Microsoft Dismisses 3D as a "Future Technology"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ah yes, "3D is future technology", we have dismissed that claim.
Really though I think 3D is just too much of a hassle for so little reward. "Ooh look, that buble looks slightly closer to me than it actually is." It's just my opinion, no need to go spreading it around.
Really though I think 3D is just too much of a hassle for so little reward. "Ooh look, that buble looks slightly closer to me than it actually is." It's just my opinion, no need to go spreading it around.
Amen to this. I actually read a Newsweek article that theorized about why 3D is popping up everywhere. The point was that, whenever Hollywood feels threatened, they pull some cheap gimmick out of their collective asses. The games industry seems stupid/gullible enough to not realize this, and instead is going 3D as well (or maybe they feel threatened, too?).WrongSprite said:
3D has been done before, in movies and games, several times. Each time, it was stupid, and each time, it just fell out of style. The word "Fad" summarizes 3D very accurately.
...
Avatar did it pretty well, though
Kinect is fairly underwhelming, yes, but at least they aren't ripping off the Wiimote wholesale.Pendragon9 said:
And they aren't really saying that they aren't going to do it when 3D is more mainstream. That's basically all there is to it, really. Their rep is actually strangely upfront about it too this time.
Obviously Sony has a big stake in 3D. They have their own TV sales to think of, and PS3, TV, and 3D games sales feed off each other, so it's natural they take a more proactive stance in this, and tout to the wealthier early adopters. Microsoft has no such thing, so it's a natural stance for them to let the dust settle first, and wait for mass-market adoption to make a 3D effort monetarily viable. Plus, I know this from limited personal experience, but i'm willing to bet it's a significant phenomenon: many households have a PS3 for the added bluray functionality, which means that a significant chunk of PS3 owners are more on the side of home theater enthusiasts, being more prone to early adoption of 3D.
If and how 3D will become mainstream is anyone's guess. If i'm to take a shot at it, i'd say it will, but not necessarily in the form or forms we know today. If past developments have taught us anything, is that this particular market has been allowing no time whatsoever for any standard to settle for long, and i doubt that tendency will change: manufacturers are always trying to put something new on the market as fast as possible, it's simply a tried and proved business strategy. PC hardware, TV's, Mobile devices, etc., everything gets old fast. And even faster if there are icky details that limit mass appeal, like needing a sweet spot to view 3D (3DS a bit exempt from this given its size) or needing added cumbersome accessories like the glasses. In the long term, this will not do. It will do enough to be profitable, but likely not to reach true mass market. Or so is my guess. What's next? Holography? Volumetric displays? Who knows...
If and how 3D will become mainstream is anyone's guess. If i'm to take a shot at it, i'd say it will, but not necessarily in the form or forms we know today. If past developments have taught us anything, is that this particular market has been allowing no time whatsoever for any standard to settle for long, and i doubt that tendency will change: manufacturers are always trying to put something new on the market as fast as possible, it's simply a tried and proved business strategy. PC hardware, TV's, Mobile devices, etc., everything gets old fast. And even faster if there are icky details that limit mass appeal, like needing a sweet spot to view 3D (3DS a bit exempt from this given its size) or needing added cumbersome accessories like the glasses. In the long term, this will not do. It will do enough to be profitable, but likely not to reach true mass market. Or so is my guess. What's next? Holography? Volumetric displays? Who knows...
Well HD has been out for a while not everything got it right away or made HD versions since it was new when it 1st came out but a few years later after the tech to do/make it got more wide spread the price of it has gone down some.You likely won't see 3D pick-up steam for a while but it's got get it's 1st step in the door some time.HK_01 said:
3D will happen... remember what plasma TVs cost when they first got released?
MS is probably smart to wait for other people to develop the tech for them, then release it with their next console, or even the one after that. Personally I don't see 3D becoming hugely successful until you can view it without glasses (already possible but not as well done) and it doesn't matter where you're sitting in the room to get the 3D effect.
But hey, could be wrong.
MS is probably smart to wait for other people to develop the tech for them, then release it with their next console, or even the one after that. Personally I don't see 3D becoming hugely successful until you can view it without glasses (already possible but not as well done) and it doesn't matter where you're sitting in the room to get the 3D effect.
But hey, could be wrong.
I've never been into 3D and for a good reason. The world around is already 3D. Any attempt to turn a 2D surface into a 3D virtualization is going to fail miserably, no matter what way you look at it.
Yeah, I'm going to agree with everyone who says 3D is just a fad
Quick history lesson. 3D used to be big in the 1950s and 1960s, especially 3D movies. But by the time the 70s came around, no one was really into it. Why? Simply put, 3D increased, story decreased. The movies were so excited with 3D, all they cared out was getting the most out of it, showing what it could do, in every possible way, instead of focusing on story. Thus, character development, setting, and plot suffered, all in the name of 3D. Most people got sick of it and went back to their 2D movies with good plot, and to meet that, movies went back to drop 3D to regain plot with good characters.
So what can video games learn from that? 3D will mean nothing unless they can incorporate games with good story and good gameplay. If they cannot, the 3D graphics will die out. Heck, the same is true for full motion control
Quick history lesson. 3D used to be big in the 1950s and 1960s, especially 3D movies. But by the time the 70s came around, no one was really into it. Why? Simply put, 3D increased, story decreased. The movies were so excited with 3D, all they cared out was getting the most out of it, showing what it could do, in every possible way, instead of focusing on story. Thus, character development, setting, and plot suffered, all in the name of 3D. Most people got sick of it and went back to their 2D movies with good plot, and to meet that, movies went back to drop 3D to regain plot with good characters.
So what can video games learn from that? 3D will mean nothing unless they can incorporate games with good story and good gameplay. If they cannot, the 3D graphics will die out. Heck, the same is true for full motion control
The problem with these fads is limited scope.
Our brains heavily favor visual information, this is true... but that doesn't mean that SIMPLY increasing visual stimulus makes for that much richer an experience. The reason 3D comes in and goes and comes and goes is because it's only able to run as long as novelty allows--and in this information-saturated age of on-demand entertainment, novelty lasts about a second and a half.
The companies going after these "futuristic" technologies are doing interesting things with the particular sensory method they're targeting... but they're forgetting that those senses are tied to a BRAIN, and they're not spending the time on how the BRAIN works in processing that sense IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OTHERS.
The most successful use of 3D in entertainment is surround sound. Not visual in the least, but the creators latched onto a very important idea: sound is omni-directional. So, when it comes to creating a sense of space, you have a SPHERICAL area in which to work (imagine when surround sound finally incorporates "up" and "down," too!).
The reason people go to movie theatres isn't what they think (the giant screen). True, you don't have a 60-foot screen at home, but you also don't sit 60 feet away from it. Effectively, the screen doesn't create THAT much larger a field of view. But the SOUND! That's what makes the experience seem larger--even the largest screen only engages a few degrees of your awareness, but sound can be used to engage the entire landscape around you.
And this is where 3D fails. It creates the illusion of depth... but within a fraction of your field of vision, which in itself is only a fraction of your field of awareness. In order to create a lasting sense of "bigness," 3D images have to engage your full field of vision (including peripheral), and the aural information coming in has to reinforce what the illusion is telling your brain visually.
This is going to require more than just a screen. It's going to require goggles, which can then cause problems with expense, as well as the viewer's tactile experience (the physical presence of the goggles could detract from the visual illusion).
So, our problem with 3D is that it's only engaging a PORTION of a SINGLE sense, albeit in a relatively novel way. To be as effective as the label "futuristic" warrants, they're going to have to increase how much of your field of vision is engaged AND find more ways for the sound to reinforce that illusion. We won't even get into smell and touch (though several "4D" amusement park rides do a fine job), and taste is just out.
(Incidentally, this is also why motion controls will putter and fail in the next few years. No swordfighting/etc. game is going to be effective because motion controls are only able to simulate the ACTION... but not the reaction. Without force feedback, motion controls are just meaningless arm wiggling once the novelty wears off.)
Our brains heavily favor visual information, this is true... but that doesn't mean that SIMPLY increasing visual stimulus makes for that much richer an experience. The reason 3D comes in and goes and comes and goes is because it's only able to run as long as novelty allows--and in this information-saturated age of on-demand entertainment, novelty lasts about a second and a half.
The companies going after these "futuristic" technologies are doing interesting things with the particular sensory method they're targeting... but they're forgetting that those senses are tied to a BRAIN, and they're not spending the time on how the BRAIN works in processing that sense IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OTHERS.
The most successful use of 3D in entertainment is surround sound. Not visual in the least, but the creators latched onto a very important idea: sound is omni-directional. So, when it comes to creating a sense of space, you have a SPHERICAL area in which to work (imagine when surround sound finally incorporates "up" and "down," too!).
The reason people go to movie theatres isn't what they think (the giant screen). True, you don't have a 60-foot screen at home, but you also don't sit 60 feet away from it. Effectively, the screen doesn't create THAT much larger a field of view. But the SOUND! That's what makes the experience seem larger--even the largest screen only engages a few degrees of your awareness, but sound can be used to engage the entire landscape around you.
And this is where 3D fails. It creates the illusion of depth... but within a fraction of your field of vision, which in itself is only a fraction of your field of awareness. In order to create a lasting sense of "bigness," 3D images have to engage your full field of vision (including peripheral), and the aural information coming in has to reinforce what the illusion is telling your brain visually.
This is going to require more than just a screen. It's going to require goggles, which can then cause problems with expense, as well as the viewer's tactile experience (the physical presence of the goggles could detract from the visual illusion).
So, our problem with 3D is that it's only engaging a PORTION of a SINGLE sense, albeit in a relatively novel way. To be as effective as the label "futuristic" warrants, they're going to have to increase how much of your field of vision is engaged AND find more ways for the sound to reinforce that illusion. We won't even get into smell and touch (though several "4D" amusement park rides do a fine job), and taste is just out.
(Incidentally, this is also why motion controls will putter and fail in the next few years. No swordfighting/etc. game is going to be effective because motion controls are only able to simulate the ACTION... but not the reaction. Without force feedback, motion controls are just meaningless arm wiggling once the novelty wears off.)
What annoys me is that you need to buy a new TV for 3D. Most families have just gotten an HDTV. This is another investment when people have just adapted to new technologies. The 3DS interests me in cheap, glassless 3D. Full home theater versions will be great in a few years with the proper technology and more good 3D effects in entertainment beyond Avatar and Up (they are the best ones that have used 3D recently IMO).Baby Tea said:
If anything, for gaming, a system like the Batman Arkham Asylum GOTY where it came with glasses is the best solution right now. Works on a normal TV, with your current console. Only downside-stupid glasses. In the future, glasses shouldn't be required.
Wasn't it not to long ago when Sony said their console (PS3) could support 3D for free while Xbox and Wii couldn't? If you have to buy a new TV, it doesn't sound like free.
With Microsoft on this one (I just died a little), but the 3DS is a step in the right direction.
Not with how Sony is doing it, they should've waited a few years until 3D televisions dropped in price (if they didn't die out, anyway). However, Nintendo is known for having cheap consoles, so I can't imagine the 3DS crossing $250, even with the 3D. You also don't have to worry about glasses which I'm sure will be lost often with the 3D TVs. Not to mention the godly games.
Here in lies the problem for Microsoft... if your two competitors are moving that way, if home televisions produced by one of your competitors is there already, and if the mass public is constantly willing to shell out excess green to see films in the the theatre in 3D... the future is pretty damn now. The desire exists. It may be limited currently, but it's gonna grow. Rather than claim it's future tech and you don't need to be bothered by it, I would shut up and get some folks back in R&D working on a way to do it yourselves. Cause if this hits off big and you're the last to market? Not gonna look good, plus you'll need to spend that money just catching up to the market as oppossed to entering it when its hot.
Side bar, to those who discount 3D as a fad, be forewarned; this has been a tech a long flipping time in coming, with efforts made for several decades to bring it into our homes. Claiming it's just a fad assuming every prior effort, every advance in the technology, every failure and every success were just fads. At some point, it stops being a succession of fads and starts being something bigger. Sony is paving the way, Nintendo clearly sees the writing on the wall... it seems only Microsoft is eager to be left as the last in line.
Side bar, to those who discount 3D as a fad, be forewarned; this has been a tech a long flipping time in coming, with efforts made for several decades to bring it into our homes. Claiming it's just a fad assuming every prior effort, every advance in the technology, every failure and every success were just fads. At some point, it stops being a succession of fads and starts being something bigger. Sony is paving the way, Nintendo clearly sees the writing on the wall... it seems only Microsoft is eager to be left as the last in line.
Flawed logic here. The nature of fads is that there is a spark, a rush of interest, and then a gradual "petering out" of interest to follow. So, using the fact that there is interest to counter the notion that this is a fad just doesn't follow--it neither proves nor disproves the premise. (It's like folks who said, "Look how quickly the stock market is going up! Surely it'll just keep on going forever!")poiuppx said:
So, if you can invest a little bit of money to make the quick buck, so be it--this way, when the fad dies down, you haven't been sinking millions into R&D for a product with waning demand. As I said above, until they find better ways for 3D visuals to engage more of the field of vision (while still retaining the social aspect that goggles destroy) AND synergize this with the other arguably EQUALLY important aural sense, it's just not going to have staying power.
It's like the people that think portable holographic computers are the wave of the future--they don't understand that just because something could (with great difficulty) be done, that doesn't mean anyone would ever want to use it (once they realize it never works like the movies).
Let me translate and condense this.Andy Chalk said:
"Using the time-tested strategy that served us well in getting into both the internet and console gaming arenas, we're going to wait until someone else perfects the technology first, nick it, make it incompatible with existing product, and then give it away for free until ours becomes the de facto standard."
There. That's about right.