Microsoft Dismisses 3D as a "Future Technology"

[Magnalian]

This is why the 3DS is exciting me exponentially more than the PS3's 3D offering.

PS3 3D: $2000 TV, $180 glasses, $300 PS3.

3DS 3D: almost-certainly-below-$250 3DS. Plus, no glasses, and it's portable.

How is this even a contest? THAT'S the way to go to implement 3D, not the full home theater version.

Still, I hope that one day I'll be able to enjoy console games in 3D, at an affordable price, without the glasses. Just imagine what Super Mario Galaxy would be like...

 

[Xiorell]

the thing that pisses me off with these kind of developements (TVs etc), is that it all changes JUST when the last "bug step" has settled in... kinda like trying to keep people in fear of being obsolete somehow... like... it wasn't to bad with DVDs... they was around years and years in the mainstream before Blu-Ray started trying to mix things up... TVs changed very quick considering the price... "Now you can watch TV in HD.... oh but now we've got a better standard of HD... and now we got highter refresh rates... and now we got LED... hey how about 3D... while we're at it, let's develope Laser Displays... HEY I KNOW, Holographic TV now"

Doesn't bother me things getting better like this with PCs... if I reckon on £200-300 a year I can be pretty secure knowing my PC is really quite up to date... but with TVs to stay "Current" you could be talking thousands every couple of years. My 40inch HDTV (which I love) was about 2k, about 2years ago... and now there's LED screens and 3DTV and shit already. Plus new and somehow better gadgets to go with. FFS just piss off!!!

 

[Jacob.pederson]

Wait, wait, wait... 3D glasses are 180$ a pop? WTF? Are they made of gold, coated with diamonds polished with the souls of little orphaned children? How different are they from the cheap plastic ones in cinemas? What is in them that can possibly be almost as expensive as an entire gaming console?

Cheap plastic ones that you find in cinemas are using polarized light to separate the images. Much more expensive for the equipment (you need two projectors), much cheaper on the glasses. Home 3d uses primarily shutter glasses, which rapidly black out each eye in turn to achieve the effect. This makes the display a little cheaper because you only need one (although the refresh rate of the display does need to be doubled). However, blinking semi-opaque 120 times per second, while precisely syncing this speed with the tv, is quite a technological feat. Hence the expensive glasses.

 

[WrongSprite]

Yeah I'm with them here...

I'm with the whole '3D is just a fad' way of thinking, it'll be gone in a few years, then it'll resurface in the future when we can do it properly, and cheaply. I don't even enjoy it that much.

I think 3D is more of a fad right now. Later, when the tech isn't so fancy and new it may be cheap enough to become a mainstream technology.

Isn't that...exactly what I said? Haha.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

This is why the 3DS is exciting me exponentially more than the PS3's 3D offering.

PS3 3D: $2000 TV, $180 glasses, $300 PS3.

3DS 3D: almost-certainly-below-$250 3DS. Plus, no glasses, and it's portable.

How is this even a contest? THAT'S the way to go to implement 3D, not the full home theater version.

Amen.
The idea of forcing a whole new TV is killing the idea of 3D for me. If they can't do it with existing televisions using a trick of the image, then count me out. I totally agree with MS, and I'm glad they didn't jump on the band-wagon. Nintendo has the right idea with the 3DS: A stand-alone handheld with no glasses. I may not be a 'handheld' guy, but it's a great idea.

And from what I have seen the 3DS looks really fantastic to. Sony really needs to make more affordable tech or thier sales will suffer...

 

[Racthoh]

The 3DS has at least the opition to turn the 3D off I heard, so at very least you have a DS with a joy stick and better graphics.

Watched a video of the hardware and it has a slider that adjusts the level of 3D. As they said, all people's eyes are different so they want to be able to accommodate everyone. It can even outright be turned off allowing you to just play in 2D.

 

[Ravek]

To be fair that isn't actually what microsoft said (...)

You're right, that is quite different.

 

[Atmos Duality]

So 3D is a fad, and Project Natal (Kinect..whatever) silly motion control isn't?
Based on why the Wii was a success (read: IT'S A GODDAMN FAD!), I would argue that motion controls are no less of a fad, but that's my opinion.

Good thing that argument is subjective, because if it were not, that would make Microsoft total hypocrites.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Here's to getting a under-$400 3D monitor. Yeah, it's expensive, but someone has to begin using the technology, so the cost can go down. As was said before, Sony sells TVs. Logically, they were going to eventually make 3DTVs in the wake of this newfound interest in 3D. What Nintendo is doing is pretty damn brilliant, but it's going to be very limited in ability (i.e. how far away do you have to look before the 3D effect diminishes, how long it can maintain the effect, and how good the effect looks, how good the games/movies look, etc.). That, and I want to know how much that damn thing is going to cost! I'm buying it, of course, but I want to know how much it is so I can save up for it.

The 3DS is actually the perfect place to start with 3D, its cheap and easy to make due to the small screen and low resolution, no need for glasses, single viewer only
It's much easier to start small and then make things bigger than it is to try and retrofit an advanced technology into something smaller

it reminds me of a quote from John Carmack about iphone games

"O&E development was started high-end first with the low-end versions done afterwards. I should have known better, because it is always easier to add flashy features without introducing any negatives than it is to chop things out without damaging the core value of a game."

 

[Tzekelkan]

Wait, wait, wait... 3D glasses are 180$ a pop? WTF? Are they made of gold, coated with diamonds polished with the souls of little orphaned children? How different are they from the cheap plastic ones in cinemas? What is in them that can possibly be almost as expensive as an entire gaming console?

Cheap plastic ones that you find in cinemas are using polarized light to separate the images. Much more expensive for the equipment (you need two projectors), much cheaper on the glasses. Home 3d uses primarily shutter glasses, which rapidly black out each eye in turn to achieve the effect. This makes the display a little cheaper because you only need one (although the refresh rate of the display does need to be doubled). However, blinking semi-opaque 120 times per second, while precisely syncing this speed with the tv, is quite a technological feat. Hence the expensive glasses.

Oh, all right. Never was too interested in this 3D craze, so didn't bother to realize it was such a beautiful (albeit ridiculously expensive) piece of technology. But while I do like owning technological feats of wonder in my living room, I'll pass right now, especially if you need batteries for the glasses(!).

 

[crazypsyko666]

Yeah I'm with them here...

I'm with the whole '3D is just a fad' way of thinking, it'll be gone in a few years, then it'll resurface in the future when we can do it properly, and cheaply. I don't even enjoy it that much.

I think 3D is more of a fad right now. Later, when the tech isn't so fancy and new it may be cheap enough to become a mainstream technology.

Isn't that...exactly what I said? Haha.

That.... is. I think I had a 'derp' moment.

 

[Jumplion]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101379-E3-2010-Hands-on-With-the-Nintendo-3DS

Apparently it works great.

I'm still extremely skeptical of it, I mean, there must be some drawback to it, right? It can't be so simple that it's just "3D without glasses" can it? That and (no offense) game journalist tend to use one too many colorful adjectives and make previews of games/hardware look like they're perfectly tuned oiled machines.

As I've said before, I guess I just don't want to be disappointed by Nintendo again. Something about the 3DS is giving me a bad vibe.

 

[Sebenko]

Man, if only everyone would realise that. 3D is expensive, shit and pointless.

Greatly increased immersion and functional depth perception are not pointless.

Good luck being immersed with a headache.

It's not 3D, it's the same god damned bullshit they had in comics that gave away those red and blue glasses.

Which was also 3D.

And shit.

 

[John Funk]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101379-E3-2010-Hands-on-With-the-Nintendo-3DS

Apparently it works great.

I'm still extremely skeptical of it, I mean, there must be some drawback to it, right? It can't be so simple that it's just "3D without glasses" can it? That and (no offense) game journalist tend to use one too many colorful adjectives and make previews of games/hardware look like they're perfectly tuned oiled machines.

As I've said before, I guess I just don't want to be disappointed by Nintendo again. Something about the 3DS is giving me a bad vibe.

If you're too far back or viewing it from way to the side, it won't work. But every single person I know who's picked it up said that this was never a problem, that the natural bubble is large enough to encompass wherever you'd hold it 'naturally.'

It's no Virtual Boy. Everyone's been tremendously positive on it: Oli Welsh has a great writeup at Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/nintendo-3ds-hands-on?page=1].

Even without the 3D, it's a more powerful DS with an analog control better than the PSP's 'nub' and a ton of support. That's almost worth it on its own.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

Here we go again. Microsoft is saying this now, but in three years all bets are on them suddenly pushing a 'revolutionary 3D technology' in an obvious attempt to get in on the pile of cash, conveniently forgetting what they just said <_<

 

[Jumplion]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101379-E3-2010-Hands-on-With-the-Nintendo-3DS

Apparently it works great.

I'm still extremely skeptical of it, I mean, there must be some drawback to it, right? It can't be so simple that it's just "3D without glasses" can it? That and (no offense) game journalist tend to use one too many colorful adjectives and make previews of games/hardware look like they're perfectly tuned oiled machines.

As I've said before, I guess I just don't want to be disappointed by Nintendo again. Something about the 3DS is giving me a bad vibe.

If you're too far back or viewing it from way to the side, it won't work. But every single person I know who's picked it up said that this was never a problem, that the natural bubble is large enough to encompass wherever you'd hold it 'naturally.'

It's no Virtual Boy. Everyone's been tremendously positive on it: Oli Welsh has a great writeup at Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/nintendo-3ds-hands-on?page=1].

Even without the 3D, it's a more powerful DS with an analog control better than the PSP's 'nub' and a ton of support. That's almost worth it on its own.

I suppose that's good, though I've never been much of a handheld person (or a Nintendo person now that I think of it). I hardly play my DS or Wii and that really saddens me. I never even finished Okami :'(

Regardless, I suppose I'll be seeing for myself when my friend gets the 3DS, being the self-admited Nintendo Fanboy of my friends.

I do have a few questions; Is the 3DS backwards compatible? And hasn't Nintendo just recently released/going to release the "Xtra Large" DS? Isn't that a little....pointless? I mean, they're touting the 3DS as a new system, is the DSXL thing just a new version of the DS or a 3DS?

Bleh, whatever, I'm still skeptical and I don't want to get fooled again.

 

[John Funk]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101379-E3-2010-Hands-on-With-the-Nintendo-3DS

Apparently it works great.

I'm still extremely skeptical of it, I mean, there must be some drawback to it, right? It can't be so simple that it's just "3D without glasses" can it? That and (no offense) game journalist tend to use one too many colorful adjectives and make previews of games/hardware look like they're perfectly tuned oiled machines.

As I've said before, I guess I just don't want to be disappointed by Nintendo again. Something about the 3DS is giving me a bad vibe.

If you're too far back or viewing it from way to the side, it won't work. But every single person I know who's picked it up said that this was never a problem, that the natural bubble is large enough to encompass wherever you'd hold it 'naturally.'

It's no Virtual Boy. Everyone's been tremendously positive on it: Oli Welsh has a great writeup at Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/nintendo-3ds-hands-on?page=1].

Even without the 3D, it's a more powerful DS with an analog control better than the PSP's 'nub' and a ton of support. That's almost worth it on its own.

I suppose that's good, though I've never been much of a handheld person (or a Nintendo person now that I think of it). I hardly play my DS or Wii and that really saddens me. I never even finished Okami :'(

Regardless, I suppose I'll be seeing for myself when my friend gets the 3DS, being the self-admited Nintendo Fanboy of my friends.

I do have a few questions; Is the 3DS backwards compatible? And hasn't Nintendo just recently released/going to release the "Xtra Large" DS? Isn't that a little....pointless? I mean, they're touting the 3DS as a new system, is the DSXL thing just a new version of the DS or a 3DS?

Bleh, whatever, I'm still skeptical and I don't want to get fooled again.

Nothing confirmed, but it's supposedly backwards compatible, yes.

The DS XL (which is out, and gorgeous) is just a bigger DS. The 3DS is entirely new hardware.

It's not a revision of the DS like the DSi, Lite, or XL. It's a new platform, like the DS was to the GBA.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

The 3DS has at least the opition to turn the 3D off I heard, so at very least you have a DS with a joy stick and better graphics.

Watched a video of the hardware and it has a slider that adjusts the level of 3D. As they said, all people's eyes are different so they want to be able to accommodate everyone. It can even outright be turned off allowing you to just play in 2D.

Well, same difference. Turn down or just turn off the 3D.

 

[Low Key]

3D will be the future. There is no doubt about it. However, it won't be until prices drop AND glasses aren't required. Until then, it's just like HDTV used to be: something pretty to look at with zero programming being broadcast. 3D is simply to impractical to hype it up as much as Sony is doing. At least the 3DS is doing it the right way.

 

[phoenix352]

Plus, no glasses,

This is why I'm loving Nintendo right now. In case no-one ever guessed, wearing a pair of 3D glasses is sort of difficult when you already wear glasses to see.

Quoted for truth.
i went to see avatar in 3D ... most annoying part was putting on glasses on glasses.. especially since the 3D glasses are so bulky and stiff