3D gaming will reach 40 million by 2014

By Games Industry.biz Published 9 December, 2009

New report reckons tech will spread rapidly.

Research company Insight Media reckons 3D capable televisions will spread like wildfire and number around 40 million by 2014.

Today, like HDTV a few years ago, the new technology is supported by few games - Avatar and Invincible Tiger: The Legend of Han Tao are two of only a handful.

"We have spent considerable time on our forecasting methodology and believe we have created something that is truly new, innovative and ground breaking," said Insight president Chris Chinnock of his The 2009 Stereoscopic 3D Gaming Report.

"We have played Stereoscopic 3D games for hundreds of hours and can report that the latest technology does not result in eye strain or fatigue," added Dale H Maunu, lead analyst on the report.

"Our experience leads us to believe that S-3D gaming is more immersive and compelling that traditional gaming on a 2D screen. We spoke directly with gamers, game developers, and game publishers as well as display makers to build a complete picture of the future of gaming, along the way going from sceptical middle-age display veterans to 3D gaming fanboys."

The first signs of a 3D future can be seen in the games industry already. NVIDIA already offers a package that can retroactively apply 3D settings to most PC games, and it really works - as you'll have seen at the Eurogamer Expo 2009 had you been there.

But, as Blitz Games (maker of Invincible Tiger: The Legend of Han Tao) boss Andrew Oliver pointed out earlier this year, we're unlikely to see 3DTV saturation until Sky or Blu-ray fully support the technology.

Full details of the report and its content can be found on the Insight Media website.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (52) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • moggsy #1 2 years ago

    What a load of bollocks.

  • BabyJesus #2 2 years ago

    I call bollocks.

    2024- Maybe, 2014- Not a bloody chance

  • sneetch #3 2 years ago

    Not wanting to poop on GI.biz's parade but "3D capable televisions will [...] number around 40 million by 2014" does not mean that "3D gaming will reach 40 million by 2014".

    Having a 3D TV does not automatically mean you'll be playing games on it.

  • Sunyavadin #4 2 years ago

    I DO expect, once it takes off, that 3D uptake will VASTLY outstrip that of HD. It offers something that the average consumer, the regular man on the street actually sees as significantly new and different.

  • cianchristopher #5 2 years ago

    3D GAMING IS HERE NOW.

    YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST

    3D GAMING WILL REACH 6 BILLION BY NEXT WEEK

    THROW OUT YOUR TV SETS AND BUY A 3D TV SET

    DO IT NOW

  • MiniAmin #6 2 years ago

    "We have played Stereoscopic 3D games for hundreds of hours and can report that the latest technology does not result in eye strain or fatigue,"

    I'm sure looking the cost of a 3D television will make you reassess that bit about eye strain.

  • imamazed #7 2 years ago

    I reckon this will give gaming a whole new dimension.

  • penhalion #8 2 years ago

    As I said after the last article. Unless the 3D Tvs are selling for less than 1k, then forget it. Like HD TV before it. No real consumer takeup was possible until the prices of the screens and the televison program support reached realistic levels. Sky will most likely offer this service as a tester to a few people but, it's probably going to need a new sky box in order to work correctly (assuming circular polarisation is the winning 3d format).

    So a timeline of five years is nonsense. Cinema will definitely be mostly 3D by then but, that's not going to drive Joe Public to part with 3k+ to early adopt a 3D screen that may or may not be the correct format for viewing all of the movies.I expect a similar nonsense battle between companies to the HD vs Bluray fiasco for at least a few years before anyting serious happens.

  • B0MBJ4CK #9 2 years ago

    Pah!! I'm all ready there baby!

    Got my Sega Scope 3D Glasses on and playing Space Harrier 3D on ma Master System!

    The future is NOW!

    ow...my brain and eyes

  • TheApologist #10 2 years ago

    There'll be a format war, and the price will have to drop.

    But also, being different isn't enough. Is this better? Do I want to watch all my telly, ever day in 3D?

  • curtlikesmeat #11 2 years ago

    I think the appropriate response here is: lolololololololololololololololololololololsauce.

  • Dizzy #12 2 years ago

    This will be fun to re-read in 2014, while sitting in my flying car and using my video phone.

  • insincere_dave #13 2 years ago

    Oooooo... that white elephant looks lovely in 3D!

  • sarcasmoidosis #14 2 years ago

    They're selling this report for 5000$... Just as a side note.

    I've played Avatar in 3d both on PC through the nVidia gizmo and on Xbox on a 40" TV that kinda simulated that it had 120 Hz, although it actually had 100. It looks awesome: sharper image, every texture looks ten times better and it gives "soul" even to a dull game like that.

    BUT, it kills your eyes. The XBOX one gave me a headache for 5 hours and on PC any driver caused flicker or shimmer will basically kill your investment making 3D unplayable. Another downside on PC is that I haven't yet heard of any LCD's over 22" that can handle 120Hz.

  • Mr_Brown #15 2 years ago

    That's assuming that 3D isn't just a recuring fad that's been the future since the invention of the cinema/TV. I can see why the media industry is trying to push it though, with the amount of money they've blown on Avatar the first full 3D film and the games industry desperatly searching for the next big leap now that graphics no longer hold the "wow" factor.

    I doubt we'll have them by then.

  • sneetch #16 2 years ago

    @penhalion

    Indeed. You can get a decent HDTV for about €600 these days but how much will a 3D TV cost? (Serious question btw. :) )

    The premium charge that providers like Sky will charge for this will also slow down adoption of 3D TV as in you'll probably have to have Sky+, Sky+HD and Sky+3D (for the two or three channels that actually have 3D content).

    That said, if it is "affordable" and truly causes no eye-strain then I'll definitely go for it.

    Edit: Fixed "defubuteky go for it". What the hell happened there, I ask myself?
    Edited by 1 at 09/12/09 @ 18:28

  • meggsy #17 2 years ago

    Wait, what!?

    How many has HD gaming reached?

    A theoretical 70 million if we assume that all 360/PS3 owners have HDTVs, and that no-one owns both consoles.

    The projected uptake seems a little optimistic.

  • Darkedge #18 2 years ago

    10-1 survey commissioned by NVidia or Real3D

  • dirk_aircool #19 2 years ago

    Wasn't there an article published (in past 6 months )to the effect that only a very small % of consoles were actualy bieng used with the HD output to HDTV ? These people are just trying to talk up the share price.
    @Dizzy
    2000 was flying cars and tablets instead of food. 2014 is 3D TV and personal time machines, usefull if you miss a 3D TV program.

  • Acrid #20 2 years ago

    @imamazed "I reckon this will give gaming a whole new dimension."
    lol

  • PlugMonkey #21 2 years ago

    What a load of rubbish. 3D sound has been around for donkey's years, provides a gameplay experience that is "more immersive and compelling", and I wonder what the uptake of that is? Probably not 40 million gamers. Why? Because most people just can't be faffed having a few extra speakers in their living room to get the effect?

    Why would they be faffed to where glasses the whole time they are playing? This applies double to people who are already wearing glasses.

    Not to mention the fact that stereoscopic 3D is a biological cul-de-sac that will never produce an altogether satisfactory 3D effect. Why must gaming blindly follow films in whatever they do instead of exploring it's own avenues?

    2014? Not a chance. 2024? Seems unlikely. Surely holographic projection is the real future? Not this regurgitated 1950s freak show.

  • canIdoyabombsforya #22 2 years ago


    Interesting comparisons going on here.

    Firstly you don't need an HD console to enjoy current gen HD or HD readyTVs. You will see an improvement even if you own a 'low def' Gamecube and you still don't need to run it at 480P. In 575i mode you will benefit from de interlacing and being upscaled to the TVs native resolution. Obviously you are at the mercy of your TVs internal circuitry quality, but most decent LCDs will look miles better than an old CRT TV with its low res pixels and scan lines. One exception seems to be the PS2 which for some reason doesn't seem to upscale as well as the Gamecube (via component) and Dreamcast (via VGA).

    Console gaming was held back for years compared to PCs by TVs. SEGA broke down barriers with their VGA box, but not many people got to appreciate the quality of computer monitors with consoles.

    The Wow factor from the Xbox 360 mostly came from the nature of big bright and vibrant LCD TVs IMO, obviously the graphical power was a big improvement but we are used to that every gen.
    To prove my point, A Boy and his Blob on the often so called 'crappy low res' Wii still looks beautiful on an LCD TV.

    Here's a little experiment to prove how overhyped the 'HD era' of gaming really is.
    Take an Xbox 360 with VGA cable and connect to a CRT PC monitor, then do the same with a Dreamcast and compare the Two.
    What you have is one notch in resolution, and the rest are improvements in graphical power for handling more polygons etc.
    The other experiment is to play a game like Rez from Xbox Live Arcade on an LCD, then drop it to original 'low def' mode, it really is not a big loss.

    The real big step for HD gamers IMO, was the PS3 when it finally staggered to 1080p, and when 40"+ LCDs plummeted in price.

    I think 3D gaming and TVs are a whole new ball game and drawing comparisons to the uptake of HD gaming would be wrong.





  • hiddenranbir #23 2 years ago

    People haven't even fully taken up HD yet, crikey!

  • shamblemonkee #24 2 years ago

    that's numberwang!

  • AaronTurner #25 2 years ago

    Will be a wicked step if we can get 3D TV's without glasses or other peipherals.

  • PlugMonkey #26 2 years ago

    wile_coyote: My sentiments exactly. It's an inherently unnatural effect that is fun in small doses as your brain trips over itself to try and interpret what it's seeing, but I've yet to see anything where I wasn't reasonably glad it was over by the end. I would definitely not want it applying to every video entertainment I viewed, and I would imagine I am not alone.

    And as you say, I would be more likely to believe claims it was going to be The Future if it hadn't been popping up, being proclaimed The Future and then promptly dying out again about every 30 years (coincidentally, one human generation. I wonder if our kids will be just fucking loving this shit in the 2030s?).

  • hilts #27 2 years ago

    What bollox!!

  • smelly #28 2 years ago

    Personally I agree that within 4 years 3d sets without glasses will become the hi-def style norm.


    Edited by 2 at 09/12/09 @ 20:59

  • Anthony_UK #29 2 years ago

    I'm probably being stupid, but is there some new 3D tech out there, or are we talking about the usual 3D complete with glasses?

    If so I'd say there living in dreamland! Is there really a demand for this kind of thing beyond the odd 3D movie at the cinema?

  • Tetragammatron #30 2 years ago

    Shame we're all dead in 2012 init?

  • Grayvern #31 2 years ago

    Its probably based on current sales and the fact that 3d will probably be incorporated into HDTV's as a by the way by 2012.

    Also as to the value of 3DTV it can be used similarly to depth of field, for subject isolation. 3D in the past has failed for many differant reasons, many of them nothing to do with the merits of 3D in and of itself.

  • SteelPriest #32 2 years ago

    i thought a certain 3d tech could be used on some existing HD tellies?

  • Vandrius #33 2 years ago

    *furiously pumps away with right arm*

  • SAH1977 #34 2 years ago

    The new version of 3D will apparently work on existing HDTV's so long as they refresh at a certain rate. Next year 3D will become a standard feature on mid to high end Blu-ray players, and the PS3 will be firmware upgradeable to 3D for movies and games.

  • MARKIV #35 2 years ago

    I don't believe it either, 1 hour 40 minutes of the film Up and I wanna take the damn glasses off! It's good in short bursts, but it's a headache in two ways,:

    a) prolonged use actually will give you a headache.. or screw up your eyesight with prolonged use after removing the glasses.
    b) those 120hz minimum new 3D HD TV's you'll need to buy will cost you a fortune..!

    Has anyone seen the news today, the UK is almost bankrupt, taxes and unemployment are going to rise hugely..! Keep what you've got!

  • Yodith #36 2 years ago

    Somebody wake me up when holodecks are here.

  • peterfll #37 2 years ago

    They could have just put it out to Catherine Tate's Nan, as that's who I thought of when reading the article.

    Whaada loada of old SHIT.

  • freakzilla #38 2 years ago

    I read the article and I see nothing that suggests that what they say is true. Sure devs and publishers will say that, they need a new gimmick every few years to keep us buying their stuff.

    I think its just too much to hope for, Most of the people I know only recently got a HDTV and plan to keep of very long time. Who he hell is going to buy a 3DTV when most people aren't even interested in blu-ray.

  • koshien #39 2 years ago

    There won't be any format war...nothing like "blu-ray vs hd-dvd...it will be more like "plasma" vs "lcd"...
    There will be just one standard, but you will be able to buy plasma/lcd/laser displays with shutter technology, or lcd/laser tvs with polarized glasses.
    2010 is the year of 3D, not later.

  • Iain815 #40 2 years ago

    I'll believe it when I see it.


    /pun
    Edited by 1 at 10/12/09 @ 00:31

  • MiniAmin #41 2 years ago

    *furiously pumps away with right arm*

    Are you that excited about 3D television?
    Edited by 1 at 10/12/09 @ 01:11

  • Grayvern #42 2 years ago

    Thing is I wore them over my glasses an the 3d didnt give me a headache. That said cinemas are offering the old version polarisation version of 3d which is probably why some people get headaches. Wheras with the sony glasses or a tele that doesant need glasses this will probably be solved.

    Also technically all HDTV's could support 3d using lcd shutter glasses. for films not tv, films being native 24fps and pro scan 3d would need twice that and all HDTVs support at least 60hz. For tv and this method you would therfore need 100hz or more

    3d withought glasses may not be the best proposition as the method used, displaying two images at once and requiring users to sit in a very tight area of view. Also becasuse the methods of doing it reduce the resolution to 50%, which is why 3d could have waited till we all had 2400+ resolution tvs which is the more important jump as far as im concerned.
    Edited by 1 at 10/12/09 @ 00:56

  • madjim #43 2 years ago

    I am not convinced. I remember back at the beginning of the 90s when they were talking about 3d helmets and gloves and their use in videogames. Well, after all those generations of gaming and the leaps in technology, we're still waiting for VR...

  • Bravestinsane #44 2 years ago

    Until i have my own Holodeck i couldn't give a crap, the first 3D film i ever saw felt underwhelming and i found it more irritating than anything.

    As long as graphics are not substituted for this good luck to them but for me this is a novelty, i refuse to have to wear glasses while playing my games.

  • Bluetooth #45 2 years ago

    Global warming will put a stop to that.

  • GoldLightan #46 2 years ago

    meanwhile some TV stations are still transmitting in 4:3.

  • Nemesis #47 2 years ago

    It's TEH Future!

    Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy. Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?

  • Leolian #48 2 years ago

    The biggest barrier to me is the need to wear glasses. Just can't see that becoming mainstream.

  • Nodebug #49 2 years ago

    hahaha brilliant first comment

  • Darren #50 2 years ago

    I was looking to buy a new 1080p TV to replace my aging Sony D3000 and I saw that Sony plan on releasing some new 3D TVs next year. I'm not sure I'm interested in forking out extra for the sake of something I'm absolutely convinced will end up being a gimmick though.

    The 360 and PS3 can barely handle 720p without framerate issues and/or screen tearing in many games so forcing developers to add 3D for the next generation machines is surely going to introduce even more compromises for the sake of a few redundant effects. I really don't see much point in having 3D on 2D screens anyway, at best it's moderately convincing ONLY when something is being waved virtually in front of your eyes and at worst it just doesn't work at all in making me believe it is 3D. At least not with me anyway.

    I think I'll wait for holographic vision myself! :)

  • jmg123 #51 2 years ago

    SKY+ HD boxes just need a firmware upgrade to support 3D (as demo'd last year) same with the ps3, so at least it won't require replacing 3 things. Having said that until you can get a 3D tv for less than £500 or in tescos et al I don't see there being mass adoption.

  • metalnut #52 2 years ago

    Bollocks.

    "Research company" my arse. If they actually forecast truthfully, the result wouldn't be worth their sponsors money and would be too boring for the news networks to pick up. Therefore, they say this stuff because it brings in the money, not because it's actually realistic.