Jump to content

Wii 3D


rubberducker
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm intrigued by the 3DS - portable, no glasses. An interesting experiment, and one I'll almost certainly buy. Having to put 3D glasses on to scramble your brain and play every single game or watch every single film "as it's supposed to be" would, inarguably, be a nightmarish scenario. Detail and clarity fall by the wayside but hey! you have "depth" and things "jumping out at you".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expensive, more like. Both have deep pockets though.

Well I was being slightly facetious. Nintendo said that they tried it during development and it just didn't work very well. Apparently something to do with the way the technology works but using it as a touchscreen destroyed the illusion. And if I remember they said something about fingerprints destroying the illusion as well. I guess there's a way around it but it might not be as easy as it sounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoted from http://efgpblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/is-3d-the-future/

As mentioned earlier, getting games to run at a decent resoultion without the strains of 3D is tough enough as it is, both on the PS3 and 360, so will developers even bother with 3D during this generation. Well, there is no real incentive for publishers, as the penetration of 3D enabled TV’s in homes is virtually non existant at this point, and the extra development costs cant be gained back in higher gaming prices (£40 is extortionate already), so any investment in 3D would be hard to pay for and wouldnt even be used by 99% of their customers. So nothing to be gained there. And therefore there will be no incentives for developers to make their games in 3D.

So why Sony are implimenting it on the PS3 is beyond (Beyond!) me as no one will use it. And given the price of a 3DTV, and its additions, it doesnt seem like it will be used an awful lot.

Take a family of four, for example:

Sony HX803 Television – £2,500

4 Pairs of Glasses – £400

Reciever Unit – £75

Playstation 3 – £250

HDMI 1.4 Cable – £25

Total = £3,250

InsinDave.gif

Yay 3D! It's the future!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a non-story the OP is. All it's saying is that there's no way they'd do 3D on the Wii, as it's underpowered, and that if 3D TVs become popular, they'd put the option in their next console. Both of these comments are simply obvious facts. If 3D becomes the de facto standard, Nintendo will follow it. Of course that would happen. Iwata says they'd implement it if penetration is over 30% - well, considering most people probably expect a Wii 2 announcement next year if not sooner, and the current 3D TV penetration is a fraction of a percent, it's almost certainly not going to have it. Nintendo has no interest in pushing 3D TV like Sony does, but hey, if it becomes wildly successful anyway, of course Nintendo will do it. Just like HD - Nintendo had no interest in pushing it, but now that penetration is pretty high, there's no doubt that the next Wii will have HD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the argument that no one has a 3D TV so why bother creating content could have been labeled at blu ray, DVDs, any console launch or in fact any new technology.

But the entry requirements for DVD or new consoles were a lot lower than they are for 3D. Blu-Ray is slightly different, but it didn't really take off until the HD TV penetration was pretty high.

3D TVs require you to wear glasses, and be sat at a good viewing angle. It just seems too specialist to me, and will not appeal to the majority of people. Its a gimmick that the movie industry and the TV guys are pushing at us telling us we need it.

My view is skewed though, 3D doesn't work for me, so I don't give 2 hoots about it.

On the OP though, as has been said, of course Nintendo will enable it one a new console if the penetrations into homes is high enough, but they will definitely wait until that point, they are not about cutting edge technology at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt the actually development costs are much higher at all. It's juts a case of rendering another camera to accommodate your other eye. The hardware just needs to be able to render everything twice in real time, that's where the costs are.

I have been filming alot of 3d content lately and what's interesting is mostly any Tv produced in the last few years is technically able to do 3d, as long as it can do 100hz or above. 3d tv comes in two varieties, passive (the cheap glasses) and active ( the expensive ones). Basically manufacturers are inflating costs. Passive 3d is just a polarising piece of plastic film that sticks on the front of your tv (that works with your glasses), and active means the glasses do all the hard work and are the only new bit of tech. All this extra 3d technology costs the manufacturers nothing! They just market it as new.

But believe me, 3d isn't going anywhere. In the tv and film world it is everywhere. And sales agents are desperate for content.

There is new tech just around the corner that requires no glasses and has a much wider viewing angle than normal no glasses displays, so I can see that's the point people we get behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glasses are about $70 a pair aren't they for some of the screens? Your average family would come up to around 4 people or something

The glasses for the UK Panasonic screens are £100 per pair. Two pairs included with the TV.

I want a projector that tracks your head and scans an image directly onto each of your eyeballs. Doable?

I'd rather see a standard, fast frame rate for films, TV and games across the board than 3D becoming widely adopted. Particularly action films and sports suffer from it. It's crazy that they spend millions making a film like Transformers and no-one thinks at any point "hey, we could film this in 48/50p and it would be way smoother", grr.

God no, for films this would be a terrible idea.

24fps gives films (and TV shows shot on film) that slightly unreal, otherworldly feel that they have. As soon as you increase the frame rate to 48/50/60fps it just looks like it was shot on video. You can simulate this effect if you have a TV that does frame interpolation (usually called 'Motion Enhancer' or 'Motion Plus' or just labelled as 100/120/200hz scanning). Try watching a film with that on - it loses everything that makes it look like film, and just looks like a well-produced shot-on-video TV show.

Cinemas and many TV's show 24fps material in a multiple of 24, e.g. 48, 72, 96 to reduce flicker, but the actual number of unique frames remains the same, so the look is retained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...is technically able to do 3d, as long as it can do 100hz or above

It'd look terrible though because the time it takes standard plasma phosphors or LCD panels to switch from illuminated to black to illuminated again is too long, so you get a weird blending of the previous and current frames as the TV has to switch rapidly between the images for the left and right eyes. The Panasonic 3D plasma TV has phosphors that return to black 3 times faster than their regular panels to avoid the frame overlap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3D TVs require you to wear glasses, and be sat at a good viewing angle. It just seems too specialist to me, and will not appeal to the majority of people. Its a gimmick that the movie industry and the TV guys are pushing at us telling us we need it.

The current technology being used in 3D TV's is clearly first generation and less than ideal.

Sony are throwing their weight behind 3D as the company supports the complete eco system for it, going from the TV's themselves through to the players and the content. As Napole0n said in another thread, as a technology company Sony should be driven to push new features like this, and whilst the first wave of sets will only appeal to the uber niche, they will continue to improve and become cheaper, until we get to the point where they eventually offer glasses free 3D, with all the viewing angle problems ironed out.

3D has broken into the public mindset thanks to Avatar and 3D cinema in general, so the next logical step for the technology is to make the leap into the living room. For those not interested in the tech, it'll simply be something you'll have to turn off on your next TV upgrade, but for those who want to be at the bleeding edge, then you can buy into that tech now.

It's worth adding that the overwhelming reaction from the people who have seen games like Killzone 3 demonstrated in 3D has been positive, with reporters generally being pretty wowed by the tech. Personally I'm both annoyed that I've only recently upgraded my TV and so won't be able to invest in the tech for quite some time, and frustrated that the tech clearly isn't quite there yet. When they can do it without the glasses, that's when this thing is going to hit the roof... which is why the 3DS is going to absolutely clean up. Although that said, when the tech does go mainstream, Sony will be sat on a wide range of gaming and film content, which will put them in a good position to reap the rewards of mass adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the entry requirements for DVD or new consoles were a lot lower than they are for 3D. Blu-Ray is slightly different, but it didn't really take off until the HD TV penetration was pretty high.

3D TVs require you to wear glasses, and be sat at a good viewing angle. It just seems too specialist to me, and will not appeal to the majority of people. Its a gimmick that the movie industry and the TV guys are pushing at us telling us we need it.

My view is skewed though, 3D doesn't work for me, so I don't give 2 hoots about it.

On the OP though, as has been said, of course Nintendo will enable it one a new console if the penetrations into homes is high enough, but they will definitely wait until that point, they are not about cutting edge technology at all.

The entry price for all those things was really high at launch. Want the best picture? You needed a new 1080p set. Lol at all those who had just bought a 720p set the year before. Then you'll need the blu ray player itself and to get theuncompressed sound you'll need a new amp.

Even when 360 came out people didn't want to upgrade because games looked good enough and HD was too expensive. So yes this is just the same argument again.

Or see above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RLLMUK miserable cunt brigade quick to reply as usual. If you don't like 3D or waggle then don't buy or play.

I've been showing friends and colleagues e3 new shiny stuff this week and they all went apeshit over the Waggle, Kinect and 3D stuff saying they intended to buy. Absolutely none of them was remotely interested in generic 'core' gamer games like MGS, Halo or Black Ops whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All well and good, but if 'core' traditionally controlled games are going to disappear in favour of 'mainstream' waggle controlled games like we've seen on the Wii, then it can fuck right off. 3D however, is something I'll be embracing...once there are panels that don't require glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going to be a long, long time before Nintendo start making games for home consoles in 3D. They haven't even moved on to HD yet.

Once Nintendo finally do go HD then all their next console will need is a HDMI port and a firmware update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like my computer UIs in 2D, and my films in 24fps (and obviously 2D also). I'm hoping - and to a degree, trusting - that Apple don't displace their UI guidelines too much in favour of eye candy and novelty, and it'll be a long, long time before they decide that a 3D interface is genuinely more useful than a 2D one.

Some games might be nice in 3D, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead, they're interested in generic party games.

Whats wrong with that? It's not to your taste obviously but there is a demand for them and thats what this batch of technology is offering, something different to what you want so you continue to bitch about it. Try avoiding it for a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All well and good, but if 'core' traditionally controlled games are going to disappear in favour of 'mainstream' waggle controlled games like we've seen on the Wii, then it can fuck right off. 3D however, is something I'll be embracing...once there are panels that don't require glasses.

But they aren't dissapearing are they? There were plenty of traditional games on show at E3, it just everyone seems to have jumped on the fuck off Waggle/3D bandwagon as if they are protecting thier young. It's tiresome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.