Microsoft Dismisses 3D as a "Future Technology"

[Woe Is You]

I see their point, but this has always been the problem with Microsoft when it comes to their computers: they never look ahead enough. While other companies are out there developing the future, they're sitting there feeling good about the present.

I don't know. It's worked for Nintendo: the tech they used to make the Wii was pretty much old hat but the way they applied it was the magic formula. I'm not saying Microsoft does this but what I am saying is that there are better ways of going at this than assuming that you have enough first adopters to go for expensive new tech so that they can experience your new stuff.

 

[Jared]

I am sure they will jump on the band wagon soon enough. They can't afford not to have a Market share early on

 

[Lowbreed]

3D gives me headaches and I already wear glasses. Watched movies in it, didn't like it for shit, annoying technology, and I'll stick with my 52" TV for now instead of upgrading without a need kthanks.

 

[Xersues]

See, at least Microsoft understands. They're the only ones who understand that it's no use to go for 3D in a long time. Now if only the other companies would understand this too...

From our perspective. You're exactly right. We see this a lot in history. Surround sound? Holy cow was that expensive. CD players in our consoles? Nintendo said No to Sony. And just a short time ago, we all laughed at HDTVs, because good god, who has 3,000 to spend on that Plasma TV.

Once again, we are presented with "long term" tech, at an outrageous price. Smart companies, well, scratch that, companies willing to take risk, know its about the long run.

They pushed for a time we could all have HDTV and home theaterish experiences. Many more people can now afford one.

The sooner they push this out, for better or for worse, the more company interest they get, the better the consumer will be. Competition drives down price, IF, and a huge IF, the consumer demand for 3D gaming is there.

I bet most people didn't think motion control gaming would be a hit, and yet we see many many Wiis being sold. I know I thought it was just crap, but for every one of me. There are a lot of people that bought it.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

3D is way too overrated, why does it matter that the images come out of the screen?

 

[yanipheonu]

Yeah. Future technology like Bluray. Ba-dum-pish.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Funk's got the right idea. The home-theater version isn't nearly as exciting as Nintendo's 3DS seems, for a fraction of the cost. That Microsoft isn't on it at all just strikes me as them being behind the wagon again, only to eventually realize their mistakes and try and jump on just as the excitement for it will die.

 

[Weaver]

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.

Exactly! No glasses, hand held and cheap. The graphics are great for a handheld (and I haven't even seen it in real life so I'm sure the 3D effect makes it look better).

Nintendo knows what people want instead of telling them what they want and I really appreciate it.

Funk's got the right idea. The home-theater version isn't nearly as exciting as Nintendo's 3DS seems, for a fraction of the cost. That Microsoft isn't on it at all just strikes me as them being behind the wagon again, only to eventually realize their mistakes and try and jump on just as the excitement for it will die.

In true Microsoft style they'll probably jump on the bandwagon just as everyone else is jumping off

 

[Baby Tea]

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?.

For me, the big thing about 3D is the glasses.
I don't mind throwing 3d glasses on my face when I goto a movie theater, because I'm only there for 3 hours tops and I throw away the glasses. No charging them, no buying them for $180, just go, watch, leave. I play games all the time, and I don't want to have to put on special glasses when I play games. I already wear glasses, that's enough. And I certainly don't want to spend $180 so that my wife can play with me. Or spend $2000 or more on a TV to replace the beautiful 40" LCD I got 2 years ago that still works awesome (and at half the cost of these 3D TVs). Or have to charge the glasses! What if the charge runs out! Then this big 'awesome' feature is useless until I charge them again, or I tether my fancy 3D glasses to my face with a USB cord so they can charge while I play.

The difference between SD and HD is massive. Especially on larger TVs. Worth the money my TV cost me.
The difference between HD and 3D isn't big enough to warrant not only that type of purchase, but that type of viewing discomfort because of the stupid glasses. I used a sample pair at a Best Buy.

Pass.

 

[Woe Is You]

I am sure they will jump on the band wagon soon enough. They can't afford not to have a Market share early on

I'm pretty sure they'll jump into it by the next console generation but as a player I'm not really seeing the point of even getting a 3D TV or $150 glasses even if I had the money. It's just inconvenience galore, which basically is everything that console gaming isn't supposed to be.

 

[blalien]

I really wish Nintendo had given a price and release date for the 3DS. I don't think I would be willing to spend more than $200 on it.

 

[Woe Is You]

The sooner they push this out, for better or for worse, the more company interest they get, the better the consumer will be. Competition drives down price, IF, and a huge IF, the consumer demand for 3D gaming is there.

For a lot of people this is far more about convenience than it is about the price. Those glasses are a ***** to wear for extended periods of time. I barely made it through Avatar with those.

Once we'll have 3D without glasses is when I'll start forking over money. Till then...

 

[edgeofblade]

To me, I just bought my crazy good TV. And it's gorgeous... but the real kicker is that I would not wait another 4 months and another $1000 to get what I wanted ... plus 3D... plus glasses. 3D didn't figure into my core wants, so I pocketed that $1000 and got EXACTLY what I wanted. Same goes for my recent purchase of a Kindle DX over an iPad.

To me, it's a tossup whether or not 3D will stick or if companies will get burned by this air-headed rush to the next big thing, "justcuz". But before long, now or later, companies will recognize that the gulf between Early Adopters and the Early and Late Majority Adopters is getting so wide, the bridge is collapsing from inadequate support.

By then, everyone has gotten burned.

 

[Meggiepants]

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.

Yep. Even if I don't agree with the rhetoric, it's obvious why Sony is doing it. It's why they pushed Blu-ray into their system and didn't charge extra for an additional piece of hardware. It was a brilliant marketing move and one that I believe won them the format war this go around. Every person who bought a PS3 was now going to by the blu-ray format.

I'm still of the opinion that if Toshiba had given Microsoft the HD DVD drives to put in their machines at little or no cost, they might very well have won the format war.

I still am not on the 3D bandwagon, and don't know if I will ever be. The current technology strains my eyes too much for me to bother with it. But I give Sony credit for their great marketing techniques.

 

[Distorted Stu]

I would like to point out at the time video games and mobile phones came out, they were all deemed failures and would not "catch on".

I rest my case.

 

[DigitalSushi]

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?.

For me, the big thing about 3D is the glasses.
I don't mind throwing 3d glasses on my face when I goto a movie theater, because I'm only there for 3 hours tops and I throw away the glasses. No charging them, no buying them for $180, just go, watch, leave. I play games all the time, and I don't want to have to put on special glasses when I play games. I already wear glasses, that's enough. And I certainly don't want to spend $180 so that my wife can play with me. Or spend $2000 or more on a TV to replace the beautiful 40" LCD I got 2 years ago that still works awesome (and at half the cost of these 3D TVs). Or have to charge the glasses! What if the charge runs out! Then this big 'awesome' feature is useless until I charge them again, or I tether my fancy 3D glasses to my face with a USB cord so they can charge while I play.

The difference between SD and HD is massive. Especially on larger TVs. Worth the money my TV cost me.
The difference between HD and 3D isn't big enough to warrant not only that type of purchase, but that type of viewing discomfort because of the stupid glasses. I used a sample pair at a Best Buy.

Pass.

Damn you and your compelling argument.

I actually have a lazy eye so I can't see 3D, i've got an eye that vibrates, when drunk it slows right down, so I can't actually use 3D. But I'm a Sony fanboy so I am contractually obligated to state that I feel this is the right direction they are heading in.

Hopefully it doesn't impede the active shutter glasses that Sony are touting as opposed to the passive style Avatar had in the cinema's.

As for the price of the glasses, buy KillZone 3, the rumour is you get 2 free pairs of active shutter glasses with the game. Maybe get one of your colleague to confirm it for you, use your good looks and wily charms.

edit: my word I'm flirtatious today, have I been drinking?

 

[Xersues]

The sooner they push this out, for better or for worse, the more company interest they get, the better the consumer will be. Competition drives down price, IF, and a huge IF, the consumer demand for 3D gaming is there.

For a lot of people this is far more about convenience than it is about the price. Those glasses are a ***** to wear for extended periods of time. I barely made it through Avatar with those.

Once we'll have 3D without glasses is when I'll start forking over money. Till then...

Well, if you had some solid empirical evidence that the demand for 3D is to be portable, then sure. But what I think most are forgetting is how clean is the 3DS outside? Different lighting conditions. How will games use it? Will the battery life be abysmal?

I agree with the glasses thing though. I wear contacts, so it doesn't bother me, but with my glasses, did it SUCK.

 

[Sebenko]

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

It's not 3D, it's the same god damned bullshit they had in comics that gave away those red and blue glasses. Sure, the tech might be different, I don't know, but it's still the same end result- you wear shitty glasses, and see shit in 3D. Except this time, it's expensive as hell.

 

[bad rider]

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.

But how would sony sell their 3D tvs ?

 

[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.