Consumers don't care about 3d cus they haven't seen it. Once you hold a 3DS you'll want it. It's that damn good.
EA: 3D Isn't Making Us Much Money
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Wow, a publisher actually seeing that a cheap gimmick isn't a good idea... wonders will never cease.
Well I'm glad someone has some sense that 3D isn't the greatest thing eve, I can't play or even watch 3D without getting a massive headache later on.
Weird hearing it from EA though, maybe the old EA is coming back....?
Weird hearing it from EA though, maybe the old EA is coming back....?
I simply haven't seen 3D to be a viable selling gimmick yet, and it won't ever be, really. Besides, 3D has come and gone in media for a century now - it turns up in movies every few decades, then fades away . . . next time there's an "advancement" in the technology, it crops back up, then fades out again. We've seen it in comics, TV, now games . . . i guarantee it'll dissapear again.
The only way I really see 3D becoming more viable for the gaming market is if they start manufacturing more "peripheral" or "wrap-around" screens like this:
If you have a screen that fills more of a gamer's peripheral vision, the technology would work better, IMHO . . . but expect it to be uber expensive (more-so than it already is).
The only way I really see 3D becoming more viable for the gaming market is if they start manufacturing more "peripheral" or "wrap-around" screens like this:
If you have a screen that fills more of a gamer's peripheral vision, the technology would work better, IMHO . . . but expect it to be uber expensive (more-so than it already is).
Not sure how 3D looks in a game, but a week ago i went to see transformers only to experience the 3D effect for the first time and i was unimpressed, people looked like moving cutouts and the movie was dark because of the glasses, the fucking glasses which i couldn't wear with my regular glasses so the movie was a bit blurry too. The sooner that 3D craze is over the better.
Good. Kill it with fire. I hate 3-D. Like many others, it gives me a headache. On top of that, it really doesn't add much to the experience. It could, but it doesn't.
3D really doesn't make sense for gaming at this point. It's a gimmick that's not even well used or even received in film either, so it's got a long way to go before it's attractive to gamers. Right now it's just a faster way to get a headache, and considering gamers aren't strangers to long hours at the PC/console, that's not really a good marketing point.
James from Extra Credits said it on Twitter, I'll repeat it here. When 3D affects gameplay, we'll talk.
The only thing worthwhile I've seen/heard about 3D for gamers is that TV thingy where you can play splitscreen with a friend on the same TV. Now that's one decent thing they've done with it, but it's really nothing to do with 3D, just similar technology.
James from Extra Credits said it on Twitter, I'll repeat it here. When 3D affects gameplay, we'll talk.
The only thing worthwhile I've seen/heard about 3D for gamers is that TV thingy where you can play splitscreen with a friend on the same TV. Now that's one decent thing they've done with it, but it's really nothing to do with 3D, just similar technology.
I once saw avatar in 3D. Half way into the movie, I said "Huh, I forgot I was watching this in 3D"Armored Prayer said:
It's cool for the first 10 minutes. After that, it doesn't feel much different.
I think the best thing about the 3DS is the fact that the 3D can be turned off.
Wich means you can indulge in 3D for when you want to, but never as something you have to see for hours on end.
Wich means you can indulge in 3D for when you want to, but never as something you have to see for hours on end.
There in lies 3D's ultimate flaw. To make it noticeable... one must sacrafice the plot. Movies today tend to give you a movie that hasn't been altered much for the 3D aspect, so as not to ruin the movie when watched in the alternative 2D and also to not make it seem weird people are tossing things at the screen. The 3D in Spy Kids 3D is more impressive then the real D 3D in Captain America, because they knew the whole premise was to use 3D for 3D, so they had random shat flying at your face, things landing on the camera, etc.Saucycardog said:
But with a movie of today, the 3D's just thrown on to get more people. Captain America's 3D is sooo unoticeable except for like 1-2 scenes in the show, the most noteworthy is the one time he throws his shield at the camera.
Actually I sort of like 3d. However the downside to it is it seems destined to fail again because there are some people who cant see it and a whole lot more who are only barely tolerant of it (both visually and ideologically.
Because of that it seems unlikely the technology is going to get adopted on a widespread level and if it doesnt the needed baby steps are not going to happen that will make it alluring toward those who can in fact see it, but are not willing to tolerate it for very long.
Because of that it seems unlikely the technology is going to get adopted on a widespread level and if it doesnt the needed baby steps are not going to happen that will make it alluring toward those who can in fact see it, but are not willing to tolerate it for very long.
Your right except expense really isnt the problem. You dont need an expensive alienware convex monitor when you can accomplish essentially the same thing relatively inexpensively with a three monitor display. The only problem is that the games simply dont support the software to allow proper texture wrapping. It can be done, but because tri monitor rigs are not common.. its simply not supported.imperialreign said: