3DTV in every home in 3 years – Ubisoft

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 9 July, 2010

"More important than some believe."

A 3D-enabled telly will be in every living room in just three years time, French game publisher Ubisoft has predicted.

"Ubisoft are a big fan of 3D," UK marketing boss Murray Pannell told Eurogamer.

"We were the first publisher to create a proper 3D game with Avatar last year. Ahead of its time in many ways because the technology was in its infancy and you couldn't buy 3D TVs at all.

"The truth is I think it is a technology that's coming. We can't ignore it. It'll start slowly this year. But like HDTV I wouldn't rule out the fact that this will be installed in everyone's living room in three year's time, and for us to be in a position to have content that could really look absolutely amazing in 3D."

Japanese consumer electronics company Sony will be praying that Pannel's prediction comes true.

The PlayStation 3 manufacturer went big on 3D gaming at E3 2010 last month, where it showcased 2011 shooter Killzone 3 to specs-wearing attendees of its press conference.

Some are sceptical of the tech, and are put off by having to wear special glasses while playing big screen 3D games.

Ubisoft, however, is confident 3D will be a mainstream success.

"That's not to say every game needs to be in 3D," Pannell explained. "We're showing Shaun White Skateboarding in 3D. We showed Avatar. We've got other games with 3D functionality built in as well. It's coming. It's not going to happen this year.

"For the naysayers, if you like, I would say, 'Just watch this space', because when you have global corporations like Sony pushing 3D as hard as they possibly can, Sky, equally, showcasing 3D content on TV, I believe it will become a much more important part of consumer electronics than a lot of people believe."

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (214) 2 years ago

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

  • peterfll #1 2 years ago

    Oh, they're going to be given away free then are they?

  • iHAZaCHEEZ3burger #2 2 years ago

    I won't have one untill you don't have to wear glasses, and that certainly won't be happening in the next 3 years.

  • FourS33N #3 2 years ago

    doubt it given the current economy, ill be keeping my 32" HDTV as long as possible to strech my money as long as possible.

  • towser #4 2 years ago

    Yeah and we'll all have hover boards and be wearing baco-foil suits too.

    What an idiotic thing to say...

  • paulf #5 2 years ago

    i don't believe it will really take off till they create specs that look cool, or better than that no specs at all

  • Distributor #6 2 years ago

    I wear glasses. Now I need to wear another pair. lovely.

  • alimokrane #7 2 years ago

    Well yeah 3D is big! no one is trying to prove otherwise but IMO it wont take off until it is glasses-FREE. Are we going to get that in 3 years with a price that's actually affordable? NO WAY!

  • samk #8 2 years ago

    lol - hilarious.

    None of the rest of my immediate family even have a HDTV yet.

  • tomjoadsghost #9 2 years ago

    Dumb Delusional Divination.

  • Salaminizer #10 2 years ago

    Erm, no.

  • TheDudesRug #11 2 years ago

    What a peculiar thing to say! I mean, they don't even need to be told that's utter nonsense surely? Presumably a slip up or mistake or something.

    Baffled.

  • MiniAmin #12 2 years ago

    "A Nintendo 3DS in every home in 3 years" is much more likely.

  • bad09 #13 2 years ago

    Yeah just like HDTVs would be in every house, and everyone would game in HD....

    3D is a gimmick used to sell new needless tech we don't need to replace the needless tech we had before. This is why all the mouth pieces are constantly trying to make people believe it's the future, I suspect very few are biting right now considering the noise companies are making.

  • Byblos1 #14 2 years ago

    Feels like I'm being force fed horse shit.

  • Widge #15 2 years ago

    OMG! Not more 3D! Make it go away! Make things stay the same! Release the Super Nintendo again and give me back a big boxy TV! We don’t need anything new! Its all gimmicky and useless!

  • Fab4 #16 2 years ago

    Don't they realise we are financially screwed for the next 5-10 years, so luxury TVs are the least of our problems?

  • Widge #17 2 years ago

    Fuck surround sound too, HDTVs are not necessary for games too look good as Alan Wake demonstrates. Just keep it ALL THE SAME FOREVER.

  • dfunked #18 2 years ago

    Sod that... I'm buying a new TV next month, and I sure as hell won't be wasting money on a gimmicky 3D one!
    A 40" Samsung will do the job for me for the next 3+ years, thanks very much

  • lordofthedunce #19 2 years ago

    balderdash

  • Psychotext #20 2 years ago

    Utter rubbish. Even the most generous of forecasts only put 3DTV sales at around 40m by 2013 (that's vs around 260m HDTV sales in the same period).

    That's ever so slightly short of "in every home".

  • humble #21 2 years ago

    Not in my home, that's for sure. Haven't even considered upgrading to HD yet. Tv looks fine as it is, and Big Brother and Paradise Hotel sure as hell aren't going to become better by being watched in high-def let alone 3D!
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 12:44

  • ChaK #22 2 years ago

    all minus 1 ubi.

    and I won't buy your crappy games either tbh

  • Restart #23 2 years ago

    It sure as shit won't be in my home within the next decade, let alone the next 3 years.

  • Eraser #24 2 years ago

    I haven't even got a HDTV yet, so I'm pretty damn sure I ain't getting a 3D TV any time soon.

  • funkyd #25 2 years ago

    I won't be buying one. Take that Ubi, I just ruined your prediction!

  • curtlikesmeat #26 2 years ago

    Not interested until there are no glasses. I bought an HDTV four years ago (1080i) and won't be upgrading until there's a significant move forward in technology.

  • rayscoota #27 2 years ago

    Not for me unless they are going to give them away as free, I still dont have an Hd tv either.

  • ignatiusjreilly #28 2 years ago

    wouldn't rule out != will

  • madgerald #29 2 years ago

    I'm telling you this now; the next Assasin's Creed game will be in 3D. AC3D.

  • flapps #30 2 years ago

    Prices are already coming down on 3D TVs though, just been looking at this Samsung 40" on Amazon, and it's under £1000! That's really not much more than a standard 40" HDTV...
    If prices keep coming down, people will just upgrade to a 3D HDTV as a standard upgrade path. I think it's going to be become a lot more widespread than you may think...

    http://ww w.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-LE40C750...

  • Timbercottage #31 2 years ago

    O rly?

  • FogHeart #32 2 years ago

    I have nothing against wearing glasses to watch 3D content - only cos there's no one to point and laugh at me - but Hell, even if starting tomorrow every TV was capable of 3D, you can't expect everyone to need a replacement TV within 3 years!

    Technically I'm still on SD...but through a quirk called PixelPlus my PC outputs to my TV at 1024x768....so I can play PC games at HD resolutions...and when we finally get DVB-T2 cards I can watch Freeview HD using Windows Media Centre. I've had it for eight years and I'm sorted for years to come!

  • RobTheBuilder #33 2 years ago

    Bullshit. Even now HDTV is in less than 60% of homes. Even if every new TV bought in the next 5 years was 3D compatible it would be nowhere near 100%.

  • DonnieDarko333 #34 2 years ago

    Lets all jump on the 'hate 3D' band-wagon because all we can't think for ourselfs!

    A) Have you actually played/watched a 3DTV Game and Movie?
    B) This whole glasses thing is absolutely STUPID..people wear glasses and goggles for alot of things, no-one complains then! You dont even feel like your wearing them! Just an excuse to tell yourself because you secretly want one!
    C) 3DTV's aren't that different in price then normal HDTV's...if your purchasing a new TV, you'll be absolutely daft not to consider one which is 3D enabled.


  • X3Entente #35 2 years ago

    meh, wake me up when ubisoft make a decent tom clancy game for once in fucking ages

  • davisorle #36 2 years ago

    Breaking news: Developer / Publisher didn't make negative comments about their 3D games!

    In all honesty, 3D will be mainstream in 3 years? Still not in everyone's home. I know a lot of people that took them till now to get a proper HDTV in their livingrooms. To get 3D they will need a LOT of time in order to upgrade. Something more that Ubisoft isnt considering is that till now, yeah some homes ended up being convinced to upgrade to HDTV ( for example a family with a kiddo wanting to play on an HDTV ), they had reasons cause not only their gaming but also movie library was being big time boosted with notable gain out of it.

    How many are going to be convinced the same way about 3DTV purchase? Yeah, some gamers will be the first to do so but the ones that count on their parent's pocket wont have much luck this time around. The ones with not enough income wont find justifiable to do so either and prefer to waste their money on something way better than that. A LOT wont get a 3DTV even if they have money to spare.

    So I cant help but wonder how come and Ubisoft expects 3DTV to be mainstream almost faster than HDTV did.

  • RobTheBuilder #37 2 years ago

    @DD13 - Agree that some are just slating 3D without trying it, but even so the numbers here just do not add up.

    Interestingly I think 3DS will actually help Sony because people wiull start to see 3D as a mainstream, popular thing and look to replicate it on the big screen more than they do now.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 13:02

  • JahB #38 2 years ago

    it could possibly work if 3D was simply another feature integrated into HD TV's as standard. it isn't much more than 120 hz TV with a receiver for glasses anyway, so it shouldn't add a lot to the price of a regular 100 hz TV.

  • witchdrash #39 2 years ago

    Arghh mindless 3d hater drones, run away!!!

    Seriously guys, the fact is in 3 years any television bought will be 3D ready, the current crop are the top end sets, you want to buy the best you can buy this year, you're buying a 3d set, it's not like buying a 3d set gives you shitty 2d, in 3 years EVERY set will be 3d capable, it's then whether or not your can cope with the glasses, which everyone who I know who has actually tried them haven't minded in the slightest.

    3d free glasses televisions are approx. 10 years away from retail, which means 13 years away from mass retail and your hands, if you're not going to buy a set for that long then no you wont have a 3d ready set, if you are, you probably will have a 3d ready set.

    However for Ubi to claim everyone will have these in 3 years is bullshit.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 13:04

  • Vanmunt #40 2 years ago

    I am sitting on the fence over this one... I will wait until I actually see it going before I make up my mind. As Avitar the movie in 3D was superb.

  • M_of_the_sys #41 2 years ago

    I'm looking for a larger TV so I'll consider a 3D TV but I'd like to try it out first. If it's anything like the NVIDIA 3D showcase at last years eurogamer expo then I'll pass... unless one of the NVIDIA women come with it.

    Edit: Why is everyone trying to justify their crusade against 3D TV with "Most people aren't even on HD yet!" Wouldn't that mean that when these people upgrade, they'll consider a 3D TV over a standard HD TV?
    Edited by 2 at 09/07/10 @ 13:15

  • funkyd #42 2 years ago

    @DonnieDarko333 Haha, ironic that you say people who are against 3D can't think for themselves, when Sony et al are trying to shove it down our throats.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 13:04

  • RodHull #43 2 years ago

    Please JesusAllahBuddahYodaCliff, noooo!!!!

  • witchdrash #44 2 years ago

    @M_of_the_sys when they upgrade it's likely they wont have a choice, there isn't really any difference between an HDTV and a 3DTV, except the 3DTV is 120hz and has some extra hardware in it, which will ultimately be cheaper to stick in all sets, than having a separate product line going. It will in a couple of years not be a matter of HDTV or 3DTV it will be 3DTV or 3DTV, and then a decision on whether to get glasses or not use the functionality.

  • Dizzy #45 2 years ago

    The rest of the planet says no Ubisoft.

  • Kikizosan #46 2 years ago

    There isn't currently even a TV (of any sort) in every home so far. Sure, in three years 3DTVs will be in more homes, possibly even in the majority of homes, but they will never be in all homes. Ever. What a ridiculous statement to make.

    I suppose saying only "in most homes" lacks the impact of what he's said, but it does have the benefit of not making you sound like a numpty.

  • MiniAmin #47 2 years ago

    @ Donniedarko333

    Lets all jump on the 'hate 3D' band-wagon because all we can't think for ourselfs!

    I think it demonstrates that we are thinking for ourselves by rejecting the 3D propaganda! This isn't an irrational hatred of 3D, when it's convenient, cheap, and hassle-free people will warm to it, like any new technology. But as consumers, we resent unrealistic projections which push agenda rather than accuracy.

    3DTV still has problems, I have tried it myself. Many people wear contact lenses because they don't want glasses' indentations on their eyes/nose, I don't want marks on my face because of TV/Gaming. 3DTV is very expensive, you need a TV, expensive glasses (for each viewer) and a transmitter, in addition there's an alarming lack of content... and most areas don't even have Freeview HD yet!

    Please, both you and others... stop attempting to designate us 3D sceptics as irrational luddites. The technology is in its infancy, it's expensive, there's a lack of content, and it isn't even particularly immersive yet. When the technology has advanced we'll all be excited and embrace it, you only need to look at the reception of the Nintendo 3DS to realise that.

    /rant

  • LiamK #48 2 years ago

    "Prices are already coming down on 3D TVs though, just been looking at this Samsung 40" on Amazon, and it's under £1000! That's really not much more than a standard 40" HDTV... "

    I wouldn't call a difference of £400 "not much more than"...

  • insincere_dave #49 2 years ago

    Yeah, just like Blu-ray was going to have made DVD completely obsolete by around now too. Corporate aspirations do not equal reality, Mr. Ubisoft.

  • Cronan #50 2 years ago

    So modern HDTV was introduced when? 2005? Market penetration in the USA was 53% by 2009 (Source: Satellite Spotlight). Given that 3D TVs are basically 120fps HDTVs with a cheap blue-tooth transmitter, and make up the top end of the market, how honest do you think this marketing weasel is being?

    BTW, I hate the bloody glasses and 3D gives me a head-ache.

    Also, Samsung - LE40B530 - 40" LCD TV - 1080p - £443.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 13:16

  • barkertron #51 2 years ago

    I don't get why so many people are desperate to decry 3D as a failure... we're obviously still at the very beginning, where 3D televisions and the shutter glasses are undeniably expensive, to the extent where most people can't afford one. But HDTVs started out the same, and now you can get half decent sets for £200-300.

    It would be ludicrous to suggest that 3D will stay this expensive for the next 3 years, so why don't we just wait and see what happens? If the games and movies that come out in the meantime turn out to be shit then fine, I guess the naysayers will be right, but at this early stage none of us can reasonably say either way. Could be good, could be crap. But let's not deride it as an absolute failure when the consumer technology is in its infancy.

  • Arwin #52 2 years ago

    The most important question to ask may be: if you buy a new tv today, can you even get a non HD one?

    Not here, unless you try really, really hard or settle for a tiny kitchen panel or something. Considering it's a comparatively small effort to add 3D to an HD tv, in 3 years no new models may be produced without being at least 3D ready. By that time we'll also be getting next gen consoles which can probably add 3D fairly effortlessly.

    However, that does not mean every family will have one. I think even remotely getting there will take 5 years. But there may be enough people out there with a 3D capable screen to matter.

  • dr_shambles #53 2 years ago

    Three years? Is this before or after we've terraformed Mars?

    As most Ubisoft games seem to contain horrific levels of screen tearing I look forward to the migraines.

  • Widge #54 2 years ago

    I'm unticking my HD settings and going back to mono when I get back home. I DON'T NEED THIS GIMMICK SHIT FORCED UPON ME.

  • JensonJet #55 2 years ago

    What a load of rubbish!

    I know people, myself included, who don't have an HD TV yet. I know people who've never watched one of the current crop of 3D movies, including myself. And I know people who have little, to no interest in 3D... er... everyone I know. Just because big corporations want to make lots of money from the technology doesn't mean that it'll become standard and we'll all be wearing glasses to watch TV and play games. I've been enjoying 3-dimensional images in videogames and movies all my life. I don't need a cardboard-cutout style image to enjoy a film or game. For me, acting, story, direction, art, writing, the list is endless, make a game or movie enjoyable.

    I actually consider surround sound more important than 3D for games and movies. I don't know anyone, other than myself that has a surround system. If this is considered too expensive, or unnecessary, I fail to see why people would care to replace their new TV (everyone I know with an HD tv bought them within the last couple of years) for brand new technology, barely supported and unknown whether it'll take off.

    Incidentally, does anyone know what the long term effects of watching 3D every day for years on end? I could be wrong but I've not heard of any reports that suggest hundreds of hours a week watching 3D is completely safe. I have heard however that some people experience eye-strain, dizziness and headaches after watching just one movie in 3D. Let the guineapigs at the technology for a few years and lets see if TV, movies and games all turn to 3D.

  • apoc_reg #56 2 years ago

    No chance mate. Love my current 46" telly and I'm not about to replace it just so i can look like a chump in glasses swashing down headache and nausea pills!

  • Cronan #57 2 years ago

    "The most important question to ask may be: if you buy a new tv today, can you even get a non HD one?"
    Nope, the most important question is, why would you buy a new TV today, or in the next three years? My HDTV is three years old - no way I'm getting a new one soon.

  • dubdivision #58 2 years ago

    Soon all flat screen tv's will be 3d capable, then all you naysayers will have it even if you don't want it :)

  • GamesConnoisseur #59 2 years ago

    I DONT hate 3DTV, am sure most of us are as well. It's would be silly to dislike something that is advancing the medium.

    Price is a problem, but won't always be, as it's a law that over time and thanks to competitions and advancing technology/mass productions, prices will comes down.

    So what is the meat of the problem?

    Glasses and the contents of 3D not being on par to SD and HDTV for a while. So most people will hide their time until these issues are tackled or accommodated. Could be that people in future couldn't imagine watching TV without 3D enabled glasses or 3D contact lenses?!

    However I CALL bull on the stupid prediction of within 3 years, not very likely.

    After 5 years more likely if looking at HDTV as a model, even more conservative estimate should be considered. Only those with the most to profit have a lot of interests to call it sooner, to generates hypes and pushing people not to miss the boat!!

  • Cronan #60 2 years ago

    Sony is pushing 3DTV because they're a hardware company and a media company. They hope that it will rescue their failing company (an $890 million operating loss in 2009) by producing a spike in hardware and Blu-ray sales. Like all media companies they also assume dirty hackers are behind their losses in music and video sales, and are hoping that 3D will magically prove harder to copy and distribute, and that people will come back and buy their crap in droves.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 13:24

  • RandomRash #61 2 years ago

    quite a few people bought tv's which were hd ready, if you are getting a new tv you can a 3d ready, although quite a few people waited too like me

  • Ryze #62 2 years ago

    Wrong.

  • andywilkie35 #63 2 years ago

    I'm not interested until its possible to not have to wear goggles.

  • Xardan #64 2 years ago

    I doubt i'll even have HD TV by then.

  • ParanoidZombie #65 2 years ago

    I really enjoy those "in every home" statements, it says a lot about those PR people. 2 possibilities:
    - they live in some sort of a fantasy world, where entertainment is "everyone's" priority.
    - in their opinion, people cease to exist as soon as they get too poor to buy their products.
    Serenity Now!

  • sneetch #66 2 years ago

    "But like HDTV I wouldn't rule out the fact that this will be installed in everyone's living room in three year's time"

    Personally I'll probably be getting one by then but it's a bit of a daft statement; I think he may have intended or preferred to have said "possibility" rather than "fact" to be honest.

  • M_of_the_sys #67 2 years ago

    Incidentally, does anyone know what the long term effects of watching 3D every day for years on end? I could be wrong but I've not heard of any reports that suggest hundreds of hours a week watching 3D is completely safe. I have heard however that some people experience eye-strain, dizziness and headaches after watching just one movie in 3D. Let the guineapigs at the technology for a few years and lets see if TV, movies and games all turn to 3D.

    I don't know about that but there are reports that videogames cause ADHD so I'd stop playing games now if I were you.

  • sneetch #68 2 years ago

    @Xardan
    I doubt i'll even have HD TV by then.

    If you buy a new HDTV in about 3 years it'll probably also be a 3DTV. Of course you may decide to never use the 3D functionality.

  • gmjapan #69 2 years ago

    The only 3d tv i'd be interested in would be one that you can move around in real 3d.
    I consider this slightly popping out at you "3d" from a flat screen as an amusing gimmick.

    And slightly less amusing now you cant replace lost glasses with Quality Street wrappers.

  • sneetch #70 2 years ago

    @JensonJet
    Incidentally, does anyone know what the long term effects of watching 3D every day for years on end? I could be wrong but I've not heard of any reports that suggest hundreds of hours a week watching 3D is completely safe. I have heard however that some people experience eye-strain, dizziness and headaches after watching just one movie in 3D. Let the guineapigs at the technology for a few years and lets see if TV, movies and games all turn to 3D.

    Watching hundreds of hours of TV a week is hardly "safe".

    Edit: but it is impressive as there's only 168 hours in a week. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 13:53

  • carlitoswagon #71 2 years ago

    As soon as Porn goes 3D the rush is on my friends...

    12 inches right in your face never felt so real.........Maybe not such a good thing.

  • Ryze #72 2 years ago

    Standard '3D TV' thread cut/paste comment:

    Most people aren't taking into account that the next consoles will need to have monster GPUs to render 1080p/60 3D. If Sony / Microsoft aim for this, then there'll be little chance of them taking a 'Wii-like' technology sidestep to save costs.

    3D works best when V-sync'd, so this BODES VERY WELL for 2D framerates and elimination / minimising of tearing in the next gen, for those who DON'T upgrade their TV sets.

    It'll be near impossible to create a game that simply doesn't work for those without 3D displays, so calm the nonsensical hate, children. Even larger 2D panels will get cheaper, so it's a win/win.

    We'll all benefit from the push to 3D.


    ...but - 3 years? Bollocks.

  • ignatiusjreilly #73 2 years ago

    "I wouldn't rule it out" merely means it is possible.

    The EG headline is doing the EXACT SAME THING as the tabloid headlines that said video games lead to ADHD, and for the exact same reasons.

  • retrogamesdude #74 2 years ago

    What the hell, everone has only just upgraded to HDTV's over the last few years, and now we are all suppost to go and by crappy 3DTV's. No thanks, i prefer my HDTV, i dont have to ware stupid glasses and i get a crisp picture over a fuzzy one.

  • peterfll #75 2 years ago

    Why are people so intent on using HD as an example equivelant technology?

    - HD doesn't require additional expensive peripherals (3D does).
    - HD material looks pin-sharp and doesn't cause eye strain (3D has image ghosting, can cause eye strain, and the effect still isn't completely convincing)
    - HD had a huge pre-existing library of material to fall back on i.e. just about any film, plus some TV content (3D has Avatar, some animated movies and some sports)

    And how many people are still perfectly happy with the SD TVs, DVDs etc and still haven't upgraded to HD?

    I would love to have 3D in my living room, just not this implementation of it.

  • Salty_Wagyu #76 2 years ago

    I'm planning on buying a new larger 1080p TV this month to replace my crappy 26" 720p HD that lacks hdmi ports. The replacement TV certainly isn't going to be in 3D when you look at the current prices on http://ww w.richersounds.com/products/hom... Also, I expect my new £500-600 1080p TV to be used for, and last for, a good 5-7 years when paying this price. So 3D don't seem bloody likely :p

  • keano #77 2 years ago

    having got my tape measure out....if discovered my tv already has 3 different dimmensions so there...

    on a real note i dont think enough 3Dtvs will be in the market to match the 3 years "takover".flat screen sales are on the climb now, especially with the digital switch in 2012 for the UK. i think it will be a drib drap implimentation than a clean sweep for 3D

  • bigmickhart #78 2 years ago

    I do think theyre being a little over zelous with the 3 year statement. The next logical step in TV evolution is 3D broadcasting. As they rightly say the technology is still in its infancy, give it 10-15 years before it really kicks off and becomes affordable. I for one cannot wait.

    Just think what would come next: full sensory interaction people!!

  • Widge #79 2 years ago

    HD started off with NO FUCKING LIBRARY you GOLDFISH

  • witchdrash #80 2 years ago

    @Ryze I don't think they will, there is no significant difference between a 3dtv set and an hdtv set, other than the refresh rate and a transmitter, it makes no sense to keep a second 2d only production line going so every set will be 3d ready. It's not like you will see a 46" budget 3d set for £400 and a midrange 46" 2d only for £150, the manufacturers will ditch the 2d only sets as the 120hz panels become the norm because the transmitter bit is dirt cheap, its the panel that is pricey. Also being the latest panels the 2d performance of these massively outstrips their 2d only brothers, having switched from a samsung top end set from 3 years ago to one of Samsungs latest 3d ready sets the difference in picture quality when watching sky hd was incredible, plus it does 3d which is an added bonus.

  • FooAtari #81 2 years ago

    @flappy
    "If prices keep coming down, people will just upgrade to a 3D HDTV as a standard upgrade path. I think it's going to be become a lot more widespread than you may think..."

    Yeah, but most people expect to upgrade their TV every 7 - 10 years, not ever 2 or 3

  • peterfll #82 2 years ago

    @Widge

    Yes it did. Film is effectively already a HD medium. You don't have to *make* a film HD. You might have to convert it to a new media, but inherently it is HD (in fact better than HD of course) already.

    Edited for typos and anger, I will not call anyone names or swear, its a lovely day outside and FRIDAY.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 14:08

  • sjmlondon #83 2 years ago

    I watched some of Aliens Vs Monsters in 3D in my local Richer Sounds the other weekend. Even on a top end Samsung 3D TV and 3D disc on a Sony blu player there was still an irritating flicker and the 3D effect is apprecible it is certainly not jaw dropping. Like many people mention, you need to take the glasses off at regular intervals to have a good blink and give your eyes a rest.

    The same problem happens when you watch a 3D film in a cinema. Having seen 5 or 6 3D films, I can say it adds diddly squat to the viewing experience, just ups the admission price and you're left disappointed. Even if prices drop significantly the technology is going to have to improve significantly for this to become mainstream.

    At the end of the day it is quality content on film and TV and in computer games that people want. Gimmicky 3D slapped onto an average product doesn't offer that and won't generate massive sales. My advice would be to hold off for a couple of years for prices to come down or the next leap in 3D technology comes along.

  • Dolly #84 2 years ago

    I just hope that the expected success of the 3DS really inspires TV manufacturers to the goal of being the first 'glasses-free' 3Dtv producer. I enjoyed Avatar at the flicks immensely, and would use 3D for immersive solo-gaming, but when I'm watching Mock the Week with the missus, I also like to eat my tea and/or mess on the laptop at the same time. Even as a 3D-appreciator, the reality of the situation is that it's just never going to become truly successful with the masses until the glasses can come off.

  • witchdrash #85 2 years ago

    @Salty_Wagyu those prices are very expensive try http://ww w.cramptonandmoore.co.uk/3d-tv-... as a slightly more sane price range :)

  • patch #86 2 years ago

    Agree with @witchdrash, isn't a 3d TV just a 120Hz HDMI1.4 panel with a 3d receiver? Once they're mass produced, the panel prices will drop and the cost won't be that much more than a regular set. The glasses may cost more but no one's being forced to buy those. Chances are we'll all be buying 3d compatible TV sets without noticing.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 14:00

  • Sunyavadin #87 2 years ago

    Ubisoft are going to buy me a 3DTV?

    Awesome!

  • jellyhead #88 2 years ago

    I'll only move to a 3D TV when my current HD set dies and the price of the 3D sets is around £500-600.
    So it's more that i'll buy a TV with 3D than a TV for 3D. I'll probably wait until there's a 3D standard across manufacturers too, no way i'm buying a pair of glasses for every potential visitor to my house and i'm certainly not buying a pair of glasses from each manufacturer so i can take them around friend's houses to watch 3D.

    I'm still looking at 4-5 years at least before even considering it though.

  • ozzzy189 #89 2 years ago

    what a ridiculous statement. i'll keep my kuro thankyou very much.

  • hiddenranbir #90 2 years ago

    Ubisoft are wrong, because we don't even have 3D channels so why would every home have one?

    Same thing with HDTVs, HD channels are still a premium so the number of TVs are rarely going HD.

  • presh #91 2 years ago

    absolute bollocks. It's taken 7 years to move from analogue to digital sets, and that's not a technology that gives 20% of people headaches.

    10 years, maybe. 3 years - he must be smoking something.

  • ozzzy189 #92 2 years ago

    we can't even get hd right yet. try looking at hd progs on a decent size screen, it really shows up how poor some 'hd' programmes are. bbchd can be particularly bad.Increase the bitrate please tv companies- it's hardly any better than decent sd sometimes !!! some sky stuff looks superb though.
    no, i'll stick with hd, as 3d unless it's on bluray is only half hd, even furhter off full hd 1080. GIMMICK CITY.

  • dr_faulk #93 2 years ago

    Obviously the dick-for-brains who said this hasn't realised that until they develop a 3DTV that doesn't require glasses, it's never going to catch on.

  • ozzzy189 #94 2 years ago

    rob- 60 % of homes may have hd tv's, but how many people actually have any means to watch hd content ?

  • secombe #95 2 years ago

    We're fairly tech-savvy in our house, but even so the average life expectancy of our main living room TV is at least 6 or 7 years...I would hazard a guess that's a fairly average lifespan, most people I know are edging towards 10 years but a few seem to update constantly.

    Considering we have only just bought a 40" HD TV, I would say it's going to be a long, looooong time before we upgrade again. It will have to be sub-£500 for a decent 40" (as it can be now for 1080p models) to even be considered.

  • Mkwone #96 2 years ago

    I'd like to see how many people here do have a 3D TV in 3 years. Personaly i do think they'll be in most peoples homes at some point in the future, whether or not they're used is a different matter. (in the same way that a lot of people have HD tv's but only a samll proportion of the content they watch is HD)

    3 years is still to soon, 5 years maybe 10 realistically.

  • Darren #97 2 years ago

    Well there DEFINITELY will NOT be any kind of 3DTV in my home in the next three years because I plan on buying a new 2D HDTV this year that will (hopefully) last me beyond the next three. I suspect a lot of people who've bought HDTVs in the last few years will also have no plans to upgrade for a good few years either. Many people I know keep their TVs for ten years or longer because they're not interested in having the latest tech, just something they can watch football and Eastenders on!

    I think the guy at Ubisoft is talking out of his arse personally and the only way there will a 3DTV in every home is if they're given away free and that's never going to happen.

  • linksdad #98 2 years ago

    What an idiot(e) Colour doesnt even enjoy 100% penetration.

    http://ww w.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/media...

  • wez_316 #99 2 years ago

    Not sure why people think 3D without glasses will take more than 3 years to come out tbh. Sharp already have ones working at 10.6 inches. Surely not much of a stretch to get to a decent size in 3 years!

  • bloodflowers #100 2 years ago

    Are Ubisoft going to pick up the tab from the associated health risks (eyesight and injury resulting from scrambling of said eyesight)?

    Info here for anyone curious:
    [link url=http://www.audioholics.com/ news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health/
    ]    http://ww w.audioholics.com/news/editoria...[/link]

    There's also a story from someone saying the health risks aren't real, but there's no real information in it - which makes it fairly useless. All I know is that I got headaches from Avatar, and I don't much feel like wearing glasses just to use the TV.

  • wizbob #101 2 years ago

    An interesting side-effect is that devs will have to compromise their game design to work on both 2d and 3d sets. 3d-style content will have less movement and more 'spears coming out of the screen' set-pieces, whereas 2d-style content will be fast cuts and zooms, shakey-cam and not so much of the 'coming out of the screen' stuff. My guess is that the minority who have 3d sets will get shafted as devs target the 2d players.

  • Trigga_Tybalt #102 2 years ago

    I think Paul the psychic octopus doesn't have to worry about losing his job.

  • swissorc #103 2 years ago

    I love articles like this. It helps me build up my ignore list by adding people such as Donniedarko333 or whatever your name is :-)
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 14:22

  • Madafunkola #104 2 years ago

    Cricky, there's a lot of vitriol against 3D. IIRC there was similar "I AINT BUYIN' A NEW TV FOR NO NEW PIXELS" backlash when HD started to seep into the mainstream...
    I, for one, can't wait and look forward to getting my 3DTV next month. And I also look forward to all the Negs I'll get for being positive about this new tech. :p

  • Darren #105 2 years ago

    @dubdivision - "Soon all flat screen tv's will be 3d capable, then all you naysayers will have it even if you don't want it :)"

    Maybe... maybe not... but that still doesn't mean EVERYONE will own a 3DTV in the next few years as Mr. Shit-For-Brains at Ubisoft is claiming. :p

    And even if you can only buy 3DTVs it doesn't mean you'll use it for viewing 3D either when the majority of TV content will remain 2D for decades to come. Or are we going to get old movies, football, news and soap operas in 3D too? If only a minority of TV content is 3D then there's far less incentive to upgrade anyway. ;)

    I like the idea of 3D personally but the current tech doesn't work for me and as long as I have to wear headache inducing glasses then I'm not interested in it at all, be it cinema, TVs or games.

  • witchdrash #106 2 years ago

    [If I'm wrong at any point please correct me, just this is my slightly non-technical understanding of the different tech]
    @wez_316 The 3d free tech is the problem, the way glasses free 3d works is by placing a barrier between 2 different screens so your eyes can only see the light from one or the other, the problem is they need to do this for each viewing point of the set, the 3DS is good because you have 1 viewing point, anyone looking over your shoulder, or from the side, may see only 1 2D image, or a horrible ghosting mess as light from both screens hits 1 or both of the additional viewers eyes.

    In a living room environment this means that you would need several of these barriers placed at specific points (and they're not that cheap), meaning that you could have more than one viewing at anyone time, say 5 or 6, plus those points would have to be precise, so you would have to build your living room around the set, rather than bunging it in the corner and forgetting about it, also once you get more viewers than barriers in the set they're shit out of luck, the glasses approach means that as long as you have glasses any number of people can view the 3d effect, if you need more you buy another set of glasses, with the sets that use an autostereoscopic parallax barrier you have a fixed number of points to view, meaning a maximum number of viewers, and that's fixed for the lifetime of the set, want to go from 3 to 6, you buy a different tv, which is more expensive than the 3 additional glasses.

    The viewer limit problem is the issue which hasn't been solved yet afaik. It will happen eventually, but the 3DS isn't the solution to this, as it uses a technology that doesn't really support multiple viewers effectively, as it is a system designed for 1 person.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 14:30

  • jellyhead #107 2 years ago

    Good for you, madafunkola, however most of us aren't anti-3DTV as much as we're not going to rush out and buy a new TV until our existing ones are broken. Much like the move from SD to HD TVs.

    Obviously 3D will gain ground in people's homes due to the likelihood of it becoming a standard feature over time but in 3 years? I'm not so sure. Some, like you, will go out and buy the new toys as soon as possible. Others, like me, will wait until there's a necessity to move on and the standards have settled and the price is right for both the screens and the glasses.

    We're not anti-3D, we just don't see the need right now. Obviously Sony and the like will be spreading hype and FUD in order to push the tech but that's to be expected and doesn't mean it conforms to the reality of the situation.

    Even when i do won a 3D TV i doubt it'll be used in 3D mode much at all :)

  • Kenshin001 #108 2 years ago

    @Cronan,

    "Sony is pushing 3DTV because they're a hardware company and a media company. They hope that it will rescue their failing company (an $890 million operating loss in 2009) by producing a spike in hardware and Blu-ray sales."

    Sony made an operating profit last financial year of 31.8 billion yen.

    A lot of the people bemoaning 3DTV seem to be the same kind of people who were rooting for HD-DVD and predicting Blu-ray's failure 3 years ago. Every major TV manufacturer is on board with 3D, every major media company, not just Sony.

  • des #109 2 years ago

    Not even HDTVs have managed to do that in 5+ years and they where a significant update to SDTVs that people had for ages.
    And now (HDTV+3D gimmick)=3DTV will be every home in 3 years...yeah,lol

    If every(even unsold) HDTV explodes within next 3 years and 3DTVs are given for free...maybe

    And for people that are comparing this to blu-ray.
    What is blu-ray market penetration now?...14%?lol
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 14:43

  • gorf #110 2 years ago

    Egdar Davids: Waiting for 3D TV since 1992

  • Darren #111 2 years ago

    @Madafunkola - A lot of people have bought HDTVs though and don't use them for viewing any HD content. This is certainly true for all of my family, including aunts/uncles, cousins and nephews, many of whom own HDTVs but I'm the only one watching and playing stuff in HD! The reason they own HDTVs in the first place isn't because they wanted HD, it was because they needed a new TV and that's all that was on offer.

    So while it may be true that five years from now all TVs will be 3D-capable (and obviously HD) it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who has one will be viewing content in 3D or even using HD (unless SD Freeview is replaced by HD)?

  • Weezer #112 2 years ago

    Not in my house it ain't.

  • canoot #113 2 years ago

    BOLLOCKS.

  • dr_zoidthrob #114 2 years ago

    Bollocks will it.

    Not unless you're given the option to do a straight like-for-like swap.

  • Dave52 #115 2 years ago

    All you anti-3d types... have you all turned into my dad...?

    This is a gaming web site, surely we should be embracing new tech and innovation. Why have so many people on here decided that 3D is shit...? Go and try a new 3D tv out at your nearest Currys, I would expect at least 90% of you to be impressed.

  • weaselrat #116 2 years ago

    Ice age 3, coraline, cloudy meatballs and monsters vs aliens are the 4 so far all full 3d the first two are panny exclusives at mo but make awesome use of 3d no side by side no resolution lost! 1080p each eye and damn they look good. Cloudy with meatballs ok and monster vs aliens average! There's quite a few coming out by the end of the year!

  • dr_zoidthrob #117 2 years ago

    @Dave52 - I don't think it's really anything to do with not embracing the tech, it's much more about the cost of it all. I've just bought a 37" 1080p TV and unless it goes horribly wrong, I have no plans to change it for... oooh... ages.

  • jellyhead #118 2 years ago

    FFS! :)
    We're excited for 3D for the most part but we're not convinced it's worth shelling out over a grand for a TV yet when our existing TV's are perfectly fine. Yes, we will have 3D TVs in a few years but for most of the population this will only be when TVs have 3D as standard and we replace broken ones.

  • weaselrat #119 2 years ago

    @ Dave 52 I agree that's why I bought the panasonic vt20

  • Darren #120 2 years ago

    @Dave52 - I'm sure a lot of people have seen 3D movies at the cinema and been wowwed by them so they don't need to nip down to Currys where many will undoubtedly be impressed by the technology on offer but certainly not the price or limited availability of 3D content!

    I'm sure families with two or three kids will be eager to dash out and buy a £1,000 3DTV plus extra pairs of the expensive 3D glasses so everyone can watch Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D. Or maybe they'll just stick to going to the cinema for the odd 3D movie instead until people tire of it like they did in the 1980s and 1950s? ;)
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 15:11

  • Dave52 #121 2 years ago

    weaselrat, have you played any games in 3d yet (PS3 is already able to do this). If so, what are your impressions...?

    Cheers.

  • M_of_the_sys #122 2 years ago

    We're excited for 3D for the most part but we're not convinced it's worth shelling out over a grand for a TV yet when our existing TV's are perfectly fine. Yes, we will have 3D TVs in a few years but for most of the population this will only be when TVs have 3D as standard and we replace broken ones.

    Surely that's the same with any new TV tech that comes out? I can't imagine anyone just ditching a brand new TV that works fine unless it was broken or they wanted something bigger.

    On a side note, is comparing the uptake of 3D to HD a calid comparrison? Most people I know* didn't buy HD because they didn't think there would be much of a difference and those that did were still using component cables because they didn't think there would be much of a difference.
    With 3D TVs I guess the difference is there in front of you. You know what you're getting and you know what the difference is. I'm not saying the uptake will be different because of this as I really don't know but I think it could be a factor.

    *Yes I hate when people use this for their examples.

  • Dave52 #123 2 years ago

    Darren, over the next 3 years the price will come down and the availability of content will go up. This in turn will boost sales and Ubisoft will be happy.

  • weaselrat #124 2 years ago

    Dave I've got a 360 and ps3. The gaming has real depth and helps immersion! I should imagine the games this year will make even better use of it! Def worth the investment if you can justify it! I needed a new tv anyway and the vt20 is classed as the best on the market so thought why not! Won't comment on the brand I had before but it dumps on that! As for the cinema comment someone made, active shutter technolgy is far better than passive as used at cinema and by lg's new range! Far more immersive and intrudes right into your lounge at points! The rest of the time it's like a large window! Gaming on it is awesome due to bugger all lag.

  • jellyhead #125 2 years ago

    Surely that's the same with any new TV tech that comes out? I can't imagine anyone just ditching a brand new TV that works fine unless it was broken or they wanted something bigger.

    That's my point to the people saying we'd all rush out and buy 3D TVs in the next 3 years. Unless every existing TV breaks in that timeframe then the actual uptake of the technology is likely to be slower than Sony, their partners and fans are wishing for.

  • witchdrash #126 2 years ago

    @dave52 Got Wipeout and SSHD in 3D, SSHD looks nicer, but doesn't add much to the game, Wipeout it adds a lot as distances become easier to judge and sliding between other racers easier. So depends on the game. Hooked up my pc to the set with IZ3Ds beta drivers (do side-by-side) and GTA 4 in 3d is a lot of fun as you can judge distances much more easily.

    The games that work well for me are those that after a little while you forget they're in 3D and it becomes natural, and when you take the glasses off and return to 2D you then notice the difference is significant. I'm not a fan of 3D gimmicks (stuff that jump out of the screen at you) as it breaks the effect, the better ones are where it looks like your screen is just a window.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 15:02

  • woodnotes #127 2 years ago

    "and I don't much feel like wearing glasses just to use the TV."

    You don't. If you don't wear the glasses, the TV automatically switches back to 2D. For me, the 3D is for watching movies etc - will make it an extra-special experience IMO and one well worth having.

    PS. Some people have to wear glasses to do just about everything ;)

  • Darren #128 2 years ago

    3D is nothing new though, it has been around since the 1950s and seems to make a return every 30 years when movie studios realise they need a fresh gimmick to pull the punters in to watch otherwise average movies (Clash of the Titans, I'm looking at you!). Coincidentally, it's been 30 years since the last 3D boom of the mid-80s and here we all are again but this time there's been a concentrated attempt to bring it to the masses at home.

    I'm still dubious as to how long the buzz will last myself, particularly as the need for glasses has still not been addressed after more than 60 years. Oh, the technology is different now and 3D looks better than it did before (for those lucky enough to be able to see it!), that's true, but the same issues are still there. Yes, it's a cool thing to be able to watch stuff at home in 3D but until it can be viewed like any other TV content without the need for special glasses then I expect it'll struggle to appeal to the masses. Early adopters will push sales of 3DTVs up slowly but unless the uptake is sufficiently high then the studios may decide it's not worth the massive investment and drop it entirely. There's no guarantee that 3D in its current form will succeed and that doubt will put most people off buying a 3DTV for years if they already own a working TV.

    I'm not saying that 3D as a standard isn't inevitable, just that the current tech is not there yet.

  • danathjo #129 2 years ago

    Myself and just about everyone else I know = next to no chance of getting a 3D telly in the next 3 years

    If I had a lot more money = hell yes!

    By the time I get around to upgrading my 1080p it'll be time to get a holographic VR super colour TV anyway. It seems at best that every second or third big technology Sony try to push is successful.

  • richardiox #130 2 years ago

    Many families cant afford a decent HDTV let alone 3dTVs. These Ubisoft guys may earn big salaries but the majoirty of the population dont. 3D wont be a populist reality for at least 5+ years and the only people saying otherwise (eg Ubi, Sony, movie studios etc) are the people who will make money from it. Unsurpisingly.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #131 2 years ago

    Lol, so Sony are always right about their products? Sorry, not buying it. 3D is forced, largely unwanted tech.

    Sure they are going to push it on Sky, when you are watching sports for two hours. Its a totally different kettle of fish if you are watching for a 3D screen and playing games for 8+ hours. Until this is tested to the 9th degree, to not fuck up eyes, I'm not going anywhere near it, as my eyes are fucked up enough thanks, and their no replacement pair waiting for me in a lab, to switch them willy nilly, like that Centuari dude from the Last Starfighter.

    3D is its own worse enemy, good for use in small doses. It needs expensive stupid glasses, some that run on freaking batteries, fragments tv audiences when 15% of people can't see in 3D, and also when kids under 7 can't watch 3D, because their eyes are still developing (something Nintendo advise with 3DS, wouldn't be surprised if Sony give similar warnings), that's a lot of people with young kids also potentially cut out of the equation. 3D is Sony over-complicating tv use once again, a recipe for fail.

    Now, if these 3Dtvs come with an off switch option, like the 3DS, then the masses would have no trouble investing in them, then just switch the stupid thing off, and enjoy HDtv as standard. That way, glasses wouldn't be required as standard, just be optional. I'm sure if many buy a 3Dtv and in three years, and don't get glasses for free, they'd rather buy a tv without them, then just watch it in SD/HD, llike many are still doing with HDtvs (still watching in SD) now.

  • NorUraeus #132 2 years ago

    Seeing all the naysayers here on 3D TV reminds me of the people saying HD would never take off as SD tvs where good enough, or that Blu-Ray would never sell as upscaled DVDs where good enough :)

  • jellyhead #133 2 years ago

    @NorUraeus, have you actually read any of the comments here? 0_o

  • weaselrat #134 2 years ago

    The 3d option is optional even on full 3d blu Ray and broadcasts so you can watch in normal 2d!

  • Emmit_Assassin #135 2 years ago

    Fuck off you wankers. Not every home has HDTV yet you twats. I love how these big devs think they know what we want better than we do.

  • thewool #136 2 years ago

    Dear Ubi,

    I've just bought a MAME cab and it rocks. Shove your 3D TV up your arse.

    xxx Wool

  • varkdm #137 2 years ago

    People wont want to wear the glasses and people want want to shell out on another new tv - look at the time it took to get blu ray take up increased... still isnt anything like as popular as dvd - there is no tangible benefit or need so most non gadget loving people will only buy expensive new tvs when their old one breaks.

    As pointed out by someone else on here.. I already wear glasses myself... watching Avatar at the cinema was a pain in the arse, there is no way i would volunteer to wear two pairs of glasses just for a gimmick.

  • ozzzy189 #138 2 years ago

    Weaselrat- don't go on avforums, lots of issues with the vt20, especially with movement, pana say it's caused by the tv displaying everything at 60hz- which aint good seeing as uk tv is 50 hz.

  • FuzzyDuck #139 2 years ago

    I'll be struggling to pay off student debts in 3 years Ubi, thanks.

  • Wyrm #140 2 years ago

    Would love to know what this 3 year timespan is being based on.

  • drumbaby #141 2 years ago

    Well looking at all the shit 37" Fully HDTVs they sell for a couple of hundred quid in the supermarkets, I can imagine a similar glut of shit 37" 3DTVs going for the same price, in a few short year's time.

    So yeah, he's probably got a point.

  • Muns #142 2 years ago

    I hate this type of thing. If we like it, we will buy. You can't ram 3D down people's throats. What an arrogant ****!!!

  • Drpwnage #143 2 years ago

    I really can't see 3DTV's being in most homes within 3 years, for all the reasons stated in the comments above.

    I have just ordered a new TV, was buying large and high end so the 3D was a bonus. Not bothered if 3D doesn't take off as the TV is also the manufacturers best 2D unit as well. However, I am really looking forward to trying out Wipeout and SSHD etc and KZ3 when it appears later in the year.

    People who buy 3D tv's won't be 'shafted' by games developers if 3D fails as, in general, the screen technology also makes them the most responsive 2D gaming TV's around.

  • TheJuriel #144 2 years ago

    Three years?

    Ahahahahaha.

  • weaselrat #145 2 years ago

    @ozzzy mines all calibrated and has the right inputs set up for each mode! no motion issues at all! It can be massively affected by poor input or people combining the wrong modes. Wouldn't swap mine for any other tv especailly my 6 series I just sold or my mates 8000 series. Unfortunately most people expect industry standard from box and with a poor set up

  • effinjamie #146 2 years ago

    I'll never have one, because of my eyes it just doesn't work. Saved myself a fortune.
    To be honest I know loads of people who are still to make the jump from SD to HD, and then even more who don't have any sort of HD content. Can really see these people going for 3DTV in a big way.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 16:49

  • Sniper_007 #147 2 years ago

    Technically 3D is already in our living rooms... it's called real life!! Maybe that's what Ubisoft is talking about?

    Does that mean we won't have tvs... scary thought... I don't like the real world :(

  • weaselrat #148 2 years ago

    @ozzzy further to your last you got the 50hz 60 hz comment back to front it's broadcasters sending out 50hz signals which are old tech! 60hz and 24p for high def is the correct standard. Batman the dark knight looks beautiful on it through the panny 3d blu Ray player well recommended and I have viewed many of my films/recorded programs on both tv's and can honestly say my panny is the best I have owned. Even for 2d it's great

  • Sharzam #149 2 years ago

    I just bought a TV for £400 which works fine , iam normally a early adopter with tech in general but i just cant see it being of benefit till it can be used in more things. 2 games (and the odd film) cannot justify me spending 1k on a TV.

    3D works well in PC games because nvidea graphic cards can convert most games for use in 3D, but thats at the upper end really. Till something simlier can be done with game consoles, TV programmes and movies it wont take off.

  • memeroot #150 2 years ago

    My plasma is probably 6 years old now (got it for halo 2) but is still going strong... however I do have 3d vision...
    My view id that its fun for a bit but is a gimmick but will also be unavoidable in 3 years

  • TonyHarrison #151 2 years ago

    You don't need to be 'anti-3D' to realise how ludicrously stupid this statement is. There is categorically no way that every home will have a 3DTV in 3 years time. Even if they gave them away they'd have some people tell them to get stuffed because they're quite happy with what they've got...

  • Coldwine #152 2 years ago

    Screw you Ubisoft! Ah, I feel better already.

    When will there be 3D that's easy on the eyes and dosen't require glasses? No time soon. if ever.

  • NimbusTLD #153 2 years ago

    Typo, he meant 30 years. C'mon EG, check your sources!
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 16:59

  • Collymilad #154 2 years ago

    Get me some of what this guys on please.

    Good luck with that, anyway.

    *stifles laughter*

  • memeroot #155 2 years ago

    Is this a massive case of buyers remorse or simply a fear the jonses are again a step ahead ?
    It's great that 3d is here, sure the tech isn't perfect and tv's expensive (though a heck of a lot. Cheaper than hd was)

  • MrFlump #156 2 years ago

    I pretty much oppose 3D in its current incarnation. I have to wear glasses, I can't wear contact lenses and i've tried out a 3DTV demo and all i got from it was a massive headache after a few minutes of viewing.

    I get the same at the cinema on 3D films which I now no longer watch. And i'm not alone in this. I'm sorry to say, but 3D is not required. Its a gimmick. Maybe once the glasses free screens come along then yes... maybe then providing it doesnt mess with my head, i'll consider it. For the time being, its a fad and these people are desperate to make themselves some money on the bandwagon and are touting it any which way they can at the moment.

    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 17:17

  • FooAtari #157 2 years ago

    @drumbaby
    Well looking at all the shit 37" Fully HDTVs they sell for a couple of hundred quid in the supermarkets

    Really? Even the 37£ own brand jobs such as Tescos Tekinka are over £200 and those TV's are truly awful. I'd rather have a decent SD tv than one of those.

    Amazes me how many posters can't seem to read. Apart from a few posts there are not many anti 3D comments. Most are just arguing that there is little to no chance there will be a 3D capable TV in every home in 3 years. I'll be amazed if there is even 50% penetration.

    Personally I bought a new 42" TV last year and have no plans to replace it in next 3 years. I just can't justify the cost these days for tech that will have limited use initially and is in my experience and opinion not that great. I find the 3D effect to be more semi 3D and colours appear washed out.

  • Vin #158 2 years ago

    3D gives me a nasty bastard behind the eyes. All the time, every time. If gaming goes 100% 3D, seriously, fuck this hobby.

  • brigadier #159 2 years ago

    3D gives me a headache... So basically in 3 years i won't be able to watch tv. Great.

  • pac666 #160 2 years ago

    Idiot alert

  • pac666 #161 2 years ago

    Idiot alert

  • priesty_lfc #162 2 years ago

    Well i'm picking mine up next year and cant wait for it, Only bought my last TV last year and at £2400 it wasnt cheap but from the 3D stuff i've seen (tech shows etc) it looks awsome.

    Those who say there not getting it probably said the same when HD came out.

    Its going to happen, deal with it.

  • CatWeazle #163 2 years ago

    FUCKTARD

    What he really means is that in 3 years, every TV being sold will be 3D.

    Was he misquoted, or is he just a massive cocksucker?

  • Miths #164 2 years ago

    I fully expect to have a 3D TV in my home within the next three years (and hopefully sooner), but in every home? What the hell is this guy smoking?

  • TransientBlade #165 2 years ago

    Ultimately, these companies need to hype 3D as otherwise no one will go for it. Full HD hasn't even properly exploited yet and now we need to all buy new 3D yellows. No thanks.

  • beastmaster #166 2 years ago

    Most HD TVs these days come with a 5 year warranty. So Ubisoft's prediction just doesn't fly with me.

    I've watched 20 mins of Astro Boy in 3D. It's pretty damn impressive. I've also played Avatar in 3D and thought the 3D was ok. Seen Wipeout & Motorstrom in 3D and they are fab.

    I think Sky are launching a 3D channel soon. There's certainly a big push going on. I only just got a HD TV at Xmas and that'll do me for the next 5-6 years.

    I kind of want a 3D TV. But I do not need one.

  • Macdory #167 2 years ago

    Just wait until they adapt their DRM, so you have to own a 3D TV along with a permanent internet connection to play their rehashed tripe ...

  • Nephirion #168 2 years ago

    Murray Pannel can afford one so he believes everyone else should have one also :p

  • MeBrains #169 2 years ago

    two letters: BS
    three words: lower his wage (he does not have a clue what the customer wants - hint: it ain't buying a new telly yet again)

  • Harmonica #170 2 years ago

    3D will be dead in three much less five. It's already stalling in the film world. People are waking up to the fact that it's a gimmick, and one that tried and failed the first time when it had much more chance of succeeding. 3D is not a technology that will ever have its own visual language, it's a dead end artistically. In order to make floaty shit pop out of the screen you basically sacrifice the more artisan aspects of the visual image and composition.

    The money men don't care about artistry of course, but unfortunately, the masses actually do deep down, and there's only so many gash 3D films they'll bother with before they move onto the next wave.

  • GrantW #171 2 years ago

    Not at £2000 a television, you can take 3d and shove it up your ass ubisoft. We're not all made of money
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 19:33

  • Kaminari #172 2 years ago

    "More important than some believe."

    It reads like a desperate marketing pitch.

  • Jelly_Head #173 2 years ago

    but let's not deride it as an absolute failure when the consumer technology is in its infancy.

    As has been pointed out time and time again on this forum (and many others), stereoscopic 3D has been around since 1890 at least.

    This is a gaming web site, surely we should be embracing new tech and innovation. Why have so many people on here decided that 3D is shit...? Go and try a new 3D tv out at your nearest Currys, I would expect at least 90% of you to be impressed.

    Let's turn that on it's head and ask... "on a website that predominantly attracts people who are into the latest technologies, how come they've decided this particular 'new' technology is shit?".

    Perhaps, because not all new technologies are worth our hard-earned cash? Perhaps because some of us here are old enough to remember the last time we were told this exact same 3D technology was so essential, or the time before that? (3 previous occasions for me, but I'm an old git). Perhaps we remember how it rolled along for a bit, then faded away and became a sideshow for the likes of Disney World and Universal Islands of Adventure? (I did love the SPiderman 3D ride though).

    Or perhaps it's simply because, as you have suggested, we actually have tried it, seen it, and dismissed it.

    I do agree, when you have a quick look at a 3D demo in your local Currys, the effect initially looks sort of cool... but after about 10 minutes you realise that it doesn't really look 3D in the same way that real objects in front of you face appear. I find it looks more like a bunch of 2D layers at different depths - it particularly reminds me of those magic eye pictures from the 1990's, without the inconvenience of having to cross my eyes of course. But 20 minutes in and I'm feeling nauseated, so no sale.

  • southpaw #174 2 years ago

    I'd like to thank ubisoft for pushing to cure everyone in the world that is effected by partial sight
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 20:11

  • smelly #175 2 years ago

    I dont understand the hate some gamers have of 3d.

    As far as i can see 3d gaming will actually IMPROVE gameplay by giving you a proper perception of depth, etc... So it's much more than just a gimmick (as some of you are calling it).

    HD on the other hand - which most of you seem to love - adds nothing but improved visuals, no gameplay improvements, etc - but yet none of you seem to call that a gimmick?

  • gnrlstuart #176 2 years ago

    nobody is embracing £D at the moment (you like the pun? :) because, lets face it. the market is nonexistant, expensive, and...well...kinda retarded if i do say so. my main qualms with 3D is that the only available sets are £1500 60 inch sets. i just want a nice, small and sharp 24 inch set, perfect for my room. (because lets face it, serious gamers in cohabitation with people cant be hogging the living room telly 99% of the time). i'd pay a premium for about £300 pounds max, and i know this might sound audacious, but glasses are NOT the way to go, and the 3DS will facilitate this trend.

  • Mopzey #177 2 years ago

    Im fine with hdtv atm

  • androidave #178 2 years ago

    I'm guessing I'm not the only one who gets a headache and eyestrain from 3D? Its tricking people into seeing something that isn't there, it works just fine for some people, but for others your brain just trys to see through the illusion? and then when it does work everything just looks like cardboard cutouts on maybe 3 or 4 different depth levels.. it just looks, well, a bit shit imo, not very realistic and it tends to take away from the immersion rather than add to it..

    I'm not buying a 3DTV until its actually 3D.. which is years off by the looks of things.

  • Rens11 #179 2 years ago

    wat even my nan?

  • Madder-Max #180 2 years ago

    Isnt it only something like 60% of people with HD atm? TV isnt broadcast in HD so you cant really tell the difference and some stuff on CRT looks better than on HD TV's as you dont get the blockiness.

  • Caimbeul #181 2 years ago

    You know, the're right. Ubi will also make all of its PC games with no DRM.

  • drhickman1983 #182 2 years ago

    I seriously doubt there will be a 3D TV in *every* house in three years time. I know people who haven't even bought a HD set yet, due to the cost. Yes, you can get a decent size HDTV for less than £400 (though not of the best quality), but thats still too much for some folks. And if they do buy a HDTV anytime soon, I can guarantee they wont be buying a new TV for a fair few years.

    This isn't a rant against 3D, I think 3D in games could be pretty awesome. I'm just being realistic about the rate that new technology is taken up. Most people I know, even those with HDTVs (including myself), still don't have a Bluray player, for example. I think a more realistic timeframe for everybody to have a 3DTV is going to be 10 years, and that's assuming the tech does well.

  • actionfitz #183 2 years ago

    Ballicks!

  • Goodfella #184 2 years ago

    @ priesty_lfc

    Yep, it probably goes something like this...

    Television, why on earth would I want that monstrisity in my parlour, it will never catch on.

    Colour TV, why on earth would I want to see colour TV, it will never catch on.

    Widescreen TV, why on earth would I want one of those?! It will never catch on.

    HDTV, why on earth would I need that when I've got a perfectly good 32" widescreen colour SDTV?! It will never catch on.

    Holographic TV, why would I want that when I have a perfectly good 3DTV?! It will never catch on.

    And so on...

  • man.the.king #185 2 years ago

    Not every TV, but certainly the majority - given that most new HDTVs will probably be 3D-capable to some degree.

  • JohnnyFireBlade #186 2 years ago

    For me, 3D is a prime example of companies not considering their user experience.

    My eyesight isn't 20/20 and I have to wear glasses for things such as screen use and I'm lucky, because my vision is currently only slightly impaired. Still, my eyes can't natively use 3D glasses without wearing my normal glasses underneath to correct my focal issues first.

    So Ubisoft is predicting a future where I'll have to wear two pairs of glasses more regularly than the occasional trip to the cinema? Hmmm, thanks but no thanks.

    I've tried out a 3D TV in my local Curry's and while it's certainly a novelty, I don't think I could watch it on a regular basis. When I get home from work, I just want to chill out and veg in front of the telly, not give my eyes more work to do having been fixed on a monitor all day.
    Edited by 1 at 10/07/10 @ 11:13

  • cairbre1977 #187 2 years ago

    Utter rubbish.....

  • Dogzilla #188 2 years ago

    Not in mine. I'm gonna buy an army of iguanas instead.

  • priesty_lfc #189 2 years ago

    @ Goodfella, exactly right!

    Thing is as somebody has mentioned Gamers are normally very techy anyway, how many have the latest gadgets? I would say a far few! after all the main age for gamers is 25-35 and we have the most free cash available (generally) so of course were going to buy it!

    Yes its expensive but adding to the experience is what its all about, I wont NEED a 3DTV however its going to make my experience better so I WILL get one.

    Having SkyHD I have to say I never watch SD broadcasts anymore as they look terrible, HD is soooo much better but having seen demo's of sport/films in 3D I was blown away and loved it. Its the next step in mainstream visuals so im all for it

    PS2/Xbox + SDTV +Sky/Telewest Late 90's
    PS2/360 + SDTV + Sky/Telewest Early 00's
    PS3/360 + HDTV + Sky/Virgin Mid 00's
    PS3/360 + HDTV + Sky/VirginHD Mid to Late 00's
    PS3/360 + 3DTV + Sky/VirginHD Early 10's
    PS4/720 + 3DTV + Sky/Virgin3D Earlish to Mid 10's

    Natural Progression in the mainstream.




    Edited by 1 at 10/07/10 @ 19:07

  • Verwandlung #190 2 years ago

    It will be mandatory. Men dressed in black will force you to buy one in 2.5 years. If you can't afford one they will take you to a forced labor camp.
    Edited by 1 at 10/07/10 @ 11:44

  • priesty_lfc #191 2 years ago

    ok,

    TV, B&W>ColourHD>........3D
    Broadcast, not very many channels>more channels>s**t load of channels>HD..........3D
    Gaming, 4bit>8bit>16bit>32bit etc etc.............3D

    yes thats not the most accurate, but you get the general idea.......

    3D may have been around since the 80's but at that point it was soooo expensive and that much more advanced than everything else it was never going to happen, in todays market and where we are technically there is no reason why it wont take of as its already more mainstream its cheaper and its logically the next step.

    * completely my opinion of course, but to me it *just* makes sense.
    Edited by 1 at 10/07/10 @ 12:08

  • GreyBeard #192 2 years ago

    I've got to say I'm a bit surprised that there aren't more 3d-ready monitors out there.

    22"-24" 120hz monitors aren't that much more expensive than 60hz models and realistically the difference between one of them and a full-on 3DTV is just the absence of an onboard bluetooth transmitter and the circuitry to sync it up with the input signal. Neither of which should be prohibitively expensive.

  • kupocake #193 2 years ago

    Oh Ubisoft. They're so intent in burying their heads in the sand these days, there's nowhere to get a decent tan this summer.

    What's that Ubisoft? In four years time, everyone will consent when you refuse to allow their synapses to display visual content unless they're connected to your servers? FaBuLoUs!

  • 8bitMofo #194 2 years ago

    I predict no one to be buying Ubisoft games in 3 years.

  • BillMurray #195 2 years ago

    I'm sorry but i already have glasses and i'd look like a bit of a spacker with another pair on top.

  • snowdog #196 2 years ago

    HDTVs aren't in every home right now...nobody in their right mind would even think that every home will have a 3DTV in 3 years. Pure nonsense.

  • chubster2010 #197 2 years ago

    There's a lot of negativity here about 3D...but I guarantee you that if you could walk into an electronics store and pick up a 3DTV for around the same price or only slightly more than a standard HDTV, many of people poo-pooing 3D here would jump on it. And they'd jump on the 3D games.

    Obviously, this is currently a fantasy, as 3DTVs are damn expensive - but give it 3 years, the TVs and glasses will be more reasonably priced and we'll all know someone that has a 3D set. And we'll all want one ourselves.

    My point is...the cost is more of a problem than the issue of wearing glasses. And if you're not bothered about 3D and/or wearing glasses really is such a problem*, then don't buy a 3D TV or go and see a 3D film - it's a fairly simple solution.

    I think Ubisoft's claim that they'll be in every home in 3 years is probably a little hopeful.

    * I have to say though, to those whingeing about the glasses, is it really such a hassle? Anyone would think the tech companies are asking you to insert some kind of 3D enabling butt-plug or something!!!
    Edited by 2 at 10/07/10 @ 20:08

  • man.the.king #198 2 years ago

    @chubster2010

    "I have to say though, to those whingeing about the glasses, is it really such a hassle? Anyone would think the tech companies are asking you to insert some kind of 3D enabling butt-plug or something!!!"

    Actually, chubs, I think that if you look at the EG profile and/or game collection (as far as platform choice is concerned) of some of the most rabid and vocal opponents of 3D gaming as proposed by Sony, you'll get your answer as to why they hate the idea of 3D so much. This (my post in the "Ron Gilbert doesn't like 3D..." article) should explain what I mean better :)
    Edited by 2 at 10/07/10 @ 22:57

  • Bluetooth #199 2 years ago

    They said that about HDTV... come to think of it, LCDs... and I'm sure some still use black and white (cheaper TV licence innit)

  • looney79 #200 2 years ago

    i want a 3D.. just for the fun of 3D porn :D
    Edited by 1 at 11/07/10 @ 05:46

  • Grayvern #201 2 years ago

    People winging about glasses annoys me too but at the same time some people still get headaches or find it hard to hold the effect shutterglasses give.

    3DTV has no chance of being in every home in 3 years, HDTV uptake has been big simply because manufacturers stopped selling SDTV's.

    As I've said before it's weird every article about this talks about sony being somehow desperate for this to work. To bring shutterglasses 3D and 3D games on the PS3 proably cost sony an R & D pittance. And was something they could do easily, and in fact had to do to seem relevant next to it's competitors in the TV market.

    It is perfectly possible to have glasses free 3DTV at no loss of resolution by utilising a different pixel structure. In 3 years time we will probably be seeing the tech for more advanced full viewing angle glasses free and no resolution loss TV's coming to maturation.
    Edited by 1 at 11/07/10 @ 15:56

  • darth_paul #202 2 years ago

    of course it will. eeeeeveeeriboooody will ditch their FULLHD tellys and go for 3D, versions, in order to make UBISOFT and other publishers more money... sure they will

  • White_Westie #203 2 years ago

    Don't know what you all whining about. Just don't buy one. 3d will be prime... oh and about those glasses.... there are already models made that DON'T require glasses and the viewing angle is pretty impressive... unless you have tried the tech don't knock it....

  • carrotcake #204 2 years ago

    They are cool sure, and I'd rather have a TV that can do 3D than one that can't, that doesn't mean I will be able to afford one soon.

  • influenceuk #205 2 years ago

    Not in my home it won't be. Such a useless gimmick! I'm waiting for 4k screens, now that will be a step forward in gaming and movie viewing!!

  • jthorne19 #206 2 years ago

    This has finally confirmed one of two possibilties for me.Either the big wigs are daft enough to think people are going to wear glasses to watch TV or that people are stupid enough to sit there with glasses and watch tv and pay for it out of their ass.Also the 3d glasses raises several problems. Firstly what do you do when you need a toilet break? even worse, what happens if your intoxicated and go for a number 2 only to realise your glasses are sitting in the toilet instead of your rather smelly friend. Not to mention all the doctors up in arms about the damage it can do to your eyes etc. I have seen post that are slamming people for complaining about wearing glasses and I have to say, these people that are happy to wear glasses clearly haven't been to see a 3d movie in the last 6 months. They have the comfort factor of a spiky dildo resting across your nose bridge. Wearing glasses to watch TV in the home is just wrong!
    Edited by 1 at 12/07/10 @ 06:13

  • JBlokeUK #207 2 years ago

    On which planet, exactly?

  • lagoonalight #208 2 years ago

    I'd like to have it but I just got a brand new LG 42 inch and it is beyond beautiful. I don't want to wear glasses either as that takes me straight out of the immersion. Heck, even my eyeglasses for astig I don't wear I need some rimless ones lol I cannot stand wearing glass while watching movies or gaming. 3D I can see big for early adopters but lets be realistic this isn't going to do anything for the masses for a long time. If you hadn't noticed, the banksters have the world in shambles.
    Edited by 1 at 12/07/10 @ 07:18

  • MinerWilly #209 2 years ago

    Not untill I can pick one up for £300ish .

  • Darren #210 2 years ago

    Well my brand new HDTV is coming tomorrow and it's a gloriously old-fashioned 2D one. I spent some time looking at reviews of the new 3D models but it seems that they have to many niggling issues to make them worth the extra I'd have to pay for one. I wasn't interested in buying a 3D model anyway, that's true, but since they handle 2D as well I did at least include them while researching which TV to buy next in case a particular model was exceptional for 2D (and also because I was mildly curious as to how good they were at 3D).

    They had a Samsung 3DTV set up in Currys this morning running a curiously blurry 3D animation but when I went over to try it the glasses on there was a notice saying they were broken. I think that says it all really; that you can have a working TV but if those expensive glasses break then you can't watch anything in 3D unless you enjoy blur'o'vision.

  • yegon #211 2 years ago

    When there's high quality glasses-free 3D tv's with huge viewing angles available for less than £1500, colour me interested. That'll be 2015 at the earliest as the current glasses free tv's are waaaaaay from being even close to fully usable day to day.
    Edited by 1 at 12/07/10 @ 12:40

  • chubster2010 #212 2 years ago

    @ Darren
    re 'They had a Samsung 3DTV set up in Currys this morning running a curiously blurry 3D animation but when I went over to try it the glasses on there was a notice saying they were broken.'

    To be fair...the customers that use the demo stations for any sort of tech in stores such as Curry's are generally idiots. Have you ever seen a DS on display with massive gouges on the touch screen??!

    3D glasses will be the same as anything else - look after them, and they'll keep on working. Treat them like shit...and yeah...they'll break!

    I've had a pair of Oakleys for 10 years - and there's not a scratch on 'em...I look after them, you see.

  • Darren #213 2 years ago

    @chubster2010 - Many families considering buying 3DTVs may have kids and kids, especially young ones, are notorious for not looking after things so I'd imagine a pair of £80+ glasses breaking through misuse will not go down well with most. You only get two pairs of glasses with most 3DTVs too so they're not being sold to families anyway but couples... rich couples. That said, if you can afford to buy a 3DTV then paying for extra glasses will probably not be that big of a deal.

    I'm still disappointed with the whole glasses concept though personally. After nearly 60 years of 3D movies I really would have thought that things would have progressed far more than just wearing different kinds of glasses to those of the 1950s. That is what makes this whole 3D thing so underwhelming for me... that and the fact I can't see the bloody thing!!!

  • darc #214 2 years ago

    3DTV's will be in a lot of homes in 3 years, certainly not in every home. That's extremely ignorant on behalf of the ubi rep; he's obviously not taking a wide variety of income levels into consideration.

    But more importantly, observing that 3DTV's will be present in a lot of homes doesn't address the question of how many will actually be *used* in that capacity. 3DTV's are nothing more than TV's with faster refresh rates, and as the parts to support this become the defacto part in production lines, this "feature" will trickle down from the high-end, to the mid-level, and finally to low-end TV's simply because they'll be as cost-effective as the low-frequency rated parts are today (or more accurately, last year.)

    But that doesn't mean we'll all be watching and playing in 3D in 3 years, not nearly. I've had a 3D-ready TV for 2 years now, and I would have little idea and less interest in how to hook it up to a compatible source and use it as such. In three years, there will be a lot more people like me - i.e. who own a 3D TV but don't actually know they do, and don't especially care either.

    And there will be a LOT more people than that watching their 5 year old TV's and banking the cash.