Sony: 3D Gaming Has to Be Really Good, or People Won't Care

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Sony: 3D Gaming Has to Be Really Good, or People Won't Care

Getting people interested in 3D gaming is all about restraint, says Sony.

People won't invest in 3D gaming just because it's 3D; it has to offer them something special to make them part with their cash. That's the message from Sony's Mick Hocking, who says that Sony goes to great lengths to make sure that its 3D games are as good as possible.

He said that Sony didn't view 3D as a "tick box" it wanted on every game. It was more interested, he explained, in seeing it done well in the right games - which so far has included Killzone 3 and the upcoming Uncharted 3 - rather than done badly everywhere. "I've been asked where is the Avatar of [3D] games, the big killer app," he said. "And we don't want just one of those. We're working really hard to make all of our games very high quality in 3D. We don't want peaks and troughs. We want a consistent level of quality."

Quality was part of the reason that Sony had not included 3D on the PS Vita. Hocking explained that while it was possible to get a really good glasses-free 3D effect on a handheld screen, it involved the viewer keeping his or head very still. As one of the Vita's features was its Sixaxis motion controls, the two didn't really gel well. He also said that Sony had wanted to include a high-resolution screen in the Vita, which was easier to do if it stuck to 2D, at least for now.

Hocking was also asked whether the disappointing sales of the 3DS had informed or changed Sony's 3D strategy. He neatly dodged the question, saying that he couldn't comment on the 3DS directly; he implied however, that the problem that Nintendo was having was that the 3D effect on the 3DS wasn't amazing, and the games that were available for it weren't really up to snuff either.

"I think what we've seen over the last 12 months is a strong correlation between good quality 3D content and great response from our fan base," he said. "The opposite is also true. When people see 3D that doesn't work very well, or content that isn't very compelling, I think quite naturally they're not as interested in it."

It's not hard to see why Sony is so keen on seeing 3D done right; almost every branch of the Sony Corporation stands to benefit if 3D becomes prevalent, whether they make TVs, consoles, or movies. It's interesting to see it approaching the situation with restraint though, rather than pushing hard on the technology.

Source: GameSpot [http://gamescom.gamespot.com/story/6330393/sony-goes-in-depth-on-3d]






Permalink
 

80Maxwell08

New member
Jul 14, 2010
1,102
0
0
MajorDolphin said:
Don't care. First party shooters are being destroyed by their other gimmick.
What would this other gimmick be? I'm not being sarcastic or anything I really don't know what you are talking about.
 

TxMxRonin

New member
Jan 1, 2009
690
0
0
And then when the technology becomes affordable no one's going to give a shit anymore.
 

Sp3ratus

New member
Apr 11, 2009
756
0
0
See, I like this strategy and if we absolutely have to have 3D(I still don't get the big deal about it), the trick is not to push it in our faces like it's done with movies, but rather show people what 3D can really be, done with the best resources and the best focus.

Whether 3D will stay or go away, once again, remains to be seen, but I really don't see any other way of promoting it the way Sony is.
 

uguito-93

This space for rent
Jul 16, 2009
359
0
0
80Maxwell08 said:
MajorDolphin said:
Don't care. First party shooters are being destroyed by their other gimmick.
What would this other gimmick be? I'm not being sarcastic or anything I really don't know what you are talking about.
My guess is that he's talking about move.
 

Sixties Spidey

Elite Member
Jan 24, 2008
3,299
0
41
Talk about 3D all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's fast fading. Nintendo is starting to realize that with the 3DS. Give it another two years and it will be dead in the water. For 3D to be worth a damn, it has to have an affect on gameplay. Not aesthetics only.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
[sub]3D has been pushed around for decades, bordering on a century.[/sub]

[sub]It breaks immersion, which is why you're there in the first place. You're actually damaging games by putting it in there because all you're doing is saying [/sub][HEADING=1]LOOK AT THE 3D BIT. LOOK AT IT!!!11!!![/HEADING][sub] and most people don't even bother with the rest.[/sub]
 

Torrasque

New member
Aug 6, 2010
3,441
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
[sub]3D has been pushed around for decades, bordering on a century.[/sub]

[sub]It breaks immersion, which is why you're there in the first place. You're actually damaging games by putting it in there because all you're doing is saying [/sub][HEADING=1]LOOK AT THE 3D BIT. LOOK AT IT!!!11!!![/HEADING][sub] and most people don't even bother with the rest.[/sub]
I see what you did there.

OP: Of course Sony would say this when Nintendo is pulling out all the stops to revive the sales of the 3DS, assholes.
They'll just watch on the sidelines as everyone mocks the 3DS, then come out with a new and improved version of the 3DS that has "immersive 'DOESN'T HURT YOUR EYES' 3D!" and everyone will love it.
Cuz they haven't done that before.
Oh wait...
 

DJDarque

Words
Aug 24, 2009
1,776
0
0
Focus on the "quality" of your 3D games all you want. I'm still not going to buy them. I don't view 3D as anything more than a gimmick.
 

uguito-93

This space for rent
Jul 16, 2009
359
0
0
OutrageousEmu said:
uguito-93 said:
80Maxwell08 said:
MajorDolphin said:
Don't care. First party shooters are being destroyed by their other gimmick.
What would this other gimmick be? I'm not being sarcastic or anything I really don't know what you are talking about.
My guess is that he's talking about move.
An optional control method is destroying things?
Doesn't make much sense but its the only thing that came to mind when the words "first party" and "gimmick" came up.
 

aescuder

New member
Aug 24, 2010
240
0
0
I disagree I think really expensive and crappy, half-baked 3D trends are really going to win the heart of the masses. durp
 

zehydra

New member
Oct 25, 2009
5,033
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
[sub]3D has been pushed around for decades, bordering on a century.[/sub]

[sub]It breaks immersion, which is why you're there in the first place. You're actually damaging games by putting it in there because all you're doing is saying [/sub][HEADING=1]LOOK AT THE 3D BIT. LOOK AT IT!!!11!!![/HEADING][sub] and most people don't even bother with the rest.[/sub]
see, for me, it helps with immersion.

oh well.
 

zehydra

New member
Oct 25, 2009
5,033
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
zehydra said:
see, for me, it helps with immersion.

oh well.
So seeing Avatar/Toy Story 3 (or similar) in 2D would be a step down? Or does it immerse you in the 3D, rather than in the story?
obviously the story is more important than the 3D, but yes, seeing it in 2D would be a step down immersion-wise, for something that's already immersive.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
zehydra said:
obviously the story is more important than the 3D, but yes, seeing it in 2D would be a step down immersion-wise, for something that's already immersive.
I'm asking this because I can't quite understand it. Is 2D like watching a film on mute?
 

zehydra

New member
Oct 25, 2009
5,033
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
zehydra said:
obviously the story is more important than the 3D, but yes, seeing it in 2D would be a step down immersion-wise, for something that's already immersive.
I'm asking this because I can't quite understand it. Is 2D like watching a film on mute?
No, 3D is an enhancement to immersion. That is, it's not like 2D takes away from the experience, but 3D adds to it. A 2D entertainment can perfectly stand on its own.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
zehydra said:
No, 3D is an enhancement to immersion. That is, it's not like 2D takes away from the experience, but 3D adds to it. A 2D entertainment can perfectly stand on its own.
Any examples from recent memory? I remember the only time Avatar impressed me was with the wisps of ash from the burnt tree, and even then it was "That's pretty...oh damn, what was he saying?"
 

rmb1983

I am the storm.
Mar 29, 2011
253
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
zehydra said:
obviously the story is more important than the 3D, but yes, seeing it in 2D would be a step down immersion-wise, for something that's already immersive.
I'm asking this because I can't quite understand it. Is 2D like watching a film on mute?
No. In those examples, watching them in 2D would be like enjoying them on, say, my setup (42" LCD, 5.1) as opposed to a higher-end entertainment system.

Not that that's how I specifically feel about 3D in general, but it's a better baseline for contrast than the Mute button. 3D can enhance the experience, but the majority we get subjected to is, sadly, just a gimmick.

OT: Nice that Sony's taking a reasonable approach to the format. Sadly, it won't stop Hollywood from beating it to death. Whether or not it fades remains to be seen.