Sony: Games will set the standard for 3D
Sony thinks that games are a perfect fit for 3D technology and will set the standard for the future.
The comment comes as part of an interview on the official PlayStation site, where House lends his support to the idea of 3D technology on consoles.
"Games can be adapted into 3D relatively easily and with this technology we can add depth and make games more immersive than ever," said House.
Sony current has a few 3D PlayStation 3 games on the way to coincide with a new range of Bravia 3D TVs, namely WipEout HD, Super Stardust HD, PAIN, but House has hinted at more 3D games in the future.
"As with all new technologies, initially there are barriers to entry, such as the cost of the TVs," said House. "Regardless of that, we feel that it is our responsibility to offer all consumers a choice. If you want to spend the money on a new 3D TV, then we will provide you with 3D content to play."
"That is not to say that out priorities have changed. Our priority is still very much our key traditional Blu-ray Disc titles, and that does not mean that we can't offer some 3D fun as well."
Personally, we're already quite sick of this new 3D trend and would far rather forego the limitations of the technology and the headaches that come along with it, but Sony has invested in it regardless. You can check out our look at Nvidia's 3D effort, 3DVision, for more of our thoughts, but let us know what you think in the forums.
Previous Article
59 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyNo.
Just no.
Games in 3D? How in the blue blazes will playing games that the general consumer plays like Wii Fit/Tetris/Pong/Brain Age enhance the entertainment experience?!
I'm not all that bothered by watching films in 3D (especially since I sometimes experience motion sickness when watching some parts of 3D films!!), however as long as it's not like most games try to implement 3D and mess up the 'important' parts of games, I don't mind too much.
Given games offer a much more 3D experience than a film by the sheer nature of the medium (Doom feels more 3D than Avatar did, just because you can move around), I'm highly unsure of what it would bring to the table in anything other than a funky graphical effect.
This is a perfect example of other technologies, that should be chosen instead..
Youtube.. v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
worse casue you still have to wear the glasses and after a while your ears and eyes hurt way before they normally would
Yeah, I saw Avatar in 2D and in 3D at an IMAX. I found the IMAX screen way too big and after about an hour or so I started to feel my eyes straining. Thinking about it I should have sat as far back as possible, that may have helped. All that being said, it was amazing in 3D at the IMAX!
Ah you beat me to it, this is the kind of thing I would like to see microsoft come out with the Natal (since, I believ, that is able to identify and track your head, something that isnt essential to the game but gives it a "wow" factor without overcomplicating the game
Playing FPS and being able to peek round corners by leaning rather than pressing a button would add to the immersion of the game. Getting a 3D teabag in halo would not....
Unfortunately it doesn't! Your friend will just see a 2D image.
I've found this site that will show you if you can see in 3D!
Had that problem when going to see clash of the titans. Everywhere near us and in the city centre where only showing it in 3D =/
Yeah, that's how they work. I have a 3D monitor and you set a key to toggle 3D on and off. If I play single player games I normally play in 3D - Bioshock 2 looked great! But if I play online its normally in 2D.
This technology works for me and none of the goggle techs do. I've tried the original GeForce 3 active glasses and both the active and passive technologies that are currently available at the likes of i-series (and cinema), nothing.
But as I understand it Johnny Lee (the guy in that video) got hire by MS and the result is Natal so I'm kinda optimistic about where the x-box is going at the moment.
It'll also shove costs up and production values down.
It's a pointless gimmick in an attempt to sell more tv's / monitors now most people have updated from crt tv's.
**** off telling us what we're going to do.
signed - Gamers
Clash of the Titans wasn't a good movie in 2D...3D doesn't help then :D
I've watched Avatar in 2D and 3D...in 3D it was good, but the edges of the field of view were blurry.
I would have to sit further away in 3D than in 2D.
Tried gaming in 3D with shutterglasses, the initial effect is great, but i got sick of it within half an hour.
Headache, then Eye-strain then motion sickness (each after about 10 mins in this sequence)
Worse because of the price!
http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2010/05/shrek_on_imax_nearly_cost_20_p.html
I think Sony are correct that gamers will be the drivers of 3D adoption. look at how much PC gamers are prepared to spend on hardware and i think games will take advantage of the benefits before the film industry will.
I guess I'm just a little skepitical since I wear glasses and so it can be annoying to where 3D glasses too, especially when I have experienced nausea when watching 3D films.
Plus it sometimes seems like it's been forced on us (e.g. some films only being shown in 3D even though the 2D version exists) despite it being more expensive, etc.
I can see its benefits though.
I think most of us who have issues with it are, like tristanperry says, annoyed that it's being forced on us. There are some recent films I haven't been able to watch yet as they've only come out as 3D which will be completely pointless for me.
Anyway... Apparently 3D gaming is a MUCH more convincing effect than 3D film, mostly probably due to (upto Avatar) being converted to 3D rather than filmed specifically for it. But still, I am not a nay-sayer, I am willing to give it a try. I mean most of us here will be willing to try new tech no doubt since we all keep up with our PC stuff, and it's this platform which will yield the best results, since we can have the effect at little cost of resolution with enough GPU power.
But seriously I was quite impressed with Avatar in 3D, it wasn't over done and seemed to add great depth in places, even managed to forget I was watching a 3D film till I was trying to swat some bugs that were flying around me from the film :o
Wow, as Da_Rude_Baboon, I'm too really surprised at the negativity towards 3D gaming here, in the article and in lots of the comments.
Joe, you were one of the writers of the "Nvidia's 3D effort, 3DVision" article and you seemed quite enthusiastic about the solution at that time. I know that is is a bit annoying to see every companies trying to milk any new idea as their new cash cow and most of them usually tend to only transform good ideas into crap products (ie: third party publishers using Wiimote just to release crap game :( ) .
Is that what made you sick of stereo 3D ?
For comments and people against Sony putting 3D in PS3 games, just try some 3DVision certified games on PC and you'll see what your are missing.
Of course it is better with some games than with others as the game as to be designed to take advantage of the stereo 3D.
Just try some platform games like Assassin's Creed or Prince of Persia. The effect is just incredibly good (even with just some cardboard red/blue glasses :) )
Just try the demo of Dark Void with the jet pack. I found it only playable with the stereo 3D as only stereo 3D allows you to estimate the distance between you and the enemies/mountains/... around the character.
I have glasses and I have no problem wearing 3D glasses over them.
Companies like Sony may be pushing the adoption of the tech a bit too hard and there will be some screwing for early adopters like with the HDready TVs that were not FullHD TVs.
But lots of people have been waiting for good affordable stereo 3D gaming for years and now that the technology is ready to become mainstream, others are spitting on it.
I can not understand that.
It is like hating colours and wanting only black and white display/film/game to be made.
Of course there are people who can not see colours, of course colours do not means that all games/films with colours will be better than black and white games/films. But when used correctly, colours can had a lot to a game/film and so stereo 3D can.
It should not mean that designers will be obliged do stereo 3D. There are still some good black and white films and some good 2D (with no polygons) games made.
Designer who want to try just have to learn how to take advantage of stereo 3D as they did (and continue to do) with colours, 3D (not stereo), sounds and music, motion sensor, ...
The only limit should be creativity.
And if designers manage to use stereo 3D to express new things in games or films (like they do with sounds and music), it would be stupid to stop them from using this tool.
ps: thanks for reading until the end and sorry for those who do not like long comments :)
Will it be technically possible in a few years to have 3D without glasses? That would be an improvement.
Whatever happened to that to that 3D TV on Tomorrows World that didn't require glasses, won't be interested until something like that comes along.
Frankly I don't want a dong seemingly floating in my face.
I'm one of the minority of the population who gets bad headaches and nausea from 3d, maybe I haven't tried all the types, but by the end of Avatar, I felt sick. I watched it again in 2D and enjoyed the experience much more.
that being said i welcome it for gaming. It's very easy to implement since they already have the Z buffer information so it doesn't take much more processing power or programming. I just rather the industry as a whole starts setting standards so that we don't get a 3d blu-ray vs 3d hd-dvd thing going.
There are a lot of negative nancys on this site. They are against new tech until it becomes standard and then they pretend they were for it all along.
Oddly enough I can't play FPS games because of motion sickness but I was fine watching Avatar in 3D.
I do have to agree though that games are a more natural fit for 3D since the content is being created in 3D. With movies some old tricks like matte paintings and relatively shallow sets could quickly kill the immersion - CG is getting better but it still often looks too fake to me. One issue, however, is that large TVs aren't generally the best monitors and gaming setups have to change to use them.
Also - for several reasons already mentioned by others - there should always be the option to turn it off and us 2D.
Sony aren't claiming that at all. They said games would set the standard.
I bet hardly any of you have played a game in 3D so the truth is you don't actually know if you'd like it or not, your just guessing based of the hearsay of others who probably haven't played in 3D either.
If everyone had this sort of attitude we'd still be playing pong.
and as for the whole premise in life you FOCUS on what you want to see so the foreground and background are blurry, in the movies etc. the filmaker decides that for you so
NO ITS NOT 3D let me know when you crack that chestnut and ill be the first to buy
I do believe 3D should always be optional. Some people just can't tolerate the effect, or, like me, wear regular glasses and thus find it impractical. Even if they perfect the technology it will still be impractical for certain kinds of games.
3D isn't so great now. I see that. But we need to be working on it. The first cars sucked, the first planes sucked, but if it weren't for those early strides we wouldn't have our F-22s and high-performance cars, would we.
The source-engine games for instance run like this.
Haven't heared of that? I'm not surprised...for most people, it sucked.
I agree though that you have to try before you talk. I tried and was not impressed.
Try it, shutterglasses shoud be loitering around ebay and the likes, remember this is relatively old tech...the drivers are freely available from NVidia. (don't know about ATI)
My eyes -freaking- bled after an hour when I tried to watch Avatar.
And it also gave me the grandmother ancestor of all headaches, and effectively crippled me for the rest of the day. At least other improvements didn't try to raep my brain.
Each time I tend to walk out with a headache. Maybe it's one of those things you get used to, I got motion sickness the first few times I played 'Timesplitters' on the PS2 - but I doubt it.
The cynic in me thinks this technology be it in games or normal TV's will be quite slow to be adopted. A lot of people have only just been convinced to upgrade their old CRT TV's, now they're being told how great 3D is and that they need to upgrade again. It's like the upgrade from VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray. DVD was jumped on when it was new and there were a lot more early adopters of the technology then there has been with Blu-Ray.
I'm all in favour of new tech, this is just one that I'm not interested in yet as I cannot see any real benefits.
Many televisions, consoles, and - funny enough - Blue-ray players are starting to include built-in wi-fi and internet access. There's still a part of me that sees Blu-ray as an intermediary format between DVD and direct download, with media PCs used for content storage.
Will 3D be the next big thing? I'm inclined to believe no - at least not yet in the home. The economy is depressed, too many consumers just dropped several grand on HDTVs due to to misinformation about the DTV transition, as well as heavy industry marketing that HDTV was the next big thing. Now, consumers are being told the go out and spend a $2-3K more on a 3D set, plus expensive glasses for each member of the family. Consumers grew tired of the HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war and the inevitable confusion it brought, and another is looming between passive polarized and active shutter lenses.
I think the 3D gimmick will make in-roads in the cinema, where the theater experience is more conducive to gimmickry. As well, the movie industry can better control theater standards because you don't have millions of consumers selecting from a myriad of choices of TVs, players, and accessories.
As for gaming - I'm still skeptical when it comes to the home market. YouTube offers some pretty cool 3D options, so maybe there is some hope for 3D penetration in the home computer market. On another note, while 3D does provide technical challenges, it's actually pretty easy to pull off. Pulling off 3D effectively, and doing so in a non-gimmicky way, is much more difficult. It really requires the art director to think about the 3D environment ahead of time, and design the game or movie with 3D in mind. Adding 3D as an afterthought can lead to poor execution, and that will guarantee that nobody adopts the technology.
Interestingly Playboy offered a 3D pictorial in this month's issue, complete with a complementary set of red/blue anaglyph glasses. Perhaps pr0n will help popularize 3D after all!
I remember back in the days (1996?) they had these shutter classes. I was playing Descent with those classes. Although it somehow worked if you where concentrating and ignore the headache. And now they magically re-invented 3D for games. It almost soundss like a washingpowder add. first they had liquid washing, then a few years later you could wash your clothes better with powder, then few years later they had washing baskets and then 'pearls' and now its back to liquid washing again in about two years they introduce washing powder as the new best washing thing. Amazing!...
I will NOT call "anything they claim to be 3D" until the day I can physically walk around it and look at it from all angles.
It's currently the only way of getting full-HD into your house in large parts of this country.
Germany isn't the slowest technology market, but not very fast either.
There is no current TV station broadcasting in Full HD (1080). (nor is it planned)
The transition to "HD-Ready" (720) for TV broadcasting only started on a wide front this year, but still is far from the standard (PAL).
This is going to take some time. I see even sharper pictures as desirable over 3D (japanese have what? 2000something as opposed to 1080) as this means you could put a bigger screen up closer.
I get motion sickness on some games in 2D ,what would i be like in 3d
also I would enjoy 3-D (please add a dash at least when you mean the stereoscopic thingy) but cant afford any of it. I need to buy a 120Hz LCD then I have to buy the emitter + shutter glasses kit from NVIDIA. Costs just way too much atm. I would rather upgrade my GPU instead of getting that.
But I'm sure most of you guys are filthy rich and can afford to both upgrade the GPU and get a 3-D set. Damn I envy you guys. Bastids!