Xbox executive Aaron Greenberg has expressed doubts about the potential of 3D technology in homes.
While everyone else is getting carried away with the technology - notably rival Sony - Greenberg questioned whether the 3D experience offered at the cinema can successfully be replicated on a domestic level.
"I think there's a lot of questions, to be honest. 3D is great in the theatre, but for the living room? I think we're a long ways away from that," he told Destructoid. "In the theatre there's nothing between you and the experience, but as you have other people in the room and other people walking by, well, it's not the same experience."
While we could maybe get past wearing the funny glasses around the house, we're not too keen on the idea of forking out for new 3D TVs just yet, especially seeing as some of us have only recently gone HD.
Market research firm Insight Media, however, reckons mass adoption of 3D technology isn't too far off. A study it released last month said the 3D gaming market is poised to grow from "a handful of 3D-capable displays and a few thousand gamers, to an expected worldwide market of over 40 million 3D-capable displays by 2014".
As with most new tech, price is the obstacle for me. I'll wait a while before buying a 3d tv, some of the prices I've seen are too high, although I might change my mind once I've had the chance to experience it.
There are many TVs that will run 3D.any 120hz one in fact(with the PS3 compatible stereoscopic).MS would say that though.The format for 3D at home is?Blu Ray only.
Well I'm out, I have a slight problem with my left eye that mucks up 3D for me, and there must be plenty of others too(I went with a group to see Avatar in 3D, and only one of us had no problems).
I'll give it a miss too. I saw Avatar the other day and while the 3D effect worked ok, it gave me quite a headache. I also didn't like the fact that the glasses made the picture darker and that most of the things on screen are out of focus (particularly the backgrounds). We've finally got HD tvs and now we should buy new ones with worse looking pictures? I don't get it.
I'm impressed with the look and displays of the new TV's shown at CES 2010, but the problem I have is with the way the 3D itself is viewed. Every Television at the show (no matter which company) uses an expensive set of glasses to enable the user to experience the picture. Now although the set (I assume) will be packed with one pair, if the family wish to sit down and watch television, you are looking at a very expensive layout for each set of glasses.
I'll wait until the illusion of a 3D image can be achieved without them.
MS are rite here 3D is only a baby and has to mature a little before success,bit like early Blu Rays.Just for the record Mini Sony is one of the brands leading the 3D charge and with PS3 bein 3D ready now courtsey of last update ye dont worry Sony are ready to give 3D ago lol
"a long way from replicating the 3D cinema experience at home." What kind of stupid statement is this? As fast as technology is moving forward, this is the most ignorant statement yet. Let's see here, what do you need to implement 3D in your home aside from those annoying 3D glassed? A television that can pump out 120hz or faster, and a player that can pump out the dual 1080p streams. Added to a 7.1 surround sound system and viola, you have the cinema experience minus the jackasses who bring babies to see a R rated action flick.
I for one hope they can do away with the glasses, but seems like that will only come about it if we could have 3D holographic machines at home. If they can do it without the glasses and not induce nausea, then I wouldn't mind testing it out. But for right now, I like my 1080p non 3D games just fine.
3D is indeed still in its infancy. But somebody has to push the tech forward, to develop and improve it. I'll back anyone who tries to do it. They might not get it perfect first time around, and you might have to wear annoying glasses, but thats how new tech works. The first car ever made wasn't a ferarri, same goes for 3D.
...the 3D gaming market is poised to grow from "a handful of 3D-capable displays and a few thousand gamers, to an expected worldwide market of over 40 million 3D-capable displays by 2014".
Yeah, right... 4 years, 40 million 3D sets out there? Me thinks not. Half the people I know still have CRT sets at home.
...the 3D gaming market is poised to grow from "a handful of 3D-capable displays and a few thousand gamers, to an expected worldwide market of over 40 million 3D-capable displays by 2014".
Yeah, right... 4 years, 40 million 3D sets out there? Me thinks not. Half the people I know still have CRT sets at home.
I doubt these claims too. Maybe if the launch prices were around the £300-£400 mark, then I could see it happening.
thats the beauty of it. you dont need to go buy a new 3D TV, if you already have a 120 Hz TV minimum than you will be able to watch 3D content. im looking at buying a sony bravia Z5500 over a 55 inch pioneer KURO. because 1 the KURO will not support 3D. 2 its 4K dollars more expensive. 3 its extremley hard to find, in a 30 KM radius only 2 stores have them. i wish pioneer did not stop making the KUROs, they were such good TVs leaps and bounds ahead of anything on the market even the XBRs. oh well, i guess a 52 inch Z5500 3D compatible TV will have to do
I have read many times of people who have experienced some form of eyestrain, fatigue, headache, etc from watching 3D. While this is a minor problem for a small number of people watching movies the question is how many will be affected during long periods of use. Undeniably once 3D is in the home, or worst yet in games people will spend vast amounts of time watching or playing in this format. Are there possibly long term side affects? Has anyone experienced hours and hours on end, over months or years of use? I suspect not, and I'm surprised no one is questioning this issue.
I admit I have little interest in 3D so it's not an issue that affects me. I'd rather see the overall quality of average games and movies increase than have a strange effect to distract me from a dull, or poorly written, or badly acted, story-less movie or game. I'd also rather have a far larger 'flat' TV than pay the same for a smaller one with this effect. Then I'd rather update my surround system and replace all my movies with blu-ray before I consider a new marketing gimmick.
I don't need this and I can think of so many things I'd rather spend my money on plus I actually don't like the cardboard-cutout affect that '3D' is.
I assume those interested in 3D already have high end surround sound systems, all their movies on blu-ray and very large digital screens? The day I have the ultimate system is the day I'd look into future technology. I guess in the eyes of Sony, James Cameron and the other 3D advocates I'm a strange one!
I honestly believe that 'Head Tracking' would work far better for gaming and is actually something that Natal could do very well! (not sure about Sony's camera, as it seems to track only the bright coloured balls, but I maybe wrong)
Watch this video on YouTube, 2:30 onwards is the demonstration of just how well it works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
It gives the same illusion of depth of field and also of floating objects, but without the need to upgrade you current TV (and also in Natal's case) without the need for glasses or eyewear/headwear.
The only downside to this tech is that it will only work for 1 player games, but as most multiplayer is online these days it isn't a major issue.
The only other thought I have on this tech is whether or not the current generation of consoles would have the processing power available to track, calculate and re-adjust the camera within the games 3D environment. Games like CoD:MW2, GoW etc obviously have highly detailed worlds, but if it is just a case of allowing the camera info to adjust the viewpoint within this environment (in the same way Mario 64 let you manually spin and move the camera) then maybe it is possible (even for Wii).
This tech could really bring Natal into it’s own making it more than just a fad or a fancy eyetoy for fitness/shovel ware, but a defining technology that enhances the gaming experience across the board! There is no double image here so those quite happy viewing games in a 2D plane could continue to do so, as the same game could work with or without head tracking being activated!
This just sounds like the usual BS from Greenburg, Sony are doing 3D so it sucks because MS are not. If he really thought about it 3D could be a potentially great addition to what NATAL is promising.
NATAL will allow you to reaching into the TV and interact with things, 3D makes things on the TV leap out at you. Imagine that hitting the ball game in the NATAL demo with the balls flying out of the TV in 3D for you to whack back using the NATAL camera.
The requirement of the glasses is still an annoyance with 3D though, but I am sure if it takes off with the glasses now and it becomes something people want advances will be made to eliminate them, probably requiring another new TV
I honestly believe that 'Head Tracking' would work far better for gaming and is actually something that Natal could do very well! (not sure about Sony's camera, as it seems to track only the bright coloured balls, but I maybe wrong)
Polyphony Digital have some form of Head Tracking up and running in GT5, not sure how well it works though and what the benefits will be TBH.
As soon as I saw 'Aaron Greenberg', this article lost all credibility. Greenberg is incredibly immature and he just has to have a dig at wahtever his rivals are doing. I don't mind PR BS from anyone but Greenberg is no better than the fanboys who troll gaming sites like this.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
