Tech Interview: PlayStation 3D

By Richard Leadbetter Published 27 January, 2010

Evolution Studios on how Sony is building a 3D future for gaming.

Page 1 of 5

We may not have flying cars, or miniature pet elephants, but at least some bits of the future films and books have been promising us for the last century are now coming to pass. One bit in particular is way ahead of what you might expect: 3D games aren't just something exciting for the future, they are something Sony has up and running, and will be inviting developers to make as early as this year. With the exception of some active shutter glasses and a, er, 3D TV, PS3 owners already have most of the equipment they will need.

That's why we were very excited to head up to Evolution Studios last week and take a long, hard, playable 3D look at what Sony's numerous internal studios and a few third parties have been cooking up. You can read Digital Foundry's in-depth impressions elsewhere on the site, and today we're sharing the rest of our conversation with senior development manager Simon Benson and senior programmer Ian Bickerstaff.

If you weren't sure how 3D works, whether it's for you, how it came about, what the difference is between PS3's system and other systems, or even how PlayStation 3 in 3D relates to what you get if you're one of the millions of people going to the cinema to watch James Cameron's Avatar, then read on.

Eurogamer: The first thing we saw of PlayStation 3D was something Namco did with Ridge Racer 7. People mentioned its frame-rate. Is it 60FPS with 30 allocated to each eye?

Ian Bickerstaff: The guy who was involved with it now works for Sony Japan.

He's now seen as a 3D expert and he's been roped into the cause. It's really good actually. Independently the 3D running there is very similar to what we are promoting. We're on absolutely the same wavelength. There are no internal politics here, it's easy. It's the right answer, it does actually look really good.

Eurogamer: We've seen PS3 3D at two different CES shows now. When did you start work on it internally? Have you been incubating this solution from day one, or has it evolved from something else into what we're seeing today?

Ian Bickerstaff: I joined Evolution Studios in 2005 before it was acquired by Sony. In the background at a very low level, just bubbling under, I was just carrying on with a little bit of 3D stuff I'd done previously at British Aerospace. Even then I thought that this is a technology that one day is going to come into its own.

Eurogamer: Was it in a sense a case of separate threads within Sony coming together as the base technology matured?

Ian Bickerstaff: What happened one day was that we showed MotorStorm and a few other bits and bobs to some very, very senior people from Sony Electronics. They said, "It's funny you should show us that. We are actually developing something similar." It was like, "Oh yes, now there's a reason for it!" so the two things came together very well.

Eurogamer: Did you have compatible displays to show this stuff? What we're seeing [demoed today] is a 60Hz game, but effectively 120 frames being generated per second. Conventional displays won't work with it.

Ian Bickerstaff: There's a terrible picture of us from 1997 wearing liquid crystal shutter glasses, viewing a 120Hz 3D image. It's been available for many, many years. It was done using a projector costing £50,000 to £60,000, maybe more. The point is that all this technology has been around for ages but cost millions and millions of pounds in the simulation industry.

It is interesting that the simulation industry was prepared to pay that to have 3D because of the benefits but it's just amazing to me that suddenly this is going to be available as a consumer item in people's living rooms.

It's always been possible to do R&D on this technology. Out there you'll find lots of people who worked on 3D with very expensive viewing systems. In car design there are immersive walls and there's these things called "caves" where you have a 3D image on the walls of a cube around you and all that sort of stuff. They're all great and amazing but ludicrously expensive, but now [3D] is going to be in people's living rooms.

Eurogamer: So why is it happening here at Evolution Studios?

Simon Benson: We're a small team but we're working across all the studios, so you've got an awful lot of other people involved. It's not like we're doing all the coding ourselves - we just assist people, and evangelise 3D.

The job is one of education. Myself and Ian, we're based in the northwest and have a lot of experience with 3D, so we got involved. Because we came from a different industry where effectively we were working with multi-processor Onyxes with all the kind of effects you get now in the PlayStation 3.

We've got that background of working with very, very advanced technology. We've already worked with 3D, we've already been doing the things that have made it to the home over time so we all have the history and the knowledge.

These days it's a lot easier to work with people globally so it's never been a problem, location has never been an issue. We work very closely with Europe, America and Japan.

Eurogamer: The word from CES was you use active shutter. Is that what we're using today?

Simon Benson: Yes it's active shutter.

Ian Bickerstaff: 60Hz per eye.

Simon Benson: We've not actually had the production ones here.

Page 1 of 5

Comments (94) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • M_of_the_sys #1 2 years ago

    Is it just me or did he totally NOT answer the first two questions?

  • Widge #2 2 years ago

    Yeah, that is weird!

    Q: So what do you think of bees?

    A: Last Friday night had nothing to do with the levels of milk in our fridge.

  • bodypopper #3 2 years ago

    It doesn't matter what sort of 3D people have seen or how easy on the eye it is. It's just not a big USP for getting a new telly like HD.
    From a gaming point of only a few games will be suited to it mainly those of the fun family variety (Lego for example).
    I can't imagine many CoD gamers finding distracting 3D a bonus in multiplayer.
    Then there's the headache with creating HUDs that don't distract you by hovering in front of your face as I witnessed the other day playing Arkham Asylum in 3D.
    Edited by 2 at 27/01/10 @ 11:55

  • StooMonster #4 2 years ago

    Still failing to understand how he can send HDMI 1.4 data over HDMI 1.3 hardware -- the only solution is to frame-pack and lose resolution, is it not?

  • Thedni #5 2 years ago

    Some top quality evasion going on there!

    In all honesty I'm quite excited to see what this tech can do when it eventually rolls out into production. Given a few years it could be something quite special.
    Edited by 1 at 27/01/10 @ 12:03

  • penhalion #6 2 years ago

    Simon Benson: HDMI 1.4 on the 3D side of things... you have a 720p60, 720p50 and also a 1080p24 standard I think. So we've got all of those to call on basically.

    Er no you don't have them all to call on and the program still has to produce the frame buffers at the back end. Both 720p 50 and 1080p 24 require polarized projection systems as they simply don't work with the shutter glasses.

    I just hope that most people aren't fooled by this nonsense. The active shutter solution is going to be both expensive and of limited use. It's also not the system that will win the 3D war purely due to the equipment necessary to run it. The polarized light with passive glasses is the one that everyone is really working towards (samsung, Philips, Sony themselves!).

  • cianchristopher #7 2 years ago

    Well, I loved Avatar at the cinema - and I recently watched the 3D blu-ray of Coraline at home (but, unfortunately the colour was washed out due to the polarisation technique of the glasses - it was still extremely impressive, though. In a dark room, that is!)...

    But, I'm not going to buy a 3D tv for a long time, I just bought a HDTV last year...

    Those new 3D monitors for the PC sound cool, paired with Nvidia glasses! I've heard Batman Arkham Asylum and Left 4 Dead are amazing in 3D. Also, real-time strategy games sound like they're really cool in 3D, they say it's like looking down at little toy soldiers and tanks on your desk...

  • Widge #8 2 years ago

    So whats better? Polarising glasses or active ones?

  • Dizzy #9 2 years ago

    Looks like 3D will be the biggest waste of time in 2010 based on the number of words DF is writing about it.

  • GamesConnoisseur #10 2 years ago

    "One of the important messages is that we're not going to desert "2D people". I mean, I've got a 2D TV at home and still want fantastic 2D content. It's just going to depend on the take-up of 3D televisions and how much bias is given towards it. We can demonstrate the capabilities of what 3D can bring but we can't force it on people."

    "One thing that gives us a lot of confidence is that you look at all these numbers people come up with to project 3D penetration into the home... gamers tend to be a lot more aware of technology and the benefits it brings, like how many people bought HDTVs for the consoles rather than what was being broadcast or whatever."

    Very interesting article, with pages devoted to emerging 3d for the gamers, especially PS3. However above two quotes boils its all down.

    2D TV is where all the gamers are playing right now, the question is HOW real the 3D penetration prediction is? My view is that its would not matches the progress HDTV had made. 3D is also more confusing to the mind of the consumer compared to the necessary set up for HDTV!

    How many people link up scart lead their Sky HD to 1080p TV?! I m intrigued if 3D will really take off and becomes the norm within a few years?

    I m not betting on that horse, instead can see it as a home movie hobbyists or those with more money than sense. At moment the opportunity to use 3d is still too few and NEEDS to reach a 'criticial mass' of consumers with the 3DTV purchasing ENOUGH of 3d enabled movies/games to break the 3D out of its niche position its in at the moment.

  • phycus #11 2 years ago

    "Eurogamer: Did you have compatible displays to show this stuff? What we're seeing [demoed today] is a 60Hz game, but effectively 120 frames being generated per second. Conventional displays won't work with it."

    Not sure there was answer to that, especially confirmation of "Conventional displays won't work with it". Basically this tech will need a new tv that supports 120hz.
    Edited by 1 at 27/01/10 @ 12:50

  • Sunyavadin #12 2 years ago

    So whats better? Polarising glasses or active ones?

    No glasses. Better every time.

  • Widge #13 2 years ago

    "How many people link up scart lead their Sky HD to 1080p TV?! I m intrigued if 3D will really take off and becomes the norm within a few years? "

    I'd be surprised if anyone does as the installer comes round with the box & HDMI cable and does it all for them.

  • NorUraeus #14 2 years ago

    Interesting to see it confirmed that the PS3 HDMI hardware actually can support at least the 3D part of HDMI 1.4. A typical claim by naysayers have been that Sony couldn't pull that of, but I guess they have just been proven wrong.

  • IneptPercy #15 2 years ago

    Is it just me who thinks neither console has enough power to render at the fps/resolution/detail which is needed?

  • Widge #16 2 years ago

    Depends on the game. The first party stuff seems like it has the ability, otherwise LBP and GT5 wouldn't have been getting demoed with actual gameplay doing it. Its the multiplat guys that are the concern. Could they even be bothered?

  • El-Dev #17 2 years ago

    Motorstorm in 3D would be awesome.

  • Retroid #18 2 years ago

    New TV = FAIL.

    Given the numbers of people still playing HD consoles on SD TVs, and the wider population begrudgingly getting new TVs only when the old ones break (and being perfectly happy with DVDs) I can't help but think that this is going to be Betamax / Minidisc - great for those who seek it out, but few others will care.

  • Darren #19 2 years ago

    3D games + expensive new 3D TV + consoles = FAIL IMO

    I plan on buying a new Sony TV in the spring when they launch their new range which includes 3D TVs. However, I *won't* be buying a 3D model as I don't think it will be worth the extra expense just for a handful of 3D games and movies that will support it. Also the thought of having to wear glasses to play these games and watch movies with just doesn't appeal to me at all.

    3D is fine for the odd movie at the cinema but I don't need it to enhance my enjoyment of a movie or game. Avatar was an excellent movie for example but I'd have enjoyed it just the same if I'd watched in 2D (which I plan to do when I buy the Blu-ray).

  • cianchristopher #20 2 years ago

    I don't think so Retroid - just look at the recent news that Avatar has become the highest-grossing movie of all-time...

    I doubt that's because of the story - it's because of the 3D technology. There's a massive market ou there waiting for this, it just has to be done right...

  • El-Dev #21 2 years ago

    "Given the numbers of people still playing HD consoles on SD TVs, and the wider population begrudgingly getting new TVs only when the old ones break"

    Seriously? Who still has a SD TV? I know someone who was on the dole for 2 years and has a HD TV.

  • EvilBob_leeds #22 2 years ago

    I'm looking forward to this. Yeah I know it excludes the legion of people who always bitch about these articles here who either;

    a)have one or more eyeballs that aren't up to scratch
    b)have chronic motion sickness
    c)have just shelled out for a new < 120hz TV
    d)won't buy a PS3 because they think that Sony = the devil and Microsoft = brave fighters of anti-competitive practices
    e)otherwise think that 3D tv will steal their souls and shoot their mothers

    And it probably will be niche for a while. But that doesn't mean that technology isn't cool, and it won't make some games better.
    Edited by 1 at 27/01/10 @ 13:40

  • guernican #23 2 years ago

    As an Xbox owner, I'd also like to make a point of how uninterested I am in a technology that probably won't be available to me for ages.

  • patchbox360 #24 2 years ago

    sellling the potential of 3D in games is easy - selling an expensive 3D tv is gonna be hard

  • M_of_the_sys #25 2 years ago

    @Retroid

    How do you know how many people are playing HD consoles on SD TVs? I know only one person who plays a HD console on a SD TV out of everyone I know. Not to mention that most of the people I know who don't own a console still have a HD TV.

    I'm not saying this fact is incorrect but I keep hearing people saying this and I don't know where it's come from. Is it a fact or an assumption?

  • kangarootoo #26 2 years ago

    I find it a little puzzling that gamers would dismiss anything on the basis that it involves buying new stuff in a few years time. To suggest that any new area of gaming will fail, purely because it requires the consumer to buy new stuff is frankly ludicrous.

    It is hard to think of another hobby that involves less buying of new stuff every time a new generation of stuff come around. We buy a new console or graphics card or TV or monitor or control pad every year or two, and we have been doing so since we became old enough to control our own purse strings.

  • KayJay #27 2 years ago

    Even if some are playing on SD TV's then thats probably a good thing for the 3D take up. People can just skip HD and go straight to 3D. Easy. :-)

  • AliRay #28 2 years ago

    I think the amount of EG 'hardcore gamers' that simply aren't up for this is a sign thats it's really NOT going to do well.

    We're supposed to be the ones uptaking this new tech as soon as it hits the shelves, and almost everyone's against it!

  • KayJay #29 2 years ago

    AliRay - Wrote: "I think the amount of EG 'hardcore gamers' that simply aren't up for this is a sign thats it's really NOT going to do well."

    From EG front page "There are currently 356 registered users online."

    Not many people really is it. How many of those 356 are as you say "Hardcore Gamers"... Half at a push...

    Its just the next step, and it should be pretty coo. Yeah it might be expensive for the first upgraders, but you dont have to invest just like people are not investing in HD. But dont bash progression.
    And just like HD the 3D prices will drop in time and everyone will be able to have the experiance.

  • IronGiant #30 2 years ago

    "Looks like 3D will be the biggest waste of time in 2010 based on the number of words DF is writing about it."

    Nope, reading your constant whinging is easily the biggest waste of time. We can all judge for ourselves as the Sony Centres will be having 3D units on demo, if GT5 looks as good as they say then it could convince me to get a 3D telly sooner rather than later.

  • sarcasmoidosis #31 2 years ago

    "How do you know how many people are playing HD consoles on SD TVs?"

    An Epic dev said that more than 50% of Gears players play the game in SD. Not on an SD monitor necessarily, but in SD resolution.

  • Dizzy #32 2 years ago

    There was a market study last week on the register that suggested that in 2018 just a few % of tvs would be 3d. Total hype, just like vr in 90s. Any mass consumer device that requires people to wear goggles will surely fail, hell I can't find my remote most of the time.

    It just fits in with the whole drive of companies to make sure people buy everything again and to make everything "pirate proof". What a waste of time, I am more interested in gigantic screens, touch screens or similar and OLEDs as new tv tech.
    Edited by 1 at 27/01/10 @ 13:54

  • glaeken #33 2 years ago

    I think they are about 10 years to early on this. I personally only got a 1080P screen mid last year and I have no intention of getting another TV for a good few years. Where exactly is all this 3D content to justify me buying a new 3D screen going to come from? It's taken years to get a decent level of HD content and even that still has a way to go.

    They of course have to start at some point working on this but the idea this is going to be commercially big I think is way off for the moment.

  • kangarootoo #34 2 years ago

    "I think the amount of EG 'hardcore gamers' that simply aren't up for this is a sign thats it's really NOT going to do well"

    The one thing that strikes me as distinctly unsafe about that statement, is that there is nothing that makes a hardcore gamer more uncomfortable than saying out loud "that looks good, I wish I could have it, but I can't".

    Some of the people writing will genuinely dislike 3D and see no value in it, but there will also be some who have set their heads against it because they know in their hearts they can't afford the kit required, and there will be yet legions more who say nothing on the subject because their honest opinion on the matter is "that looks good, I wish I could have it, but I can't" and they don't want to say so.

    I'd like to take credit for this shrewd observation, but a chap called Aesop got there a little over 2500 years before me.
    [link url=h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and...[/link]

  • kangarootoo #35 2 years ago

    "I think they are about 10 years to early on this. I personally only got a 1080P screen mid last year and I have no intention of getting another TV for a good few years."

    We've had this discussion already. A company can't wait until there is mass market acceptance of a new product before they start pushing it. If they did that, either they would get beaten to it by a competitor, or there would NEVER be mass market acceptance.

    They have to start somewhere.

    But then...

    "They of course have to start at some point working on this but the idea this is going to be commercially big I think is way off for the moment."

    it seems you already know this.

    Commercially big might be the time for a consumer to get involved in something, but it is NOT the time for a vendor to start getting involved in something. EARLY is the time to start getting involved if you making and selling the product.

  • oreillymj #36 2 years ago

    For a long time gaming has pushed hardware in new directions. From the hydraulic Sega cabinets for Outrun etc to Dragon's lair on laserdisc.

    PC Gaming is probably the most demanding thing you can do on a PC. you can run Excel pretty well on an old PC.
    So I think it's good that we're seeing a continuing trend of game devs pushing hardware advances.

    Now I bought a Philips plasma TV in 2005 and at the time it cost €3k. I justified the purchase by saying I'd get 10 years out of it. By 2015, I'm hoping I'll get a pretty decent OLED TV for a decent price with 3D capabilities. Just the PS3 was the trojan horse that won the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle, I wouldn't be surprised if Bravia3D is used to put 3D tech into consumers homes by stealth.

    And something tells me that I'll be playing FIFA2015 in 3D when it get's to #1 at xmas of that year.

  • a.j2020 #37 2 years ago

    Personally..I think 3D will both have a quicker and more widespread take up than HD has had or is still having(whichever way you look at it). Simply due to the fact that with HD all we basically got was a doubling/quadrupling of resolution. No other real difference. Yes..picture quality got enhanced but not to the extent that people should spend 2/3 grand on it and thats why its been slow.

    On the other hand 3D is real change...you are changing the very physical dimensions of how you view an image on a screen. IF marketed properly..and thats a big IF..I think we could be seeing 3D just take off like a rocket. I think 3D glasses will play a key role in that simply because people don't want/like having them. If they can get over that and sell it at anywhere near reasonable price..I think in 6-7 years' time 3D Will be mainstream. And i certainly cannot wait to jump onboard.

  • kangarootoo #38 2 years ago

    "I wouldn't be surprised if Bravia3D is used to put 3D tech into consumers homes by stealth"

    If they are trying to be stealthy about it, I would suggest removing 3D from the name of the product.

  • M_of_the_sys #39 2 years ago

    @sarcasmoidosis

    Thanks. Is that really why everyone has started saying this then? Not much of a basis for this fact, is it?

  • glaeken #40 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo Yeah I get all you are saying. Of course they have to start working on all this stuff from an R&D perspective.

    It's Sony putting a big emphasis on this recently which I think is off. I just don't think now is the time to be bigging this up to consumers as the next big thing. It's probably the next next next big thing. I understand Sony want to show off what they are working on and its impressive but it seems like a mistep to start pushing this to consumers at this point. 3d just won't be relavant quick enough for it to be worth spending time on PR for it now.

  • bealios #41 2 years ago

    Success will depend on whether Sony are prepared to sell the 3DTV's as a loss leader to get an installed base with the technology. The console side of things and the glasses aren't really unsurmountable obstacles, but getting people to shell out on a new TV might be.

    If I was upgrading my TV, I would consider paying an extra £100/£200 for 3D capability, as long as it didn't compromise on other stuff - but beyond that I (and many others I imagine) wouldn't go much beyond that.

    Hopefully they will have seen from the BluRay success over HD that it is worth taking the hit in the short term to get an installed base, for the long term benefit of the technology.

  • DAN.E.B #42 2 years ago

    The 3D generation starts when Sony say so!

  • kangarootoo #43 2 years ago

    @glaeken

    I think they are just pushing to be symonymous with 3D. It may be too early for many, but when those many turn their minds to 3D, they will bring to mind whichever company brand has most closely been associated with the tech. Laying the ground work if you will.

  • DAN.E.B #44 2 years ago

    How many people link up scart lead their Sky HD to 1080p TV?!

    alot! im a sky engineer and see it all the time the same people will be calling sky when the 3d dont work without the glasses.

  • patchbox360 #45 2 years ago

    to really utilise a 3d tv ur gonna need it to be big - 46+inch tv - a sony 46 inch LED tv cost 3k now - so a sony 46 inch 3D tv should obviously be more - the take up of this technology will be limited to those that are willing to spend 3 - 4k on a tv which i think will be too little ps3 owners for a developer to justify spending time and money on, especially taking into account they hardly can be bothered to put games into 1080p and run them at 60 frames per sec - the idea of 3D is great but it would have been more viable if they could have implemented it into standard HD tvs

  • DAN.E.B #46 2 years ago

    Seriously? Who still has a SD TV? I know someone who was on the dole for 2 years and has a HD TV.

    really? I feel much better knowing my tax pounds are going to a worthy cause!
    hearing shit like that makes me sick!

  • Widge #47 2 years ago

    Then some people at Sky are doing a shitty job. I didn't even have to do a thing when the engineer came round mine, box installed, HDMI plugged in, all good.

  • dr_shambles #48 2 years ago

    To me initially passive glasses seem like a much better bet.

    Nothing to go wrong, no battery issues and don't cause problems for people with photosensitive epilepsy.

    Haven't experienced active glasses though, so freely admit may be wrong on this.

    Does anyone know if the active lenses still have 30% colour loss as in polarised?

  • DAN.E.B #49 2 years ago

    agreed there are a lot shit engineers the problem comes from upgrades they plug the hdmi in but they also plug in the existing scart lead and the customer continues to watch sky on the original channel av1 or av2

  • jn2002dk #50 2 years ago

    my sensors are detecting an abnormal amount of butthurt MS fanboys here

  • kangarootoo #51 2 years ago

    @dr_shambles

    I believe decent modern shuttered glasses don't suffer the same colour loss as many of the polarized glasses do.


    Here is a thought, on a related note. We look at the term colour loss, and because the word loss appears we assume it must be bad, because we are losing something right?

    Q. If the colour loss is a known constant, why can't the film and game makers account for it in the original source material?

    This question is not rhetorical. I really don't know why its not possible.

    Is it in fact possible and happening right now, but people complain all the same because the term "colour loss" looks good on a list of bad things during an internet discussion?

    And if nobody told you there was any colour or contrast loss, would you even know (I didn't - I'd not seen Avatar before, but it looked great when I did see it, so what exactly should I compare with when I consider whether the version I was seeing was suffering from colour loss)?

  • StooMonster #52 2 years ago

    “‘3D Ready’ option will add no more that $1000 extra to the price [of a new HDTV].”
— Woo Paik, LG’s Head of Technology

    So far the '3D Ready' televisions announced by Toshiba, Samsung, Sony, LG and Panasonic for availability this year are options on the most expensive models.

  • kangarootoo #53 2 years ago

    @StooMonster

    Its worth bearing in mind that this guy is talking in terms of absolute cost to build. That isn't to say the same markup will be seen by customers. Just like games consoles are subsidised to get them into the market, 3D TVs will go the same way. The TVs themselves will almost certainly be subsidised in part by the companies with a vested interest in building an installed based (such as film companies, games companies, 3D accessory companies and disc distributors).

  • Alkeno #54 2 years ago

    I'm not confident about 3D in the short term. At all. It's not a matter of "hardcore early-adopters in gaming forums not liking it", or that the market is not ready, the high-costs or any other issue.

    The greatest problem 3D is facing is called Avatar. The movie has been a great success (it's James Cameron! It's cool! It's 3D as it should be!) but the reception to 3D has been lukewarm at best... I don't plan to see another 3D movie in a couple of years (maybe until the Next Big Thing), most of my friends feel the same (it was cool, but has many drawbacks and it's not something to look for). And that is not even starting on the huge amount of people that: can't see 3D at all, get motion sickness, get headaches (as bad as vomiting on the theater) or just face the awkwardness of having to wear 2 sets of glasses.

    I don't see 3D catching up in the home unless the industry enforces it (the plain old "you cannot get a non-3D set because... we're not build them";) and even then it will be yet-another-feature-nobody-uses. I mean, apart from games... what is the content available on 3D, some blurays? Meh...

  • Widge #55 2 years ago

    £2k for a TV lets say. Can't really afford that whatsoever... even cashing in on my old one.

  • StooMonster #56 2 years ago

    kangarootoo: guess we'll have to see when LG announce the prices of their 3D models in the spring.

  • BillyBrush #57 2 years ago


    there's literally no need to be pessemistic about 3D, simply because it won't mess up games as we know them. The avatar game, whilst apparently bobbins demonstrated this well - it used the same Dunia engine as far cry2, produced a pretty gameworld, and just offered 3D if you have the kit...they didn't need to hobble the game in terms of graphics etc to produce something viewable in 3D, so there's no loss

    So it's like a free bonus...there if you want it

  • El-Dev #58 2 years ago

    "really? I feel much better knowing my tax pounds are going to a worthy cause!
    hearing shit like that makes me sick!"

    My point was that HDTV's are inexpensive now. They might not be very good but they are still cheap and accessible to everyone.

  • StooMonster #59 2 years ago

    Alkeno: what is the content available on 3D, some blurays? Meh...

    Three 3D Blu-rays announced this year; one each from from Sony Pictures, Disney and Dreamworks. So you are right, there is not going to be much content for 3D Blu-ray players in 2010.

    However ... Sky, DirecTV and Foxtel are launching 3D services this year -- Sky as early as March -- and as per previous technological expansions in satellite television market (analogue to digital, SD to HD), live sport will be a key driver; they've announced their own 3D dedicated channels with mix of sport, movies, etc. Also, ESPN 3D and Discovery 3D available at launch too.Comcast announced a 3D channel yesterday too.

    So, most 3D content will be coming from broadcast television for the first year at least.

  • EvilBob_leeds #60 2 years ago

    £2,000??? Jesus people, shop around!

    Bearing in mind that a 3d capapble 1080p monitor can be had for ~£300 here

    And a Samsung plasma TV that Nvidia say are compatable with their 3D goggles is available here for $799 (~£500)

    £2,000 is just flat out wrong, unless the TV is absolutely huge, made by Bang and Olufssen or solid gold. Cost isn't going to as significant a barrier as you all seem to think/hope.
    Edited by 1 at 27/01/10 @ 15:59

  • fknetwork #61 2 years ago

    Now I like HDTV and I also like 3d TV but which is best..........
    Only one way to find out!






    FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • StooMonster #62 2 years ago

    penhalion: The polarized light with passive glasses is the one that everyone is really working towards (samsung, Philips, Sony themselves!).

    AFAIK Philips are not using RealD's circular polarized light solution but are developing glasses-free 3D televisions instead.

  • Widge #63 2 years ago

    Nah, I meant £2k if 3D is going to be bolted onto a top line Sony LCD.

    EDIT:

    I like the idea of that Philips, as long as it has ambilight too. I love my glowy TV. Philips aren't cheap though :(
    Edited by 1 at 27/01/10 @ 16:09

  • Kenshin001 #64 2 years ago

    Seems the people predicting doom for 3D are the same who were predicting the demise of Blu-ray 2 years ago (too expensive, DVDs good enough etc.). Avatar has just become the biggest selling movie of all time and the vast majority of people watched it in 3D, wearing glasses. If they can have the same experience at home at a reasonable cost, they will. Samsung just announced they're starting mass production of 3D TVs, so the costs will come down soon enough. It's the future, embrace it.

  • Alkeno #65 2 years ago

    Sorry StooMonster, I always forget that EG is hosted on UK... A side effect of being Spanish, lucky you, most of our broadcasts over here are still 4:3 (not even get me started on HD... :-@).

    PS: In this case, the grass is definitely greener on your side, lucky you ;-)

  • oreillymj #66 2 years ago

    BTW - About a year ago I seen a demo screen in the local "mall" with some sort of polarized screen in front of the actual display. It was displaying static adverts served from a PC, and you had to stand in a particular "sweet spot" to see the effect, but I have to say, the 3D looked really cool.

    At the time I googled the company name and it looked like some sort of Phillips research company.

    Anyway, we all know that "adult" entertainment will be the killer app for this technology.

  • Retroid #67 2 years ago

    As stated, at least one developer has said they were surprised how many people were still playing HD consoles on SD TV sets. The thing we have to remember is that we're not really representative of the mass population when it comes to technology - while we were out buying RGB SCART cables for our PS2s, Xboxes and Gamecubes, most people were just happy with the crappy composite cables which came with them. My brother-in-law has an HDTV and a PS3. It's hooked up via composite because that's what came in the box.

    @guernican "As an Xbox owner, I'd also like to make a point of how uninterested I am in a technology that probably won't be available to me for ages."

    Given that there's been one XBLA game in 3D and Avatar on 360 supported it too, I don't think that's a concern for anyone who sees problems with the acceptance of 3DTVs ;P

  • TSYNDMonkfish #68 2 years ago

    Saying 'we dont need 3D & it will never catch on' is exactly like saying we dont need HD isnt it? If the tec is there, and its been up & running on PC for a bit now - it will get used.

    Im just about to upgrade my PC & I'm getting a 3D monitor for sure - no way im paying hunreds of £££ for those fancy Nvidea 3D specs though. I may in the short term just use some highlighter pens & colour in my normal glasses green & red & see if that works :p

    Also - Its not like its 3D or nothing, these games will still look great on an old non-3D monitor, or a HD TV.

  • TSYNDMonkfish #69 2 years ago

    Plus - Whos going to care about 3D when Nintendo unleash the Holographic projection scratch & sniff Wii??

  • Retroid #70 2 years ago

    @TSYNDMonkfish: "Saying 'we dont need 3D & it will never catch on' is exactly like saying we dont need HD isnt it? If the tec is there, and its been up & running on PC for a bit now - it will get used."

    Colour SDTVs were being sold in the last 1960s and really took off in the 1970s, nearly 40 years ago. HDTVs only started being sold in large numbers in the last five or so years.

    Again, my point is that the greater population will only upgrade when they really need to, and they're the ones these companies have to convince.

    As for references to Avatar being a huge success, yes, it is: and I'm sure the 3D experience being included in the price of the tickets had something to do with it. Cinema trips are one-off experiences and don't require the replacement of a large chunk of living room entertainment hardware.

  • ronuds #71 2 years ago

    Wow - EG really loves 3D. They may be alone in this!

  • TSYNDMonkfish #72 2 years ago

    Retroid - you make a very good point. There will be a shedload of new HD TV owners who wont spend the £££ on a new 3D TV - why would they? They arnt cheap!
    But still, for anyone in the market now or in the near future for a new TV or monitor, 3D is an option, especially if that TV or monitor does everything else as well as its non-3d equivalent, and its doesn’t cost to much more.

    Time will tell I guess.

  • old_skool #73 2 years ago

    I'm actually a bit excited to have this tech in my home. I went on a number of 3D simulation rides over the years and have been impressed every time. I recently watched Avatar in 3D in the cinema and again was impressed, and the gasps that I heard from the other cinema goers it's clear that the movie made a very very big impression.
    It's quite ironic (or maybe not) that as we come to the point where graphics is reaching the point of photo realism, the games industry is focusing on immersion with devices like the Wiimote, and the soon to be released Natal and PS3 wand(ARC whatever).
    For that reason alone I think 3D won't be a fad. It's definitely the next stage in the gaming evolution.
    Being a tech head I'll probably splash the cash on a new 3D capable TV. And it'll probably be a bit expensive at first but prices will be driven down by mass production and competition, it's the same old story with any technology.

  • SavageEvil #74 2 years ago

    I for one am sick of all the crying around here, HD TV's too expensive? Stop lying, I have a 3 year old Sharp Aquos 42" that I purchased brand for 2400 USD!!! 3 Years ago. They aren't shoving 3D down your throat it's up to you if you want to enjoy it, I have only one person I know that still has a SD television that he uses for gaming, he just hasn't gotten around to purchasing one, which I'll be doing for him soon, as I am tired of trying to read those small fonts that SD TV's tend to have.

    All this bad mouthing and nay sayers are the same as when the wright's thought of flight, history shows that with every advancing step in technology, there will be those crying and moaning about it not being feasible or affordable or worse yet, too soon. Too soon?!? Just because someone can think beyond the boundaries that we placed ourselves in doesn't mean it's too soon, just means the majority of people are too slow. Complacency is the enemy of progression, you want to sit comfortably and enjoying your sedentary life, good for you. Some people don't want to sit back and be contempt with that, they want to push past the boundaries, that is what brings them joy and fulfills their life. If you don't like the advances, you don't have to participate.

    I for one will like to see how far they can take this, I find it impressive that the PS3 is living up to being future proofed for a little while, it was built like a pig, but it is now beginning to show it's strengths. Sony planned well and designed well, I hope we get to enjoy the fruits of their endeavors. Don't go crazy, I own every current gen system, down to the DS and PSP.

  • man.the.king #75 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "I find it a little puzzling that gamers would dismiss anything on the basis that it involves buying new stuff in a few years time. To suggest that any new area of gaming will fail, purely because it requires the consumer to buy new stuff is frankly ludicrous."

    And then those very same gamers will probably turn around and say they are eagerly waiting to spend money on Natal :)

  • man.the.king #76 2 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    "A handful of games and a handful of 3D-ready TV's do not a gaming revolution make. "

    Yes, but a revolution need not happen in the space of a year. And it has to start sometime. Why not 2010?

  • man.the.king #77 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "I'd not seen Avatar before, but it looked great when I did see it"

    As far as I know, Cameron compensated for the loss in brightness in the movie, with the result that 3D Avatar had a more natural look.

  • ronuds #78 2 years ago

    @ SavageEvil

    I'd agree, but this is 3D we're talking about which has been around for decades. We've all seen it, we know what it's about. It isn't really some giant advance in technology - it's old tech made better and brought to different mediums. We're not suddenly playing games on the moon or anything for cryin' out loud - let's keep things in perspective.

    I mean, you're comparing this to the invention of flight. Good grief.
    Edited by 2 at 27/01/10 @ 22:27

  • woodyrulesok #79 2 years ago

    @ man.the.king
    It depends on the brightness of the projector or screen as well.
    A cinema projector has to use a brighter bulb for 3d over normal 2d, sometimes they don't bother and the image is obviously not as bright.

  • Dizzy #80 2 years ago

    f) don't buy everything that corporations serve up.

  • Retroid #81 2 years ago

    @SHARXTREME: Bless! :)

    Too busy with new tech to play (one of) my C64(s) but thankyou for your concern.

    I have two HDTVs, one 32" and one 42" (latter is 1080p) and the only CRT I have is an arcade monitor so I'm not complaining for my own sake like you seem to think. I'm simply pointing out - and I have done in the past - that we're not representative of the larger market these bits of tech need to sell to.

    I'm also speaking generally about 3DTV tech. I actually think it's rather excellent that Sony are patching support directly into the PS3 (which I do own, cheers), but will also point out that there are already 3DTV games which don't require a firmware patch to support them and 3D isn't exclusive to Sony.

    Really, some people on here make me bloody wonder....

  • Bander #82 2 years ago

    Simon Benson: It's how your eyes work in the real world. People who've lost vision in one eye learn to compensate while driving by judging how far apart brake lights are, which is why people have more accidents in the dark. If someone ahead has a tail light out they think it's a motorbike. They have no depth perception at all.

    This is wrong. They do have depth perception via focal length, as do people with two good eyes. Until this is addressed (it'll probably require either 'holodeck' technology, direct brain input, a voxel-based screen or sophisticated eye tracking), 3D games won't look right, regardless of screen type, size or resolution.

    Actually, the suggestions that people with one good eye have zero depth perception and cause accidents at night is quite insulting. It's the reduced field of vision that makes driving more dangerous for them, in which case they should know to be very cautious and probably not attempt to overtake. Near total darkness makes judging focal length and perspective harder for everyone. Why wouldn't someone with two good eyes also think that one tail light could be a motorbike? Maybe it's just a clumsy statement, but it bothers me that people at Evolution Studios are making such errors about how the human eye works.

  • ronuds #83 2 years ago

    @ SHARK

    I still wonder why this is being considered "new tech"? I remember watching 3D in my house ages ago. To me, this is simply old tech made better.

    Anyhow, the whole TV industry is moving towards trying to cram 3D down our throats and I think a lot of people are right to resist. Like I said, we all know what 3D's about by now and probably have a good idea whether or not we require it in our homes. I don't see the negativity aimed squarely at Sony as much as I do in the industry shift in general.

    Personally, I still think there's a way to go to making HDTVs better, but instead they're looking to give us reasons to drop another few thousand on the next thing that hasn't been perfected.

    And can someone please tell me what the hell that tiny thumbnail pic is (along with other ads) that looks like an arse with a bunch of penises being rammed up it?

  • SavageEvil #84 2 years ago

    We the consumer are the ones who determine whether something fails or not. No one is going to throw out a brand new HDTV and go buy another 3D HDTV, that's absurd. Regardless of what the industry wants to do, they know it won't go anywhere if the population doesn't adopt it. If the adoption rate is high then obviously the nay-sayers are in the minority, and if you want 3D you can either get it or not. Every TV in my house is HDTV, nothing less. They are lighter, offer much better picture, more aesthetically pleasing to the eye and take up much less space. No problem upgrading once you find a set you like. I think it's great that Sony is pushing this for games, but I wonder how is it they can't do 3D with two 720p images at 30fps to each eye so it can run on a 60hz TV like the majority of the world owns.

  • oreillymj #85 2 years ago

    yes this'll never take off - http://ne ws.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/84...

  • man.the.king #86 2 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    It appears as if both of us were trying to make the same point, only in different words. Yours was a slightly more pessimistic turn but no less true, while I was approaching it from the "glass half-full" angle :).

    Yes, I agree, there is very little possibility that 2010 is the year of 3D, but, in my opinion, it will be the year that 3D technology was turned out on a large enough scale so as to make itself commercially available to everybody. At the end of this year, only a few select models of HDTV will probably support 3D. By the end of next year, though, I would guess every HDTV would be able to support it. Going forward, if all HDTVs have this capability, then there's a more than even chance that, in a few years, it will be widespread enough.

    For gaming, though, I would say there's a more than even chance that much of PS3 gaming would be 3D-capable (as long as they have a 3DTV, of course).
    Edited by 3 at 28/01/10 @ 09:48

  • 3william56 #87 2 years ago

    An obvious question, if I may. Why is a new TV needed? If you had (f'rinstance) an IR dongle on the PS3 to sync the shutter glasses, then just send alternate eye frames at 60 fps to the TV, surely you can achieve 30fps 3D without the special TV. 30fps is good enough for most things (certainly LittleBigPlanet, hello Killzone2).

    Apparently not, so what's the catch?

  • Sunyavadin #88 2 years ago

    Looks like Sony's plan to get shuttered 3D established is going to be DOA. Now that TV stations like Sky are launching 3D channels using the polarised option because it's cheaper, meaning more users.

  • Cafuddled #89 2 years ago

    Well what do you know, you can already use the PS3 and even the Xbox360 in 3D with the Nvidia 3D Vision. Check out this link here:

    [link url=h ttp://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=152080
    ]http://fo rums.nvidia.com/index.php?showt...[/link]

    It is possible that every 3D game made for the PS3/Xbox might work with this method also... After all the GPU on the PS3 is an Nvidia card anyway so why not just use the identical system that’s already established. Or could this be SONY wanting more royalties in their pocket again? But at any rate as long as the above method does work with future games I guess I won’t be too bothered.

    3william56:

    You’re not just cutting your frame rate down your actually cutting down the Hz that your eye’s are exposed to, basically 30Hz per eye. That would cause extreme headaches and nausea in some people and would look like a strobe light for the rest. You see even TV’s from the old days run in at least 50Hz anything less will look like the picture is flashing to the human eye.

    The 24 frame limit for the human eye is not for image refresh it is for smoothness of motion so has nothing to do with how many Hz your display runs at.
    Edited by 2 at 28/01/10 @ 11:16

  • Retroid #90 2 years ago

    I just think 3D will get more and more important for big film releases in the cinemas - it's a spectacle that the home just can't offer at the moment, no matter how big your TV is. But it'll be niche in the home for most.

    While I'm out there buying Blu-Rays and subscribing to Sky HD, most of the people I know don't see what the fuss is about and are happy with upscaling DVDs. That's just how people are.

    @SHARXTREME: "you also like to point out that you have ps3 on many occasions.
    I wonder why is that so."

    Because - speaking generally, of course - there seem to be several people who comment on articles on the internet who think that any criticism of technology which can be linked to their favourite livingroom appliance (like a games console), no matter how tenuously, must be because the person who made the criticism is BIASED at the least or (*GASP*) a FANBOY.

    Speaking as someone who thinks it would be silly *not* to have as many of the platforms for gaming as are available I just don't 'get' single-platform owners when they all offer cool and exclusive stuff.
    Edited by 1 at 28/01/10 @ 11:28

  • ronuds #91 2 years ago

    "yes this'll never take off - http://ne ws.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/84... "

    Well, there you go...end of discussion! Sky means everything!

    My God, do you people even take YOURSELVES seriously? :p

  • man.the.king #92 2 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    "That sounds about right, maybe with optimism/pessimism weighted by how much we are willing to upgrade our current TVs? ;)"

    Realistically, there's not much chance of me being able to upgrade my current HDTV (currently out of a job - I was a Software Engineer - Oracle Apps). Right now I have a 40-inch Sony XBR1 (1080i), but am hoping to upgrade to a 3DTV when my wallet allows.

    My optimism is more a function of how much potential I think this particular 3D technology has :) . I'm planning on checking out a Sony Style store when I get the chance
    Edited by 2 at 28/01/10 @ 19:52

  • Grayvern #93 2 years ago

    LCD glasses are the way to go otherwise 3dcould take us back from HD.

    Would still rather have 2400by whatever resolution though.

  • Quak #94 2 years ago

    I can't imagine many CoD gamers finding distracting 3D a bonus in multiplayer.

    I don't think I'd call 3D distracting. When I'm driving or when I'm paintballing, I don't close one eye to get a 2D view because I'm distracted by all the 3D. Do you?

    I think 3D has a lot to offer. It all comes down to how well it's implemented though - which extends to how easy it is to set up for different configurations.

    How likely they are to convince people to ditch their 12-month old HDTV in favour of a new 3DTV though, I'm not sure...