New Study Says Gamers Are Okay With 3D Glasses
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Let me just say....WHATTTTTT!!!!! I will never be okay with this. 3D is a gimmick so companies can charge extra. It is not the future.
A new study says hot women are okay with sex with Jandau.
The waters have become a little muddier with the release of a new survey showing that 80 percent of hot women are okay with having uncommital sex with Jandau whenever he feels like it.
Yes, it does feel good to pull statistics out of my arse...
Seriously now, while I'd like to just call shenanigans on the whole survey and call the numbers made up, I think there's another problem at work here. Namely, what they consider under the heading "Gamer". If we were to do a poll on this forum, we'd probably come up with a mostly negative view of 3D-With-Glasses, but the population of this forum is mostly made up of "Core" gamers (those who make a hobby out of it).
This study on the other hand was likely done by taking the term "Gamer" in a somewhat broader meaning, so it included casuals and such who are likely more receptive to such gimmicks. Let's face it, the broad gaming public isn't us anymore, we're the minority now...
The waters have become a little muddier with the release of a new survey showing that 80 percent of hot women are okay with having uncommital sex with Jandau whenever he feels like it.
Yes, it does feel good to pull statistics out of my arse...
Seriously now, while I'd like to just call shenanigans on the whole survey and call the numbers made up, I think there's another problem at work here. Namely, what they consider under the heading "Gamer". If we were to do a poll on this forum, we'd probably come up with a mostly negative view of 3D-With-Glasses, but the population of this forum is mostly made up of "Core" gamers (those who make a hobby out of it).
This study on the other hand was likely done by taking the term "Gamer" in a somewhat broader meaning, so it included casuals and such who are likely more receptive to such gimmicks. Let's face it, the broad gaming public isn't us anymore, we're the minority now...
How is it even possible that 80% of people like the glasses and then 92% don't really care?
They realise that's 172%, which can't happen, right?
It smells a bit like a scenario in which they've got a hundred people who've shown interest in 3D and another 100 people who haven't and asked each lot two different questions.
They realise that's 172%, which can't happen, right?
It smells a bit like a scenario in which they've got a hundred people who've shown interest in 3D and another 100 people who haven't and asked each lot two different questions.
Yeah. I'm ok with wearing glasses for 3D games. I did it yesterday in fact. I'm not ok, however, with spending a shit-ton of money on them.
I have two pairs of 3D glasses, a red-cyan anagylph set, which costs me £3 (I know, somewhat expensive, but they're also pretty stylish!) and a polarized set, which I got free from the cinema (though a quick googling reveals a replacement pair would cost between £1 and £10). One of these I can use on almost any PC without any extra equipment, the other I'd need to spend a good bit of cash to get a specialized screen for. (Around $300, I don't know what they'd cost over here, probably something similar)
Now, what I wouldn't want to do, knowing this, is waste £1,799 on a 3D screen then have to spend an extra £100 on each pair of glasses. Especially having seen shutter 3D in action, and knowing it provide a SIGNIFICANTLY lower image quality than polarized light. Heck, if you've got a good enough set-up, the image quality is lower than an anaglyph. (And you can get a good anaglyph set up for a lot less than £100)
A good link, for those interested in 3D gaming without spending too much:
http://www.ironstarmovement.com/profiles/blogs/got-a-dollar-start-gaming-in
I'm going to rant about 3D TV now, I'd suggest you stop reading, if you don't care about that sort of thing.
Ok, seriously, who the fuck thought "hey, let's use the shutter method". Because it's fucking retarded. I don't know who invented the shutter system, but I have a feeling it was someone who set out with the express purpose of making the most impractical and expensive set-up on the whole planet. I'm not kidding either, it's got to the worst method of projecting a 3D image in existance.
First, let's look at the TV system:
The major thing is, it's not really stereoscopy. Because the left and right eye images are never present at the same time. I know "modern" 3DTV manufacturers claim this is too fast for the brain to see, but the last time I saw it in action, I could see the flickering, and I've talked to other people who've seen it in action, and they've seen the flickering. That's going to give anyone a headache after using it, if they have migranes or not. It's also potentially dangerous to epileptics, so, yay! Murder! Or at very least manslaughter through gross negligence.
Next, the glasses themselves:
OK, first, they cost about £100. For a single pair of glasses. That's around 1/4 of the price of a screen capable of emitting polarized light. Why do they cost so much? Because they're fucking impractical! They aren't going to get cheaper, because they need a shit-load of technology stuck in them. Anaglyphic glasses are cheap, because they're a plastic frame, with two coloured lenses. Polarized 3D glasses are cheap, because they're a plastic frame, with two diffraction gratings. The only way you can break a pair of polarized or anaglyphic glasses is to physically break them. Shutter 3D glasses, on the other hand, need regularly recharging, need proper handling, and when they do break (and they will break), it costs £100 to replace them. £100 is not a small amount of money. For £100 you can get a lot of nice stuff.
You know what, you know I mentioned those polarized glasses I had earlier? I'm going to drop them. From about 2 meters, onto a concrete floor. Just to see what happens. - They're slightly scratched. Not even noticably damaged, and the lenses are completely intact. So that's no damage done, at all. Now, if I'd dropper a £100 pair of shutter glasses, they would have broken. Think of them like a mobile phone, if you drop a mobile phone onto a concrete floor from 2 meters up, it breaks.
So, not only, are the glasses 2 orders of magnitude more expensive, they're also far easier to break.
Welp, I hope this treatise on why 3DTVs are a complete rip-off and you should never buy one ever has been helpful to you. I know there's a lot of misinformation about them, and I felt everyone would be better off knowing the facts.
I have two pairs of 3D glasses, a red-cyan anagylph set, which costs me £3 (I know, somewhat expensive, but they're also pretty stylish!) and a polarized set, which I got free from the cinema (though a quick googling reveals a replacement pair would cost between £1 and £10). One of these I can use on almost any PC without any extra equipment, the other I'd need to spend a good bit of cash to get a specialized screen for. (Around $300, I don't know what they'd cost over here, probably something similar)
Now, what I wouldn't want to do, knowing this, is waste £1,799 on a 3D screen then have to spend an extra £100 on each pair of glasses. Especially having seen shutter 3D in action, and knowing it provide a SIGNIFICANTLY lower image quality than polarized light. Heck, if you've got a good enough set-up, the image quality is lower than an anaglyph. (And you can get a good anaglyph set up for a lot less than £100)
A good link, for those interested in 3D gaming without spending too much:
http://www.ironstarmovement.com/profiles/blogs/got-a-dollar-start-gaming-in
I'm going to rant about 3D TV now, I'd suggest you stop reading, if you don't care about that sort of thing.
Ok, seriously, who the fuck thought "hey, let's use the shutter method". Because it's fucking retarded. I don't know who invented the shutter system, but I have a feeling it was someone who set out with the express purpose of making the most impractical and expensive set-up on the whole planet. I'm not kidding either, it's got to the worst method of projecting a 3D image in existance.
First, let's look at the TV system:
The major thing is, it's not really stereoscopy. Because the left and right eye images are never present at the same time. I know "modern" 3DTV manufacturers claim this is too fast for the brain to see, but the last time I saw it in action, I could see the flickering, and I've talked to other people who've seen it in action, and they've seen the flickering. That's going to give anyone a headache after using it, if they have migranes or not. It's also potentially dangerous to epileptics, so, yay! Murder! Or at very least manslaughter through gross negligence.
Next, the glasses themselves:
OK, first, they cost about £100. For a single pair of glasses. That's around 1/4 of the price of a screen capable of emitting polarized light. Why do they cost so much? Because they're fucking impractical! They aren't going to get cheaper, because they need a shit-load of technology stuck in them. Anaglyphic glasses are cheap, because they're a plastic frame, with two coloured lenses. Polarized 3D glasses are cheap, because they're a plastic frame, with two diffraction gratings. The only way you can break a pair of polarized or anaglyphic glasses is to physically break them. Shutter 3D glasses, on the other hand, need regularly recharging, need proper handling, and when they do break (and they will break), it costs £100 to replace them. £100 is not a small amount of money. For £100 you can get a lot of nice stuff.
You know what, you know I mentioned those polarized glasses I had earlier? I'm going to drop them. From about 2 meters, onto a concrete floor. Just to see what happens. - They're slightly scratched. Not even noticably damaged, and the lenses are completely intact. So that's no damage done, at all. Now, if I'd dropper a £100 pair of shutter glasses, they would have broken. Think of them like a mobile phone, if you drop a mobile phone onto a concrete floor from 2 meters up, it breaks.
So, not only, are the glasses 2 orders of magnitude more expensive, they're also far easier to break.
Welp, I hope this treatise on why 3DTVs are a complete rip-off and you should never buy one ever has been helpful to you. I know there's a lot of misinformation about them, and I felt everyone would be better off knowing the facts.
Latest results: 225 gamers surveyed : 28% Yes (15% not in current form though) - 72% No (38% being never)AC10 said:
