Sony to Nintendo: Leave Our 3D Glasses Alone!

[Miumaru]

They sound like Fox news now. Didnt they say before how they were proud of Nintendo's 3DS?
Nintendo is doing what Sony should do if it wants to sell 3D. MAKING IT BETTER! 3D glasses are the shackles of failure that keeps 3D a gimmick. Once we can make 3D glassessless for everything will 3D be worth it.

I don't see you making any practical large screen 3D tv's.

You dont see me BUYING any either. And as the consumer, thats a big deal.

then be my guest, buy a 3ds, and bring all of your friends around to watch movies on it in GLORIOUS NO-GLASSES 3D.

Ok, Im thinking you are an idiot. I usually dont jump to this so fast, but anyways.
I cant. I HAVE to use the glasses or risk headache. I DONT want the glasses.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

when's this 3ds out?
my gf is after one, n I'm thinking if its not til the end of the year, i can kill 2 birds with one stone n get her one for xmas

 

[RadiusXd]

They sound like Fox news now. Didnt they say before how they were proud of Nintendo's 3DS?
Nintendo is doing what Sony should do if it wants to sell 3D. MAKING IT BETTER! 3D glasses are the shackles of failure that keeps 3D a gimmick. Once we can make 3D glassessless for everything will 3D be worth it.

I don't see you making any practical large screen 3D tv's.

You dont see me BUYING any either. And as the consumer, thats a big deal.

then be my guest, buy a 3ds, and bring all of your friends around to watch movies on it in GLORIOUS NO-GLASSES 3D.

Ok, Im thinking you are an idiot. I usually dont jump to this so fast, but anyways.
I cant. I HAVE to use the glasses or risk headache. I DONT want the glasses.

No, the idiot here is you.
Surely you must realise that either googles to go over glasses or perscription 3d glasses can be made for you, if there is a market for such thing I am absolutly certain that someone will cater to that need, its simple supply and demand. these glasses are not magic devices that can't be altered.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

When. The. Fuck. Is. 3D. Gonna. DIE?!

 

[Miumaru]

They sound like Fox news now. Didnt they say before how they were proud of Nintendo's 3DS?
Nintendo is doing what Sony should do if it wants to sell 3D. MAKING IT BETTER! 3D glasses are the shackles of failure that keeps 3D a gimmick. Once we can make 3D glassessless for everything will 3D be worth it.

I don't see you making any practical large screen 3D tv's.

You dont see me BUYING any either. And as the consumer, thats a big deal.

then be my guest, buy a 3ds, and bring all of your friends around to watch movies on it in GLORIOUS NO-GLASSES 3D.

Ok, Im thinking you are an idiot. I usually dont jump to this so fast, but anyways.
I cant. I HAVE to use the glasses or risk headache. I DONT want the glasses.

No, the idiot here is you.
Surely you must realise that either googles to go over glasses or perscription 3d glasses can be made for you, if there is a market for such thing I am absolutly certain that someone will cater to that need, its simple supply and demand. these glasses are not magic devices that can't be altered.

I dont wear glasses, nor do I want to wear 3D glasses. 3D will be far better if it can create the same effect without the need for glasses or similar things to make it work. Its the whole reason why the 3DS is so amazing. However it only works for one person holding it. If some similar tech could be created that could create 3D on a screen that can be visible properly to anyone looking at the screen without the ened for peripharals (the glasses) then it will be worth getting. Supply and demand huh? How about inovation. If soemone can figure out how to make such a device, then good. Supply and Demand? I demand such a device, now Im just waiting for the one to supply it.

 

[RadiusXd]

They sound like Fox news now. Didnt they say before how they were proud of Nintendo's 3DS?
Nintendo is doing what Sony should do if it wants to sell 3D. MAKING IT BETTER! 3D glasses are the shackles of failure that keeps 3D a gimmick. Once we can make 3D glassessless for everything will 3D be worth it.

I don't see you making any practical large screen 3D tv's.

You dont see me BUYING any either. And as the consumer, thats a big deal.

then be my guest, buy a 3ds, and bring all of your friends around to watch movies on it in GLORIOUS NO-GLASSES 3D.

Ok, Im thinking you are an idiot. I usually dont jump to this so fast, but anyways.
I cant. I HAVE to use the glasses or risk headache. I DONT want the glasses.

No, the idiot here is you.
Surely you must realise that either googles to go over glasses or perscription 3d glasses can be made for you, if there is a market for such thing I am absolutly certain that someone will cater to that need, its simple supply and demand. these glasses are not magic devices that can't be altered.

I dont wear glasses, nor do I want to wear 3D glasses. 3D will be far better if it can create the same effect without the need for glasses or similar things to make it work. Its the whole reason why the 3DS is so amazing. However it only works for one person holding it. If some similar tech could be created that could create 3D on a screen that can be visible properly to anyone looking at the screen without the ened for peripharals (the glasses) then it will be worth getting. Supply and demand huh? How about inovation. If soemone can figure out how to make such a device, then good. Supply and Demand? I demand such a device, now Im just waiting for the one to supply it.

no, you will be waiting a long time.
i can, right now think of a couple ways to make what you want, it would just take either a ridiculous amount of reasorces or technologly that we don't have now and won't have for years, if not decades.
In short, if one is made you couldn't afford it in a lifetime.

Edit: boo hoo, baby don't like glasses, they hurt babys little feelings.
glasses take two seconds to put on and they feel just fine, it takes a few seconds of you not thinking about them before you pretty much forget that they are on.

 

[RadiusXd]

Sony is basically saying "So we made the wrong choice, Stop rubbing our noses in it"

...Suck it up sony, Ninty got you this time.

No, just no. Nintendo hasn't won anything, not at this point.

 

[Miumaru]

They sound like Fox news now. Didnt they say before how they were proud of Nintendo's 3DS?
Nintendo is doing what Sony should do if it wants to sell 3D. MAKING IT BETTER! 3D glasses are the shackles of failure that keeps 3D a gimmick. Once we can make 3D glassessless for everything will 3D be worth it.

I don't see you making any practical large screen 3D tv's.

You dont see me BUYING any either. And as the consumer, thats a big deal.

then be my guest, buy a 3ds, and bring all of your friends around to watch movies on it in GLORIOUS NO-GLASSES 3D.

Ok, Im thinking you are an idiot. I usually dont jump to this so fast, but anyways.
I cant. I HAVE to use the glasses or risk headache. I DONT want the glasses.

No, the idiot here is you.
Surely you must realise that either googles to go over glasses or perscription 3d glasses can be made for you, if there is a market for such thing I am absolutly certain that someone will cater to that need, its simple supply and demand. these glasses are not magic devices that can't be altered.

I dont wear glasses, nor do I want to wear 3D glasses. 3D will be far better if it can create the same effect without the need for glasses or similar things to make it work. Its the whole reason why the 3DS is so amazing. However it only works for one person holding it. If some similar tech could be created that could create 3D on a screen that can be visible properly to anyone looking at the screen without the ened for peripharals (the glasses) then it will be worth getting. Supply and demand huh? How about inovation. If soemone can figure out how to make such a device, then good. Supply and Demand? I demand such a device, now Im just waiting for the one to supply it.

no, you will be waiting a long time.
i can, right now think of a couple ways to make what you want, it would just take either a ridiculous amount of reasorces or technologly that we don't have now and won't have for years, if not decades.
In short, if one is made you couldn't afford it in a lifetime.

Edit: boo hoo, baby don't like glasses, they hurt babys little feelings.
glasses take two seconds to put on and they feel just fine, it takes a few seconds of you not thinking about them before you pretty much forget that they are on.

Im done with you troll.

 

[RadiusXd]

They sound like Fox news now. Didnt they say before how they were proud of Nintendo's 3DS?
Nintendo is doing what Sony should do if it wants to sell 3D. MAKING IT BETTER! 3D glasses are the shackles of failure that keeps 3D a gimmick. Once we can make 3D glassessless for everything will 3D be worth it.

I don't see you making any practical large screen 3D tv's.

You dont see me BUYING any either. And as the consumer, thats a big deal.

then be my guest, buy a 3ds, and bring all of your friends around to watch movies on it in GLORIOUS NO-GLASSES 3D.

Ok, Im thinking you are an idiot. I usually dont jump to this so fast, but anyways.
I cant. I HAVE to use the glasses or risk headache. I DONT want the glasses.

No, the idiot here is you.
Surely you must realise that either googles to go over glasses or perscription 3d glasses can be made for you, if there is a market for such thing I am absolutly certain that someone will cater to that need, its simple supply and demand. these glasses are not magic devices that can't be altered.

I dont wear glasses, nor do I want to wear 3D glasses. 3D will be far better if it can create the same effect without the need for glasses or similar things to make it work. Its the whole reason why the 3DS is so amazing. However it only works for one person holding it. If some similar tech could be created that could create 3D on a screen that can be visible properly to anyone looking at the screen without the ened for peripharals (the glasses) then it will be worth getting. Supply and demand huh? How about inovation. If soemone can figure out how to make such a device, then good. Supply and Demand? I demand such a device, now Im just waiting for the one to supply it.

no, you will be waiting a long time.
i can, right now think of a couple ways to make what you want, it would just take either a ridiculous amount of reasorces or technologly that we don't have now and won't have for years, if not decades.
In short, if one is made you couldn't afford it in a lifetime.

Edit: boo hoo, baby don't like glasses, they hurt babys little feelings.
glasses take two seconds to put on and they feel just fine, it takes a few seconds of you not thinking about them before you pretty much forget that they are on.

Im done with you troll.

Way to quit, sore loser.

 

[AceMcBadass]

besides, all of you people saying that nintendoes technology is better, yes, the nintendo can give a 3d image without need of glasses.
but, you need to be in the "sweet spot" otherwise the quality of the 3d effect and the image itself is compromised. when applying that stuff to a widescreen tv, and more than 1 person feels like playing/watching too.... how do i describe this?
ahhhh, remember when they had those old laptop screens that turned the display all blue or whatever when your head wasnt directly in front of the screen?
i imagine it would be more annoying than that.
and getting rid of the glasses won't nessasarily fix the whole headache problem, people assume its the glasses, but it's actually your brain trying to figure out why it can focus on things at different depths at the same time. perhaps you should do some research.
the reason it works for nintendo is because of the fact that its a handheld console, meant for ONE PERSON, I can imagine you all bumping yours heads together as you attempt to watch avatar on your new NO GLASSES tv.
perhaps do some research on the things your bagging

the Technology is new, kinda like that laptop was that yo talk about in your analogy. But guess what? Something has to be first. Nintendo took the first step. it my not be great now, but neither was the original Game Boy. Im using a laptop right now, and i can see the screen just fine from almost every angle, which means that, even though laptop screens used to be annoying and slightly impractical, the technology improved to what we have today, and im sure it will get even better. This 3D phenomenon was started too early, too expensive and too many draw backs to be practical. Nintendo is the first company to mass produce an alternative, slightly better version of the tech. No, its not perfect, but its a step forward. No 200 glasses, and the console is not outrageously expensive, unlike standard TV's VS. 3D TV's. Because of this step forward, soon there will be another, and then another, till the Glasses Less 3D tech can be seen at any angle, on any size screen, for a reasonable price. Thats how technology works. 15 years ago i remember my parents buying a PC with Windows 3.11, mb a gig hard drive 58kb ram. They paid $4500. 2 years ago, i bought my laptop, Windows Vista, 320 gig hard drive, 4 gigs of ram: $600. 3D is too early in the game to be good or affordable. come back to me in 5 years and you'll see. sorry for rambling.

you misunderstand how glassesless screens work on the fundamental level.
it would take a massive shift to make it work like that, if its even possible i.e larger than the diff between plasma and lcd.
im not saying its a not a good idea for handhelds, as only one person at at time uses the things, and the small screen size means it doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

you will have to reaserch the parralax barrier and lenticular lenses technologys yourself if you want to understand why it doesn't work for more than 1 person without some sort of paradigm shift.
you miss the point sir, good day.

you, sir, are the one missing the point. u doubt the swift advancement of technology. just because we dont understand how to do it now, some one will figure out a new, better, cheaper way to do it. that was my point, and it still stands.

 

[RadiusXd]

besides, all of you people saying that nintendoes technology is better, yes, the nintendo can give a 3d image without need of glasses.
but, you need to be in the "sweet spot" otherwise the quality of the 3d effect and the image itself is compromised. when applying that stuff to a widescreen tv, and more than 1 person feels like playing/watching too.... how do i describe this?
ahhhh, remember when they had those old laptop screens that turned the display all blue or whatever when your head wasnt directly in front of the screen?
i imagine it would be more annoying than that.
and getting rid of the glasses won't nessasarily fix the whole headache problem, people assume its the glasses, but it's actually your brain trying to figure out why it can focus on things at different depths at the same time. perhaps you should do some research.
the reason it works for nintendo is because of the fact that its a handheld console, meant for ONE PERSON, I can imagine you all bumping yours heads together as you attempt to watch avatar on your new NO GLASSES tv.
perhaps do some research on the things your bagging

the Technology is new, kinda like that laptop was that yo talk about in your analogy. But guess what? Something has to be first. Nintendo took the first step. it my not be great now, but neither was the original Game Boy. Im using a laptop right now, and i can see the screen just fine from almost every angle, which means that, even though laptop screens used to be annoying and slightly impractical, the technology improved to what we have today, and im sure it will get even better. This 3D phenomenon was started too early, too expensive and too many draw backs to be practical. Nintendo is the first company to mass produce an alternative, slightly better version of the tech. No, its not perfect, but its a step forward. No 200 glasses, and the console is not outrageously expensive, unlike standard TV's VS. 3D TV's. Because of this step forward, soon there will be another, and then another, till the Glasses Less 3D tech can be seen at any angle, on any size screen, for a reasonable price. Thats how technology works. 15 years ago i remember my parents buying a PC with Windows 3.11, mb a gig hard drive 58kb ram. They paid $4500. 2 years ago, i bought my laptop, Windows Vista, 320 gig hard drive, 4 gigs of ram: $600. 3D is too early in the game to be good or affordable. come back to me in 5 years and you'll see. sorry for rambling.

you misunderstand how glassesless screens work on the fundamental level.
it would take a massive shift to make it work like that, if its even possible i.e larger than the diff between plasma and lcd.
im not saying its a not a good idea for handhelds, as only one person at at time uses the things, and the small screen size means it doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

you will have to reaserch the parralax barrier and lenticular lenses technologys yourself if you want to understand why it doesn't work for more than 1 person without some sort of paradigm shift.
you miss the point sir, good day.

you, sir, are the one missing the point. u doubt the swift advancement of technology. just because we dont understand how to do it now, some one will figure out a new, better, cheaper way to do it. that was my point, and it still stands.

I don't use a motorbike because I'm hopeful that one day motorcyles will fly, if I wanted to fly I would use a plane or helicopter because its BETTER SUITED. Just like glasses 3D is better suited to large televisions right now, and like No-Glasses 3d is better suited to the handhelds.
I don't use things based on what they could be, i use them based on what they are.
If they do indead come up with what you suggest then by all means, Pre order one for me!

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

To make an analogy: The woman who went to a coffee shop, spilt the coffee on herself, and then sued the shop because the cup didn't say that the coffee was hot.

In short: COMMON SENSE

Okay, I know this is completely off topic, but I just want to straighten this out because I always see people citing this lawsuit;

The coffee was boiling hot, and that's literally, not figuratively. The old lady spilled the coffee on her legs, she had to get god damn skin grafts. Skin grafts! You only need those when you have 3rd degree burns, I.E when you're on fire!

McDonalds was purposefully making the coffee several degrees hotter than the recommended temperature for coffee, claiming that most of their customers would wait until they got home to drink (which was not true). To put that in perspective, McyDees basically served their coffee immediately out of the pot at the temperature of fire.

And this wasn't the only case, there were several hundred cases with similar results, and a few of them sued to.

Sorry for getting off topic, but I just want to straighten that out, it's annoying seeing people cite that lawsuit over and over when there really was a good reason.

BUT, to be on topic, nobody has yet to answer my question; Has anyone actually played a 3D capable game? It makes a god damn difference, 3D has much more potential in video games than it does in films, I don't know why people are citing films to compare to video games, they work in two separate technologies anyway.

There have been a few games that deliver the primitive 3D feel I think. I know that the G-Force game had a 3D option. Apperantly Avatar did, but only heard that when I returned the game to the rental store. But again, while it might look nice for you, the other people in the room saw off-sets of red and blue and it killed their eyes. It wasn't really worth it either. Almsot everything in the screen jumped out at you.

Now the 3D that is being used in the theatres today, where only certain things become 3D (such as, again, avatar), I have never seen in terms of gaming. I'm thinking I might wait for a game that actually says "You can play this in 3D ya know, it was made for this" before I get into that field.

 

[Jumplion]

There have been a few games that deliver the primitive 3D feel I think. I know that the G-Force game had a 3D option. Apperantly Avatar did, but only heard that when I returned the game to the rental store. But again, while it might look nice for you, the other people in the room saw off-sets of red and blue and it killed their eyes. It wasn't really worth it either. Almsot everything in the screen jumped out at you.

Now the 3D that is being used in the theatres today, where only certain things become 3D (such as, again, avatar), I have never seen in terms of gaming. I'm thinking I might wait for a game that actually says "You can play this in 3D ya know, it was made for this" before I get into that field.

I played WipeoutHD on my friend's 3D TV (he had 2 pairs), and let me tell you it was a blast. I personally think that 3D has much more potential in video games than it does in films. People assume that because Nintendo made a 3D without glasses that all of a sudden their technology will now spread everywhere instantly, but it doesn't work like that. Right now the best 3D you can have in your living room is the one that the PS3 uses (as it's the only one doing it, so you can't say they aren't trying) and the further that is improved the better that 3D will work, and maybe that will convert to glasses-less 3D down the line.

I hate it when people go off and say that 3D is a fad because they say so based on the movies they've played, not the games. Most people's excuse for not playing the games in 3D is that "It's too expensive!" and "I don't want to wear the glasses!" an excuse that I have only recently seen after the 3DS, before that only a few people even bothered. 3D movie standards should not be 3D game standards, they're two different mediums with different uses in 3D.

But whatev, I'm tired and I'm mostly rambling now. Hopefully I made my point.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

There have been a few games that deliver the primitive 3D feel I think. I know that the G-Force game had a 3D option. Apperantly Avatar did, but only heard that when I returned the game to the rental store. But again, while it might look nice for you, the other people in the room saw off-sets of red and blue and it killed their eyes. It wasn't really worth it either. Almsot everything in the screen jumped out at you.

Now the 3D that is being used in the theatres today, where only certain things become 3D (such as, again, avatar), I have never seen in terms of gaming. I'm thinking I might wait for a game that actually says "You can play this in 3D ya know, it was made for this" before I get into that field.

I played WipeoutHD on my friend's 3D TV (he had 2 pairs), and let me tell you it was a blast. I personally think that 3D has much more potential in video games than it does in films. People assume that because Nintendo made a 3D without glasses that all of a sudden their technology will now spread everywhere instantly, but it doesn't work like that. Right now the best 3D you can have in your living room is the one that the PS3 uses (as it's the only one doing it, so you can't say they aren't trying) and the further that is improved the better that 3D will work, and maybe that will convert to glasses-less 3D down the line.

I hate it when people go off and say that 3D is a fad because they say so based on the movies they've played, not the games. Most people's excuse for not playing the games in 3D is that "It's too expensive!" and "I don't want to wear the glasses!" an excuse that I have only recently seen after the 3DS, before that only a few people even bothered. 3D movie standards should not be 3D game standards, they're two different mediums with different uses in 3D.

But whatev, I'm tired and I'm mostly rambling now. Hopefully I made my point.

I can understand your point, but you just hit my point hom a bit as well. You played on a 3D TV. I have spoken to a few of my friends and they have tried to play 3D games, and CAN'T. No 3D TV. I would love to play this, buit considering the new TV I just bought that was HD, I don't want to re-spend all that money all over again. 3D should have waited a while for the whole HD thing to die down a bit before trying to become to prevalent. It might not be a fadm, and it might be awesome, but I feel it is simply too soon.

 

[Jumplion]

I can understand your point, but you just hit my point hom a bit as well. You played on a 3D TV. I have spoken to a few of my friends and they have tried to play 3D games, and CAN'T. No 3D TV. I would love to play this, buit considering the new TV I just bought that was HD, I don't want to re-spend all that money all over again. 3D should have waited a while for the whole HD thing to die down a bit before trying to become to prevalent. It might not be a fadm, and it might be awesome, but I feel it is simply too soon.

That's what a lot of people have said about HD when it first started, "It's too expensive right now", "it should have waited a bit so more content supports HD!", "I'm perfectly fine with my STV!", and the like.

Thing is, if 3D TVs were out now, then they would be out later, and it would be just as expensive now. The only real way to make 3D TVs go lower in price is if enough people buy it for R+D and more efficient, cheaper 3D TVs come out. It's no use complaining that they are so expensive right now as most technologies starts off that way. Eventually the prices will go down, and the cycle will repeat just like it did with HD TVs.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

I can understand your point, but you just hit my point hom a bit as well. You played on a 3D TV. I have spoken to a few of my friends and they have tried to play 3D games, and CAN'T. No 3D TV. I would love to play this, buit considering the new TV I just bought that was HD, I don't want to re-spend all that money all over again. 3D should have waited a while for the whole HD thing to die down a bit before trying to become to prevalent. It might not be a fadm, and it might be awesome, but I feel it is simply too soon.

That's what a lot of people have said about HD when it first started, "It's too expensive right now", "it should have waited a bit so more content supports HD!", "I'm perfectly fine with my STV!", and the like.

Thing is, if 3D TVs were out now, then they would be out later, and it would be just as expensive now. The only real way to make 3D TVs go lower in price is if enough people buy it for R+D and more efficient, cheaper 3D TVs come out. It's no use complaining that they are so expensive right now as most technologies starts off that way. Eventually the prices will go down, and the cycle will repeat just like it did with HD TVs.

Alright now think of it this way. I'm going to pull prices out of my ass so don't count on a terrible lot of accuracy...

Lets say I buy a brand new $2,000 TV a few months ago. HD 1080P. Now they come out with 3D TVs that cost $3,000. In a few short months, you're telling me that there is no sense in complaining of just hushing up and being expected to purchase another TV so soon. $5,00 gone so soon.

No if these two events were to happen say... a year or three apart from one another, it seems much more leniant.

I know that HD didn't just come out a few months ago, but you must understand my drift with the time frame. We can't all afford two TVs so close to one another. THey should have let the market adjust and then release.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

All I can say is; pot, meet kettle.

 

[Jumplion]

Lets say I buy a brand new $2,000 TV a few months ago. HD 1080P. Now they come out with 3D TVs that cost $3,000. In a few short months, you're telling me that there is no sense in complaining of just hushing up and being expected to purchase another TV so soon. $5,00 gone so soon.

Well, I didn't mean that every complaint is invalidated, I was just trying to put some perspective.

And it's you're own damn fault for buying an HD TV so late

There are always going to be late adopters to all technology, and eventually the 3D will become cheaper and another technology will be right around the corner.

Now if these two events were to happen say... a year or three apart from one another, it seems much more leniant.

I know that HD didn't just come out a few months ago, but you must understand my drift with the time frame. We can't all afford two TVs so close to one another. THey should have let the market adjust and then release.

I understand what you're getting at, but the problem is that if 3D TVs came a year or 3 after HD TVs settled in (who knows when that would fully happen?), the prices then would be exactly like the prices now; expensive. And the people don't want to buy it, claiming that it came too early after people settled in with their HD TVs, and that it's a gimmmick, and the cycle continues.

We've had this situation before, way back in HD TV times and in Color TV times and just when TV started.

 

[HarmanSmith]

So, you'll need your own pair if you just want to watch other people play? That's really inconvenient (read: good business).