Sony: 3D headset will 'revolutionise games, movies forever'

TheLastDodo on 23 Sep '11 said:

1. It won't revolutionise anything at £481.

2. I wear glasses so wearing this thing would be uncomfortable for me, it's a no buy.

3. Not having to wear anything on your face is what will revolutionise 3D.

JakeyBaby on 23 Sep '11 said:

'revolutionise games, movies forever'
"Immerse yourself completely in a private world of entertainment"

Have a wife? Impossible.

gmcb007 on 23 Sep '11 said:

No it won't. Especially at that price. HD is good enough, just don't try and ram 3D down our throat. After all, a lot of people cant watch or play in 3D without feeling ill so they'd be left out!

Gambini on 23 Sep '11 said:

The geek in me is really excited by this

I would luuuurve to play something like Uncharted 3 with this puppy. (Don't judge me)

Headsrinker on 23 Sep '11 said:

If i hear foot steps/gun fire behind me, aren't i likely to swing round and run into one of my living room walls/doors/coffee table etc etc?? It will certainly bring the 'reality' of pain.

StonecoldMC on 23 Sep '11 said:

Sony: 3D headset will "revolutionise the different ways that we can sell you more products and make more money forever"

gnokgnik on 23 Sep '11 said:

Gambini: I agree. But of course, if it was possible to achieve this without bending this piece of plastic around my skull, I would prefer it.

Nitramuse on 23 Sep '11 said:

Two crystal clear OLED screens - the same technology that provides the spectacular display on the PlayStation Vita system

Right! Now I know what kind of quality these screens have since everybody's seen a Vita in action!

humanhand on 23 Sep '11 said:

'revolutionise games, movies forever'
"Immerse yourself completely in a private world of entertainment"

Have a wife? Impossible.

I live on that same boat.

OracleOfPokemon on 23 Sep '11 said:

IT DOESNT HAVE MOTION COMPATABILITY, SO WHEN YOU MOVE YOUR HEAD, NOTHING IN-GAME WILL HAPPEN!
so basically, it's just a 3d tv in a helmet. great.

humanhand on 23 Sep '11 said:

1. It won't revolutionise anything at £481.

2. I wear glasses so wearing this thing would be uncomfortable for me, it's a no buy.

3. Not having to wear anything on your face is what will revolutionise 3D.

Want a coupon, and some contacts?

humanhand on 23 Sep '11 said:

Oh, and everyone, let's not forget about the head cancer....

El Mag on 23 Sep '11 said:

Catchy as f**k name, the HMZ-T1. I'm sure Bez tried to sell me some of that at a rave back in the early 90's.

rivariad on 23 Sep '11 said:

lots of witty comments, but no, its fokin massive and sell s.htload, day 1 for me

Budly Moore on 23 Sep '11 said:

I'm excited by this but, I'll wait for the motion cotrolled version.

RoKuShaKuBoJutSu on 23 Sep '11 said:

I'm getting this day 1. Biggest benefit for me, 3D with ZERO ghosting on a theater size screen. Not all products are for all people, so the haters just need to accept that they wont buy it and move on. This product is going to kick ass.

charliecheswick on 23 Sep '11 said:

It's a no from me. It's scary enough down here in Momma's basement without covering my ears and eyes!

Fr33Kye on 23 Sep '11 said:

I wont be buying it any time soon and it's a shame we are dividing people instead of bringing them together but i can't say he's wrong.

1. It won't revolutionise anything at £481.

2. I wear glasses so wearing this thing would be uncomfortable for me, it's a no buy.

3. Not having to wear anything on your face is what will revolutionise 3D.

I don't think it's really about not wearing glasses to look at a box. I think it's about being able to move your head in first person and look around a 3d world. Problem is you would lack peripheral vision but it's still f**king awesome.

RustySpoon80 on 23 Sep '11 said:

No it won't. Especially at that price. HD is good enough, just don't try and ram 3D down our throat. After all, a lot of people cant watch or play in 3D without feeling ill so they'd be left out!

This works different from other 3D types as there is an individual screen for each eye, therefore you wont get the usual sickness effects.
I just wish it had full 1080p rather than 720p. Will see how much it cost in the UK.

rbt2 on 23 Sep '11 said:

Like Dodo said, at almost 500 sovs it'll revolutionise bugger all!
Bring that price down to sensible levels and you might get somewhere with it, Phony.

RoKuShaKuBoJutSu on 23 Sep '11 said:

I wont be buying it any time soon and it's a shame we are dividing people instead of bringing them together but i can't say he's wrong.

It's typical. People cant celebrate or enjoy the ways that Sony come up with to give people a new way to enjoy HD content. They are defensive and negative and attempt to tear it up. If it's too expensive for someones tastes, fine, it's not worth it in their eyes, but that doesn't mean that this isn't going to be a stellar product that will have its worth in other peoples eyes.

Also, just cause it wont revolutionize HD content for the masses who don't want to fork out the cash, it will for those who do.

KK-Headcharge78 on 23 Sep '11 said:

Has no one told Sony 3D is dying on it's ass? And at that price long may it continue.

RoKuShaKuBoJutSu on 23 Sep '11 said:

Has no one told Sony 3D is dying on it's ass? And at that price long may it continue.

It's hardly dieing on it's ass. People who claim this probably didn't play Uncharted 3 beta in 3D..

rbt2 on 23 Sep '11 said:

I wont be buying it any time soon and it's a shame we are dividing people instead of bringing them together but i can't say he's wrong.

It's typical. People cant celebrate or enjoy the ways that Sony come up with to give people a new way to enjoy HD content. They are defensive and negative and attempt to tear it up. If it's too expensive for someones tastes, fine, it's not worth it in their eyes, but that doesn't mean that this isn't going to be a stellar product that will have its worth in other peoples eyes.

Also, just cause it wont revolutionize HD content for the masses who don't want to fork out the cash, it will for those who do.

But surely that's the whole point?
To revolutionise summat then the price needs be affordable for all but the poorest of northerners.

Fr33Kye on 23 Sep '11 said:

I wont be buying it any time soon and it's a shame we are dividing people instead of bringing them together but i can't say he's wrong.

It's typical. People cant celebrate or enjoy the ways that Sony come up with to give people a new way to enjoy HD content. They are defensive and negative and attempt to tear it up. If it's too expensive for someones tastes, fine, it's not worth it in their eyes, but that doesn't mean that this isn't going to be a stellar product that will have its worth in other peoples eyes.

Also, just cause it wont revolutionize HD content for the masses who don't want to fork out the cash, it will for those who do.

You're not referring to me are you?
The 3d headset does need a good price. Cell phones didn't mean revolutionize anything until the masses could afford them. This is still a good idea. I think if the eye strain is minimal and it doesn't make people sick(it will), then it could be great. Like there might actually be increased immersion rather than just throwing the word around.

Mmmmgrolsch on 23 Sep '11 said:

I for one really want this bad boy! I've always wanted something like this since I was a kid and really believe they will be the most immersive thing ever! f**k all this 3D malarkey to be honest. i just want the gap between the screen and me to be gone, then it will truly feel like I'm in the game!

Whatever anyone thinks about 3D forget about it and imagine the bigger picture. These are going to be the closest to being in a game than anything. Just really gutted about the no motion sensing though that would have just been able to make me jizz in my pants

TheLastDodo on 23 Sep '11 said:

@Fr33kye:

As I said in point 2 I wear glasses as it is as many others do, some for everything, some for watching TV, I need my glasses for everything, blind as a bat without them, so this has alienated me straight away, the price is irrelevant in my case but it will be the major factor for others.

Fr33Kye on 23 Sep '11 said:

They just need to design one for people who wear glasses!! Still i wonder what glasses wearers are gonna do when everyone is wearing AR glasses.....THE FUTURE DODO.

rbt2 on 23 Sep '11 said:

The cost is all important!
Too expensive, as it is now and it'll flop as quick as The C5 did.
Having said that, The C5 flopped cos it was a bag o' s**te!

potnoodle1 on 23 Sep '11 said:

I'm pretty sure a motion sensing version will be available at some point or some gizmo's that will perform the same job. The product tailors to a pretty niche crowd but I want one!

SkyBlueJukeBox on 23 Sep '11 said:

Or, to put it more simply, how to watch pr0n without the missus noticing!!

jim2wheels on 23 Sep '11 said:

I for one really want this bad boy! I've always wanted something like this since I was a kid and really believe they will be the most immersive thing ever! f**k all this 3D malarkey to be honest. i just want the gap between the screen and me to be gone, then it will truly feel like I'm in the game!

Whatever anyone thinks about 3D forget about it and imagine the bigger picture. These are going to be the closest to being in a game than anything. Just really gutted about the no motion sensing though that would have just been able to make me jizz in my pants

Peas in a pod.

@Dodo

Is it definitely a no go for spec wearers? I know it doesn't look likely, but there's only so much you can get from pictures.

gmcb007 on 23 Sep '11 said:

No it won't. Especially at that price. HD is good enough, just don't try and ram 3D down our throat. After all, a lot of people cant watch or play in 3D without feeling ill so they'd be left out!

This works different from other 3D types as there is an individual screen for each eye, therefore you wont get the usual sickness effects.
I just wish it had full 1080p rather than 720p. Will see how much it cost in the UK.

Fair enough, but I still feel like Sony is slowly pushing everyone towards 3D just like the same move was done for HD. Although HD was the next step in visual technology, 3D just feels like a gimmick more than an advancement,

RoKuShaKuBoJutSu on 23 Sep '11 said:

People wanting motion sensing in this will have a hefty wait. This isn't VR, it's just a personal viewing device. VR, while in Sonys R&D, will not hit us for around 5+ years IMHO.

rbt2 on 23 Sep '11 said:

People wanting motion sensing in this will have a hefty wait. This isn't VR, it's just a personal viewing device. VR, while in Sonys R&D, will not hit us for around 5+ years IMHO.

You're boring as f**k.
Ye boring c**t!

RoKuShaKuBoJutSu on 23 Sep '11 said:

People wanting motion sensing in this will have a hefty wait. This isn't VR, it's just a personal viewing device. VR, while in Sonys R&D, will not hit us for around 5+ years IMHO.

You're boring as f**k.
Ye boring c**t!

Oh and you are really interesting with such awesome post content? lol

humanhand on 23 Sep '11 said:

That's all you've got... wimp.

Obscure_Metaphor on 23 Sep '11 said:

ill wait for the wireless sixaxis version that lets my head movement get tracked. 3DVR? yeah ill go for that.

moogiesboy on 23 Sep '11 said:

I call dibs on being the worlds 1st numpty to sit there obliviously gaming while the house burns down around me.
If I ever turn up as a charred skeleton, in my armchair wearing a pair of these, someone sue Sony on my behalf.

The_KFD_Case on 23 Sep '11 said:

1. It won't revolutionise anything at £481.

2. I wear glasses so wearing this thing would be uncomfortable for me, it's a no buy.

3. Not having to wear anything on your face is what will revolutionise 3D.

For myself, I concur with points one and three. (I don't wear glasses nor contact lenses.)

The_KFD_Case on 23 Sep '11 said:

Has no one told Sony 3D is dying on it's ass? And at that price long may it continue.

Hear, hear!

trzarector on 23 Sep '11 said:

Excellent for porn!!! lol

TheLastDodo on 23 Sep '11 said:

@Dodo

Is it definitely a no go for spec wearers? I know it doesn't look likely, but there's only so much you can get from pictures.

I'm just going off pictures jim, and from pictures I've seen it doesn't look like it would sit comfortably for me.

Malmo on 23 Sep '11 said:

Surely something like that is gonna need to be plugged in? not to mention the HDMI cable you'll have dangling from your face. You're gonna look like a bloody cyborg on charge.

JammyJames on 23 Sep '11 said:

Holographic is where i want to be. When i see something fly out of the screen, i turn around and see it carrying on behind me, then i'll be impressed. Until then......meh.

MrMoobs on 23 Sep '11 said:

No it won't. Especially at that price. HD is good enough, just don't try and ram 3D down our throat. After all, a lot of people cant watch or play in 3D without feeling ill so they'd be left out!

Thats the same reason I despise all this motion based gaming like Kinect, Move and Wii etc. Not everyone can play it... everyone being able to take part is what makes gaming so damn special.

Headsrinker on 23 Sep '11 said:

trzarector

Excellent for porn!!! lol

trzarector is on to something here. (dirty git lol)

If i was a randy teenager with one of these on my head and my mother asks me what am i doing, i could simply reply 'im watching 'Saving Private Ryan', when actually im really watching 'Saving Ryan's Privates'.

TheLastDodo on 23 Sep '11 said:

trzarector

Excellent for porn!!! lol

trzarector is on to something here. (dirty git lol)

If i was a randy teenager with one of these on my head and my mother asks me what am i doing, i could simply reply 'im watching 'Saving Private Ryan', when actually im really watching 'Saving Ryan's Privates'.

Problem is you'll be so immersed you'll forget what your hands are doing when mother walks in

wwinterj on 23 Sep '11 said:

Interested? Yes, yes I am.
At that price? No.

Sorry but I'll pass for now. Of course technology always drops in price so I'll give it a try one day. Either that or when I win the lotto.

Welsh Jester on 24 Sep '11 said:

This isn't really VR though if it's just like sitting at a cinema with a bigger screen, the games would have to be adapted to make it feel like you are in the game.. and until there is some sort of anti gravity pod to move inside of this will never work well unless you are sitting down and not move much.

in other words, this is pretty much sony's answer to kinect, not really revolutionary.

KK-Headcharge78 on 24 Sep '11 said:

Has no one told Sony 3D is dying on it's ass? And at that price long may it continue.

It's hardly dieing on it's ass. People who claim this probably didn't play Uncharted 3 beta in 3D..

Oooooh ok, I think you may find thats a drop in the ocean compared to the mass expenditure in developing a promoting 3D across games, TV and cinema and the resulting take up of the tech. Look at the facts and you would see the take-up is slow at best instead of basing your retort on one f**king beta.

TheLastDodo on 24 Sep '11 said:

I've never played a game in 3D so I can't comment but as for popularity KK is definitely right.

Most people either don't care enough to buy a 3DTV or just can't afford one, cold hard truth for Sony is 3D will not take off as most people simply don't have 481 quid lying around to spend on a gimmick headset.

Sony are also offering an "affordable" 3D monitor soon, designed for college dorms, bedrooms, study's. How much is it? 400 quid. How many students or just average teenagers do you know that can afford to spend 400 quid on a TV?

I'm not doubting the tech but as for pricing Sony are showing they're out of touch with the real world.

Down with robots on 24 Sep '11 said:

We are still many years away from effective 3D imagery, and the offerings available today are just gimmicks at best. Until it can be done without any headsets or glasses or other peripherals most people won't buy it, including me.

ei8hty5ive on 24 Sep '11 said:

I'm definitely buying from day one! For all the people who say Sony have got the pricing wrong and they are our of touch, show me where I can buy a 750 inch TV for under 500 quid and I'll say you are right, ...

I do think they have skipped a beat with not having motion sensing though, but I'm guessing they will have already tried it but found it messes with you eyes/brain too much.

liveswired on 24 Sep '11 said:

I have no doubting the tech will be stunning - but I can't help but say the price is revolutionary - this should be £150 max!

liveswired on 24 Sep '11 said:

We are still many years away from effective 3D imagery, and the offerings available today are just gimmicks at best. Until it can be done without any headsets or glasses or other peripherals most people won't buy it, including me.

Effective and stunning 3d imagery is available now and I would disagree and state that is is not a 'gimmick'. I can say this because I have had extensive use of a friends Nvidia 3d vision and 3DTV, I also have a 3ds myself - I have found that the 3D each of those pieces of technology provided are stunning and truely immersive.

It is true 3D will improve - but so will standard TV. Do you consider HDTV to be a gimmick until 10080p displays arrive?
When TVs first appeared - did people mutter gimmick and wait 40 years for widescreen HD plasma and LCD? no. Or what about games consoles? computers? cars? breathing? To a modern gamer these are all obvious gimmicks.

The choice in the market is there - I am happy with a 2D setup in my living room. But I'm not going to diss 3DTV just because I don't have it. 3D is alreading stunning and immersive.

Can CVG ban the 'gimmick' from the boards please?

LisVender on 24 Sep '11 said:

I'd rather have better games on a television.

jtthegame on 24 Sep '11 said:

Sony like to shove a load of crap down people throuts and there fanboys eat that crap

TheLastDodo on 24 Sep '11 said:

You're 30 years old?

*facepalm*

voodoo341 on 24 Sep '11 said:

I'm just going off pictures jim, and from pictures I've seen it doesn't look like it would sit comfortably for me.

If you're long or short sighted you wont have to wear your glasses. You adjust the focus point of the image to suit.

Multiplayerking on 24 Sep '11 said:

Haha Sony, joke's on you! My headset is already three dimensional!

stickyfiddle on 24 Sep '11 said:

Motion sickness is made worse when what the inner ear feels and what the eyes see do not match up. That's why people get sick reading in cars- because the car is moving, but they're focussing on something inside the car that isn't.

Gamers don't usually have trouble because when you look at a screen there is still a whole bunch of peripheral stuff you can see that's not moving, so your brain can handle it. This doesn't have that other stuff, so they're gonna get loads of people with dizziness/throwing up/headaches.

Personally I hate "3D" as your perspective doesn't change when you move your head- that is still true whether it's the cinema, or a home 3DTV or a 3DS. There's no way in hell I'm buying one of these.

TheLastDodo on 24 Sep '11 said:

I'm just going off pictures jim, and from pictures I've seen it doesn't look like it would sit comfortably for me.

If you're long or short sighted you wont have to wear your glasses. You adjust the focus point of the image to suit.

I'm everything sighted voodoo, long or short it's all a blur to me

ps3TheMagicNumba on 24 Sep '11 said:

I wear glasses so wearing this thing would be uncomfortable for me, it's a no buy.

Not meaning to be rude but you'd have to be pretty blind to need glasses to see something which is literally perched on the end of your nose!

Windowlicker79 on 24 Sep '11 said:

I wear glasses so wearing this thing would be uncomfortable for me, it's a no buy.

Not meaning to be rude but you'd have to be pretty blind to need glasses to see something which is literally perched on the end of your nose!

You clearly have absolutely no idea about sight problems do you?
If some-one is long-sighted then they have difficulty focusing on things close up. Nobody who is long-sighted and wears glasses would be able to use this.

gmcb007 on 24 Sep '11 said:

I wear glasses so wearing this thing would be uncomfortable for me, it's a no buy.

Not meaning to be rude but you'd have to be pretty blind to need glasses to see something which is literally perched on the end of your nose!

Oh look another 'new' user that seems to be very favourable towards the PS3. Funny how you popped up on the one day gamer4life got banned.

TheLastDodo on 24 Sep '11 said:

Has he finally being banned?

gmcb007 on 24 Sep '11 said:

Just for 1 day but you know he just turns up under some other ironic username.

TheLastDodo on 24 Sep '11 said:

One day?

That's not a ban, that's a day off.

gmcb007 on 24 Sep '11 said:

I know. It's pretty evident that he won't feck off until his IP is banned. He's probably a CVG employee generating flame wars!

ps3TheMagicNumba on 25 Sep '11 said:

Um, not sure what you guys are on about. I‘ll probs be a Sony lover for life, however, I‘m not this gamer4life you speak of...

Legrasse on 25 Sep '11 said:

I wonder if you can record data directly from the wearer's cerebral cortex... Love dem SQUIDs. I'd pay 480 for that.

ladycroft142 on 25 Sep '11 said:

I'd love to give this a try but would definitely hold off for the price to drop. It also looks kind of silly on but I'm sure what you're seeing more than makes up for that. The future is here people!

voodoo341 on 25 Sep '11 said:

You clearly have absolutely no idea about sight problems do you?
If some-one is long-sighted then they have difficulty focusing on things close up. Nobody who is long-sighted and wears glasses would be able to use this.

Yeah they can. There are sliders below each screen that allow you to adjust it for each eye for either long sight or short sight.

Windowlicker79 on 25 Sep '11 said:

You clearly have absolutely no idea about sight problems do you?
If some-one is long-sighted then they have difficulty focusing on things close up. Nobody who is long-sighted and wears glasses would be able to use this.

Yeah they can. There are sliders below each screen that allow you to adjust it for each eye for either long sight or short sight.

That can't be right. I can't seem to find anything referencing these "sliders" on the internet. Also, how would they work? Glasses correct the focus on your eye with a very precisely made lens. It would be impossible for them to incorporate that into this headset.

voodoo341 on 25 Sep '11 said:

That can't be right. I can't seem to find anything referencing these "sliders" on the internet. Also, how would they work? Glasses correct the focus on your eye with a very precisely made lens. It would be impossible for them to incorporate that into this headset.

Here you go... it adjusts the image on the screens.

ps3TheMagicNumba on 25 Sep '11 said:

Amen to that!

Windowlicker79 on 25 Sep '11 said:

That can't be right. I can't seem to find anything referencing these "sliders" on the internet. Also, how would they work? Glasses correct the focus on your eye with a very precisely made lens. It would be impossible for them to incorporate that into this headset.

Here you go... it adjusts the image on the screens.

There are also sliding focal adjusters beneath each lens to fine-tune the image to suit individual eyesight.

This is all it says about the sliders. It sounds like they are just for fine tuning the image for individual users. I'd imagine it does this by moving each display closer or further away from the eye. It would need to do this as nobodies face is perfectly symmetrical and one eye may be slightly closer to the display than the other, which these sliders will allow you to compensate for. It says nothing about correcting focus for long or short sighted users.
What you need to realise is that for a person who is long sighted, adjusting the distance of the screen will make no difference. Lenses in glasses accurately refocus light entering the eye so that it hits the retina correctly, which their eyes cannot do by themselves. Without glasses, anything they are looking at closely will always appear out of focus. They will still need their glasses to focus the image correctly into their eyes. Moving the screens will not fix this as it will not adjust the angle of the light entering the eyes, it will just allow the user to adjust it to match their optimal focal point. Long sighted people lack the ability to get any accurate focus on things they are looking at close up, hence their need to wear glasses.
Short sighted people will not be affected by this and will be able to use it comfortably without glasses as they only have difficulty focusing on distant objects.

voodoo341 on 25 Sep '11 said:

This is all it says about the sliders. It sounds like they are just for fine tuning the image for individual users. I'd imagine it does this by moving each display closer or further away from the eye. It would need to do this as nobodies face is perfectly symmetrical and one eye may be slightly closer to the display than the other, which these sliders will allow you to compensate for. It says nothing about correcting focus for long or short sighted users.
What you need to realise is that for a person who is long sighted, adjusting the distance of the screen will make no difference. Lenses in glasses accurately refocus light entering they eye so that it hits the retina correctly, which their eyes cannot do by themselves. Without glasses, anything they are looking at closely will always appear out of focus. They will still need their glasses to focus the image correctly into their eyes. Moving the screens will not fix this as it will not adjust the angle of the light entering the eyes, it will just allow the user to adjust it to match their optimal focal point. Long sighted people lack the ability to get any accurate focus on things they are looking at close up, hence their need to wear glasses.
Short sighted people will not be affected by this and will be able to use it comfortably without glasses as they only have difficulty focusing on distant objects.

FFS... already used the prototype headset and it works by adjusting the image not moving the screens. I'm slightly short sighted and it worked fine. My friend is long sighted and it worked fine.

Windowlicker79 on 25 Sep '11 said:

This is all it says about the sliders. It sounds like they are just for fine tuning the image for individual users. I'd imagine it does this by moving each display closer or further away from the eye. It would need to do this as nobodies face is perfectly symmetrical and one eye may be slightly closer to the display than the other, which these sliders will allow you to compensate for. It says nothing about correcting focus for long or short sighted users.
What you need to realise is that for a person who is long sighted, adjusting the distance of the screen will make no difference. Lenses in glasses accurately refocus light entering they eye so that it hits the retina correctly, which their eyes cannot do by themselves. Without glasses, anything they are looking at closely will always appear out of focus. They will still need their glasses to focus the image correctly into their eyes. Moving the screens will not fix this as it will not adjust the angle of the light entering the eyes, it will just allow the user to adjust it to match their optimal focal point. Long sighted people lack the ability to get any accurate focus on things they are looking at close up, hence their need to wear glasses.
Short sighted people will not be affected by this and will be able to use it comfortably without glasses as they only have difficulty focusing on distant objects.

FFS... already used the prototype headset and it works by adjusting the image not moving the screens. I'm slightly short sighted and it worked fine. My friend is long sighted and it worked fine.

And what specifically does "adjusting the image" actually do then?

ps3TheMagicNumba on 25 Sep '11 said:

As they say, denial ain‘t just a river in Egypt!

djreplay on 25 Sep '11 said:

And what specifically does "adjusting the image" actually do then?

I assume it.....you know.... adjust's the image for your eye's.

The_KFD_Case on 25 Sep '11 said:

As they say, denial ain‘t just a river in Egypt!

Mark Twain actually, but hey ho.

CJG on 28 Sep '11 said:

LOL lets all wear a brick on our face to "revolutionise games" like the Virtual Boy did.

Windowlicker79 on 29 Sep '11 said:

And what specifically does "adjusting the image" actually do then?

I assume it.....you know.... adjust's the image for your eye's.

"Adjusting the image" is far too vague. What exactly does it adjust?