bit-gamer.net

Nintendo dismisses usefulness of 3D gaming

Published on 1st February 2010 by Joe Martin

Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata thinks 3D glasses look very silly, but bit-tech editor Tim Smalley doesn't seem to mind.

Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata has commented on the recent trend toward 3D gaming, claiming that doesn't think that the technology is going to be practical for home users.

Speaking to The Associated Press (via ShackNews, Iwata didn't seem that bothered about Apple's latest announcement, the iPad, either.

"It's just a bigger iPod Touch," said Iwata, who said that the device held "no surprises" for him.

Iwata didn't comment on current rumours that Nintendo's next DS gaming device will incorporate a motion sensor like those seen in the iPod Touch, iPad and iPhone, but Nintendo has previously denied the rumours very strongly.

"I question whether those features would be enough to get people to buy new machines," he said when asked about whether a motion-sensitive DS or HD-capable Wii would be coming in the future.

Speaking about the trend towards 3D gaming that's been sparked by the likes of Avatar and Nvidia's stereoscopic 3DVision system, Iwata said that he thought consumers would worry about looking silly - which seems an odd comment coming from the man behind the Wii.

"I have doubts whether people will be wearing glasses to play games at home," Iwata said while welcoming 3D theatrical experiences like Avatar. "How is that going to look to other people?"

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

20 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply

MitchBomcanhao 1st February 2010, 11:33

yes, makes perfect sense. people will look silly whilst using those glasses, but they look very cool and stylish jumping around with the wiimote punching the air XD

EvilMerc 1st February 2010, 11:34

I can't help but think that waving your arms around like a loon and bouncing around the room holding a white vibrating stick is more embarrassing than wearing a pair of slightly tinted glasses.

PureSilver 1st February 2010, 11:37

I'm at least 95% sure that Nintendo's dismissal of 3D has nothing to do with the fact that their preeminent-with-no-sign-of-a-successor console barely has the graphical power to render games in three dimensions, let alone display games in them...

StoneyMahoney 1st February 2010, 11:53

3D TV can't use the polarized light mechanism that cinema 3D double-projection uses, so anyone without glasses will see a fairly bizarre display on the screen. That kinda ruins the whole party crowd demographic for Nintendo.

Also, IIRC, the stereo glasses you need for 3D gaming on the PC have been around for about a decade, along with tweaks for a lot of DirectX games that let you play them like that. Further, I believe the only reason the technology didn't take off at the time was that we were too busy moving to flat-panel displays and they didn't have fast refresh rates to handle the technology.

3D gaming: big yawn, seen it before, still not interested, still a big fail.

ChaosDefinesOrder 1st February 2010, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by PureSilver
I'm at least 95% sure that Nintendo's dismissal of 3D has nothing to do with the fact that their preeminent-with-no-sign-of-a-successor console barely has the graphical power to render games in three dimensions, let alone display games in them...

^this^

crazyceo 1st February 2010, 12:02

Funny how no one disagrees with his iTampax comments!

I think Nintendos domination of group/family gaming does rule out any 3D developement.

mclean007 1st February 2010, 13:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
3D TV can't use the polarized light mechanism that cinema 3D double-projection uses, so anyone without glasses will see a fairly bizarre display on the screen. That kinda ruins the whole party crowd demographic for Nintendo.

Actually, monitors can be made that produce polarised images for use with 'passive' 3D glasses. Using "micro-polarisers" it is possible to create an interleaved image where alternate rows of pixels are polarised in opposite directions. The disadvantage is obviously you halve the resolution of the display when in 3D mode. Conversely, with a scheme using 'active' shutter glasses, you interleave whole frames, so you halve the frame rate. Active systems therefore rely on a high (120Hz+) framerate to provide a smooth image to each eye, and there can be problems with fast motion, because the image presented to one eye is fractionally ahead of the other in time.

Irrespective of the 3D mechanism used, the effect for a user not wearing the appropriate eyewear is that the left and right eye images appear to coexist on the screen, creating a very unpleasant ghosting effect, which is effectively unwatchable. This applies equally in 3D projection systems.

[-Stash-] 1st February 2010, 14:16

I've tried the 120Hz-based Nvidia 3d system at Insomnia, it looked fantastic running Left4Dead, but I had to take the glasses ff after about 90 seconds due to severe eye strain :(

I've seen films using the Reald 3D system in cinemas and has no problem with them at all watching 2hr+ films.

Given what's been written about the Reald tech on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema) I do wonder if a higher refresh rate would sort the problems I had with the nvidia shutter glasses? I also don't see (technically) why the Reald technology couldn't be added to regular LCDs since it says "A push-pull electro-optical liquid crystal modulator called a ZScreen is placed immediately in front of the projector lens to switch polarization."

Would certainly be cool to see this tech on a consumer LCD - the mind boggles as to how they *circularly* polarise the light however...

StoneyMahoney 1st February 2010, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by mclean007
Actually, monitors can be made that produce polarised images for use with 'passive' 3D glasses. Using "micro-polarisers" it is possible to create an interleaved image where alternate rows of pixels are polarised in opposite directions. The disadvantage is obviously you halve the resolution of the display when in 3D mode.

The problem you have to deal with is quite obvious - you have to project two images. That means either you double the frames rendered or halve the resolution. The latter option is preferable IMHO, ghosting / interleaving is far easier to be in the same room with than alternate frame occlusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mclean007
Active systems therefore rely on a high (120Hz+) framerate to provide a smooth image to each eye, and there can be problems with fast motion, because the image presented to one eye is fractionally ahead of the other in time.

Many years ago I saw a demonstration of 3D running on a 120Hz CRT monitor using alternate occlusion. It was quite stunning and pleasant to watch without causing any strain at all, but I suspect that had more to do with the glasses than the screen. From what I gathered from the bloke doing the presentation, the actual frame rate was only 30fps each eye, but they used a parallel frame buffer so when the next rendered frame wasn't ready it didn't matter because the previous frame was still buffered and ready to pump to the monitor again. Do "modern" 3D products do that? It's not something I've really looked at much since I was a chief projectionist at a cinema.

Xir 1st February 2010, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
Also, IIRC, the stereo glasses you need for 3D gaming on the PC have been around for about a decade, along with tweaks for a lot of DirectX games that let you play them like that. Further, I believe the only reason the technology didn't take off at the time was that we were too busy moving to flat-panel displays and they didn't have fast refresh rates to handle the technology.

3D gaming: big yawn, seen it before, still not interested, still a big fail.

+1 been there, done that, wasn't nice
If it didn't work on 150Hz CRT's, will it be better on LCD's?

l3v1ck 1st February 2010, 14:52

What he means is:

Quote:

Our hardware doesn't have a hope in hell of running it, so we'll bad mouth it as much as we can.

MitchBomcanhao 1st February 2010, 15:18

a bit like sony saying "rumble" effect was old-gen, but then after solving its legal problems with the rumble effects company, immediately reintroduced rumble in its PS3 controllers? XD

Grape Flavor 2nd February 2010, 03:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilMerc
I can't help but think that waving your arms around like a loon and bouncing around the room holding a white vibrating stick is more embarrassing than wearing a pair of slightly tinted glasses.

lol, exactly.

And since when is a gamer's top priority looking fashionable to non-gamers while enjoying our hobby?

metarinka 2nd February 2010, 04:13

I think it will catch on when the technology is mature and the price point is favourable to the gaming demographic. With the lack of high refresh flat screen monitors and an agreement on any sort of standard it has no hope of being picked up. Also there's that small minority of the population ~2% who find 3D vision of any artificial nature causes eye strain and head aches. unfortunately I'm one of them. Watching avatar was painful. Can't imagine these will be any better.

Xir 2nd February 2010, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by metarinka
Also there's that small minority of the population ~2% who find 3D vision of any artificial nature causes eye strain and head aches.

I hab no problems with Avatar-3D but half-life (one) with shutterglasses made me nauseaous after about 30 mins. (120Hz CRT)
Of the five guys testing this, on did allright, two got sick (after about 30 mins to 1 hour) and two couldn't play for more than 5 minutes.

Hope it's matured in the ten years since then. :|

Saivert 3rd February 2010, 00:12

I still can't wrap my head around why stereoscopic 3D is so hard to get right. We got two eyes. You feed one image to the left and one image to the right. This should give you perfect depth effect like what we perceive in reality every day. It's the only reason we got two eyes to begin with. Two images slightly shifted apart due the the distance between the eyes. Yet people still struggle with "motion" sickness or whatever they complain about when trying the latest Stereoscopic tech.

Xir 3rd February 2010, 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saivert
Yet people still struggle with "motion" sickness or whatever they complain about when trying the latest Stereoscopic tech.

Yep, and Headaches.

You've got two eyes...and two innerears.
As soon as these start sending competing information (I see movement but I don't feel movement) trouble starts.
This is strengthened by the 3D motion for each eye beeing "just" not right, and by too low a refreshrate.
We may think 24 pics/sec is motion, but our brain doesn't.

mclean007 3rd February 2010, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by [-Stash-]
Would certainly be cool to see this tech on a consumer LCD - the mind boggles as to how they *circularly* polarise the light however...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
"Circular (and elliptical) polarization is possible because the propagating electric (and magnetic) fields can have two orthogonal components with independent amplitudes and phases (and the same frequency).

A circularly polarized wave may be resolved into two linearly polarized waves, of equal amplitude, in phase quadrature (90 degrees apart) and with their planes of polarization at right angles to each other."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

Hex 3rd February 2010, 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saivert
I still can't wrap my head around why stereoscopic 3D is so hard to get right. We got two eyes. You feed one image to the left and one image to the right. This should give you perfect depth effect like what we perceive in reality every day. It's the only reason we got two eyes to begin with. Two images slightly shifted apart due the the distance between the eyes. Yet people still struggle with "motion" sickness or whatever they complain about when trying the latest Stereoscopic tech.

Not everyone is lucky enough to have two working eyes. It was bad enough when everyone went on about 'magic eye' pictures that I'd never be able to see, but now I am truly sick of hearing about 3D cos I'll never be able to see any of it (not to mention the fact that no depth perception makes everything difficult anyway) :'(

Cyclopsist. The lot of it

Xir 4th February 2010, 08:58

I've got perfect vision (so the doctor tells me) and veryx good 3D perception but I can't see "Magic Eye" pictures either.