The latest Xbox 360 update which will be available via the latest batch of games and most likely via Xbox Live in the coming days finally places the Xbox 360 on an even keel with the PS3.
Looks like Sony was not so wrong with this 3d trend.
Anyways... 3D still has a decent way to go, before it becomes mainstream.
I think what he means is, now MS are taking it more seriously perhaps Sony were and are right to support it so heavily.
I think he means the increased support for 3D is industry wide from hollywood and other electronics makers and was baffled someone would claim other companies use what Sony does as a guide. JoGam No one is jealous of 3D some gamers still think it's rubbish and degrades the quality of games graphical potential and the way they run. Doesn't mean all gamers don't wan't 3D hense the update.
MS from what I remember simply said, 3D support will come if the market demands it. They weren't pushing 3D since they weren't trying to sell you a TV like Sony. I have a feeling 3D will be a fad at this rate, since it has long been pushed, but the uptake has been slow due to high cost, comfort (wearing glasses), incompatible technology and (potentially baseless) health reports.
But it was Sony who created the demand for 3D. With MS eventually responding. Not that it isn't waste of time in its current state. A fad. Edit: As far as gaming goes, Sony was the first to really talk about. MS largely dismissed it, until they found a way to do it. And I'm certain that at some point, if they haven't already, they'll attempt to say they're leading the market as far as the tech goes.
I never claimed otherwise, but to be fair Sony isn't the only one pushing 3D. Samsung and a host of other TV/Blu-Ray player manufacturers all are. Even Nvidia is pushing 3D, more so when it was an exclusive feature to PC. That said, you know 3D is in trouble when a 24" 3D capable TV cost $500 is considered a "deal" when a quality 40" TV is available right next to it. Note, that the viewing size difference is about twice... Until 3D is essentially a free standard with TVs, I don't think the uptake will be significant. We are years from that.
I actually agree with gamingdroid. There's just too many issues plaguing the push for 3D. The biggest overlooked one is the fact that people who just bought a regular LCD not too long ago do not want to fork out more money for a 3DTV, I being one of them. I still enjoy the bejesus out of my 46" Samsung that is now 3 years old. Movies and games still look great, and I'm not about to part ways with it just to spend more cash on a 3DTV.
Sony has always been about innovation with market study and research that makes them sure 99% of times that whatever they launch will be success. Well rest are nothing but followers and cant be said the same about them ... eg MS ... so many and I mean so many failed products ... Zune is one of em.
We probably wouldn't even know what Sony was if they hadn't ignored the naysayers when they said: "Who the hell wants to walk around with music in their ears" and "till they can do it without those funny ear things, forget it"
too bad sony are stuck with LED 3D TVs, no match for plasma. sorry fanboys, do a bit of research. and sony did not "create demand for 3D" WTF?? man there are some seriously delusional people on this site this site is just getting worse and worse
Seems like MS mustve got a demand for it and apparently they will deliver. At least it's not a demand that can't be accomplished like other feature(s) that people were/are wanting, but won't be getting...
@gcolley, You sound like you've never seen a full array LED in action.
3d and kinect could make for some interesting gameplay experiences. Things popping out at you and you just want to reach out and touch them. 3d video chat with the person right in your living room.
One thing people don't understand about 3D is that there are VERY FEW GAMES that are actually worth playing in 3D for long periods of time. FPSs like BFBC2, look great in 3D but are darn near impossible to play because of the whole depth perception thing. Only FPSs with auto-aim, like Just Cause 2, are just as fun to play in 3D. However, the only games that I've enjoyed playing in 3D are side scrolling, like Trine, and top-down or 3/4 view games, like Dungeon Siege III.
@deadpoole If Sony is about innovation BTW 3D is not innovative..... And 99 percent of the time everything they make is a success and MS often fails please explain the following. 1) How come Sony has been posting yearly loses for the past 2/3 years. 2) How come Microsoft is posting yearly profits. 3) Please list 5 innovate products Sony has released in the past 2 years.
Deadpool, you're making Sony fans look bad...
Wow, dude. You need five brand new products in a two year span to convince you that Sony is an innovator? Don't be so sad about the truth. Sony is an extremely innovative company. They've already been instrumental in the two most recent popular media storage units. Sony is a major reason that we aren't still watching movies on VHS. They also had a large influence in the portability of music as someone above me mentioned. The iPod doesn't happen without the Walkman. The adoption of 3D in homes is taking off thanks to a large push by Sony, BluRay, and the PS3. It is extremely clear to humans, excluding you, that Sony is innovative. Innovation is not a pre-requisite for profit. Windows is not a new product. The Microsoft Office Suite is not a new product. Do you think that Call of Duty will continue to make billions because of its innovation? Has Madden reinvented itself? You made pointless arguments to make yourself feel better about Microsoft joining the party in its final hour. Deal with it like a man/woman/boy/girl.
@gcolley: then maybe it's time for you to leave. just sayin.
if anything "created the demand for 3D," it was Avatar...
@Deadpool "Sony has always been about innovation with market study and research that makes them sure 99% of times that whatever they launch will be success." Every media and or Storage format Sony brought out, except Blu Ray has failed. From Beta-Max to UMD to Mini Disks and the list goes on...those products failed. And from the look of things, Blu-Ray won't have the same shelf life DVD or VHS enjoyed based on recent data and how average consumers are turning more and more to on-demand and DD for their movie fixes instead of Optical media. If Block Buster and other outlets such as those are an indication, optical media has a tough road ahead. Btw...No company is 99% successful. Not MS. Not Apple. Not IBM. Not Nvidia etc...And Especially not Sony. Sony has been in financial restructure 3 times since the 1990's. I call that FAR from being 99% successful in their business pursuits.
Now all the people whinning about 3D who are really jealous of it can play it now on the 360.
360 gamers already could play in 3d.
yea SBS 3D is possible in 3D. I played Crysis 2 in 3D
Crysis 2 and COD Black ops both had stereoscopic 3D support on the 360. I know more games had it but those are the only 2 I played myself in 3D. Either way. MS has nothing to lose. Sony is the one putting all it's weight and money behind 3D. But just like with Bluray, Sony's real interest is Hollywood. Their movie divison makes way more than the playstation brand ever could. They just use the Playstation to get their future medium into your living room and help it gain widespread adaption
Yea, crisis 2could be played in 3d on 360 at launch
MS fixed the whole guide button in 3d modes. Press the guide button, achievement, or someone kind of message and it looks horrible. the guide button doesn't function in 3d like on ps3! So hopefully thats what they fixed
The technology hasn't made much progress in the 100 years or so it's existed.
^^ Exactly what I was thinking.
The same can be said about the automobile and only a small number of people think cars are unnecessary.
Go back and look at 3D in the 80's/90's. You'll be amazed at the progress it has made over the years.
I find it hard to believe that you didn't see Avatar.
Until I can switch to the adult channel in my holodeck I am not happy!
Nah, they're still wrong. Now Microsoft is wrong, too.
agreed. although 3D is a nice little diversion, or more harshly put, a gimmick, it truly is only a way to get more money from the consumer. Companies need a fresh new idea, and 3D is it for them. Movie ticket prices inflated, companies expecting you to rebuy your TV for 3D purposes, eventually games may even cost more do to their 3D support.
Sony has a vested interest in making 3D popular. Microsoft has a vested interest in competing with Sony. Logic dictates both moves be made eventually. Nothing more, nothing less.
the thing is ... sometimes it doesnt matter if u (gamers in general) like 3d or not. cuz if the girl in the house wants it. pretty much u or ur household will be getting it this christmas. remember, its not about whether the product is good or not, its about marketing and forcing the technology down people's throats to a point where the average consumer who believes in fox news thinks its good and that they want it. i dont like 3d movies. but i watch it cuz my gf wants to watch it.
You're right about the Fox news bit. But grow some balls with the girlfriend situation lol
Yeah, sony wasn't the first to bring up 3d. I can say it all but it's pretty well worded (and entertaining) when said by Yahtzee. http://www.escapistmagazine... http://www.escapistmagazine... And those are his articles, not videos so he's not being sarcastic. 3d's just terribly worthless and undervalues everything that it's attached to.
Exactly. Remeber when M$ said 3d was not important. They said that Sony was trying to force people to buy new 3d tvs. http://www.vg247.com/2011/0... Now they are embraccing it. M$ always seems to be behind when it comes to taking chances on something new. Sony has taken big chances this gen with the PS3 and its paying off. Blu-ray, and now 3d. M$ is playing catch up as usual. They like to see what others do before they step out there themselves. Which is why there has been nothing innovatitve from the company in a long time.
....and of course a ridiculous anti-MS comment like this gets mostly "agrees" on N4G.com....
@ghaleon1980 he's right though
I think 3D in video gaming as we know it will not continue. to many issues. however 3D movies "yes". We'll probably see a more immersive look and feel to gaming in the upcoming 2013 give or take next gen systems. 3D gaming as of right now, blahhh. nobody has yet to glorify it and with good reason.
I find 3D for movies at home far less interesting than 3D for games. And there aren't many issues with 3D, the cost of the TV's is coming down rapidly, soon all but the cheapest TV's will support 3D as the added cost is negligible. The cost of glasses has plummeted and by years end we're supposed to have a standard in place so glasses and tv's from different manufacturers can work together. And Sony provides the added bonus of full screen "split screen", though without the 3D. I hate using only a half or quarter screen for local multiplayer so this is a huge improvement as you'll get to use the whole screen even when playing with others.
3d in its current state is a dead end, imho. many directors are refusing to film in it... chris nolan and the upcoming batman come to mind.
He didn't film in 3D because the first two weren't either. He didn't want the last film to(forgive the pun)stick out because it was 3D. As for your comment on the state of 3D. I disagree and my list will help in the destruction of your argument. Spielberg-The Adventures of Tintin P. Jackson-Both Hobbit films Scorsese-Hugo Bay-Transformers 3 Burton-Alice in Wonderland Cameron-Avatar trilogy and release of Titanic3D Lucas-Star Wars Saga re-released in 3D You can argue all you want about a list with more directors but those names above are guaranteed to put asses in to movie theater seats. Once they got on board it's safe to assume 3D is not going away.
"many directors. . . one guy" That doesn't really make sense, bro.
Exactly! Peter Jackson is embracing it and actually filming at 48 FPS, so that the action shots are more smooth than in other 3D films that are shot at only 24 FPS. I can't WAIT for The Hobbit!
Sigh... ok... Nolan turned down 3d for inception, which is the film I'm referring to. Also, Nolan had the choice to film all the Dark Knights series in 3d but declined, saying he felt limited by the technology. Anyway, box-office recipes for 3D films are declining, compared to their 2d counterparts. A good article from The Wrap lists the directors Yogi talks about, and how they are 3Ds last hope. I also know that Bay is not a fan of it, the same for Uwe Boll and Jason Reitman.
Im happy for the xbox only owners as anyone who already has a ps3 has the convenience. I wonder if the support now will influence the future consoles. Agree or Disagree if you Agree
One issue with the comments this article makes: 360 still has to work around it's 10MB frame buffer, which can barely hold a 720p frame and cannot fit in a 1080p frame without the use of tiling. This means the best it can do at 3D is splitting one 720p frame into two images (each half 720p resolution) and sending them to the TV. In addition to this, the output is capped at 30 fps per eye since HDMI 1.2 is not able to send more than 60fps (PS3's HDMI 1.3 supports up to 120fps.) Neither console does 3D all that well, but 360 has some additional bottlenecks that prevent it from doing 3D as well as PS3 can. So, the "finally places 360 on an even keel with PS3" comment is far from true. Other than that, it's good to see Microsoft finally adopting 3D. I welcome competition in this area, because it'll push the others to release better 3D experiences in the future. Wii U will probably stomp both systems when it comes to 3D, as it'll likely have more RAM to work with and a better GPU. On top of that, other than the TV size detection, 360 has already supported it's form of 3D for some time, so this really isn't news.
consoles cannot do proper 3d. proper 3d requires the following: 1 framebuffer for each eye(2 framebuffers in total) 1 alpha buffer for each eye(2 alpha buffers in total) 1 DISTINCT frame rendered for each eye(2 frames in total) now most console games only do the following 1 framebuffer for each eye(2 framebuffers in total)- 1 alpha buffer for each eye(2 alpha buffers in total) games like kilzone 3, uncharted 3 and other 30fps games that support 3d never to the last and most important part which is rendering 1 frame for each eye because it cuts frame rate in HALF therefore killzone 3 in TRUE stereoscopic 3d will run at 15FPS which is UNPLAYABLE. so consoles don't do true stereoscopic 3d as all 3 of the above are needed. now all console games look significantly WORSE when doing their usual half baked stereoscopic 3d. why ? because the frame and alpha buffer resolutions are cut in half(to accommodate a second frame and alpha buffers) this jaggies to be far more pronounced and the image to look far more washed out in the half baked 3d than in 2d this was the case in killzone 3 dvd space doesn't limit 3d performance please do some research. and blu- ray isn't needed I'm a pc gamer and metro 2033 takes up less than 10gb space yet makes uncharted 2/3 gears 3, killzone 2/3, crysis 2 console verison and ALL other console games look like ps2 games. so what does that tell you ? blu ray is storage media and NOTHING else what drives the game is processing power, ram and memory bandwidth which consoles lack. in fact a 2005 dual gpu pc is more powerful than ps3/360 did you even know that ? 512mb ram both consoles use has been outdated since 2004 lol the ps3 was never a powerful machine EVEN most multiplats that have made it to pc in the last few years take a dump on uncharted 3 graphics LOL the 10mb edram isn't a bottleneck for 360 in fact its an advantage. why? because the bandwidth supplies the ROPS with more than enough bandwidth to run at full capacity aside from that the 360 can easily tile ANOTHER frame buffer into RAM and 360 does have more usable ram than ps3 because of its lighter OS. In ps3s case the RAM is split and at times the same render targets are needed by both the rsx and spes o therefore will have to be copied into BOTH the GDDR3 and xdr which means that some ram will go to waste but if the ps3 had a unified memory architecture and both cpu and gpu had access to the same pool of ram they'll be no need for that the only other way to reduce the amount of ram wasted is to copy back and forth from xdr to gddr3 which takes PROCESSING TIME so increases LATENCY and results in some performance loss. the ps3 also has less usable ram and FAR less memory bandwidth(20gb/s compared to 256gb/s edram bandwidth) that will have to support 2 frame and 2 alpha buffers in half baked stereoscopic 3d which is a much bigger challenge for ps3 than it is for 360 because 360 has more ram and far more memory bandwidth available to its ROPS and pixel processors. the ps3s only advantage in 3d mode is its hdmi 1.3 that is IT. do your research and you'll understand that what I'm saying is indeed true. because 360 didn't support stereoscopic 3d initially doesn't mean it cannot do it.
Sony ain't pushing anything but their TVs. I know so many Sony diehards bailing and going with Samsung, it's astonishing. But I digress, I've seen some 3D plasmas that blew me away when I saw them. I'm all for it, even if this 3D thing doesn't last. on topic/ Good for microsoft. It was only a matter of time.
no, it just means you gotta have what the competitors have. All 3 now have motion and 3d hardware. "Looks like nintendo was not so wrong with motion gaming"
Go forth and bring on the Gears 3D :)
true, im 3d'uped. I'd be enjoying both gears and uncharted IF epic pull a rabbit out. Im in this up to my neck already so bring it on
I take it this is just for games?..I'm only asking because I don't really understand all this 3D stuff anyway, from a hardware perspective anyway... You need HDMI 1.3x or higher for 3D video content right?...or is that just for Blu Ray 3D, and you can play downloaded/streamed 3D over whatever the publisher allows?... good for 360 gamers if they use it...personally it makes me sick unless i'm sitting perfectly still...
Kleptic, HDMI isn't needed at all. It is a very nice feature to have everything run through one cable, that is all. 1080P has been around long before HDMI. I have a receier that does analog 7.1 surround. 3d has been around forever. THe studios want HDMI because it is a safeguard for pirates.
I found this a good read relating to 3D on both consoles (ignore the title, read further down) http://community.us.playsta...
cool...You do need HDMI for BD 3D though (as well as 1080p for Blu Ray movies, or you soon will), but like you mentioned, its an anti-piracy thing...
Actually of you have a 3d laptop screen it doesn't need HDMI at all. Once again, Blu Ray players have HDMI that is why you need it. No other reason.
We are kind of saying the same thing...and frosty answered it better than me, but that is what I was talking about... Its required for a lot of copyright reasons (HDMI I mean), but its not 'just' that in all cases...Newer HDMI protocols are capable of bandwidths that no form of analog cables are...for no other reason other than hardware makers and publishers FINALLY agreeing enough to make a standard... so you are completely correct that you don't have to have HDMI for 3D...but to get what is becoming the standard 3D from retail movie publishers...you do...because of a combination of copyright protection measures AND increased bandwidth that HDMI 1.4 allows... that has nothing to do with games on either platform, so this is irrelevant for 3D gaming on either console this generation... of course you need HDMI for 3D out of blu ray players...but wouldn't out of a laptop with an attached screen...because blu ray players now only ship with HDMI outputs...i'm just saying its not just copyright protection that blu ray players have HDMI...its been developed to a point where it clearly exceeds performance over any analog cables available...
3DTVs do require a HDMI connection for 3D, however Jolly1 is correct in a partial sense. 3D is capable of being delivered over analog, but you will be capped with a 30fps per eye frame rate and the image quality isn't anywhere near as good (same goes for 1080p over analog, 30fps max as it uses the same bandwidth as 1080i's 60 fields per second). So, the requirement of HDMI by the vast majority of 3DTVs is not exactly only forced by copy protection. The increased bandwidth allows for faster frame rates and higher resolutions than component will allow. For instance, you wouldn't be able to do Super Stardust HD's 120fps 3D at 720p over component at all. Just not enough bandwidth. 360's HDMI 1.2 will deliver sub-HD 3D at 60FPS (technically HDMI 1.2 is capable of true 720p 3D at 60fps, but the 360 is bottlenecked to sub 720p by it's 10MB frame buffer not being able to fit 2 720p frames at once in it, so the 3D images have to share one 720p frame by splitting it in half and using each half for each eye's frame.). PS3's HDMI 1.3 (which is 1.4 compliant for 3D) has double the bandwidth, allowing enough to fit 1080p at 120fps 3D, however due to PS3's bottlenecks you only get 720p 3D at 120fps MAX on PS3 (for games, movies can do 1080p 3D). Sony says PS3 is capable of doing 1080p 3D in game also, but their current 3D guidelines say 720p max. In reality, it just doesn't have the RAM for it, which is why they put those guidelines in place. The vast majority of PS3 3D games run at 720p 60fps or lower though, due to RAM and GPU limitations. Neither console was designed for 3D, so each struggles to do it (with 360 having the hardest time. It is the oldest console, after all. It's to be expected.).
And for reference, to the idiot who disagreed, I do this for a living so I know what I'm talking about. I've been in the video production industry for over 14 years, in addition to being a gaming journalist since 2006. My job depends on me knowing details like this.
I agreed with you frosty! You speak pure facts, backed up by numbers. Something fanboys could never do. To a fanboy, "my friend said" Is all the scientific proof they need...
So this mean the 360 can play 3d blurays...
lol... funny guy.
takin the mick r v?
lol.I know i'm gonna get some mad disagrees but last i remembered the Xbox 360 only does upscaled 1080p and not true 1080p HD. So that means no native 1080p HD blu ray quality.