Eurogamer: Mega games publisher EA reckons 3D gaming isn't worth its time or effort. Instead, it will pump resources into social and online gaming.
Heyyy EA did something right!
So the 3DS is really struggling then.
So is PS3 it seems or in your nerd rage to trash a product were you so stupid as to forget that its become a big selling point for Sony who offers more than a single product that does 3D?
I think what EA means is that they dont want to do 3D because it takes time to develop, and that is not how EA rolls
3d is a gimmick, is what I was implying. Nintendo does well with gimmicks because they do it right, and they do it "first". But I doubt it will be something that stick into later gens.
but ... girls love 3d for some reason. and the guys hav to make thr choices accordingly ... no?
3d is so pointless
3D also puts more strain on your eyes... not to mention the high price tag and the uncomfortable glasses. Thanks, but no thanks!
You can buy a Samsung 43in 3D tv at Bestbuy for $599, Good tv. I own one.
I was mighty impressed when I found the TV at sure enough $599, only to discover it is a 720p Plasma TV! Yup, the sort of TV they clearances out years ago. Source: http://www.bestbuy.com/site... I have seen quality TVs like Sony and Samsung at 40-42" for around $400-$500. Why would I pay a $100 more, for an inferior TV simply because of 3D. Right now, 3D TV is a premium and if you want that, it is fine, but it still isn't comparable. That said, since almost no games are native 1080p, it might be a good gaming option especially being a plasma.
Not sure why you got disagrees but I feel the same way. I watched Rio the other day in 3D and watched it with out 3D and I was amazed on how much details I missed when I watched in 3D as apose to watching with out 3D. Also 3D makes movements look really blurry. The point is that movies and games can live on with out 3D.
@MIcro_SOny..Yep Lots of films lose out because they dont shoot the entire film in 3D. Transformers 3 was all shot using 3D cameras, but RIO wasnt created for 3D. Even films like capt america hasnt used 3D fully so if watched in 3D 4 or 5 clips will be in 3d and the rest wont. Marvel did that with thor, they get more money from duping people into watching films in 3D when they are natively 2D.
that unless you purposely intend to only show your movie or game in 3d, dont go to the trouble of trying to tack it on. There are plenty of cash-ins going on with the 3d craze. Some stuff is ok but plenty other stuff should not get that kind of treatment. Even jim cameron said that the more it gets over used and under achieved, the more it will be ruined for everyone. Basically, not everything needs to be in 3d. I dont want to see it end up like other "me too" things like fmv, cel shading and cgi cutscenes.
"Not sure why you got disagrees but I feel the same way." He got disagrees because they don't feel the same way.
I love 3d, when it is done well, ala Avatar. The problem is, with most games it seems tacked on, something to attract the small percentage of people who want to show off there new 3d tv's. But imagine if Valve, or a great developer, created a 3d first-person adventure game. Something very immersive and high quality--it would change a lot of gamers minds about the future of 3d gaming. Once 3d tv's are everywhere, 3d will take off. It's inevitable...
"We see really high returns in these markets and very poor returns focusing on 3D, so we are allocating our resources toward new innovations," Lol what? Online gaming and social gaming.. wow that's really innovative.. like 20 years ago.
BF3 is very "social" oriented with battlelog, but it's not a bad thing at all.
well to be fair 3D's golden age was in the early 1950's so thats not so innovative either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Thanks for that. Very interesting read. Makes me think I made the right decision skipping out on 3D on my last TV purchase, just not worth the money.
I say 3D is expensive right now. Once the 3D TVs go down on price without having to spend a kidney, then we can enjoy 3D.
It's not really that expensive anymore, at least not here in the UK. You can get something like the Panasonic 42" ST30 for £650.
I got a samsung 32'' 3D for £450.
See its cheap and still just as unpopular
It'll remain pretty niche as a market while there's little quality programming for it on TV(and it adds little to the one thing i expected it to-sport on TV)and it remains a VERY expensive(for decent quality that doesn't give migraines by the second)and that expense rises with EVERY family member while we have to rely on the glasses depenent 3D we have today. My kids would be standing on, throwing, sitting on and losing those glasses all the time and at 70 pounds a pop it makes it amazingly expensive even if you COULD get decent quality for around £500 for the TV itself. when good, cheap glasses free comes without headaches we will reassess but right now it's a bust. the only time UI was impressed b it in game was, oddly, with Motorstorm apocalypse which seems CLEARER and smoother in 3D and easier to play as a result(or play wll, anyway) but KZ3 in 3D , though pretty, added little to the experience and t's the same, for me, with GT5 and a couple of other experiments(when I saw them anyway)I've seen in 3D gaming. IDK why Sony imagined the glasses tech 3D was a goer as those glasses make it a hell of a pain for big families or anyone hoping to entertain a few mates at home-it's YEARS away from being a part of everyday gaming for the masses as it's YEARS away from us having decent, affordable glasses free 3D. And people thought we'd be having holographic screens/displays by now!PFFT!
@evrfighter It's not as popular as it should be because of people like MrSancho1 thinks it is still expensive. 95% of the people I bring to my place and check out my 3d tv are simply AMAZED. Then when I tell them how much I paid for it, they go ape [email protected]
Maybe if it was more affordable and not as clunky, its a shame I like 3d
Shit is doing poor because many people cant play more than an hour , its not the 3d image ur eyes see everyday plus its expensive
Actually it is the same 3D image your eyes see, your eyes are two optical receivers from two points of view which your brain combines to create depth. This is why you cannot judge distance if you close one eye. 3D is the same thing it is simply two images displaced on screen which is then then filtered by the glasses and combined by your brain, creating the illusion of two different point of views and hence you have depth. And expensive? not really, pretty much all flatscreen panels include a 3D feature, so you pay nothing more. It is only expensive if you think of it as an upgrade expense, but then what upgrade doesn't have a cost. Edit: Lol I got disagrees for my explanation of how your eyes work...well whatever makes you guys happy folks.
Don't waste your breath. The entire world loves 3D, they flock to see 3d movies but you'll always get those that hate new technology. Same thing happened with Hi-Def, same thing happened with Blu-Ray, same thing's happening with 3D. I pointed out back in the day, color tv's had competing formats, people complained about price and lack of content and a few nut optometrists actually warned color TV could hurt your eyes. And people bought into that nonsense. If you're having problems with 3D viewing, get your eyes checked out. The American Optometric Association not only said 3D wasn't harmful, but if you have problems viewing this may be a sign of undiagnosed eye problems. For me, 3D full color, realistic 3d is the holy grail. I can't watch Avatar without 3d, it just loses all it's magic. 3d done right is an experience that is just unmatched, in my opinion. Haters have to hate, and you know it's just because there will always be those that hate what's popular just because. I don't need some kid to tell me "Ugh. I hate 3d! It's a fad that's been around since the late 1800's, but still it's a fad that'll go away!" In 2-3 years, they're projecting close to 50% of all new TV's sold will be 3d compatible. There will be a wealth of content, glasses will become lighter and come down in price, TV's are already no more expensive then regular HD was 2 years ago - and pretty much all TV makers and studios are onboard. This isn't going away - and with movies like the Hobbit using new, hi resoultion, 128 fps 3D technology, the 3d experience is just going to get bigger and better. The only thing I'm waiting for is the 3d projectors to come down in price. Let the Luddites wring their hands and scowl. Technology marches on.
@darkride-I'm not saying it isn't something worth having eventually but, RIGHT NOW it just isn't that good and while you need a pair of glasses(and it's the weight of any glasses which hurts my eyes and nose(me and my daughter can't wear any glasses and she now has contacts but I'm sensitive to light and can't wear ANYTHING! So what do WE do?)and not the 3D itself. Anyway, a family with little kids(and a lot of the BETTER 3D stuff is kid friendly so the kids will be wanting to wear the glasses) is going to fear this style of 3DTV because of the expense of all those glasses and all the replacements for those glasses when the little kids break them. 3D might well be nice and here to stay but the glasses need to go OR be free. For me, though, no 3D til it's glasses free anyway as I can put up with them(or sunglasses for EG) for about ten minutes before pains begin-no matter how light.
Well said darkride66, couldn't have put it any better myself. @mastiffchild Glasses are no longer a real problem, LG have already adopted passive 3D technology which uses cheap plastic glasses that are at most $5 each, not a big investment there.
... That isn't exactly how our eyes see 3D, or rather it's an incomplete description. The eyes also have to focus on an object. Here's a simple experiment: - hold your finger up in front of you so that it lies between your face and the monitor - focus on the monitor screen, and then alternate between closing eyes to compare what each eye is seeing (so open one eye, then close it and open the other eye) - repeat the above steps but this time focus you eyes on your finger instead of the monitor You'll notice that the image each eye sees is different depending on where they are focused. This is partially why 3D in media causes problems. The mind can temporarily be tricked into believing that everything is normal, but as soon as the eyes try to change focus, they're unable to (because the scene itself is just two 2D images rather than a real three-dimensional setup) In real-life, your focus changes as you look around, the same doesn't happen in current 3D technology. The brain gets conflicting information (there appears to be depth, but there is no depth to focus on) which can lead to headaches. So it isn't exactly how we see things in real life.
@FatOldMan Focus is something the eyes do individually, and is strictly speaking unrelated to 3D vision. When watching a 3D movie the eyes focus is fixed, just like they are when watching a 2D movie. You talk about "the eyes try to change focus", but they really shouldn't do that. The individual eye knows how far it is to the screen, and will keep the focus there unless the person intentionally tries otherwise. Now, that's how it is to me anyways, but since the brain is certainly involved in this behaviour I can't speak for everyone. It's possible that this "focus instinct" is more easily fooled in some people's brains, and that's why they get headaches. However, many can watch 3D for hours without any discomfort, including me.
^ Yea, it isn't a universal problem... similar to how motion sickness isn't experienced by everyone. When watching a 2D movie, it is easy to accept that what you're watching is just flat, but it becomes harder to realize that when watching something in 3D. So when the eye tries to look at the environment, they expect the distance to be greater. Might be something that people get used to over time.
3D, period, is a fad. This wearing-glasses-while-you-watc h business, simply put, isn't going to work. It'll be fun until something more substancial comes along. 3D gaming is as above, except 20 times more pointless. On a home console, anyway. Portable 3D is genuis (a la the 3DS).
Is dubstep a fad? (nah many of us listened to it b4 skrillex came out and mainstream artist started stealing it like they always steal stuff from EDM..) Is saying the word "Swag" a fad? We said it alot b4 every rapper starting saying it in ever song -_- Are touch screens a fad? Nope, (the list will get ridiculous beyond this line ----------------------------- ---------------- are thongs a fad? are fads a fad? when a tree falls in the woods and no ones around does peter piper pick it up? No, cause peter piper picks peppers, you wanna see lumber jack sam for this one. Now I'll give you a chance for extra credit.. If lumber jack same chops down 3 trees in the woods in 3hrs and peter piper chops down 5 trees in 3hrs. how many trees can they chop down in 14hrs?
Ah, I see where you are coming from there. I meant that 3D in particular doesn't have the scope or potential to surpass it's current status, ie, a fad. I'll eat my shoe if 3DTV is still being used by 2025, the way it currently is. As far as 3D TVs go, the technology is just too new and you have to buy expensive, headache-inducing, eye-straining glasses for each guest you have over to watch a movie
@Eazy C, in all seriousness I understand what you mean. The way one can look at it is, will people really want 3D standardization of screens? Idk, we have 3d cellphones now (evo3d). Going further in the future, will holograms eventually be some sort of standard (Imo I think so...but not for everything, it will be a blend of things) I dont have a 3dtv btw and have never tried 3d gaming, I want to try it tho :) People apply the same logic of hdtv with 3dtv, they have a point, but I think High definition is what most are happy with ever since we came from black and white crappy quality tv. and remember folks...Agree or Disagree if you Agree ;D
lol, that was the most biased nonsense I've read today.
Biased towards what?! A non 3DTV world?! Looking at my 2 comments, I could understand "contradictory" but not biased
First of all, it's funny that you think 3D gaming is both a fad and genious depending on if said gaming is at home or not. Clearly a bias. Secondly, you're wrong about the glasses being headache-inducing and eye-straining. It's the 3D "illusion" itself which is, and without glasses it's actually even worse since when you're not in the perfect spot for the 3D effect you'll be straining your eyes even more. In any case, it's only a minority of people who experience discomfort when viewing 3D.
I've never been a big fan of 3-D. I thought it would be hard pressed to find a decent audience. Unlike HD television or Blu Ray which is often used to compare to the 3-D adoption rate, HD and Blu Ray everyone can enjoy. 3-D cant say the same, I just don't see youngsters or parent types or grandparents wanting to wear glasses to enjoy watching movies or just standard television for that matter. 3-D has been a fad since the 1950's and it made a slight comeback now, but I don't see it staying around much longer. 3-D seems to actually hurt the quality of games and movies these days. We have exactly two movie theaters in my town, a new one with all new 3-D tech, screens ect... and the old one which has no 3-D. The theater that offers 3-D movies and charges $12 a ticket is almost always empty, while the theater that charges $6 a ticket for 2-D is always packed.
Even blind people can enjoy Blu ray? Old people wont like to wear glasses? Yeah cause old people have perfect vision...Opiniona are one thing but when based off of nothing they are meaningless.
Well I don't think blind people can enjoy much anything as far as sight is concerned. My mother however is missing one eye and that's far more common. So she can enjoy Blu Ray and HD but not 3-D. My opinion is right for me, just like yours is for you, 3-D is and always has been a fad throughout history. That's just fact, sorry if you don't think so but feel free to do a little research on the subject. I understand how this site works, people associate negative feelings towards 3-D with negative feelings towards Sony and or the PS3. I don't have anything against Sony, I enjoy my PS3, at the same time I find 3-D to be pointless.
Shouldn't you be in the 3DS threads attempting damage control?
Good. Now let's hope 3D movies go away too, like they did 50 years ago.
No problem, I'll enjoy the 3D games other publishers release instead.
I have a 60 inch plasma 3dtv that cost me 1500 with 2 glasses. Best purchase ever!!! 3d gaming is totally different than 3d movies. 3d gives you immersion while gaming and really enhances it. Ever play games in 3d? Gran turismo 5 in the is GOD as is Crysis 2, Super Stardust hd, and wipout hd ;) try them and then tell me 3d gaming is a fad.
should try motorstorm apoc!!! socom 4 decent too. And not all games look worse in 3d!!! Crysis 2 looks the virtually the same.
I tried the demo. It was amazing :D I really love how the dust just comes at you while you are driving ;) I said all games look better in 3d NOT worse re read plz ;)
wasn't talking about you just people in general think all games look worse in 3d
unless you've got 3D there's no point saying its pointless. Killzone 3 is 3x more exciting in 3D.
killzone 3 looks significantly worse in 3d than in 2d
Disagree. In fact, I played through KZ3 in both 3D and 2D to compare, and after beating it in both modes I decided that I preferred the 3D experience over the 2D experience. The only point to note is that I found the full 100% 3D setting (default) a bit too blurry/shadowy. After lowering it to about 80% though the 3D is much crisper.
The graphics look a lot worse in 3d mode. It's not really debatable.
3D IS OVER-RATED, EVEN IN MOVIES.
Disagree if you agree, vice versa.
Transformers 3 was really amazing in IMAX 3D. We need more movies that use 3D like that.
True, it's a shame EA put resources towards 3D in Crysis 2 when the SP is still broken.
Uh, Crytek made Crysis 2, not EA. And what's broken about the single player?
3D a gimmick... . 3D is a gimmick that as KZ 3 and Uncharted can attest to, degrades the quality of the graphics. It doesn't matter. Sony believes it could be the angle they need to attract more consumers. They do have an advantage over 360 and the Wii since they have the highest quality 3D going at the moment. Here's the problem... Health issues are REAL with the tech. The adoption rate is minimal at best and will take YEARS before it even reaches 50%, if it reaches that at all. In case you missed it, EA as well as all the pubs and devs these days are looking at the app phenomena that is taking place and want a bit of that action instead with EA dropping big dollars on Popcap as well as other investments. Sony is ALWAYS looking for an angle. The blu-ray was one, the cell another...so far, it's cost them billions in loses, but like all gamblers, they are hoping for a PS2/Wii type of discovery and are hoping that lighting strikes twice or...3 times...lol...you know, like the Walkman which made Sony the company they are. Things change and Sony is struggling to find a niche to stay relevant or, even needed.
Agreed. It's a gimmick with imperfect tech. It's destined to fail, at least in the short term. In 10 years the tech might be ready, now it's just a waste of resources, money and time.
You not got 3D?
@insideout Microsoft's XBox 360 does 3D too y'know. Pretty sure I've played Crysis 2 and Black Ops in 3D on the 360 recently. There's also a lil' device called the Nintendo 3DS. TV's like Panasonic's new 60" upconvert everything to 3D as well without any resolution loss, so what's with the fanboy soapbox about Sony specifically struggling to stay relevant when so many companies and big names (Michael Bay, James Cameron) all have their hand in it? Nothing to play this summer bro'? Having no exclusives will make a brand struggle to stay relevant before an optional feature will. @newleaf You know that the Captain America game JUST released on the 360 in 3D, right?
ive looked at insie_ot's comments most of them r favouring xboox, he a xbox fanboy.
Favoring Xbox =/= Xbox fanboy, just saying.
You shouldn't talk about Nintendo and the 3DS that way.
Looks like Microsoft were right
ea doesnt hav the resources like sony do make good 3d games. cuz sony is a tech company.
This isn't surprising. Iv'e been monitoring the whole 3D scene for a while now. I have article after article on 3D that is very telling. 3D has, and is, slowly diteriating. Even though 3D tech is better than ever, in the end, watching an ocassional film like Avatar or Transformers 3 in Imax 3D is really all it's good for. I know the hardcore Sony supporters bag to differ on 3D, (which is fine) but the majority is saying different. A little off topic... Technology keeps advancing, and some day this will be made available to consumers: http://www.flatpanelshd.com... And yes, a source does exsit to deliver the high resolution. However, games would obviously just be upscaled.