For years the talk of 3D in our home has been little more than a sc-fi dream, but all of a sudden the 'revolution' of the third dimension is upon us.
As 3D takes a firm grip of the movie industry, it seems inevitable that the gaming world - which is becoming closer and closer to its older cousin - should follow suit and no-one is pushing progression more than Sony.
But while the Japanese tech giants are keen to show the gaming world that 3D is the future, the questions remains; are we ready to make the jump from two dimensions to three?
As ever the gaming public remains largely sceptical, especially considering there are many who have only made the HD jump in the last three years or so.
We took a look on CVG's forums to gauge the general feeling. Reegeee summed it up nicely: "I've gotta say they're banking on the public taking it up in the same way they did HD and lowering the price of 3D sets, but I can't see it happening."
But initial scepticism doesn't have to kill new tech before it's even had time to settle in. You only have to look back to when Nintendo announced the Wii; many predicted it to be the nail in the coffin for Ninty and we all know what happened there.
MONEY TALKS
But the whole cost issue is valid, especially considering the world is still reeling from a global recession. 3D will surely only be for those with money to burn at least to begin with - and we've not been to a money burning party for years.
And there are many gamers who are more than happy with their HD TVs and see them as far more necessary for the enjoyment of this gen's gaming experience than a piece of technology that- arguably - looks a lot like a gimmick.
Eventually the price of the 3D experience will of course go down and in two years time people may feel ready to make the switch. By that time we will be in a much better position to judge whether 3D gaming really is a gimmick or a must-have bit of kit that really adds to the experience.
Sony is going to push 3D regardless and from what we've seen at E3 with the likes of Killzone 3 they're off to a good start.
Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Perhaps not right now, but let's remember, Sony pushed Blu-Ray and it became the dominant format. They have ties to related industries and enough clout worldwide to set the agenda.
In the meantime, companies like Sony and Nintendo have to put products on the market that will make people listen to their hearts more than their heads. They have to convince consumer they actually need 3D.
Mmmmgrolsch puts it into perspective: "I think it will be a great added experience to games. I really hope it takes off, but I ain't buying a 3D TV yet."
"I doubt I will buy one this gen, I'm going to wait for prices to come to a sensible practice like £500 to £1000 tops".
Comments
31 comments so far...
lonewolf2002 on 17 Jun '10 said:
For me personally not that fussed about 3D games until the tech is way improved. As for Sony pushing 3D of course they would, they will be hopefully selling the TV to you to play them on.
No offence to anyone but I would wait until the tech is in place where you do not have to look like a person with an eye defect/condition to view 3D.
twistedfiend on 17 Jun '10 said:
3D schmee D. Pah!
Padua on 17 Jun '10 said:
I saw Avatar and was stunned by the 3D. I thought it was going to be ridiculous but the latest iteration of it is enjoyable ( I wear glasses all the time and had no issues with covering mine with another pair )
Does it mean I will be an early adopter for 3DTV ?
I Don't THINK SO!
Will it make me go see another 3D movie at the cinema?
Probably:D
shadowsblaze on 17 Jun '10 said:
I got my HD TV 3 years ago. As most TVs tend to last 10 years or more, I don't see the need to waste money buying a 3D TV when I've still got a perfectly good TV which will last me for at least another 5 years, probably alot more.
Deleuze on 17 Jun '10 said:
I feel very sceptical about 3D in general. Firstly, there is the issue of how 3D improves or adds to the experience: is a film or game better if the image is displayed in 3D? If so, why? To make a rather odd analogy, would a piece of great literature be better if the ink on the pages was multi-coloured instead of black? Or, in the case of film, is a film "better" because of 3D? Because it is more "realistic"? Since when was realism a particularly important value in cinema?
Secondly, there is an economic issue. Why do corporations like Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo keep releasing new hardware or updates for us to buy? Answer: their sole aim is to make money. I would have thought this was not only obvious but rather striking at the moment given that many people around the world are losing jobs whilst the rich are generally either maintaining their wealth or increasing it.
I personally don't see much advantage to having 3D. Thanks for reading my opinion.
Sirini on 17 Jun '10 said:
I think one of the big issues is the glasses. At least with BD you could invite your mates around to watch a film. You can't do that with 3d, not unless you got 10 extra pairs of glasses, which are at best £50 each.
aliferg on 17 Jun '10 said:
In short no £ucking way.....
In longer than short.... Ok, think about it for a minute, when they do release those all important games, GT 3D, Killzone 3D and the others, how many are they actually going to sell to make the game development worthwhile? Not many thats what, how can they actually afford to spend developing these games when no one will buy them.
and whilst im spouting on, does anyone else get headaches watching that crap after 5 mins!!!
3D b*****ks!
aliferg on 17 Jun '10 said:
and what Sirini said.....
roland82 on 17 Jun '10 said:
Im with Deleuze
and the others that think 2d is enough. Companies need to keep up buying stuff, so they push new tech on us we dont really want/need.
Example Sony's watch the world cup in 3D ads, although no channel is broadcasting in 3D.
Bocaprowler on 17 Jun '10 said:
I took the plunge, mostly because I had to buy another television for my new house. The 3D Samsung 55' I got was not much more that they were selling last years non-3D model for ($130). I have downloaded the 3D demos on the PS3 and I am impressed so far. I am glad to be able to have the choice to use this technology, even if others are saying it's just a gimmick.
KMakawa on 17 Jun '10 said:
No they cant.
KMakawa on 17 Jun '10 said:
3D should stay in the cinemas. It is good to get mates out and to a cinema to experience something like Avatar.
But thats where the experience should end.
hi0marc on 17 Jun '10 said:
It is clear to me the games like KZ3 and GT5 released now arent there to make a profit or even to buy a 3D set now- they are there to impliment the idea that 3D, when accessable, will be an accessory to gaming similar to HD.
The key thing for Sony is that they remain on the front foot with the idea, making games 3D compatible will not bankrupt the company if it doesnt sell immediately, so they will keep pushing the best games to 3D, until the day it is accessable and of an acceptable price for the majority of gamers. When that day comes sony will cash in and win this battle just like it won the HD/Blu-ray format contest.
milky_joe on 17 Jun '10 said:
It'll be a long time before 3D reaches the level of market penetration that HD is currently at. IMO if anything is really going to drive it, it will be 3DTV channels or 3D Blu Ray movies, but I've no idea if the effect such things would give would in any way match the experience of watching 3D on a massive screen at the cinema.
Going out to see Avatar is a nice one off, but will people really end up watching crap like Dickinson's Real Deal in 3D a few years down the line?
Soviet1918 on 17 Jun '10 said:
E3 2010: Are we really ready for 3D? I think the real question is do we want it? i dont remember anyone asking me if i would like 3D games/films, "by me i mean us"
Aya on 17 Jun '10 said:
The impact won't be sudden at all, most tv channels aren't even in HD yet and the blueray section in every store is lacking compared to the DVD selection. I really don't see 3D catching on in the mainstream media for another 3 years and that's what will ultimately determine 3D tv sales. I think this is Sony trying to get there first so they may claim to have started the 3D revolution while ignoring the 3DS titan.
Sinthetic on 17 Jun '10 said:
Weyhey, my dudes Grolsch and Reegeee. Couldn't agree more with them. Spot on.
The Kool Kid on 17 Jun '10 said:
Surely that price is a typo? Surely?
Mmmmgrolsch on 18 Jun '10 said:
Argh crap. I was supposed to put price not practice.
A mate of mine has had his 3D tv delivered today so I popping round on Saturday to check it out. Hes a even better mate now for being a early adopter
He was a early adopter of a HD tv I spent a 3rd of what he did 18 months later 
Can't wait to try out Wipeout 3d!
Insidious on 18 Jun '10 said:
I just don't see the 3DTV adoption happening fast enough. It's taken this long with HD. The last 'big change' that forced people to upgrade their TV was colour. A TV is not something people expect to have to replace for new tech every few years. For the most part, people have just upgraded to a HD - good luck convincing them that the TV they expect should last them a good decade should be upgraded to a 3D in just two to three years after purchase.
That said, given as far as I'm aware 3D is (relatively) cheap and easy to fit into a game, it's not like Sony will have much to lose from pushing it regardless.
Solm on 18 Jun '10 said:
Just got a 40 inch hd so I won't be getting a 3d until the technology improves and you won't need to wear those silly glasses.
lonewolf2002 on 18 Jun '10 said:
I wear glasses too Padua but I thought the ones for 3D looked horrendous but I was basing that on what I saw ages ago, now the newer ones do look a lot sleeker.
FlimFlam on 18 Jun '10 said:
A mate of mine is continually gushing about 3D, how he needs a 3D set NOW etc etc...
I just don't see the need. I mean, it's cool for sure, I went to see Avatar along with the rest of the world and was blown away by the fidelity in 3D, but that was an experience, almost like a fairground ride.
Do I think games need 3D in the same way? No sir, I do not.
A lot of people still don't have an HDTV. If they do, they may not have 1080p. HD has taken YEARS to catch on, but you can see the benefit, crisp detail, vivid colours. 3D is more like a gimmick. Like Avatar, I can see myself enjoying something in 3D on occasion, but day in, day out? Not so sure.
Then factor in prohibitive cost at present and a lack of support (just the same as HD's early days) and you have to say, if there is going to be a revolution, it is a long way off yet and certainly not the basket you want to be putting a great number of your eggs in.
SuperCinos on 18 Jun '10 said:
Give me 3D without the glasses and I might consider upgrading.
Until then I am looking at the 3DS for my extra dimensional needs, 3D movies just don't do it for me.
Went to see Avatar in 3D and I found myself largely underwhelmed by the whole experience. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film, but the glasses were a constant distraction for me.
Reegeee on 18 Jun '10 said:
Ha ha I'm in the article - cracking stuff!
Cheers King Kenny!
And yes, I've said it all before, but I just can't see the general public signing up to 3d as quickly as they did to HD. Thus the prices of the sets won't go down as quick and then less and less people will 'upgrade'. It's a cycle.
I think the key to it is that HD sets felt like an upgrade, but 3d sets feel like an entirely new product. The HD revolution also came about when many people were buying new sets to prepare for the digital switch over, and so most of those people just thought they may aswell get a HD set if they have to buy a new one anyway. Add the current recession to the mix, and you have a recipe for disaster for those companies that really invested in 3d.
The other key point for me is that HD is backward compatible. We're always seeing old movies spruced up for HD, and most Blue Ray players have a DVD upscaler so you feel like you are getting more out of your current film collection. This can't happen with 3d though because the filming technology is so radically different.
HeartlessSystem on 18 Jun '10 said:
oh, to whoever said they wont buy a wont buy a 3d tv until its £500-£1000
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-LE40C75 ... 474&sr=8-2
£980 40 inch. not with glasses but not too shabby...undefined
HeartlessSystem on 18 Jun '10 said:
oh, to whoever wouldn't pay until 3d tv's were £500-£1000
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-LE40C75 ... 474&sr=8-2
£980 40inch. Better 2d than my currunt tv as well!
runadumb on 21 Jun '10 said:
I have been planning on replacing my PC monitor at some stage this year and decided just to wait for a good 3D one. Well i've waited and waited but the ones that have come out suck. I just feel like if im getting a new monitor it should be 3D compatible as I don't want to buy another one in 3 years. I also wonder if Nvidias 3D specs would work on the ps3. Anyone know?
Anyway I may still get one this year but it just depends on a number of factors, like getting one that doesn't suck.
choboy76 on 21 Jun '10 said:
had a look at one in the shops and wasn't that impressed to be honest(only viewed a movie not a game, i get the feeling games will look the best in this format). i think it just comes down to having to wear the glasses, which, my little boy if he got his hands on them would snap in 2 secs - costly. HD is just fine for now for me, might reassess in two years when the next big thing in tv's comes out- 3D + smellovision
lipbalmed on 25 Jun '10 said:
its a tough one imo,i mean h.d only came about and now this..
i think we dont need it,not yet,with the whole interactive console's now out with the wii and now MS ans Sony gettin on the bandwagon,3d is sounding a bit too far too soon,console wise anyway...
imagine showin your gran a fw years from now 3D Killzone with the Move with surround sound on ur 40'' when she comes over for xmas dinner??she'l keel over
petrolhead on 2 Jul '10 said:
3D will only have limited success untill it's affordable.
Just like the PS3 and Blu Ray.
3D has not got a chance untill you can get the TV's for £500 to £600.