3D televisions

[dre-w]

Does anyone else here think that they're taking a step in the wrong direction with the 3D televisions..?  I mean Nintendo gets it, look at the 3DS



No need for 3D glasses using autostereoscopy, almost as if the 3D is basically reversed..  all depth perception and layers, as if you're looking out a window.  Why can't they make a 3D television like this, why does everything have to be popping out and so in your face?  I would love to watch 3D television shows, football games, etc. without having to pay hundreds of dollars for goofy glasses to watch my tv.  Leave it up to Nintendo to pave the way..  Nintendo Televisions?  I'd buy it.

[AtomSmasher]

Except that the technology Nintendo is using only really works when your straight in front of the screen and a set distance away (theres a slider on the 3DS to adjust that distance), so it would never work for televisions.  I find it funny that Nintendo added accelerometers to the 3DS since tilting it will ruin any 3D effect, so games will have to choose between using the accelerometers or using the 3D.

[jimmy2x2x]

Or just tilt at your waist instead of your wrists.

[AtomSmasher]

Or just tilt at your waist instead of your wrists.

Which makes for lightning fast controls
The joke I used to make at my last job (where I was developing a 3DS game) was that they should ship it with a headset that attaches the 3DS in front of your face, so you have to tilt your head to tilt the controller and it keeps the 3D screen at the perfect range.

My guess is that the 3D effect will be cool for a little while, but once the novelty wears off, most people will just turn off the 3D and play the games in 2D mode.

[jimmy2x2x]

Or just tilt at your waist instead of your wrists.

Which makes for lightning fast controls and difficult to play while laying down

Of course every game should be playable whilst lying down and also require lightning fast reactions!

Here I was thinking that developers would employ adaptive design to work to the consoles strengths

Instead of combining these technologies, I think you are right they should only use them exclusively

[drventure]

Personally, I suspect the 3d tv tech is going to be a quite short lived flash in the pan.

There'll be a LOT of money spent on it, no doubt, but it'll all end up in the closet or garage sales within a few years.

I think I'll wait for those holo tv's<g>

[jimmy2x2x]

On the whole, I think you are right

I suspect the 3DS I think will be an exception to that

[dre-w]

(theres a slider on the 3DS to adjust that distance), so it would never work for televisions.

If we can learn anything from history is that such statements are erroneous..  might not work now but I bet there's a visionary out there who could perfect this technology.  I see what you're saying,  but they couldn't invent some sort of small remote device you clip on your shirt that would adjust that distance automatically via sensor in the tv..?  Kind of like the Wii sensor that sits atop the television for Wiimote movements.  Although, this method would probably only work for the one person wearing the remote device and everyone else in the room would be screwed lol..   I just like the idea of using 3D while getting away from the glasses

[AtomSmasher]

(theres a slider on the 3DS to adjust that distance), so it would never work for televisions.

If we can learn anything from history is that such statements are erroneous..  might not work now but I bet there's a visionary out there who could perfect this technology.  I see what you're saying,  but they couldn't invent some sort of small remote device you clip on your shirt that would adjust that distance automatically via sensor in the tv..?  Kind of like the Wii sensor that sits atop the television for Wiimote movements.  Although, this method would probably only work for the one person wearing the remote device and everyone else in the room would be screwed lol..   I just like the idea of using 3D while getting away from the glasses

So the TV will work for only one person at a time and that person has to wear something clipped to them?  How is this better then the glasses?
I agree it would be awesome if they could get this technology to work on a larger scale, but given how this technology works, I'd say it's impossible.  It's perfect for a small handheld device, but in order to get something similar to work in our living rooms, then it'll be some new tech we likely haven't seen yet.

[AtomSmasher]

Or just tilt at your waist instead of your wrists.

Which makes for lightning fast controls and difficult to play while laying down

Of course every game should be playable whilst lying down and also require lightning fast reactions!

I realized the lying down comment was a little crazy, which is why I edited it out before your reply, but frankly a handheld gaming device ideally can be used when flying in a cramped airplane, or lying on the couch or beach.  And obviously not every good game requires lightning fast controls, but the vast majority of them do.

[Gorotsuki]

From what I've heard 3d is bad for children's eyes,
and that's the one group who will be the most excited about the feature.
I have to wear glasses already, so adding another pair on top of those
is just uncomfortable, so I'm not really looking forward to it.

[smalltownguy]

Hot blonde chicks with new gadgets...must avert eyes......must look at Nintendo only.......was there a point here?

[Blanka]

Nintendo does not get it either. The main purpose of the 3DS is that the DS is a big copyright infringement platform, and they need a gimmick to get people buy their new more secure platform.
If Nintendo really got it, they would make all their games as PS3 discs or iPhone/iPad apps and ditch hardware development completely.

[Blanka]

From what I've heard 3d is bad for children's eyes,

Make that "human's eyes"

[shrunkenmaster]

Most content isn't even recorded/broadcast in proper widescreen, let alone HD, let alone 3D! Maybe we should get one thing right before moving on to the next 'big thing' eh? 

[MaineEvent]

WOW....I can't imagine how much that 3DS is gonna set you back...Horrible investment!
Just the cost of upkeep wouldn't be worth it for me  and where the hell would you get service or replacement parts if needed?
What if the thing just dies?
Now you just have a portable gaming device attached to some dead chick great

I can barely afford the one I chained to my refrigerator....No thanks Nintendo

[jimmy2x2x]

Nintendo does not get it either. The main purpose of the 3DS is that the DS is a big copyright infringement platform, and they need a gimmick to get people buy their new more secure platform.
If Nintendo really got it, they would make all their games as PS3 discs or iPhone/iPad apps and ditch hardware development completely.

Why would they do that?  AFAIK Ninetendo hardware sells in such quantities that they actually turn a profit from the hardware, they don't have to pay any kind of licensing fee's for developing on other hardware platforms and maintain absolute control of one of the most powerful  brands in the industry.

I don't think the Sega route would serve Nintendo well.

The other platforms you mention are also plagued with piracy.

[Blanka]

Nintendo writes red numbers, Sega black ones. They might be smaller, but profit is always nicer than loss.
Ps3 and iPhone have piracy, but totally different from DS piracy. DS pirace => 90%, iPhone and PS3 piracy is under 10%.

[jimmy2x2x]

Really?

Looks like I got that all wrong!

EDIT: Any chance you could post a profitability source for both companies - would love to see!, Thanks

[AtomSmasher]

Nintendo writes red numbers, Sega black ones. They might be smaller, but profit is always nicer than loss.
Ps3 and iPhone have piracy, but totally different from DS piracy. DS pirace => 90%, iPhone and PS3 piracy is under 10%.

Lately, Nintendo has been making a profit on hardware sales from the launch of the hardware, something neither Sony or Microsoft can claim (although they both now are making profit on hardware sales).  The DS hardware is also generally at the top of each months sales charts by a large margin, and the Wii has almost as many units sold as the 360 and PS3 combined.  Also, DS piracy may be high (not as high as you claim, but still high), but DS games also hold two spots in the top 10 selling games of all time (Nintendogs - 7, New Super Mario Bros. - 10), and 6 games in the top 25, so it can't be doing too bad.

Nintendo has been a money making machine for the past several years, so I don't know why you think they're in the red.

For reference: www.vgchartz.com

[Xiaou2]

I suspect the people who are complaining about 3d have not seen a good imax3d
movie, which uses polarized glasses.  The glasses are not a big deal at all... and the
effect is Awesome.  Its about time we got depth in our media... and it will only get better once they start Filming in 3d, instead of merely using a 2d to 3d software converter.

 The nintendo parallax barrier wont work for mass tv, and it will be a complaint among gamers that hate how you have to hold it at precisely the correct position to get the effect... Imop.   The technology is pretty much the same as those stickers/pictures that move depending on which angle you look at them from.  At the wrong angle, you get ghosting on those.  But with 3d only, you would lose the 3d effect... and it would be annoying as heck.

 The best 3d option is polarized glasses.  There is no flicker to deal with.  And I believe Ive heard the new 3dtvs use just that.

 Shutterglass tech is Ok, but it has to be set to a very high speed.  Even then, they are not as nice as the polarized tech.

 And if you can afford it, a large screen projector setup that uses polarized glasses will be the best for depth effect.  The larger the screen, the further the images pop out, as well as go deep within.   Projectors are way too expensive as it is... and they have nothing inside them that warrants such a high price point.

[Blanka]

Nintendo has been a money making machine for the past several years, so I don't know why you think they're in the red.

http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/29/nintendo-reports-a-quarterly-loss-as-the-wii-sales-tumble/
The Wii software, DS hardware and DS software is the trouble according to this article.

I thought Wii hardware was the troublemaker, but I was wrong about that. It is even worse: Nintendo can't make profit on software. That is really bad! The Gillete sales model fubarred! Maybe they should start making Donkey Kong JR, Snoopy and Popeye table tops again. Those go for 200$ brand new boxed on ebay. Some chinese kids must be able to make those for 10$ nowadays. That would mean serious profit for Nintendo again! Especially the Popeye one is easy money as it has no license fees any longer: it is public domain outside the USA nowadays!

Back on topic: the 3DS principle was tried by Philips, and I have been watching a prototype TV with the tech a few years ago. It looked ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---! Nobody ever heard of that type of TV any more since. It might work on a tiny portable, but for the living room the concept is rotten.

[AtomSmasher]

Nintendo has been a money making machine for the past several years, so I don't know why you think they're in the red.

http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/29/nintendo-reports-a-quarterly-loss-as-the-wii-sales-tumble/
The Wii software, DS hardware and DS software is the trouble according to this article.

I thought Wii hardware was the troublemaker, but I was wrong about that. It is even worse: Nintendo can't make profit on software. That is really bad! The Gillete sales model fubarred! Maybe they should start making Donkey Kong JR, Snoopy and Popeye table tops again. Those go for 200$ brand new boxed on ebay. Some chinese kids must be able to make those for 10$ nowadays. That would mean serious profit for Nintendo again! Especially the Popeye one is easy money as it has no license fees any longer: it is public domain outside the USA nowadays!

Well they haven't had a lot of great games in the past year, so it's not too surprising.  They made so much money in the few years prior that I doubt the loss will effect them much.  Besides, if the lineup they had at this years E3 is released within the next fiscal year, then they'll be making a profit on software once again.  The DS is at the end of it's lifecycle and I never bothered getting a DS Lite or DSi (I still use the original fatty design), so I'm looking forward to the new hardware.

[eds1275]

I personally think 3d tvs are a bad idea. Give me 3d in the theatre so I have something to look forward to, instead of the same crap I have at home. Also if it does become popular, it's gonna mess with a whole new generation of eyesight.

[Xiaou2]

 If 3dtv is done with Polarization, there wont be any effect to eyesight whatsoever.
In fact, it may improve eyesight, due to the glasses blocking some UV rays.
 
 As for the depth effect, a theater will still top the experience, merely because
of the size of the screen.  Bigger screen = bigger effect.

[SavannahLion]

Most content isn't even recorded/broadcast in proper widescreen, let alone HD, let alone 3D! Maybe we should get one thing right before moving on to the next 'big thing' eh? 

+1

The current menagerie of ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up broadcast signals really pisses me off. I was happier with the older analog signal. At least it was a predictable feed.

[saint]

I suspect the people who are complaining about 3d have not seen a good imax3d
movie, which uses polarized glasses.  The glasses are not a big deal at all... and the
effect is Awesome.  Its about time we got depth in our media... and it will only get better once they start Filming in 3d, instead of merely using a 2d to 3d software converter.

I have, and it's horrible because I am a glasses wearer. You can't get the 3D glasses over your normal glasses comfortably, and there's too much gap due to the distance they are from your eyes due to your normal glasses.  Fix that and I'll probably be a fan. Some kind of larger wrap-around goggles kind of thing maybe.

OR - if they standardizes on a technology, and we could get prescription versions of 3D glasses I might be tempted to spring for a pair, but probably not due to cost

[Ginsu Victim]

I have astigmatism and poorly done 3D seems to bother me (like Piranha 3D), but well done 3D doesn't (Pixar films).

Still, I can't wait for this fad to die. I was mad when I heard they are shooting The Hobbit in 3D. I hope they will offer 2D screenings, as well.

[Blanka]

Most content isn't even recorded/broadcast in proper widescreen, let alone HD, let alone 3D! Maybe we should get one thing right before moving on to the next 'big thing' eh? 

TV broadcast will NEVER be 3D. The only way 3D is totally acceptable is when the 3D image is real time rendered based on the viewers line of sight. So it only works for games in the end. All pre-programmed 3D is either head aching, non social or bad looking, and at least one of these 3 reasons will keep studios from making broadcast in 3D. You will see some niche channels in 3D, but never main stream TV. And BTW, broadcast TV itself is dead before a decent workin 3D tv exists!

[Xiaou2]

I have, and it's horrible because I am a glasses wearer. You can't get the 3D glasses over your normal glasses comfortably

 Strange.  I also wear glasses.. and they seemed to be fine.  Maybe your glasses are thicker or more heftily built.

 I dont think perscription polorized glasses would cost much really.  Polarization isnt all that expensive a technology.  Though, Ive never had to look into it.. and it would be a great option for Imax trips or if the day comes when I get a 3dlcd.

 Im certainly not in a rush, because there is limited media still... as well as there are no artistic apps that really take advantage of 3d that Ive seen.  IE: I dont believe there is a realtime 3d layer & distance option in photoshop... and there really should be.

I have astigmatism and poorly done 3D

 I also have astigmatism.   But the poorly done 3d bothers everyone actually.
Its a matter of the poor conversion of 2d to 3d... where images are not drawn in the correct depths... and it gives ghosting, and other problems... and really messes with your mind.

 If they really are Filming the hobbit with 3d cameras... it will be flawless and awesome... because there are no software conversion problems to deal with.
In fact, anything shot with real 3d cameras will be much more intense. The depth and details will be amazing.  Software 3d, while impressive when cleaned up... is still lacking.

[Xiaou2]

TV broadcast will NEVER be 3D.

 Thats like saying there will never be color in movies.

 Broadcast can easily be shot in 3d... "IF" they have the 3d cameras.
The main problem has been that 3d cameras were extremely expensive and
very bulky.

 Price and size reduction has come down.  So it then becomes a matter of cost & investment.


 Anything being broadcast in 3d, can easily be viewed in 2d, by simply choosing
the left or right image signal.  Meaning, it would be dead simple for non-3d viewers to view without any hassle on their part.

 The other issue will be bandwidth.  3d has twice the detail needed, and thus
twice the bandwidth will be needed to carry all that detail.  (not to mention the extra storage space needed to store all that data)

[saint]

I have, and it's horrible because I am a glasses wearer. You can't get the 3D glasses over your normal glasses comfortably

 Strange.  I also wear glasses.. and they seemed to be fine.  Maybe your glasses are thicker or more heftily built.

My glasses are incredibly thin with those bendy flexible ear pieces and no frame whatsoever, just the lenses attached to the ear pieces.

My facial structure may be suspect, dunno. My friends with glasses have the same complaint.

[Mikezilla]

Still, I can't wait for this fad to die. I was mad when I heard they are shooting The Hobbit in 3D. I hope they will offer 2D screenings, as well.

Im with you on that. Stupid Avatar, well, stupid Hollywood. "Hey! That movie mad a shitload of money! It was in 3D! That must mean 3D movies make money! Quick! Lets make some!" Ugh. I hope it dies soon, cause Im tired of it. I just got LASIK on my eyes a few months ago, and I tried to watch Toy Story 3 in 3D and it tripped me out where I almost felt sick. 

[Vanguard]

Clock is ticking on stand alone consoles hooked up to a TV anyway.

What's going to replace, oh great one?

[Dartful Dodger]

What's going to replace, oh great one?

I'd lay good money on the 3DS being the top selling system of all time when this is said and done. 

You're both wrong/right.

The only thing that made a console better than a computer game was the fact that you could play it on a TV.

New TVs and computer monitors are now the same thing.  Even my parents have the computer hooked into the TV to watch sports from Ireland being streamed through the internets.


It doesn't take a great one to see that standalone consoles will soon be sitting on top of the CRT televisions in the landfills.

Getting excited about the next generation console makes as much sense as getting excited about a Blockbusters opening up in your neighborhood.

[DaveMMR]

Nintendo writes red numbers, Sega black ones. They might be smaller, but profit is always nicer than loss.
Ps3 and iPhone have piracy, but totally different from DS piracy. DS pirace => 90%, iPhone and PS3 piracy is under 10%.

Nintendo has been selling the Wii system at a profit from day one and the DS is the best selling system.  So how exactly were they losing money?  And, again, Sega didn't just say "aw heck let's just do software".  They had to leave hardware in order to survive.  They write in black pen now because there was no where to go but up.  

The only thing that made a console better than a computer game was the fact that you could play it on a TV.

It doesn't take a great one to see that standalone consoles will soon be sitting on top of the CRT televisions in the landfills.

Disagree.   People also choose consoles over computer gaming because it's 1000x easier.  You buy a game and it'll play the same on your console as it will on your friend's same console.  No worrying about compatibility, costly upgrades, etc.   Also factor in game distributors who are shying away from the PC because of rampant piracy (or doing rush ports), limiting choice.  Consoles aren't going anywhere for a good long time.

[RayB]

*Edit* What Jim Said

+ though it's uncertain within what timeframe, there's a convergence starting to happen now, that all point to "your game on any device", along with connectivity of many types of devices to the TV.

Right now, for example, Apple has rentals and movie purchases that you can "shift" over to whatever device you want to view it on, be it your PC, Ipod Touch, Iphone, Ipad, or your television via AppleTV. Or for that matter there are cables to output video direct from your Iphone to a TV.

It won't be long before this is all wireless and has even less hoops to jump through (its pretty painless as it is, but annoying that a "rental" sits only on one device at a time).

The buzz in the games industry is about also moving in this direction. For example buying a game that can be played from wherever you happen to be. So, your Iphone while youre on the train, or then you get home, and play the same game on your PC (better graphics obviously) linked to an account that puts your score and progress to the exact same place, despite it being a different device.

Then there's digital delivery, which the game industry LOVES and looks forward to being a major solution to piracy (though as we all know, the crackers are not stupid and can find a way but at what cost to the game's features?)

As internet bandwidth increases (be it fibre optic service or 4G and 5G cell) there's also going to be the emergence of games rendered on the server and just streamed to you. You can see proofs of concept of this kind of thing already via "VNC" type applications that stream a render of a PC game to a handheld / cel phone. Just remember, whatever is crude and "too slow" now, will not be so in 10 years.

[Vanguard]

Yeah, you guys don't know what you're talking about.   Up until recently I worked for the company who designed the GPU's for the Xbox 360 and Wii.   I moved over to a new company that bought the xbox 360 design from the first company I worked for.   We ported it to mobile applications and it's 1/64 the pixel rate of the xbox 360.   The next xbox will substantially more powerful than the 360.

Simple die size, batter life and heat will dictate the entire market for mobile.    I know what is in the pipe for the consoles and what is currently being worked on.   Consoles are here to stay and will become more of a player in media delivery and gaming than they are now.

Mobile will have its place but the primary and most compelling market will be consoles.   PC's aren't going to be the primary gaming platform because of the cost and because developers don't like the massively complicated configuration management that comes with a device that can have any myriad of GPU, memory, etc... performance profiles.   

Mobile gaming is compelling right now simply because it's a low cost of engagement.   You can dust of games from 10 years ago, do a little retooling and have a new market for your games.   Next gen consoles will take a front seat once they are nearing market deployment.

[jimmy2x2x]

You say the next xbox will be substantially more powerful than the 360?
Portable devices have physical, battery and heat considerations?
PC's aren't the primary platform?
Consoles are the primary platforms not handhelds?
Older games are given new leases of life on portable platforms?


So your industry insight is, in a nutshell:

The market will continue with the exact same trend we are experiencing now.

Did I miss something?

[Vanguard]

You probably missed this statement which I was addressing:

Clock is ticking on stand alone consoles hooked up to a TV anyway.