PS3 power + Blu-ray = Limited support of 3D on Xbox 360

One of the most interesting thing about reading up on the gaming industry is to try to figure out the real reasons behind a company's actions. Time and time again, the game companies, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo deliberately try to mislead us gamers by saying things they themselves don't necessarily believe in.

Sony: 4D graphics, 120 frames per second. Microsoft: HD-DVD and the Red Ring of Death. Nintendo: We will wow you with Wii graphics.

So, I have always had a skeptical mind towards the gaming companies' words. To me, their actions speak much, much, much louder than their words. It is no different then when it comes to 3D. In particular, Microsoft says that the reasons why it doesn't invest in 3D games is because 3D is too expensive for gamers--who wants to pay thousands of dollars just to play a 3D game? To me, Microsoft isn't telling the whole truth.

If Microsoft had used the same reasoning, it would not have invested in HD graphics--who would want to spend more than a thousand dollar to play an HD game? The truth is, most people buy HD TVs for HD movies, HD TV programs, and HD games--not for just games alone. The same thing will happen with 3D TVs; people will buy them for 3D movies, 3D TV programs, and 3D games--not for for games alone. Microsoft is a smart company who knows quite well that 3D TV adoption will increase significantly over time. In fact, Ubisoft Expects 3DTV In Everyone's Home In Three Years. The point I am trying to make is it doesn't make sense for Microsoft not to fight against Sony now because Microsoft's inaction would give Sony too much of an advantage once 3D, like Blu-ray movies, become mainstream. So what is the real reason why Microsoft does not invest in 3D games?

In my opinion, the real reason why Microsoft does not invest in 3D games is because the PS3 is more powerful and the PS3 has Blu-ray. You see, 3D games require more processing power, so much so that resolution and framerates need to be reduced for 3D. Just google Wipeout HD vs. Wipeout 3D to see what I mean. To make 3D games, then, it would be pratical for devs to make TWO versions, the normal game and the 3D game, both of which takes up physical space. Unfortunately, Xbox 360 is a little less powerful than the PS3, according to developers who have given us graphics kings like Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, God of War 3, etc. Furthermore, Xbox 360's DVD lacks enough space for both versions on the same disk.

The lack of enough support for 3D on Xbox 360, therefore, is due to the limitation of Xbox 360's hardware, not to Microsoft complacency to allow Sony to eat all the 3D lunch.

Or how about the fact that 3D isn't worthwhile to MS, from a profit perspective?

Anyway, If Sony are going to bother pushing 3D , they are already too late. Samsung released their 3D TV's ages ago, and they are LED too.

Or how about the fact that 3D isn't worthwhile to MS, from a profit perspective?

Anyway, If Sony are going to bother pushing 3D , they are already too late. Samsung released their 3D TV's ages ago, and they are LED too.

siddhu33

I don't know man. I think theres always a chance microsoft could do it. maybe not this gen but perhaps next. remember microsoft cancel the halo mmo because of nintendo's wii

im sorry but im not buying a 3,000 dollar tv just to play 3D

My opinion is that Sony want to shift as many 3D tv's as they can and seeing as the PS3 managed to finally win them a format war why not see if the trojan horse has any more give in it. Im sure if they could make money out of it MS would invest in 3D too but as it stands it isn't worth it.

Unless PS3 3D is deemed a success (which we won't know until some time next year), MS hasn't done anything wrong.Diviniuz

Oh darn, and I was just to run out and purchase a $3000 3DTV,and about $400 more for 3D glasses, that has yet to proove if it will last on the industry just so I could play a few games in 3D on my Xbox 360. :roll:

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]Unless PS3 3D is deemed a success (which we won't know until some time next year), MS hasn't done anything wrong.dragonboot

Damn, talk about a slippery slope!

Anyway, why would microsoft want to invest in 3D gaming? They have no reason to.

From a business perspective, it doesn't make sense not fight against Sony if Microsoft knows it has a good chance of winning.dragonboot

In my opinion, the real reason why Microsoft does not invest in 3D games is because the PS3 is more powerful and the PS3 has Blu-ray.

dragonboot

You actually think that's the reason

3D as it stands, isn't a viable market to push into at this moment in time. Why not let Sony do the investing and pushing, then segway into the market next gen with possibly better technology?

i said wow when i saw super marip galaxy so nintendo was right

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]Unless PS3 3D is deemed a success (which we won't know until some time next year), MS hasn't done anything wrong.dragonboot

Please, just stop talking. 3D can and has been available for over 5 years. All three systems are more than capable of doing it. Sony has vested interested in pushing 3D BECAUSE THEY ALSO HAPPEN TO SELL TVs. All 3 systems can do 3D. Its up to the developers of the game to decide to create stereoscopic options. Sony is probably encouraging developers to do so while Nintendo and Microsoft don't care.

[QUOTE="The_RedLion"]It's just like the Blu-Ray fiasco. Sony is pushing 3D on the PS3 just to expand their 3D, so thay can compete. And just like BR, it's use in gaming will be terribly limited.dragonboot

Luckily for them 3D is completely irrelevant this genIronBass

like I said in my last post there could be a chance for the next console to have 3d gaming. and they are looking in to 3d. starting with the tv

The Microsoft Applied Sciences Group has developed a new lens that lets you watch three-dimensional content without 3D glasses. The new lens is thinner at the bottom (about 6mm) than at the top (11mm) and steers light to a viewer's eyes via LEDs along its bottom edge. The 3D display uses a camera to track viewers so that it knows where to steer the light; the idea isn't new, but the required CPU power is now affordable and small enough to pull it off on a large scale.

Various companies have shown off 3D displays that don't require glasses, but those sets often use lenticular lenses, which are integrated into the display and project different images in two fixed directions. As a result, the viewer needs to be in a designated zone to experience 3D. Microsoft's prototype display, however, can deliver 3D video to two viewers at the same time by presenting different images to their left and right eyes (one video for each), regardless of where they are. It can also show ordinary 2D video for up to four people simultaneously (one video for each person).

Traditional lenses found in projectors sit between a point of light and its focal point, which is why viewer-tracking 3D systems are often bulky. The design of Microsoft's wedge lens bypasses this problem, as the light is traveling within the lens and not in the air (the focal point is thus the flat surface of the wedge), minimizing the distance between the projector and the screen. The LEDs control the position and angle of the light as it enters the bottom edge of the lens and, as a result, the direction the light comes out. The viewer-tracking cameras, meanwhile, collect light traveling the other way through the lens. The system's viewing angle is about 20°, but Microsoft hopes to tweak the lens design and increase it to 40°. That would be an improvement, but 40° still isn't that hot.

Since the lens is thin, it can be incorporated into a standard liquid crystal display (LCD), replacing the traditional backlight; light from the lens shines through the liquid crystals to project the images to viewers. Picture quality is limited by the screen's refresh rate, and so Microsoft is pushing display manufacturers to make faster LCDs. Separately, the company is looking into how the lens can be used as the backlight of a laptop that can project images to either one person or to multiple people.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/06/microsoft-develops-lens-for-3d-displays-without-3d-glasses.ars

What I don't understand is folks claiming the pricing is rediculous on 3d tvs when there not. I picked up a Samsung 63" 3d tv along with a free home theater with 3d blu-ray player, 3d glasses kit (2 glasses and movie), and installation for 3 grand. So basically got a thousand's worth of goodies and everything is top notch. I can tell you now it blows my Pioneer 5020 Kuro out of the water.

If you shop around you can find a Samsung 46" C750 lcd model which does 3-d and can be had for as little as $1200. Best Buy has these but are charging a little more.. still they can price match for you. $1200 for a 46" with 3-d. Is this highway robbery?

3DTV's won't work until they make them which don't require you to wear ridiculous glasses

im sorry but im not buying a 3,000 dollar tv just to play 3D

hyperjayson

http://www.hhgregg.com/ProductDetail.asp?SID=n&ProductID=71877

[QUOTE="dragonboot"]

In my opinion, the real reason why Microsoft does not invest in 3D games is because the PS3 is more powerful and the PS3 has Blu-ray.

Raymundo_Manuel

You actually think that's the reason

I feel that the 3D games that are coming out now are not so much and investment for the future, as a "WOW" effect for gamers right now. when i first saw the footage for killzone 3 i was blown back by the graphics. Then i heard that it was going to support 3D, and my mind was effectively blown by the thought of playing such a good looking game in 3D. it will give game developers some much needed experience with building 3D games, and it will fill in a niche that has been primarily empty up to this point. Sony's plan is to build up excitement for 3D games on their system with big blockbuster games to draw in users that had avoided buying a system up to this point. Unfortunately for them 3D tv's are still far too expensive for most people to take the plunge, but the way technology advances the price will drop drastically within the next 5 years. people will buy these games now with the hope that when they do get a 3D tv they will have the promise of playing these great games on them.

p.s. developers are kidding themselfs if they think that most people will own 3D tv within 3 years so soon after the recent price drops of HD tv's. unless prices go below 700$ people are not going to start replacing their 1-2 year old HD tv's.