Microsoft Dismisses 3D as a "Future Technology"

[MDSnowman]

Motion Control is a fad
3D Is a fad (and in the case of the movie industry an excuse to charge you more to see a crappy movie)
Peripherals are a fad.

The Wii is already cooled off
You can't sell a hero/rockband game like you used to
As someone who can't even see 3D I can't wait for the backlash against 3D.

We also need to invite an entirely awesome new game so we can move away from brown faux-realistic FPS games.

 

[soapyshooter]

Don't people remember how expensive LCDs, Plasmas, etc etc. were when they first came out? Technology gets cheaper as manufacturers find new ways to make the same components for less. Give it a year and the price will be down by a $1000, I guarantee that

 

[tkioz]

I agree with them, it might be interesting a decade or so when the need for those damn stinking glasses is done away with (it's ever so much fun being near-sighted and having to wear two sets of glasses in the movies have an idea of wtf is going on... let alone doing that crap at home).

Then there's the fun fact I only got my nice big HDTV about 8 months ago and I'm sure as hell not dropping another chunk of change that big again anytime soon.

 

[civver]

3D seems like a gimmick to me. I'm only going to be interested if it becomes standard, just like I did with HD video.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Microsoft says the 3D gaming technology being touted by Sony and Nintendo is "interesting" but still way too expensive for mainstream success.

Microsoft will be surprised when the 3DS sells amazingly well, as Nintendo products always do.

Sony's way is not mainstream yet, I agree. But Nintendo is making it mainstream.

To be fair that isn't actually what microsoft said

"Microsoft UK boss Neil Thompson has dismissed 3D as "an interesting technology of the future" that's still too expensive for consumers."

"If you look at the costs of entry into the living room and when that's going to become mass-market, we think the offering with Kinect and the natural user-interface we're bringing, that's a more compelling proposition for consumers over the coming years than maybe looking at 3D at this point."

The 3DS isn't the topic but the idea of 3D as a living room technology i.e Specific 3D Tvs are a long way of having a decent share of the market.

The 3DS is quite a different prospect not just considering that microsoft doesn't even have a product in the handheld market and 3DS sales certainly are not going to eat into the Xboxs market share.


"Microsoft says the 3D gaming technology being touted by Sony and Nintendo is "interesting" but still way too expensive for mainstream success"

I think thats actualy quite a bit of poor journalism on Andys part

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/microsoft-dismisses-3d-as-future-tech

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

This is why the 3DS is exciting me exponentially more than the PS3's 3D offering.

PS3 3D: $2000 TV, $180 glasses, $300 PS3.

3DS 3D: almost-certainly-below-$250 3DS. Plus, no glasses, and it's portable.

How is this even a contest? THAT'S the way to go to implement 3D, not the full home theater version.

Simple answer, it isn't. Sure, we won't get to play Metal Gear Solid 4 in HD and 3D, but we don't have to shell out all limbs and our souls for it with the 3DS.

Side note, has anybody on the escapist actually seen the 3DS in action yet? Have any you guys seen it work?

I don't think the 3DS will be another virtual boy (has a good design, actually is portable, many times the games at launch then the "Go Red or Dead" ever had in its entire life time), but has anybody made sure of that yet?

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

3D seems like a gimmick to me. I'm only going to be interested if it becomes standard, just like I did with HD video.

The 3DS has at least the opition to turn the 3D off I heard, so at very least you have a DS with a joy stick and better graphics.

 

[DeASplode]

3D gaming is kind of fun. Bought a new graphics card which supports stereoscopic 3D, bought some cheap £5 glasses from play.com and tried a few games.
Most decent thing I played would be Left 4 Dead but wearing 3D glasses really does irritate me after say an hour. Not to mention since the glasses I bought were the old red and blue things didn't look too amazing with a lack of colour. But the 3D effect was still good.

At the moment I'm happy to leave 3D to the cinemas. I really would like 3D to become something you can get in the home but only if it's affordable and practical.

 

[John Funk]

This is why the 3DS is exciting me exponentially more than the PS3's 3D offering.

PS3 3D: $2000 TV, $180 glasses, $300 PS3.

3DS 3D: almost-certainly-below-$250 3DS. Plus, no glasses, and it's portable.

How is this even a contest? THAT'S the way to go to implement 3D, not the full home theater version.

Simple answer, it isn't. Sure, we won't get to play Metal Gear Solid 4 in HD and 3D, but we don't have to shell out all limbs and our souls for it with the 3DS.

Side note, has anybody on the escapist actually seen the 3DS in action yet? Have any you guys seen it work?

I don't think the 3DS will be another virtual boy (has a good design, actually is portable, many times the games at launch then the "Go Red or Dead" ever had in its entire life time), but has anybody made sure of that yet?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101379-E3-2010-Hands-on-With-the-Nintendo-3DS

Apparently it works great.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Yeah, the 3DS has me EXCITED.

Not because it's 3D, but because of the sheer power in that little handheld. If it testbeds well, Nintendo could launch a new console and catch everyone with their pants around their ankles.

 

[Diligent]

This is from the folks who backed HD DVD players...but still, I agree.
When Sony was going on and on about how these games don't have 3d as an afterthought, they were designed with 3d in mind...awesome, you know what else was designed with 3d in mind? Jaws 3.

All that means is that you're gonna get a bunch of scenes with stuff popping out at you because its 3d, which is gonna look totally stupid if you watch it in 2d.

 

[xscoot]

Microsoft said that 3D is a thing of the future.

Well, I guess Nintendo is the future. Thanks for the kind words, Microsoft!

 

[LightOfDarkness]

This is why the 3DS is exciting me exponentially more than the PS3's 3D offering.

PS3 3D: $2000 TV, $180 glasses, $300 PS3.

3DS 3D: almost-certainly-below-$250 3DS. Plus, no glasses, and it's portable.

How is this even a contest? THAT'S the way to go to implement 3D, not the full home theater version.

The full home theater version has only been out for a few months, and it's the newest technology on the market. OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE. Then someone is going to make a 3D television but with Quattron technology and BOOM 3 color 3D TV prices will drop like a rock.

Anyway, 3D is only in the near future. It's only hampered by high prices.

 

[rsvp42]

Or have to charge the glasses! What if the charge runs out! Then this big 'awesome' feature is useless until I charge them again, or I tether my fancy 3D glasses to my face with a USB cord so they can charge while I play.

Whoa, they require power? And here I was thinking they were just like what's used in theaters...

I agree with most everyone else. I mean I would love to make enough money to afford superfluous luxury items like that, but for now I'll stick with what already here. Hell, i'm still dreaming of my first HD TV, I've got no time to dream about this!

 

[jamesworkshop]

Microsoft said that 3D is a thing of the future.

Well, I guess Nintendo is the future. Thanks for the kind words, Microsoft!

they meant 3D tv's of which are totally unrelated to the 3DS unless people start buying 3D 3.5 inch Tv's

 

[v3n0mat3]

Here's to getting a under-$400 3D monitor. Yeah, it's expensive, but someone has to begin using the technology, so the cost can go down. As was said before, Sony sells TVs. Logically, they were going to eventually make 3DTVs in the wake of this newfound interest in 3D. What Nintendo is doing is pretty damn brilliant, but it's going to be very limited in ability (i.e. how far away do you have to look before the 3D effect diminishes, how long it can maintain the effect, and how good the effect looks, how good the games/movies look, etc.). That, and I want to know how much that damn thing is going to cost! I'm buying it, of course, but I want to know how much it is so I can save up for it.

 

[Magnalian]

This is why the 3DS is exciting me exponentially more than the PS3's 3D offering.

PS3 3D: $2000 TV, $180 glasses, $300 PS3.

3DS 3D: almost-certainly-below-$250 3DS. Plus, no glasses, and it's portable.

How is this even a contest? THAT'S the way to go to implement 3D, not the full home theater version.

Still, I hope that one day I'll be able to enjoy console games in 3D, at an affordable price, without the glasses. Just imagine what Super Mario Galaxy would be like...

 

[Xiorell]

the thing that pisses me off with these kind of developements (TVs etc), is that it all changes JUST when the last "bug step" has settled in... kinda like trying to keep people in fear of being obsolete somehow... like... it wasn't to bad with DVDs... they was around years and years in the mainstream before Blu-Ray started trying to mix things up... TVs changed very quick considering the price... "Now you can watch TV in HD.... oh but now we've got a better standard of HD... and now we got highter refresh rates... and now we got LED... hey how about 3D... while we're at it, let's develope Laser Displays... HEY I KNOW, Holographic TV now"

Doesn't bother me things getting better like this with PCs... if I reckon on £200-300 a year I can be pretty secure knowing my PC is really quite up to date... but with TVs to stay "Current" you could be talking thousands every couple of years. My 40inch HDTV (which I love) was about 2k, about 2years ago... and now there's LED screens and 3DTV and shit already. Plus new and somehow better gadgets to go with. FFS just piss off!!!

 

[Jacob.pederson]

Wait, wait, wait... 3D glasses are 180$ a pop? WTF? Are they made of gold, coated with diamonds polished with the souls of little orphaned children? How different are they from the cheap plastic ones in cinemas? What is in them that can possibly be almost as expensive as an entire gaming console?

Cheap plastic ones that you find in cinemas are using polarized light to separate the images. Much more expensive for the equipment (you need two projectors), much cheaper on the glasses. Home 3d uses primarily shutter glasses, which rapidly black out each eye in turn to achieve the effect. This makes the display a little cheaper because you only need one (although the refresh rate of the display does need to be doubled). However, blinking semi-opaque 120 times per second, while precisely syncing this speed with the tv, is quite a technological feat. Hence the expensive glasses.

 

[WrongSprite]

Yeah I'm with them here...

I'm with the whole '3D is just a fad' way of thinking, it'll be gone in a few years, then it'll resurface in the future when we can do it properly, and cheaply. I don't even enjoy it that much.

I think 3D is more of a fad right now. Later, when the tech isn't so fancy and new it may be cheap enough to become a mainstream technology.

Isn't that...exactly what I said? Haha.