The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: dre-w on October 09, 2010, 10:06:08 pm
-
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
Nintendo 3DS - First Hands On (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYnyBxVhK_c#ws)
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.
-
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.
-
Or just tilt at your waist instead of your wrists.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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>
-
On the whole, I think you are right
I suspect the 3DS I think will be an exception to that
-
(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
-
(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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hot blonde chicks with new gadgets...must avert eyes......must look at Nintendo only.......was there a point here?
-
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.
-
From what I've heard 3d is bad for children's eyes,
Make that "human's eyes"
-
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? ;D
-
Nintendo 3DS - First Hands On (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYnyBxVhK_c#ws)
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 :dizzy: 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 :dunno
I can barely afford the one I chained to my refrigerator....No thanks Nintendo
-
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.
-
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%.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.vgchartz.com)
-
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.
-
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/ (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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_business_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.
-
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/ (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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_business_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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? ;D
+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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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? ;D
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!
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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. :dizzy:
-
Clock is ticking on stand alone consoles hooked up to a TV anyway.
What's going to replace, oh great one?
-
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.
-
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.
-
*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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
You probably missed this statement which I was addressing:
Clock is ticking on stand alone consoles hooked up to a TV anyway.
-
Why sell a system at a loss with a bunch of controllers when you can sell a bunch of profitable handheld devices at $200+ each and make all the players own one?
Because you quickly make up the loss in game revenue. Because you can sell advertising, movies, music, etc.... As I stated, the console and the maker of that console are going to replace your cable provider. They will be making revenue off every single thing you watch, play or listen to.
BTW, what makes you think handheld devices aren't sold at a loss?
-
All I know is that I'm not paying for digital downloads,
or other such things that aren't tangible.
They can print "lease" on the box of all my disc games,
but I'm going to do what I want with them because they're mine.
Any corporate bought "law" that states otherwise will be filed under
kiss my butt.
Yeah, video games and media are going to all be on a box that you purchase
that really only gives you the opportunity to rent things, but hopefully this
will all take place after I'm dead.
-
You probably missed this statement which I was addressing:
Clock is ticking on stand alone consoles hooked up to a TV anyway.
+1 to Vanguard.
PBJ is missing a fundamental problem with handhelds.
Not everyone wants one.
Portable gaming is great. Great when you're at the doctor's office for gamer's thumb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZZC8BOA1NQ#) (aka Nintendites :laugh2:). But imagine how stupid you would look swinging your portable wiimote or lollipop at the grocery market? Imagine the lawsuit when you kill some grandmother swinging that sword attachment? There is no way, on any planet, in any time, I'm going to be waving around a bubble gum farting (http://www.sonyinsider.com/2010/06/15/playstation-move-shooting-attachment-revealed/) firearm in public, sorry.
Thanks but no thanks. I like using the big screen TV for my gaming. I like having the bass shake the chandelier as the enemies turn into giblets.
Consoles and portables are different entirely breeds. We see them cross over, but one will never outright replace the other.
Same goes for PC's. The whole PC vs Console argument has been going on since... well... almost year dot. But these nutjobs forget that PC's aren't going away any time soon (thanks legacy ---uvulas---) and people, regardless of the original intent of their PC purchase, will continue to buy games for it. Crappy games, sure (Deer Hunter to name only one best seller :banghead:) but still games nonetheless.
Yeah, there are crossovers. Yeah, consoles pick up on handheld technologies and vice versa. Handhelds can play some of the console games. So what? That sort of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- has been going on for a long time.
Oh and:
All I know is that I'm not paying for digital downloads,
or other such things that aren't tangible.
They can print "lease" on the box of all my disc games,
but I'm going to do what I want with them because they're mine.
Any corporate bought "law" that states otherwise will be filed under
kiss my butt.
Yeah, video games and media are going to all be on a box that you purchase
that really only gives you the opportunity to rent things, but hopefully this
will all take place after I'm dead.
---fudgesicle--- yeah.
-
Consoles and portables are different entirely breeds. We see them cross over, but one will never outright replace the other.
You'll see. Within 10 years a handheld will have the same power to deliver 1080p of highly detailed 3D, and you will have the option to play it on the portable's screen, or wirelessly transmit to your big screen TV so you can play HOWEVER YOU LIKE.
There comes a point where graphic detail reaches a maxium. The iphone screen for example, squeeze 300 dpi. You can't see pixels on it anymore. Now, the 3D horsepower in it still needs a lot of catching up, but we're talking about the future, not "right now".
-
Eventually maybe. I think your 10 years estimate is a bit off though.
Pixel density is one thing, realistic physics, particle effects, anti-aliasing filters etc is another. There is still an incredible amount of headroom before real-time graphics approach that of even today's prerendered CGI (or hell, even 9 year old CGI (http://www.rpgamer.com/games/ff/affw/ffmov/screens/aki_face.bmp) ). Much less what will be standard in the future.
We are no where near your graphic detail maximum, which is probably somewhere beyond even perceived reality, and the gap between hand helds and consoles/PCs will remain for a long time.
-
I thought I was comparing consoles to computers hooked up to TV's. I rechecked what I quoted, so yup. ???
But again, don't think consoles are going anywhere anytime soon - not 10 years definitely. Granted portables are outselling even the most popular consoles (particularly the DS and the iPhone/iPod Touch if you really must count that) but I have yet to meet anyone who had ONLY a portable and no other console to speak of.
Here's the thing, portables are HORRIBLE at social gaming - something that sells the Wii (remember all those ads of smiling families waving around their Wiimote). How many portable games do you play in groups? Pokemon? That was pretty much it.
And as powerful as portable gaming will get, console aren't going to be sitting stagnant while the devices play "catch up".
You'll see. Within 10 years a handheld will have the same power to deliver 1080p of highly detailed 3D, and you will have the option to play it on the portable's screen, or wirelessly transmit to your big screen TV so you can play HOWEVER YOU LIKE.
There comes a point where graphic detail reaches a maxium. The iphone screen for example, squeeze 300 dpi. You can't see pixels on it anymore. Now, the 3D horsepower in it still needs a lot of catching up, but we're talking about the future, not "right now".
There's always a "maximum" that engineers always say "oh yeah?!" to and proceed to blow past it. And it's not just graphics - it's raw processing power as well. More characters on screen with advanced AI and unlimited gameplay options. We've yet to come close to the ceiling of what's possible.
As to your other point, it's quite possible that the next generation portables are going to be dual-purpose workhorses by doubling as a console - but I can't imagine it wouldn't be a big detriment to the hardware. You can play it on the small screen or the big screen? Okay, how are game developers going to know how someone's going to play it? A portable screen and your living TV are HUGE differences. What you can see on the big screen will be minuscule on the other. Those were the big complaints about the TurboExpress and the Nomad. As SavannahLion said, consoles and portables are entirely different breeds.
Well, maybe they can make two versions of the game on one disc (or download, actually). But that just adds to production cost and time - something a company wouldn't be willing to do. Wouldn't they rather just sell you the same game twice for different hardware? ;D
But I'll tell you what: If in ten years consoles are non-existent, I owe you a Coke.
(EDIT: Fixed code)
-
I don't think anyone has said "consoles will be non-existent".
Clock is ticking on stand alone consoles hooked up to a TV anyway.
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.
;)
Handhelds aren't good for social gaming? ??? You can play the damn things online and share one copy of a game amongst multiple consoles. How more social do you want it??
Geez, my copy of Contra 4 for the DS requires Player 2 to have his/her own copy. Yeah, game sharing. ::) I know many games that support it but often it cripples features. It's a great idea that's still very, very imperfect. And they're not going to fix it anytime soon because that would cut into sales. You want to play two-player Contra 4? You have to buy the game twice (not to mention two DS's).
And, BTW, by "social" I am not referring to playing online. I mean hanging out in the living room, drinking beer and talking smack with your friends. Online play is great, but I think there's a world of difference between that and what I describe as social gaming.
Bottom line: When I see a DS or PSP being played, it's one person in his/her own little bubble ignoring the outside world.
-
Consoles and portables are different entirely breeds. We see them cross over, but one will never outright replace the other.
You'll see. Within 10 years a handheld will have the same power to deliver 1080p of highly detailed 3D, and you will have the option to play it on the portable's screen, or wirelessly transmit to your big screen TV so you can play HOWEVER YOU LIKE.
Sure... and there will still be consoles.
Your statement smacks of the PC vs Console argument that's been going on for far longer than I care to remember. But my statement still stands. For handhelds to completely displace consoles, I see two things need to occur.
Batteries need to see additional increases in their life. I personally prefer alternate sources of power. Fuel cells or even the work by Tesla. Wirelessly broadcasting to my big screen is going to suck ass if the batteries only last five hours. If you're going to be tethered to charge, what's the point?
R&D of new hardware is going to have to run parallel to power consumption R&D. There is a reason why portable computing devices generally have lower specs compared to their "fixed" tethered counterparts. Companies work on new tech first then develop lower power counterparts later.
Sorry. I don't doubt handhelds will become what you describe. I do doubt they'll ever completely displace their console counterparts.... well at least not for a very long time.
Besides, consoles are beginning to morph into that horror of horrors, the replacement for your video box. Doesn't look like any of the major players are in a rush to completely get rid of them.
-
Here's the thing, portables are HORRIBLE at social gaming
How many portable games do you play in groups? Pokemon? That was pretty much it.
Pretty much Pokemon roygbiv, Mario Kart, Resident Evil, New Super Mario Bros, Brain Age, New Track & Field, Diddy Kong Racing, Geometry Wars, Mario Hoops, Star Fox.. and most of those require only 1 cart.
I mean hanging out in the living room, drinking beer and talking smack with your friends.
Yep, thats how we do it. There's no other way.
Well.. no better way I should say. Almost forgot we used to bring'm to the movie theater, get some multiplay goin while waitin for the movie to start. Occasionally there'd be some kids couple rows up within the radius whod get in on some Mario Kart action. Fifth gear, tapped wide, cant lose..
-
You'll see. Within 10 years a handheld will have the same power to deliver 1080p of highly detailed 3D.
You won't see this in a truly portable environment. It will be possible to have the kind of processing power you describe in a small packaged but the limiting factor will be battery life.
You don't see desktop quality 3D graphics on Laptops for the same reason. Laptop 3D parts are good but are constrained heavily by power consumption requirements. Many Laptop GPU's don't operate at full power unless the laptop is running under external power.
Handhelds will suffer from the same issue. Heat and power consumption will limit the 3D capability of these devices.
To put it in perspective, a high end desktop GPU is pulling 200+ watts of power. A handheld CPU AND GPU are pulling 3 watts.
-
Can't believe no one has mentioned the real reason consoles/PC gaming will never disappear. Controls. Sorry, but there is only so much you can do with a microscopic Dpad or PSP-type 'analog stick' smaller than a dime, or lame accelerometers where you shake the whole screen to do something. In fact, I think that's the reason PC gaming has not been killed by consoles.
-
Controls are why phones don't enjoy much more than causal gaming. Playing FPS' on a phone sucks.
-
Playing FPS in 2010 sucks, too. Time for some new genres.... and I imagine we'll see some better suited to portable devices.
It's not just FPS, pretty much any game where absolute controllers like mice/trackballs can be used is better: RTS, RPG, even games like Zuma/Peggle/World of Goo/etc.
I don't see the point of using a portable device when you don't require portability. Especially given that just about every aspect of it is inferior (and always will be) to larger/less portable hardware of the same generation. Every aspect except portability of course. You can't tell me you prefer surfing the web on an iPhone over a keyboard/mouse + comfortable chair w/armrests + large monitor? I would kill myself if I had to spend hours a day at work holding a small rectangle in front of my face.
-
The fundamentals are truly ubiquitous wireless, peripherals becoming wearables, and cloud environment liberating devices from processing demands. (D/A converters have become pretty inexpensive. The above could likely be helped along if broadcast were [still] analog.) These are developing - just not so much here as in Asia, where the culture is far more mobile and flexibility-minded, and where the youth have much more involvement and say in it.
-
My 2 cents (or buck and a quater... whatever)
3d tv is almost definately a fad. Here's the deal:
For the longest time, there wasn't much money in tv sales. That isn't to say that there wasn't money to be had, or else companies like sony wouldn't exist, but rather the technology had hit a wall... and other than replacement of old units... there was nothing for the consumer to gain by buying a new tv. Then comes plasma and the game changes. Now you have a tv with a high profit margin and a short lifespan. Tv companies are back in business again! But plasma kind of sucks so it is almost immediately ditched for lcd tvs. So they actually convicne people who just bought a tv to throw it out and buy another tv! Well now they tell us that lcd is crap and they we should buy led tvs and quad pixel tvs, which are essentially the same damn tech. This sort of trickery won't last forever, so they fell back to the old tried and true cinema hustle known as 3d. This is nothing more than a ploy to get us to buy tvs when we don't need them. 3d, no matter how much they improve it, is a crappy display method and over 70% of the population doesn't have adequate depth perception to be able to propely view 3d images anyway. It's a scientific fact recently proven via testing!
See there are two problems with 3d aside from annoying stuff like glasses and lack of content.
1. It isn't 3d, it's stereoscopic imagery. BIG difference. When a camera can shoot an image and obtain a fully skinned 3d render of the scene.. THEN we have 3d... until then we just have a lame gimmick.
2. Generally we don't watch tv alone and we move around (either our bodies or heads) when we watch. For true 3d this just doesn't work. Each viewer needs an individual display that adjusts the image based on your eye level. This is why the 3ds, crude as it may be will be a success while 3d games on the ps3 won't. That isn't to say that the 3d on the 3ds will be very good, but at least nintendo isn't stupid enough to make a 3d wii.
Long story short, yes, 3d tv is a gimmick and no, it won't stick around very long.
Expect most of the population to skip right over it and led tvs to OLED technology.
-
I read a report that said 2-12% of the population are 3D-blind. 70% sounds a little far fetched. If the technology had that high of a reject rate, I doubt it would be considered a viable consumer feature.
-
The fundamentals are truly ubiquitous wireless, peripherals becoming wearables, and cloud environment liberating devices from processing demands. (D/A converters have become pretty inexpensive. The above could likely be helped along if broadcast were [still] analog.)
That's not even close to describing the fundamentals.
-
Man, a couple of you should really see if NASA is hiring. They're always looking for uncreative engineers.
I dunno, can you list "conjecture" and "speculation" as applicable skills? ;D
-
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?
Don't you sit with the remote in your hand or on your chair?
-
These are developing - just not so much here as in Asia, where the culture is far more mobile and flexibility-minded, and where the youth have much more involvement and say in it.
When you mean "asia" I assume you mean Japan?
-
It isn't 3d, it's stereoscopic imagery. BIG difference. When a camera can shoot an image and obtain a fully skinned 3d render of the scene.. THEN we have 3d... until then we just have a lame gimmick.
Stereoscopic 3d, is when both eyes can see different perspectives.
You dont have to have full 360 degree holographic display for 3d.
And I dont believe 3d will 'Fad' away. This isnt the 1950s Red/Blue mess.
As more and more Good content becomes available, it will just get more and
more popular.
I remember when I played a old FPS in 3D on the PC. It was the only time I ever found an FPS to actually be interesting in the least. Adding the depth really made the game feel completely different. Much more immersive and realistic.
And the last Harry Potter movie that just came out, was jaw dropping in certain 3D sections. Added real value and detail that you just cant get with a 2d display.
I can only guess that maybe you are bitter because you may be one of the people who does not have good 3d depth perception. For the rest of us, content in 2D, is like Mono Audio. Flat, un-detailed, boring.
We hear in 3d, and see in 3d, and our content should be in 3d.
As for holographic content... dont hold your breath. The amount of data storage needed alone wont be commercially viable for ages. Let alone holographic projector technology...
-
Btw - with Stereoscopic glasses, and using Johnny Lees Wii head tracking... You could make a version of Mame that displayed an entire cabinet.
Unlike todays mame, where artwork bezels get in the way of the display, you would be able to see around them, depending on your relative head position.
All the artwork would be completely viewable, on all levels, and all depths, as was designed and intended to be experienced.
Stereoscopic 3d is the future,
(and should be the future of mame)
-
Just thought I'd slip in some observations amongst these expert opinions. I sat down last night and thought I'd try out something from my '2D' DVD collection in 3D viewing mode. I grabbed Jurassic Park 3 which seemed to be a good candidate. For starters the video quality on this DVD is pretty good as is the sound - especially in DTS. Sooo, fired it up switched on the glasses and sat back. Whatever the conversion algorithm is that's used its most effective on scenes with a mix of objects across the depth of field, especially in pan shots. A really distinct feeling of separation and depth is achieved, close ups etc much less so. One problem I noticed is with shiny highlights on faces in close ups. For some reason the 3D processing gets confused with these making them appear to 'pop out' in front of the skin. That aside I was quite impressed, short lived novelty or not it's a lot of fun! I watched the whole movie in 3D except for some breaks to see the difference in 2D. I'll just say this, switching from '3D' Stereoscopic - whatever ::) back to 2D on a movie like this leaves you feeling well (dare I say it ;D) FLAT and kind of disappointed. With yells of “put it back in 3D dad” I got me a beer and switched back. The kids ooh'd and ahhh'd at all the right moments. There was no flicker and we managed to avoid going into blinded convulsing spasms on the floor. Of course the Blu-Ray 3D titles look better than the converted 2D DVDs but it is fun to revisit some of these titles. It certainly won’t be a big part of our TV viewing I haven’t bothered to try it out on broadcast material but it a fun thing to do now and then. Here’s my prediction, it will just be another feature which separates consumer choice, buyers want choice – look at the mobile phone market for that proof “this phone has 300 applications, oh and you can use it for calls too”. “This TV connects to the internet as well as your NAS devices and consoles blah blah blah and it has 3D”. “Does that model have 3D?” “No”. OK I’ll take the fully featured one”.
-
Ond,
What were you using to convert the 2d to 3d?
Is that a feature of the new 3d blueray / dvd players?
Or is it a stand-alone unit? Or PC software conversion?
-
Ond,
What were you using to convert the 2d to 3d?
Is that a feature of the new 3d blueray / dvd players?
Or is it a stand-alone unit? Or PC software conversion?
It is a feature of the Samsung LED/LCD TV I've purchased details here http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/led-tv/UA46C7000WDXXY/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail&returnurl= (http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/led-tv/UA46C7000WDXXY/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail&returnurl=)
This unit does its own processing of the image regardless of the source. It’s just an option on the remote labeled ‘3D’. It’s by no means perfected and yeah ya gotta wear the glasses (for now). I just thought a bit of feedback from a users point of view might be worth adding. I hear a lot of talk about weird effects, flickering, blindness! etc etc. After sitting down and actually using the technology for a while, well, that (seemingly) sensationalist hype seems all a bit ‘overblown’. It’s just a neat novelty, a bi-product of TV technology today. To declare it a transient fad or whatever is, in my opinion, probably a bit premature. Having said all that, queue the report of somebody having watched 3D TV and going apeshit and killing half the people in his home town or something :P .
-
My biggest concern with 3D is the sheer novelty of it. I've seen a couple of films in 3D (particularly the re-release of Nightmare Before Christmas a few years back) and it was jaw-dropping, of course. But about an hour in, I stopped noticing the 3D effects and was itching to get the glasses off already.
They're pushing 3D TVs but I think it's still very much imperfect.
-
How can anyone forget the mind blowing 3D in Jaws 3D?!!? ::)
Its a fad and I cant wait for it to blow over. Blame James Cameron. Hack.
-
IMO it's like a rollercoaster. It's fun, but if you had one at home and rode it every day, it wouldn't be. Leave it in the theatres is my vote. If there were a vote going on anyway...
-
IMO it's like a rollercoaster. It's fun, but if you had one at home and rode it every day, it wouldn't be. Leave it in the theatres is my vote. If there were a vote going on anyway...
yeah but there are other possibilities. think about GOOD 3rd gaming. bullets, zombies, random stuff all in real 3d just movies in theater. yeah Id def want that in the future.
-
IMO it's like a rollercoaster. It's fun, but if you had one at home and rode it every day, it wouldn't be. Leave it in the theatres is my vote. If there were a vote going on anyway...
yeah but there are other possibilities. think about GOOD 3rd gaming. bullets, zombies, random stuff all in real 3d just movies in theater. yeah Id def want that in the future.
Hey yeahhh! This just got me thinking, I'm going to have to test some of my fav PC driving games and shooters on the new TV in 3D mode. I have just started playing BioShock 2 (what a weird game) Hmm maybe I should do a review. I'll be completely objective I promise ;D
-
Ond,
Try mame on the bad boy.
It would be curious to see if it will auto-sync stereoscopic game output, such as with "Continental Circuit". I think you have to press your "F1" key while in the game to enable the 3d frames.
Also try a standard 2d racer like OutRun, and see how it fares.
Ohh, almost forgot.. a couple of other Stereoscopic 3d games are on the sega master system emulator. Most notably:
- Missile Defense 3D
- Maze Hunter 3D
- Outrun 3D
- Space Harrier 3D
- Blade Eagle 3D
- Poseidon Wars 3D
The best being the 1st two games listed.
Let us know,
:)
-
I read a report that said 2-12% of the population are 3D-blind. 70% sounds a little far fetched. If the technology had that high of a reject rate, I doubt it would be considered a viable consumer feature.
2-12% of the population are completely 3d blind... up to 70% don't get the full 3d depth perception intended by the creators of 3d imagery. It has to do with various factors including not only vision, but eye fatigue. Even the new 3d causes strain on the eyes. Most people can't keep the damn glasses on for the full length of a movie. Thus the 70%.
As for the second part of the statement you really seem to underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer. If something didn't sell because it was useless then the snuggie wouldn't be one of the most popular tv products ever.
-
you really seem to underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer
Well spoken. Snuggies, the Franklin Mint, that "Painter of Light" guy. There's lots of examples of that!
-
I don't see people spending $1500+ on any of those examples (and that's without purchasing the glasses). Also, People will try a TV before they buy it. If it causes them discomfort, they'll opt for a cheaper tv without the 3D feature. If 70% of people do this, well...the result would be obvious.
-
2-12% of the population are completely 3d blind... up to 70% don't get the full 3d depth perception intended by the creators of 3d imagery. It has to do with various factors including not only vision, but eye fatigue. Even the new 3d causes strain on the eyes. Most people can't keep the damn glasses on for the full length of a movie. Thus the 70%.
As for the second part of the statement you really seem to underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer. If something didn't sell because it was useless then the snuggie wouldn't be one of the most popular tv products ever.
But if they get a cuddly mascot...
-
they'll opt for a cheaper tv without the 3D feature.
There isnt much cost needed to make an LCD 3d. Sure, they may get away with charging extra initially... but pretty much every LCD maker will eventually add 3d so as not to get pushed out of the market.
If 3d cost $500 to instate, then sure, only a select few mfg. would instate them into their product. Already Ive seen announcements for 3d screened laptops.
Many LCDs are multitouch, and how many people really care about & use that?
Its a gimmick that has much less value than 3d vision does.
And what? Yes, 3d LCDs can also display in 2d.
Most people can't keep the damn glasses on for the full length of a movie.
Really? Cause every single Imax movie Ive ever been to, and I dont see people taking off the glasses. You tend to notice something like 70% of people taking off glasses for lengths of time. That would be like more than half of the people sitting near you.
That being polarized glasses. Not sure about flicker tech... cause I only have the master system to compare with... which uses simple graphics, and a low frame switch rate.
-
I'm on the fence.
One thing though, the argument of "eye strain" is not going to be a make or break factor when you consider that for some people even just a regular FPS video game on Xbox causes them either eye strain or "motion sickness". Yet you didn't see the industry abandon that genre just because of a few sensitive or aging people.
We shall see! (pun intended)
-
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?
Well one you wouldn't have to wear it on your face 8) and two I was saying just because there's a slider switch to adjust distance doesn't mean it could never work for a television. It could work.. for one person..... ok for me ;D
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.
Agreed. But they need to hurry up and figure it out, before we all go blind!
http://www.televisions.com/tv-news/No-joke-3D-contact-lenses.php (http://www.televisions.com/tv-news/No-joke-3D-contact-lenses.php)
-
2-12% of the population are completely 3d blind... up to 70% don't get the full 3d depth perception intended by the creators of 3d imagery. It has to do with various factors including not only vision, but eye fatigue. Even the new 3d causes strain on the eyes. Most people can't keep the damn glasses on for the full length of a movie. Thus the 70%.
It sure would be nice to see some sources on these figures.
That said I fall somewhere in there. That Harry Potter movie mentioned earlier was not great for me. I had trouble telling what was going on in a couple of scenes where the 3D was integrated well enough that the depth was a determining factor in the action. At other 3D movies I just don't see that much 3D. I know some movies use it better than others but there just haven't been many movies where I walked out with the same wow factor that the people around me talk about.
-
Checked out a large Sony last night. Must have been 50"
Uses shutter glasses. Had Alice in Wonderland playing. Looked quite good !
$2185 and a pair of glasses is $150. There's no reason the glasses couldn't come down on cost to as little as $30 in the future. there isn't all that much to the tech.
-
Most people can't keep the damn glasses on for the full length of a movie.
Really? Cause every single Imax movie Ive ever been to, and I dont see people taking off the glasses. You tend to notice something like 70% of people taking off glasses for lengths of time. That would be like more than half of the people sitting near you.
First off, a movie really has to suck balls or the people have to be really annoying if you're paying more attention to the people around you than the movie itself.
2nd of all. Imax theater is usually 70% empty anyways. Oh wait, that's not really the point. My second point really is, if a person is "3D blind" they're probably not going to want to go to a 3D movie anyways. Your sampling is skewed. It's like walking into a Thai restaurant in the middle of the city and stating the diners there are an accurate representation of the city demographics.
-
I imagine that the biggest problem isnt that 70% lack depth perception...
But that their eyes are spaced further apart, or closer together, than what the camera was set up for.
-
I haven't really been big on these 3D tvs. Looks like they are just trying to package something that has been around for a long time. I don't like the idea of having to wear special glasses everytime I want to watch something in 3D. Then if you have a bunch of people over, you need to buy these expensive glasses for each person that wants to watch the game or whatnot on tv. Just not worth it to me.
-
But that their eyes are spaced further apart, or closer together, than what the camera was set up for.
that sounds racist.
Anyways, I was in the local compusa with my GF, I popped on the 3D glasses for the 3D samsung TV, it was showing some college football game. The effect was pretty freekin amazing, like the depth of players and it looked like the score was sitting on top of it all. However after only a minute or two I had a killer headache. I dont plan on replacing my TV anytime soon anyway
-
My take on it is "fad" as well. The technology has been out for many years. I have a pair of shutter glasses collecting dust somewhere that came with my many-years-ago-whiz-bang Geforce4 card. It was neat to play with, and the games that used it were interesting a few times, but it was soon relegated to the heap of other interesting, but mostly impractical gadgets. The fact that the technology uses (expensive) glasses pretty much tells you that it won't last. I worked in the "glasses free" 3D industry for a few years, and it was pretty much a consensus amongst insiders that the glasses were the thing that prevented the technology from being viable. The "glasses-free" approaches have finally hit the proverbial brick wall, as I predicted long ago they would, so this is literally the only way to do it. It looks like they finally gave in to the approach they always said would fail.
So what we have here is 3D being used as a way to help revitalize the "theater experience" in the age of affordable, high-definition home theater, and now electronics manufacturers are using the only means possible to try to leverage some of that to boost stale TV sales.
Just like shutter glasses didn't change the way we played PC games 10 years ago, I really don't believe they will change the way we watch movies. It may stick around as a "once in a while" feature if it's cheap to implement on the sets, and / or a cheap add-on becomes available, and the glasses go way down in cost. But I just don't think the demand is going to be there for the already huge installed base of large flat panel TV owners to want to upgrade for it. It took 15 years for Hi-Def to really kick in, and there are still a lot of stragglers. This incarnation of 3D technology isn't going to have that kind of staying power.
RandyT
-
Don't leave out that now we can supposedly have live events in 3D. Movies are great and all but an NFL game in true 3D is a totally different thing than has ever been offered before.