    It's cool, I'll buy into it when it a better price, but I do not want everything in 3D. No no no Ubisuit.

  • Raz76 #3 2 years ago

    I saw Up in 3D and I have had absolutely no problem going back to 2D. In fact I thought the novelty wore off pretty quick.

  • Xerx3s #4 2 years ago

    I will buy into it when it doesn't require extra equipment. The effect can be made with off the shelf components and some fancy programming.

  • AJGB #5 2 years ago

    The analogy is crap, anyway. You don't need to wear stupid goggles to hear stereo sound.

  • Doctor_What #6 2 years ago

    Would he like to buy an outfit from me? It's made of cloth that can only be seen by very intelligent people...

  • masterson #7 2 years ago

    Indeed, would Stereo have replaced mono if you could only get it via headphones?

  • Eraser #8 2 years ago

    The 3D bit added nothing to Up.
    Since Avatar looks like it'll be a shit movie anyway, 3D isn't going to save it's grace.

  • waynenot #9 2 years ago

    No, no it isn't. It's a gimmick and will do its schtick as it has in decades past and pack itself in mothballs for another ten to twenty years. And the sound analogy is shit.
    Edited by 2 at 30/11/09 @ 10:02

  • mcbi4kh2 #10 2 years ago

    Until I can do it without wearing an extra pair of glasses, no. Two sets don't sit too well.
    Edited by 2 at 30/11/09 @ 10:03

  • Evolution #11 2 years ago

    I still enjoy my sprite based 2D games on the DS more so than anything your company makes, mate.

  • Milk #12 2 years ago

    Oh dear . . .

    You are about 15 years early guys. Come back in 2020 (ish) and try again.

    /has only just bought a new TV

  • OllyJ #13 2 years ago

    Surely 3D is the 7.1 surround? as in it'll take forever to catch on.

  • Skurmedel #14 2 years ago

    Kinda cool until your eyes freak out.

  • Miths #15 2 years ago

    Isn't this thing with wearing silly glasses for watching 3D content supposed to be a thing of the past soon? I haven't really bothered to read much about the technology yet, but I'm pretty sure I've been hearing things about 3D TVs?

  • Guildenstern #16 2 years ago

    It does look cool, but makes my eyes feel like they are going to pop out of my skull very quickly. Sadly, we'll only get real 3D when somebody figures a way to make a monitor capable of emitting multiple directed rays of light from every pixel. In other words, not very soon.
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/09 @ 10:25

  • LiveForever #17 2 years ago

    Ubisoft recent strategy => new tech + mediocre gameplay = win win!!
    Atleast they are taking risks. 3D would have been better used in AC2.

  • Darren #18 2 years ago

    Well I suffer from a slight squint from having whooping cough when I was two years old so this 3D technology doesn't quite work for me. I find I have to concentrate to make the two images blend together and that usually results in a headache. Sometimes it looks good but most of the time I see it as two slightly offset images which is exactly what it is.

    Even with that though I don't believe 3D is anything more than a gimmick that comes and goes every few years. It's back now in order to drag more people into the cinemas but I don't expect it will last. It never lasted in the 80s or 50s either. As far as the home goes, this 3D technology requires new 120 Hz displays and I don't think people are going to dash out and buy yet another new HDTV for the few movies that will play in 3D, not when it could turn out to be another short-lived fad. It's not like you're going to see all the old movies and TV shows in 3D either as they were never filmed with it in mind.

    If it takes off in a big way then as long as there's always the option to watch the movies in good old-fashioned 2D then I'll be happy with that.

  • Bigglesworth #19 2 years ago

    Can someone please educate me as to what's so great about this "3D" malarky? My eyes already work in 3D, thanks, I don't want to have to buy yet more overpriced technology to accomodate the A/V industry's latest fad.

  • greekgoddj #20 2 years ago

    Clearly doesn't know that Dolby didn't come up with stereo.

    Also 3D video is equivelant to binaural stereo.

  • Darren #21 2 years ago

    And another thing... as far as 3D games go, if current PC technology is anything to go by it will lead to more compromises in the game's framerate and the quality of graphics. With the NVIDIA 3D stereoscopic glasses for example in order for a game to run at 60 fps, it needs to be able to render at 120 fps, 60 fps for each eye... or that's my understanding of it anyway based on the Resident Evil 5 benchmark which sees 120 fps as being the ideal framerate for 3D.

    I don't think it'll even take off on the PC myself as it requires a new display and more powerful graphics cards to maintain a playable framerate. It's a nice concept, I'm all for new ideas and everything, but I believe we're years off 3D becoming a standard myself and then who wants to wear special glasses to watch TV, wouldn't we all prefer holographic vision? ;)

  • loveless #22 2 years ago

    I've tried every means of displaying 3D images demonstrated to the public since the mid-eighties - coloured lenses, polarised lenses, mini-screens, refracting displays...

    Never has it ever been anything more than a minor novelty, with absolutely NO desire to use it as a matter of course.

  • butler` #23 2 years ago

    this comment thread gives me some faith in fellow man

    3D is a novelty and will be for many years to come until VR technology gets its move on

  • Mr_Brown #24 2 years ago

    I love how 3D has been the future since the 60's (maybe earlier) and everytime the fads come back we're all 'ready' for it now. When are they going to learn that its just a gimmick people get bored of once the novelty has wore off. I've seen quite a few 3D movies recently one in 2D and then 3D and it seriously adds nothing to movie. It didn't give me any sense of actually being there or having things fly at me.

  • light&shadow #25 2 years ago

    masterson : "Indeed, would Stereo have replaced mono if you could only get it via headphones?"

    You're absolutely right. I think this technology is a byproduct of the major movie studios' push to try and get some consumer back to the theaters. It will never reach mass market IMHO.

    By the way, this is not 3D, this is just stereoscopic imaging. You don't have volume representation, no occlusion and no paralax effect if you move around.

    The next step will be autostereoscopic displays. Same effect without glass. This kind of display require the user to sand still in a sweet spot otherwise the 3d effect disapear. So again, too many restrictions to apply to a wide audience.

    But the true nextgen display evolution is volumetric display, or holographic. Various techniques are already working, they are just too expensive right now. Check this out:

    [link url=http://www.holografika.co m/
    ]http://www.holografika.co m/
    [/link]

    When this becomes cheap, it will revolutionnize the way we look at games/films I think. Just think at how occlusion/parallax can become part of gameplay mecanics for instance.

  • spekkeh #26 2 years ago

    Blue is the new orange, nobody wants to go back to orange. Incidentally, buy this blue cloth from us.

  • bad09 #27 2 years ago

    "Can someone please educate me as to what's so great about this "3D" malarky? My eyes already work in 3D, thanks, I don't want to have to buy yet more overpriced technology to accomodate the A/V industry's latest fad."

    I have to say, being an old fart, I remember the 80's 3D re-invention (it's been around since the 50's or 60's), it was a fad back then and I thought it would be this time.

    I haven't seen any 3D movies (not interested) but I tried NFS: Shift at the EG Expo and even on a small PC screen in a well lit hall it was amazing and everyone who tried it while I was there thought so to. The HUD hung in mid air and the depth of the track and the feeling of actually sitting in the car was surreal. plus the glasses are more like sunglasses now not the weird green/red of before. While I don't want EVERYTHING 3D, I did come out of the Expo knowing I'll invest at some point.

  • Eraser #28 2 years ago

    "Can someone please educate me as to what's so great about this "3D" malarky? My eyes already work in 3D, thanks, I don't want to have to buy yet more overpriced technology to accomodate the A/V industry's latest fad."

    Yes your eyes work in 3D but ultimately when you're looking at a screen, you're looking at a flat, 2D surface.
    In fact, your eyes work in 2D as well, but your brain makes a 3D image out of it. It does this by merging the seperate 2D images from your eyes together into a 3D representation. Each eye observes an object from a slightly different angle and that's exactly what 3D video does as well.

    It renders double the number of frames of conventional video, where every other frame is meant for a single eye. By feeding different images to each eye, the idea of 3D is created. In practice, this means that objects that are closer to the viewer actually do appear closer than objects that are farther away.

    While technically it's an interesting feat, it still comes at a far too large cost (both in terms of money and practicality) for the benefits it offers.

  • Vin #29 2 years ago

    The only thing 3D gave me was a right bastard behind the eyes.

  • Chazmeister #30 2 years ago

    Considering how many people still don't have HD TV's, and even then, many of those that do don't have a HD service. I don't see 3D TV taking off for quite some years yet, and even then they'll need to ditch those silly glasses for it to have any wide spread popularity.

  • MrScruffier #31 2 years ago

    I tend to find when I'm watching 3D films that I have to periodically remind myself that it's in 3D and coax myself back to marveling innocence, often from boredom.

  • BabyJesus #32 2 years ago

    I'll stick with my HD telly for the foreseeable future thankyouverymuch.

    Wake me up when we have holodecks.

  • penhalion #33 2 years ago

    People are only just buying hd screens so how the heck they will be getting 10k plus circular polarized 40 inch screens any time soon is a little far fetched. It's going to take a full on 3D tv broadcast bombardment and sub 1 thousand pound screens to even make an impact in the market.
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/09 @ 12:57

  • mr_pink #34 2 years ago

    Well poo to you lot, I think 3d is pretty rad. It would be better though if the 3d was utilised to make some new gameplay concepts that couldn't be done in 2d rather than just to enhance existing visuals.

  • the_mtfr #35 2 years ago

    The guy is a recycle bin visionaire. I like for example BlueSky's and Pixar's animations in 2D so I can concentrate on the superb and funny details. There's just *some* of the movies who are suited for 3D.

  • Miths #36 2 years ago

    What happened to virtual reality by the way? I remember way back in '92 on a school trip to London, those huge black and yellow VR helmets and gloves were all the rage in the arcades over there (I never got around to giving it a try myself though - can't remember why, but I probably didn't feel like standing in line for half an hour).

    Did that type of VR ever actually amount to anything in the entertainment industry? I seem to recall reading about it being used in certain fields of science, but I'm having a much harder time remembering coming across anything about VR ever being used for games again.

  • hiddenranbir #37 2 years ago

    Psst, Ubisoft. Not even HDTVs have become the standard yet and you're talking about 3D!?

  • davisorle #38 2 years ago

    No, but surround ( 5.1 & up ) has already replaced Stereo for me. Like ive said before im a sucker for good quality. Ive even made most my friends let me build their entertaintment center the least and place all the speakers, in some cases choose tv and player equipment other than speakers, just so I can enjoy myself when we hang at their places.. Yeah when I start using 3D I wont like not using it no more and thats why I wont be using 3D till I buy me full 3D equipment to know ill be capable to enjoy whatever is thrown at me at its max. ( not thrown since im a consumer with will of his own, not many left if you ask me.. )

    So I can understand what they say but they should know that the public just got equiped with HD tvs. Not many will go get themselves 3D capable equipment just cause of their release. That will not happen and even a 3D junky like me wont do it and thats how I know.. Simple stuff :p Cant wait till its worth its money with more support though. Ofc ill be there and waiting for it like many others.

  • Bravestinsane #39 2 years ago

    Student here so hope in hell of experiencing any of this as i can't afford to buy new TV's for all this new stuff. Going to stick with full hd for now.

    On the bright side hopefully in a few years time a lot more games will have this at which point the TVs will be cheaper and ill have one.

    Good to see this moving forward onto consoles as well.

  • rhinoxious #40 2 years ago

    I'd say 3D was the new surround sound, some people will want and will swear by it, but decades after its release the majority of people simply still won't bother because of the extra kit required.

  • Bravestinsane #41 2 years ago

    @rhinoxious

    you couldn't of said it better.

    Myself i have surround sound and it is so much better hearing things all around you is so much better in games, and films.

    But 3D wont be like that until i can walk around a full interactive holographic deck. Images popping out of a screen would irritate me i would much prefer to have surround rather than that.

  • sneetch #42 2 years ago

    I'm more interested in head tracking tbh; you get the same basic effect but without the glasses and eye strain. :)

    I'm hoping someone will use it in Natal. It'll only work with single-player-per-screen games but that's ok in my book.

    Edit: realised that not everyone will be familiar with the term. Johnny Chung Lee did some great concept work using wii remotes http://johnnylee.n et/projects/wii/
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/09 @ 14:45

  • Fleeby #43 2 years ago

    ""3D is to pictures what Dolby Stereo was to sound," he told the Financial Post. "No one wants to go back to mono." "

    Bollocks.

  • Monkey_Puncher #44 2 years ago

    Complete and utter nonsense!

    3D is a completely worthless gimmick that should stay in American theme parks. It brings absolutely nothing to films, especially live action films, where as Stereo Sound was a massive and worthwhile step forward.

    Oh and Avatar looks about as appealing as shots of Joe Brand with her gash out.

  • spenner #45 2 years ago

    The only 3D thing I have seen that looks remotley interesting for gaming was that thing that guy did with the Wii remote. Cant remember his name and think google gobbled him up but it looked wicked.

    I don't want this one I want that one

    EDIT thats the guy

    http://johnnylee.n et/projects/wii/
    Edited by 2 at 30/11/09 @ 15:50

  • spekkeh #46 2 years ago

    Well poo to you lot, I think 3d is pretty rad. It would be better though if the 3d was utilised to make some new gameplay concepts that couldn't be done in 2d rather than just to enhance existing visuals.

    But there's the rub: it can't do anything fundamentally different, because it's essentially the same as the telly. Only your point of view, or window you're seeing through, is placed in front of the screen, instead of at it. The 3D inside your television is the same as the 3D that will be projected outwards. The experience can be different, but not the gameplay.

  • Sunyavadin #47 2 years ago

    The analogy is crap, anyway. You don't need to wear stupid goggles to hear stereo sound.

    And you don't for 3D TVs demonstrated by Philips and others either, it's just the dinosaurs in the industry who are behind the times with their 3D display designs, which will never take off because they change too much in a step backwards. The successful ones will be the ones which use multiple angles on the same image. The gaming industry can adapt better of course, as no matter how cameras need to be set up for competing displays, you can patch a game to render output however you like. The 360 may be better set up for this, as several games like Halo already render multiple times in sub-HD resolution, this could be altered to render multiple angles.


    And half the TVs in my flat still have Mono sound. It's not like Stereo was ever a big deal.

  • Redeye #48 2 years ago

    And it still won't work for me and many others, so please, Mr. Ubisoft, kindly stick it up your arse.

  • Miths #49 2 years ago

    "And half the TVs in my flat still have Mono sound. It's not like Stereo was ever a big deal."

    Just because that statement sounded so utterly ridiculous to me I decided to give music in mono a try (outside of old clock radios and a TV or two ten years or so ago, I don't think I've actually heard anything in mono for 15+ years).
    Foobar2000 has a "downmix to mono" function so I activated it and tried it on songs from a few of the artists I usually listen to (Springsteen, The Cardigans, Tori Amos, Sarah McLachlan) and calling the experience flat would be the understatement of the century - which disabling the mono plugin in the middle of a song instantly confirmed, when the clear channel separation and soundstage suddenly brought the music back to life.

    But of course, just because I think mono sound is utterly lifeless, it certainly doesn't mean I agree with that "3D is the new stereo sound" statement from Ubisoft.

  • teabagger #50 2 years ago

    I think proper 3D games will be ace, but clearly I'm a technology whore and in the minority!

  • smelly #51 2 years ago

    quote : "The 360 may be better set up for this, as several games like Halo already render multiple times in sub-HD resolution"

    ?

    ..

    ?

    !!!?

    ..

    *facepalm*

  • Sunyavadin #52 2 years ago

    Why the -1?

    It's true. Halo 3 renders in two frame buffers simultaneously at 640p. One rendering HDR, one LDR. This shows that the graphics hardware is capable of smoothly rendering the same frame in multiple buffers. This can be adapted very easily to render the same frame from multiple angles, rather than with different dynamic ranges.

    Most likely the graphics hardware of the PS3 can handle it pretty well too, though as we've seen in just about every cross-format comparison, the PS3 loses out because of how it handles graphics memory, so it may not lend itself so well to it.

    I *DO* however believe 3D TV *IS* going to become the standard, and will see FAR greater uptake once it becomes practical, than HD ever did. Because unlike HD, it offers something SIGNIFICANTLY new to people. It's like cars. Nobody bothered with them until they could outrun horses.
    Edited by 2 at 30/11/09 @ 17:54

  • chasejamie #53 2 years ago

    Of course Ubi is going to big up 3D when they have a 3D game to sell. Avatar looks awful though, the game and film. Hopefully I'm wrong. All those years gone when Cameron could of been making a new Aliens film. The scary ones, not the smurf ones. I'm just bitter because I don't have binocular vision. So no 3D for me anyway.

  • giant_frying_pan #54 2 years ago

    What you lose with going to see 3D films (a lot of the colour and vibrancy of the image itself) is better than what you gain, in my opinion. That and the fact that certain cinema chains force you to subsidise their new hardware each and every time you see a 3D film.

  • menage #55 2 years ago

    Gimmick

    And one I really don't care about
    Edited by 1 at 30/11/09 @ 18:19

  • smelly #56 2 years ago

    I disagree with most of you.. i've seen displays capable of displaying 3d without glasses.. and i personally think it's the future.. it's REALLY good, and would be GREAT for fps games...

    In the meantime, if developers want you to wear glasses for the effect.. great, they can put IR transmitters on them and do head tracking at the same time...

    Im personally much more excited about prospect of 3D displays than i ever was about HD - which to me has always been a relatively unnecessary gimmick.


    As for the halo 3 guy above.. I could try explaining it to you, but it's obvious you wont understand - so i wont.

    Edited by 1 at 30/11/09 @ 18:33

  • oktava #57 2 years ago

    The analogy is kinda crap since every Audio Engineer knows that mono is still king. Be it in Film, Music or Games. Everything really important is pinpointed right in the middle.

  • Chufty #58 2 years ago

    3D games are awesome. Anyone who has commented otherwise hasn't tried the NEW GENERATION of 3D games hardware (that's nothing like the 30hz stereoscopic nonsense of 10 years ago, for the record.) It's a great visual effect and the active glasses are very lightweight and do not hurt your eyes.

    The expensive piece of hardware is the monitor, but they will come down in price before too long. It does not add a major overhead to the graphics hardware requirement (it is NOT rendering the entire scene twice per frame!)

    However, Avatar the game is rubbish and isn't going to be the game to convert anyone to it. Try again, Ubisoft.

  • callum9999 #59 2 years ago

    While it's stupid to compare Stereo sound to the current 3D we have at the moment, it is equally stupid to think because you a) don't like it or b) can't see it, 3D is a rubbish gimmic no-one likes.

    I personally love 3D - so do a lot of other people. For example, "The Final Destination 3D" has made far more money than the previous final destinations, and by anyone I know who has seen it, it isn't as good as the others. It therefore goes without saying that a lot of people went to see this because it was in 3D.

    Demand for 3D exists, whether you like it or not.

  • smelly #60 2 years ago

    If no-one can see the advantage to having "depth" in a fps then you're obviously not thinking right.

  • Froettmaning #61 2 years ago

    "To play the game in 3D you need a telly which projects polarised light and special glasses."

    Are you sure about that?

  • djed #62 2 years ago

    this is not meant for a gaming audience. It is meant for shareholders and rich investors who pumped money into ubisoft to get them to use 3d technology for the Avatar game; The head of Ubisoft pronouncing 3D tech to be the 'way forward' and making nonsensical analogies that only capitalists would have the brains to understand.

  • gnrlstuart #63 2 years ago

    stereo made it because it was cheap, easy to implement and dosent require any fiddling about, its just there. HD and dolby surround still havent become standard because they require extra cost, arent standard with most boxes and TV packages, and can be fiddly to set up, (buying HDMI, copper cabling, amplifiers and whatnot.) ive found that the only way for 3D to succeed would be for every TV to be capable of it, without having to wear glasses, and absolutely no barriers to it whatsoever, otherwise takeup would be very slow. im pretty tech savvy, but im not quite sure if my TV is capable of reflecting polarised light....

  • UncleLou #64 2 years ago

    Surely 3D is the 7.1 surround? as in it'll take forever to catch on.

    Exactly. And anybody with a serious interest in listening to music will do so on a no-frills stereo setup.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #65 2 years ago

    Do they mean to say that Avatar won't support anaglyph or Colorcode glasses so that everyone can give it a go? That's a bit disappointing.

    Mind you, I tried Invincible Tiger on XBLA with the Channel 4 3D glasses from Sainsburys, and also the red/cyan glasses from my DVD copy of Spy Kids 3D, and I couldn't make it work right. That said, it seemed almost completely pointless to make that game in 3D since it seems to have completely 2D gameplay!

  • Sunyavadin #66 2 years ago

    "To play the game in 3D you need a telly which projects polarised light and special glasses."

    Are you sure about that?

    Damn right. The best 3D displays, and the ones which are guaranteed to succeed when the ones that use glasses fail, are the ones which do NOT require glasses.

    and @smelly -
    My point was that consoles will adapt faster than film and TV will to 3D because they can be programmed to render their output however developers want them to. It does not have to be filmed in a specific way with specific hardware depending upon they type of 3D display being used. As a result, as better hardware comes along, games will adapt, and the consoles will have no risk of being betamaxed, unlike the films released for one type of 3D display which do not properly output on another.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/09 @ 08:26

  • YourMessageHere #67 2 years ago

    This is bullshit. If he's interested in sound analogies, 3D vs. what we have now, which is hardly 2D, is more like surround sound vs. stereo, whereas mono vs. stereo is more like extruded 2D engines (like Doom) vs. true 3D engines (like Quake). The actual applications for 3D, as I've seen it done (admittedly limited application), are really pretty limited, and the effect is highly underwhelming in practice, and far more distracting and annoying than it is good. I can happily do without it, just as I can do without surround sound perfectly happily, given that the vast majority of things that use it don't actually make use of its capabilities very well, and those that do use it to reinforce the pictures, meaning that it's a nice extra but not actually essential to enjoying the film. So many times I've been to the cinema and been distracted by the surround sound rather than impressed by it.

    @ Miths

    I can't really do anything other than agree that there's a massive difference between mono and stereo in an absolute sense, but comparing an audiovisual experience to a purely audio one is not really correct. In the case of televisions, you are in almost all cases paying a lot more attention to the picture than to the sound, so the fact that there is sound at all is far more significant than the fact that it is stereo or not. I had a mono telly for ages and acquiring a stereo telly was hardly significant. Music, however, you can't do anything other than concentrate on the sound primarily so the difference leaps out at you and won't go away.

  • Sunyavadin #68 2 years ago

    So many times I've been to the cinema and been distracted by the surround sound rather than impressed by it.

    Most annoying is when it makes things that are clearly in front of you on the screen sound like they're off to one side of the cinema. It creates a cognitive dissonance that really makes me uncomfortable when they make a mess of it like that.

    In games it's FAR more functional than in film, I like hearing footsteps behind me and knowing to turn around. However, this is not essential, and only my PC has a setup like that.

  • YourMessageHere #69 2 years ago

    Most annoying is when it makes things that are clearly in front of you on the screen sound like they're off to one side of the cinema. It creates a cognitive dissonance that really makes me uncomfortable when they make a mess of it like that.

    That's exactly what I mean. I can't be the only one who sees 3D as a visual version of that.