Top
280°

What happened to the stereoscopic gaming revolution?

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.

Read Full Story >>
arstechnica.com
The story is too old to be commented.
StarFox2286d ago

revolution? pretty sure its a gimmick always has been always will be. anyone who tells you different is obviously blind to facts

TheLeapist2286d ago

Haha. You people who call it a gimmick make me laugh. What's gimmicky about it? It's not like anyone is purchasing a PS3 for the 3D alone. It's just an extra feature. What's wrong with that? And the people that do have 3D TVs are highly enjoying the 3D which is usually very well done in most games.

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney2286d ago

Whatever happened to 3d happened to PSMove.

BattleTorn2286d ago

Re: people who use the word "gimmick"

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.

darthv722286d ago

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.

guitarded772286d ago (Edited 2286d ago )

Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean others don't. I like 3D and I like Move... I don't always play in 3D, and I don't always use/play Move, but they are both nice alternatives to "regular" gaming. It's nice to mix things up and break the monotony of everyday gaming. I'm not naive, and I don't think either will take the place of "regular" (common) gaming, but both offer new experiences that a normal controller and/or display can't offer.

Oh_Yeah2286d ago (Edited 2286d ago )

games are great in 3d, id like to see a new tech called "nature speakers" used with 3d though, like imagine 3d porn with these "nature speakers" they release a timed water spray for when a girl starts squirting and you get misted in your face, or watching the movie tornado and you get blown back into your seat by the strong fans that come equipped in the "nature speakers" or during a desert scene they release hot air. you get the point. i bet thats going to be the next big thing. if it is im down for it.

inveni02286d ago

I'm ready for 3D. I'm just waiting until I can get a 75"+ 3DTV for less than $2500. Once that happens, I'm on board. But I don't want a tiny 3DTV. For me, the 3D has to be in my face. I can't be staring at a 46" 3D picture 15 feet away. If I wanted to look out the window, I'd open the blinds...

deletingthis346753342286d ago

Because it's old technology that nobody back then wanted? Because you have to wear those awkward-looking sunglasses? Because it bogs down on game performance? Because it delivered more marketing than anything worthwhile? It's a gimmick. Any idiot that thinks otherwise is in Sony denial.

snipes1012286d ago (Edited 2286d ago )

But some things that are gimmicks turn out to be just that: gimmicks. Not everything becomes great. There are fads and then there are genuine trends. Right now, this looks more to me like a fad.

Beahmscream2286d ago

The only problem I have with 3D is having to sacrifice performance to make the games 3D.

ThePainkiller2285d ago

Why the hell do we need 3D TVs for? Wasn't HDTV good enough at that? God Sony fans are getting dumber and dumber over the years.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2285d ago
Anon19742286d ago (Edited 2286d ago )

"anyone who tells you different is obviously blind to facts..."

...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.

TheGamingArt2286d ago

Well then, I'm blind to facts (*troll^)

mewhy322286d ago

The 3D thing won't catch on until there's a mass install base of 3d tvs what will allow people to take advantage of the content, be it games and/or movies. I remember when Sony really pushed this last year and I was excited because I have a 3D tv but was leary because 3d is still just getting started in the consumer market place. I'm sure Sony was also trying to bolster their 3D tv sales but in the end it just sputtered out.

TheGamingArt2286d ago

Well of course, just keep in mind that this will happen. There were tube HDTVs before flatscreens.

Ares84HU2286d ago

@StarFox,

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.

Kurt Russell2286d ago (Edited 2286d ago )

Have you got any of the xbox 3D games? I want to try out Gears 3 and Sonic Generations... both different types of games... I own them just not a 3d TV :D

wlchrbandit2286d ago (Edited 2286d ago )

@Kurt I have played Gears 3 in 3D and it isn't great... It works but it's not the same as proper stereoscopic 3D. It just renders two images side by side and you have to use your 3DTV to convert that into 3D, as opposed to and actual stereoscopic output that the your PS3 or PC give you.

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.

Ares84HU2286d ago

@ Kurt Russel

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.

SkylineR2286d ago

I said it from the get-go and still believe it was just a fad. Even Nintendo says the "3D boom" is waning. Most people agree that either it gives you a headache after a while, the glasses ache or they just don't like it. I guess it's nice if the option is there as it isn't being forced on you, but no way will it ever be a standard. I've tried both GT5 and KZ3, and while they looked cool, I couldn't handle playing them in 3D for long periods of time.

S_C2286d ago

@Starfox
"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

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2285d ago
ZeroYui2286d ago

Passive 3D is the way to go. I'm sure most consumers don't want to wear glasses just to watch 3D.

WeskerChildReborned2286d ago

Well i don't. I would much prefer a 3D experience without the use of any glasses cause they're uncomfortable sometimes.

Holeran2286d ago

The problem with the glasses less 3-d is that it is going to be like looking out a window. More depth perception but nothing looking like it is flying out the screen at you. My 51 inch Samsung 3-d is an active 3-d set with shutter glasses and the glasses I bought for it don't weigh anymore than my Oakley sunglasses. Honestly it just seems like I am wearing my sunglasses when I have them on and the 3-d is phenomenal for most of the content when you adjust the television crosstalk so there is none.

Nerdmaster2286d ago

It seems that you don't understand how stereoscopic 3D works. The "pop out" effect can be obtained either way. The "with-glasses" or the "no-glasses" technology only change the way the two pictures get into each one of your eyes, but those two pictures are the same either way.

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.

Nerdmaster2286d ago

I wonder why I got only disagrees after pointing out only facts.

tehnoob32286d ago

Passive 3D uses glasses also. It's the one you see at theatres. The difference is Passive 3D glasses are much cheaper, but the quality is much worse.

Oh_Yeah2286d ago (Edited 2286d ago )

@ tehnoob3
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,

Holeran2286d ago

Read the reviews on passive and active and there is no comparison, active smokes passive in every way at this time other than the weight of the glasses. The reason I didn't go passive initially is because all passive sets lose resolution when running 3-d. My active set stays at 1080p in 3-d. Some passive sets go all the way down to 480p when in 3-d mode.

Oh_Yeah2286d ago (Edited 2286d ago )

@ Holeran
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

birchoff2286d ago

I'm an owner of an 55" LG 3D-TV (passive) and a friend of mine that has a an active-3D TV said the same thing to me, passive looks much better. He also said his glasses could only run for like an hour or two before having to recharge them. I bought my TV just a few months after he bought his btw.

wlchrbandit2286d ago

Are you serious? Passive 3D is terrible, well for me anyway. I own a Samsung active 3DTV, the depth and clarity you get from 3D blu-ray's is fantastic. Any passive set I've tried always looks a little less sharp and has a lot more crosstalk/ghosting.

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2286d ago
PCGamingNoobs2286d ago (Edited 2286d ago )

Passive 3D uses glasses, it uses the cheap plastic ones you get at the cinema. which also are terrible because passive reduces the resolution of things, if you have a 1080p 3d film it will downscale it to 720p.

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

Kidmyst2286d ago

I did several compares of Passive and Active and the new LG Passive are very comparable with Active. Out of the box the Tru Motion and default setting don't give the best look though. After some tweeking and calibration it's way better. I went to Best Buy and a specialty TV Store and the reps showed the differences. Passive has come a long way since first introduced. The new LG 3d Cinema's are right in line now though 47" and down and are better than Active. but over 47" Active has a little edge from jaggies and things over passive. My room size a 47" was plenty big so I went with Passive because of picture quality both 2D and 3D. If I was getting a 55" then I'd have done Passive.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2286d ago
the worst2286d ago

to many of yall broke a$$ gamers and cry babies
3D games are great on my PS3 55in 3D led

Bladesfist2286d ago

never cared for it. Not even sure I can see it properly though.

maniacmayhem2286d ago

The technology is not yet where it needs to be to be totally enjoyable.

Show all comments (66)
The story is too old to be commented.