Dark Glasses

By Rob Fahey Published 3 July, 2010

The post-E3 war of words over 3D glasses reveals the true weakness of Sony's position.

Published as part of our sister-site GamesIndustry.biz's widely-read weekly newsletter, the GamesIndustry.biz Editorial, is a weekly dissection of an issue weighing on the minds of the people at the top of the games business. It appears on Eurogamer after it goes out to GI.biz newsletter subscribers.

It was, perhaps, inevitable that Nintendo's unveiling of the 3DS was going to provoke an unseemly spat with Sony. The key advantage of Nintendo's 3D technology, after all, is that it requires no glasses - which means that in order for the company to blow its trumpet, it must by association knock the kind of glasses-required 3D on which Sony is presently making a very large wager.

The fairly apparent bitterness emanating from the Sony camp over this issue is entirely understandable. After all, it's not just the PlayStation division which is hoping for an upswing in its fortunes from the consumer adoption of 3D - the firm's television business, too, is hoping that 3D will be its white knight after many years of tough trading, and Sony Pictures would love to see Blu-Ray sales picking up as 3D versions of popular movies arrive at retail.

As such, for a big competitor like Nintendo to be making sniffy comments about 3D glasses is somewhat upsetting for Sony - and it stings all the more because of the sympathetic coverage which Nintendo's viewpoint has received, both from the press and from consumers.

The reality, however, is that Nintendo's comments make little difference to the uphill struggle which Sony faces in encouraging early adopters to make the leap to 3D. Everyone who has seen PS3 games running in 3D has been wowed by the experience - myself included. Games and 3D technology go together like a hand in a glove; it's a vastly better experience than any 3D movie thus far, and makes a serious difference to the level of immersion in the game world.

However, even after being amazed and impressed by the technology, everyone walks away acutely conscious of how difficult it's going to be to get consumers playing these games. The technology is vastly expensive, with the glasses themselves costing between £60 and £100 for a pair - arguably an even greater stumbling block than the price of the TV sets themselves.

Marketing 3D is incredibly difficult, too - how do you advertise something where the whole point is that normal TV sets can't display it? An enormous, vastly expensive campaign focused on widespread consumer sampling and demonstrations is Sony's only hope on that front, and even then, the expense of the technology means that it will remain the realm of early adopters for at least the next two or three years.

So, Sony faces enormous challenges with 3D, and Nintendo's mirthful mockery of 3D glasses isn't really helping, but is hardly the company's biggest headache, either. In fact, I'd argue that it isn't really Nintendo's comments on 3D that are really stinging Sony right now. No, the pain Sony feels in the wake of E3 is altogether simpler - it's the sense that they've been here before, and still haven't quite learned the lessons of the past.

Six years ago, Nintendo and Sony both turned up at E3 with new consoles in tow. Sony had a sleek, expensive and technologically brilliant system which essentially shoehorned the all-conquering PS2 console into a handheld, replete with advanced media functionality and a fantastic, bright, wide-format screen. Nintendo had a cheap and cheerful plastic toy, sporting peculiarities such as a pair of low-resolution screens and a stylus-driven touch-screen.

Nintendo's share price promptly crashed, which is worth bearing in mind next time someone starts giving you a dull lecture on the wisdom of crowds. As it turned out, the crowds were clueless - as we all now know, Nintendo's low-tech solution turned out to be the most successful hardware platform of the decade, while Sony's PSP, although by no means a failure, finds itself somewhat lost in the wilderness.

A couple of years later, of course, the same scenario repeated itself with the Wii and the PS3 - but with the subsequent departure of Ken Kutaragi, whose engineering background had led Sony Computer Entertainment down a technology-obsessed path, there was a widespread belief that the company would never make this kind of mistake again.

Yet Sony's love of cutting edge technology continues to burn, undiminished by the rocky path of recent years. From some perspectives, of course, that's fantastic. Many gamers are ardent fans of cutting-edge tech, obsessed by frame-rates and visual fidelity, delighted by games and hardware which push the boundaries of technological achievement. Sony is their kind of company; they are Sony's kind of consumers.

They are, however, only a fraction of the market - arguably even a dwindling fraction, at a time when more and more developers are willing to make the formerly lunatic assertion that "graphics technology no longer sells games".

Faced with that, how does a company whose whole history is based on being on the bleeding edge of technology adapt? Nintendo turned up at E3 with a successor for the DS which is low-cost, low-tech and yet laden with extraordinary, headline-grabbing features. Sony, meanwhile, touts technologies costing thousands of pounds - and its own handheld effort, the PSP, languishes in no-man's land, its most recent iteration, the PSPgo, being little other than a costly and embarrassing failure for the company.

Sony executives would argue, undoubtedly, that what they showed off at E3 and similar events over the past year is the future of home entertainment - and they're absolutely right. Sony's technology is the future - 3D in the home isn't a pipe dream, it's a technology which is on its way, and Sony is on the vanguard of that movement.

If Sony feels aggrieved at being outmaneuvered, it's not because its technology isn't the future - it's because its technology isn't the present. The present is what Nintendo is very good at. It creates devices which are cheap to make right now, rather than betting the farm on cost reductions in three years' time. They're easy to develop for, because their power is familiar to developers. They're easy to sell, because their price points fit well with the market. Yet through clever selection of technology and design elements, they remain exciting enough to grab headlines and wow consumers.

This is the lesson which Sony still has to implement across its entire business. It's great that the company can show off future technology - there's a real thrill at seeing the latest fruits of the labours of Sony's world-class engineering teams. Its rivals, however, have perfected the art of creating products that fit the market as it stands today. Nintendo's scoffing at Sony's 3D efforts doesn't hit home simply because they're criticising the unpopular 3D glasses. It scores a bullseye on Sony's true weak point, which is that it remains too focused on the cutting edge of technology, and often loses sight of what consumers really want: entertaining products at competitive price points.

If you work in the games industry and want more views, and up-to-date news relevant to your business, read our sister website GamesIndustry.biz, where you can find this weekly editorial column as soon as it is posted.

Picture of Rob.

About Rob Fahey

Rob Fahey is a former editor of GamesIndustry.biz who spent several years living in Japan and probably still has a mint condition Dreamcast Samba de Amigo set.

Read more articles from Rob by visiting the Rob Fahey archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (67) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • berelain #1 2 years ago

    interesting read, and I think you've probably hit the nail on the head there. Sony seems to want to maneouvre itself into a prestige category, with hardware at a premium for bleeding edge technology. Thats great for those who can afford it, but as the current generation has proven, its not what everyone wants, and to me the 3D technology currently in cinemas and the new Sony tvs is impressive, but primitive. When the 3DS can do the same thing- alebeit on a small screen- without the requirement for 3D glasses, its clear that the same kind of technology will be available in larger screens within a few years- that, for me, will be the time to seriously consider adoption of the new technology. As it stands, I could see people buying Bravia tv's and an array of 3D glasses for the family to find themselves with an outdated format in just a couple of years. Of course, if they can afford the investment now, then investing in different tech when the market stabilises won't be that difficult. But the masses, I think, will be content to wait.

  • CYBER-WOO #2 2 years ago

    Get rid of the glasses and I'm sold.

  • Bremenacht #3 2 years ago

    they're absolutely right. Sony's technology is the future - 3D in the home isn't a pipe dream

    I'm not sure anyone is wholly convinced of that and yet affordable 3D gaming is dependent on consumers having a 3D TV (or planning on getting one anyway). Affordability is one of the unwritten requirements of console gaming, yet Sony seem intent (yet again) on re-writing that rule. It's easier to believe that failing to observe that rule will sink Sony's vision of 3D gaming. It'll probably sink Kinept too, unless the price drops.

    It scores a bullseye on Sony's true weak point

    for massive damage? There - I said it, so that you don't have to.
    Edited by Bremenacht at 03/07/10 @ 08:53

  • nickthegun #4 2 years ago

    I know from experience in the cinema that quadruple glazing means no sale.

    Unless the 60-100 quid price tag includes prescription lenses..

  • bdgr #5 2 years ago

    what if - like me - you already wear glasses? Do you wear the 3D glasses over them, or do you have to take your glasses off to wear the 3d glasses that you need to see 3D with but then can't see because you can't see properly without your glasses!!!!?

  • fknetwork #6 2 years ago

    POLL TIME!!!

    VOTE + if you can't wait for 3D and the lovely glasses!

    VOTE - if you don't give a **** about 3D and the silly glasses!

  • Dave52 #7 2 years ago

    bdgr - Glasses over the top of the glasses you wear...


    I don't understand why people are getting hung up with the glasses... It's the only way to get 3d in hd on a tv in your living room. Passive glasses can't do it and the parallax filters that the 3DS uses are far too expensive for a big tv, and they require you to sit right in front of the tv, no viewing angles whatsoever.

    The glasses are comfortable and you really will forget you're wearing them once you're immersed in the game/movie/match etc.

    The new 3d tvs are amazing, Sony is banking on them being a big thing in 2011, and I wouldn't mind betting they're right. Go find the video of Jimmy Fallon playing KZ3 in 3D, it blows his head clean off - it's that kind of reaction that will get people interested.

  • 3william56 #8 2 years ago

    Memories are short. Yes, in this round of the console wars, Ninty has scored resounding victories with their low tech approach, but go back one more generation, and you'll see Ninty's clunky cartridge driven system getting it's doors blown off by a sleek, black high tech solution (the PS2), which destroyed the N64. And back one more time, to the SNES getting mortally wounded by another higher spec device - the grey grandaddy PS1. Ninty went from total world domination in the SNES era, to an also-ran, far worse performance than the PS3, in the space of a couple of years, and based on the same philosophy Rob reckons is the holy grail now.

    One recent victory does not make them the gods of the console trade, not their philosophy the best way for the future. They are rightfully doing well now, but there's lots of signs of trouble for the future - where to now for the Wii 2?

    And really - comparing a postage stamp glasses-free 3D with something on a 50" plasma is also a bit crap. If Ninty come out with a cheap, simple tech for making a 3D Wii, then you're talking. The 3DS is nothing to do with the PS3 or 3DTV - except as a leader into 3D as a gaming staple, which actually plays right into Sony's hands. If all those DS players get used to 3D gaming and want it in the living room, Ninty's got nothing to offer them.

    It's always been a weak comparison. Ninty makes Hyundais - and lots of people buy them cheap. Sony makes BMWs - lower volume, higher spec. The success of one does not mean failure of another - it's a totally different business model. Ninty just makes consoles - the Playstation is just one in an ecosystem of tech, which has already delivered a decent (if not earth shattering) performance, and a win for Blu Ray, and a feed in to the rest of Sony's products. Ditto Microsoft - lost billions on the XB and XB360, but recoups in software and part of MS's push for tech dominance of the house.

  • Climhazzard #9 2 years ago

    I'll get a 3D tv once prices come down and the technology is good enough for no glasses as it will obviously get there, i'll stick with 2D for now thanks quite happy with it.

  • GamesConnoisseur #10 2 years ago

    Trumpeting the virtues of the 3DS's glassless approach as a winner over 3D requiring 3DTV is a pointless excercise, other than to demonstrate how consumers are very quick to decide which they would prefer when viewing 3D on an everyday basis.

    Pointless... in that the functional aspect are quite different, 3DS only essentially works in a handheld format and for just audience of one, in a tight viewing angle as others said. BUT still 3DS came out at a very WRONG time for Sony, as its successfully highlighted another important weakness on top of the pricepoints of the 3DTV tech.

    I too am very well put off at being requiring to wear glass for every time we get 3D content on 3DTV, too much hassle.

    I do am honestly thankful, that Sony is continually pushing the frontiers, but do believe they will have a much harder time with 3DTV/3D Glasses. Sony's responses is an evidence of being on defensive and trying to counter the 'anti-3d' tide.

    Just let your products sell itself and let its stand or fall on its own merits, as blathering would only do so much, as at the end consumers will utlimately decides if its to be a niche and luxury product or a new widespread successful standard of viewing contents on TV.

  • SilentNinja92 #11 2 years ago

    I dont think they can just get rid of the glasses though.

    Nintendo said that kids under 7 cannot use the 3DS in 3D mode as its damaging to the eye. And its strenuous to the eye. I personally dont like that much and if the tech is already there, why are major TV producers going with glasses after undoubtably spending ao much money on reaserch and development?

    I think the glasses are the way to go, at least for quite a few years to come and sony knows that, having most likely had bravia reaserch this themselves.

    I like sony keeping at the cutting edge. Graphics arnt everything but when you spend all this money on a 3D tv, or nice headphones or surround sound, you do want to see the best of it and the ps3 gives you that. And the screen on the psp really is brilliant, they just need more games.

    The psp was a mistake unfortunately. graphics arnt as important for portable gaming, but keep up with it on your main consoles. Bluray has come through, ps3 sales are up and the console now makes money on each unit sold. Consodering how long this gen will last and that the cell is already made for next gen, seems like it payed off.

  • gjgjg #12 2 years ago

    @fknetwork i want to plus your post, but my vote was a neg:)

    SCE need to chill a bit, the sony wiimove, the psp go, psn+ etc all that stuff should have been ditched and instead spend those resources on imporving dev's ability to port cross platform and support for devs in general and to encourage more exclusives & new IP that actually push the consoles capability. Enough with the bells and whistles and get some improvement on the basics!

    dont get me wrong, i have a ps3 and ill be getting a 3d tv eventually, but i still havent even gone HD yet due to (my opinion on) pricing - im not gona pay more for a tv than the console itself.

    ill also be getting a 3ds, not because of the 3d but because of the improved basic capability and the new release line up -the basics. I'd still get one if it werent 3d, its an added bonus, not a main selling point for me and i suspect im not alone.

  • Ignatius_Cheese #13 2 years ago

    @3william56 - I think you're getting your console generations slightly skewed there...

  • flaming.carrot #14 2 years ago

    I for one am glad that companies like sony are still heavily investing (and to a point gambling) in bleeding edge tech - that's what keeps the gaming experience alive and exciting for me. If the only gaming choice I had was a Wii or a DS then I probably would not be a gamer anymore.

  • El-Dev #15 2 years ago

    Good read that.

    Sony have always had the most expensive products on the market though, it's not just in recent years that this has been the case.

  • Dizzy #16 2 years ago

    > 3D in the home isn't a pipe dream

    It is as long as you need glasses.

  • mathare92 #17 2 years ago

    Really good read.
    Gotta say though, even as an avid Sony loyalist, I can only really see myself affording all the tech maybe 3 years down the line.

  • sjmlondon #18 2 years ago

    Sony make some wonderful products, both in design and performance but there is always a price premium to go with them. I have a lot of Sony Computer and AV kit with the exception of a PS3 and the quality shines through.

    If you thought Sony gadgets were expensive, you should check out the price of their accessories, replacement keyboards, batteries etc. Ouch! And you thought Microsoft lived in LaLa land in that ripoff department.

    These days Samsung, LG and Philips all make top notch TV, with specs that are often better than Sony at lower prices. Shame they are all offering incompatible 3D googles that only work with their particular brand of TV and the glasses cost extra in additon to the cost of the TV.

    I'm not convinced about this generation of 3D TV and still think it is too soon after trying to get everyone to buy HD, Full HD Tvs etc to now upgrade again to 3D. For a start there is only very limited content at present and watching 3D TV with your family or mates means forking out hundreds of pounds for additional 3D glasses. Amazon only have one 3D blu ray available. How many times are you going to want to watch 'Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 3D'?

    I still haven't been really impressed by 3D movies in the cinema with the possibly exception of 'Aliens vs Monsters'. You eyes do become tired having to wear the 3D glasses and lost track of the number of number of times I took them off to have a good blink sitting through Avatar. Half the time the 3D aspect was just a gimmick and novelty factor to get you to fork out an extra £2 to watch another second rate film.

    lBlu Ray discs are also expensive unless you rent them. A lot of DVD players upscale the film to give a pretty good picture and Sky has plenty of HD content which I justify paying for in that it saves my buying Blu Ray or even standard DVDs.

    It will be interesting to see what 3D HD gaming comes up with but like the vaste majority I will be holding to see where the technology is going, prices come down and there is sufficient content out there to justify the initial large investment.

  • Kami #19 2 years ago

    "Memories are short. Yes, in this round of the console wars, Ninty has scored resounding victories with their low tech approach, but go back one more generation, and you'll see Ninty's clunky cartridge driven system getting it's doors blown off by a sleek, black high tech solution (the PS2), which destroyed the N64."

    But the N64 wasn't a failure - not by a long, long, LONG way. Nintendo sold loads of N64's on the back of ONE craze - Pokémon. Those few years where Pokémon was dominant made Nintendo an absolute crap-ton of money - yes, cartridges were expensive and a bit clunky, but then the PS1 was not immune to the same argument - how quickly we forget the arguments over memory cards costing the same as the games, eh?!

    This article pretty much sums it up. It's great to see future tech in the works - really it is, and it's awesome to think how that will translate a few years down the line. Sony are good at it, and they were right - HD is now becoming the default, but it took a few years for that to actually happen. But you gamble so much on the future, you're eventually going to get a loser or two - something Sony know all too well. And yes, Nintendo are perfect at current tech - they look at what they can do with affordable tech now. It's great, it works and it sells and Nintendo make sure to keep specs high but costs low enough that they can score profits on every single machine sold. It's the perfect business model - they win, we win.

    Nintendo are just good at this, and fair play to them for it... they always got written off for some reason, it's a curiously modern realisation that Nintendo may actually be here to stay for many, many, many more generations to come yet....

  • Gurgeh #20 2 years ago

    With Sony's track record of failure with their own tech standards (from Betamax to UMD) it would be wise to wait and see which 3D system prevails. Personally I think 3d outside of games won't be mainstream until the the TV sets do not require glasses. Those devices are coming, they won't be affordable for some time, but who's going to want to watch their "old" 3d TV in a pair of dorky glasses when their neighbours are watching their shiny new set without plastic goggles?

  • TonyHarrison #21 2 years ago

    Nintendo aren't really targeting Sony, they're targeting the 3D with glasses craze as a whole, and Sony aren't the only ones pushing it.

    Still, it would be slightly difficult for Nintendo not to target anybody... When Nintendo simply advertise that you do not require 3D glasses to use the 3DS in an honest attempt to sell their product, the gaming media will fan the fanboy flame wars by telling us that Nintendo have launched a brutal assault on Sony...

    The reality of the situation is slightly different though.
    Edited by TonyHarrison at 03/07/10 @ 13:13

  • Sunyavadin #22 2 years ago

    how do you advertise something where the whole point is that normal TV sets can't display it?

    "This is the picture quality you get from DVD!" - on VHS tapes.

    Oh, they always made me laugh.

  • vizzini #23 2 years ago

    For these type of articles I wish Eurogamer would disable the neg/positive button as it ultimately leads to science fact being completely disregarded.

    The reality is, that we need technology powerhouses to be our champions; without them mankind’s entire evolution will stop; watch the lions in an Attenborough video, It is “survival of the fittest”, not “survival of the most popular/cutest”!

    Medical research, genetics, greener technology(like in the PS3), space exploration might as well all stop now if we are happy to believe Nintendo are right and technology companies like Sony/Panasonic/Toshiba/Philips/LG/Samsung/Sharp, etc are all wrong.

    The consumer failure of Betamax was more telling about mankind’s average intelligence in the 1980’s than it was about how good the technology was.

    Betacam (the pro end of Betamax) became an industry standard for TV and super-VHS was later born out of the Betamax technology (by Sony) to become the definitive customer VHS format, so all these poorly educated people (in science) slamming better technology should stop and think about what they are doing.

    Yes Nintendo are a great software art house and peripheral manufacturer; possible even the best, but they are not the best console manufacturer because their science/technology is not the best.

  • Tallon4 #24 2 years ago

    Sure...glasses are a problem. But the real problem is my wallet. I spend a big amount on an 120 Hz Bravia last year and I'm not willing to spend so much money again on another set so soon.

  • ParanoidZombie #25 2 years ago

    Vizzini wrote: "The reality is, that we need technology powerhouses to be our champions; without them mankind’s entire evolution will stop; watch the lions in an Attenborough video, It is “survival of the fittest”, not “survival of the most popular/cutest”! "

    We are not lions. And we are not fit. And we live in a society, not by nature's law. And Sony's latest entertainement device has nothing to do with darwin.

  • El-Dev #26 2 years ago

    The glasses don't bother me at all to be honest, don't really see the big deal with them. The price is a problem though and this is why I think most of the detractors are aren't interested in it.

  • des #27 2 years ago

    "Sony seems to want to maneouvre itself into a prestige category, with hardware at a premium for bleeding edge technology"


    Sony has lost TV battle ages ago...rebranded Samsung,Sharp,that is Sony today

  • mr_shoe_uk #28 2 years ago

    vizzini has just come up with one of the craziest anti-Nintendo arguments imaginable.

    I got a PS3, I enjoy it a lot, but I didn't get it to advance humanity...

  • scaramanga10 #29 2 years ago

    This article completely misses the entire point about Sony's 3D strategy...

    Because it really isn't focused around gaming, as their current vastly more expensive World Cup 3D push has shown. Sony's goal isn't to sell PS3s, its to speed the adoption of 3DTVs and 3D equipment as a whole. And not just for Sony products, but for the market as a whole (even if you buy a 3DTV you may not buy a Sony 3DTV after all).

    Its a holistic approach that is about market building. Because while you may not buy a Sony 3DTV the content filming it may be using Sony cinema or broadcasting equipment (World Cup and Avatar was filmed using Sony cameras), you may buy a Blu-ray player, or use other Sony technology.

    Imagine if every single sporting event was in 3D (F1, football, baseball, etc.) and imagine if television shows started broadcasting in 3D as well as 2D. They would need to upgrade all their equipment, not just the cameras but the broadcasting backbone as well. This is where the money is at, Sony doesn't care if only a few people really use Killzone 3D, they want you to know that its there, that 3D is waiting for you.

    The reality is 3DTVs will be ubiquitous in the next few years, all that is necessary to do 3D is HDMI 1.4 and 120Hz; which will be every single TV in the market. Whenever you upgrade your TV it will be 3D capable, even if you don't intend on using it. What Sony is trying to do is show that whenever you do upgrade there will be content for it. This article entirely misplaces the motivations of why 3D is on the PS3.

    Which is also the point with 3D glasses, implementing 3D is CHEAP with shutter glasses, you only need a standard 120Hz display and HDMI 1.4. Autosteroscopic displays like on the 3DS don't work well with large displays as the Sharp's 15" parallax barrier monitor or Phillips lenticular lens big screen TVs have shown, plus they are incredibly expensive. But the thing is 3D from the content side is completely agnostic to the display technology, if in the future there are good glass-less big-screen HDTV your old Killzone 3D will play just fine.

  • jambo74 #30 2 years ago

    Marketing 3D is incredibly difficult, too - how do you advertise something where the whole point is that normal TV sets can't display it

    Well they managed with HDTV

  • JeffGerstmann #31 2 years ago

    clap, clap, clap etc. etc........

  • joeymoto108 #32 2 years ago

    Until 3D glasses aren't needed to view content in 3D, 3DTVs will be a very very niche market. I, for one, have no intent of purchasing a 3DTV until:
    a) they're as cheap as regular HDTV's
    b) don't require glasses
    c) my current TV packs in

    I suspect that most people are awaiting upon the same criteria as I am.

  • trip919 #33 2 years ago

    Excellent article.

  • Drpwnage #34 2 years ago

    @scaramanga10

    Agreed, I think the article is good but not seeing the bigger picture behind Sony's drive to promote 3D.

    Glasses free 3D at a mainstream price point is probably 8-10 years away at the moment. Intel have demonstrated an early version of the technology at CES in Jan, but it is a long way from being perfected and engineered for the mass market.

  • Zaiz #35 2 years ago

    lol@Vizzini

    Nintendo isn't light on technology. They make some of the nicest bits of tech you'll ever see extremely cheaply and effectively. They are a video game company and nothing else significant. This means Nintendo really can't afford a loss anywhere in their company. Sony and Microsoft can sell consoles at a loss because they are giant companies. They can eat 2-3 billion dollars in losses without panicking, where Nintendo probably reels at a few hundred million. Ninty simply isn't in a position to create a wildly expensive to produce console that has expensive parts.

  • FuzzyDuck #36 2 years ago

    @3william56

    If I go back a console generation I end up recalling a fancy little blue box called "Gamecube" that was technically superior to the PS2 in most ways.

    I'm not convinced by 3D yet and i feel it's premature when you consider how many people are still playing in SD.

  • DrDamn #37 2 years ago

    Very good article with a couple of points. Sony have their fingers in far more 3D pies than just games, TVs and wanting to sell a few more blurays. They are also involved in the cameras, post production and filming of specific events (World cup already mentioned).

    "tech costing thousands ..." ... Been mentioned in plenty of threads but worth it one more time. Samsung 40" LCD TV available on Amazon for £920 and you get a free pair of glasses to boot. Expensive yes, thousands no.

    On a general point they also aren't expecting everyone to rush out and upgrade tvs. Just consider it as an option when you do upgrade. It's got to start somewhere hasn't it?

  • darkmorgado #38 2 years ago

    @3william56

    go back one more generation, and you'll see Ninty's clunky cartridge driven system getting it's doors blown off by a sleek, black high tech solution (the PS2), which destroyed the N64. And back one more time, to the SNES getting mortally wounded by another higher spec device - the grey grandaddy PS1

    Well done for proving you know nothing about the industry. The SNES owned its generation at a time when Sony weren't part of the industry - back then it was Sega and Nintendo (Sony at the time refused to believe that the games industry was a viable business). The Playstation was originally developed as a Nintendo console until the deal fell through (leading to Nintendo approaching Phillips instead, leading to some awful games on the CDi using Ninty characters), so the PS1 competed with the N64 (which was, despite using cartirdges, techincally superior). The PS2 competed with the Xbox and the Gamecube, with the Gamecube being much more powerful than the PS2.

    Sony won the fifth and sixth generations not through superior technology (they had the least powerful console in both generations) buth through spending an absolute f*ckload on marketing because the Sony president had no faith that they would ever succeed. When they got too smug and forgot that, it led to the arrogance and god complex that caused their huge fall from grace this gen.
    Edited by darkmorgado at 04/07/10 @ 00:36

  • Grayvern #39 2 years ago

    This article would have a point If Sony was doing anything different from the entirety of the TV manufacturing market.

    Sony are probably more mad that their marketing thunder was stolen by nintendo, because ultimately it was marketing, 3D is a way for TV manufacturers to generate buzz with minimal cost.

    3D is cheap for sony to do, all they have done is put bluetooth transmitters and software for the glasses in existing 120hz LCD TV's and rebrand them.

    Basically with the rush for 3D in film electronics companies needed to respond that means 1-3 years of glasses before the tech filters through and all tv manufacturers gradually switch over to glasses less.

    3D is more akin to a developer adding steam cloud support to a game cheap enough to do and positive marketing in some segments.

    @ Darkmodogo whatever the tech specs of the N64 you can't say that using CD's wasn't part of the reason sony succeeded, devs and companies abandoned the N64 like rats from a sinking liner at the thought of having to use carts.
    Edited by Grayvern at 04/07/10 @ 01:03

  • Darren #40 2 years ago

    The future of 3D is one without the need for glasses so I'm siding with Nintendo because even if the 3DS is flawed it will still pave the way for better technology based on it. The need to wear glasses to view 3D is so 1950s IMO.

  • Ginjarou #41 2 years ago

    I can't stand 3D TV. Beside the fact that it's ridiculously expensive; even for a single pair of those silly glasses let alone an actual compatible TV - you also lose colour, the 3D looks like crap as soon as an object is half out of shot i.e. a football coming towards you looks good but as soon as it goes out of shot it completely ruins the 3D effect.
    This is just rubbish, I don't want 3D stuff, I don't like it, don't want to pay that much for it and if you have friends over - do they all need to bring their glasses? Or do you have to pay that ridiculous amount for a pay of glasses for all your friends?!

    I think Nintendo have every right to 'spat' at Sony about this. Especially after Sony pretty much said that they weren't advancing technology with the Wii and now are completely ripping them off with Playstation Move.

    Edited by Ginjarou at 04/07/10 @ 03:56

  • reinhart_menken #42 2 years ago

    That is very true, the final conclusion regarding the present and the future. It's true that often times it's bad to look too far ahead and get ahead of the market. On the other hand, it's always nice to see someone do it. Haven't you seen that prototype car that not only looks cool on the showroom floor (or picture) but also has advanced and very useful features? They often end up not being produced because there's not enough market demand or need, but you still they would have made it, don't you?

    On the 3D subject, I'm not a fan, and don't feel the urgent need for it, but that's also probably because the last time I've actually seen 3D technology like that was when I was at Disneyland, many many years ago (not been to IMAX, again, because I literally can't see what the fuss is about, without actually being there). If I recall my experience at Disneyland, though, I remember it was an exciting experience (at least that age), things really popped out, and even though you know rationally you're not there, there's just some part of your mind that believes it or feel so.

    IMO Sony just need to do it right, somehow lower the price, and allow the market more accessibility to test it (somehow getting a 3D TV even the store of every store that sells it, which might sound crazy, but if one 3D TV helps sell 3 more, that's probably a win).
    Edited by reinhart_menken at 04/07/10 @ 08:33

  • Raznilof #43 2 years ago

    Great article as always!

    How do you think Apple fits into all of this? Arguably they are now too in the business of hand-held consoles.

  • FairgroundTown #44 2 years ago

    "Sony and Microsoft can sell consoles at a loss because they are giant companies. They can eat 2-3 billion dollars in losses without panicking."

    Microsoft, yes. Sony... well... if they CAN eat 2-3 billion dollar losses without panicking, they are doing a bloody good job of hiding it - it seems like every week they are re-organizing, re-structuring or announcing re... dundnacies. (Sorry!)

    But it is true (to bring together things that others have said) that they see everything at the moment as an investment in the 3D future, where they will sell the cameras that will film the match, as well as the TVs that will show it.

    Is it a smart plan? Maybe. At least it is a plan, which is something Sony have been a bit short on since they came to the realization that PS3 wasn't going to carry them in quite the way PS1/2 did.

  • HandsomeCrab #45 2 years ago

    Could you imagine someone walking in on you wearing a mic/headset, 3d goggles and waving a couple of wands with ping pong balls attached around? I'd rather be caught cracking one off.

  • fknetwork #46 2 years ago

    @HandsomeCrab
    LMAO! so true!

  • timberwolf #47 2 years ago

    Graphics and technology didn't sell games years ago it was the promise of that tech leading to better games. From nes to snes and ps1 to ps2 they made better games.

    Now that everyone has decided they can't make anything new they are using tech like motion sensing, voice recognition and 3d (which have been around for years by the way).

    This isn't the march of the future it's some tacked on crap they tried to sell us years ago. Instead of trying to sell tech, make games... for God's sakes won't someone make good games.

  • Kaminari #48 2 years ago

    Interesting read indeed, but I find no fun factor at all in Nintendo's products; it just further proves that the casual and hardcore markets are two totally different worlds.

  • Vixremento #49 2 years ago

    I want 3D that:
    - doesn't give me a headache
    - doesn't need everyone gaming/watching to have an additional peripheral
    - doesn't require a TV that costs the same price as a second hand car (here in SA that's how mad OLED screens are!).
    - is actually viewable in 3D if I have a lazy eye (sorry but otherwise it's just friekin ugly to me...sure I'm a minority but they don't get my money unless I'm catered for).
    - makes the content better in some way (and not just 3D for the sake of being in 3D).

    I'll gladly pay premium prices provided they meet the criteria above!

  • anathema #50 2 years ago

    As someone who wears glasses (and is not going to get contacts), my single recent experience of wearing 3D glasses (Avatar) was so annoying and uncomfortable I would never consider buying a 3D TV until 3D glasses aren't needed.

    There's no way I'd sit there for a few hours every night getting increasingly pissed off wearing 2 pairs of glasses while paying over the odds for the privilege. As such, 3D TV and gaming is years off yet for me regardless of affordability.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #51 2 years ago

    All this talk of 3Dtv is hurting my ears? Why? Because we don't want it and never asked for it. Show me the marlet research that says we want this 3D crap? More than likely because their isn't any. And when even japanese people are reluctant, Sony indeed have an uphill battle on this one.

    Frankly I can see the whole 3Dtv thing going tits up wrong. Besides gamers and othr tech savvy folk who are by and large the minority, its the brainless masses that need convincing, and I don' thin they will be. There's reasons why Wii and DS took off, and that's through their ease of use. Many of the same people, don't even fully know their way around the tv they have right now, let alone a new fangled 3Dtv, on yonder horizon. 3Dtv, PS3, Blu Ray, what do they have in common? The fact that they are TOO COMPLICATED AND TOO EXPENSIVE for many people, and thus not needed.

    Blu Ray is a damn good example of this. After the HD-DVD-Blu Ray war, ( a battle many a consumer was a casualty of) its been out for a few years now, and as sweet as it is, its largely dead in the water. Why? Because their Blu Ray discs are too expensive, DVD is much cheaper, can also record and have media be burned to a blank DVD. Two things Blu Ray can't do. Blu Ray will only get to be number one, when its cheap enough and user friendly enough as DVD. Much like VHS. Sony will once again have a hard time convincing the masses to switch. I'm betting on the people in the street.

    Kudos to Sony looking to the future, but 3Dtv is a timeline we don't want. What something like that will do, is fragment the market for tvs and their users. Some people can't even see in 3D, so HD/SD options will have to co-exist than totally replace, thus meaning no shutting down of HD/SD content. And on top of all that, there are still plenty of users who have HDtvs, but watch SD on them. Again, too complicated for the people to care.

    My current tv is a 17' Sony, which I've had for a dedade or so now. When I do upgrade, I'm going to get me a nice LG 32-40 HDtv. All LG and Samsung stuff is crazy wonderful, and much cheaper.

    Sony would only be so anxious over Nintendo's 3D words if they were hurting, and possibly unsure of the 3D movie studio backed gamble. If both Move and 3Dtv bombed for them, they'll be in a lot of trouble. Sure, 3d looks sweet on PS3, but the , masses won't care. Maybe MS non 3Dtv gamble is paying off. As for those glasses to watch tv, £100 each? That my friends will be the nail in the coffin to 3Dtv. Some of us can't even afford money for real glasses, let alone fake ones, lol. The possibility of wearing two pairs is stupidly insane.

  • penhalion #52 2 years ago

    Higher resolution passive systems would have been a fairly instant win as the glasses cost about 2 quid and the system doesn't give you a splitting headache.

  • witchdrash #53 2 years ago

    @SpaceMonkey77 you don't really now what you're talking about, the masses wont really need to be convinced to buy 3d tvs as in a couple of years all the sets will be 3d capable, they will need to convince people to buy the glasses, a much easier prospect, once they have a 3d capable set getting them to buy some glasses 6/12/18 months after purchase is probably not going to be that tough. The current drive is clearly to capture the early adopting minority and get the general idea that this 3d cinema experience can be had at home. The tv companies simply don't expect normal consumers to rush out and buy these new sets, which is why only the most pricey sets this year.

    Blu-ray isn't dead in the water, it is struggling against dvd in sales numbers because a lot more people have dvd players than blu-ray players, but looking at the figures a suggestion that they aren't selling simply doesn't line up with the facts. ($1.5 billion revenue last year)

    When you say 3d is something WE don't want, it's really a technology YOU don't want, I'm on my 3rd HDTV and this one is 3d capable, I actually want it, others are ambivalent to it. At 17" the odds a lot of the movements on in last 10 years (I'm guessing you're still on crt) would not benefit you, as the difference between SD and 720 is pretty much non-existent at that size, which makes DVD a far better purchase for you, when you're looking at my 50" set at 6 feet 720->1080 is visible and the jump from SD is huge.

    The current glasses cost represent the fact they are niche, once they can produce more and the technology becomes cheaper, by the time it trickles down to budget sets (3 years) the glasses will be £10/£15 a piece, much more palatable. If you are looking at a £350 set, an extra £50 for 4 glasses is a lot easier to swallow, but we're at the start of the curve right now and it's as expensive as it be.

    If you buy an hd tv in 2 years time it will almost definitely be active shutter 3d capable. As stated the content is a delivery method, so when (or if) affordable glasses free tvs appear (probably 8+ years away, and then still 11+ years from mass market) it will still work, and I suspect I'll switch then as well, I tend to get a new set every 2/3 years, because I like to have the new stuff, not the approach many take.

  • Dave52 #54 2 years ago

    Can I just ask... all those bleating about hating and not wanting 3D, have you been to Curries/Comet and had a go with the active shutters...?

  • man.the.king #55 2 years ago

    A very, very interesting article, and quite intuitive about Sony's philosophy as a whole.

    While Rob Fahey clearly pointed out that Nintendo has a knack for taking Today's technology and running successfully with it while Sony always has one eye on the distant horizon, I think Rob missed one vital perspective in his article:

    Nintendo is primarily a Games Console company, and so it's philosophy fits its business MO perfectly. On the other hand, Sony is primarily a Technology company, of which the Games Division is a part. As such, it is to be expected that the philosophy of being at the cutting-edge of technology is vital to the company's future - that is how it does and has always done its business - the Console hardware is just a side-effect.

    Microsoft has something similar too. While the previous iterations of its 360 hardware left something to be desired (reliability-wise), where MS really shines is being extremely innovative in offering users new/better ways to interact and use their hardware and software.

    These - being at the forefront of technology, hardware or software - are core aspects of these companies (Sony and MS) and I would rather that we have entities like these than just three Nintendos, which wait for the technology of tomorrow to become the tech of today/yesterday, and then use these to do their business (although admittedly, Nintendo is very good at what it does).
    Edited by man.the.king at 05/07/10 @ 23:26

  • DrDamn #56 2 years ago

    @MattDamon
    Samsung glasses can be had now for £60. Third party glasses are also becoming available. Prices in a year or two will be cheaper still. They will be well within the price range of games peripheral. Less than the price for a balance board, full wiimote, PS Move and Kinect.

  • Moonprince #57 2 years ago

    Read half way. Kinda dull reading. Made even more so by Nintendo's promise of 3D in their next console.

  • funkateer #58 2 years ago

    "Get rid of the glasses and I'm sold. "

    Also if that tech is three times as expensive and doesn't work as well as 3D with glasses?

    "With Sony's track record of failure with their own tech standards (from Betamax to UMD) it would be wise to wait and see which 3D system prevails."

    You're forgetting about CD, Betacam, and BluRay etc, which are of course all very successful standards, and much more so than Betamax and UMD have been failures.

    I'm myself very interested in 3D, glasses and all. Not sure if I would go for Sony's expensive TV's though, as there are cheaper alternatives that seem just as good to me.
    What I still don't understand is why there are no cheap standalone 3D solutions available for use with normal HDTV's.
    Something for approx 100 euro + a pair of glasses and 60 for any additional pair of glasses seems good.

  • Dave52 #59 2 years ago

    Funkateer: "What I still don't understand is why there are no cheap standalone 3D solutions available for use with normal HDTV's"

    You average HDTV doesn't have a high enough refresh rate for 3D TV. The new Sonys (for example) are 200Hz.

  • CatWeazle #60 2 years ago

    1) most people's TVs are several yards away across the living room, meaning 3D effect will be pretty shit

    2) don't wanna buy a new HDTV thank-you-very-much Sony, my current one is pimp

    3) I'd rather have a 60fps game, than a 30fps one in 3D. FFS, games on my PS3 are sluggish enough already.

    4) Don't want to wear a pair of dumbass eye-straining specs, ta

    5) However the Ninty 3DS sounds great.. I can hold it right up close for a good 3d effect, and I don't need glasses. Win.

  • funkateer #61 2 years ago

    "You average HDTV doesn't have a high enough refresh rate for 3D TV. The new Sonys (for example) are 200Hz."

    Yes, but on the other hand, such a solution running would be good enough for the current (and upcoming) console 3D games and 3D movies.

  • Dave52 #62 2 years ago

    No, you're average tv would barely handle the 3d games (if at all), and there's no way it could handle the 3d bluray movies...

  • SAH1977 #63 2 years ago

    Like it or not consumers moved to HDTV's as the movie, TV and gaming industries adopted this technology.

    The same will be true with 3DTV's as 3D will be a standard feature of most new TVs and 3D glasses will be handed out with boxes of cornflakes.
    Edited by SAH1977 at 07/07/10 @ 19:53

  • witchdrash #64 2 years ago

    @funkateer true, kind of, the problem with the earlier sets is they don't refresh enough quick enough to eliminate the eye strain for most people, I had a look at nVidia's 3d vision kit about 10 years ago, a friend had the first release, and basically it was running at 15 fps per eye and I ended up with a horrible head ache and feeling really sick after 5 minutes, with the latest release of tvs I can watch for hours without any ill effects. It seems to be that anything less than 60 frames an eye causes problems, and you ideally want as many as possible, and a lot of the 120hz tvs released last year or the year before are using an internal algorithm to create the extra frames from the ones it is receiving and doesn't actually have the capability of receiving the signal through the inputs though, meaning it couldn't properly receive a 120 frames a second.

  • xenoss #65 2 years ago

    Who is to say 3D isn't the future? Did anyone think Twitter was the future? It seemed like a pretty braindead stupid thing to me. And yet, we apparently live in a brain dead stupid world.

    Sure, there are those of us who see 3D as nothing more than a fad, some gimmick that movie companies and Sony THINK we love; may be Avatar was to blame; after all, 3D turned this shitty film into a legend. But in time, we know people will grow tired of it and realize just how silly they were. But people have demonstrated that they are pretty stupid. So may be 3D will take off in spite of sense.

    But Sony's current plan doesn't look like it'd work anyhow. Even if 3D is going to take off, it isn't now. The time isn't right, because we just don't have the technology yet. Wearing glasses is just not having the technology; it is a compromise. When they can do what 3DS can do on TV sized screens, then we're talking. But glasses had always been a compromise, and they're basing their business plans on said compromise. That seems wrong.

    3DS's existence just serves to remind people of the fact that glasses is a compromise, where people otherwise might not think that far, the 3DS forces them to see that fact. And that's what pains Sony.

  • DrDamn #66 2 years ago

    @xenoss
    The 3DS system is also a compromise isn't it?

  • Captain_Jono #67 2 years ago

    A decent article, but it misses the point of Sony's approach.

    From a gaming perspective, 3D makes no sense at all. But then, sony isn't looking at it from a gaming perspective. For Television, 3D is the next step. The electronics industry has already reached the limits of HDTV, and I'm not speaking as a rabid technophile. Simply put, there is a limit to the size of a TV, and that limit is the one your living room will accommodate! I'm sure a 2160 dpi Television would be awesome, but we're talking about a fricking ten-foot television there! TV needs to evolve something better within the size available. Sony are merely using the PS3 as an additional pilot.