Question of the Day, July 4, 2010

[MissAshley]

I think it's the next big thing, just not in the forms currently presented to us. I think what we have now is a stepping stone to the next big thing. . .possibly.

Of course, considering how poorly developers have utilized motion controls thusfar, I don't think we'll see that "next big thing" for a long, long time.

 

[Nouw]

Once its cheap and glasses free, it'd be worth some bucks.

 

[Fasckira]

Its one of those things that will make you go, "Huh, thats pretty neat..." but you quickly get bored of.

 

[AdamRBi]

Still just a Fad, there are few companies that are actually using it well, but so far all this is are companies saying to themselves "What's big now? 3D? Ok, ditch the old let's make this 3D." It won't catch on until companies start using it right.

In movies and games.

I have my hopes for it, but right now it's just a fad.

 

[onda]

Ok, I read through a few of the posts here, and the biggest things were
1. people hate 3d, for no real reason
2. people hate 3d for the glasses, and seem to forget entierly about the 3ds
3. people hate 3d for the price. I bet black and white 10 inch screens cost around 9999999999 when they first came out.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Every 20 years they try and wheel out this turkey. Every 20 years audiences find the benefits aren't worth the drawbacks.

Like CGI, very few know how to use it properly (Pixar) and the rest just stuff it on top of a crappy licence.

The main part is that you're trying to fool the optic nerve into accepting something that it knows can't be real. Once you're over that uncanny valley one way, then you start into the point where it's dangerous and painful.

So it's either not good enough, or too good. Really no middle ground. And both distort your vision too much to effectively gain from the film.

 

[CincoDeMayo]

It's something to be used only where appropriate, not crowbarred in to everything. I think it should stay on the big screen, and be totally optional for all films. It's too fallible to become standard.

I enjoyed the 3D in Avatar, but that's because Avatar was made for 3D. Putting it into everything is just a recipe for failure.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[BobisOnlyBob]

Dear Escapist: should 3D turn out to be the next big thing (Courtesy of Sony's investments in it as well as Nintendo's 3DS), dig up this poll and show the results to the world.

 

[Tharwen]

It annoys me how they call it '3D'. It isn't. It's 2D. Displaying it differently doesn't add more dimensions.

 

[Firia]

Currently, it's a fad. It's a revamped fad, but a fad nevertheless. Entertainment is made more entertaining by fads, but unlike things like HD, it requires more extention than a pricey new TV (at this time).

IF on the off chance that fad takes off becoming something bigger than it is, I could see it being the stepping stone to something greater. Wearing glasses for entertainment could be a socially excepted, leading into new ventures in the glasses-entertainment industry. We might even see a revamp of interactive/entertainment media displayed on eye-wear; better known as "Virtual Reality." We've already had baby step attempts in the field, but they sadly failed.

(I have no numbers or sources on the next part, so "I believe" may as well follow every statement.) I believe there currently isn't much venture into researching "VR" using modern technology. There's probably some research, but something about the requirments to make 3D work the way it does in entertainment now tells me we might see some more attempts in the world of VR. (Or "entertainment projected on eye-wear," which is a 95% less thrilling way of putting it.)

 

[Omegatronacles]

I personally don't get why everyone is against 3D - yes, the technology is still young and very expensive, but so was blu-ray and HD-TV's when they first came out (anyone remember Sony's E3 06 press conference? "$599.99" haunted many people that day...)

The glasses aren't too intrusive, although I wish they would make 'goggle' versions that you can wear over regular glasses, and there is a MUCH bigger distinction between 2D and 3D, compared to SD and HD.

While the tech won't be picked up anytime soon by the masses, I reckon we'll be seeing cheap and affordable 3D TV's in a few years. For now, its too expensive, and yeah I think Sony isn't doing the right thing pushing it so hard in the marketing department when its still too young, but I do think it will be the next big thing in a few years time.

The glasses are already sized to fit over most glasses. As long as you don't wear hornwims or something similar you can wear the glasses with no problems.

The biggest drawback is the cost. When you look at the markup from a tv without 3d to a tv with exactly the same specifications but with a 3d engine attached, the mind boggles. In some cases it's nearly a 50% markup for one piece of technology that doesn't have mainstream support.

In addition to that, to get true 3d you also need a 3d blu ray player, and the tv's only come with 2 sets of glasses, so if you want friends around to watch a movie you need a set of glasses for each of them. And if you buy a Sony tv and your mate buys a Samsung tv, then you need to buy 2 sets of glasses, cause your Sony glasses wont work with ths Samsung tv and vice versa. So the cost buildup is quite dramatic.

Combining that with a lack of support, it makes it a large investment for minimal payback. There are, at present, 3 movies released for home use in 3d. There are no live broadcasts in 3d. So you're paying a lot of extra money to watch things in the reqular 2d that you could have obtained for a third of the price.

On top of that there are health risks. Apart from the danger to children's eyesight due to under developed muscles, there is a serious medical risk if you suffer from epilepsy triggered by flashing lights. You have to rapidly flickering lenses right in your face, how long before someone has a serious fit? Or if you don't have epilepsy, there is still the risk of migraines, eyestrain and nausea, caused because not everyone processes information the same way. I myself can't watch 3d for more than 10 minutes without developing a headache. I have seen people who vomit within 10 seconds of putting on the glasses. I have NOT seen warnings about these health risks in any of the advertising for these tv's. Not on the box or in the manual either.

Then we have the people who can't see the 3d effects. A small percentage of people admittedly, but they exist. If you're hosting a movie night, are you just going to refuse to invite a friend because he can't appreciate your tv? Or are you going to watch the movie in 2d, so everyone can enjoy it?

3d as it currently stands is a fad. It has too many flaws and not enough support to make it remotely worthwhile. Maybe this will change in the future.

[sub]Please note that all my opinions are based on the Australian market. I work in retail trying to sell tv's, and I dislike cleaning up peoples vomit when they try out a new product.[/sub]

 

[Tom Phoenix]

People are right, these kind of polls need more options... -_-

Is 3D a fad?....Honestly, I don't know. My impressions are actually kind of to the contrary of most other people. While I think 3D in movies is a fad that will quickly pass, I think the technology actually has some potential in terms of games.

Movies are almost entirely a passive experience. For that reason, being able to understand the width and depth of a certain object is largely irrelevant. It may be an interesting thing at first, but it essentially stays the same experience as before in the long run.

Games, however, are an interactive medium. Meaning that when we control our character(s) in a 3D environment, being able to judge the width and depth of objects becomes important. Assuming 3D does improve that aspect like a lot of people say, it could significantly change our gameplay experience...enough that we will have a hard time going back to "3D on 2D screens" games.

Anyway, I could be wrong and it might still turn out to be a fad even in gaming. However, after so many people said how much difference it makes when playing a game, I think it is possible we are dismissing the technology a bit too fast. Especially since Nintendo started working on the 3DS long before the Avatar craze.