Microsoft Dismisses 3D as a "Future Technology"

[Miumaru]

Nintendo is heading in the right direction though, since the glasses will always keep 3D gimmicky.

 

[technotica]

Im glad they are doing it. I wont be buying it, as im a poor fucker with a worthless job, but im glad they are doing it. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything.

Microsoft can only afford to copy one company's rejected technology. (which i honestly find hard to believe) They'll jump on 3D a year or two from now, after Sony and Nintendo have grabbed the public's attention, and started selling TV's.

3D in games is much better than 3D in movies imo

 

[superbatranger]

And they're right. It'll be a while before 3D is going to work out.

1) Cost: We all just got an HDTV, and now we're supposed to throw out some more money for a 3D TV?!

2) I don't see the appeal, to be honest.

Hell, some of us don't even own an HDTV, let alone one that can spit out 3D. I can't afford one, my parents can't afford one either. Honestly, I see 3D as a gimmick just so all these companies can make an extra buck.

"Want to see our new movie? Well, you're going to have to buy our special glasses that cost almost 200 dollars to watch it on that magic TV you bought for 3000$. Oh, your friends are coming? They're going to need their own glasses as well."

 

[Radelaide]

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.

This.

Recently, the whole 3D thing has been implemented into sports here with State of Origin (a football match) being broadcast in 3D. You know what else is in 3D? THE FUCKING MATCH, IRL! If you can afford a god damned 3D television, you can afford to go to the game.

I really wish God would turn back time, lose the script to Avatar and all this 3D bullshit would fucking vanish.

 

[goldenheart323]

Nintendo's doing 3D gaming, but MS isn't. I sense a certain marketing campaign in the future:

"Nintendo does what Microswon't"



I did some research & found HDTV's hit the market in 1998. Here we are, over a decade later, and last year I read HDTV's had only a 40% market penetration. (I can't find any current numbers on it.) Even at 40%, I & all my tech friends were really doubtful it was that high (a year ago).

Even if 3D is not a fad, isn't it reasonable to figure it'll be at least another DECADE before it's anywhere near mainstream? Sounds like it'll be a long time before MS has to worry about making 3D anything. Meanwhile, all 360 games will devote as much power as possible to make 2D gaming look good, while the 3D PS3 games will likely only use about half the power available in case the gamer has a 3DTV & a whole other set of renders have to be made for the other eye. It could very well make the 360 *look* like a superior system than the PS3 to those who don't care about 3D gaming. I'm sure there will be 2D PS3 games using all available power too, but Sony will likely push for as many 3D games as possible to help increase 3DTV sales.
Of course, that's a lot of predicting going on. I could be wrong.

 

[The Bandit]

Your all forgetting that from Sony's standpoint it all makes sense.
They do sell TVs.

They are well aware that most cannot afford the price tag involved, but that there are what marketers call: "Early Adopters" for just about any service and/or product. These are the people who are willing to fork out big wads of cash to have the latest gadgets and doo-hickeys.

I of course, am not an early adopter, but I'm pretty sure Sony has their bases covered on this.

Sorry if you don't sell TVs, Microsoft. I can see how this wouldn't hold any real appeal to you as of yet. You can go back to your usual "ripping off the idea" in a few years when it is more profitable for you to do so.

EDIT: Besides do you really think Sony is doing this to promote the PS3? You'd be mistaken. The PS3 is a tool to sell the 3D TVs. It's not so much about gaming at the moment, than it is "keeping up with the Jones'".

Hollywood is certainly pushing 3D lately. Sony is offering a system to play those movies at home.

This post reeks of fanboyism and logic, the combination of which is enough to make me dizzy.

 

[DigitalSushi]

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.

Didn't the same happen thanks to Microsoft 5 years ago and it touting HD when alot of the TV's on the market weren't true HD?.

I know of several people that got stung that way, they hadn't realised they had bought a sub par TV until someone pointed it out to them.

My uncle is a big fan of all this technological advancement and he reckons TV, Signals and computers are finally coming at parity with each other, I'll try and get more info for you guys if you want, but basically in years gone by one system in the chain was weaker than the other, with the latest lot its kinda married bliss in technological terms.

Also Spinwhiz has a 3dTV doesn't he?, lets all point and laugh at him!

This.

When the 360 came out, how much did a 42" LCD cost? Exactly. A lot of people bought their consoles then anyway, and then got the TV once they'd saved up the money. And just like nobody forced people back then to drop ?1,500 in order to play Halo 3, Sony don't need you to pay all that money to play Killzone 3 when it comes out. But once you get that 3D TV, you can go back and play it again - it's what I did with Killzone 2 and GTA IV when upgrading from my CRT to my plasma.

Weirdly enough, the exact same thing happened when Microsoft released the Pentium MMX and the Pentium 2 processor, The advertising was all centred on the MMX to get rid of the stock when in fact the Pentium 2 was the much more powerful CPU.

I see a pattern emerging.

Microsoft missed the boat on this, and now they're poo-pooing the others for not having done the same. Not saying that 3D is the future or anything, but this sounds a lot to me like Boeing bitching about the A380 being too big when their 747 wasn't top dog anymore.

excellent analogy.

 

[imgunagitusucka]

M$ are actually on the money with this one, EVERYONE I've ever conversed with (in person, on forums, over XBL) about this topic all say it doesn't interest them at all. Cost, though, isn't the issue alot of the time. The glasses, the tendancy to blur with fast motion, the headaches after extended viewing and the fact that relatively few movies that aren't kids animated films would be available for a good couple of years just mean there are too many cons and too few pros to justify the purchase.

 

[Woe Is You]

Weirdly enough, the exact same thing happened when Microsoft released the Pentium MMX and the Pentium 2 processor, The advertising was all centred on the MMX to get rid of the stock when in fact the Pentium 2 was the much more powerful CPU.

Microsoft has had nothing to do with producing the x86 line of processors. That's always been IBM, Intel and Co. Just saying.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Weirdly enough, the exact same thing happened when Microsoft released the Pentium MMX and the Pentium 2 processor, The advertising was all centred on the MMX to get rid of the stock when in fact the Pentium 2 was the much more powerful CPU.

Microsoft has had nothing to do with producing the x86 line of processors. That's always been IBM, Intel and Co. Just saying.

LOL I got confused

Disregard my previous comment people, I'm thick today.

 

[Tales of Golden Sun]

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.

True, watching Avatar was a nightmare... Thank god I have lenses now.

They've got a point, but that point has absolutely nothing to do with Nintendo.
They're just jealous.

 

[Lim3]

Didn't Microsoft dismiss motion technology too?

In any case there's no way i'm buying a 3D TV in the next 5 years. Maybe a 3D computer monitor, but that would be the extent.

I hope Nintendo kick apple's ass with 3DS, and they bring home the gold for handheld gaming. That said, it will be hard to compete for the casual market.

 

[DTWolfwood]

they jealous cause they didn't think up of anything for 3D. XD

everyone always bitches about price when anything comes out. give it time

 

[mad825]

meh, this "3D" tech is too "2D" in my opinion

If a company is going to give me 3D technology I would also like a 3D interface where I can interact with the graphics via my hands/fingers as a peripheral device.

MS may have some hidden agenda behind this criticism but it has merit, the technology is over 50 years old if not then possibly more and Volumetric Display will kill this fad in one clean sweep once it starts to becomes more of a usable method.

 

[crotchdot]

So let me sum up most people's feelings: I haven't seen it, and I can't afford it, so it must be crap.

 

[Dastardly]

No, it's crap because it's just a mildly-updated way of engaging a limited portion of a single sense in a very limited way, but at greater cost and inconvenience.

 

[yourbeliefs]

Until more 3D content is available and the equipment costs come down, people are not going to embrace this stuff. I didn't realize the glasses are so expensive. If they're so much, how come I was able to get them free from my movie theater when I saw Avatar? Then again, when I saw "Up" in 3D in China we had to put down a big deposit for the glasses before they would even let us in the theater. Nothing like seeing subtitles in 3D.

 

[Jacob.pederson]

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.

I was wondering why the PS3 couldn't just polarize two images for Wipeout HD, and just let me use the glasses I got from the theater for Avatar 3D. Now I know why. Thanks for the info.

At least I know that the active shutter glasses for the 3DTVs will likely have rechargeable batteries, and that in some cases they're designed to fit over standard glasses. Granted, I have contacts now, but after many years of frustration trying to find a comfortable pair of sunglasses while I was already wearing glasses, I welcome the idea of them being designed to fit on standard glasses.

That all said, I personally want to just wait until auto-stereoscopic 3D becomes the cheap, affordable standard. I'll probably be waiting awhile, but at least I won't have to buy one pair of glasses for each of my friends that may or may not come over.

Besides, you have to buy the 3D glasses from the same brand you bought the TV from, and probably have to check for compatible models. If you already bought the TV, they have you by the balls.

I got even more screwed than having merely incompatible glasses with my Mitsubishi 3d TV. The TV uses the "checkerboard" encoding system for the 3d image. The PS3 does not support this, so I won't be playing any of the new stereoscopic content on the PS3. There is no hardware incompatibility here. It is purely a business decision on Sony's part. In fact, you can trick PS3 Avatar to run in 3d, by using the Nvidia timings to sync the glasses and then swapping over to the PS3, because Avatar doesn't check for a "compatible" display before letting you turn on 3d. Compatibility is probably not much more complicated than flipping a bit in the firmware somewhere.