Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony's Solution To Split-Screen Multiplayer

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the no-peeking dept.

E3 157

We discussed Sony's E3 announcement of the pricing and details of the Vita portable console (hands-on report), but they also made a stronger push into the 3D space, revealing a 24" display specifically designed for 3D gaming. Most notable about this display is that two players wearing 3D glasses can use it to view separate images on screen. This means that when playing with a friend, you need not sacrifice 50% of screen real estate to accommodate the other player. The Guardian has a good run-down of Sony's other E3 announcements.

cancel ×

157 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Split screen multiplayer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372776)

Split screen multiplayer isn't a problem, so it doesn't need a solution.

Re:Split screen multiplayer (5, Interesting)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372786)

I loathe split screen multiplayer, and wish they would come up with a solution giving 2 players the whole screen to work with.

Definite case of "YMMV" there, bud.

Re:Split screen multiplayer (4, Interesting)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372892)

Check this out, you can do it yourself:

"Full screen-split screen with any game."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJcVPvjUJo [youtube.com]

They're using cheap glasses from going to movies with one person having two left lenses and the other two right lenses.

Re:Split screen multiplayer (1)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373156)

But with that you still have the problem of having a restricted view. With ACTUAL full-screen split-screen, you can see an entire screen's-worth of the playing field. With that workaround, you still only see half a view stretched over the entire screen. It does seem like a neat way to stop screen lookers though.

Re:Split screen multiplayer (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373310)

Some sat-navs do this but without the glasses by having a holographic screen. From the driver's seat you see the navigation display and from the passenger seat you see a DVD.

Re:Split screen multiplayer (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373232)

I loathe split screen multiplayer, and wish they would come up with a solution giving 2 players the whole screen to work with.

They did, and it's called "network play", where each player sits in front of his very own monitor, yet people play against (or with) each other! I know, amazing concept, that! What will they think of next?

Ever since I saw Marble Madness and Populous split screen played with two mice on an Amiga, I have wondered why people want to crowd in front of a single monitor when they don't even look at the same thing. Do they like each other's body odour or something?

Re:Split screen multiplayer (1)

schlechtums (2108798) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373530)

I'm not so sure that PC gaming is the target market with this "multiplayer without the split screen on your TV" technology.

Can you honestly not imagine, oh, I don't know, some crazy and ludicrous hypothetical situation where two people own one console (a young engaged/married couple living together, siblings, you get the idea) and would want to play multiplayer together on it with each other but don't want to deal with the split screen? How about having friends over! That's a case where one person owns one console but would appreciate this technology. Since this requires a 3DTV, it's not going to be tiny either, which means no cramming together and smelling each other's asses is even necessary!

Do you have that much trouble thinking outside of your own little world, or did you just want to come in here flexing your "back in my day" memories? Or do you just believe that everyone should be like you, that is to believe that networked multiplayer gaming is the only kind of gaming?

Re:Split screen multiplayer (2)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373712)

How about having friends over!

This tech will be useless for that. All your friends would need glasses too, and would only be able to see ONE of the two screens. So it's actually anti-social, excluding your friends compared to a normal game.
As for multiple TVs, I believe the average number of TVs in a household is now above 2. And a games console is going to be cheaper than the glasses needed for this. So what's the problem, again?

Re:Split screen multiplayer (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372788)

True, if you're a pedant. The words "Split Screen Multiplayer" do not define a problem.

However the problem of how to sensibly divide a screen for two players is quite nicely addressed with this tech. Not that I'll be buying it, because I already have a TV and this is a Sony.

2 players, 1 Screen, 2D yes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372802)

I presume this halves the refresh rate rather than quartering it?

Re:2 players, 1 Screen, 2D yes? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372816)

I was thinking do you get all the colors too :)

Re:2 players, 1 Screen, 2D yes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373052)

Yes. The active shutter is a LCD overlay on the lens that blacks out the vision when any but your screen is displaying. You get full colours when your shutter is open. Your brain fills in the gaps when the shutter is closed so that you don't notice (persistence of vision).

Also - CHEATING :D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372846)

If I understand things correctly, you could wear a pair of glasses not in this mode, then simply close one eye to see you opponents screen and close the other to see your own screen.

I should sign in...

Re:Also - CHEATING :D (-1, Redundant)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372994)

I should sign in...

No...you should just not post insightful shit as AC, because I was going to say the exact same thing, and now you've gone and taken my +5 Insighful, and made it -1 Redundant, and didn't even get any karma for yourself.

What a waste, you insensitive clod!!

Re:Also - CHEATING :D (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373110)

You're gonna have to be blinking might fast, lad.

Re:Also - CHEATING :D (1)

pancakegeels (673199) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373246)

3D sends a different image to the left eye to the right, and the glasses for these screens flicker appropriately to only show one image to each eye. From what I can gather, If the sync for the left eye is employed in both lenses, the screen will display Gamer 1's screen. If the sync for the Right eye is used, then similarly the right eye will show Gamer 2's image. If you have the usual sync on the glasses, you will see both images - one in each lens. If it is a sufficient advantage, you could play with your game screen, one eye shut, and peek at your opponent's screen by switching which eye you have open.

Re:Also - CHEATING :D (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373514)

Ahhhh, thank you. I misunderstood the "not in this mode" bit, apparently :-)

That does make a lot more sense.

I gotta hand it to them. (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372810)

This is actually pretty darn clever. Maybe I don't know of the prior art everyone and their brother knows, but colored me impressed by a company I no longer expected this from. Not just in realizing this could be done, but in the executives allowing it to reach market.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372888)

Not just in realizing this could be done, but in the executives allowing it to reach market.

Realising it could be done was a pretty neat jump, but the executives were probably all over it. Bearing in mind Sony makes 3D-enabled PS3s, 3D-enabled Blu-ray players, 3D movie projectors and pretty much every other 3D hardware under the sun, having another opportunity to push the technology can only be in their favour. No doubt they'll be pushing for 3D-exclusive split screen in games in the future.

So, it goes like this: You want to play the latest games? Buy our PS3! You want to watch HD movies on it? Buy our Blu-ray disks to go with your PS3! You want to do that in 3D? Make sure you pay extra for one of our 3D HDTVs to go with your Blu-rays and PS3! Want to do this in exquisite comfort? Buy our sofa! It's in 3D too, and you don't even need glasses for it!

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

malkavian (9512) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373160)

Somehow, the "Cave Johnson" voice seemed to come out loud and clear in that last paragraph.. And it captured the apparent Sony approach nicely!

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (2, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372894)

It's clever but I'm not sure they deserve the kudos for it, I've seen dozens of people suggest this very approach to multiplayer as a useful way to utilise 3D over the past several years (since it reared its head again) - I even remember having a discussion on this very topic with a friend back in '06 (I remember the date as I can remember the project we were working on that spawned the discussion). This is just more evidence that if you're already a global mega-corporation it's much easier to put these ideas into production (and, more importantly, lock everyone else out with IP laws). What I'd like to see is some kind of free to register patent equivalent where regular people with a good idea but without the funds or drive to produce it can donate these more obvious technology applications on an open source basis, meaning any company can use them to create interesting new technology but no one company can own that technology.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372948)

Poor patents are issued today because the system is overwhelmed by submissions from individuals and corporations paying tends of thousands per filing.

And you think things would get better by making them *free*!? If you think an idea is worth protecting, suck it up and pay the money. Tens of thousands of individuals do.

If you don't, all you need to do is publish something about it. When you had that idea in '06 (and its not anything new -- active LCD 3D wasn't uncommon even in the early 90's, and I saw this done back then!), you could've whipped up some software to do it, or tossed a blog posting online and that would've counted as prior art.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372988)

Wow so you are complaining about the fact that you did not create something, but Sony did. And now it's somehow Sonys fault? I think you should spend more time thinking out your opinion and less time distributing your principles no matter what.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

Sene (1794986) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373078)

Indeed, old idea that has been tossed around in the net for quite some time already. Next phase is of course 240Hz 3D tv that allows two player 3D gaming from the same screen.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

Balthisar (649688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373580)

Look up "defensive publication." It's done all the danged time.

not Free (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374282)

Look up "defensive publication." It's done all the danged time.

But his requirement be that it's free. Something like halfbakery.com is probably what he's looking for. The WP article on it lists some of its competitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfbakery [wikipedia.org]

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373736)

3D has only become popular in recent years. Avatar was released in December 2009, which is seems about right for the demand of 3D. 3D TVs became available in 2010, so what the fck were you and your homey doing in 2006? I'm gonna have to call bravo seirra on this post. There are many reasons to hate Sony, but this is not one of them.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372956)

Once you realise 3D is just two slightly different images going to different eyes, it's not a huge leap to sending two completely different images to different people. I thought about it at least a couple years ago, and I'm not dumb enough to believe I'm the only or even first one to do so.
As long as the TV's refresh rate and glasses' shutter speed was fast enough, you could have theoretically unlimited "split screens" on the one TV.
Obviously only works on the shutter-based 3D though. The 3DS's autostereoscopy and the move towards polarizazed displays/glasses would make this impossible.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373024)

Once you realise 3D is just two slightly different images going to different eyes, it's not a huge leap to sending two completely different images to different people. I thought about it at least a couple years ago, and I'm not dumb enough to believe I'm the only or even first one to do so.

Indeed, one of the first things I thought of when I took delivery of my Sony 3d TV was that wouldn't it be handy if the lady could watch X-Factor\Strictly\Other rubbish TV, while I watched\played something else with headphones on the same screen. Hell, it would be nice just to blank out the screen! ;)

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373546)

And, while it wasn't active shutter, there have been luxury cars in the recent past using parallax barrier 3D tech to show navigation to the driver, and a movie to the passenger, on the same display.

Not unlimited in reality (1)

Vario (120611) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373136)

It is not only about refresh rate and shutter speed. One key problem is brightness and ghosting. If you do basically a time multiplex and want to achieve the same brightness level you have to boost the amount of light coming out of the screen quite a bit. Additionally all shutter glasses are not 100% dark, so even now you often see ghost images.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373034)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that the PS3 has to create 4 images per frame for 3D for 2 players? At 1080p this is a LOT of pixels to push. I'd wondered whether this sort of thing was possible some time back, but assumed it would not be feasible as the frame rates would need to be lowered too much. If it works as advertised though, I'm definitely up for getting one! (and I'd written Sony off)

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373084)

It would be in 2D, at least for now. I think if you were going to start splitting into 4 images instead of 2, the flickering would be far too annoying (I tried a 3D Sony TV in one of their stores, and noticed a slight flickering even with 60Hz in each eye). I much prefer polarised 3D to active shutters..

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373086)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that the PS3 has to create 4 images per frame for 3D for 2 players? At 1080p this is a LOT of pixels to push. I'd wondered whether this sort of thing was possible some time back, but assumed it would not be feasible as the frame rates would need to be lowered too much. If it works as advertised though, I'm definitely up for getting one! (and I'd written Sony off)

Not particularly, if it's the same thing I'm thinking of.

3D works by dedicating one frame to the left eye, then one to the right eye. This works by dedicating 1 frame (entirely) to player 1 and 1 frame to player 2, but without 3D.

They're using the fact that you can have 1 lens view 1 image and not the other in a binary fashion. I think to honestly do 3D for both players would either require serious GPU power and active shutter displays that are properly setup, or longer, possibly noticable, delays in between displaying your frame. No gusta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJcVPvjUJo It's similar to this.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

Sene (1794986) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373094)

This is currently only 2d for 2 players. So the same 120Hz refresh rate is enough. For the next stage 240Hz is required from the screen already, and also what you mentioned, a load of power to push all those images in HD resolution.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373382)

the ps3 can't even create one 1080p image at any decent rate. no game runs beyond 720p, most run on even lower resolution.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

Captain Centropyge (1245886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374158)

Actually, Metal Gear Solid 4 runs at 1080p natively. I'd assume there are a few others that do the same.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374324)

Lair is 1080p native. Wipeout HD, too. I'm sure there are a few others, but most of them are earlier games. Everyone seems to have settled on 720p as the 'standard', for now, in order to ensure enough eye candy.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

SilenceBE (1439827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373200)

" but colored me impressed by a company I no longer expected this from"

As a friend told me that has worked at sony in the past, Sony exists out of multiple independed entities. So it is perfectly normal that one department is real cool and relaxed and another department is a real PITA.

For example Sony DVD players supports divx for a long time (I have a really old one) which their movie department isn't that happy about. 90% of the people using DIVX aren't playing legal content.

Sony Imageworks for example has some real cool open source projects which I really love.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373600)

This is actually pretty darn clever. Maybe I don't know of the prior art everyone and their brother knows, but colored me impressed by a company I no longer expected this from. Not just in realizing this could be done, but in the executives allowing it to reach market.

There's something Sony didn't mention out loud: the display shows different pictures to the two different players, but it'll apparently be 2D, not 3D. 3D just for one person requires twice the bandwidth as compared to regular 2D, and 3D for two requires four times that, so there's simply not enough bandwidth to do it.

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373910)

How is this clever? You still have only 1! handheld... how the hell do two people play on one handheld?

Re:I gotta hand it to them. (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374182)

What I want to know is if the glasses will work with other 3DTVs and the feature will be supported on other TVs. I've got a 55" Bravia 3DTV and I would love to be able to use this feature. Really all it is is a different shutter pattern for the glasses, so there is no reasons they shouldn't make this available on any 3DTV that has compatible glasses.

One thing they probably didn't think of... (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372832)

What about people who aren't playing and want to watch?

Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372858)

Nobody cares.

Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372902)

They have a set of glasses with each side attuned to a different player and they just close one eye or the other :)

Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... (2)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373014)

I'm assuming without the glasses you'd see both screens superimposed on each other. While it could be annoying, you'd get to follow both players this way.

And if you want to go with one player only, you don't need the glasses. Just blink really really fast. :)

Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372916)

Just buy another glass and sync it to eiter one of the displays.
[sarcasm] it's just $69 per viewer [/sarcasm]

Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373178)

It's their new DRM scheme: non-players are not licensed to see the game.

Re:One thing they probably didn't think of... (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373624)

Oh they thought about it, don't worry. They'll just sell you as many $70 pairs of glasses as you want people watching.

Limitations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372834)

Surely now the problem will be if the PS3 can produce two 1080p outputs off its GPU or will the graphics have to be degraded.

Re:Limitations (1)

NinetyOneDegrees (2237352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372952)

The issues here are framerate and buffering.

Computer displays are double buffered. That is, you have an image being displayed and an image being drawn to. Finish drawing and you flip them. This is all well and good, but a 1080p 32 bit display takes 8 Megs. We need another 8 for the back buffer, possibly another 8 for a depth buffer and the same again for player 2. That's 48 Megs allocated just to drawing the graphics. You might be able to do something simpler with triple buffering but that doesn't save you a lot.

Framerate - we're drawing twice as many pixels and twice as many polygons. There's very little scope for optimisation here.

If you can make the scene a lot simpler, then you can actually gain in both of these. If you are absolutely certain that a display will be drawn in less than a sixtieth of a second, then you can just draw that while the other image is visible. This means you only need a single buffer per player. You might even find another way of dealing with depth if things are simple enough.

Re:Limitations (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373044)

If you can make the scene a lot simpler, then you can actually gain in both of these. If you are absolutely certain that a display will be drawn in less than a sixtieth of a second, then you can just draw that while the other image is visible.

So we'll have 3D versions of Battlezone [wikipedia.org] , and it'll be called state of the art!

Re:Limitations (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372954)

Since the article is about their upcoming hand-held device, how is that relevant?

Re:Limitations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372982)

I would suggest reading TFA before you go telling other people what it's about.

Re:Limitations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372992)

Did you even read the summary? Do you think the Vita is what the 24" HDTV is designed for? Seriously? At least understand the summary, never mind the article, before you go bashing people about their comment's "relevance".

Re:Limitations (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372970)

Considering how few games for the PS3 are currently 1080p, it seems unlikely there will be anything other than small puzzle games that are actually 1080p to each player through this television.

Re:Limitations (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373414)

please people, pay attention!!
why do so many of you think that ps3 runs its games in 1080p? i've seen a lot of ps3 games and none of them goes above 720p, most are even lower.

virtual boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372876)

We had a console using glasses before (though not in the configuration with an extra monitor) and it was a trainwreck..

"3d" (stereoscopic) tv is also failing because of the mandatory glasses.... so why should it be different for ps vita?

Come back when you do it without glasses. (At least for stereoscopic imaging we know for quite a while that it is possible, also would love to see volume displays sold to common people).

All this kind of stereoscopic hype is so 19th century!

Re:virtual boy (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36372904)

Umm... that's nothing to do with Vita, Vita is the new handheld.

And 3d is failing for a lot of reasons. Glasses are part of it, sure. Complete lack of content for home users is another big one though. I bought a 3dtv but I'm damned if I can find anything I want to use it for.

Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372890)

I still say fuck'em.

nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36372898)

old hat, been known about for ages. How long before they patent n player games, and then say 'wow, now we can do 3d for 4 players... only 1/8 framerate, and luminosity so low you can't see to complain'

"Sony Didn't Solve anything" (as seen on reddit) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373002)

Some dude on reddit posted a link showing the same technique on existing hardware with polarized lenses (lower resolution).

video [youtube.com]

Downside: Half the vertical resolution.
Upside: Bystanders don't have to pay for active glasses; it's already available.

Flicker (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373020)

>"This means that when playing with a friend, you need not sacrifice 50% of screen real estate to accommodate the other player"

Right, it means you sacrifice 50% of the refresh rate instead. And with all the 3D TV's I have seen so far, that means FLICKER!!

Re:Flicker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373056)

>"This means that when playing with a friend, you need not sacrifice 50% of screen real estate to accommodate the other player"

Right, it means you sacrifice 50% of the refresh rate instead. And with all the 3D TV's I have seen so far, that means FLICKER!!

Will you really miss 50% of 120Hz?

Re:Flicker (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373072)

No you wont. Because 99% of all game players already are playing at 60hz.

Re:Flicker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373216)

No you wont. Because 99% of all game players already are playing at 60hz.

Exactly, and that (effectively) includes 3D gamers. Hence the rhetorical question.. ;)

Re:Flicker (1)

prefect42 (141309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373124)

Yes, but not a great deal. Stick CRTs in front of people and everybody will say 50Hz flickers. Some won't have a problem with 60. I'd guess about half would be happy with 70, and most would be happy above 85. So at 60, yes you'll probably notice a bit of flicker, but probably not enough to bother you. Smaller screens bother you much less with flicker anyway, so I doubt people will be bothered by this.

It's not that long ago that people were happy with their 60Hz TV sets (or even 50Hz here in the UK). It's really no big deal.

Re:Flicker (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373942)

Of course, back then, a 60 Hz TV set was designed for actual 60 Hz operation, and the phosphors were still lit up pretty brightly by the time the beam came past again.

60 Hz shutter glasses, OTOH, intend to block light as soon as the frame ends. Therefore, you need a much faster refresh rate on shutter glasses than you would on a CRT that had relatively slow phosphors.

Re:Flicker (1)

prefect42 (141309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374684)

Sure, but most weren't /that/ slow. Plenty of people used 60Hz CRT monitors and didn't think they were hideous (I'm not entirely sure why though), and the persistence of those phosphors was tiny (after about 5% of the vertical size they'd reverted to mostly black).

Re:Flicker (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373334)

>"This means that when playing with a friend, you need not sacrifice 50% of screen real estate to accommodate the other player"

Right, it means you sacrifice 50% of the refresh rate instead. And with all the 3D TV's I have seen so far, that means FLICKER!!

Will you really miss 50% of 120Hz?

120Hz total, 60Hz per eye.

So it will be at 30Hz. It will be like the current shitty 3D movies in the cinema.

Re:Flicker (1)

Anaerin (905998) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374500)

Your math... It hurts my head. It won't be at 30Hz, it'll be at 60Hz, just that the left eye's 60Hz are out of phase with the right eye's 60Hz. Cinema's framerate is at 29.97Hz, whether it's 2D or 3D, as they broadcast both images at the same time, BUT a cinema projector will fire the image 3 times (typically) per frame so the light doesn't (appear to) flicker.

Re:Flicker (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374550)

True, I fucked up the cinema Hz with frame rate.

Re:Flicker (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373364)

To me, it seems like a solution looking for a problem, much like the Wii, but without the benefit of viral marketing.

3D glasses will soon join the Foreman grills, stack of T-Shirt transfer paper and Cuecats in the basement. This secondary use for them won't do anything to stop that. Anything that adds inconvenience will fail. Having to put on glasses and only run certain games is an inconvenience.

Re:Flicker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36374166)

I use my Foreman grill all the time. I don't even have a basement. I have no desire to have a 3D TV in the house and to wear glasses while watching it.

Re:Flicker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373572)

Something I've come to notice over the years is that refresh rate "flicker" means different things to different people (though it shouldn't). I've had a number of people complain about "flickering" from a "low" refresh rate, when what they were actually describing was screen tearing due to not having v-sync enabled. Not the same thing, and even when you demonstrate it for them, some still insist that it's "flickering" due to having a low refresh rate.

Sony steals ideas... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373066)

The second 3d tv's came on the market almost ALL gaming forums were full of the "Screw 3d, how about full screen for 2 player co-op?"

Sony steals that idea and patents it as their own.... Nice.

Thanks sony!

Re:Sony steals ideas... (4, Funny)

Amarantine (1100187) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373120)

So, for once, Sony actually listens to what people want... and you're STILL complaining?

Re:Sony steals ideas... (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373264)

So, for once, Sony actually listens to what people want... and you're STILL complaining?

You think listening to someone else's idea & patenting that idea are the same thing?

Re:Sony steals ideas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373368)

Not their fault if none of the people the forums we're "full" of never filled a patent.
You're really grasping at straws here.

Re:Sony steals ideas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36374398)

No, they're two unrelated things and Sony did both, as they should.

Re:Sony steals ideas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36374682)

Because ANYONE in the 'gaming forums' was going to do it?

I hate Sony as much as any red-blooded geek but c'mon...

"sony solution"? (1)

Pope Raymond Lama (57277) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373134)

Is it just me, or anything putting "sony" and "solution" in the same phrase just don't make sense anymore?

Re:"sony solution"? (1)

lpp (115405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373490)

Sure it makes sense:

-In a dread inspiring voice: The Sony Solution-

Dislike someone? Hack them to death!

Give me a break (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373140)

Hahaha how can anyone be talking about Sony and multiplayer in the same sentence now.

Re:Give me a break (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36373242)

Local co-op. Durrr.

Re:Give me a break (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373256)

But this is the whole point. Nowadays the only way their multiplayer is safe is when it is not over a network. So it is obvious they would try to give you better 2-player support on the same display.
So next time PSN is down, they will say "Stop complaining. We gave you the best multiplayer that doesn't require a network, so, go out, buy a 3D TV and find a friend!"

Re:Give me a break (1)

Sechr Nibw (1278786) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374138)

This is slashdot. Shouldn't that be "...go out, find a 3D TV, and buy a friend!" ?

Re:Give me a break (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36374272)

We only have to buy our lady friends.

Man, I hate this idea so much (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373142)

that I wish someone would trash Sony's servers, steal its customer data, and torch its corporate headquarters. Because that's just the right way to do things.

Smearing (1, Interesting)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373180)

I have a two-yea old, mid-range 42 inch Panasonic plasma and it suffers from smearing. Even though it has a refresh rate of 200hz, it is noticable on fast panning action.

I assume other large TVs also suffer from smearing.

With this new 'solution' I imagine seeing a ghost image of the other player's screen, or am I way off the mark?

Re:Smearing (1)

Zwets (645911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373466)

I have a two-yea old, mid-range 42 inch Panasonic plasma and it suffers from smearing. Even though it has a refresh rate of 200hz, it is noticable on fast panning action.

I'm no expert, but I've read the "200Hz" means the TV tries to calculate in-between frames. This doesn't work well for fast panning action, which might be causing the smearing. Try to see if you can get rid of the smearing by turning this "smart" feature off.

Why when I heard SONY and SOLUTION (2)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36373340)

Why when I heard SONY and SOLUTION I immediately thought "They came up with a way to have people who want to play split-screen to pay for two copies of the game instead of one. Some licensing/payment/authentication scheme that enables split-screen only if both players purchased the license."

I know, I know. Don't give them ideas. I hope they don't read Slashdot.

Dust 514 (1)

Jessified (1150003) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374274)

On a sadder note, DUST 514 is going to be ps3 exclusive?!?!?!? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!1!

Special glasses seems an overcomplication (1)

a_fuzzyduck (979684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374316)

What about multiple display output? You could get the same effect (with the same drawbacks) from having a second video out on the console. Even better, you could choose to rotate the displays so that the other player can't see your screen. Course, you'd have to write the games to be compatible

Step 1: (1)

PinchDuck (199974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374416)

Make sure that Russian hackers have all your personal information and credit card numbers.

Never again sony. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36374462)

i don't care what you create... not now not ever.
Fuck you Sony.

Here's a tip Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36374648)

If it requires glasses, I don't want it.

I already wear glasses, your glasses will not fit over them. I am not buying another special pair of glasses for your broken system. 3D is a failure, I don't want it in my home.

But it's irrelevant anyway, after the removal of features from your console and recent blunders in security, I'm not buying another Sony console again.

SQL injections ... (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36374738)

is there anything they can't do?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?