Sony Bundling Free PS3 Games With 3D TVs

[tk1989]

yeah, this all sounds good, but how much will it cost....?

 

[The Rockerfly]

it will be affordable

Like the ps3 was affordable?

OT: I hate this 3D and because of my regular glasses I can't tell the difference anyway. Oh well, hopefully it will die out soon

 

[asinann]

What's sad is that there have been 3D tv's for at least the last 3 years, they just weren't LCD or LED, they were DLP. You can get one of those for under $2000.

 

[kingmob]

You know, I tried out a 3D TV in Best Buy not too long ago, and it was pretty cool.
Until I realized I had to buy a special TV, with special, power glasses, and get a special 3D copy of my movie in order for it to all work. I'm going to have to give that a big 'pass'. I don't have $3000+ to blow on something as frivolous as 3D TV.

I haven't checked it out yet, but if you need powered glasses the whole point of a dedicated TV is kinda wasted. Just get an old 100Hz CRT TV and it'll work as well...
Sounds like a useless piece of overpriced hardware.

 

[Ravek]

Nevertheless, until they create a holographic television, true independent 3D without the use of additional materials (read: glasses) is still a distant speck.

3D TV without glasses isn't on market yet, but it does already exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOWvx

3D alienates a large demographic. Namely people with only one functioning eye.

It will not catch on.

I don't think people will avoid 3D just because not everyone can enjoy it. There are plenty of examples of devices that are unusable for people with specific disabilities, that are popular nevertheless.

I really don't get the fascination with 3D technology, it does not look good, and ruins a film more often than not. It darkens the colour palette and makes the picture less sharp, often ruining the directors intended shot.

Polarized glasses darken unpolarized light (they let about 50% through, theoretically), but they shouldn't darken light with the appropriate polarization at all. Shutter glasses are only open 50% of the time, so they do effectively darken everything.

I would never get a 3D TV that uses shutter glasses, because flickering 60 times per second is horrible. It's even worse than staring at a 60 Hz CRT, because at least then the background light is continuous. I get very uncomfortable if I look at a 60 Hz CRT for two hours (and that's in a decently-lit room, not movie viewing conditions) so watching a movie with shutter glasses is probably not a good idea ...

Polarized glasses are better in that respect. They also dim the background light, but at least there is no flickering. Still, any 3D solution with glasses is suboptimal in my opinion.

The lens-layer solution would be pretty awesome in that respect, but on the other hand, dividing the screen into nine viewing angles also means a ninefold decrease in the horizontal number of pixels per image. So you'd want to increase your screen's horizontal pixel count by a similar factor to compensate. Maybe you could shave off a factor 2-3 or so because of the extra perceived resolution the stereovision gives you, but that's still pretty substantial.

 

[JEBWrench]

I don't think people will avoid 3D just because not everyone can enjoy it. There are plenty of examples of devices that are unusable for people with specific disabilities, that are popular nevertheless.

Example: Most popular devices are unusable or extremely difficult to use for people with specific disabilities.

 

[Skops]

I too once hought that all this 3D stuff was gimmicky and just a flat out waste of time. But lately, I've seen what improvements they've made it is really quite astonishing. It's a thing you really have to experience and see the future potential in it to understand why Sony is pushing this so hard.

I won't be getting one anytime soon as I just can't fork over that Sony price, nor do I believe there is enough support for it now. Only time will tell..

 

[Kiithid]

Wipeout... nice choice Sony, watch your customers bleed their eyes out for the shinyness explosions going around in 3d, if "2d" Wipeout was great for the eyes imagine it in 3d.
I approve of that.

 

[Archemetis]

Nope. Can't say I'm interested.
Come back when full player immersion in virtually generated 3dimensional environments is possible.


(In other words, when Tron can actually happen, then we'll talk).

 

[Mr. Mike]

Well as long as they're sure there's a market for 3D, then go for it Sony. Personally, I'm still running on a SD TV. Although I will admit, I'd love to see Wipeout HD in 3D.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

Sounds interesting. But I don't feel like wearing a special pair of glasses to play games.

I already wear glasses, and they just wouldn't get along.

Agreed, it's sort of like the thing they did with Arkham, it just won't sell.


I'll buy thier LCD tellies though!

 

[DTWolfwood]

what is "affordable"? $5000-$7000? they is nuts. XD

Didn't they say the PS3 was "affordable" when it came out <.<