Sony shows off 3D LittleBigPlanet News

Why so s... Errrr... in such a hurry...?!?!

So how many people are just going to dump their new HDTV's & buy a new 3D TV? 3D isn't going to happen for me unless you don't have to wear these stupid glasses.

3D isn't going to happen with this technology. It just isn't. Sony et al should just accept a couple of lean years on the HDTV adoption cycle and launch new tech when it's ready.

Sony's obviously doing this so they can sell their own 3DTVs... still feels very early when many people made the switch to HDTV not long ago.

@The_Programmer

Plenty of people wear glasses every time they play games. I'm really not sure it is the barrier that people suggest.

@Raajaa

There are types of 3D TV that don't require glasses. You have to sit in one of several "correct spots" for them to work right though I believe.

On a geeneral note, every new technology seems new and "too early" when people first start to trail blaze it.

Its not possible to only release something for the first time when it is established, is it?

@The_Programmer
How many people dumped their CRTs when plasma and LCDs came out? A select few that follow tech trends. Most people bought theirs when their old CRT crapped out. So if it is going to be a long and drawn out process trying to get a substantial number of people to buy it, might as well make a move then right?

Sunny days will never take off with me. It means I have to wear stupid shades. Argh... damn this mortal body of mine!

@kangarootoo: This tech is ancient, the problem isn't that it's too early, the problem is that there's next to no organic demand for it and TV manufacturers are desperately trying to force it down our throats to prop up their bottom line.

I'll buy a 3D TV this year. It's been 6 years since my first HDTV, and I'm looking forward to 3D. The technology works, it looks great, I'm all for it.

@zuljin
my experience of technology over the last 5-10 years is that it's getting worse.
I had my old crt for about 15 years and it was still good (just small), most new stuff I have had has lasted about 2 years tops. I must have been through about 5 dvd players.
I'm sure they make them so they don't last on purpose.
Anyway when my current Sammy LCD breaks I might look into getting a 3d tv.

@Psychotext

But if we keep saying that, it will never become commonplace.

A fact proven many times before is that if you wait for demand for a brand new product to come into being, you will wait forever. The way it has always been is one company bringsout a new product "too early", this starts to generate interest, which slowly tusn into demand, the first company then cleans up for a while, till eventually new companies come into play to fulfill the now rampant demand, and you end up with a stable market.

There is nothing going here that we have not seen before with some other bit of tech in the past.

Admitedly i don't know a great deal about how this works, or why the sudden demand? if any?

But if they can like someone said release TV's that produce the 3D effect without the glasses, then great. Next time I update my HDTV I might consider one. If not I won't, and I really don't see how this could possibly take off, its far to gimicky!

Avatar for example, i'd much rather have a bright vivid 1080p picture, than some slightly darkened, slightly hit and miss 3D effect!

3D Meh!

Clearly the main reason Sony are so keen to push 3D is to help sales of their own 3DTVs. Same as they did with Blu-ray in the PS3. Meh!!!

@The_Programmer

I think the majority of households don't have HDTV, so it's possible that they might 'leapfrog' HD and go straight to 3D (like people leapfrogged mini-disc and went straight to MP3). However I don't think that's quite likely or that simple.
I do have 2 pals who have both bought HDTVs in the last 12 months, - possible ouch for them! Luckily I've resisted the lure of HDTV... for now.

Agree about the glasses though - especially since I already wear spectacles!

I for one welcome our 3D overlords with open arms (and eyes). And combined with the Wand I think it will be even more awesome, as then you can interact with a 3D environment with a proper 3D interface. Could be pretty awesome imho.

I don't think I'll be able to afford a 3D tv right away though - typically I'll set myself a price barrier, say 1000 euros, and as soon as a TV that meets my requirements hits that price, I'll move in. I did that with our HD Ready tv too. That means the LCD can move into the bedroom.

Now the question will be what are the requirements? Obviously I'll first want to test how the shutter glasses (presuming that's the technology we'll see first) work, and if there is any trade-off for 2D tv at all, or whether it will be a significant step up from my current HD Ready set instead (presumably will have at least twice the framerate I have now, it will have Full HD, it will have much higher contrast ratios, etc., so the improvements could be quite considerable for me).

But I really love that this is coming, and it's great timing together with the new 3D motion controllers that are (and have been in the case of Motion+) coming out.

Just out of interest why do you need a new TV to make 3DTV work correctly? Is it something to do with the picture frequency (120mhz?) or does it actually need kind of dual projection to manifest as 3D?

I'm just a bit behind on how it works :)

Edit - Better anglais

@Raajaa - that is incorrect. There is some 3d tv tech using slanted lcd's that fire dependent on depth detail. These lcds sit just behind the flat tv screen.

3D standards are so nascent that people would have to be mad to jump in any time soon for a handful of movies and games. Any 3D TV (and the kit attached to it) is bound to be half baked and cost a fortune. Better to wait a few years when 3D functionality becomes a standard and reliable feature of mid-range TVs and blu ray players.

>Kangarootoo: A fact proven many times before is that if you wait for demand for a brand new product to come into being, you will wait forever.

well, yes, but that's not a Golden Rule to apply to all technologies. I don't need 5 years of electronic retail and 10 in IT to draw a long list of technologies and products that were foisted onto the market to keep financial projections afloat despite not having recognisable demand and/or fully-realised benefits (as opposed to pure tech). Maybe I'm on the wrong side of the enthusiasm/pessimism spectrum, but at least it's the cheaper end.

In a few years time chances are any new TV will be 3D capable. Just like now (nearly) all LCD TVs are at least HD Ready. It wont be a matter of choice, but anyone buying a new set will be buying a 3D capable (with glasses) set.

The games industry is pushing it this year. The movie industry is pushing it this year. Sky are pushing it this year. Its coming like it or not.

Some peoples stubborn negativity towards this is starting to grate a little bit.

For the extra dimension in gameplay which makes any game you play far more absorbing I think most people won't mind wearing some specs for a bit. It's not going to be commonplace for a long time but at least let those who want to get a taste of the future jump in a little early. Gran Turismo is probably the best example. For anyone who's gone so far as to buy a wheel and especially a proper gaming seat to attach it to the prospect of 3D GT is not a gimmick, it's a definite leap toward intensely greater realism. I'm sure the hardcore early adopters will want to jump aboard.

Secondly the cost is not going to be so prohibitive as people expect. 3D televisions aren't all that different, it's just that they can refresh an image much quicker, the cost will be like the premium you might pay for a good set next to a shite one out of ASDA. It's not going to be thousands more like some people are assuming. The Samsung 22inch monitor made for 3D is about £230 or something in that region, the same is my similarly specced tho non 3D Samsung monitored cost me new a couple of years ago.

Instead of bashing I wish people could see how awesome this is going to be. Not a gimmick and a definite feature all future consoles are going to come compatible with. I look forward to it even though I know I probably won't get a taste of it myself for 2 or 3 years from now.

There are already, apparently, TV's that work like a hologram. They have a spacing between each image that each eye catches slightly differently. No idea how it works or if it works well, but they're working on them.

@BartonFink

I honestly don't give a hoot why any company releases a new product.

Do I know why Walkers got into the potato crisp business? Do I know why Caterpillar started making footwear as well as haulage equipment? Do I know why Eurogamer set up their website?

No, I really don't care.

I'm only interested in whether their products are good for me as a customer.


"Some peoples stubborn negativity towards this is starting to grate a little bit."

I hear that. I bet the invention of the normal CRT telly all those years ago was subject to wireless fans with the same attitude (acting like they were different from all those people that had come over thousands of years before them that dismissed new stuff as unecessary or wrong).

@fiery_jackass

Well, I'm generalising and of course ignoring the products that failed (I dispute whether being "too early" was always the problem with failed technologies though).

And your "the cheaper end of the enthusiasm/pessimism spectrum" closer made me chuckle :)

I disagree completely that there is no demand for 3D, Avatar is on track to be one of the highest grossing films of all time and I don't think people are going for the quality of the script or the acting!

The main thing that holds 3D in the home back will be the price.

Personally I think the potential for 3D games is amazing and I can't wait to try it, but there's no way I'm buying an expensive new TV any time soon.

@squarejawhero

Yeah, that is the type of TV. I believe you have to sit in the right spot so that the right image hits each eye, but its relatively generous. I believe they project alternate images across the whole viewing field, so there are loads of places you can sit. You just need to shuffle a few inches either way to "line up".

I honestly can't say whether I keep my head still or not when gaming or watching films, so I can't really suppose whether that would be an issue.

Talking of price, here is some food for thought.

As has been mentioned, the tech in use in cinemas is essentially ancient (I first experienced it about 15 years ago). The reason it took so long to take off was the cost. Even 5 years ago there were only a few cinemas that could show 3D films. Now, suddenly, everywhere seems to have at least 1 3D supporting screen.

The costs for home sets might be prohibitive today, but the savings made elsewhere in the business over all those years mean that could change extremely quickly. We could literally see the rpice of 3D TVs halve 2 years after the first ones hit the market.

Now imagine what tits Sony and all other interested parties would feel like if that price cut suddenly came and they had no content to provide to the now eager market? They need to start doing all this stuff now, so that when a few 3D TVs start selling over the next few years, they have already got their production costs down to a manageable level.

None of the companies involved in this initiative are green. They wouldn't be SO wrong as posters here seem to think they are. Perhaps said posters just don't understand the 3D TV business as well as one of the largest TV makers on the planet?... just a thought.

Can't see people dumping their current set just to get a 3D one but for those who do want a new TV, a lot of 3D-ready TVs will have Freeview HD tuners, web TV etc. I think the combination of plus points will mean that soon having 3D in a TV becomes one of a number of nice bonuses rather just a sole reason for buying.

@bodypopper

Absolutely. I figure that in a few years time the extra cost of equipping a TV will be so low it won't be worth doing. Right now loads of TVs have Freeview built in, as its just too cheap not to bother including it. One day all new TVs will support 3D, 'cos it won't be worth the pityful saving not to include it.

I'm sick of 3D already.

Die you technogeek 3d babble dieeeee damn you.

Seriously though, holodecks or no dice.

People who say 3d won't catch up i feel are wrong. There's much more emphasis on it now, just look around every week there's new storys and articles about 3D improvments and announcements. It's not if 3d will make it but when.

"Some peoples stubborn negativity towards this is starting to grate a little bit."

Sorry but I think people have a right to be slightly negative. All we heard for years was HDTV HDTV HDTV HDTV constantly, then a year or two after they get to a reasonable price point it's onto 3D. No way I'm buying yet another new TV right now.

Also, let's face it the only reason 3D is being pushed so hard in cinemas at least is because they are desperately trying to find a reason to get people to actually go to the cinema and not just pirate.

>Perhaps said posters just don't understand the 3D TV business as well as one of the largest TV makers on the planet?

although it's the gaming site's equivalent of Hitlering the thread, the obvious counter to the above is Nintendo deciding to unleash the virtual boy.

I'm not disputing the notion that the future is 3D shaped, I just don't think that *this* technology is the correct answer that the fervent negative voters think it is. I'm mindful of how, in a relatively short time selling electronics, I saw: widescreen "lifestyle" TVs pushed as the future onto a largely uncomprehending public with no broadcast support; WAP foisted on us as the future when it was never more than a pitiful stop-gap; fucking Apple Newtons pushed as the future of PDAs; APS cameras heavily promoted by a panicking Kodak etc etc. Even HDTV was forced heavily onto the market without, I'd argue, an infrastructure fit to support it, broadcast-wise. I mean Jesus. Sky struggles to maintain a 720p service, there's plenty of exploration space left in the current offering to allow 3D to mature as a proposition for the home.

@Mwkone there has always been a huge thing about 3d whenever it's popped up, whether you want to say it's more a big deal now than it was in the previous resurgences is entirely subjective.

Also just because TV makers are pushing something doesn't mean it will work out.

@Collymilad

I don't think they expect you to buy a 3D TV right now though. You clearly aren't an early adopter, instead you wait for the prices to fall a bit (I'm exactly the same). If you or I get a 3D TV, it will be years from now when the prices have come down. The people that will buy 3D TVs in the next few years will be the same people that bought an HDTV years before you or me did, i.e. early adopters.


"Also, let's face it the only reason 3D is being pushed so hard in cinemas at least is because they are desperately trying to find a reason to get people to actually go to the cinema and not just pirate."

Tbh, I feel the same way about this as I do for Sony's motives for going into 3D TV. That is to say, I don't give a hoot why cinemas are pushing 3D, I just care whether my experience as a viewer is good or not. I'm certainly not going to deprive myself of a fun experience, just because I think the company providing it doesn't have my fun at the top of their priority list.

@collymilad

"Also, let's face it the only reason 3D is being pushed so hard in cinemas at least is because they are desperately trying to find a reason to get people to actually go to the cinema and not just pirate."
....
So would you rather "they" stopped 3D and just left everyone to pirate? Apparently 4 of the 10 biggest movies last year were 3D, and only 10 major 3D movies were released. There's clearly demand there. If you want to keep your wallet in your pocket, that's fine, but it'd a very stupid television manufacturer who chose not to try to exploit the 3D market right now when all they really need is a set that does 120 Hz minimum and can be bundled with some glasses.

One reason I think 3D won't take off in a big way - yet - is that everyone needs the glasses. If I was playing, say, a flight sim on PC on my own (not something I'd do, TBH) then 3D would be great - but if I'm sitting casually on a sofa playing Arkham Asylum and my wife's reading a book in the same room, she might take an interest in the game - but less so, I'd imagine, if it's all blurry!

Obviously more than one person can wear the glasses, but it stops things being so "casual" and makes it a "decision"... if any of that blabble makes sense!

They aren't rushing 3D out "all of a sudden". They have been developing 3D TV screens and they are now at a stage where its feasible to mass-produce and sell them - a relatively simple concept I assumed?

You need to create the content to attract people to buy it. Do you really expect 3D TVs will sell at a premium (as all new technology is when its first released) when there is next to no content for it? You need to make the content to attract people to buy the TVs.

As to people moaning about how its going to be expensive and its just a gimmick and not wanted etc. - thats exactly the argument about HD when that was being introduced, now its hard to buy a non-HD TV. It will be slow to grow, but I don't doubt it will become widespread eventually (ever been to a 3D film showing? I've been to 6 so far and the screenings at the big multiplex had always been fully booked along with the next couple of showings - whether you like it or not, demand is there).

@britesparc

Like having mates round for the football? Additional glasses are certainly going to need to be affordable.

I got a 40" 720p set for this gen and I'll look at upgrading to 1080p when the next batch of consoles are confirmed - probably a little while yet. I'll certainly take 3D into account when I buy, though it won't be a big deciding factor. Worth pointing out that the tech they are using comes as a consequence of other beneficial stuff (higher frame rates etc.). So it's all good. The only extra you'll pay is for the glasses.

@SPAM

Well I suppose trying to give a reason is an upgrade to your previous info free post, but I'm not sure it has worked the way you intended.


On the cost of glasses angle, anyone know how much they might actually costs? I expect them to get bundled with various things, but I am just supposing out loud.

The Nvidia ones which work on PC gaming cost £110 each. I believe it's the same system that the big companies are pushing

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0029...

@BabyJesus, you're right that just because sony say 3d will be the future that it will be so, but more and more films are being done on 3d and not just B-movie horros and crap kids films. the 6 nations is being filmed and shown in the 3d. the world cup is being filmed in 3d. Sky say they are doing a 3d channel this year, as are ESPN.

We will all eventually buy a new TV and if all tvs eventually support 3d (like most tvs are HD now) then why not make the most of it?

I would imagine that most current HD TVs could theoretically be firmware upgraded to display a 30fps 3D display if they wanted from a 1080i signal - just line double each field and display it for 1/60 second instead of keeping each field on screen for 1/30 second.

All you then need is the glasses to operate at 30fps instead of 60fps.

Not going to happen of course - they then couldn't sell you a new TV.

I'd go for polarised glasses, shutter glasses don't sound appealing... plus its being able to afford a thing. I splashed out £1.1k on my TV because I had the funds at the time... much more difficult now. Bet I'd not recoup my outlay!

There is an overwhelming amount of tech now though, the LED backlight stuff, OLED on the way... will the 3DTVs go for standard LCD or will they embrace those technologies. If 3D arrived in tandem with OLED, then that would be a decent enough upgrade (if OLED delivers on its contrast and motion promises)

@Mkwone

Bloody hell, that is pricer than I expected. The ones I wore in the IMAX looked much cheaper (I figured £10 max or something). I guess polarised surfaces are pricey, regardless of how cheap you frame is that you mount them in.

Edit: ooh, hang on. What is that little box sat nect to the glasses? They aren't the LCD shutter type are they? If so, they aren't the same type as I believe is going to be the home TV choice.

Just checked Nvidia's site. Wireless shutter glasses it says. Are those the same type as are destined for home use?

> Bloody hell, that is pricer than I expected.
different tech: the nvidia ones draw power and use alternate frame sequencing or something like it, I think

What does the world cup being filmed in 3d actually add?

"Ohhh it looks like Ronaldo is running towards my face!"

Come to think of it what does it add to anything? Nothing in my eyes aside from things jumping out the screen to scare you(how quaint) . A sense of depth perhaps but that is hardly something worth all this fuss.

Bloody corporations PR would make Goebbels proud.

Whats the next innovation that you MUST have to watch the news at 10? 3DHDTV WITH SCRATCH AND SNIFF COMING 2020! Now you can smell Robert Pestons pessimism!

Luddites had the right idea.

I can't believe there are so many ludites on this board! I would have thought that "future" and "technology" would be something that would be accepted by the folk here.

This summer... too early... Hmmm. Sky launching 3D earlier, later in the year a couple more channels. Avatar and other 3D novelities out on Blu-Ray at the end of the year.

Summer is probably about right. They can't wait "wait till its established" - so jump ASAP and start providing more reasons for peeps to consider 3D.

Cost overhead... not huge - in reality most systems are just upping to 120Hz = 8ms refresh... which looking at most monitor specs has been surpassed some time ago. Fabrication will drive all screens to these types of rates over time. Next cost overhead - electronics to drive it... erm... well all the driver tech was available years ago - so a doubling of speed is what you expect every couple of years... so these days negligible overheads.

So cost is not really being driven by tech... however there will be the "milk the early adopters" phase (i.e. Me). But even now folks are talking about a $200 overhead on TVs with 3D compared to their 2D bretheren. So yes a cost, but not outragously high as manufaurares want you to adopt.

This time next year it will be: £599 for a decent quality 50" telly, £699 for same telly but 3D capable... ohh and look Avatar is on the shelf and we can use out existing PS3 to play it... and we can play those 3D games too... and...

Anyone who does not want to pay the difference is a luddite and probably still thinks sheet music is better than a CD.

EDIT: I should have marked that previous line as "a bit of a joke" aa there are other excuses too - like only having one eye... but you get the drfit. Many folks won't have the money in the next few years but they would not be buying the "decent quality TV" - they would get the "no-name brand" for £399 - but they will get swept up in time... look now... Blu-ray players £70, DVD Players £15, Set-top boxes £10, HD multimedia players £25... costs for this type of tech tends to zero... 3D does not actually require anything "not in a standard telly" except a few electronics - so within 3 years it will be difficult to buy a telly not 3D capable... a bit like trying to buy a non-HD-Ready telly now.

And the folks that don't upgrade until they absolutely have to (like those still having issues with the digital TV switchover) are not the typical video-game playing demographic... queue... "I don't have digital TV" posts