3D to come on PS3's 3.20 firmware.

3d=ultra gimmick, and 99% of ps3 owners wont be able to take advantage of the 3.20 update any ways.

[QUOTE="bigblunt537"]

This has to be the biggest waste of time and money for sony. Very few people will utilize this feature.

roddollente

prolly not. although it's a recession, this may be the next big thing. remember Bluray vs HD-DVD? now, where are those people who bought an overpriced HD-DVD add-on for their 360? they can't use it anymore, to think that they've made an investment on it. it's inevitable. this wlll be the future of gaming. and yes, it adds to the experience. anyone who denies this hasnt played something in 3D. if you watched Avatar in 3D and non-3D there's a big difference. same thing here.

3D won't catch on. It has tried forever and will fail forever. KHAndAnime

A lot of things are tried and fail before finally catching on years later. To use a couple gaming examples, CDs and motion controls. The issue is often not if, but when the technology is cost effective and practical enough. We've come a long way from dual-tone glasses. That said, I suspect it won't truly become mainstream until we can get rid of the glasses altogether.

People act like 3D is a new thing in gaming. I was gaming in 3D in the 80's with Radracer!

Nothing beats some 3D rad racer with a powerglove.

Now all you need to do is where a pair of goofy glasses and a capable tv which isnt exactly a standard thing yet. Nice.

A little early for something like this. Still, more features...the better?

[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]Does 3D add a lot to the gaming experience?Episode_Eve

I'm really not interested in 3D. It wasn't that great in the 50's and it isn't that great now. Glasses irritate me anyways.

It's just a gimmick, in my opinion.

[QUOTE="WinnerByTKO"]

I love how Lemmings are coming here and writing about Sony "ripping" people off for optional products.

EndorphinMaster

Oh the irony :lol:

Have you forgotten how cows always whine about the 360 not coming with rechargable batteries for controllers? Or "teh wireless, teh hd dvd player"?

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

What the heck is all that other stuff? NAT traversal looks very interesting.

roddollente

Maybe because alotof people don't know how to fix the "NAT TYPE 3" thingy and therefore have problems with their mic and online games...although my connection stays at NAT type 3 but i have no problems whatsoever.

Just to add i watched Avarter in 3D apart from the 1st scence the 3D effects sucked. Says a lto to me about future of 3D and gaming Sony need to JUST focus on games.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="KittenWishes"]Yeah now all you need is a $4000 tvModern_Unit

$4000? Really? You are either trolling or aren't a very thrifty shopper. You can buy 60in+ 3D ready sets for ~$1500.

On an entirely unrelated note: I have a bunch of nearly new equipment that is almost top of the line, PM me for low low prices ;)

Dude, a 50 inch AT THE LEAST cost $1500...60 inch is more than $2000....

Mitsubishi 65" 1080p 120hz 3D ready $1499 (Free shipping)

3d=ultra gimmick, and 99% of ps3 owners wont be able to take advantage of the 3.20 update any ways.

WilliamRLBaker

The same arguement was made when HDTVs launched, hell it was even the same scenario when color TVs debuted. Wanna guess how that worked out?

[QUOTE="roddollente"]

i would want to play GT5 in 3D (im guessing we may be able to, since it's the first game to be shown in 3D in Sony events)

besides, all games can be patched to work on 3D. you dont need to re-do the whole game. Stig Asmussen (GOW3 director) said this in an interview.

Source

Zero_epyon

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

3d=ultra gimmick, and 99% of ps3 owners wont be able to take advantage of the 3.20 update any ways.

skektek

The same arguement was made when HDTVs launched, hell it was even the same scenario when color TVs debuted. Wanna guess how that worked out?

Perhaps if 3D hadn't been a fad for the past 40 years, and didn't cause eyestrain or involve uncomfortable glasses, making it unappealing to spend hours using it, I would be able to take it seriously.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

3d=ultra gimmick, and 99% of ps3 owners wont be able to take advantage of the 3.20 update any ways.

Pixel-Pirate

The same arguement was made when HDTVs launched, hell it was even the same scenario when color TVs debuted. Wanna guess how that worked out?

Perhaps if 3D hadn't been a fad for the past 40 years, and didn't cause eyestrain or involve uncomfortable glasses, making it unappealing to spend hours using it, I would be able to take it seriously.

Granted this type of stereoscopic 3D is a stop gap tech between true glassless 3D (which may be a ways off) but this iteration may very well prove to be more accessible to the masses just because LCD/DLP refresh is much less harsh than the CRTs of yesteryear.

Does 3D add a lot to the gaming experience?AAllxxjjnn

until i don't have to wear glasses to view 3d i really don't care about 3d.

i see 3d is as much as a gimmick as motion controll is.

fun at first but gets old fast.

The only time i have found 3d neat is when its seen in imax.

until i don't have to wear glasses to view 3d i really don't care about 3d.

i see 3d is as much as a gimmick as motion controll is.

fun at first but gets old fast.

The only time i have found 3d neat is when its seen in imax.

James161324

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

The same arguement was made when HDTVs launched, hell it was even the same scenario when color TVs debuted. Wanna guess how that worked out?

skektek

Perhaps if 3D hadn't been a fad for the past 40 years, and didn't cause eyestrain or involve uncomfortable glasses, making it unappealing to spend hours using it, I would be able to take it seriously.

Granted this type of stereoscopic 3D is a stop gap tech between true glassless 3D (which may be a ways off) but this iteration may very well prove to be more accessible to the masses just because LCD/DLP refresh is much less harsh than the CRTs of yesteryear.

As it is I don't see 3D appealing to anyone outside of the hardcore tech geeks or the "have to buy the newest thing as soon as it comes out" guys. Unlike color TV and HD, I really don't feel 3D adds anything. I feel it takes away from things and encourages developers (or movie directors) to focus more on cheap 3D gags instead of depth of story. I also don't think 3D is necessary in everything. For instance, I would not want to see Casablanca or Dracula in 3D.

If 3D ever goes glassless it MIGHT catch on, but as it is I really doubt it. Eyestrain alone is a big enough reason for me to never want one. When I play a game/watch TV it usually isn't for an hour.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Perhaps if 3D hadn't been a fad for the past 40 years, and didn't cause eyestrain or involve uncomfortable glasses, making it unappealing to spend hours using it, I would be able to take it seriously.

Pixel-Pirate

Granted this type of stereoscopic 3D is a stop gap tech between true glassless 3D (which may be a ways off) but this iteration may very well prove to be more accessible to the masses just because LCD/DLP refresh is much less harsh than the CRTs of yesteryear.

As it is I don't see 3D appealing to anyone outside of the hardcore tech geeks or the "have to buy the newest thing as soon as it comes out" guys. Unlike color TV and HD, I really don't feel 3D adds anything. I feel it takes away from things and encourages developers (or movie directors) to focus more on cheap 3D gags instead of depth of story. I also don't think 3D is necessary in everything. For instance, I would not want to see Casablanca or Dracula in 3D.

If 3D ever goes glassless it MIGHT catch on, but as it is I really doubt it. Eyestrain alone is a big enough reason for me to never want one. When I play a game/watch TV it usually isn't for an hour.

Now they just need to release the damn 3D Bravia so we can get one!

Doesn't Sony's stereoscopic 3D method require a Bravia television to offload the work needed to split the image for 3D?

I don't know why so many people care considering the costs involved.

AnnoyedDragon

just a thought would it not be possible to offload this kind of work to the SPU and transmit the stereoscopic image to the console? i mean in the UK were experimenting with 3d broadcasts.

Altho im not sure on how it would function.As long as i could use the glasses i got when i went to see Avatar i would be game.

I know it's not the same but I bought these and all they did was give me a severe headache so I hope this works out better.:P

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Doesn't Sony's stereoscopic 3D method require a Bravia television to offload the work needed to split the image for 3D?

I don't know why so many people care considering the costs involved.

razgriz_101

just a thought would it not be possible to offload this kind of work to the SPU and transmit the stereoscopic image to the console? i mean in the UK were experimenting with 3d broadcasts.

Altho im not sure on how it would function.As long as i could use the glasses i got when i went to see Avatar i would be game.

I know it's not the same but I bought these and all they did was give me a severe headache so I hope this works out better.:P

SecretPolice

I remember those they did give me bad headaches...i bet they attributed to me being slightly short sighted and need to wear contacts now :( least they are like actual sun glasses now :P least we actually are moving in a sensible direction from those haha lol.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Doesn't Sony's stereoscopic 3D method require a Bravia television to offload the work needed to split the image for 3D?

I don't know why so many people care considering the costs involved.

tirralirra

just a thought would it not be possible to offload this kind of work to the SPU and transmit the stereoscopic image to the console? i mean in the UK were experimenting with 3d broadcasts.

Altho im not sure on how it would function.As long as i could use the glasses i got when i went to see Avatar i would be game.

i've seen a couple movies in 3d aswell just seeen the 3d re-release of toy story 2 at the weekend aswell :P but what you have to think is what option is going to be more accesible by the general public i cant see people spending the money on the3d tv's until they are cheap enough so the stereoscopic w glasses system i think is the best until the technology is at a feasable and affordable price for the vast majority of the players.

[QUOTE="roddollente"]

last gen? lawl. we're talking about the PS3 here, not a last-gen console. besides, who would game on 3D on a last-gen console when it doesn't even output in HD? that's totally absurd. who would even do that? hahahahahaha.

Whose talking about consoles? Believe it or not; LCD shutter glasses for games/films was available to PC & Console gamers before Sony decided to hype it this generation. I had a pair of the eDimensional brand of 3D glasses back then and played games like Morrowind using them.

I know from first hand experience it gets old, you take them off because you just want to play the game. People expecting it to be as perfect as the Avatar film are also in for a surprise, the unpredictable nature of the 3D environment leads to issues when using stereoscopic 3D such as ghosting.

[QUOTE="tirralirra"][QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

just a thought would it not be possible to offload this kind of work to the SPU and transmit the stereoscopic image to the console? i mean in the UK were experimenting with 3d broadcasts.

Altho im not sure on how it would function.As long as i could use the glasses i got when i went to see Avatar i would be game.

razgriz_101

i've seen a couple movies in 3d aswell just seeen the 3d re-release of toy story 2 at the weekend aswell :P but what you have to think is what option is going to be more accesible by the general public i cant see people spending the money on the3d tv's until they are cheap enough so the stereoscopic w glasses system i think is the best until the technology is at a feasable and affordable price for the vast majority of the players.

enjoy paying $2000 to play 3D games.Tessellation

just a thought would it not be possible to offload this kind of work to the SPU and transmit the stereoscopic image to the console? i mean in the UK were experimenting with 3d broadcasts.

Altho im not sure on how it would function.As long as i could use the glasses i got when i went to see Avatar i would be game.

razgriz_101

PS3 resources are already being utilized by the game, Whatever method they use it cannot rely on the PS3 handling the performance.

Hence why Sony's method requires a compatible television, not just a 120 refresh rate one; but one capable of offloading the work.

I know what you're saying, but the games you played in the past used a driver-based 3d solution that is frankly far less compelling that games/movies that were made from the ground up for 3D. The difference is that with driver based solutions, it looks like you are looking into your monitor, which appears to be 3D within the confines of the screen. When things are designed for 3D, they appear to jump beyond the screen... get up in your face and leave the confines of the screen. So I am cautiously optimistic. I'm a sucker for crap like this, though, so I may not be the most objective person on the topic of 3D. I've read extensively about it, though, and everything I've seen suggests that the 3D Sony is talking about will be significantly better than the experience you had with Morrowind. donalbane

You do realize you could adjust the 3D effect to be what you wanted? Depth into the screeen or things jumping out, shallow depth or massive depth depending on what you was comfortable with. I liked to position the character so the sword and shield would stick out of the screen. That is how the product was advertised.

As far as I'm concerned its just a bunch of fanboys downplaying the past and hyping the version their favourite company is pushing. But what's new there? That's what console gamers do, they downplay what PC can do; and then say it suddenly matters when consoles get it years later.

Im not sure about this 3D stuff at the moment. I watched Avatar in 3D and it was impressive, but look how much money that movie had spent on it and then take into account the Massive Screen, Surround Sound and perfectly accoustically setup room. I just think for the average household its a gimmick at the moment and this is regardless if its PS3, PC or Xbox doing it.

i thought the idea of 3d gaming was cool until i read that its not compatible with my 600 hz tv. i personally find that upsetting and won't be buying a new tv just for that (i actually bought this tv b/c the initial reports were that any 120hz+ tv's would be 3d compatible, then they later changed it to "OUR 3d tv's are compatible). sonys problem is that they could have really pushed some ps3's out the door with "3d gaming out of the box on any 120 hz tv" alot of people have 120 hz tv's that could support in system 3d (instead of the hardware method they're pushing now) so kudos all, maybe i'll get a 3d tv in 10 years when the ps5 comes out.

Im not sure about this 3D stuff at the moment. I watched Avatar in 3D and it was impressive, but look how much money that movie had spent on it and then take into account the Massive Screen, Surround Sound and perfectly accoustically setup room. I just think for the average household its a gimmick at the moment and this is regardless if its PS3, PC or Xbox doing it.

ccagracing

Seems like some people dont realise that there are already 3dtv that dont need glasses and already working (Checkout CES) and set for release. so glassless 3dtvs are not 5-10 years away like someone said they are less than 2 years away. People calling it a gimmick need to remember 5 years ago people said 'HDTVs are a gimmick' and 'you will never need a Gigabyte of memory' now look HDTVs are in atleast 75% of household and A Gigbyte is now so easy to fill up that Terabytes are being introduced technology moves forward and doesnt stand still. 3D is going to like HD in 5 years where everyone has its. Just like those other 'gimmicks' I will be the first to say 'I told you so'. I remember those days as a kid when a MB was a lot of memory now it cant hold a 3 minute song.

... yet again Sony wasting resources in development that 99% of the population will most likely never use, just like Playstation Home.. sSubZerOo

They're good at that.

Wow .........so now I guess we will see less threads bashing the 360 about its WiFi add-on's price that most people I know dont need?

Wow .........so now I guess we will see less threads bashing the 360 about its WiFi add-on's price that most people I know dont need?

vaderhater

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

Wow .........so now I guess we will see less threads bashing the 360 about its WiFi add-on's price that most people I know dont need?

FIipMode

Don't pretend you've never seen any.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]... yet again Sony wasting resources in development that 99% of the population will most likely never use, just like Playstation Home.. EndorphinMaster

They're good at that.

[QUOTE="FIipMode"][QUOTE="vaderhater"]

Wow .........so now I guess we will see less threads bashing the 360 about its WiFi add-on's price that most people I know dont need?

EndorphinMaster

Don't pretend you've never seen any.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Granted this type of stereoscopic 3D is a stop gap tech between true glassless 3D (which may be a ways off) but this iteration may very well prove to be more accessible to the masses just because LCD/DLP refresh is much less harsh than the CRTs of yesteryear.

tirralirra

As it is I don't see 3D appealing to anyone outside of the hardcore tech geeks or the "have to buy the newest thing as soon as it comes out" guys. Unlike color TV and HD, I really don't feel 3D adds anything. I feel it takes away from things and encourages developers (or movie directors) to focus more on cheap 3D gags instead of depth of story. I also don't think 3D is necessary in everything. For instance, I would not want to see Casablanca or Dracula in 3D.

If 3D ever goes glassless it MIGHT catch on, but as it is I really doubt it. Eyestrain alone is a big enough reason for me to never want one. When I play a game/watch TV it usually isn't for an hour.

I can assure you that if I was watching a medical drama or a documentary or any movie meant to be taken seriously, I would not want to feel like I could touch it.

To me, 3D is a gimmick for hollywood blockbusters.

So we have people that are still moving into the HD era and now they will want people to go out and spend another ridiculous amount of money for something they will probably never use? :lol: Brilliant.

I can assure you that if I was watching a medical drama or a documentary or any movie meant to be taken seriously, I would not want to feel like I could touch it.

To me, 3D is a gimmick for hollywood blockbusters.

Pixel-Pirate

This has to be the biggest waste of time and money for sony. Very few people will utilize this feature.

bigblunt537

true. But its nice to have the feature available if your willing to buy the glasses ect. Cant say 360 or wii does that :/ I have a feeling they will tout the whole 3D feature in their new ps3 ads.