Sections

Xbox boss questions “consumer demand” for 3D

Wednesday, 23rd June 2010 10:29 GMT By Patrick Garratt

3dglasses

Sony may have bet big on 3D during its E3 press conference, but Xbox production boss Aaron Greenberg has questioned the readiness of the market for the technology, saying Microsoft is to take “pull than a push approach” to 3D and will wait “until the market responds”.

Speaking to VG247 at E3, Greenberg warned that the need for “expensive” equipment such as new TVs and 3D glasses could mean a “narrow market opportunity”.

“The question is whether or not the consumer demand is there,” said the exec. “That’s the unanswered question.

“We’re not a consumer electronics company that’s trying to sell 3D TVs, so we have the benefit of waiting until the market responds. We’re going to take probably more of a pull than a push approach.”

Despite not airing 3D at all as part of its E3 output, Microsoft is ready for anyone wanting to play games or watch movies in 3D, Greenberg said.

“We’re a fully 3D-capable console today. We support 3D games that are in the market today. If you look at things like Avatar and the new Batman game, and some of the titles that were announced in 3D [at E3] like Crysis 2, they’re coming to Xbox 360.

“There’s no confusion that anyone looking for a 3D gaming experience will find those same experiences on the Xbox.”

Sony demoed Killzone 3 in 3D during its press conference, and promised heavy support for those upgrading TVs to play in 3D, with games like Motorstorm: Apocalypse, Gran Turismo 5, LittleBigPlanet 2 and The Sly Cooper Collection all supporting the tech.

Sony WWS boss Shuheo Yoshida said at E3 that “almost all” Sony game studios are now researching 3D.

Latest

76 Comments

  1. pha1r

    Ask the same question about kinect.

    #1 4 years ago
  2. Freek

    You’ll get the same answer. The market wants motion control, thanks to the Wii, so MS “moved” along.

    #2 4 years ago
  3. Gadzooks!

    If ‘almost all’ Sony game studios are investing heavily in 3D then ‘almost all’ my attention is going to be diverted away from the PS3.

    It’s clear that 3D is of no interest to the majority of gamers until non-glasses 3D arrives.

    The last time Sony tried to force unnecesary technology on the market (cell) they ended up billions in debt, had to sell off large portions of their corporation and ended up ditching said technology. They dont learn lessons well do they? ;D

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Erthazus

    “It’s clear that 3D is of no interest to the majority of gamers until non-glasses 3D arrives.”

    Fanboy Xbox 360 bullshit.

    I have 2 3D products already.
    My two friends have 3D Nvidia 3d Vision and going to buy 3D TV’s by the end of the year.

    If you are casual gamer that can’t afford more then one box, your problem.
    By the end of the year i’m going to buy 3DS if it will come out or next year when it will come out. Next year by the end of a March i will probably buy 3DTV and i will give my old HDTV to my family.

    “The last time Sony tried to force unnecesary technology on the market (cell) they ended up billions in debt, had to sell off large portions of their corporation and ended up ditching said technology. They dont learn lessons well do they? ;D”

    Cell is not their technology first of all. Last time they pushed Blu ray and it’s pretty well in the market.
    And they didn’t sell their portion of corporation to anyone except your fanboyish 360 thoughts. Have problems with knowledge? Go read wikipedia.

    #4 4 years ago
  5. Balbarian

    What about a free iPlayer service down the line of what the PS3 has with it getting the new update as well being announced recently?

    I bet way more customers want a FREE service over a paid for Sky Player service that only a minority of existing Sky owners would want anyway – not people who weren’t signed up to Sky previously.

    Aaron Greedberg is starting to have a nice ring to it.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. Blerk

    A lack of interest in 3D doesn’t equate to fanboyism, Erthazus. The point is valid – the technology at the minute is a curiosity at best and while that may appeal to the early adopters and the high-enders, is it really what the masses want at this point in time? I’d say no.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. The Hindle

    Its not meant for now though, by implementing it now Sony will be in pole position when 3d does take off.

    #7 4 years ago
  8. Erthazus

    “A lack of interest in 3D doesn’t equate to fanboyism, Erthazus.”

    Of course not. But knowing Gadzooks that speaks the “Obvious trash” for other companies except for their beloved Microsoft or Xbox?

    “high-enders, is it really what the masses want at this point in time?”

    Actually by the time, it will be affordable to everyone. Every HDTV will have a 100% feature of 3D. Like it was with 720P, then with 1080P, now it’s going to be with 3D.

    And according to masses who saw AVATAR, there is a big demand. I think we gamers don’t know what casuals think. Some of them can’t afford, but can later, some of them wants 3D Now.
    Gross Revenue was just $2,729,768,063 for Avatar. Thats just shows how much demand was in this uncertain economic climate situation.

    And let me remind that in terms of worldwide revenue, Avatar has grossed more than Titanic after adjusting for inflation.

    #8 4 years ago
  9. hitnrun

    It’s a fair point. Sony (and its electronics competitors) is trying to push 3DTV on us because it wants the tech to be the Next Big Thing, now that HDTVs are no longer a luxury item.

    And no, the 3DS is not the same thing, since it’s self-contained in a new system.

    So far, the only interest I’ve seen are from people who already own PS3s. (Similar in that regard to Move and Kinect.)

    #9 4 years ago
  10. Gadzooks!

    @4

    “Fanboy Xbox 360 bullshit.”

    Stupid comment. I dont want 3D on Xbox or PS3 or any console if it means I need glasses.

    “I have 2 3D products already.”

    You are in a very very small minority.

    “If you are casual gamer that can’t afford more then one box, your problem.”

    I have 360 and PS3 and I am not a ‘casual gamer’, I enjoy games of all types.

    “By the end of the year i’m going to buy 3DS”

    So am I most likely, because it’s 3D that doesnt require glasses.

    “they didn’t sell their portion of corporation to anyone except your fanboyish 360 thoughts.”

    As usual, your post makes no sense.

    A very quick google on the subject returns this: http://gizmodo.com/312279/sony-sells-cell-chip-business-to-toshiba.

    They also sold other parts of their business to keep funding for Cell and PS3 going. This is common knowledge.

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Freek

    Listening to some of the E3 feedback on GiantBomb and Shacknews podcast the reactions to 3D seem to varry from, interesting (GT5), nice (Killzone 3) to downright nausiating (Motorstorm). It’s not quite there yet.
    Although everybody seems impressed by the 3DS, because it doesn’t need glasses and you can varry the effects intensity.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. Blerk

    I’m sure every telly will end up with the capability eventually, Erthazus, but still – do people actually want it? It’s all very well going to the cinema for a couple of hours to see Avatar, but for everyday viewing and gaming? I’m not convinced, especially while the technology still requires you to shell out for a rather expensive pair of specs for everyone in your family and to all be sitting at precisely the right angle in order for it to work.

    I understand that it’s all ‘for the future’, but if that’s the case what’s the point of putting so much energy and money into it right now when so few people can use it? Why not wait for the point where 3D is ‘for free’ in most tellies and do it then?

    Sony are obviously buoyed by their Blu-Ray victory and think they can push this technology in the same way, but I think they’re fighting a much harder battle this time around.

    #12 4 years ago
  13. DrDamn

    @3
    Almost all Sony studios are researching 3D – not necessarily investing heavily. Supporting it is really not the huge deal you make it out to be in terms of resources for a well planned game. Retro fitting into existing games yes. Planning it in to new titles no.

    If you want to talk investing heavily then look more at the motion tech. Don’t you think MS are pouring cash and resources into Kinect at the expense of core gaming?

    #13 4 years ago
  14. DrDamn

    @12
    You won’t get to the state where it’s included in all TVs without a reason to do it though. Getting people who want it now interested with a decent amount of content and ramp up from there.

    Side point – this is not exclusive Sony tech – though they obviously have an interest right through the chain. Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Philips are all making 3D TVs.

    #14 4 years ago
  15. StolenGlory

    Sorry, the cost versus the potential of the tech to improve my games ratio is so laughable right now that the technology seems superfluous to me right now.

    Bearing in mind this is just my opinion.

    *shrug*

    “It’s clear that 3D is of no interest to the majority of gamers until non-glasses 3D arrives.”

    “Fanboy Xbox 360 bullshit.”

    I have the same point of view and I don’t even have a 360.

    Life can be a funny thing sometimes can’t it?

    #15 4 years ago
  16. KAP

    Its funny how against 3D M$ was now they have a “we’ll see how the response is” what a joke.

    @2

    Purely for the casual market how ever Sony or M$ wanna spin it. Dont get suckered in to there nonsence!

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Rhythm

    I was 100% behind HDTV (even if it’s still borked thanks to low framerate) but 3D really is a questionable “want”. It’s a classic example of tech companies trying to boost their revenue by placing a tech very few people want or need onto the market purely to try and give people a reason to “upgrade” only a couple of years after they’d already bought into HD.

    Despite his usual game-hating attitude, I’m with Roger Ebert on the 3D issue. It adds *nothing* to the experience. It was reintroduced to cinema solely to try and counter depleting numbers as people get larger and larger screens at home. Experiences in film are not added to (or detracted from, to be fair) for their being in 3D. Hell, aside from Avatar and the 100% CG movies, there’s little content that’s *actually* filmed in 3D anyway, with most stuff being post-processed by hand in editing. I saw Avatar in both 2 and 3d and neither version was any better than the other

    Ditto games. It’s a “nice to have” but it doesn’t make games any better. I’ve played Need For Speed Shift & Batman AA in 2d and 3d and again, neither was any better than the other.

    I’m a bit pissed that Ninty have wimped out with the 3DS in this area. Sure it’s a nice powerful handheld and the screen works, but you’re only adding a 3D view to content that’s ostensibly 2D. Even when they do give you a stunning 3d image/scenario, they’re not giving you the player any meaningful way to interact with it – the controls are still the same old 2d plane button/stick combinations.

    #17 4 years ago
  18. Erthazus

    @10 Jesus, because Sony, Toshiba and IBM CREATED that Cell Processor. Toshiba use them in their TV sets.
    While Sony use them in their consoles that IBM produce for them.
    It’s IBM technology. Sony just invested in to it 400 million dollars and with Toshiba helped IBM to create that beast. That beast that have power to show us games like God Of war 3 with Morphological Anti aliasing and of course my favourite Uncharted 2.

    @Blerk

    “Erthazus, but still – do people actually want it?”

    I really don’t know. I know that my family don’t even know about 3DTV much.
    It’s all the question about Marketing campaign. Sony said that it will push 3D TV and if it’s not going to work, they are going to spend 100 million dollars using brainwashing marketing campaigns to sell 3DTV’s.

    “everyday viewing and gaming? I’m not convinced”

    Blerk, you never tried. Thats the question. Actually it’s awesome. There are really some shitty 3D adaptations like Avatar or Splinter Cell, but games like Arkham Asylum or Just Cause 2 or Metro 2033 just fucking fantastic.

    I don’t know yet about single Playstation 3 game, but i was at the Sony center and saw 3D videos through PS3 slim and it was fine.

    “so much energy and money into it right now when so few people can use it?”

    Someone need to do it. Sony do that stuff since second world war and they are very successfull in these stuff.

    “Sony are obviously buoyed by their Blu-Ray victory and think they can push this technology in the same way, but I think they’re fighting a much harder battle this time around.”

    Blerk, just go and see the story behind Sony. They had a lot of battles with DVD’s and Blu rays and they are successfull with them. They have behind them Sony Pictures that can say: Want to watch our movie? Only on 3D blu ray and you can’t do something about it.
    thats how they always push it’s tech.

    #18 4 years ago
  19. Blerk

    @Erthazus, I’ve seen 3D stuff in the cinema and used in-store demos but have never sat down and used it for any length of time at home. The one thing I can say for sure about the cinema tech is that while it’s an impressive effect, it gives me a headache and I find that I have trouble focussing my eyes on it properly after about 20 minutes to the point where I have to keep taking the glasses off for a while to have a ‘rest’. That’s certainly not ideal for the way I like to play games, hence my main concerns about the tech (aside from the price).

    #19 4 years ago
  20. Erthazus

    @19 Because in Cinema’s they give you CHEAP glasses.
    Do you think i don’t have headaches?
    I was skeptical when friend showed be #D Nvidia 3D vision.

    But after that, i don’t have problems with 3D.

    http://www.doispontozero.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Nvidia_GeForce_Vision_3D_610x444.jpg – Shwing!

    #20 4 years ago
  21. Gadzooks!

    @13

    Supporting 3D will have an impact on game developement time and resources. This is a fact. Look up how the majority of engines render transaparencies, look up antialiasing techniques, look up shadowing.

    Many of the shortcuts that devs currently take with these techniques will no longer work with 3D and so development time will rise.

    Multiple 3D techniques will need to be accomodated and so development time will rise.

    3D and 2D modes will need separate testing and so development time will rise.

    Also, designers will want to design game elements that exploit 3D and these might not work well in 2D, in fact they might not work at all in 2D.

    Some are privieleged enough to be able to afford 3D, and tolerant enough to put up with the discomfort of using it. I am neither, and make no mistake, my 2D experience of 3D-centric games will suffer because of this. Thus, I will look elsewhere for non-compromised games.

    “Don’t you think MS are pouring cash and resources into Kinect at the expense of core gaming?. If you want to talk investing heavily then look more at the motion tech.”

    Do you think Sony arent? Both Sony and MS want to expand their audiences, and they will. Motion tech will have far more market penetration than 3D for the forseeable future, and far more people actually want motion tech integration, to lesser or greater degreees, than some uncomftortable 50′s era 3D tech.

    #21 4 years ago
  22. freedoms_stain

    I for one am not that bothered about 3D.

    I can’t really say that the 3D effect really enhanced my enjoyment of any of the films I’ve seen in 3D.

    It’s actually more of an annoyance than anything else. The effect is completely spoiled when 3D objects abruptly disappear when they reach the edge of the screen.

    As a glasses wearer I also find the additional 3D glasses cumbersome and uncomfortable. It’s not really how I want to spend my leisure time.

    #22 4 years ago
  23. Blerk

    Hmm… I’m pretty sure it’s the effect making my head spin, not the glasses. I saw a play at the theatre with some 3D bits on a screen and they gave us some rather expensive-looking glasses which we had to sign for and they were just the same. Luckily the actors were naturally in 3D. :-D

    #23 4 years ago
  24. NiceFellow

    Oh for Pete’s sake MS are a software company who have only got ‘very peripherally’ into some hardware to protect their interests in certain areas. Of course they don’t see much in 3D because it doesn’t mean much for them.

    Sony (and let’s face it Samsung, Panasonic, etc – why single out Sony) are all hardware manufacturers who’s core business is around developing and pushing new technology concepts (such as 3D) into our lives : of course they’re interested in 3D.

    If 3D takes of due to the HW guys then MS will simply support it where necessary – but they have no interest in pushing it as it means nothing (currently anyway) to their core business.

    #24 4 years ago
  25. DrDamn

    @21
    I’ve spoken to devs I know about this. Fitting 3D into an existing well designed engine is something that would take one person a couple of weeks to do – it is not a big deal. It’s just an added feature like many others that you may or may not have an interest in. Games are full of them.

    #25 4 years ago
  26. Dralen

    After seeing Avatar in 3D I very much want 3D in my home. To be able to have it in games will be amazing. I haven’t got a 3DTV yet, but I sure as hell plan to get one.

    #26 4 years ago
  27. StolenGlory

    It will be amazing if devs can make it meaningful.

    #27 4 years ago
  28. Gadzooks!

    @25

    That is clearly not the case, or else Batman:AA would have had better 3D support on consoles. Read the EG article on the 3D update. Note the section on transparancies not always working properly.

    #28 4 years ago
  29. Kerplunk

    Including any additional feature will cost development time to rise. Whether it is 3D or whether it’s motion controls, multiplayer, surround-sound or online. They all cost time and money, on every level, to incorporate into a final product.

    3D integration is no different in this regard.

    #29 4 years ago
  30. DrDamn

    @28
    That was a very specific method of adding 3D used in Batman:AA – TriOviz 3D. It’s a bit cheap and cheerful – relies heavily on the Z-buffer – it also uses paper glasses and works on any 2D display.

    #30 4 years ago
  31. Gadzooks!

    @30

    The point in that example is that in a lot of cases shortcuts are currently made to render transparencies, shadows and AA. These shortcuts do not necessarily work with 3D so will need refactoring whether it’s a retrofit or a new 3D engine.

    This refactoring WILL affect both development time and rendering speed.

    Now, lets assume a new game is developed with a brand new 3D compatible engine. Do you think the devs will use two transparency rendering methods, one slower but 3D-correct method and one 2D ‘hack’ method?

    If not, then the effect on the 2D rendition of the game is that it will render scenes at a slower rate than a dedicated non-stereoscopic engine.

    #31 4 years ago
  32. DrDamn

    Those are problems with the TriOviz approach – the transparencies & shadows aren’t covered in the Z-buffer which it relies on. It doesn’t render two views by shifting the camera as the proper 3D stuff does – it take a single view and modifies it based on the Z-buffer.

    This isn’t the approach Sony is using or advocating with it’s own stuff because of these sort of issues. Read this one … TriOviz is discussed on page 3. Sony have looked at 2D + depth methods and specifically developed ways around those extra issues too.

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-making-of-ps3-3d-article

    #32 4 years ago
  33. OlderGamer

    I gotta say I agree.

    Its not xbox fanboyism(I play on PC most anyways). I just honestly don’t care for 3D. I don’t want to buy new TVs, and I don’t feel like wearing glasses. Also my wife and one son both have a “lazy” eye, and it messes up their depth preception. They can’t see a 3D movie at the teathers. I don’t see 3Dtv/games being any better for them.

    I don’t know, maybe someday 3D will have its time, i just don’t think that right now(in the thralls of a resecion) is a smart time to launch something like this.

    #33 4 years ago
  34. Gadzooks!

    @32

    Please re-read post 31, especially paragraphs 3 and 4.

    TriOviz fails because of the same rendering shortcuts that will cause true 3D engines problems.

    #34 4 years ago
  35. El_MUERkO

    If you’ve seen 3d games in action then you should want the tech. For sure it’d be nice to have glasses free viewing and there will be issues for people who have eye problems until then but I have no issues with wearing the glasses to play games or watch movies.

    Is 3D essential? No. Is it excellent when done well? Yes

    I’ve got my VT20 on pre-order but it’s a £2000 TV so 3d is not going to be mainstream for a long time but in 4/5 years I can see the majority of games supporting the extra dimension.

    #35 4 years ago
  36. DrDamn

    @34
    No it doesn’t. TriOviz fails with transparencies because it has no way to determine where it should move it for the “other” eye. It’s not in the Z buffer info it uses. A true 3D engine just renders the scene again – and the transparency will be in the correct place for the 3D effect because the camera has moved.

    #36 4 years ago
  37. Gheritt White

    I reckon it’ll work out similar to HD TV adoption rates. IIRC, you could buy HD TVs for the home around the turn of the century, but it wasn’t until around ’07 that they had mass market pick-up. It wasn’t until the prince point for a good, reputable TV was £500 – £750 that adoption became widespread. At least, that’s how I remember it.

    There will always be wealthy early adopters who will rush to buy the newest, latest, most up-to-datest tech – but for the rest of us, I seriously doubt that 3D TVs will have much of an impact in the *majority* of people’s living rooms until the second half of this decade.

    I agree that glasses-free is essential – glasses work out fine for the cinema as that’s “an experience”, but for every day use encouraging people to put on special glasses every time they turn on their TV/monitor will be a very hard sell… especially when coupled with ultra-high price-points and limited 3D content available (in comparison to 2D offerings).

    As for games, it’s really no trouble at all to develop games to be compatible with 3D TV sets, so we’ll probably see plenty being made. I don’t think you’ll see games that *require* 3D sets until 2016 at the absolute earliest. There simply wouldn’t be an install base to support them!

    For the time being, then, I think that 3D TV sets will remain the preserve of wealthy technophiles. Only when the price point for glasses-free 3D TVs comes down to £500 – £750 will they gain traction in the market. That much should be self-evident.

    #37 4 years ago
  38. theevilaires

    Well I’ll be buying a 3D TV before KZ3 releases maybe even sooner if SONY releases a nice designed one.

    Hey Gadzooks! step out of your denial and “Step Your Game Up!” :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOYgAIvpCA

    #38 4 years ago
  39. DrDamn

    @37
    On the glasses point. I see it being similar to movies for games though. It’s not something I would use all the time and want to see on every game. It’s an experience as you say – so I’m fine with it like that. We aren’t actually that far off the upper limit of those prices either – you can shop around and get one for < £900.

    I think take up will be slower than HDTV as a lot of people will have just bought in to the HDTV experience and not want/need another TV for maybe 10 years. It is something that will just creep into the standard as a feature though. So buy any decent TV in 3 years time and it will be included.

    #39 4 years ago
  40. Gadzooks!

    @36

    Think about what you have said for a second because you are agreeing with me already:

    Transparencies and some other effects have no z-buffer info. Why? Because there are quick and dirty methods of rendering them.

    How do you overcome this? Render them properly, with z buffer info.

    What is the net result? Slower rendering.

    #40 4 years ago
  41. DrDamn

    You don’t need to overcome this though! If you move the camera and render two frames you don’t *need* the z-buffer info for the 3D effect. That’s the crux of why it’s a problem for TriOviz and not for a proper 3D implementation.

    #41 4 years ago
  42. polygem

    So some guys are seriously looking forward to standing in their living rooms with two black glowing sticks in their hands wearing some very strange looking glasses chatting with their huge tv sets? Sorry but i wont join that freak show any time soon… I’m intersted in 3d and i’ll start my home 3d experience with the 3 ds…no glasses required. Then in 4 or even 5 years when the technology is there and prices are fair i’ll be more than happy to upgrade my tv set. Still i hope that i can keep using a regular controller to play games.

    #42 4 years ago
  43. theevilaires

    well you have fun squinting at your tiny 3ds screen and soon you won’t need to worry about 3d glass, you’ll be wearing everyday eye seeing ones. If 3ds is not recommend for certain people then I’d say chances are you’ll be effected in some way too.

    So have fun with that Nintendo class action lawsuit because you couldn’t read those reflective highway signs properly and you caused a highway accident.

    While others will be at home enjoying KZ3 and other HD games on their brand new 40+ inch HD3dTV

    PEW :) PEW :D PEW :P

    #43 4 years ago
  44. polygem

    Man i fucking hope so… I look so cool with my flatmates paul frank and moscot glasses but i got eagle sharp eyes…cant wait to finally need some glasses.

    #44 4 years ago
  45. theevilaires

    You hope a machine damages your eye sight so you potentially crash on the road and maybe kill someone so a judge can order you to wear a pair of over priced glassed tin metal frames after you do 15 years in prison for man slaughter?

    …..yeaaaaah, nice talking to you buddy. You have a nice day and fun with your 3DS. I’m going to go play some big boy games now excuse me.

    #45 4 years ago
  46. G1GAHURTZ

    I’m not interested in the current level of 3D technology, as it doesn’t offer much.

    It’s like reading a graphic novel v’s reading a pop-up graphic novel.

    The only thing that interests me is the 3DS, but that might just be because I haven’t seen one in person yet.

    #46 4 years ago
  47. Gadzooks!

    @43

    “While others will be at home enjoying KZ3 and other HD games on their brand new 40+ inch HD3dTV”

    Yeah, all 10 3DTV owners that can stomach wearing headgear which makes them look like a twat and gives them splitting migraines. Playing the worlds must dull and generic shooter too? Well now that surely is a privilege.

    Compared to tens of millions of 3DS owners, probably within the first few months of it going on sale.

    Woo, I bet Nintendo are shitting themselves about that statistic.

    #47 4 years ago
  48. theevilaires

    :D thats coming from the guy who just cried in another article about ignoring me with a button :D keep up the good work letting everyone know I’m in your head 247 :P

    If you can’t afford 3D then by all means shut it, cause if you could you would. You have no problem going to the movies and sitting there for 2 1/2 hours watching tall blue people but can’t for an hour of a video game.

    Oh and when did SONY say KZ3 can’t be played without a 3DTV…exactly. But if this was M$ you’d all be bent over ready to drop whatever price they ask just like you will do for Natal :D

    Can’t afford a new 3DTV sucks for you not me and the others who can.

    Shut up or “Step Your Game Up” easy as that

    #48 4 years ago
  49. ivycrew707

    Didnt Sony have some cooler looking glasses at E3? I saw a pair on one of the videos they kinda favored Oakleys

    #49 4 years ago
  50. Gadzooks!

    @48

    Aw, poor little TEA, dont be so upset.

    I’m sure your mommy still loves you, even if you look like a special ed kid with your headset on, eyes red, pupils dilated, drooling as you crywank over your unreturned love letters to Ken.

    #50 4 years ago
  51. Galactic_Barret

    I’m watching these arguments, and they seem very familiar. Like with HDTVs and Blu-Ray, I think.

    Sony was a major supporter of Full 1080p, going so far as to include 2 HDMI ports in the PS3. People said it was too expensive. Those people were wrong, correct?

    Blu-Ray. You want 1080p movies? How about a minimum of 25Gb capacity? Not in the beginning; It was too expensive, it had a war with HD-DVD. How about now? Do we still have to debate its successes?

    Point is, if it was just Sony, fine, but major TV companies other then Sony are supporting this, within 2-3 years every TV you buy will have this tech; Sony has that inside scoop in this area, seeing as they’re in the TV business. So they’ll continue to implement this tech prominently, when it does hit that ‘acceptable’ penetration level, Sony will have an evolved and matured 3D implementation process shared among their studios working on their console, MS will half-heartedly follow suit, and everyone will forget this ever happened.

    At least, historically.

    #51 4 years ago
  52. ivycrew707

    Seems like a good idea to get a head start imo. Yeah its not in demand now, but at least they will have alot of the kinks worked out when it does become high demand.

    #52 4 years ago
  53. ivycrew707

    Wow u guys musta fixed the sending messages to fast bug

    #53 4 years ago
  54. spiderLAW

    what are you guys griping about?
    You all always complain that the games arent in 60fps….well if 3D is the next step in tech, you are guaranteed that 60fps you wanted….
    I also here gameplay is most important right? how does 3D ruin gameplay. In reality, it might add depth to a regular 2d experiences.

    #54 4 years ago
  55. theevilaires

    :D oh Gadzooks! I’m sure it would make your day to see me calling you names furiously (like you have done to me all this past week) trying to anger me :D :D :D all I can say is…..

    PEW! :) PEW! :D PEW! :P keep trying kid, maybe one day you’ll be as great as me.

    #55 4 years ago
  56. spiderLAW

    @53, no they didnt. I still get that error. Like right now.

    #56 4 years ago
  57. ivycrew707

    lol, oh i’ve been posting away freely

    #57 4 years ago
  58. Gadzooks!

    @55

    It would make my day to see you post something that wasnt an inflammatory string of faeces.

    Try it once, you might like it.

    #58 4 years ago
  59. Gadzooks!

    @41

    “You don’t need to overcome this though! If you move the camera and render two frames you don’t *need* the z-buffer info for the 3D effect. That’s the crux of why it’s a problem for TriOviz and not for a proper 3D implementation.”

    Kinda lost track of this discussion, so back on topic:

    Right, if the current cheapest method of rendering transparencies is to overlay them in a final pass then that means there is no depth information for them. Fine for a single viewpoint.

    If you render two camera views you render two views with transparencies overlaid right at the front of the scene so it will not solve the problem. Transaparencies will still look like they are hovering in front of the 3D scene.

    The one and only way to overcome this is to render transparencies along with the other 3D geometry and that means large changes to rendering engines and greatly increased workloads for engines that dont already do this.

    #59 4 years ago
  60. polygem

    @45. Interesting how you see the world: someone who is not interested in 3 d yet must be poor. A guy who needs glasses shouldnt drive a car because he would cause a massmurderesque crash…if i try to look at the world through your eyes i cant help but imagine you in front of your 40″ tv in an ss uniform wearing a tiny beard upon your upper lip.

    #60 4 years ago
  61. DrDamn

    @Gadzooks
    Nah think about it some more the transparencies will be fine, the depth is generated by the difference of where it is placed between the two views. It doesn’t matter. Hard to explain without pictures but it really matters not a jot.

    #61 4 years ago
  62. Gadzooks!

    @61

    Okay we agree to disagree then. I know for a fact that what I am describing is a problem for stereoscopic 3D. I might not be explaining it clearly enough but I can’t be bothered saying the same thing over and over.

    #62 4 years ago
  63. DrDamn

    It is a problem for stereoscopic 3d generated in a particular way (using the z buffer to generate the second image rather than rendering a second view properly). It’s a factual point, not something you can agree to disagree on. I can post a link to a technical doc later which will clarify.

    #63 4 years ago
  64. Gadzooks!

    @63

    As I said, we agree to disagree because you are convinced you are right and so am I.

    We will leave it there.

    #64 4 years ago
  65. DrDamn

    Well here are some facts which back up my view – can you supply the same?

    http://www.technology.scee.net/files/presentations/Stereoscopic_3D/PS3_Making_Stereoscopic_3D_Games.pdf

    Slide 35 – Covers *Alternative* ways to generate Stereoscopic 3D – Cons – Transparencies and reflections won’t work. Meaning that these are perfectly fine with the main described method. This problem you are talking about is very much specific to using a single 2D view + depth buffer.

    #65 4 years ago
  66. Gadzooks!

    Nice document. It actually highlights more restrictions in using stereoscopic 3D than I had known about.

    Things like ‘avoid using small fast object’. So particle showers (explosions, etc) will need to be simplified or toned down.

    The document also mentions to avoid shimmering by increasing texture filtering, so that’s going to be a huge burden on rendering times.

    Also you keep bringing up 2D+depth map for some reason. What I’m talking about is nothing to do with 2D+depth at all.

    I’m talking about multipass scene rendering to accomodate transparencies, things like deferred renderers/lighting which blend transparencies in as separate objects after basic geometry has been rendered.

    We were led to believe that basic geometry and textures could be re-used for both eye frames, but multipass renderers can introduce object obscuring and texture blending by transparencies at the final lighting stage.

    Sure, you can render two full scenes from different cameras, but to stop the game crawling to a juddering halt you would need to have at least one pass at transparencies while processing geometry.

    This makes dual view rendering faster but slows regular single view rendering.

    We’ve not touched on stippling yet either. Stippled shadows and transparencies are used in a huge number of games and will cause huge problems for dual view scenes, much like unfiltered textures. The problem is synchronising the stippling in both views. If you dont get them aligned then your 3D illusion is shattered.

    So there are a great number of problems with dual view rendering that are not problems for single views. For these problems to be addressed renderers need to use techniques that in a lot of cases will catagorically slow down single view scenes. All the quick and dirty techniques developed over the last 5 years or so will need to be evaluated.

    So please, do not tell me that 3D does not come at a cost to everyone, as it clearly does.

    #66 4 years ago
  67. Filofax

    @66 It does come at a cost but the gaming industry is very adaptive. I’m sure the geniuses that are working with 3D at the moment will find alternative ways to do things, you can bet that any company going into 3D has already found ways to deal with most of the thing’s you have listed.

    #67 4 years ago
  68. Gadzooks!

    @67

    Aye, naturally devs will get it all working. How efficiantly though? Nobody knows yet as we’ve only seen retrofitted 3D so far.

    My original point was that as a non-3D gamer my gaming experience will be worsened, to a greater or lesser degree depending on how much additional resource is thrown at game engine development, assets, testing, etc.

    This will naturally steer me away from titles developed as being 3D-compatible.

    #68 4 years ago
  69. DrDamn

    @Gadzooks
    “Also you keep bringing up 2D+depth map for some reason. What I’m talking about is nothing to do with 2D+depth at all.”

    See post 40 where you bought up transparencies and Batman:AA – that is all to do with 2D+Depth. You went on to talk about needing to include these sort of effects in the Z buffer as a work around.

    There are effects which don’t work so well in 3D. You are missing the more obvious point though, in the transistion to 3d you need to save clock cycles so alot of the time these will be prime candidates for taking that particular effect out. In some cases these are actually catered for in the 3D effect anyway.

    What is the dev trying to do? They need to save and optimise. To suggest they would not only take a more costly approach but also retrofit this more costly approach into and to the detriment of the 2D version is ludicrous.

    #69 4 years ago
  70. Gadzooks!

    @69

    Read post 40 again. It was relevant in context to post 66. If there was z buffer info (i.e transparencies were in the geometry pass) then there would be no problem rendering 2 views from them. 1 pass for geometry, 2 passes for lighting = quicker than 2 passes for geometry+lighting.

    “in the transistion to 3d you need to save clock cycles so alot of the time these will be prime candidates for taking that particular effect out.”

    Well that makes me feel a whole lot better about my games not being compromised!

    I get it okay, you like your gadgets and new tech! I’m not trying to downplay 3D, you’ll get it and probably love it and I’ll be pleased for you, but there is an impact on us ‘dont haves’, or more accurately ‘dont wants’.

    I personally am not going to part with my hard earned so that a tiny minority of people can enjoy new toys while I get a reduced service.

    As always I will vote with my wallet, and my wallet says ‘steer clear of games developed with 3D in mind’. That is the end of it.

    Can we now drop this subject?

    #70 4 years ago
  71. DrDamn

    @70
    When I said take the effect out I was talking specifically in the 3D implementation – it would stay in the 2D. :)

    We can drop it, but I have finally worked out what you are talking about in 66 so if you don’t mind I’ll continue a little you can stop reading if you want :D. It’s a useful idea in the 2D + depth type implementation but it’s not an option considered in the render 2 full views approach in the doc I linked. The only thing moved out of the individual views are the shadow maps which are scene specific. I still can’t see them retro fitting something more costly into the 2D renderer. The 3D render has to be different anyway they will continue to do things differently. Use the best approach on a per render basis.

    On the general point if they used the resource they put into the 3D on the 2D would it make it better? Yeah of course. Will they spend that resource on 2D if 3D wasn’t an option? Possibly not. They are willing to put the resource on 3D because they see a benefit in terms of potential higher sales and experience in an emerging tech. Obviously real world some games will see people pulled off 2D to make 3D a feature and 2D will suffer because of it. If resources are tight though I can see 3D being one of the first features dropped.

    The vast majority of 3D stuff this gen is going to come from Sony internal and they are evidentially sharing a lot of tech and experience.

    Realistically I also see a lot of 3D implementations taking the scaling route to quick and dirty optimisation. Not ideal but something which is quick and also has less impact in a 3D implementation. 640×720 in 3D looks better than 640×720 in 2D.

    As mentioned previously games tend to have a fuckton of features these days many of which I don’t use or want. I’ll continue to base my decisions on the features they have which I want rather than the features they have which I don’t though.

    On a general note for the document I linked – whilst it highlights a lot of issues you might see with 3D, I thought it was quite interesting in the aspects they consider – in particular in relation to ensuring the end image is comfortable to the viewer.

    #71 4 years ago
  72. Gadzooks!

    “you can stop reading if you want :D”

    No, I think I’ll continue this ‘last word’ competition if you dont mind.

    You are talking about games having completely different 2D and 3D renderers, correct?

    It’s a nice idea and devs with infinite time and money budgets might adopt it. Lets please just be realistic though, shall we? It just isnt going to happen in most cases.

    I’d be perfectly happy if a guarantee was made by devs that games are being optimised for traditional viewing but we both know that showcasing 3D will be the overriding priority right now for most devs developing a 3D-compatible game.

    #72 4 years ago
  73. DrDamn

    @72
    No not two completely different renderers – it’s easy enough to turn certain features on/off though isn’t it? Demos of render tech do it all the time.

    It’s similar to supporting split screen play – which incidentally supporting 3D is a benefit for (and vice versa). There are some differences sure, but if you have split screen already then it is easier to support 3D and if you are going to support 3D then it’s also easier to put in split screen where you may not have considered it before.

    Take up of 3D tech is going to ensure for some time yet that the viewing is going to be optimised for 2D though. Devs would be crazy not to.

    #73 4 years ago
  74. Gadzooks!

    Point taken on the splitscreen issue.

    3D showcasing will take priority though, mark my words.

    #74 4 years ago
  75. DrDamn

    Split screen has taken too much of a back seat in these online times – it’s due a bit of attention.

    #75 4 years ago
  76. Gadzooks!

    @75

    I hope so. This point needs to be hammered into the brain of every single Criterion employee.

    Split screen Burnout or else!

    #76 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.