Why did 3D gaming fail?

[Atmos Duality]

Because it's little more than a gimmicky headache. Literally.
It doesn't actually change anything about the game or how to approach it; only how it appears.

Motion controls did more to explore game design space than 3D did.

 

[laggyteabag]

Because 3D gaming requires the player to have a 3D TV, and 3D TVs just aren't popular enough to justify dedicating a lot of resources into a 3D game. That and 3D is a gimmick to a lot of people, myself included. Even with stuff like the 3DS, there aren't that many games that embrace the 3D in any meaningful way, and this is because a lot of people just turn the 3D off so they can have a longer battery life/not get headaches.

 

[kris40k]

In my un-educated[footnote]I do not own any 3d gaming anything, but I've watched a bunch of 3D movies in the theater[/footnote] opinion, 3D gaming and movies suffer from two major flaws:

First: People already own what is necessary for 2D movies and gaming. Even if someone already owns equipment capable for 3D, if they were going to buy your game or movie in 3D, they will likely do so in 2D. I don't often see people say, "Well, I was going to buy Bloodborne, but then I saw it was just 2D so I'll pass. Maybe Bloodborne 2 will be in 3D." There is little business value brought to the project to put resources towards 3D in games. Movies have higher ticket prices for 3D viewing. Unless we all are going to start paying $70 instead of $60 for new games with 3D, there is no reason for a developer to run with it.

Second: 3D is cheesy. Now, I like some cheese, but the technology only[footnote]only as in my opinion is absolute, of course[/footnote] really meshes well with heavy special effects movies and when those same movies are viewed without the 3D effect, many of the scenes that were shot to show off the 3D effect come across as odd. The result is a movie that breaks the 4th wall as I go, "Oh, that was one of those 'in your face' moments?" and am taken out of the movie watching experience.

By the director.

Nice going.


I have seen a few movies where directors are getting better at subtle 3D effects that are cool without killing immersion, but most directors, at the moment, are still running around with their pants on their heads trying to learn how to properly film it.

 

[HardkorSB]

3D isn't that niche, the success of 3D movie sales in theaters is pretty good

Is it?

Several years back, there was a big push by big entertainment/elecronics companies to make 3D a household thing.
People didn't respond well.
They don't want it so now it's going away (even from cinemas, where it was at least somewhat successful).

In my opinion, 3D in it's current form is distracting and can hurt your eyes or even cause headaches.
Not to mention it's not very convincing.
Hopefully when they'll reintroduce 3D in 20-30 years, it will have better quality and be less painful.

 

[Remus]

I'm one of the odd ducks that enjoys 3D movies. That said, one reason why it hasn't really caught on for videogames is because, in order for it to work, the game would require double the processing/graphic power. While that might not mean much for power PC users, for everyone else, especially console users, it translates to the game taking a hit in texture fidelity or framerate in order to create that illusion. So then it becomes a tradeoff - do you want ultra graphics at 120 FPS, or 3D with 60FPS or 3D with high instead of ultra? Or if you're on a midrange PC you're talking 3D at 30FPS or with mid-range textures. Movies don't face a similar dilemma when considering whether or not to watch - just that for some people, it may give them headaches or nausea.

Second: 3D is cheesy. Now, I like some cheese, but the technology only[footnote]only as in my opinion is absolute, of course[/footnote] really meshes well with heavy special effects movies and when those same movies are viewed without the 3D effect, many of the scenes that were shot to show off the 3D effect come across as odd. The result is a movie that breaks the 4th wall as I go, "Oh, that was one of those 'in your face' moments?" and am taken out of the movie watching experience.

By the director.

Nice going.


I have seen a few movies where directors are getting better at subtle 3D effects that are cool without killing immersion, but most directors, at the moment, are still running around with their pants on their heads trying to learn how to properly film it.

This is largely why animated movies do 3D so well - the models are already created to be viewed as 3D objects well before they appear on screen, so adding depth just seems to be the next logical step. What you're describing with the 3D tricks is largely a decision likely made in a boardroom by rich old men to create 3D effects of crap flying at you. While completely idiotic, there are a few rare cases where this still works even without 3D effects. The last Jackass movie comes to mind, with its liberal use of extreme slo mo, especially during the exploding set at the end. There are a few movies that would still be brilliant if remastered in 3D - "9" for instance, a very colorful movie despite its grimdark atmosphere. It even has the bonus of appearing 3D without glasses added. "The Cell" in 3D would be worth the cost of a tech upgrade alone.

 

[BoogieManFL]

Mortal Kombat 9 in 3d on my TV and it was pretty cool. Gran Turismo 6 was meh in 3d. Watched Captain America 2 in 3d and it was as good as in a HD theatre.

Movies in 3d are pretty sweet but with games it's really hit and miss because most of them don't really seem like much focus was spent on it at all, even if they have the option.

 

[Doom972]

It's a gimmick. It doesn't make the game more immersive (You need true 3D for that, not an illusion) and it requires a more expensive TV/Monitor.

3D isn't that niche, the success of 3D movie sales in theaters is pretty good, but the entry price point for at-home 3D is a bit high (though not inaccessible). I think the biggest issue though? It's not cross-platform friendly.

Basically if you're sitting the appropriate distance from your 3D TV with your glasses on playing your game on a console then it looks fine. Put that same game on a PC and you're going from a distance of like 20-30 feet to 2-3 feet away from the monitor, which is bound to have an impact on how well the 3D works. Very few people have 3D capable PCs at the moment I would wager, they are very much a novelty right now and don't have the presentation quality you would get from a 3D home theater which has a similar price point.

Actually, most people these days who have an Nvidia/AMD graphics card, have 3D-capable PCs. The problem in the monitor, as you need a 120 Hz monitor for that. Those glasses aren't that cheap as well (are they still required though?).

 

[Areloch]

In context of gaming, Head Mounted Displays such as the Occulus are where it's going to go, if at all. The reason for that is simple. For games/engines that support it, it's 'true' 3d. It doesn't utilize a post-process effect. Nope, it'll actually render the scene twice, one from each eye point, and provide each eye it's own image, just like how your eyes work in real life.

This leads to a much more tangible sense of depth that isn't faked or hacked in. If 3D's going to happen in games 'proper' at all, it'll be there.

 

[Fappy]

It's a gimmick. Until we get fully functional and affordable VR (both to purchase and to develop) I don't think 3D gaming is going to get very far. Oddly enough I think WoW supports 3D monitors. Has anyone ever tried it?

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I'd say it's a matter of cost, and practicality. Special TVs, and/or dealing with crappy glasses (which is made worse if you wear prescription glasses) make it too inconvenient, and cost prohibitive to take advantage of at this time...

Well, aside from Nintendo's 3ds, and new 3ds which are fairly cheap, and not reliant on accessories. When the rest of gaming catches up to Nintendo's handhelds, 3d gaming will finally have the inertia it needs. Honestly, though I imagine that 3d TV will have to get there first to justify gaming to get there as well.

 

[Fappy]

I'd say it's a matter of cost, and practicality. Special TVs, and/or dealing with crappy glasses (which is made worse if you wear prescription glasses) make it too inconvenient, and cost prohibitive to take advantage of at this time...

Well, aside from Nintendo's 3ds, and new 3ds which are fairly cheap, and not reliant on accessories. When the rest of gaming catches up to Nintendo's handhelds, 3d gaming will finally have the inertia it needs. Honestly, though I imagine that 3d TV will have to get there first to justify gaming to get there as well.

I think they will also need to refine how 3D works so that it is easier on the eyes. There are a lot of people these days prone to migraines and such that simply can't use 3D functions without getting vertigo or a splitting headache.

 

[Kristoffer Mattila]

It's not the holodeck and really, who gives a shit about "not the holodeck"

Quote of the year

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I'd say it's a matter of cost, and practicality. Special TVs, and/or dealing with crappy glasses (which is made worse if you wear prescription glasses) make it too inconvenient, and cost prohibitive to take advantage of at this time...

Well, aside from Nintendo's 3ds, and new 3ds which are fairly cheap, and not reliant on accessories. When the rest of gaming catches up to Nintendo's handhelds, 3d gaming will finally have the inertia it needs. Honestly, though I imagine that 3d TV will have to get there first to justify gaming to get there as well.

I think they will also need to refine how 3D works so that it is easier on the eyes. There are a lot of people these days prone to migraines and such that simply can't use 3D functions without getting vertigo or a splitting headache.

True, I did forget about that, but I am wondering if the New 3Ds does anything to fix that? I haven't heard one way or the other and it being difficult to find (especially the special versions! raaarrr!!*Shakes fists at the heavens.*) probably means it's too early to tell. Even later on, would someone burned by the 3ds 3d still try to use it?

 

[WeepingAngels]

Well, the 3DS seems to be doing very well. It doesn't appeal to me (I got a 2DS), but sales and popularity are high, and reception seems warm.

I simply don't see what it adds, and doubt many people are willing to spend significantly more money for a relatively minor visual tweak, and no extra content. Similarly, 3D cinema has failed to achieve wide success numerous times in the past, and I don't imagine it'll succeed this time either.

I bought the New 3DS XL instead of the 2DS for a couple of reasons. I prefer the clamshell, I prefer the the bigger screens and I prefer the stereo speakers.

I didn't really use the 3D on the original 3DS and I was hoping I would use it more on the New 3DS but I really don't.

My point is, I think there are many people who buy the 3DS for reasons other than 3D.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

For cinema, the chumps in suits try to bring 3D back every 3 decades, and it gets marginally better every time, the fad lasts maybe a little longer, then we all forget about the headaches it causes. Now that home TV tech and video game visuals have evolve to the point they could push 3D at home, they did try it. As said above, the costs of equipment, compared to the value of the experience, and the possibility of headaches/eye strain made it another chapter in the attempt to get people to buy into the gimmick. With the VR headsets coming out soon, the gap between this cycle and the next might only be 2-3 years, instead of the usual 30, but if not, I expect VR headsets to be able to stream 4K 3D movies from your iPhone 34 in the next scheduled stop on the gimmick train.

Honestly, 3D to me looks like moving cardboard cut outs, maybe 4 layers worth. A well animated movie or a well coded game diminished the effect, but I never looks right to me. I only use the 3D on my 3DS 1% of the time, just to see what something does look like without the slider superglued in the "off" position. With their being plenty of people like me, and plenty of people who don't want to buy a pricier TV or a movie ticket with extra charges on it (also me), 3D will never break through. It always seemed to me that the main reason Hollywood pushes 3D is to combat piracy (radial polarization is a pain to record) with the bonus of overcharging the people who are also about to spend 300% more than usual on stale popcorn.

 

[Starbird]

At least, it's my impression that it did. The last time I saw a 3D option for a game was in an Assassin's Creed game and Deus Ex Human Revolution. When my dad got us a 3D Smart TV, I was excited at the prospect of playing video games at 3D. I soon found out that the "3D" was really more of an optical illusion. But that was with games that didn't have 3D built into them, I haven't experienced legitimate 3D gaming (the AC and Deus Ex games were on my laptop).

So, my question is, if you have played a game with 3D features, was it good? If you think it was, why do you think it fell out of use? If not, why?

I'm an absolute 3D nut, but have basically abandoned it, despite amazing 3rd party support from things like Helixmod.

The main reason: No screens above 1080p support it.

 

[CrystalShadow]

It's an addition that requires expensive extra hardware, and doesn't add much to a gaming experience.

Part of the reason the 3ds defies the trend is because, well, it has the hardware requirements as a standard feature...
But even here, they ended up creating the 2ds...

Which kind of shows you how much of a gimmick it is if you can just turn it off at will.

Contrast this with VR, which seems similar superficially, and while it could end up going down the same path, VR is enough of a unique experience that it requires considerable adaptations and special game design to get it right.

VR has the potential to become a new medium in it's own right, which can do things that existing games cannot.

In the same way that Television and radio are different, VR has the potential to be something that games can never be, even though they do have some superficial traits in common.
(However, that does depend on how the technology behind VR progresses)


3d on the other hand will likely never be a thing in it's own right. Just a tacked-on feature to something else.
The handful of games that could benefit from it a little (puzzles where perspective might matter, 3d platformers where judging depth accurately makes them more effective), are a very tiny number of games.
And for the rest it doesn't even add anything at all to a game aside from a weird visual trick which may or may not look interesting...

3d just isn't that impressive.

(And before anyone points out that VR is simply a variation in 3d, it's really not. The core of what makes VR work as a concept will still work with no 3d perception at all.
What matters is the psychological effect of 'closing the loop' - Which is, the image you see is the only thing you see, and it moves when your head moves. - THAT is what makes VR work. 3d is merely a bonus feature that happens to be easy to implement if you're going through the trouble of strapping a screen really close to your face anyway...)

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

Because it's a gimmick that nobody wanted or needed.

 

[Kyrian007]

I guess I can only speak for myself, but stereoscopic 3D's detail, color, and resolution downgrade (not to mention the milimeter thick focus depth) is just too much of a visual downgrade from digital 2d with it's millions of colors, high resolution, and nearly infinite focus depth.

In short; to me 3D tv, movies, and videogames aren't nearly as impressive visually as modern 2D. 3D on the other hand... a popularity spike in 3D movies happened in the 80's but the technology hadn't improved much in the 20+ years since the last time it had been popular. Then just over 20 years later, it's popularity spiked again, but again it's quality had only gotten marginally better. Apart from the parts of display that improved in 2D as well, the purely 3D elements are nearly the same stereoscopic "technology" they were all the way back in the 1950's, and they look like it.

Or to put it another way. Jaws, an excellent movie. Jaws 3D... a gimmicky joke of a movie. And the same is true when comparing 3D display of any kind, to 2D display of any kind.

 

[loa]

It's never gonna be a mainstream thing until it works perfectly without glasses.
That's why the whole VR thing is at least not going to be as huge a thing as facebook, sony and valve would like you to think it is if it catches on at all.
It's simple, convenience wins. It's what made steam big.

You can't beat monitors if your thing that probably gets old after an hour is much less convenient to use if you strip it down to just a display device.
That's why the 3ds still lives, you can just turn the irritating 3d that keeps breaking if you move your head off (as pretty much everyone did) and still have a solid handheld.
If you couldn't do that and the 3d was just permanently on full force, the 3ds would be dead now.