Sections

3D to be bigger deal at E3 than motion controllers

Friday, 4th June 2010 10:47 GMT By Johnny Cullen

3dwoman

Natal and Move? They’re so last year. 3D is the new black at E3 this year.

Several publishers, including Take Two, have told MCV that the “wow factor” will be the biggest talking point at the LA event when it begins in a week-and-a-half.

“The use of 3D needs to be meaningful to the gamer and publishers will need to ask questions,” T2 CEO Ben Feder told the site.

“Will it draw players further into my world? Will it change how they interact with the game? Will it make the title more fun and keep the player engaged? The answers need to be ‘yes’ for them to fit into our strategy of being a leader in innovation and quality.”

“What we are trying to do in the 3D space is part of a cross-Sony initiative,” added SCEE president Andrew House, referring to the company-wide plans for the tech.

“We’ve realised, particularly for a younger audience, that games can be an easier way for people to engage with 3D than movies.This will be on the cutting edge of gaming for the next year or two. If Avatar taught us one thing in an age of globalisation, it’s that when consumers embrace something it moves quickly. This is definitely a wave of the future and one that we intend to ride.”

But EA Sports president Peter Moore still remains skeptical of what 3D can possibly do in homes with games.

“We are looking at 3D but there are challenges,” he said. “I’ve seen a number of our games running in 3D, and we’re learning that we can’t take the existing camera angles. You have to get lower and have depth of field to actually see it.

“You’ve got to look at things differently than just porting to 3D, because 50 per cent of what you are seeing you can’t even tell it’s 3D. I’m not sure it adds value to the experience.”

E3 begins on June 14. There’s more through the link.

Latest

44 Comments

  1. Whizzo

    Nice to see Peter Moore talking sense about 3D while others are getting rather overexcited about it.

    #1 4 years ago
  2. Redh3lix

    Who’s creating the 3D hype? Not the gamers themselves that’s for sure.

    #2 4 years ago
  3. Erthazus

    @2 Because they never tried it.
    3D is really awesome for games.

    and it’s cool that someone started to push this tech. Next Generation it will be 3D

    #3 4 years ago
  4. AHA-Lambda

    I keep saying but bloody why?

    At least i can understand move/natal all you need is the peripheral. This requires a new tv that costs an arm and a leg that a VAST majority of people (and therefore also gamers) will not purchase for quite a few years to come =/

    Also yeah nice to see mr moore there is at least grounded in reality somewhat.

    #4 4 years ago
  5. Nico23

    lol latley ive noticed something its like gamers dont want to move forward, wat u want to play exactly how we are playing now in the next 10-15 years. The way we are playing our games now games now is going to change so get over it.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. AHA-Lambda

    cant say i like it though:

    3D is a gimmick (if the 3d in movies is anything to go by just to clarify)

    motion controls are a gimmick

    achievements are pointless and contributed to the death of the cheat code

    and you cant honestly say with a straight face that dlc isnt in 90% of cases nickel and diming and a total rip off

    #6 4 years ago
  7. DrDamn

    @6
    No it isn’t
    No they aren’t
    No they aren’t
    Agree on DLC – but there are reasons for it.

    #7 4 years ago
  8. Gadzooks!

    I’ll be staying well away from 3D for a number of reasons:

    1) No 3DTV, no plans to buy a new TV.
    2) Hate wearing glasses, especially clunky shutter specs.
    3) 3D gives me headaches.
    4) I dont want my games gimped in resolution and framerate.
    5) 3D will be forgotten about in a few months time.

    Headtracked 3D perspective simulation is a far better solution.

    1) There’s no gimping of resolution or framerates as only one frame needs to be drawn.
    2) No headache issues.
    3) No glasses needed, just a webcam which everyone will have in a few months, or can get for very little dollah.
    4) You have a movable perspective which gives a better 3D representation than a fixed perspective.

    Only problem is splitscreen could look wierd with multiple persepectives, and might be very disorienting if your field of view strays to another persons perspective.

    Shutter 3D is only any use to nerds stuck at a PC with their face buried in a monitor. It will not be successful with console gamers.

    #8 4 years ago
  9. DrDamn

    Just to clarify – the gimmick accusation I think can be levelled at some but not all. This applies across 3D, Motion and Achievements. All are good things if used in the right way.

    #9 4 years ago
  10. Erthazus

    @8 “There’s no gimping of resolution or framerates as only one frame needs to be drawn.

    4) I dont want my games gimped in resolution and framerate.

    You need 60 frames per second to play in 3D and normal resolution to play it. Actually there are no fucking headaches with decent glasses.
    I’don’t know about Sony yet.

    But i know that 3D Nvision from Nvidia is the future. It’s a fact and working absolutely fantastic.
    http://ces.cnet.com/i/bto/20090107/Nvidia_GeForce_Vision_3D_610x444.jpg

    I played many games with these glasses and i have no headaches at all. Games like Batman:Arkham Asylum looks much better in 3D, they look much better with games like METRO 2033 that have no artifacts. My friends already started to purchase 3D stuff and a lot of guys will do the same.

    I even have a guy who bought Nvidia 3d Vision with projector. Thats freakin’ awesome but not cheap at all.

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Bulk Slash

    Have you guys forgotten to renew the videogaming247.com domain or something? It currently just says “Cheese” when I go there.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. odball

    As someone who has used some of the latest 3D tech I can say with conviction that I was absolutely not impressed. Yes, it is cool for the first couple of minutes but for a number of reasons I will not be supporting it.

    It does reduce clarity and only increases depth of field. It is nice to feel closer to being in the game but at the expense of a crisp picture, the added depth is not something I want.

    The vast majority of consumers, including many gamers have only recently begun to purchase decent HDTVs. Mass market adoption has only recently been achieved and the vast majority of users will not be trading in their recent purchases to buy a 3DTV any time soon.

    Expense and practicality. I know the sets are currently expensive, that will come down. My issue is with having to shel out for a whole bunch of glasses. Not only is it, in my opinion entirely undesirable to sit in front of of the TV with a pair of goggles on, think about the logistic of a whole family having to do the same. Then, pairs will inevitably get lost and broken, some pairs’ battery will run out meaning some members of the family can’t watch the TV because their set is on charge. It’s entirely impractical.

    Many hardcore techies (of which I include myself) will purchase these products, but in order to be successful they must capture the mass market. I for one am one gamer who wont be joining this bandwagon.

    #12 4 years ago
  13. DrDamn

    @10
    There has to be some concessions in order to fit 3D into an existing/2D console title. Some of this is achieved by framerate/resolution changes. Personally I would happily take a hit in asset complexity (polys/effects) for a previously 30fps720p game to go 3D and stay 30fps720p. I think for the right titles it can add a lot.

    The headache issue affects some people but not others. So just because you don’t get it that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Not sure if there is a difference between those affected and the tech used (polarisation at the Cinema and active shutter for 3DTVs).

    #13 4 years ago
  14. Yoshi

    @10 Are you an actual retarded?

    “Actually there are no fucking headaches with decent glasses.”

    Just because people can wear decent 3D glasses doesnt mean headaches will stop.
    People get headaches because of the sun, if they put cheap sunglasses on it might not make any difference, if they would expensive sunglasses on it still might not make any difference.
    People have different effects to 3D, some can watch it fine, some can’t because it gives them… headaches for example. Wearing decent 3D glasses won’t solve that problem. If you don’t get headaches it doesn’t mean the next guy/lass won’t either. *SLAP*

    #14 4 years ago
  15. Erthazus

    @14 You know, i have headaches with bad glasses too that are from Cinema. But they are BAD!

    It is you, who is retarded here. If you never had 3D Nvidia glasses then don’t talk here about 3D if you don’t know nothing about 3D.
    My all friends have problems with 3D when they watch 3D effects in cinema with shitty glasses, but with Nvidia they play non stop and have no issues with that + it depends on your monitor too. If it is 120 GHZ or more.

    In cinema they give you shitty Anachrome optical diopter glasses. Of course you will have a headache, seizures and other stuff.
    It is just an urban legend from people who NEVER tried 3D. Fact.

    I and my family + my sister can play with Nvidia 3D vision glasses in 3D about 5-10 hours and have no problem with 3D, no headaches, nothing.

    @12 you tried the worst 3D game ever. Splinter Cell:Conviction is the worst 3D implementation ever. This is the game where you don’t need 3D at all.

    Try Batman:Arkham Asylum, Just Cause 2, Resident Evil 5 or METRO 2033. They are incredible in 3D. I mean they have the best 3D stuff.

    #15 4 years ago
  16. Raining_Upwards

    The application of 3D in games doesn’t really bother me a whole lot to be honest. If it does well and can be used meaningfully in games then great, if not, well then it doesn’t really matter I guess; i’ll just buy the ‘regular’ versions of those titles.

    I’m actually most interested to see how Nintendo pull it off with the 3DS and their ‘glasses-free’ technology. Yes, I know it’s all down to those new fangled parallax barriers and so forth, but i’m interested to see how convincing the effect actually is from a nerdy point of view.

    Roll on E3 I reckon.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. OlderGamer

    At this point the last thing I need is a new thing to need.

    I will NOT be buying a new 3DTV. And that pretty much ends it all right there for me. I now have two good sized HDTVs(living room/bedroom), and each of my teens now have a HDTV (smaller) in their bedrooms.

    I am not interested in replacing them any time soon.

    My wife would shoot me.

    #17 4 years ago
  18. Erthazus

    @17 I agree. I won’t buy 3D TV too. I have only Samsung 120 GHZ monitor and i’m fine with that and until next generation i won’t probably buy new 3DTV with glasses to play Killzone 3 on PS3.

    #18 4 years ago
  19. Retroid

    All I’ll say is: good luck with 3D, commercial companies. The mass market are only just grasping HD and that’s something which offers much smaller TVs and larger displays, and you lot are actually wanting to sell something far more expensive with far less support which people will need to wear glasses to use properly?

    /Picard

    #19 4 years ago
  20. get2sammyb

    Oh look – the games industry is once again proving they don’t want to move forward. I’m sick of people acting like you have to go and buy a 3D TV right now.

    No one’s saying that. The early adopters will be the test bed. They’ll test the waters. They’ll see what happens. You’re not ready to buy a new TV yet? THAT’S FINE.

    Wait. Let the content come out. Let the developers get better at using it. Let the glasses technology fade out. Then, years down the line, when you are ready for 3D – you’ll buy it.

    This period happens with every new technology. I bet you didn’t want HD, but you’ve got it now. Baby-steps folks. This is the start. No-one’s telling you to adopt it over night.

    #20 4 years ago
  21. Freek

    Headaches come form the fact that you are flashing two different images to your eyes in order to trick your brain into seeing depth where there is non.

    It’s inherent to the current generation 3D tech. Movies just about get away with it due to them being about 2 hours long. But gaming? A much more visually intense activity that can last much longer? Could be problematic.
    Certainly not everybody will be effected. And considering the current amount of people with the tech to play 3D games is low, it’ll probably take some time for this to become a wider problem.

    #21 4 years ago
  22. Boris Fett

    “This requires a new tv that costs an arm and a leg that a VAST majority of people (and therefore also gamers) will not purchase for quite a few years to come =/”

    In truth, the very same thing was said about HD-TVs and the current gen consoles back when they were originally released.

    I’m definitely going to be checking out some of these 3D games at E3. I remain sceptical, but we’ll have to wait and see.

    “The mass market are only just grasping HD”

    Considering that it’s basically been impossible (bar a minor few exceptions) to buy cathode-ray tube TVs for at least 3 years now, I would argue that the mass market is much further ahead than simply “grasping” the idea of HD. It’s the standard.

    #22 4 years ago
  23. OlderGamer

    I used to get a hella headache when I used Nintendos V.Boy a few years back. And I have read several problems thus far with even semi extended 3D use, Freek is right about that.

    #23 4 years ago
  24. AHA-Lambda

    “In truth, the very same thing was said about HD-TVs and the current gen consoles back when they were originally released.”

    True but to echo what OlderGamer said I only just got an HDTV about a year and a half ago. My parents and brother have only recently got theirs aswell. It’s just TOO soon after HD has just got adopted.

    Theres no point in 3d gaming until a few years down the line when:

    sets get cheaper
    sets get better
    and potentially the tech for no glasses appears (which will also get cheaper and better)

    yet companies are telling me to go out and buy another new tv (potentially replace those 3 relatively new tvs) wear glasses ffs, potentially suffer headaches and viewing angle problems all for something that hasn’t got mass consumer support yet so I get the privilege of playing KZ3 in 3D? NO ****ing WAY!

    AND if it is ANYTHING like 3D from cinemas then i can conclusively say right now that it is a useless bloody gimmick and I want no part in it. At least with HD there was a real benefit to be had in it (moreso on the games front imo, the difference between bluray and dvd movies isnt THAT good)

    #24 4 years ago
  25. ninjanutta

    Ive heard nothing but good reports from people that have tried true 3d gaming,im going to be getting a 3d tv by the end of the year.nobody can say its crap,its not even out yet.all pc 3d adopters praise it highly,i beleive its very much the future of gaming as we know it.

    #25 4 years ago
  26. OlderGamer

    “(moreso on the games front imo, the difference between bluray and dvd movies isnt THAT good)”

    I have been saying that for a long time now.

    If you know me, you know I own a PS3. We have a handfull of BluRays(My wife owns all of the Harry Potters)(and I got 8 free BluRays when I bought my first PS3), and I can w/o a doubt tell you that we use BluRay very little.

    We Netflix and always get the movie/tv show in SD not BluRay.

    XB360 is one hella good upscaler(better then PS3, but that is good too). So for us SD means Upscaled anyways.

    SD is far cheaper then BluRay.

    And the quality difference between upscaled SD and BluRays is not so drastic that it detracks value from the experience.

    Plus, while I do own HDTVs in rooms were TV is watched, I only own one PS3/BluRay player. Buying SD means I can watch the movie in anyroom, on any dvd/ps3/xb360/pc, and I can let my folks barrow and enjoy the movie too.

    I never understood the love for BluRays. They are nice, but they are not revolutionary.

    And for me, like most people, if the price isn’t low enough it doesn’t matter how nice something is. Samething for 3DTV/gaming(incidently same goes for Natal – what are they thinking?). If people have to choose between good and great, they will pick the one they can afford everytime.

    #26 4 years ago
  27. Psychotext

    I’ve used it on the PC quite a bit and I haven’t been particularly impressed. I suspect that the bigger screen would help, but the PS3 demos I’ve seen haven’t been great either. Meh. Still in its infancy though.

    I’m not happy about the resolution / frame rate compromises though. Not at all. Maybe next gen.

    #27 4 years ago
  28. Retroid

    As shown with HD, the general public have to have these things almost forced upon them when they replace a TV because it’s past its best / breaks. HD is taking off with them now largely because the TVs are in their homes already, and now they can be pointed towards things which will look much better on their new(ish) sets.

    A lot of gamers I knew used their new 360s with existing monitors in their houses to use the HD resolutions, then got HDTVs later on. Not many people have existing 3D tech in their houses.

    #28 4 years ago
  29. reask

    I’m glad you mentioned the BR V up-scaled DVD thing OG.
    I have not been really impressed either with the difference.
    I have watched about a dozen films on BR and have noticed little or no difference.

    Best example was last Saturday when I rented 2 films one BR and one DVD as the telly in the living room is sd and just an ordinary player as well.

    Straight after I watched the BR one I put the standard one into the PS and as far as I could tell there was no difference in quality.
    Some folks say you need a film with special effects going on a lot to appreciate it but I watched casino royale and found it no different.
    Gonna watch saving private Ryan the weekend so hope its good as it was optimized for BR.

    #29 4 years ago
  30. OlderGamer

    @reask

    Some folks will go nuts over this stuff, but honestly I just don’t see it. I mean I do see it, but it isn’t a big deal to me. I bet a lot of folks feel the same way we do.

    #30 4 years ago
  31. ninjanutta

    try avatar or 9 and then tell me that you cant tell the difference in blu ray and SD? either you have very poor tv’s or maybe need glasses,i have loads of 1080 hd movies on my ps3 HDD and i can see a massive difference.not all movies i agree but when its the right movie theres no comparison

    #31 4 years ago
  32. Raining_Upwards

    @30 Yep, I agree. If it doesn’t add anything worthwhile to my current gaming experience, I couldn’t give two shits beyond initial curiosity.

    @31 You are also right, but it depends on the source. A fully HD digitally shot movie such as Avatar will better illustrate the clarity gulf between SD and HD display resolutions. Films shot on SD cameras and most TV shows will not (and sometimes look a little worse on Blu-ray/HD-DVD/.MKV/.H264) look any better in Hi-Def in comparison to regular upscaling.

    This is especially true if a film has a heavy post processing effect such as grain (Casino Royale), or if the source material is old as hell (Blackadder, Red Dwarf, Only Fools & Horses etc..).

    Native Resolution > Upscaled Resolution is logically the rule of thumb, but it will always comes down to the source.

    #32 4 years ago
  33. AHA-Lambda

    I’m glad people agreed with me on the blu ray thing actually :)

    people always say i’m mad if i cant see the difference after all =/

    #33 4 years ago
  34. reask

    Well Its a Sony Bravia I own so kinda good telly I would say.
    I agree with your point on certain films alright.
    But there the rub really when you think about it.
    Chances are the films you mention most folks would go to the cinema to get the full experience any way.

    #34 4 years ago
  35. reask

    You are mad aha :D

    #35 4 years ago
  36. The Hindle

    Blue Ray was more the Ps3 games then films i think, Uncharted 2 or GT 5 or Gow 3 all benefit because of Blue Ray. Its allowed Sony to really raise the bar graphics wise with thier exclusives.

    #36 4 years ago
  37. justiceblob

    when I first had my PS3, I used the HDMI cable that I got free. When that cable eventually broke, I treated myself to a better one. the guld between HD and SD was then immedietly impressive. Another point is the sound, the ever underestimated factor. the sound on a blu ray through a mid range surround sound system is 100x better than using the same speakers using a dvd.

    and anyone hoping for 3d without glasses is currently out of luck, as the autostereoscopic solutions we have now rely on the viewer sitting in a specific location, and are even more comprimising than with glasses.

    #37 4 years ago
  38. reask

    I certainly would not disagree with you on UC2.
    A brilliant looking game + excellent game play.
    Cant comment on others as have not played them.

    #38 4 years ago
  39. Gadzooks!

    @26 & 29

    I have to agree. There’s only 1 BR movie that I have ever actually noticed a sharpness and detail that isnt present on the DVD and that is Iron Maiden – Flight 666, bizarrely enough. The live performances look stupendously sharp.

    Around £12 is my tipping point for movies, and DVD always gets to that price at least 6 months before Bluray and as I tend to impulse buy I rarely bother to wait for Blurays to fall from the ‘ripoff’ price bracket.

    I own an almost infinite amount of DVD’s and a grand total of 3 BR movies. Kinda galling as the BR player was the main reason I bought a PS3.

    Surely BR uptake is enough now so that BR movies can no longer command such a stupid premium over DVD?

    #39 4 years ago
  40. reask

    @ 37
    So you reckon the cable quality can make a big difference?
    Very interesting.

    #40 4 years ago
  41. OlderGamer

    I have a gold plated monster made HDMI cable. I notice no difference between that and the cheap knock off one I have.

    #41 4 years ago
  42. justiceblob

    @40 entirely. I thought spending any amount of money on a cable above the bare minimum was pointless, but now I honest.y believe that paying just that little premium makes all the difference.

    #42 4 years ago
  43. Whizzo

    HDMI is a digital connection, unless you’re running over a long distance and want to reduce possible interference with better shielding, any cable will do.

    You can’t get better quality zeroes and ones because you’ve spent more money.

    #43 4 years ago
  44. Psychotext

    43 speaks the truth. HDMI either works, or it becomes broken in an obvious way (unlike with analogue connections which can become blurry or have ghosting)…

    Here’s an example of the sort of thing you’d see: http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests/fifth-element-glitch.jpg

    or

    http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests/sparkles-1.jpg

    #44 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.