Arstechnica- If you surveyed the video game industry just after E3 2010, you'd think stereoscopic 3D had finally reached a tipping point and was on the cusp of becoming a new gaming standard. Sony made everyone attending its E3 press conference that year wear 3D glasses to check out big-screen trailers for titles like Killzone 3 and Gran Turismo 5, Nintendo unleashed an army of booth babes at its own press conference to show off the glasses-free 3D of its Nintendo 3DS for the first time, and NVIDIA continued to push its all-in-one 3D Vision system, launched the year before.
Looking back today, it's hard to tell what all the fuss was about. While stereoscopic 3D is definitely present in today's gaming landscape, it has decidedly failed to become the revolutionary, must-have feature that seemed to warrant so much industry attention just a couple of years ago.
20°
10°
10°
20°
Ad 
40°
Just like the people who said the same about Wireless, Touchscreens, Portable-phones, Color-TV, Air-Conditioning, Digital Distribution, Cloud-storage, and Motion-controls.
When will these people realize that the 'gimmick' of yesterday turns into the next big thing of tomorrow.
you cant have a revolution if only one party is participating. Had nintendo and MS been as focused on making 3d a major part of their platforms like sony, we would see a quicker adoption rate. More competition from the set makers causing the prices to drop for consumers to easily decide on $50 more for the 3d option (figuratively).
We know that the movie industry jumped on the 3d bandwagon causing pretty much anything to be in 3d when it shouldnt have (step up...really?) Had it been done the right way and to the right content (animation and games are more than fitting) instead of any old type of movie it would have been accepted gracefully instead of resented in masses.
resented may not be the right word but it certainly fits the situation. The gaming side of things could have benefited greatly from the concept. In some cases...it still can. There needed to be a standard to ensure the transition from one type of player to another would not be met with compatibility and quality issues.
The quick turnaround for sets with low quality tech is partly to blame. The increase in non-3d quality content is also part of the problem. No standard in the delivery (active/passive/glasses free) is a 3rd contributor. Pricing it out of reach for the majority of blue collar consumers is a 4th.
The idea is not dead...not yet. TV tech will be hitting ultra hd soon enough and at that res coupled with the 240hz speed will make 3d more of a reality than it is now.
...or actually played games in 3d. Reviewers were raving about how much 3d added to games like GT5, Uncharted 3, Killzone 3, Crysis 2, even the Ico/Shadow collection. Just like anything else, there are games that do it badly but to say it's a gimmick? Walk around with an eyepatch on all day and tell me 3d is a gimmick. 3d is the natural evolution of gaming. Just because Nintendo couldn't pull it off with the 3ds doesn't mean, if implemented properly, 3D doesn't add something tremendous to the experience.
The resistance to 3d is no different than the resistance to sound or color in movies, or people complaining that Hi-Def wasn't worthwhile and would fail. Color Tv's were available for a decade before they caught on.
And glasses-less 3d? Please. If it came down to wearing glasses or watching a vastly inferior version of 3d, gimme the glasses. Glasses-less 3d screens are incapable of creating that "popping out of the tv" 3d experience. At best, all they'll ever be is like looking out a window. Just make the glasses lighter, cheaper and comfortable and give me a proper 3d image. The internet is full of tech writers and reviewers who have written about the severe limitations of this technology.
I have a 3DTV and a PS3. Own more than 20 3D movies and I got a few games as well that can be played in 3D. I loved Uncharted 3 in 3D. It was an amazing experience. Whenever a movie comes out that I like and has a 3D version I get that and watch it right away at home. I enjoy 3D and anyone that I showed it to so far said it's amazing. It's a nice extra feature. Obviously it's not always on but it's very nice to have.
Maybe you should try it too. But it's deffenatly not a gimmick. When they will be able to produce 3D without glasses, that will be the time when it will really take off. You'll see.
I do however play in 3D on my PC and PS3, and it's awesome. Games on the PS3 aren't as good as the PC as you lose a little bit of graphical fidelity due to it rendering twice. However the depth it gives you is great. Actually being able to have your eyes focusing on different objects rather than just looking at a flat image feels more natural.
I only own a PS3 but I do have Sonic Generations on it and it looks really cool. Killzone 3 also looks pretty good.
Can't say how Gears 3 looks. Never played that game.
"pretty sure its a gimmick always has been always will be". Just from that comment i can tell you've never played a game in 3d. Started Uncharted 3 story again the other day to play in 3d and it is AMAZING. Anyone who says its a couldn't be more wrong
In 3DS the developers choose not to make too many objects out of the screen because you already hold the 3DS near your eyes. By making things go out of the screen, you'll basically have to look at things even closer to your eyes. It would make your eyes hurt in very little time.
passive 3d is beautiful compared to steroscopic, when i tried them both in stores the steroscopic was dim and flickering, couldnt see off angles either, i suggest you actually try both before saying that...glasses are also alot cheaper for passive, lighter, no batteries...shit theyre free if you go to the movie theater...just take home those glasses,
okay? i compared various active sets from sony, panasonic, samsung to an lg passive set and to my eyes, the passive looked better then all of them. thats just my eyes opinion its easier on them. like i said the image was brighter, the motion was better, the viewing angles were 1000 times better, on the active the screen would go almost black if i stood to far off to the side
I don't even like to watch films in 3D at the cinema anymore (unless it's the IMAX), the quality's just not good enough compared to active 3D. I like my films to look sharp, even the slightest amount of blur or ghosting irritates me.
active shutter is the only way the glasses for mine are the comfiest things ever forget they are even there once im playing a game or watching a film with them.
and glasses-less is just not even worth mentioning, that is a gimmick it looks awful not even in the same class as active shutter or passive
3D games are great on my PS3 55in 3D led
Make no mistake, though: it WILL be televised.
I am not exited for glasses-less 3D for the simple fact it makes everything introspective.
Plus, in order to make a game 3D, they have to pair back the graphics a lot. I'd rather see the best possible version of the game.
Consoles are just too weak. I play Resident Evil 5 on my PC in 3D, with better resolution and framerate than the console version. The same with many other games. Once people play 3D in a good gaming PC and see that with power you don't sacrifice much (depending on the PC and the game, you don't even have to sacrifice anything), they change their minds about this "you have to turn the graphics settings to sh*tty to play it in 3D" mentality.
I was talking more about Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 where the graphics are paired back drastically to display the game in 3D mode.
3D has to go the way of LCD/LED and be very cheap to be more than a luxury. Possibly in 10 years but as of now if gaming is the only reason to buy a 3D TV seems kinda of a waste for regular consumers. You need more media outside select games and select movies and very rare TV programming.
3D will most likely live in the PC enthusiasts land and those who have the cash to upgrade already capable TV sets because it says 3D.
3D on Pc would be much better without the ghosting. That said, some games look incredible in 3D (i.e. Batman, The witcher, etc)
But I prefer to game at 1440p if the game is not well done in 3D.
(and I'm aware I can have both 1440p and 3D at the same time, but I don't have a grafx card powerful enought)
was 3D the future last time it tried to be pushed on the public 10 years ago? how about the time before that? or the time before that? maybe, just maybe, people dont really care too much about it?
I saw avatar in 3D and Prometheus in 3D, and thought it was excellent, but it didnt make me want to go buy a 3D tv and have to put up with wearing glasses to watch a freaking movie. just because 3D is there doesnt mean everyone wants it.
in video games, adding 3D means a HUGE drop in resolution, image quality, and overall detail. its not debatable - for a game to run in 3D it has to run at twice the framerate as the 2D version, therefore it only has half the rendering time per frame. look at any of the big budget 3D games, and they look VASTLY better in 2D. uncharted 3 looks like a bad PS2 game in 3D.
3D has died off because noone cares enough to pay extra for it, or to have to wear expensive glasses to see it. passive 3D has a chance of going mainstream, but not until its picture perfectly viewable by all parties viewing it even when they move around (which would require the use of 3D camera tracking for every person watching so the TV could aim the 2 pictures at your eyes). in reality, thats not likely to happen.
Sony have all but given up on 3D now, and they were basically the only company pushing it. sony have a history of trying to push their own agenda onto everyone to make it the defacto standard - UMD, Betamax, Minidisk, Blu-Ray, for example. this is just another example of that.
Sony at E3 2011 - basically the entire show was about 3D.
Sony at E3 2012 - not a single mention of 3D. says it all.
The only people defending 3D here arn't defending 3D. They're defending their purchases into it. It was a sales gimmick fad to force already HD owners to feel obsolete. SHD will be similar (even next gen consoles are only going to focus on 1080 at a GOOD frame-rate and you need superman eyes to read text on a computer at 4K) but with a slightly higher price tag and lower sickness ratio I imagine.
It was just too pricey for the average consumer to swallow.
Then you have the low quality for 3D gaming on most console games.
Only a few console games looked good running 3D, and even then it was low resolution and sub-HD with frame rates below 30fps at times.
If you wanted full HD 3D gaming you had to opt for Nvidia's PC setup. Most gamers did not have this set-up anyway.
Boy, have times changed.
Use to be their motto. It held true during the 70's and 80's...then the recession hit in the 90's and even Sony started to outsource their products...that was the beginning of the end for the Sony quality we once were use to during the 70's and 80's glory years of Sony.
During that period, if you wanted the best in Electronics, Sony was it. Bar none. Times have changed....