High Frame Rates Trumps 3D, Says EA Sports Boss

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
High Frame Rates Trumps 3D, Says EA Sports Boss


EA Sports [http://www.easports.com] boss Peter Moore says there may be "cool moments" in 3D games but he believes most gamers don't want to sacrifice the smooth frame rate of 60 FPS in order to get them.

There are a couple of reasons why EA Sports has yet to leap into the 3D craze in spite of all the hype surrounding them, Moore said. 3D games on the PlayStation 3 run at a maximum of 30 frames per second and he believes gamers would rather have the silky smoothness of 60 FPS, especially since 3D doesn't have much to add to the current crop of sports games anyway. And it ain't cheap, either.

"I've seen a couple of our games running in 3D [behind closed doors]. There are some cool moments, but there is a cost for my development teams to do it. There is a tax on the hardware - you know, you need two cameras, there is a frame-rate issue... You've got to bring it back up again," he told CVG [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=266222?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-General-RSS]. "I don't think gamers want to sacrifice a smooth frame-rate. In other words, games that are current running at 60fps going down to 30 just for 3D."

"The other thing is, you've got to be able to play the game," he continued. "You play Madden [http://www.amazon.com/FIFA-Soccer-11-Playstation-3/dp/B003KZJA9Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285259996&sr=8-1] from a top-down perspective. The higher the camera is, the less the impact of 3D happens to be."

Some genres beg for the 3D treatment and a top-down 3D view of a football field, hockey rink or baseball diamond would be cool, but would it add enough to the game to justify the expense of making them? Actually, I kind of think it might; it may not be cheap but if 3D takes off to the extent that Sony is hoping, a move to the third dimension could be the next big thing for sports videogames.


Permalink
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
3D is an interesting technology and it has MUCH more potential in video games than in movies, so I'm looking forward to what developers come up with to utilize the technology. If some frames have to be sacrificed to put out a new "gimmick", as some would call it, then go for it says I. As 3D technology improves, eventually we'll get back that extra 30fps.

I'll be keeping my eye on 3D...
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
Agreed with Mr. EA Games. I wouldn't sacrifice performance for 3D, not until it becomes more efficient, and cheaper.
 

goldenheart323

New member
Oct 9, 2009
277
0
0
Yep. Sounds like an awful lot of investment for a small return.

I'm a moderately early adopter, but I have almost no interest in 3D games or movies. Lots of us just recently upgraded to an HDTV. Few of us want to buy yet another big TV for roughly another 5yrs or so. (Plus additional 3D glasses at ~$200 per pair!) If they do the work to optimize a game for 3D and give us the option for 1080p at 30fps or 720p at 60fps, or 720p in 3D at 30fps instead, (all 3 take almost the same amount of processing power,) I'd be all for it. However, the cynic in me thinks they won't do that because it just makes too much sense. Game development resources could be diverted for a 3D aspect that few of us will be able to enjoy.
 

Frequen-Z

Resident Batman fanatic.
Apr 22, 2009
1,351
0
0
I think this guys bang on the money. I don't buy the whole 3D fad, it looks neat, but just not as neat as a perfectly liquid framerate.
 

Pingieking

New member
Sep 19, 2009
1,362
0
0
Too early to write off 3D. The tech is very new, and there is very little hardware/software support at the moment.
Give it a solid 3 to 5 years, then we can talk about whether 3D will succeed.
 

lachinti

New member
Aug 10, 2009
9
0
0
Correct me if I'm wrong: doesn't the Sports Champions run at 30fps? In that case it should be 3D.

Seems to me the Move can't run on 60fps, because the Eyetoycamera thingy runs at 30fps (which is pretty poor, if you ask me), so that means the game can be in 3D since they don't run @60fps... hmmm, maybe Move users will have to buy an extra camera, so they can see themselves in 3D. :)
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Most console games run at 30 fps anyway. Sacrificing gameplay for prettier screenshots.
Yeah, the real reason they'll be slow to adopt 3d will be the inability to advertise it.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
Pingieking said:
Too early to write off 3D. The tech is very new, and there is very little hardware/software support at the moment.
Give it a solid 3 to 5 years, then we can talk about whether 3D will succeed.
and so we say this when we a method (not technology)that's around 70 years old.

the reason why there is little support is party because nobody really cared until recently
 

zfactor

New member
Jan 16, 2010
922
0
0
Ummm, your eyes already recognize 3D from how the camera focuses, so why do we need stuff poping out of the screen?

I think they should skip the 3D on flat screens and jump right into the holodeck from Star Trek. That would be the most kickass invention yet.