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!

Don't Go 3D For 3D's Sake, Says Sony

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the out-of-their-depth dept.

Graphics 132

Sony is determined to push 3D graphics into the realm of gaming, but the company seems to be aware that quality, not quantity, is what can win over gamers. They've been telling game developers to take the plunge only if it makes for a better gaming experience, and not just to take advantage of an industry buzz word. Sony's Mick Hocking said, "We need to, and we're trying to encourage everyone to learn about 3D properly and come and talk to us so we'll support them when they convert the games. But only deliver the best quality 3D. As we've seen in some other industries, if you make great quality 3D, in film you could say Avatar – it's the most successful film of all time, it's the highest grossing film of all time – but since then that hasn't been followed up with the same degree of success. ... If people see great quality 3D it does enhance the experience. It's a great feature for a game. But if they see poor quality 3D it can put them off. Unfortunately some people are producing poor quality 3D, in all mediums. Over the last 12 months we've seen TV, film, some games, where the quality hasn't been there. It's just a case of people need to understand how to work with 3D, how to make it technically correct and then how to use it creatively. Only add 3D where it makes a difference to the gameplay experience. It must add something. Don't just add depth for the sake of it."

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

Ah, Avatar... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36832246)

One way or another, despite it's insipid story, it'll always be remembered as either A) The only 3D movie to ever really be good at what it does or B) The 3D movie that ushered in a new age of media.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (4, Insightful)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832328)

Dear James Cameron,

Why, oh why, couldn't you just stick with 2D filming? (Worked fine for Titanic, right?) You have caused probably a decade of suffering. We can only hope that eventually the 3D fad will die out and only be used in projects where it is appropriate.

Sincerely, pretty much all Slashdotters.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

zget (2395308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832344)

Seriously. This is a story about games. We've heard the same old "just make the stories good, we don't need no fancy 3D!" in movie discussions several thousand times already. At least leave the gaming discussion alone in this, because games are something that really can improve your experience with it. I love the 3D effect in Left4Dead games. It makes everything really, really scary and I hope game developers use it with scary or FPS games. Strategy games, not so much.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (2)

Thexare Blademoon (1010891) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832458)

I just hope they consider that there are some people, such as myself, that get no actual use out of 3D. In my case, it's because of a blind eye.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (2)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832896)

I suffer from a lazy eye (strabismus), so my perception of depth is very limited. You can tell this simply from the scrapes on my cars' bumpers (fenders). I took my 4 year old to see Shrek 3D not so long back. The glasses were wasted on me, and too big for his head. We spent 90 minutes watching a blurry mess, at only twice the cost!

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834450)

I hope not. I mean, sure, for a vast majority of games, it would make perfect sense to have a "disable 3D mode" button, and aim to make that just as functional... but if someone came up with a truly magnificent idea, where depth perception would all of a sudden be an active element in gameplay mechanics, I hope they're gonna go ahead rather than thinking "Oh no, only 80% of the world could possibly enjoy this, let's not risk offending the remaining 20. Scrapped."

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832624)

I'm assuming that you're too young to remember Sonic 3D and other horrible games from the same era that took a game that worked really well in 2D and added a third dimension. The only 3D platform game that I've found that was fun was Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project, and that was really a 2D game using a 3D engine.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

BlueScreenO'Life (1813666) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833564)

The topic is stereoscopic 3D, not 3D gaming engines.

Anyway, as to 3D platform games, I don't know about DNMP but Mario 64 is one of the best games ever made.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

byrtolet (1353359) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833280)

IMO games should be fun. If 3D brings fun -- why not?

Re:Ah, Avatar... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36832366)

Dear Victor Fleming,

Why, oh why, couldn't you just stick with black and white filming? (Worked fine for Treasure Island, right?) You have caused probably a decade of suffering. We can only hope that eventually the color fad will die out and only be used in projects where it is appropriate.

Sincerely, pretty much all the people who watched Wizard of Oz (Because I watched it and everyone is like me, I can speak for everyone.)

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833814)

Of course, you're talking three strip technicolor there. The first two decades of color film used the two strip process, resulting in bizarre, unnatural color palettes. It was a gimmick. Some filmmakers used it successfully, most did not.

In 20 years I'm sure most 3D films will look fantastic. Double-4K res, double-60FPS, using super-bright laser projectors on high-gain synthetic diamond screens, it'll look more real than real.

Until then, like two-strip color, it'll be a quality-sacrificing gimmick.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

man_the_king (1139561) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835192)

And they had to go through the color-related gimmicks to get to proper color. It cannot be an off-on switch like approach where one day you have black and white, and the next day you have perfect color.

In much the same way, I anticipate we will have to go through certain other approaches before we approach something like true life-like 3D. It cannot be a sudden jump from high-quality 2D to high-quality 3D. There will always be growing pains.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

Jiro (131519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835322)

3D was a brief fad in the 1950's, with another brief fad in the 1980's.

We're already at the "it's 20 years later" stage and I could argue that what you say has actually happened to some degree; the current influx of 3D movies has already lasted longer than either fad, and the technology to make them is *much* better than it was back then.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832374)

Dear drb226,

Please speak for yourself. Not everyone considers the current 3D to be either useless or painful. I think it's rather pretty when done well and am interested in what can be done with it.



Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832430)

I enjoy that today's 3d seems more about the world going in then things popping out at the screen/viewer. Gives a feeling that I am watching a world through a window instead of on a 2d screen.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (2)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834040)

I'm partially with you Sir.

Well as with all inventions you have to use them well in order to achieve brilliance. HP for example had very nice 3D effects that some might argue made the movie come alive...

just some issues I have with 3D in cinemas:

  • everybody still uses focusing lenses to blur out the unimportant bits of a scene in 3D.
    Isn't the whole point of 3D to aid immersion? I cant remember having the world selectively going blurry on me.
  • cinemas need to invest in brighter projection techniques since the glasses cut luminosity
  • cinemas should develop and publicise a standard for 3d glasses so that people with vision problems can go and have glasses custom made. This also applies to people who don't want other visitors' skin infections.
  • I thought I had more to say on the matter but apparently I didn't...

In the end of the day I still will need anti nausea medication and painkillers after attending a 3D movie but at least I won't be pissed with the director/cinema...

Re:Ah, Avatar... (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832690)

Sincerely, pretty much all over the age of 14. FTFY. And I agree Ferngully II [] ...errr...I mean Avatar would have been just as nice and MUCH less of a skull thumper without the 3D. I thought Cameron had the better idea years ago, when he was talking about 60FPS film instead of 24.

And am I the only one that just gets massive headaches from the crap? If anything this new stuff gives me worse headaches than the 70s crap did or even the 90s Nvidia crap. And I've noticed that even though the stores are pushing 3D TVs like crazy everyone I know that has bought a new big screen didn't go for the 3D and when I asked them why there was always someone that it didn't work for, be it the husband/wife or BF/GF. I have a feeling a lot of folks are just gonna avoid it like they did in the last three go arounds.

And do we REALLY need crap jumping out at us as we play our games? with a good widescreen there is already so much purty and boom booms on your average AAA FPS that I find it hard not to just gawk and get my ass blown off and they are already so much immersion they can make you jump, so do we REALLY need "Dr Tongue's 3D house of bullets" to enjoy the game?

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36833520)

I'm in the excruciating headaches from 3D club, too. Add to that the fact that the 3 movies I've seen on the "new and improved" 3D all seemed to feature at least two or three of the usual gimmicky "argh it's coming out of the screen at us" scenes, which shows it's still a tech that's not being used to add to the depth of the story but just as a shiny bauble to disguise the lack of story. I just splashed out £2k on a new gaming laptop - I chose not to add the 3D feature even though it was only a little extra, I a) don't see the point and b) don't want to lend financial support to something which is just going to hold movie/game making back.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833802)

I agree Ferngully II...errr...I mean Avatar would have been just as nice and MUCH less of a skull thumper without the 3D.

Without the 3d, there would have been no reason to see it at all.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834110)

60/s movies are a blast! Too bad that today all manufacturers seem to be preoccupied to make their TV/DVD/BD/projectors sync better with 24/s

As to 3D TV buyer profiles I have noticed that even though lots of friends have bought new tv sets and home cinemas none actually bought a 3D one... Who is actually buying these things?

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834414)

You see that is the part I don't get, and am starting to wonder if they are using some accounting trick like counting numbers shipped to stores like you would numbers sold.

Because counting customers of my little PC shop I know probably more than 3 dozen folks that bought new TVs, from 32 inchers up to the big monster sets and not a single one bought 3D TV because as I said there is always someone in the family who either gets sick at their stomach or a massive headache from the junk.

So who EXACTLY are supposedly buying up these things? And are they even using it for 3D, or did they just get a deal and are using it as a regular set? But for all their pushing I just haven't seen the buying public, at least in my area, give a crap about 3D TV.

BTW if you want to know what IS selling like mad, which frankly I wouldn't have pictured? Media tanks. Everything from the cheap Nbox for the kiddies to the latest Internet capable ones that will play any format media tanks just seem to be THE thing to have. You'd be surprised how many folks have started learning about DVD ripping because they see a friend with a media tank and want all their DVDs on a tank too. Not that I blame them, if you got kids those things are heaven sent as the kiddies can't scratch the discs. But I didn't see that one becoming popular as I thought they were too geeky but I guess that shows what I know about trends. Folks been buying those things up along with 1Tb USB drives like they were going out of style. Oh and none of the popular ones, or hell anyone that I've seen, actually support 3D either.

I personally think 3D is here today, gone by 4 PM, as the folks just don't seem to care for 3D outside the theater. And I got to agree with you that 60/s rocks and I'd take that over 3D any day of the week. IIRC Ebert also is pushing it, comparing it to the switch from B&W to color.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833880)

Dear drb226,

Movie theaters have had revenues going down the pooper for the last decade or so. They need some sort of draw that's difficult to replicate at home with a home theater system. I suppose that's what 3-D was supposed to be... until they started making 3-D televisions like a bunch of morons. Fission mailed.

Sincerely, Ihmhi

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833240)

Avatar was no better or worse because it was in 3d, it just was.

With that one, I've seen Harry Potter, Transformers, Up, Toy Story 3, and probably a couple other that I'm forgetting in 3d. The only thing these movies have in common is that the ones that were good (Harry Potter, Toy Story 3, Up) were good in spite of the 3d while the other ones were bad, also in spite of the 3d.

Complete gimmick that is coming around for the third round in my lifetime. First I watch Creature of the Black Lagoon, then 15 years later it was bad sequels of sharks and camp killers in 3d, now this latest round that can't be gone fast enough.

Re:Ah, Avatar... (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833552)

Maybe it was no better or worse for you. For me, I paid a 50% premium just so I could leave with a headache.

Wow 3D games (2)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832260)

Just imagine Duke Nukem 3D!

Re:Wow 3D games (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833202)

I was actually thinking solitaire 3D or Suduko 3D. Just imagine how it would improve your gameplay. ;)

Re:Wow 3D games (1)

VolciMaster (821873) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833540)

I was actually thinking solitaire 3D or Suduko 3D. Just imagine how it would improve your gameplay. ;)

I could go for *actual* 3D chess: I have an old board game of such from - I think - the 60s called "Space Chess [] " (and here [] ). That'd be pretty cool in 3D.

Re:Wow 3D games (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834942)

I was just thinking that I actually have 3D versions of all the above games, but they don't need any special software and aren't affected by system updates or change in my computer. You can probably guess what I mean ;)

Re:Wow 3D games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36833216)

Tell me about it in 20 years

Make some damned content then (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832270)

The handful of games and handful of 3d blurays available do not make 3d in the home compelling.

Put aside complaints about 3d tech, stupid glasses, whatever. Heard them all, I don't hate the tech like a lot of other folk. I even bought a 3d tv because it was a good tv in the price range I was looking for anyway.

I never get to use it!

And here in Australia they seem to want $60+ for a 3d bluray version of cloudy with a chance of meatballs, or Monsters vs Aliens. Seriously. Bad selection, bad prices. These things will kill it stone dead even if all the naysayers don't.

Re:Make some damned content then (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832982)

theres more than a handful of games. nvidia lists about 400-500 games that work well with its 3dvision system. you dont need to specially write games for 3d. for the most part. its different for movies.

Re:Make some damned content then (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833638)

I guess I meant games and content from Sony.

As and when I refresh my computer I guess I'll get something that can do 3d pc games and then we'll see.

I still associate PC gaming with sitting at a desk rather than in the living room though.

Re:Make some damned content then (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833278)

I've seen a couple of dozen movies in IMAX 3D, and can count on one hand the number that are actually worth seeing in 3D. Most recently was Harry Potter 7, part 2, which I saw last Saturday.... the 3D was exceptionally well done. But there were only two scenes in the entire movie where it added anything noticeable, and I could easily have done without the 3D without affecting my enjoyment of the movie, and have no intention of buying the 3D version of the movie when it comes out on disc.

And it's the same story for basically any live action movie I've seen in 3D. All of the movies I can name where the 3D was actually good and added to the movie are movies which were 3D to begin with: computer animated movies like Shrek and Toy Story. Those movies make up a very small proportion of my DVD collection, and since I already have a 1080p 42" screen, I see absolutely no reason to upgrade my TV until it dies. (that was the impetus that finally got me to upgrade to Bluray). The jump from DVD to Bluray simply isn't as noticeable as the jump from VHS to DVD was, and most 3D movies simply aren't worth upgrading for.

Re:Make some damned content then (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833670)

Yup, only movies I've seen in 3D which I thought were done well were Avatar and Tron Legacy. I rarely bother to see movies in 3D - usually they're just visually distracting and headache-inducing. It isn't even a matter of money for me so much as paying more for what I'd consider an inferior product to the 2D most of the time.

To make a movie in 3D you need to actually plan it that way - just like you have to plan for movies in 2D. They don't "just happen."

Re:HTC EVO 3D (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833980)

I'm trying. I got an EVO 3D. I take the most boring 3D pictures/movies you have ever seen, but I'll have some beter stuff soon. The phone shows the scene as 3D, so I know what it will look like, and doesn't require glasses. It does have a narrow viewing angle, so two people can't look at the same time.

I got it mostly because it was free after corporate discounts, porting rebate, instant rebate. I could have gotten the other EVO with the slide out keyboard, but I don't text enough to make it worthwhile.

Anyway, yes it's gimmicky, but I'll figure out what I like in 3D and what doesn't work. I have piles of red/blue glasses from various places, and magenta/green from the Coraline DVD, so I can post-process to match any situation. And if you hate yourself you can do side by side Right-Left on a widescreen TV (cross your eyes to get the effect). One day I'll have dual polarized projectors so I can watch my nonexistent grandkids blow out their candles on my wall, in glorious 3D.

I'm not waiting for someone else to make the content, I'm making it myself. And yes, it will be terrible at first, but it will be important to me.

3d (1)

dexomn (147950) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832312)

FTA: "Don't just add depth for the sake of it." Bad dum tsss!

I'm disapointed (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832322)

And here I was thinking that Sony was giving serious, practical advice to buyers of their TV sets and to their film division ...

Well, that seems reasonable... (1, Insightful)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832324)

Sony... making a reasonable point? NO! We hate sony! Game developers everywhere, make shitty 3D games just to spite Sony!

Re:Well, that seems reasonable... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832674)

In unrelated news, Steve Jobs says that no-one wanted a tablet PC, then announced the iPad.

Personally, I'd much rather have 1080p or better per eye in my portable VR goggles, the best I've purchased (without building my own from used Android phones) is 640x480 per eye, tried a few 852x480 or better but I'm waiting for the price to drop a bit.

Follow each tech to it's logical conclusion: Getting the screen bigger and farther away will become impractical -- I'd rather head the other direction and place the high res screens in/near my eyes.

A 360 degree 3D surround setup, with head tracking is very costly (more than some houses); When the next new hotness comes out you replace all the expensive projectors or screens to get better resolution. The 3D environment is stationary (unless it's in a mobile home).

High res VR goggles are very light-weight now, the prices are affordable as an unlocked "smart-phone", and the contrast ratio and luminescence are good; Some VR visors are even designed to connect to your mobile computer/phone, ergo: Portable.

Follow the 3D screen tech far into the future and you've got a 3D display on every surface and remote 24/7 location and head tracking... Or, use the current VR goggle tech and you've got a 3D display over every surface with a private accelerometer/gyroscope for head tracking, and private screens for viewing mobile altered reality [] . Follow VR far enough -- smaller screens with higher resolutions close to the eyes, and you've got cybernetic ocular implants (which can enable the blind to see -- in 3D HD! heh).

It's fun to watch everyone either waiting to or scrambling to jump on the 3D bandwagon I've been riding since the 90s, them with these huge ugly screens; Come sit next to me, I'm the one holding the "smart-phone" and wearing the high-tech glasses [] .

As for games? IMO, nothing beats VR headsets in the immersion department. Since I played Descent in '95 I've been hooked on VR.

Re:Well, that seems reasonable... (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834256)

Yep VR headsets ruled since the 90s. There just is no beating them in the shit_your_pants_immersion department the best thing is that now you can have the afordably AND without the neck aches of the 90's (these things were huge and heavy).
I really am looking forward to someone designing a 1080p headset compatible with a games console...

Re:Well, that seems reasonable... (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832724)

You know, both things don't conflict with each other.

The hate people have for Sony isn't because they lack intelligent people capable of making a good point. The hate exists because they take that intelligence, and most of the time apply it in the wrong direction.

Re:Well, that seems reasonable... (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833644)

That does really surprise me, especially from Sony. Back in the 90's, developers were making shitty 3D games (in this case, not stereoscopic but set in 3D environments) for the Playstation just to keep Sony happy.

Re:Well, that seems reasonable... (1)

Gravatron (716477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833892)

SCEA was really bad about that back in the day. SCEI/SCEE not so much. Luckily, they seemed to have gotten over it and abandoned that as a policy after the ps1, probably due to the success of several high profile 2d games.

It's a buzz word (2)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832370)

It's a buzz word, so people will go with it. Sony can warn them all they want, but people just want to gain from someone else's success. If they can turn an ordinary game into a 3D game with little effort, and boost their sales (on the short term), then they will do it.

I predict a 3D sudoku before the year is over.

Re:It's a buzz word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36832468)

Wow, these game developers sure work fast! There are a few 3D Sudoku [] games, at least one for OS X.

Re:It's a buzz word (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832684)

LOL! Really? I should have googled it before predicting it. Doh!

Re:It's a buzz word (2)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832890)

There's a 3D Sudoku (in Japanese) on the Nintendo 3DS.

I bought it. It's every bit as dumb as it sounds. ;D

how 2 make great quality 3D (1)

selfredemption (2272150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832378)

I want to learn 3d too... but math is such a difficult thing to conquer..

Re:how 2 make great quality 3D (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36832406)

You don't have to understand the maths behind projecting 3D on a 2D raster just to create 3D content. Even though it can be helpful when using more techincal features of certain content creation software packages.

However, even the math isn't *that* hard, take this from someone who dropped out of school and used to think basic arithmetic is all the math he'd ever be capable of learning and has now gotten a fairly good understanding of the math after having done some 3D programming projects using OpenGL. Some basic understanding of linear algebra and working with vectors, points and transformations on them is all you really need to understand. Maybe some calculus if you want to get into animating things (for curves etc).

Chicken and Egg (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832396)

Developers can't make 3d-centric games because no one but an incredibly small minority of people with gaming rigs and/or consoles would be able to play them.

Customers don't buy 3d-monitors and TVs because there's no content worth watching on them.

End result, 3d is used as an afterthought or marketing gimmick. It makes no sense to spend a lot of funds developing a feature almost no one would use.

Re:Chicken and Egg (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36832440)

Yea, i'ts like with those TV thingies. First nobody had one, so nobody cared to make shows for them. So nobody had any reason to buy a TV.
And that's why, to this day, nearly noone has a TV.

Oh, wait ...

Re:Chicken and Egg (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832462)

So, you're comparing a device to a small upgrade for the same device.

Yeah, I agree. Let's wait...

So... you're suggesting a government monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36832498)

Granted, I don't know how you guys in the USA did it but at least where I live, there was 100% government owned company that produced programming for tv (and radio before that). It guaranteed that there was always something to do with the device once you bought it, even before producing the programs was profitable. Then, when enough people had bought the device, private companies began moving in.

So unless you're suggesting that the government should again invest great deal of money in 3d technology before such investments become profitable (and don't get me wrong, it's interesting idea if you really are suggesting that), I really don't see how comparison to tv or radio is relevant.

Re:Chicken and Egg (1)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833546)

I bought a 3D tv because the 2D model was $50 less. I think we're at the tipping point where 3D will pretty much become default. I know there isn't much content, and most of what is (at least for movies) is the old red/blue cheesy 3d (which you can watch on a 2D tv with the same effect), but the 3D LCDs have pretty good picture quality and there isn't much of a premium any more for it. I think 2011-2012 will see a sharp increase in available content, and pretty much all newer tv models that get released in the next year will have 3d.

The prices have come down drastically and that's all it usually takes for something to start going mainstream and hit critical mass. 3D tvs will be ubiquitous in 5 years.

Re:Chicken and Egg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834748)

dear rgviza,

you were modded troll for your abuse of the [tt] tag.

In other words... (1, Insightful)

Veggiesama (1203068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832402)

In other words, Sony is saying, "Hey consumers, it's the developers' fault for using buzzwords we helped promote. We know 3D sucks ass right now, but come on, give us another chance! Remember Avatar? Come on, remember?"

Re:In other words... (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832800)

Eh, it's just the same thing that happens with every new invention.

When they came up with movies, the stuff they filmed was completely pointless by today's standards, and was mostly "Holy crap, it MOVES!". And thus you got such exciting movies as a few seconds of a guy sneezing.

When they came up with color, people started trying to add it to black and white movies, whether it made sense or not. Because, COLOR!

To same thing is happening with 3D right now. Eventually people will figure out that stuff like "Holy crap, it's coming OUT OF THE SCREEN!" is lame, and find something actually interesting to do with it. 3D added retroactively looks horrible, but when well done it actually does look very neat, and Avatar just happens to be a very prominent example.

Re:In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36833004)

Um, 3-D is far from a new invention.....been around since the 50's.

Fuck Sony. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36832444)

Worst company ever, and not to be trusted. Fuck Sony.

Doesn't make a difference to me (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36832470)

Or: "I have lazy eye, you insensitive clod!"

(Besides, it's not really 3D until you can move your head and see the parallax.)

Re:Doesn't make a difference to me (1)

burnetd (90848) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834906)

It's not really 3d until I can go look around the back, on top or underneath and focus on any point with in the picture not just where the directors think I should be looking.

I think they've missed the point... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36832490)

Whilst what Sony says is true of films, in that technicians need to re-learn how their cinematography etc. will work in 3 dimensions rather than the 2 they've learnt their trade in, I think games are a very different matter. Have these guys never played FPS on a PC with 3D shutter glasses or some similar system? That enhances the gaming experience immensely, even if the game was never designed with that in mind. The difference is that in a game the user controls the camera and gets the full depth experience as a result; in a film the director / cinematographer would need to visualise the end result in 3D which, I guess, is still in its infancy, artistically. Hence we get countless crap 3D films every year, but loads of great 2D FPS games which look bloody marvellous in 3D.

Re:I think they've missed the point... (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835246)

You need a 120hz monitor first, I'm still waiting for a 120hz monitor that is not tiny and has a glossy screen.

How about this idea (2, Insightful)

acehole (174372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832506)

How about making a decent game without stupid gimmicks or one that doesn't play a cutscene every two steps.

Head back to the 1990's (1)

MasaMuneCyrus (779918) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832580)

If you want games with gameplay, I suggest you travel back to the 1990's. Unfortunately, most games these days seem to want to move into the "interactive movie" category.

Re:How about this idea (2)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833510)

And this is the reason I play so many Flash games these days.

New games are released daily. Some of poor, most are average, some are, I can't believe I'm typing this, triple-A games.

I've always been one to try every single flipping game I could find. I like the innovation. I like the way a programmer is obviously not talented in the graphics department but has put together polished game play. I like the way games are 'patched' almost daily. I like the way they listen to gamers' moans.

Gemcraft Labyrinth has kept me entertained for a couple of months. Probably the best tower defence game I've ever played. Worth the few quid I spent on it.

Re:How about this idea (1)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833986)

Gemcraft Labyrinth has kept me entertained for a couple of months. Probably the best tower defence game I've ever played. Worth the few quid I spent on it.

Interesting to hear that you bought it. I assume that was so you could play it while you were away from the PC as (I'm sure you already know) it's availabel for free at all the usual Flash game portal sites.

Re:How about this idea (1)

Gravatron (716477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833998)

Funny, I don't see many games like that, then again, I tend to be pretty picky on what I play. Well, for cut scenes I think at least, 'stupid gimmicks' pretty much defines a lot of game play since the dawn of gaming, even on simple flash games.

3D != Stereoscopic Vision (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36832518)

The problem is that we've been screwing around with the 3d word. Remember when "3D" cards came out. The original OpenGL spec also defined a left and right frame buffer. And then there were Shutter glasses going back to things like the Sega Master System.

3D never, ever, works. The primary problem Nintendo learned with the VR boy. People get headaches from it because it's impossible to calibrate them to work with every pair of eyes. Everyone gets motion sickness or headaches with a "VR set" and when you put it on a flat screen, you force the eyes to go cross-eyed, resulting in headaches and eyestrain.

In the theater, they use polarizing glasses, which work in a pinch but require the picture to be much brighter than normal. The problem again being that not everyones stereo vision is calibrated the same. Like for me, with the exception of a few key scenes in Avatar, 3D is lost on me, the brain tunes it out after 5 minutes. I still see some films in 3D because they're the only properly calibrated projection screens, but overall it's never been worth seeing anything in 3D, since 3D adds very little value.

Now here's where I think we can make a difference, but I don't think we'll see it in current generation systems. Take the Kinect device and combine it with a auto-stereoscopic monitor. Now you have a true 3d interaction. Until this is possible, 3D will remain as glue and sparkles, looks pretty, but functionally useless.

There is some promise for 3D, but I don't see any games being able to make use of 3D without completely doing away with the glasses. Any real benefit to 3D stereography would require being able to see light bounce off 3D objects, which doesn't happen, hence why it fails. There's no depth, so the eyes can't focus.

Avatar was good, but if you turn the 3D off, most people wouldn't have noticed after the first 10 minutes.

Re:3D != Stereoscopic Vision (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832852)

Wow are you out of date. I mean, come on, Virtual Boy? Have you actually seen what it produced? Here [] . You might as well have used Wolfenstein 3D to discuss the issues of 3D graphics today. As you might notice from looking at the screenshots there have been a few advancements since then. The Virtual Boy was just a product that came up way, way before its time.

What you're speaking of already exists. Go try a 3DS, it works. The remaining issues with 3D are: getting good tech out (which exists, but needs to be used), and using it for a good end instead of "look, stuff is poking out of the screen!".

Re:3D != Stereoscopic Vision (2)

ildon (413912) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833132)

You clearly never actually used a Virtual Boy. It did not produce a red/blue flat image. It had two little LCD screens and two mirrors and each screen produced a unique image and you wore the whole thing like a giant set of goggles. Both the images were monochrome red with about 4 variations in color. This is functionally identical to how stereoscopy works now (delivering 2 distinct flat images to each eye that are slightly different to create a perception of depth). All that's changed over time is the delivery mechanism. Hell in the movie theater the delivery method hasn't even changed in like 30 years.

It still does not work perfectly for the exact reasons the AC mentioned. No two people's eyes line up exactly the same or are exactly the same distance apart. stereoscopy never creates a "real" image only a "virtual" one that puts strain on your brain and eyes to look at. Even if you have a perfectly calibrated screen and projector, sit in the exact ideal position in the theater, and have glasses that aren't bent or deformed in any perceivable way, and you still won't get a perfect image and your brain and eyes will still be working much harder to process the image (although the amount of extra work might not be enough to bother you especially if you become really engrossed in the movie).

Re:3D != Stereoscopic Vision (1)

Gravatron (716477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834038)

3DS has the same problems for me as other 3d has: it's quite painful after a few minutes of use. It's the primary reason I haven't bought one yet. I keep hoping for a 3DS XL down the road with an improved screen or something.

Re:3D != Stereoscopic Vision (0)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833658)

You're one of a minority with a vision problem.

Sorry 3d sucks for you, but it's you with the defect.

Alright, Who are you... (1)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832528)

And what have you done to the Sony we love to hate?

Is it just me or are the tune Sony is playing by changing, and from the looks of it to the better, towards that of the old Sony...from before they started screwing over their customers at every chance they could get?

Re:Alright, Who are you... (1, Insightful)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832654)

Dude, it's sony. They're only pissed people are making shitty 3d content so they can't sell the tonnes of hardware they made hoping for another analogue->digital tv goldmine.

3D in gaming isn't even done technically well (3, Interesting)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832586)

Mind you, I've only seen the 3D portions of Gran Turismo 5 and Sly 3, but each of those games only seemed to have a divergence of about 5 horizontal pixels onscreen between the 2 views even at the farthest Z-buffer depth. The actual 3D effect was incredibly understated and pointless. Sure as a graphics geek, I'm all for having superfluous 3D just for random kicks once in a while, but even from that end of things it did not deliver.

Every 3D game should have a configuration for adjusting the "strength" of the parallax divergence, especially as display sizes and other factors could benefit from them. Neither of those 2 games I tried seemed to have that at all. Trying to make a "safe" default divergence strength makes the gimmick effectively disappear.

(If I understand correctly, the 3DS has some sort of depth adjustment slider. Does it affect the rendering convergence, or just help focus at the hardware level?)

Re:3D in gaming isn't even done technically well (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832916)

nvidia has just that with 3dvision. on the pc. you can adjust the divergence and depth in game, have profiles for each game, no problem.

Re:3D in gaming isn't even done technically well (1)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833578)

Great point! I'm one of the people that doesn't get a headache from 3d but a great many people do. Adjustable parallax divergence would probably fix it for some people. Of course then you have the issue that everyone in the room is different so when you dial it in for yourself, chances are someone else will be getting a headache.

F*ck Sony. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36832630)

Just fuck 'em.

FTFY (4, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832632)

Sony needs to recoup their investment in 3D technology by making sure the public sees value in 3D, so they will buy into it.
Game developers need to recoup their investment in the game by making sure their most recent game sells; i.e. use buzz-word technology.
It is not in the game devs best interests to ignore short term profit; in fact, it is in their best interest to have this type of tech die out in a few years so they can focus on new buzz-words that sell.

Re:FTFY (1)

cbope (130292) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832910)

Did you not even understood the summary?... Sony is essentially coming out and saying "don't buy into the hype, just because it's 3D". As stated in the summary, 3D needs to be done technically and creatively correct in order to have an impact, something that 95% of today's content just doesn't do.

I totally agree with Sony on this point, and in fact I myself have not bought into 3D and currently have no plans to do it. For me, it just doesn't add anything meaningful that I'm willing to pay more for. I do buy movies on Blu-ray, partly for the video quality but mainly for the vastly improved multi-channel uncompressed audio. Adding 3D isn't going to improve my movie experience. To me, it's really just a gimmick today. In the long term, I'm sure we will end up with 3D, but today's implementations leave a lot to be desired in terms of convenience and immersion.

Re:FTFY (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833176)

Did you not even understand my comment?
What I said what that it is in the financial interrest of the game developers to DO buy into the hype and add 3D even if it ruins gameplay, simply because right now games will sell more when they have 3D support. Game developers do NOT benefit from 3D technology being succesful; the technology in itself will not sell more games in the long term. Individual game developers will sell more games in the short term if they support 3D technology but in the long term, supporting 3D technology will only add development cost without additional sales.

Re:FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834950)

I understand your point about developers being short-sighted and doing what they have to do to make sales. My take on what Sony was advising is "Don't shoot yourselves in the foot." Unless the 3D aspect adds something meaningful to the game itself, the industry will only have about one year of 3D sales before consumers start saying "Fuck 3D, 3D is shit." After that point any game that actually would have benefited from the addition of 3D might not choose to include it due to it not being something consumers want anymore. I applaud Sony for attempting to protect a promising technology, and for attempting to pound age old wisdom into the developer's heads. "A few bad apples spoil the bunch. Don't be a bad apple."

Re:FTFY (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833692)

Didn't slashdot recently have a piece about hos games were mostly being created with a list of features that were considered must haves instead of actually deciding if the feature would add something to the game. This is just the new must have feature on the list.

Not just games (3, Insightful)

senorpoco (1396603) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832682)

Watched the new Harry Potter last night in 3D at the behest of my housemate. It was a good story told well but 3D added nothing to it. The depth of view effect was nice but having to accommodate 3D filming means they rely overly on slow panning shots and the like a lot of the film's shot selection seemed to be based on trying to shoehorn the direction into the format. Also due to the limitations on frame rates many of the action shots simply became a blurry jaggedy mess.

Re:Not just games (1)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833592)

120hz tv?

Re:Not just games (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833680)

It was just a feature that needed to be included so it was shoehorned in. I have seen a few 3D movies and the only one where I thought it was done well and didn't feel like a feature that needed to be included was Avatar. I kind of wanted to see the toy story movies in 3D, but never got around to it, as I think it could have made the movies more immersive as it probably wouldn't have felt so forced.

Re:Not just games (2)

yincrash (854885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833812)

most sources seem to cite that harry potter was a 3d conversion and was filmed in 2d.

I love it (2)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36832898)

I love 3D and always have. I admit it's gimmicky, and usually done poorly, but I still like it.

For games on the PC, especially first-person games like Fallout New Vegas and Portal, it adds an element of depth to it. I really feel like I'm more into the game when playing in 3D. I've started to dislike games that the 3D doesn't work right, and I have to play them without the glasses.

Irony (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833112)

one would think that sony would be the last company to talk about 'game quality' after screwing up star wars galaxies.

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36833268)

one would think that sony would be the last company to talk about 'game quality' after screwing up star wars galaxies.

Boo fucking hoo. Nobody cares.

In other words.. (1)

brim4brim (2343300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833236)

Sony have massive stock of 3DTV's to sell and don't want the fad to die out before they've flogged them.

How about some depth in the Plot (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833628)

Now if only some of the movies coming out had some depth in the plot. As much as I like some good brain melt mindless action, but I really enjoy movies with actual plot development. I watch different movies with different expectations, but now so many movies seem like they are being produced with a checklist of features of which 3D is one of the new must have features.

Oh, this is just rich. (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833666)

The company that advocated going CD for CD's sake, and then HD for HD's sake, and even until very recently actively campaigned for 3D for 3D's sake, is now trying to say that pretty pictures aren't everything? Yeah, right. Sony depends on pretty pictures; their whole business model is based on it. This is a calculated marketing risk in an attempt to combat the 3DS, and nothing more.

(on a related note, why does the latest graphical gimmick always have an abbreviation that ends in D?)

Applies across the board. (2)

shess (31691) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833674)

How about you just don't make ANYTHING unless it is using high quality components? A sucky 3D movie is somewhat more annoying because of the extra $3, but it's not like spending $10 to see a sucky 2D movie is a great alternative.

People are the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834552)

If you are using movies as a gague to determine if you want stereo 3d in home, make damn sure you are watching a movie that was actualy filmed in 3d. Not something shot in 2d with the 3d added as an afterthought. The biggest hurrdle with stereo 3d adoption is missinformation passed between consumers, and not enough available information from the hardware producers. People that dont take the time to understand how it works on home setups, or dont bother taking the time picking decent seats in the theatre, or even take the time to understand the tech..are the reason this tech is floundering. I swear to god if one more person who cant figure out how to turn on the glasses tells me stereoscopic 3d doesnt work on them, im going to snap.

You dont understand this tech just because you owned a Viewfinder as a kid. Stop assuming and read up on it. It isnt the stero 3d making you sick. It is your inability to understand your own personal ergonomics and your failure to adjust yourself apropriately. If you are so close to the screen that you cant see the effect without moving your head or constantly refocusing your eyes, then move! It is quite simple! If the dragon's head is trying to go THROUGH you as it swings around, dont just sit there untill you throw up in your popcorn, jackass!

Also as a general rule contact lenses work better then glasses if you require corrective lenses while viewing in stereo 3d. Believe it or not this isnt obvious to some people.

Here is the reality. If you can focus on multiple planes at varying distances unaided, drive a car, or even walk around without running into shit constantly, you can see stereo 3d. Period. If you are well known for rearending people at stop lights, then im sorry...stereo 3d isnt for you. Now stop running your mouth and spreading bullshit...swallow your pride and just ask the clerk at best buy to show you how to turn on the glasses and make sure the tv and bluray player are configured properly.

Sony credibility concerning tech ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834578)

Don't Go Security For Security's Sake, some say to Sony ...

What a load of hypocrites... (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834650)

This is the same Sony that has released various films shot in 2D and then upconverted to 3D just to make more money.

Films that are shot in 3D (including Avatar and that new 3 Musketeers film) are fine, films shot in 2D and upconverted to 3D are not. Obviously CGI films like Cars and Toy Story that are rendered properly for 3D (with separate rendering passes for left and right eyes) are also OK.

Tech vs 3D (1)

sancho_pancho (643406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834852)

There is a difference between 3D-displaying technology and 3D; and this guy doesn't seem to get that.

I totally agree with him that "if [people] see poor quality 3D it can put them off". But that only relates to 3D technology. For example, Madden on the 3DS was widely panned as headache inducing, because of the poor 3D tech implemented.

However, there is a LOT of 3D technology out there, and it will only get better. And that's why I think this guy's main point is totally wrong.

"Only add 3D where it makes a difference to the gameplay experience. It must add something. Don't just add depth for the sake of it."

What a stupid quote. 3D is a technology that was invented millions of years ago when the first squirrel grew two eyeballs. You don't just close one eye when watching an opera, and then open both of them when "it adds something".

If the technology is effective and affordable (for both the producer and consumer), then it should be used for ALL content.

Absolute Horseshit (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36835106)

"but the company seems to be aware that quality, not quantity, is what can win over gamers."

No, no they don't and a great example of that is PSP, If you are handed one of these and have never used one, your going to be really fucking lucky to find a game that is quality and NOT shovelware shit ports of 10 year old PS2 games, or worse like one of the simpsons games which looks and plays worse than tomb raider on PS1

the PS2 was full of it too, there was endless bins of 9.99$ games that were not worth the plastic they were cased in, and you can start to see that with PS3, and speaking of which can someone name a got to have PS3 exclusive outside of "god of war"? They sell you unfinished pre beta computer games as the full experience, they fuck around with your property, try to constantly sell you the same thing over and over again, and they think that their shit is a golden blessing.

fuck sony

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?