What went wrong? Was it only ever a gimmick? Is there any future for 3D gaming?
ever since it came out 3d was a fad. who ever didnt see that was blind as hell. main problem is that not everyones eyes could take it, and it never really added to movies. we just got into HD then jumped 3d for no reason. it was a good gimmick while it lasted
3D on Nintendo 3DS made the most sense due to pricing, and the support Nintendo is giving it. I think it is a gimmick that appeals to the younger crowd. 3D on consoles on the other hand required substantial investment, and the experience was hardly worth it. The biggest pusher of 3D was Sony and they essentially stopped support for it. It was a costly gimmick for many, lucky for me I spent $600 on my 51" Samsung Plasma. I paid $100 extra for 3D with the glasses so not a big loss on gimmicky and uncomfortable technology. I thought 3D on TVs was fad before I bought it, and it has only solidified it after I got it!
not everyone in this horrible world economy has the luxury of buying a 3D tv, alot of people were just starting to get into HDTV and have just bought their first HDTV. give it a little bit the hype Just started since like avatar then killzone3D era, which was like a Little over ONE year ago...
Yeah, you can hardly blame 3D for not skyrocketing right out of the gate. People WILL buy it, eventually. In fact, I just told my wife the other day that the next TV we buy will be 80" and 3D, so we'll never have to go and sit in a crappy theater with noisy idiots again. (But I'm not buying a 3D TV until I can get one larger than 65" at less than $2k.) The biggest enemy of 3DTV is the now inexpensive LCD and Plasma TV. Our last TV was a 46" 1080p LCD TV from BestBuy that we bought to replace the one my kid broke. The price? A measly $379. With a price like that, I'd be stupid to go 3D. In three years, though, 3D will be cheap, too, and that's what people will be buying, because that's all there will be (besides the 4k TVs).
@inveni0: "The biggest enemy of 3DTV is the now inexpensive LCD and Plasma TV" So you are saying people aren't willing to pay extra for 3D TV? That was known from the very beginning. By the time the technology gets cheap enough, despite the fact that I got 3D feature for only a $100 more on my cheap ass $600 TV, the content providers are scaling back support. Hurdles: * Blu-Ray isn't very relevant anymore and that's primarily the source you will get 3D on. * Streaming doesn't support 3D and at the current pace, it doesn't look like anyone will care. * Games was the huge driver, but even Sony doesn't push it anymore. * The glasses still aren't universal and uncomfortable. In fact, the 3D feature itself is uncomfortable. So even if the TV gets cheaper, which I can't imagine much more, the content won't be there. Face it, 3D was *barely* a fad, because even then it was barely popular. There has literally been no shift in the market. So tell me how much cheaper 3D needs to be for mass adoption?
I guess you never played Super Stardust in 3D.
You couldn't be more wrong about 3D not adding to movies. Ever since Avatar, watching sci-fi movies at the theater in 3D is a must. Though the wonder and amazement of experiencing 3D done perfectly well for the first time of Avatar is sorta gone, that's only because I've grown accustom to the 3D depth always being there, in a way, taking it for granted. However, watching a sci-fi movie at the theater without the 3D feels painfully lacking. Keep in mind that there are "good" 3D and tacted-on "meh" 3D. Prometheus and Tron Legacy are some examples of the good 3D since it was shot in 3D. Wrath of the Titans was tacked on "meh" 3D. We see our world in full 3D depth, and 3D when done right is one step closer to adding extra realism and immersion to movies.
Yeah, it's the same with games too. Motor Storm RC in 3D? Why?? The camera is top-down and there's almost no contrast between foreground and background for the most part. Tumble in 3D? Hell yes. Same goes for films. Incidentally, the 3D Blu-ray of Cloudy with a chance of metballs is very good.
Your last point about shot in 3d vs post production is the main point people need to understand - if it's SHOT in 3D, it's going to look kick-ass. If it's post-production, it's just a gimmick and won't really add any visual value to the experience. The Avengers - great great movie, but neither gains no loses any value with 3D - so why bother? (Money is the answer, but it's more of a rhetorical question.)
I saw the Avengers in 3D on a Imax screen. It was worth the extra $5. It was absolutely amazing. There is no better way to see a movie like that.
One of the problems we have is people saying "3D doesn't add anything and it's just a fad" when what they really mean is "I can't afford a 3D television so therefore 3D is bad." Wrong. I can't think of any 3D games I have, and I own quite a few, that once I have played them in 3D I could go back to 2D. No, not at all. 3D is amazing and it adds so much to gaming. It's the people that have only seen it at best buy and then act as if they have fully experienced it who are the problem.
The main problem for me is the discoloration. Everything looks a little darker. Nothing is as vibrant as it should be.
Yeah 3D goes in and out of fashion every 30 years. 50s, 80s, 2010s. I never thought it looked good honestly and it was insulting in movies.
Insulting, are you effing serious? How's it "insulting"?
Haha, I'm a movie lover and a video game lover but I actually wanna work in the movie industry someday. 3D is a slap on the face to cinematography and compromises the integrity of every scene. 3D is shot in digital and digital has always* been known to be terrible for movies. Film looks way better for several reasons. Look up Christopher Nolan's reasons on why he'll never shoot in 3D. That's why The Dark Knight Rises isn't in 3D. And Quentin Tarantino (who I obviously love hence my name) has said the day Hollywood stops shooting on film is the day he retires from making movies. To people who are serious about movies, the look of 3D is insulting. Which makes Martin Scorsese doing a movie in 3D disgusting cause he put the filming of Silence and Sinatra on hold because they gave him a huge check. And not to mention the fact they think that we don't have an attention span longer than 2 minutes before they have to throw stuff at us to get our attention. It's stupid.
Digital looks terrible? You mean there's no grain and everything looks glossy and detailed right? Unless it's being shot on 70mm, film<digital. Now all we need are 60fps movies to start gaining traction...
I just came back back from playing a 3D co-op session with my friend on Halo anniversary and I can tell you for sure that 3D is definitively not dead. We just dont hear about as much as we used to
Your missing the point, If you want the best 3d you will not be using your playstation/xbox. I've adopted 3d since the beginning, there's a steady stream of blu rays now and with Nvidia's drivers on the PC you can play pretty much any game in 1080P 3d and it looks beautiful. I cant stand dumbed down console low res 3d it looks terrible. I just play my consoles in normal. i'll wait until next gen for that.
The prices for a 3DTV went wrong. They are always going down, I will get one in the next year or two, but they have been an extreme luxury.
^ This... this is what has held 3D back. Like with any technology, the early adopters are few, but once the product makes its way into the homes of the few, it will eventually drop in price and more people will buy. I have 4 HD screens, but only my little 24" Sony monitor is 3D, and the only reason I have it is because I got a hell of a deal on it. I wouldn't spend big bucks on a 3D screen, but now that I've experienced gaming in 3D, I know that my next big screen will be 3D, especially since the prices are way down and I already have two pair of glasses.
While they are good, there are other brands that made upgrading to a 3d set very economical with brilliant results. Vizio and Panasonic comes to mind, and they did that at half the price which was comparable to some of Sony's and Samsung's Mid to Top range LCD/Plasma TV at the same price! What went wrong is people simply not being educated! 3d is far from a fad! Its where TV is going! Every movie and just about every game these days comes with 3d Support. Movies and games will continue to be the driving force. The pick up adoption rate may be slow but its an undeniable progress towards the future! If 3d was such a gimmick then movies wouldn't be released in 3d now! And this holiday season 4K will be the new big thing and people will start to question that as 4K tvs start to enter the market and Those 4k TV's will have 3d support, while current and better 3d technology will emerge driving cost down while current 3d HDTV's become cheap. People who write off things like this in technology as just a fad or a gimmick, either A) don't like it. B) Have no long term vision into technology. or C) both "a" and "b". most often than not, its "c". I can say that I've been enjoying a great 47in HD 3DTV from Vizio and it only cost me $600 and it has internet, Apps, and runs at 240mhz 1080p No issues! The 3d glasses are 15 bucks to replace and the quality of the 3d is comparable to whats in the theater or any of Sammy's current 3dTV offerings and that was it's starting price last year! Compare that to one of Sony's "Mid-range" HDTVs that do 1080p and 240mhz with no 3d or internet and you start to see if people are just getting suckered into brand loyalty instead of shopping for bargains and more bang for your buck!
I can't be the only one that gets tired eyes from 3d.
I love all the people that bash 3D!!! I got a 120Hz monitor with Nvidia 3D system and I am loving it!!! Gaming is amazing with it, playing trine 2, witcher 2 is breathtaking. I also watch plenty of 3D movies. Please don't compare that cheap Cinema 3D crap with real 3D systems!
I have a reliable friend that says Nvidia 3D on his 120Hz monitor is amazing. So I trust him. He I'd love to play a racing game in 3D, maybe Dirt 2 or 3.
I have the same and I agree, it's amazing to play and watch in 3D. Take's a little getting used to I find with gaming.
It's just another thing that adds to the immersion of gaming. So to me, that's a positive.
Witcher 2 looks amazing in 3D, have you tried Just Cause 2?
If Apple ever releases a true iTV or Apple TV, whatever you want to call it, watch it have 3D and everyone in the media will jump on the 3D bandwagon. Throw an Apple logo on the 3D glasses and people will start wearing them as a fashion statement.
I thought it was a fad until i bought a 46inch LED SmartTv this week.. it also does 2d to 3d convertor so i can play any game and watch any tv station in 3Dhd, i think once you've got it and then go back to 2d its not a fad at all, watched the F1 qualifying this morning and was blown away and now watching fance v spain in the euros, also gaming looks amazing with the conversion aswell.
And how much did you spend on this mystical device?
I got my 40 inch LED 3D TV for €450 .... that's cheap as chips for me. Sounds like the same TV as above... Samsung perhaps?
Nothing went wrong really. It's a tad too expensive today, but in the future 3D gameing is going to be great. I believe this.
Am I missing something or NONE of the upcoming games (fall and next year) will be in 3D? Tomb Raider, The Last of Us, Beyond, Assassin's Creed III, LBP Karting, Hitman Absolution, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Dishonored, Resident Evil 6, Bioshock Infinite, Playstation Battle Royale, etc. None of the have been announced in 3D have they?
Bioshock Infinite has been said to have 3D. Just to inform u. All I have to say is, m an owner of a 3DTV and I love it, gaming and watching movies. I also agree that the affordability for many consumers come into question. Prices r dropping however, so I'd expect it to catch on n the near future. Game on.
Yea 3d vision is amazing if you have the computer to run it. Plus even if you don't run 3d the 120hz monitor (required fro 3d vision in the first place) makes for a game changing experience on it's own. If you have a 120hz+ 3d tv and still don't agree it is most likely because your on a console. First the 3d will be horrible in comparison Second, your not gonna be able to use the true power of a 120hz or faster refresh monitor when your game can't go past 30 or 60fps.
3d is cool and all, but I'd rather enjoy amazing graphics high frame rate. That's what impresses me. 3d just takes away from detail. It also kills the frame rate. So I hope the developer focuses on HD gaming rather than 3d.
Thats why I prefer PC gaming, I can play most games in 3D with great graphics and framerate. Current consoles are not powerfull enough for a great 3d experience.
Bought an LG 3D 50 inch with free glasses from currys for 500 pounds great deal btw. Overall I am impressed with 3D gaming and movies look break in 3D but I don't use 3D as much as I should maybe 3 or 4 times a week on 3D games. When converting tv shows in to 3D it's nonsense there's nothing there really I can barely make out the 3D
The problem is 3d is not natural, you won't use it all the time. But my advice for anyone buying a 3dtv, go for a passive model, not active.
I disagree. Passive has to half the resolution to work...
passive is rubbish. Actually active glasses on a tv are bad too. Get a 3D projector....cheaper than tv's 120" picture and ZERO cross-talk.
Nothing went wrong, 3D is awesome, 3D is the future.
Having a tv with the convert to 3d option is helps if there is little 3d content. 3D benefits games more then it does movies, though it all depends on usage, Prometheus for example had excellent use of 3d, the cave scenes were crazy, you actually feel claustrophobic. Can't wait for its 3d bluray Uncharted 3 and Arkham City in 3d were pretty dam cool. To everyone calling it a fad, you should really try it out with gaming before dismissing it (though I doubt the people calling it a fad have even tried 3d in their houses....)
Too expensive, doesn't help that I live in Venezuela...
3d is the way WE SEE the world seeing games in 3D is the NORMAL way to play because thats how we NORMALLY see i play 3D all the time and if i take it off, everything just seems flat and its hard to tell the distance of objects you wont understand unless you play in 3D alot people use the word GIMMICK as a bad thing GIMMICK DOES NOT EQUAL BAD
Gimmick equals bad. It's a derogatory term used to describe something that introduces no changes functionally, but helps marketing to either raise the price (most sports equipment technologies tend towards this form of gimmick) or make you more likely to buy. For example, brightly colored handles on toothbrushes are a gimmick of the second type. They make you want to buy something that isn't any different. There's nothing not bad about a gimmick. Now if you want to say that 3D isn't a gimmick, that's a debate you can choose to make or not make.
Having to buy a 3d Tv(which costs quite a bit), and on top of that the cumbersome glasses Maybe in the future
It definitely works well enough and i enjoy using my 3d tv for this but clarity does suffer as a result of this very convincing effect. I'm happy if 3d dies out though despite enjoying it on and off
3-D was never going to be the next big thing because parents weren't going to run out and buy a 3-D television so their kids could have another way to strain their eyes. I enjoy 3-D from time to time, but I'll never buy a 3-D TV or game with it, my eyes hurt with about an hour or so of 3-D at the movies, at about that mark I have to start rubbing my eyes and they bother me the rest of the night. I just bought a 55 inch LED television last year, so I'm definitely not in the market for something else and I think a lot of people are in the same boat, I mean when you consider that 50% of the population are still using standard definition televisions, you tend to understand why 3-D wont catch on.
dont really understand why people are saying 3d tvs are so expensive, you can get a half decent one for £500 anything lower and ull be buying a rubbish tv with motion blur, 50hz, contrast ratios of 40,000 and 1 hdmi port, 3d tv quickly become annoying for me. i would get prompts telling me i can watch in 3d. i turn it on... bored after 10 mins. the 3d effect seems to wear out and not seem as good compared to when i 1st put the glasses on
When 3D doesn't make the graphics look like crap it adds immensely to the immersion in games. You really feel like you're in the world, especially FPS games but 3D for movies adds very little imo. This gen of consoles isn't ready for 3D, the only games that looked good were Crysis 1 and 2, which apparently weren't real 3D but who cares, because they looked better than anything else... Super Stardust HD looked good too.
i thought assassins creed revelations looked damn good on my 3D samsung. no cross talk that i noticed. graphics seemed just as sharp as in 2D. one of the best 3D experiences i've had. One of the worst, ratchet and clank: all for one. in 3D the graphics seemed really fuzzy and blurry. but to each their own i suppose.
i have a Vizio 3D some of the games i played in 3D looks great...but 3D was a big thing back in the day...now it had a bit of a come back...if you already dislike 3D your not going to really care for 3D games or movies...but if you havent tried a 3D movie or 3D game (i wouldnt play the game that long) but give it a try
1. too conservative 3d in games and movies 2. unconvincing reprojection and converted 3d in games and movies and also 3. the fact that 3d looks drastically different depending on how close or far away you are from the screen. try moving a 3ds 6 inches too close to your face to 6 inches too far---you go from squished depth, to exaggerated depth.....and there is no way for programmers or filmmakers to control this.
I bought my Samsung 51 inch 3-d 1080p plasma about 5 monthes ago for $899. That came with 2 pair of active glasses, ( ya some people say go with a passive 3-d set but unfortunately passive 3-d always lowers the resolution, down to 480p on some lg sets, my Samsung active is still 1080p on 3-d movies and the games that run 1080p.). If I paid $899 for it 5 monthes ago give it another 6 to 10 monthes and they will be in the range of $599. And $599 for a 51 inch 3-d 1080p set that doesn't suffer from refresh rates is a steal.
passive is so so so much better then flicker prone battery sync active
Everyone forgot about Nvidia 3D Vision, it was briefly mentioned in the article. Nvidia has been pushing 3D years before Sony. Nvidia technology allows games, movies and pictures to be displayed in stereoscopic 3D. 3D Vision Ready = Native support http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... Excellent = This game facilitates a solid 3D experience without distracting anomalies or artifacts. http://3dvision-blog.com/10... Good = This game facilitates a solid 3D experience, enabled by reducing certain quality settings or incurring minor anomalies
Glasses are the problem. Glassesless TVs are the solution.
It's hard to buy an expensive hdtv what more with 3Dtv?
3D just isn't that amazing really IMO, i'll be more amazed it they can make 3D without glasses.
I have a "lazy eye" and can't see the 3D effect, wish I could experience it at least once to make a judgement. But, oh well I'm thankful to have one good eye at least.
I just bought a Sony Bravia 40 inch HDTV with 3D (I figured, why not, the difference wasn´t THAT much here in argentina)... It came with a set of glasses. At first I was, Meh... then I played Trine 2. Best so far and REALLY inmersive and worth it. True: it´s just a "graphic upgrade". 3D is far from being "real" and important gameplay wise, buts when pulled off well, it looks impressive. Just play Trine 2 If you have the gear and haven´t tried it out yet. On the other hand... Killzone 3 and Battlefield 3, kinda awful, it´s like the image won´t stay right... Maybe FPS are harder to look at in stereoscopic 3d... go figure.
when they suss the 3d effect out properly then i will purchase a non glasses 3d tv,but untill then its not worth it.ill get one now and in 6 months a proper one will be out leaving the last gen 3d useless just like xbox hd disc player. n e ways tried my daughters 3ds and even thoe it looked ok ish it really done my eyes in. i couldnt focus on normal world properly for a good 20 mins.
Its simple....cable TV has never gotten behind 3D. HD TV struggled for a bit too until more HD offerings were made available. It became a standard and 3D needs that in order to be more than a gimmick.
Some people her edont seem to know the difference between passive and active, passive is deff not the way to go, crap viewing angles and its more like slides over slides, active has a much better viewing angle and also make objects look like they should in 3d, someone said about flicker, charge the damn glasses.
There is also the horrendous 3D quality on active sets. look at any sony active set made before 2012 to see an example of how not to do 3D. i am in the process of trying to change my sony set because 3D on it is a disgrace.. google sony 3D crosstalk toget an idea of just how much good old uncle sony shafted two years of 3D tv buying consumers
crappy flamebaiting article full of idiots who aint got 3d saying its a fad , anyone who has a 3d tv or enjoyed a quality 3d film or game would highly disagree with this bull shi..
I love my ps3d tv and I enjoy playing 3d games like nba2k12,u3,kz3,MLB 12,black ops,motorstorm apocalypse and my blu-ray movies, I dont need a big screen to play!
3D when done right is amazing! And with Dolby 3D we wil not need any glasses in a realy near future.
Anyone saying passive is crap is mental. Passive is used at the cinema. I've got a passive set at home, the images come out to you. and you also have depth. Shutter glasses did not impress me at all.