[patsu]

Originally Posted by makattack

I don't see that happening much in gaming either. Of course, this is just my own personal situation, but when I game solo, I wear a headset to shield my neighbors/flatmates/etc from noise. On top of the corrective lenses I already wear, it'll feel like I'm strapping on equipment to go into combat or something. This will turn any fun endeavor into tedium. Imagine when the batteries wear out? I already have a AA/AAA charger for my 360 controller & headset batteries -- so I'm going to need more batteries for 3D glasses? No thanks.

It's easy to dismiss the tech without any reference (e.g., No front USB, need to change battery, cannot see my girl friend beside me). I'd say wait for your favorite game to go 3D. Then we will see. There is no need to rush into it right ?

The price point and any technical imperfection (e.g., fatique ?) are probably bigger deterrent.

When gaming in a social environment (Rock Band, etc) I have been in situations where there are anywhere from 2-30 people looking on while people are playing. Do you really think a host will buy X number of glasses for their guests? After a few drinks, I can imagine people wearing those glasses walking about, breaking all sorts of things -- or themselves.

In a party setting, I think people will just try 3D first so everyone can take turns to experience it. Then switch to 2D. We did that for Coraline 3D Blu-ray. Not a show stopper.

Also, I am very sure my friends, relatives and their kids will be curious to see my home media in 3D.

EDIT: It looks like a lot of investments are going into 3D. We know National Geographic, ESPN, World Cup, Disney, Sony, cable, satellite and more are in the bag. If they want to, they may also promote Victoria Secrets and other fashion stuff... way before pr0n comes in.

[Scott_Arm]

The biggest barrier will be the fact that most people bought their tv within the last two or three years, and it will be hard to convince most people to buy a new one.

[patsu]

Some DLPs and a very small portion of HDTVs are already 3D ready today. Should the desire for 3D takes off, it'd be "everywhere". People can start with standalone 3D monitor (like me !), photoframe, laptop, 2nd TV, and eventually their new living room TVs when it dies. It will take years for the key pieces to settle down anyway.

They should manage the pace so that people don't get disillusioned by early 3D tech limitations (if any).

[Shifty Geezer]

3D may well make it one day, if people don't mind wearing the glasses. But regards 3D gaming, this gen doesn't seem worth it. There's another report about Sony making a big push for 3D gaming, but I can't really see the point. Even if LBP in 3D is superb, I can't afford to buy in this gen (unless something extraordinary happens!). If I were creating a game, I wouldn't be putting in 3D. I guess Sony are investing in it to sell expensive TVs, but I really am scratching my head. Are the extra man-hours to add it to their library going to be worth the number of TVs it helps shift?

[patsu]

I think the proponents may be looking at a permanent shift to 3D, including 3D without glasses in the future. That's why they will build 3D into existing product lines whether you want it or not (People can always fallback to 2D).

Sony is interested in this because like Blu-ray, they will benefit from almost the entire value chain (production to professional equipments to consumer electronics). They will be affected less by the low cost manufacturers in the mid, short term. As for the other parties (e.g., cinema owners, studios, eye treatment centers), well they get to refresh their business model, inventory and attract different/new customer base.

Don't know whether and how long it will go mainstream, but it looks like all the biggies are very interested (read: aggressive).

EDIT: I wonder if people have learnt from Blu-ray that they need to be somewhat positive and get involved early. Otherwise, only aggressive companies like Panasonic and Sony (and Broadcom and NetFlix) will benefit most from the movement in the long run. Now, you see Samsung and other manufacturers being more proactive in 3D too.

In gaming context, the first parties will probably "go first".

[Crossbar]

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

The biggest barrier will be the fact that most people bought their tv within the last two or three years, and it will be hard to convince most people to buy a new one.

They don´t need to convince most people. It will start in the high-end market segement and trickle down to the main stream market within a couple of years. It will be like 1080p screens, does everyone benefit from it? Probably not, but at some point it will likely be hard to buy a TV without getting 3D capability built-in.

The more content they provide the cost-insensitive high-end market from the get-go the faster the uptake will be.

[zed]

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

The biggest barrier will be the fact that most people bought their tv within the last two or three years, and it will be hard to convince most people to buy a new one.

Yes this is partly true, but I think todays consumers are a lot different than the consumers of 15-30 years ago when u would buy a tv or appliance + it would last for years, now its every couple of years. Due to
A/ ppl are richer
B/ consumer goods are a lot cheaper than they once were

though looking at the latest blu-ray sales data, its grown faster than most ppl thought, now its ~16% of sales just a year ago it was ~6% sales

Like Ive mentioned before 3d gaming will be 'the thing' of the next generation of gaming consoles (like motion detection was this time round) sony+MS's next consoles will be able to do 3d, hell even nintendos may as well

[Scott_Arm]

Originally Posted by Crossbar

They don´t need to convince most people. It will start in the high-end market segement and trickle down to the main stream market within a couple of years. It will be like 1080p screens, does everyone benefit from it? Probably not, but at some point it will likely be hard to buy a TV without getting 3D capability built-in.

The more content they provide the cost-insensitive high-end market from the get-go the faster the uptake will be.

To be honest, I think the trickle down will take a while. I think it'll be longer than two years, and most likely double that. HDTV has been very slow. I don't think the mass market replaces their tv every couple of years.

[Scott_Arm]

Originally Posted by zed

...

though looking at the latest blu-ray sales data, its grown faster than most ppl thought, now its ~16% of sales just a year ago it was ~6% sales
...

Are total combined sales for DVD and Bluray up or down from the last year? Just curious. I really don't know.

[patsu]

Down in general, but mostly up in recent weeks, starting around Nov 2009. Blu-ray was able to compensate for the DVD slide in Nov or Dec (can't remember which one, or both ?).

Some of the stats can be found on the net, like this:
http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?p=581645

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

To be honest, I think the trickle down will take a while. I think it'll be longer than two years, and most likely double that. HDTV has been very slow. I don't think the mass market replaces their tv every couple of years.

If they include 3D regardless of whether you want it or not, the sales numbers may be skewed. But there is a recent survey that claims consumers like 3D cable and satellite programs (Found a summary: http://www.twice.com/article/441278-..._Satellite.php). Don't know their methodology. Incidentally, DirectTV is scheduled to start 3D programming early this year (The new satellite will go live in March, the three 3D channels are supposed to start in June according to their Panasonic partnership). The cable guys have just completed their 3D compatibility studies. Time Warner cable is negotiating with ESPN 3D (also June) as we speak. The Discovery, IMAX and Sony channel is slotted for 2011.

[Scott_Arm]

But think of how long it took for HDTV channels to take hold? HDTV has been around for a pretty long time, and it's only been the past two years that it's really started to take off. I can't imagine the majority of those people that just bought tvs will be ready to buy a new one in two years.

Maybe 3D games will help push the TVs, like they helped push HDTV this gen. But I think it will be next gen when the consoles are designed around 3D that the big push happens.

[patsu]

It will take some time, but they have to start somewhere. Some people may perceive resolution and 3D differently. I value a high res video of my kid and a 3D video of him differently. Actually, some can't see 3D at all. ^_^

The concept of "Next Gen Console" is changing. I don't see why they need to wait if the broader industry is ready to go. They still have a lot to learn (Need mature 3D SDK). If PS3 can handle it, then they should start the R&D now.

EDIT: I'll be disappointed if they don't include user generated 3D content on PS3 (or PSP2 !) in a year or two. Praying for only a slight premium.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by patsu

If they include 3D regardless of whether you want it or not...

I suppose that's what's different between 3D and other formats. Similar to BRD in PS3, where people who bought the machine for games ended up trying some HD movies, anyone with a 3D enabled set is going to try 3D at some point. I have a pair of Sainsbury's Channel 4 3D glasses on my desk here just to see an attempt at 3D; both Sainsbury's and Channel 4 thought it worth the effort/interest.

In this case, it would behoove Sony to create some PS3/BRD demos. "You've bought a new TV? Did you know you could watch 3D on it? Try this free download!" And I guess in that respect, anyone thinking about adding 3D to a new game could consider the potential 3D market as any TV sold in the past x years since 3D became ubiquitous. Over the next year, it's quite plausible a good million+ 3D capable TVs will be sold. I dare say a lot of those could be attached to PS3's, or will be attached to a PS3 when said owners learn that it offers 3D games and movies.

My opinion is fairly changed. I no longer consider it the lost cause as I did!

[patsu]

It is a high risk venture, not unlike Arc and Natal. Keep that in mind. ^_^ (May be this is an extended part of Arc, I have no idea).

[Scott_Arm]

But what about the 60-70 million people that already own PS3s and Xbox360s with HDTVs(potentially)? How many of them are going to upgrade their TV just to get 3D? How many more PS3 and 360 units will be sold before the market is saturated?

[Crossbar]

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

To be honest, I think the trickle down will take a while. I think it'll be longer than two years, and most likely double that. HDTV has been very slow. I don't think the mass market replaces their tv every couple of years.

2 years is a pretty long time when it comes to CE products. The bleeding edge TV I bought last year is almost half the price this year if I look at the feature set of the current TV line up. I am pretty sure 3D will be available at a good price two years from now.

Will the mass market replace their TV every couple of years? Hell no, the majority is still on SDTV for heavens sake.

They don´t have blu-ray for that matter either, but 3D may actually be a feature that will add more tangeable appeal to blu-ray over DVD in the long run, so the desire may be there but the large uptake will take many years.

[patsu]

... not to mention 1 out of those 60 million people is already hunting for a 3D monitor. Speaking for myself here. Take your time !

A portion of the population has old DLP that may be 3D ready, or some old, non-standard HDTV that they may not mind replacing.

EDIT: The other way to think about this is: If they wait longer, the same people will still need to find a 3D TV/monitor later. More will join the group unless the vendors transit HDTV to 3D ready ones asap.

[ERP]

Since a lot of solutions seem to be converging on active glasses (at least in the short term) I suspect that 3D ready displays will be ubiquitous long before there is any real use of them.
The cost of the glasses is going to have to come down dramatically for it to be mainstream, even if the displays are out there.

As an aside I was intrigued by NVidia's 3D surround demo at CES, I'm a huge surround gaming fan, it adds way more to the immersion in a game than you might think. I just ordered a 22 inch Viewsonic monitor with the NVision kit for my PC. I'll order 2 more if I like the effect and NVidia ship driver with Surround support.

[patsu]

If you believe the cable and satellite operators, "real use" start as soon as this June, or as late as 2011.

I am curious why News doesn't get mentioned as a 3D source. I think live 3D coverage on riot, war (Hi Osama !), parties, Olympics, F1, blah... may be interesting too. They are almost like user-generated content to me.

EDIT: Eh... News probably generates peanuts compared to Sports and Entertainment.

[ERP]

They cn broadcast in 3D as much as they want, but whose going to pay $100 a piece for every viewer to equip them with active glasses?
Even at half that price I think it's a stretch for most households.

[patsu]

I see. You're saying despite real use cases, the glasses may be too expensive to buy now. That I agree. That's why I hope they drop the price fast (like Blu-ray).

[MfA]

Originally Posted by ERP

Since a lot of solutions seem to be converging on active glasses (at least in the short term) I suspect that 3D ready displays will be ubiquitous long before there is any real use of them.
The cost of the glasses is going to have to come down dramatically for it to be mainstream, even if the displays are out there.

Some plastic, some polarizing film, four pieces of patterned ITO glass, some spacer beads, liquid crystals and a couple of dimes worth of electronics ... I don't think that will take long.

Sony might put some heavy crypto into a proprietary sync link to prevent clone glasses ... but I doubt everyone is going to play that game (I hope not).

[sebbbi]

Originally Posted by patsu

It is a high risk venture, not unlike Arc and Natal. Keep that in mind. ^_^ (May be this is an extended part of Arc, I have no idea).

Current consoles support stereoscopic 3d without problems. Avatar and few other titles do it already on both consoles (using existing standard SDKs and hardware - nothing console specific is needed). I as a graphics programmer do not see that big risk of supporting stereo 3d in our future games (if stereo suits the game). Stereo 3d can be supported with just minor modifications to the graphics engine (no need to change any content). If the technology fails on mainstream, there already is a small enthusiast group of DLP projector (and HDTV) owners who can benefit from the 3d support. And the buzz around the game's 3d support will drive up the sales and hype enough to warrant spending 2-3 weeks to program the feature.

If Sony is adding support for the console SDK to make it easier for the developers to support 3d it's even better for us. Currently there are so many competing 3d formats that supporting/testing all of them takes considerable amount of time. If the SDK would hide the stereo encoding details under the hood, it would be easier for game developers to support stereo rendering. Additionally if the stereo encoding is done by the console SDK, instead of the game, it's easy to upgrade the console firmware to support new stereo 3d standards in the future.

I doubt Sony is taking any large risks by adding the stereo support for their HDTVs. Stereo support basically means you need a synchronization port in back of the TV to give the glasses the signal. If they use the standard existing port design, it's really simple, and I doubt it takes more than a few extra bucks to add it. Sony TVs are already rendering at 120hz and beyond, and adding the stereo decoding support to the software should not be that big deal (it is just simple pixel filtering from image). And several other HDTV manufacturers have already announced their 240/480hz new led backlit HDTVs with stereo 3d support. It is a huge risk if Sony doesn't have the stereo 3d support in their highest end TVs and all their major competitors have.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by sebbbi

I doubt Sony is taking any large risks by adding the stereo support for their HDTVs.

They did a lot more than adding stereo support to Bravia. ^_^

They seem to be ramping up LCD capacity via Sharp to compete against Samsung. That is understandable (business as usual). But I am surprised they are that aggressive with the 3D TV channels. They also rushed the 3D Blu-ray specs last Fall. I heard they are forcing 3D tech into the next Spiderman movie (The director walked), and they probably lined up even more 3D movies. Now most TV manufacturers are gunning for 3D.

The 3D PS3 game prototyping occurs right in the middle of an Arc development cycle. It may be disruptive to the core team and first parties. The money spent in producing and marketing 3D can be used on Arc (unless they are one and the same). I can't help but wonder if Kutaragi waited for HDMI 1.3a because of the added bandwidth.

The existing 3D enthusiast base is relatively small. Sony has to forecast substantial growth to make everything worthwhile. This is not an existing, prevalent/pent-up problem. It is a new need/desire. It's a little like leaping into your future while packing your parachute at the same time. May be surveys and forecasts help, but it looks like a lot of money and sweat to me.

[V3]

PS3 was going to have dual HDMI before the 1.3, my guess is it was for the extra bandwidth rather than the dual screen they were making fuss about back then. Kutaragi was blabbering about 120 Hz back then too.

I was looking at some benchmark from NVIDIA 3D Vision, it seems games took 40+% hit in performance going 3D. How will PS3 cope with such hit in performance? Or are the performance hit is just the non-optimise PC side of things?