And for a even better deal, you can get all of this for one quick payment of YOUR SOUL!(Taxes still apply)chemicalreaper said:
OT: 3D seems kind of cool, but way too expensive for me, and glasses are annoying to wear.
Sony: 3D Is a New Creative Medium
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
OT: 3D seems kind of cool, but way too expensive for me, and glasses are annoying to wear.
I frankly believe, that not many people will want 3D, or could afford it. so it will suck. So i'll prefer to wait for Holographic Stuff ! (holograms already exists, and even with movement and touch sensitivity, just search).
I'm pretty sure red and blue glasses was a fad that died out a short time ago. Everything old is new again?
Well, of COURSE they're going to say that. It' called marketing. They aren't just going to come out and say, "It's pretty much just a crappy gimmick that seems to be popular right now."
Hey, guess what? Big corporations....get ready for this....like money.
Hey, guess what? Big corporations....get ready for this....like money.
That's very noble Sony, but 3D has yet to prove itself as anyhing other than a gimmick.
...And I'm not holding my breath.
...And I'm not holding my breath.
This just in: Sony's PR is still trying too damn hard! Seriously Sony, I know this is hard to accept, but this shit will bomb regardless of how you try to push support for it. Just accept that you are pissing away so much money at an ill-realized gimmick that not everyone can afford/ put up with. Just man up, grow some balls, and throw away this 3D filth.
Whether the feature gets used or not, 3D TVs are not going away. I just bought a (non-3D) TV here in Japan, and almost all of the TVs above 40" are 3D here. And since the Japanese government is paying people to buy TVs right now, I'm guessing that a whole heck of a lot more (Japanese) people will have 3D capability in their homes by the end of the holiday season.
So will we see a 3D Elder Scrolls or Half Life game any time soon? Probably not. But don't be surprised if you start seeing a whole lot of 3D titles coming from the East. Not that the way they use it will do anything to change people's minds about it being a useless gimmick...
EDIT: Just thought I'd point out as well, that, after government incentive, store discount and a internet bundle deal(I switched to Fiber Optic), I could have gotten a 46" 3D Sony Bravia for roughly $1300. So the financial barrier does not seem to be quite as high over here as it is in the States. Of course, I ended up paying only $700 for the same size plasma without the 3D, so it still seemed like a bit of unnecessary extravagance...
So will we see a 3D Elder Scrolls or Half Life game any time soon? Probably not. But don't be surprised if you start seeing a whole lot of 3D titles coming from the East. Not that the way they use it will do anything to change people's minds about it being a useless gimmick...
EDIT: Just thought I'd point out as well, that, after government incentive, store discount and a internet bundle deal(I switched to Fiber Optic), I could have gotten a 46" 3D Sony Bravia for roughly $1300. So the financial barrier does not seem to be quite as high over here as it is in the States. Of course, I ended up paying only $700 for the same size plasma without the 3D, so it still seemed like a bit of unnecessary extravagance...
3D is not a new creative medium. Stereoscopy dates back to 1838. Technology to create the illusion of depth has been around for a long, long time.
3D is a gimmick, much like motion controls but with even less impact than motion controls. I doubt it could be successfully argued that motion controls give fundamentally the same experience of playing as using a standard control. There is a big difference between pushing a button and pushing a thumbstick and waving your arms around like you're covered with bats. But 3D as it currently works just puts an optical illusion of depth on the screen which some find more distracting than enhancing, myself included.
3D may work if some clever chap ever couples it with head tracking. But even then, I'm unsure if this will be all that worthwhile. Head tracking has it's own problems in that it can give the illusion of moving in a three-dimensional space, but it limits the player to observing the game space though a very small window. Such a thing would be better suited to a 360 field of vision, and even then it would be limiting.
3D is a gimmick, much like motion controls but with even less impact than motion controls. I doubt it could be successfully argued that motion controls give fundamentally the same experience of playing as using a standard control. There is a big difference between pushing a button and pushing a thumbstick and waving your arms around like you're covered with bats. But 3D as it currently works just puts an optical illusion of depth on the screen which some find more distracting than enhancing, myself included.
3D may work if some clever chap ever couples it with head tracking. But even then, I'm unsure if this will be all that worthwhile. Head tracking has it's own problems in that it can give the illusion of moving in a three-dimensional space, but it limits the player to observing the game space though a very small window. Such a thing would be better suited to a 360 field of vision, and even then it would be limiting.
This entire comment thread is embarrassing.
If you haven't noticed, Sony is trying to sell 3D production to a group of developers, and by technical definition, it is indeed a medium. They're not hanging out outside of your Gamestop, not letting you in if you don't promise to buy it. Stop acting like they're pissing in your corn flakes.
More importantly, go play Arkham Asylum: GoTY, and actually form an opinion from seeing how 3D can make games better.
If you haven't noticed, Sony is trying to sell 3D production to a group of developers, and by technical definition, it is indeed a medium. They're not hanging out outside of your Gamestop, not letting you in if you don't promise to buy it. Stop acting like they're pissing in your corn flakes.
More importantly, go play Arkham Asylum: GoTY, and actually form an opinion from seeing how 3D can make games better.
Are you serious? Honestly, if 3D is the new dimension, so to speak (Hurr hurr), then you might as well give me a working virtual reality device.
Seriously! Do it! I've been wanting to smite dragons with my bare hands! Fucking do it!
Seriously! Do it! I've been wanting to smite dragons with my bare hands! Fucking do it!
3D is not new. It was created in 1838, it wasn't that popular in the 1840s for photographs, it wasn't popular when they introduced it films in the early 1900s, it wasn't popular in the 1970s when they tried to revitalize it, and it is not popular now. Sony is full of crap.
The only way 3D can only be truly acceptable is seeing without any devices from any perceptive.
i.e. real holograms.
The only way 3D can only be truly acceptable is seeing without any devices from any perceptive.
i.e. real holograms.
Unsurprisingly, a CEO of a major electronics company has come forward to try to market their latest tech-toy in an effort to get people to buy. Also, unsurprisingly, there are those of the gaming community who respond with the typical closed and narrow-minded vitriol and cynical meme-thinking. Even further unsurprisingly, this new tech-toy is touted as being something that can auto-magically revolutionize the industry. This has all happened before, and it will happen again. The cycle will repeat until people learn to get a grip and have some balance in their thinking.
Like any other technology or technique, the effectiveness of 3D to enhance the entertainment experience depends on how it is used. It cannot, in and of itself, magically transform the experience by simply being dropped in. Almost nothing has ever worked this way. It typically requires the artistic talent and craftsmanship of the creator to use the various technologies and techniques in manner that generates a compelling experience(any trained monkey can make a highly detailed, pretty picture, but only an artist can actual make a work of art).
3D does indeed have potential, despite the repeated lambasting of the meme-thinkers, but it is something that has to be developed and utilized in a thoughtful and artistic manner. There is no auto-magic about it. Just making your game 3D will not auto-magically make it better. However, just because 3D has some difficulty fully realizing potential today does not make the effort of it worthless(honestly, if everyone thought like even half the opinions you read on these forums, we wouldn't have any technology at all).
Like any other technology or technique, the effectiveness of 3D to enhance the entertainment experience depends on how it is used. It cannot, in and of itself, magically transform the experience by simply being dropped in. Almost nothing has ever worked this way. It typically requires the artistic talent and craftsmanship of the creator to use the various technologies and techniques in manner that generates a compelling experience(any trained monkey can make a highly detailed, pretty picture, but only an artist can actual make a work of art).
3D does indeed have potential, despite the repeated lambasting of the meme-thinkers, but it is something that has to be developed and utilized in a thoughtful and artistic manner. There is no auto-magic about it. Just making your game 3D will not auto-magically make it better. However, just because 3D has some difficulty fully realizing potential today does not make the effort of it worthless(honestly, if everyone thought like even half the opinions you read on these forums, we wouldn't have any technology at all).
In this case they are right. 3D that needs glasses is a technological dead end. Once you have to wear them, you might as well be projecting the images directly into glasses and do away with the TV completely.geizr said:
The fact is that flat panel TV manufactures have saturated the market and there is practically no growth left in selling them. Pushing 3D solves this problem (marketing 101 - create the need, sell the product) and isn't a new creative medium.
I am glad to see so many people agreeing with me on the fact that Sony is just talking trash here.
I find it difficult to believe the market is yet saturated; a lot of people still have CRT based televisions, and a lot of people who bought into HDTV early have CRT televisions that are a significant investment that cannot be so easily replaced(I myself am one such). Even so, I think we have to be careful to separate the concept from the implementation in our criticisms.-|- said:
Yes, it would be nice to have the image directly project from the glasses, however, that may currently still be infeasible without creating a rather heavy and cumbersome headset. The other option is to create a television screen that is capable of creating the parallax images, which is what manufacturers are currently doing. They, just as much as you, want to lose the glasses to open the technology to more people.
Of course, there are other problems that need to be solved with 3D before it can really take off. For one, implementing only parallax is actually insufficient to completely convey the 3D information. What is missing is the plane of focus. It is this missing element that contributes to the problems of headaches and eyestrain that many experience when viewing through current implementations of 3D(basically, the human visual system performs 2 coupled motions to determine distance positioning, parallax shift and plane of focus; reference geometric optics). Current implementations require the human visual system to adjust for parallax without adjust for plane of focus. Only some people can accomplish the necessary defeating of reflexes(the coupled motion) without difficulty.(Note, this is still a significant problem even if the image is projected directly from the glasses.)
Unfortunately, solving this particular part of the problem is elusive. So, current implementations focus on achieving parallax without significantly encumbering the viewer or reducing the clarity of the image(i.e. improving the convergence of the parallax images).
It's a difficult problem, but I see the concept itself as still having potential to enhance the experience, depending on how it is used. Rather than writing it off with petulant criticism, we should find new ways to fully realize the technology(i.e. solve the parallax, plane of focus coupling problem) and use it to create a more expanded experience. This may mean coupling the technology with additional means of interacting with the game world and implementing the game mechanics such to create an experience that is enhanced beyond butt on the couch in a near comatose, vegetative state with the motion of the thumbs being the only sign of life(such an 90s way of playing games).
Yes, the holo-deck would be the ultimate answer(although, some of us will need to increase our level of fitness to fully deal with that), but we are a long ways off from that. Even so, perhaps, people can brainstorm new ideas for actually creating such a thing, real ideas based on real, sound physics, not the typical internet nerd's asinine babbling with the only intent of mocking and ridiculing.