Microsoft dismisses 3D as "future" tech

By Johnny Minkley Published 16 June, 2010

UK boss: Too pricey to be mass-market.

It's the big E3 focus for Sony and Nintendo, but Microsoft UK boss Neil Thompson has dismissed 3D as "an interesting technology of the future" that's still too expensive for consumers.

Speaking exclusively to Eurogamer at E3, Thompson instead backed the experience of Kinect, the company's hands-free motion-control tech, over the 3D experiences offered by rivals. He said:

"If you look at the costs of entry into the living room and when that's going to become mass-market, we think the offering with Kinect and the natural user-interface we're bringing, that's a more compelling proposition for consumers over the coming years than maybe looking at 3D at this point."

Nintendo used its E3 press conference to unveil 3DS, a new handheld that produces a 3D effect without the need for glasses, to rave reviews. Sony, meanwhile, handed out 3D eyewear to all attendees during its event and hosted a live demo of Killzone 3 in 3D. PS3 users will, however, require a 3DTV to experience the enhanced visuals.

Meanwhile, Thompson refused to be drawn on pricing for Kinect, which Microsoft has remained tight-lipped on during its E3 events.

He said: "We haven't decided to announce that at this point and we'll make that decision in due course and then announce it in due course. We haven't landed on a date yet when exactly we'll announce it, but when we do we'll let you know."

Check out the full interview with Microsoft's Neil Thompson below.

EGTV interviews Neil Thompson, head of Xbox UK.

Picture of Johnny.

About Johnny Minkley

Johnny Minkley is a veteran games writer and broadcaster, former editor of Eurogamer TV, VP of gaming charity SpecialEffect, and hopeless social media addict.

Read more articles from Johnny by visiting the Johnny Minkley archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (157) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Widge #1 2 years ago

    I'm sorry but that isn't even vaguely disguised as ADVICE. "The other peoples stuff is shit, our thing is what you want to buy".

    Commence thread.

  • KDR_11k #2 2 years ago

    That might have worked before the 3DS was revealed. We all know Nintendo will make sure the price is reasonable on that thing, not several thousand euros.

  • byron_hinson #3 2 years ago

    @kingAntoine - not disagreeing but £100 vs £1200 is a slight difference in matter. Still disagree with MS though - but then again they were wrong about lots of things with the Xbox originally - stating no one needed HDMI etc.

  • Collymilad #4 2 years ago

    He's right.

    It's far too expensive.

    @KDR - yeah except the screen is a hell of a lot smaller than a living room TV, and doesn't it use a different type of 3D tech?
    Edited by Collymilad at 16/06/10 @ 17:27

  • roquey Verified Lead Quality Assurance Tester and Compliance Specialist, Universally Speaking #5 2 years ago

    @KingAntoine How can something be too pricey for the market when an official price hasn't been given?

  • JonFE #6 2 years ago

    Some people's ability to read between the lines is outstanding. ;)

  • Saxo #7 2 years ago

    He is properly right about 3d not being the mass-market thing for at least a couple of years. These 3dtv's are still very expensive, and must ppl have just recently changed to the normal HDTV's. so they arent going to but money into 3d tv's just yet. However further into the future 3d is defiently going to be a hit i think.

    Some of the pricings ive heard about kinect does sound a bit on the pricey side though. hope they will turn out to be false.

  • laharl80 #8 2 years ago

    Technology of the future is correct.
    Thats what decent manufacturers do.
    Create and push the tech of tomorrow.

  • DUFFKING #9 2 years ago

    Technology of the never, hopefully. At least in its current form.

  • bodypopper #10 2 years ago

    Considering that most new Sony 3D TVs don't even come with glasses and transmitters (that's an extra £250 in total - the price of a 120GB PS3) you have to admit he has a point.
    Edited by bodypopper at 16/06/10 @ 17:30

  • Dizzy #11 2 years ago

    Portable 3d yes. Tv 3d no.

  • youhavenomail #12 2 years ago

    3D is the technology of the future. Kinect is the technology of the EyeToy. I'm thinking thumbs down for this post, but I just went with it anyway. That's what I do!

  • FooAtari #13 2 years ago

    I think Kinetic is too expensive to take off as well...

    But anyway, he has a point. I don't think 3DTV's are not going to be in many homes before the end of this gen. Sony should just leave it for the next generation of hardware.

    Many consumers only made the move to HDTV in the last 2 to 3 years, and most people see TV's as a long term investment, not a short term one. And besides for many people the move to HD was to save space and get bigger screens not get a lovey sharp HD picture. I wonder what percentage of HDTV's out there are still getting fed standard def TV and DVD's. Bet it somewhere between half and two thirds...

    I think once 3D can be viewed without having to wear glasses and average TV costs drop to the £500 range then we will see 3D get slowly adopted. But how long will that take. 3 years maybe? By that time the next consoles from all three will be well on their way.
    Edited by FooAtari at 16/06/10 @ 17:36

  • lordofthedunce #14 2 years ago

    As far as everyone having 3D-capable TVs goes, that's gotta be 10 years away at least.

  • altitude2k #15 2 years ago

    QFT

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #16 2 years ago

    Im sure LG will be over the moon to read this seeing as they are in partnership with MS to deliver 3d content to there TV's

  • enfilade #17 2 years ago

    One issue with 3D is that it ignores recognition problems that some people may have because of eye problems and so on. Sometimes it creates migraines, sometimes people can't watch it altogether (such as my girlfriend, who recently had to have cateract surgery.) 3D seems like a wholly unnecessary complication of a concept that works perfectly well already: a screen.

  • DrDamn #18 2 years ago

    @bodypopper
    Actually you can get a couple of pairs of glasses and the transmitter for free. Sony stores are offering 2xGlasses+Transmitter+PS3+3Dgamepack for £200 when bought with a TV. Game will give you £190 cash for the PS3.

  • makariel #19 2 years ago

    3D might be future, but I'd like to see mindless waggling in front of the screen to be the past...

  • LazyDan #20 2 years ago

    This is rich coming from the company who charge £60 for wifi dongles, though I do agree - I don't see many people splashing out on 3D tvs in the near future.

  • Smoped #21 2 years ago

    Well, in my case he's right. I don't mind 3D, but since neither of my tvs support it (I think, I haven't actually checked), it's not something I would buy a new telly for. And when one day one of my tvs gives up the ghost, I'm not sure how much extra I would be willing to pay for the 3D option given two otherwise identical choices of tv. Now the 3DS on the other hand, I would definitely be interested in if I was into handheld devices.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #22 2 years ago

    I could agree if we are talking about 3d movies, requiring a blu ray player, (still too) expensive blu ray discs and the TV plus the glasses. Yes, this is not mass market; Yet. It will be a few years down the line.

    The 3DS is a different story though. 3DS is THE definition of mass market 3D. It's like iPhones are THE definition of mass market for touch screens on cell phones.

    In the end though there really isn't much to talk about. What else is a Microsoft boss supposed to say?
    Edited by Der_tolle_Emil at 16/06/10 @ 17:46

  • Feanor #23 2 years ago

    Companies that give release dates for products with no price attached really should refrain from claiming their competitor's products are too expensive.

  • Olemak #24 2 years ago

    He's right tho. 3D in the living room IS future tech.
    Whereas EyeToy in the living room is retro tech.

    Anyone who has not already bought a slim tv are fairly likely to get a 3D-ready HDTV when they finally do make the jump.
    I'm betting 3D will catch on pretty quickly, what with retty much every single hollywood popcorn movie being made is 3D nowadays.
    It could all be a fluke, tho... but I would not bet against it.

    With BluRay, 3D and precice motion control that's acutal usable for gaming, Sony has a very clear position, in my opinion.

  • BlackKraken #25 2 years ago

    Its not so much the price but the fact that the technology hasnt stabilized yet, aka, a 3DTV bought now might become obsolete within a few months.
    Its too early with 3D tech being a big thing for most people to shell out on an expensive new TV. Though having said that it might come to be in a year or two, or perhaps even a few months.

  • thepiedpiper #26 2 years ago

    there are more things i don't want to see in 3d than there are things i do want to see. janet street porter for example

  • Widge #27 2 years ago

    I like the wavering on "3D is just a gimmick" stance as soon as someone NOT SONY weighs in with it.

  • AphoticCosmos #28 2 years ago

    If they're just waiting for 3D to be cheap enough to be mass market, then they're clever clogs, especially since as with HD, the first 3D TVs will be obsolete pretty quickly, only thing is they'll be twice as expensive as the first HD TVs were.

    But if they think that 3D just plain won't take off, I'm pretty sure that someone at MS is insane. Nintendo is behind it, and I have a feeling that the 3DS will do for 3D in consumer applications what Avatar did for 3D in the cinema.

  • ybfelix #29 2 years ago

    I think current 3DTV won't have a chance at mass market. That belongs to glasses-free 3D, next next gen maybe, if next gen isn't as long as this one.

    Then can we have our holodeck?
    Edited by ybfelix at 16/06/10 @ 17:55

  • JohnnyWashnGo #30 2 years ago

    Roughly translated as:

    'We focused on repeating the success that Nintendo had several years ago and presented nothing new whereas the other boys were showing off some fancy 3D stuff for the home and the pocket which we didn't even think of. I mean who wants to play games in 3D or take stereoscopic photos anyway. That's not cool. Dancing like a monkey in front of your TV is where it's at.'

    Microsoft is once again very late to the game and their offering is far from convincing.

    That being said, the 3D TV stuff is not interesting to me at all right now. Its Nintendo that are really innovating with the glasses-less 3D of the 3DS.

    Also, didn't they the same thing about Blu-ray? I haven't bought a single DVD since getting my PS3 but my film shelf is full of Blu-rays. I think Microsoft just... don't... get... it.
    Edited by JohnnyWashnGo at 16/06/10 @ 17:58

  • Dylbot #31 2 years ago

    They've kind of got a point. I was completely uninterested in 3D until the 3DS came along with a cheap and, for the platform, effective solution. The majority of consumers will probably be willing to adopt 3D TVs when they hit the £500 price point (which is what I paid for my HDTV). However, I don't see the harm in Sony enabling it as an option for those that do have the tech. It might not push lots of units but it will help lay the groundwork for the next gen.

  • Physically_Insane #32 2 years ago

    I hope 3D dies a slow and painful death.

  • FladgeMangle #33 2 years ago

    Samsung 40" 3D ready tellies are going for £1,119 at John Lewis, who aren't famous for being a cheap place to shop. This is about the same cost a standard 1080p HD was about a 18 months ago wasn't it?

    Microsoft are just blowing smoke, trying to steal Sony's thunder.

  • FooAtari #34 2 years ago

    @makareil
    3D might be future, but I'd like to see mindless waggling in front of the screen to be the past...

    Thats nothing like mindless pushing of buttons then?

  • davisorle #35 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • tomjoadsghost #36 2 years ago

    Tough to disagree, at the moment i'm not even terribly interested in the 3D ability of the 3DS, still want one day1 though just cause an uberDS with *that* games lineup seems good enough to me.

  • Vyggo #37 2 years ago

    The whole 3d thing is not too bad for a movie, but I wouldn't want to experience all games and tv like that. Am I alone in this?

  • Eraysor #38 2 years ago

    I'm not at all interested in 3D gaming on my home TV, so I agree with this guy on the pricing complaints. However, Kinect is a load of rubbish and I hope it fails miserably so MS try a bit harder next time around. Well done again to Nintendo for smashing the competition this year.

  • Restart #39 2 years ago

    What he should have said is:

    "3D is a terrible gimmick & far too expensive, as is Kinetic & Move. Don't waste your money on any of it."

  • the_dudefather #40 2 years ago

    Nintendo should do a 3DS XXXL that doubles as a 3d tv without glasses

  • Chufty #41 2 years ago

    You can get a 40" 3DTV for under a grand. Bearing in mind most people would spend fairly close to that anyway for a 40" TV, Sony have timed this perfectly. By Christmas you will be able to get 3DTVs for under £800, and Sony will have the software and hardware to take full advantage.

    Sony nailed it this time.

  • drumbaby #42 2 years ago

    Didn't he get the memo?

    http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/11/xbox-...

  • Widge #43 2 years ago

    What I want to know if is glasses free 3D (in TVs let say) going to be bollock all use unless you sit a certain distance away and at a certain angle, because it if is, then that is a fail far beyond having to wear a pair of glasses.

  • SHPanda #44 2 years ago

    I agree, no way I'm investing in a 3D TV until the technology that doesn't require glasses comes to market. I don't want to wear glasses to play games/watch TV, nor do I want to buy and supply them for everyone in the house and whoever else comes round to watch a film or what not.

    3D is the future, but it's a distant one.

  • ybfelix #45 2 years ago

    Also actually I don't quite get what MS want to say. Current TV 3D is not Sony exclusive since the two consoles are roughly equal on hardware, anyone can do 3D if they want. Crysis 2 is going to support 3D on all platform. The only lead Sony has is their stronger 1st party dev and their own brand 3DTV, though the latter doesn't have much relation to gaming industry.
    Edited by ybfelix at 16/06/10 @ 18:11

  • killyourtv #46 2 years ago

    Not sure why the comparison seems to be between Kinect and Sony's 3D technology. The rival to Kinect is Move, not 3D.

  • himynameisnathan #47 2 years ago

    says the company releasing a $150 motion camera

  • Dylbot #48 2 years ago

    @FladgeMangle

    I got my 42" 1080p TV over 2 years ago for £500.

  • Smoped #49 2 years ago

    Speaking of 3D being a fad or not, has anybody looked at the numbers of 3D movies now that there are more and more? Is there any sign of people rather going to see a 2D now that there's no longer the novelty factor to 3D?

  • BAM! #50 2 years ago

    BAM! dismisses Kinect as "shite".

  • Gastrian #51 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • Xephon1970 #52 2 years ago

    "Future Tech"?

    What, like an HDMI port? I hate PR dodging bs.

    Can't wait for the TV's without the glasses, then I'll get one.

  • Smoped #53 2 years ago

    @Xephon1970: I don't think you'll ever get tvs that require no glasses. Or maybe that was your point?

  • des #54 2 years ago

    3DS is the real way to do 3D,not this retarded glasses crap...but at the end 3D is just some nice gimmick

  • StooMonster #55 2 years ago

    It's simple, Sony are pushing 3D in PS3 to sell their 3D televisions, as they used Blu-ray in PS3 before to win the HD optical disc format war.

    Microsoft only have Xbox and Xbox related hardware to sell, hence they didn't go for 3D ... although they've done a deal with LG for 3D that Neil Thompson forgot to mention, plus a few of the cross-platform titles announced yesterday by third-parties are in 3D on PS3 and Xbox 360.

    Hrm... PR fail methinks.

  • sanctusmortis #56 2 years ago

    It must be so easy to be a cynic.

    Look, the 360 has games in 3D too - heck, it wasn't that long ago they announced a pack-in with 3D TVs elsewhere - all he's saying is, it's not MS' idea of the Next Big Thing, motion control is. If iPhone, iPad and Windows 7 are good barometers, he's close; gesture, multi-touch and other such tech seems to be where the markwt's going.

  • Spekingur #57 2 years ago

    I thought Sony's "big move" was Move and not 3D?

    I think everyone can agree that most future TV will be 3D Ready, just as they are HD ready today.
    And to comment on Kinect vs. Move - I'd rather have Kinect. It, at least, could be used as an additional input device whilst holding a controller - and has the possibility to be available on PC, which means that all kinds of strange programs/games could appear!

    Also, note that this is the UK boss saying this about 3D. And we all know how good the British are at predicting things ^__^
    ;)
    Edited by Spekingur at 16/06/10 @ 18:36

  • Caimbeul #58 2 years ago

    I think Kinect would work better with 3D than 2D. It seems a natural extension of reaching out and grabbing an object.

  • Spydy #59 2 years ago

    Sounds like MS missed the boat again...

  • Mnia786 #60 2 years ago

    Meh, PS3 is getting BOTH 3D and "motion control" so I think what ever appeals more will be available at a lower price after their release.

  • Steroyd #61 2 years ago

    Says the company that were pushing HDTV's when that was in it's baby phase.

    Do MS not have forward thinking or something?

  • RodHull #62 2 years ago

    Kinect is future tech. Comparing it to Eye Toy is like comparing 3DTV to the red and blue specs of 50s 3D cinema. They're both advances of existing technology, it's just that Kinect will likely cost you less than £150 whereas a Sony 3DTV plus specs for you and the rest of your family is more like a second hand Ford Focus. Probably a six year old Zetec with 60k on the clock.

  • Smoped #63 2 years ago

    Also, I'm waiting for the first company to throw their weight behind Smell-o-vision™.

  • SavageEvil #64 2 years ago

    Meh, talk about saying stupid things all of a sudden. Right now the market is being flooded with 3D LCD's, Technology is moving so fast now a days, the price of a tru motion HD TV has dropped pretty quickly, 3D HD TV's taking it's place and those aren't terribly expensive as one would venture to guess. Right now a Sony Bravia 46in LED-LCD 240hz Full HD TV goes for a whopping $2700 USD. By comparison my 42" Sharp Aquos Full HD 60hz bought 3+ years ago cost $2400USD. So lets see here, Newer tech with 4x the refresh rate, 4 more inches of viewing space plus the gimmicky 3D only $300 more than my old set? Wow this is very pricey isn't it? I don't really care for 3D as it's a pain to wear glasses on my handsome face, but this high price talk is PR BS. Tech always comes down in price, because something newer is always being built. MS is just all about sour grapes, look how their 360 had to evolve into a PS3 to stay current, how dumb is that for the great "forward" thinkers.

  • MilkYMoO #65 2 years ago

    He's right, excluding handhelds of course. In about two or three years, 3D tvs will really take off, prices will have plummeted by then. 3D tvs without glasses are meant to be about five years away.
    I was lucky enough to try out avatar the game(yeah poor game I know) in 3D, on a 360 hooked up to panasonics flagship 50" 3D tv months ago and ever since then I've known 3D is the future of gaming. They unfortunately did'nt have it connected to the 62" €4500 god like tv there.
    To think I spent €1250 on a panasonic 26" hd tv, four years ago.

  • makeamazing #66 2 years ago

    Lets be honest here, the technology isnt really there for Natal yet, its going to be another 5-10 years before its anyway near half decent... so MS should stop development right? Its the same for 3D... no point waiting in the future if you are capable of bringing out a version 1.

    VHS was pretty good at the time, but if they hadnt had developed and then brought out dvd (which was £1500 for the first players) then we would have BR format now... without these companies spending money and releasing products (maybe too early, but then there is never a right time), we wouldnt get anywhere... its even more confusing that MS has 3D games in the works by third parties. Very Strange.

  • Razzajazz #67 2 years ago

    To my mind, I see 3D gaming in my living room as a "nice-to-have", not a reason to buy. Yeah, it's a nice extra if you've got the capability, but it's not the be-all and end-all. I just can't see too many people rushing out and dropping silly wads of cash on something that is clearly a novelty. Remember, the driving force behind 3D adoption will be television content, not games, and until there are plenty of 3D channels, I just don't see it being a massive thing,

    Saying that, though, just like many people have commented in here, the 3DS is a day-fucking-one purchase for me!

  • Emmit_Assassin #68 2 years ago

    And we can trust his advice cause he aint biased...AT ALL.

    By the way, the next articles headline will read: 'Nintendo rubbishes Kinect as 'last gen' tech and 3D is the way forward.'

    Again, this will be a non-biased article that has nothing whatsoever to do with advertising the respective representatives wares...AT ALL.

  • Ryltar #69 2 years ago

    Argh! think of the possibilities of Kinect with 3D screens (with or w/out glasses) ala Minority Report interfaces, or better yet just like the investigative moments in Heavy Rain!

  • Wyrm #70 2 years ago

    The 'future' is a bit of a broad term... Ten years time is the 'future', who knows what average Joe will have in their living room then.

  • GamesConnoisseur #71 2 years ago

    I can't be arsed to count anally the numbers of posts in this thread re for and against, but it is pretty evident that most are in agreement that 3DTV is the future.... Not now or in the next two years or so.

    In effect toward tail end of this gen or indeed properly supported next gen from day one?

    Mass market success of 3DS is much more likely due to it's being cheap and accessible with extra troubles, also would likely get most uses of it's 3D capability whereas the 3DTV would still be in the actual majority of user's viewing time displaying the 2d HD signals or even SD.

    I got HDTV since day 1 almost, and upgraded few times and even I know HD viewing only takes a part of that, increasing sure but 3D signals fed into 3DTV 24/7? Perhaps more likely if you uses the expensive set exclusivity for 3D enabled PS3 games over and over!

    Yes will be great, but just... In the future!!

  • alimokrane #72 2 years ago

    I want to see the price of the 3DS before I make any conclusions but my guess that he's partly right. For the 3DS, it will work and it will take off because it will end up being not too expensive but for PS3, not so much. To experience 3D with home consoles you will need an expensive 3D TV... HD TVs are YET to become mainstream let alone 3D TVs.

    Regarding Kinect, MS has to reveal its price first before its execs start mouthing unfounded nonsense. I expect both Move and Kinect not to take off as they are expecting. The Wii has filled that void already. Kinect will probably be a bit more successful than move but it will never do for the 360, nor move for the PS3, what the Wii has done. It's too little too late for both. They may sell a few million but that's about it. my two cents...

  • Power_n_Glory #73 2 years ago

    Yesterday I saw something classic during the World Cup ads. Panasonic where advertising their 3D TV using Avatar but there was a caption at the bottom of the screen saying 'Avatar currently unavailable in 3D'. lol

    This rush for 3D is nonsense. As the ad shows, there is hardly any 3D content out there to buy. We've got Avatar as the only real success story and maybe Alice in Wonderland but that's it. Can old movies be converted into 3D and will people really want to rebuy their Matrix collection having already forked out for the DVD, Blu Ray and now 3D?

    I suppose the content depends on the equipment and what better way to push the new technology. Sony once again relying on gamers to be the first adopters that willing pay silly prices so it paves the way for the masses. They know their audience.

  • tomjoadsghost #74 2 years ago

    3DTV has hardly been a secret so its not like anyone was caught out by it, everyone has obviously sat down at some point and decided a strategy and at this point it is the console manufacturer who has strongest ties with a maker of 3DTV who has decided to commit to significant support.

    it seems to me that 3DTV needs Ps3 more than Ps3 (or 360, or wii for that matter) need 3DTV.

  • tomjoadsghost #75 2 years ago

    Im like a console guy so im not really up on this stuff but in the case of 3D gaming hasn't most of "the curve" been negotiated in the PC market - certainly as far as screens and outlandish spectacles are concerned.

  • JediMasterMalik #76 2 years ago

    The same was true for HD just a few years back.

  • niteninja #77 2 years ago

    3d is expensive now, give it a year and you will get a good one for 600 quid.
    Sky will start rolling 3d out next year and blurays will follow suit.
    The tv manufacturer's are all behind it in a big way I predict prices will fall very very quickly to hit mass market.
    Give it a year for content to catch up.
    Remember hdtvs launched with no hd tv support look at it now.
    Edited by niteninja at 16/06/10 @ 20:17

  • PiranhaUK #78 2 years ago


    "Also actually I don't quite get what MS want to say. Current TV 3D is not Sony exclusive since the two consoles are roughly equal on hardware, anyone can do 3D if they want. Crysis 2 is going to support 3D on all platform. The only lead Sony has is their stronger 1st party dev and their own brand."

    Not true, Microsoft put an inferior HDMI standard into the xbox and will not be able the achieve the same resolution/refresh rate as Sony is doing with 3D. So, Sony HAVE got the advantage here.
    Edited by PiranhaUK at 16/06/10 @ 20:19

  • Widge #79 2 years ago

    Something will come along to push 3D into consciousness. Sky has been doing it for HD really. Buy HD, look at our awesome picture, all the details etc etc etc, no doubt helped advertise the TVs more than anything else as they are relentless. 3DS will help push 3D into consciousness, as will anything that captures 3D imagination like Avatar. I mean it was a middling film, but I loved experiencing the world, that was the key. So much better to apply to games, imagine Bethesda in control doing something 3D.

  • RobotRocker #80 2 years ago

    The 3D Push is still far too fast. A lot of people are only making the HD jump this world cup since the tech is now available and a lot cheaper.

    Honestly, the entertainment industry should have kept the 3D push to the cinemas and then bring it in at 2014 for the Brazil World Cup.

  • ronuds #81 2 years ago

    Where are these cheap HDTVs that people think 3DHDTVs are going to be half the price of them in a year's time? HDTVs still aren't all that cheap!

    Also, is this an article about the viability of 3D gaming or a lesson how to trash MS? It's like, "let me take any opportunity to trash on Kinect!" Sad... but typical.

  • oupe #82 2 years ago

    UK boss: Too pricey to be mass-market.

    ...Says the company that doesn't sell 3d tv's.

    Anyhow, I bought my second HDTV last month. It's not 3D. I'll get one when ps4 or xbox720 comes out.

  • CaptainKid #83 2 years ago

    No one sensible is going to buy a 3D TV right now, everybody is waiting for the TV's where do you don't need glasses to watch in 3D.
    I think Microsoft is right concerning Sony and their 3D push.

  • SEVQA #84 2 years ago

    The 3DS is for the mass-market is it not!

  • des #85 2 years ago

    I like how some people think that 3DTV are going to be cheap in few years...like that is only a time question

    If nobody buys them,they won't get cheap...simple as that

  • man.the.king #86 2 years ago

    @Physically_Insane

    "I hope 3D dies a slow and painful death."

    I think Microsoft, and all 360 fanboys hope and wish for the same. Even though I don't sympathize with you, I can understand where you are coming from.
    Edited by man.the.king at 16/06/10 @ 20:57

  • man.the.king #87 2 years ago

    @Vyggo

    "I wouldn't want to experience all games and tv like that. Am I alone in this?"

    Nope - most 360-only gamers are with you in that.

  • MARKIV #88 2 years ago

    So people are going to be even more skeptical into buying current gen 3D TV's if Nintendo have just proved it can be done without glasses.

    Plus Sony were lucky not to of launched the PSP2 at E3 2010. Back to the drawing room guys!!

    Edited by MARKIV at 16/06/10 @ 21:12

  • Freek #89 2 years ago

    One pair of shutter glasses costs around 150 dollars, you don't even get one included when you buy a 3D tv.
    It's verry expensive.
    Edited by Freek at 16/06/10 @ 21:06

  • Machiavellian #90 2 years ago

    Personally I do not think 3D will catch on that quick because HDTVs that do not have the 3D tech are cheaper. Time has shone that the majority go for cheaper than bleeding edge when there is a price difference. The 3DTVs drive down the cost of regular HDTVs which will make those TVs highly attractive. The uptake on the 3DTV will be slow until the price even out.

    Also the market is kind of fragmented which will also keep 3DTV adoption slow. It's good that Sony is pushing this tech but really it's there to sell their 3DTV more than a real selling point for the PS3.

  • des #91 2 years ago

    "So people are going to be even more skeptical into buying current gen 3D TV's if Nintendo have just proved it can be done without glasses."

    Nintendo is a nasty player...at their conference it was...lol 3DTV,lol glasses

  • Widge #92 2 years ago

    3D Ready Samsung LCD - £560. Only 32" and will need glasses (70 notes?) but thats not a fortune.

    [link url=http://www.avsl.co.uk/shop/32-3d-ready-internettv-4hdmi-freeview-p-55502.html
    ]http://www.avsl.co.uk/shop/32-3d-ready-i...[/link]

    Cheap enough for entry level I'd say.

    Can see a 40" one for £900 in this list:

    [link url=fficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=_TIZTN-CCKiHOKea2I0L&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=3&ved=0CD0QrQQwAg">http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=samsung+3d+ready&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=_TIZTN-CCKiHOKea2I0L&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=3&ved=0CD0QrQQwAg
    ]http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=samsu...[/link]

    Now I cannot comment what you need to go from 3D Ready to actual 3D, so if anyone knows any more?

    I wouldn't pay much attention to Sony and their TV range atm for the benchmark. 1) expensive, 2) requires more money to be spent on activation (I mean WHAT) and 3) doesn't perform as good as something like a Panasonic.

  • icematt12 #93 2 years ago

    With these 3DTVs though, how long do you think it will be before there are screens that don't even need glasses? Nintendo seems to have done it, admittedly on a small scale, so maybe in a couple of years. Or shall we no longer need TVs, have some sort of virtual wifi goggles that recieve the image directly?

  • Widge #94 2 years ago

    Bottom rung posted would be 4.5 Natals but better than forking out £1500!

    Hoping that devs would make depth the key to success with 3D, not shit flying out of the screen. Then again, bog standard mediocre devs who make stuff Turok and Saints Row will no doubt focus on that.

    One thing that didn't work when looking at the Panny was that. The image hits the frame and its completely ruined. Looking at the image like its a window was an absolute winner. Much easier on the eye than Avatar was too I noted.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #95 2 years ago

    The MS dude motives are indeed questionable, but he has a point.

    I personally don't dig this 3Dtv stuff, as its clearly being railroaded onto consumers. Like Razzatazz said, 3Dtv will be pushed on the back of actual 3D content. Sports will lead the charge, as already seen on Sky Sports.

    The real secret they don't want consumers to know, is that 3Dtv is a cloak and dagger push, to try and solve the march of tv/film content online and beat piracy. Think about it. Say in a decade, most tv channels are broadcasting in HD3Dtv, we'd need a certain piece of code/tech (correct me if I'm wrong, me no expert) in 3Dtvs to pick up, decode and display that tv signal. If a tv episode was recorded, they'll try to negate a possible transferance onto a PC and the net. And say even if such a file did end up on a PC, the lack of a 3Dtv option on PC monitors (this could also change, mind), stops the PC viewer from watching a illegal tv/film file. This kind of 3D tech would also kill 'vid cam cuts' of big cinema films from ending up on the net, in theory. Will such action have a lasting effect? I doubt it, because software and code, are what so much tech rely on. Even the great Sony can't stop their PS3s from being hacked, or Apple their iPhones. Once 3Dtv tech is cracked, while it could still be updated (few will bother), the pirates will still win.

    On top of all that, tech tv progress is one thing when its needed and necessary, (widescreen (long ago), LCDtv, OLEDtv, HDTV) and annoying and confusing when its not (HD Ready, 3Dtv). TVs are also a lot more like PC monitors these days than anything else.

    I'm due to upgrade soon, and a nice HDTV will keep me happy for a decade or so.

  • Widge #96 2 years ago

    Every technique has its drawbacks:

    Polarising glasses darken the image but are nice and cheap to make
    Active shutters give a quality image but expensive... and glasses still
    Glasses free means just that, but what is the impact of space within a room on quality of image.

  • coolbritannia #97 2 years ago

    3D is a fad, it's just not going to take off like HDTV has. The cinema craze is already dying out, Nolan says he doesn't like it, and he won't be using it, and right now, he's the King of Hollywood.

  • Chazmeister #98 2 years ago

    The way MS are being so cagey about the price of Kinect can only mean that it won't be as cheap as everyone will want it to be. Lets face it if it was nice and cheap, then MS would be including the low price point in all it's trumpet blowing.

    As for 3D being a "future" tech, well I think he's pretty right on that point. The 3D TV's are still far too expensive and probably will be for a few years yet, and I don't think the odd few 3D enabled games or bluray films are going to convince the general masses to splash out over 2 grand for a new TV they don't really need, not when the vast majority will have only just upgraded to HDTV in the last 3 years or less. And most of the folks I know when they buy a new TV set, will tend to keep it for at least 5-10 years or until it breaks beyoned reasonable repair.

  • funkateer #99 2 years ago

    UK XBox guy: "We haven't decided to announce that at this point and we'll make that decision in due course and then announce it in due course. We haven't landed on a date yet when exactly we'll announce it, but when we do we'll let you know."

    Classic!
    That's a lot of words for saying nothing

  • Geordiemp #100 2 years ago

    Kinect only recognises your movements when you are standing up according to IGN.

    Motion controls are interesting, but dont want to have to stand every time to play every game.

  • Daeltaja #101 2 years ago

    You can't aim a casual device at a market in which the majority of Xbox owners are adolescent males with a Call of Duty addiction. Would love to see their mother or sister try pry their Xbox away on christmas day, to prance around the living room playing white water rafting over some noob tubbing in Black Ops.

    Microsoft should be focusing on getting Kinects into households via its core market, by baiting them with some killer titles, then opening the floodgates on the no doubt endless supply of casual junk that will potentially saturate the market and hurt our eyes while shopping in your local game shop.
    Edited by Daeltaja at 16/06/10 @ 22:47

  • makeamazing #102 2 years ago

    Kinect only recognises your movements when you are standing up according to IGN.

    Not so good if your sitting down trying to move through your video selection as per the videos.... that is a shock if thats the case.

    On the 3D front... i dont much care for it... but look at the excitment on the 3DS, so no one can say there isnt excitement for 3D... as for cost... how many times.. tech is always expensive and worse in the first revision, nothing would ever get better if they didnt at least try... yes we all may not be bothered, but there will be tech minded people who will rush for it (just look at the ipad...)... I am glad they will test out the products and make it cheaper and better for the rest of us...

    I remember when many people in the UK didnt get Widescreen TV's... that turned out ok :D

  • makeamazing #103 2 years ago

    Microsoft should be focusing on getting Kinects into households via its core market

    100% agree, thats why i think Sony got it right in some way... make sure you have games/content to keep your core audience happy. Considering many people who purchased the Xbox could be considered hardcore/core gamers rather than casual its a massive mistake to show nothing that really appeals to them.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #104 2 years ago

    I think MS should take a hit, and put Kinect out at £50/60, more RB/GH style sku price.

  • lucky_jim #105 2 years ago

    3D will take off when the porn industry says so, and no sooner.

  • IronGiant #106 2 years ago

    Utter bullshit, the different between a 40" Sony HDTV and the same model with 3D functionality is £200. So Ninty, Sony and just about every movie studio are wrong about 3D.

  • Daeltaja #107 2 years ago

    Only recognizes movement when standing up? You kidding me? Game over MS, game over.

  • Gastrian #108 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • DrDamn #109 2 years ago

    @Gastrian
    Panasonic - comes with two pairs.
    Samsung - free pair with each tv through website.
    Sony - two pairs and transmitter "free" through Sony shop deal and trading in the PS3 at game (see earlier in the thread).

    Not lucky, just informed.

  • Ryze #110 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.

  • Widge #111 2 years ago

    Although, from what I've read, 3D doesn't need AA, which frees up some effort. Your brains natural processes actually performs the AA on any jaggies it sees. Should free up some grunt.

  • Bassassin #112 2 years ago

    "If you look at the costs of entry into the living room and when that's going to become mass-market, we think the offering with Kinect and the natural user-interface we're bringing, that's a more compelling proposition for consumers over the coming years than maybe looking at 3D at this point", he sobbed.

  • Xinch #113 2 years ago

    "We haven't decided to announce that at this point and we'll make that decision in due course and then announce it in due course. We haven't landed on a date yet when exactly we'll announce it, but when we do we'll let you know."

    How to say nothing in many many words.

  • smelly #114 2 years ago

    "Microsoft dismisses 3d"... Unless it turns out to be hugely popular, in which case they'll copy in a few years time..

  • Lusterpurge #115 2 years ago

    (at next year's E3)
    Microsoft: "OK EVERYONE! PUT ON YOUR 3D GLASSES!!"
    Meanwhile, Nintendo and Sony have moved on (to what, I'm not sure).

  • Gastrian #116 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • SavageEvil #117 2 years ago

    @Gastrian you sure are going to some lengths to moan about prices being to much. You need to look into the past and see that those prices will steadily descend to marketable prices. This is how technology works, you introduce and hopefully the consumer likes it enough that he will get the word out how great it is. Then it escalates from there, market penetration is what they are looking for. PS3 has plenty of market penetration, so obviously Sony will use it. It's not going to profit MS, so they naturally won't have anything good to say about it. Seriously that headline needs to be changed, it's freaking misleading.

  • Calgon #118 2 years ago

    PatAU what on earth are you talking about? They had an interview with him and asked him a question, its the same deal every year or any event where EG ask for some of their time, you have it completely backward he didnt just pull Johnny to the side and say "can you just quote me on this: '3D is shit and Sony fanboys are a bunch of mugs and whiney bitches' thanks bye now!". They are actually looking for comments like this, then they add some sensational headline and watch angry fanboys and MS haters like yourself steam in predictably and probably check back to the same page for atleast 2 days creating lots of hits for the website.

    Platform to talk on he says... honestly some people have a completely deluded idea of how things work in this industry.
    Edited by Calgon at 17/06/10 @ 04:40

  • FooAtari #119 2 years ago

    I find it amusing people think HD has taken off. Sure many now have HD TVs but a large majority are still feeding that HD TV standard def TV and DVD. Probably via SCART too...

  • Praetorianer #120 2 years ago

    The headline already says it all.


  • SeesThroughAll #121 2 years ago

    Technology actually already allows 3D to be viewed on large screens without the need of glasses, and such TVs either are already on the market, or about to be released.

    Link. There even exist graphics cards that generate true 3D from existing OpenGL code.

    The prices for those examples given in the link, of course, REALLY are prohibitive. As far as 3D TVs are concerned, Sony is wasting effort and money investing (and making consumers invest) in what merely is a transition technology. As a result, we may likely adopt widespread, and glasses free, 3D, later rather than sooner. :/

    Of course, this is not the reason behind MS criticism. But we would do good to keep it in mind.

  • JensonJet #122 2 years ago

    In short, unless Microsoft are doing it it's essentially rubbish!?! Good ol' MS... always there to offer good advice... as long as it benefits them.

  • Eraser #123 2 years ago

    The man is right when it comes to Sony's 3D support for PS3, but he's wrong about 3DS, since it doesn't need any investment in additional hardware besides the handheld system itself.

  • afghan_jones #124 2 years ago

    3D will never be anything more than a niche tech head market.

  • 00.00.01 #125 2 years ago

    As with HD, 3D will start to take of more when live-tv is possible. Untill then it will be a gimmick, albeit it beig a really nice one. Those that have full HD will not go back to SD and in a few years time this will be the same with 3D technology. Once you've tasted the forbidden fruits there's no holding back.

  • Douche #126 2 years ago

    People really need to stop saying kinect is like the eyetoy.

  • Stiggy #127 2 years ago

    3d at present is a lot of hype from companies that see it as a need to re-sell more stock. Fact - there is very little bluray software due this year (and what you will get will be as part of an exclusive hardware deal). Fact - 3d TV's are not bringing any new real tech to the market just a refresh rate jig and a slightly higher HDMI bandwidth yet somehow demand 100%+ markups. Fact - Sony's hit rate of pushing new tech as not always been sucessful.

    I think MS are right to play it conservative as it has no h/w interests in making this work. Lets see how it pans out then jump in later if there is demand. Seems fair to me and a good business strategy.
    Edited by Stiggy at 17/06/10 @ 09:03

  • Doctor_What #128 2 years ago

    "Kinect only recognises your movements when you are standing up according to IGN."

    Yep, I'd heard the same thing from another source. I can't say that's greatly impressed me and I can't imagine wheelchair users are delighted about it either. It'll be the Move for them, I think.

  • drxym #129 2 years ago

    3D probably isn't mainstream for a few years, but the reality is that it will drive TV sales and will be a standard feature of midrange TVs before long.

    Microsoft know this as well as anyone else, but the reality is their console isn't as well equipped to serve 3D as the PS3 and therefore they are dismissing it. The PS3 has always been HDMI 1.3a whereas 1st gen 360s weren't at all and later ones are only HDMI 1.2. I can well imagine that getting 3D to work on the 360 could require hacks or an intricate compatibility list describing which TVs and which 360s will work together.

    I expect sooner or later they'll roll out something and I wouldn't be surprised if the new 360 slim was beefed up in that department. Perhaps they'll do it much like the PS3, interrogating the TV through EDID and putting the 3D options in the menus if the TV supports it.

  • Dave52 #130 2 years ago

    3D is future tech....

    But Sony is doing it now. 3D TV prices will drop next year, the PS3 will be well placed to take advantage, both for gaming and 3D Blu-Ray movies...

  • mcmonkeyplc #131 2 years ago

    Christ this comments thread reeks of Sony tards.

  • Dave52 #132 2 years ago

    Stiggy: "Fact - 3d TV's are not bringing any new real tech to the market"

    Not entirely true, the new 3D LCDs are coming through with Edge and Dynamic LED. That makes a very big difference in picture and colour quality...

  • DrDamn #133 2 years ago

    @Gastrian
    The deal is there it is in-store at Sony stores I've seen it at two of them. Yes the price of the TVs is high but your point was you'd be lucky to get glasses included, that is quite simply incorrect.

    For reference - the Sony deal is - buy *any* 3DTV and you can get 2 x glasses, a transmitter, a PS3 and the 3D games pack for an extra £200. If you take the PS3 to Game they will give you £190 cash for it. Incidentally if you also bring a broken black and white tv into the Sony store you will get £100-£150 off the tv too.

  • DrDamn #134 2 years ago

    @Gastrian
    Oh and on the point of paying a huge premium for 3DTV. It's not as huge as you think if you compare like with like. The TVs are very, very good TVs. You are paying a premium for a better set. The tech needed for 3D - fast response, high refresh has a lot of benefits beyond 3D.

  • brseg #135 2 years ago

    Hmm, on this one, I think MS are kinda right.
    Why all this focus on 3d for this console gen? Almost nobody has a 3d tv, and wont have for years. I dont get it, from a marketing point of view. I'm guessing my next TV purchase is 3 years away. The worlds greatest 3d is unlikely to force me to buy sooner, esp if its with glasses. In 2-3 years, next gen consoles will be here, integrating the best solution, which wont be the one being shown off today. And... glasses... really?

    Only the 3ds makes any sense right now.

  • Marshall2008 #136 2 years ago

    3D won't take off till set pricing drops. Of course its not as bad in the US where 3D sets are available for a little more than previous HD sets (or in some cases cheaper). But in the UK, as usual, we get shafted with the first sets carrying a hefty premium. This will change once the big chinese factories start to churn out 3D sets in around 12 months.

    As for pricing of the Kinect. If it launches for £99 in the UK with a game bundled in then its a bargain compared to the competition.

    Yes the PS3 move is cheaper, but only for single player and only if you don't want both parts of the controller and already own a PS Eye.

    It becomes pretty expensive if you want 2 player both using the the motion controller and navigation controller. Also at least one title requires 2 motion controllers for single player mode.

    Price example:
    Basic kit, motion controller, camera and starter disc (demo disc) £49.99
    Extra motion controller £32.99
    2 x navigation controller £24.99 (each)
    Total cost of 2 player kit £132.96

    Edited by Marshall2008 at 17/06/10 @ 10:27

  • DiamondIce #137 2 years ago

    Anything that requires me to wear glasses immediately makes me lose interest. I have never had the patience to wear glasses and this would be the same.

    If the France and Mexico game is rubbish I will watch the Sony E3 show and tally the number of times 3D is mentioned. Sad, yes, but I bet it goes into the 40's at least.

  • sneetch #138 2 years ago

    @brseg
    Hmm, on this one, I think MS are kinda right.
    Why all this focus on 3d for this console gen? Almost nobody has a 3d tv, and wont have for years. I dont get it, from a marketing point of view. I'm guessing my next TV purchase is 3 years away. The worlds greatest 3d is unlikely to force me to buy sooner, esp if its with glasses. In 2-3 years, next gen consoles will be here, integrating the best solution, which wont be the one being shown off today. And... glasses... really?

    Only the 3ds makes any sense right now.

    Your next TV purchase is 3 years away, that does not mean everyone's is. There's a lot of people here declaring that products will never take off based on the simple fact that they think they're too expensive or they don't want it. There are doubtlessly going to be a lot of early adopters out there that are eagerly awaiting 3DTV that you (and the others in this thread) aren't among them only means you're not among them.

    As for me I'm planning on getting a new TV sometime in the next 12 months, my last HDTV is over 6 years old and a bit tiny for my current apartment, I might just get myself a 3D TV, if they work well.

  • DrDamn #139 2 years ago

    @DiamondIce
    What has patience got to do with wearing glasses? :D

    I can understand the cost angle on glasses, also the needing one per person who wants to watch etc. I don't quite understand the "Oh I'm not wearing them" angle though. Approx 75% of adults in the US use some sort of vision correction - glasses or contacts - as part of their daily life. Some people are perfectly happy to wear a headset to enhance the online experience but not glasses to enhance the visual?

    That's the crux for me, if it enhances the experience to a significant amount then I'll wear them quite happily. I'll forgo some of the visual niceties of the 2D image for a 3D image with a steady and smooth frame rate. On the basis of what I have seen the enhancement is substantial enough for me.

  • TheJuriel #140 2 years ago

    I'm blind in one eye, so all this 3d hoohah is pretty wasted on me. :p

    They're still not saying anything about Kinect pricing, which means it'll be high. So much for that.

  • t8yman #141 2 years ago

    I'm still stunned that everyone is raving about the 3DS, no-one on here has one, very few people have even seen one in the flesh, the hands-on I read on engadget said that you have to adjust your eyes to the screen and not move, if you get distracted you need to refocus. Doesnt sound that great to me, yet loads of people say its a day1 buy?

    neg away, I know its not a popular opinion, but I think 3d is a long long long way off. because 3d with glasses doesnt count.

  • Quint2020 #142 2 years ago

    I agree with him tbh, it is an interesting tech but it's a long way off becoming mainstream due to price and the ridiculous glasses you have to wear (hats off to Nintendo though who have already solved one of those problems).

  • t8yman #143 2 years ago

    @quint

    I dont think they have, from what I understand it is little more than 2 dsiplays, one aimed at each eye. you have to be pretty much perfectly aligned to see the screen, the viewing angle seems to be very narrow. Which is why I dont get the amount of fawning that is going on.

  • Darren #144 2 years ago

    It's not often that I agree with Microsoft but I do as regards 3D which I think has got a long, long way to go before it'll ever have mass market appeal. Cost is obviously a big factor at the moment as is the need to wear glasses to view it. I'm happy to wait for 3D holovision myself. :D

    Sony are obviously pushing it because they have new 3D HDTVs to sell and Nintendo have obviously decided to do 3D so they can sell yet another redesign of their DS handheld. Of the two, I think Nintendo will perhaps have the greater success due to the recognition of the DS brand and the fact that its handware will be significantly cheaper than having to fork out for another uber-expensive HDTV.

  • mcwildcard #145 2 years ago

    So basically he's saying MS are stuck in the past and Sony are trying to innovate?

    There's a 40" Samsung 3DTV available TODAY @ Dixons for under £900 (with a voucher from hot uk deals) btw, you'd pay that for a 40" HDTV a few years ago, 'the future' creeps up on you a lot quicker that you expect...
    Edited by mcwildcard at 17/06/10 @ 15:21

  • oupe #146 2 years ago

    Side note: If you can buy a 3d tv now for little money, it's probably a crappy one. It's the same with HDTV's, you can buy them at low prices but you'll get eye cancer as a bonus. Even now a good (not decent) 32"/40" inch HDTV still is pretty expensive.

  • Les #147 2 years ago

    Sony gambles that 3DTV will be the next big thing. As such, it makes a lot of sense to make the PS3 3D-capable if that's technically possible, because it:

    - makes the PS3 more attractive to the small but very affluent first joiner group - I'd be amazed if owning a PS console from one gen wouldn't make it more likely on average that the person will get a PS for the next gen as well
    - gives Sony experience in 3D gaming before the next gen starts, theoretically putting them in a better position to tailor the hardware and software optimally to this new 'display technique'
    - Doesn't cannibalize on current PS3 owners that don't care about 3D gaming (yet)

    I'm personally not convinced though that 3D will be such a big thing. With the glasses it's annoying and takes away from display clarity IMO.

  • FortysixterUK #148 2 years ago

    I agree with his comments on 3D. Too expensive. Too Gimmicky.
    Just like the new junk Sony and MS introduced to E3 this year.

    Console. Controller. Game. Its easy...the rest is just gimmick, give it all up and make some more games please

  • Lord_Gremlin #149 2 years ago

    Uh-huh, like blu-ray, right? Well, what else can they say? "x360 sucks"?

  • secombe #150 2 years ago

    I would love to dig up their comments on the Revolution when it was announced, I'm guessing they were not entirely positive about the idea.

  • Paulie_P #151 2 years ago

    Screw 3DTV - I want one of those tvs that display colours in red, green, blue and yellow so I can see my yellow wish seahorse!

    (my god i hate that ad)

  • BlinxHDD #152 2 years ago

    HDMI and 1080p are future tech too, right? ;)

  • DrStrangelove #153 2 years ago

    I'm surprised he isn't amazed by Sony's and Nintendo's new tech.

  • IronGiant #154 2 years ago

    Everyone thought avatar was a gimmick and would be a flop and look how that turned out.. I'm not comparing a 7 quid cinema ticket to the cost of a 3D TV but the technology and 3D in general has really impressed joe public, having seen the PS3 game demos in 3D I think the effect is much better than for movies, real depth and a sense of immersion is added. Motorstorm PR for example looks superb in 3D. I agree that the glasses are a nuisance but they'll soon come down in price and be thrown in as an incentive to buy the TV. 3D is now in the public eye so, even Sky are in on the act, whenever they show the football in 3D my local boozer is packed :) I was in a Sony centre last weekend looking at a 3D set, it was s 40" and £200 more than the non 3D set. The salesman said if I bought it they'd give me 2 pairs of 3D glasses, 4 blu rays, the 3D games pack and a PS3 for £200. I was tempted but will wait till later in the year.

  • Grayvern #155 2 years ago

    there are still a good number of people who haven't made the HD switch yet and 2-3 years 3d will just be an included feature, and then a lot more people will have bought a HDTV more than 5 years ago.

    Although it saddens me that they haven't found a way to retrofit shutterglasses 3D into existing 120hz TV's In fact shutterglasses TV's should only cost slightly more than comparable HDTV's since the only difference is bluetooth transmission to sync the glasses.

    Edited by Grayvern at 17/06/10 @ 23:57

  • t8yman #156 2 years ago

    @Irongiant

    how exactly did avatar turn out my friend? A hugely succesful highly polished turd IMHO. Its no better than titanic, and artistically speaking its no better than Norbit. Box Office success is no measure of quality.

  • funkateer #157 2 years ago

    "how exactly did avatar turn out my friend? A hugely succesful highly polished turd IMHO."

    Your personal opinion about Avatar is totally irrelevant in a discussion about 3D.

    The bottom line is that Avatar turned out to be the most successful film of all time at the box office (by a huge amount no less), like it or not. And Alice in Wonderland is currently already at #5 (which is quite incredible).
    There's really no denying that 3D is a huge success, and that having to wear glasses is not at all a deal breaker.