Future of 3D gaming and media *spawn

[DuckThor Evil]

I think 3D will be quite big Next gen. New consoles aren't launching today and adding 3D to new TV's is a trivial thing for the manufacturers to do. By the time the new consoles launch, I'd bet that pretty much all new TV's in store have 3D cabability. Also the situation at launch is not the defining factor. 2015-16 I'd expect at the latest, that the adoptation rate is pretty high.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Um the 1st,5th,6th top grossing films of ALL TIME have been chiefly 3d films
It seems as if the customers have voted with their wallets for 3d

That's the cinema experience. You're going out of your way for something different to just watching the movie, something you can do in the comfort of your own home. A willingness to watch 3D in a cinema does not equate with a desire to throw at all your current gear and equip your house with 3D devices.

Actual investigations show things like only 2% of UK shoppers are interested in getting a 3D TV within the year. Or perhaps more interestingly a much higher interest for the US, but this interest actually decreases after seeing 3D content! 25% of respondants who hadn't seen 3DTV video were interested in getting a 3D TV within the year, while after seeing 3D TV, that interest dropped to 12%.

As others have mentioned, the driving force for 3D will probably not be from people deliberately buying into it, but it coming as a standard feature meaning they have the option anyway. But as I've said, 3D content isn't a problem for console design anyway. This is a non-issue for MS going forward, and won't be the deciding factor for their solid medium plans. If they choose to support 2D media playback, 3D media playback will come with the territory, so the choice is either open BRD format, or not and leave the movie playing to Sony or standalone players. The 3D aspect can just be ignored - it'll develop on its own without any console company having to target it specifically. Except maybe with a sterescopic camera.

 

[Arwin]

Don't you think it would be possible to design hardware so that it is better suited for 3D rendering? Or even something as simple as mandating various standards for supporting features that make the most of the 3D tech offered?

Personally I think the reception of the 3DS will be interesting. If it is a big hit, it could drive the desire to see 3D in games elsewhere too. It could also of course have a negative effect on the already low acceptance of wearing glasses to watch 3D TV. But then stuff like support for being able to see different TV shows with different glasses could push glasses forward again.

I think the push for 3D TV through gaming is currently fairly successful - I read a lot of impressions even from normally quite sceptical people who have seen at least one game by now that sold them on 3D gaming. As it is a feature that will end up in TVs, it has at least the same potential as BluRay had over DVD, in that eventually nobody will buy a device that can only read DVDs, even if the content you watch on that device only gradually moves from DVD to BluRay, and perhaps never fully (like we've just completed watching House season 6 on DVD - which by the way I'd also watched a few episodes of on my fathers standalone BluRay player, and boy the video upscaling of the PS3 blew that out of the water - you almost forget how good that is until you don't have it!)

The biggest problem 3D TVs are currently facing is the morosity of the industry on the movie side of things, which I don't think needs to be repeated here. The ratio between exclusive content and regular content is screwed up, and flat out silly in this phase where industry growth and general acceptance of 3D is still in its infancy. This will have to change if TV manufacturors want to see growth here, and eventually the same holds for the content providers themselves. And then there's the 2D movies that are being upscaled to 3D, which is a really bad idea designed to make a quick buck at the expense of a long term fortune.

But whomever thinks that 3D is ever going to go away again though is flat out wrong. It is very, very clear that 3D is here to stay. There is actually a 3D showcase channel on my cable box already, there are a tonne of games supporting it, there is a rapidly increasing number of movies produced in 3D each year, and it's going through the motions faster than HD ever was. It will go through various changes before it becomes as widespread as HD currently is, but it may actually even catch up and converge with HD in the not too distant future.

 

[NavNucST3]

"...24 three-dimensional movies planned for release this year. Studios released 14 3-D movies in 2009."

I would link directly if this forum runner app let me but anyway I got that from my bloomberg newsfeed today. The movie industry even with a greater number of 3D titles is still set to miss last years revenue numbers even with the 3D surcharge revenue increases. The numbers include TRON 3D.


On a personal note I have little to no interest in glasses based 3D whereas I spent serious money jumping into HD by buying a D-VHS player and HDTV. HD was "easy" films were already shot with resolutions much greater than what we have at home minimal investments were required. HD at the video level was/is more costly and many of that equipment was "recently" purchased. I just don't see the TV industry making a dramatic shift to 3D because I don't need to see network news in 3D especially if the B-roll is still going to be what we currently have. So if movies are sloooooowly making a shift I expect TV to be even further behind. Hell in the US we "just" got finished handing out millions of coupons for the analog to digital switch...

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Hell in the US we "just" got finished handing out millions of coupons for the analog to digital switch...

Heck, even there a lot of that money was for Digital to Analog converters so that people could still use their analog TVs. So definitely slow adoption.

Add to that BRD is still a very small niche segment of overall video watching. 3D movies are going to be an even smaller segment of that niche.

And then having to rebuy a TV in addition for glasses for each person that may want to watch. Most people are like me that don't buy a new TV every other year. Most expect their TV to last at the minimum 5 years but probably closer to 10+ years.

Hell, for me alone that wouldn't necessarily be a barrier if I thought it was compelling enough. After all, between 1995 and 2005 I probably spent around 8,000 USD on various 3D stereoscopic systems. All of which was a horrendous waste of money in general.

I just don't see anything that's going to change things significantly, other than the Nintendo 3DS. Although I fully expected involved companies ot spell billions trying to change people's minds.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Add to that BRD is still a very small niche segment of overall video watching. 3D movies are going to be an even smaller segment of that niche.

To be fair, BRD isn't offering a great deal above DVDs. 3D is actually an advance of the art, so it's possible that'd be a principle reason to increase BRD sales. A BRD that has the 3D mode for those with 3D, but still plays 2D, would be a useful addition to the format to encourage sales without fear of obselance and needing to rebuy everything again. That'd be 3D's best chance IMO. Sell the discs with 3D even if no-one can use it. Include 3D in every TV even if people aren't ready to use it. Then 3D installations will increase and users would grow organically - if people actually like the experience.

After all, between 1995 and 2005 I probably spent around 8,000 USD on various 3D stereoscopic systems. All of which was a horrendous waste of money in general.

Surely you didn't have much 3D content to view. What were the issues with 3D gaming? Going forwards, the availibilty of in-the-home 3D movies is going to be a big seller. I wonder too if 3D photography will take off. I imagine pics of one's kids in 3D will be pretty compelling.

 

[Danalys]

A lot of these stats are meaningless when it comes to consoles.and console purchasers. They are already somewhat interested in tech, Far more than the general populous. What matters tho is that enough are interested for it to be worth the effort to make a game 3D compatible. Better for producers to get the experience now, so that even those who become interested in 3D 10 years from now will be met by a mature product.

3D is definitely here to stay. The investment in projectors for theatres on such a wide scale like never before pretty much guarantees it. Previously 3D either had to be anaglyph ruining colours, or the film had to basically go on a road show around different theatres taking the projector required to each one, or it was at a theme park.

 

[assen]

Don't you think it would be possible to design hardware so that it is better suited for 3D rendering?

Can't think of anything. Just make it faster overall, to eat the hit, and let the developers choose a point somewhere along the line of compromise between cheap reprojection and full double rendering.

I found myself in a position recently where I wanted to put in a SECOND home theater setup in my home...

Wow, it has surely gone mainstream then...

 

[catisfit]

I don't think it really matters how many 3DTVs there are out there in 201x when the next consoles launch. It would probably be more difficult to make the consoles have no 3D support given the hardware standards, and it doesn't segregate the userbase - developers don't need to make 2D and 3D versions of games any different to each other beyond tuning each one to account for the different hardware usages - no different to tuning singleplayer and splitscreen.

Even if there's only a tiny number of 3DTVs out there, the people with them are a) the early adopters who you want to target your new, full price console at, and b) probably gagging for additional 3D content to display on those TVs. You'd be mad not to support it given how easy it is.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I don't think it really matters how many 3DTVs there are out there in 201x when the next consoles launch. It would probably be more difficult to make the consoles have no 3D support given the hardware standards, and it doesn't segregate the userbase - developers don't need to make 2D and 3D versions of games any different to each other beyond tuning each one to account for the different hardware usages - no different to tuning singleplayer and splitscreen.

Adding 3d or split screen does take some effort from the developers, the question will always be: is the effort worth it? If the 3d user base is under 10% they're probably not going to bother. Is the game not worth buying if its not 3D? Is your 3D audience going to limit themselves to purchasing 3D content only?

Even if there's only a tiny number of 3DTVs out there, the people with them are a) the early adopters who you want to target your new, full price console at, and b) probably gagging for additional 3D content to display on those TVs. You'd be mad not to support it given how easy it is.

It's easy enough for the console hardware to support it, the question is do you push it as a feature or not?

 

[NRP]

Well they're certainly not buying it for the plot

Hater.

I thought you of all people would appreciate a 9ft tall blue chick.

 

[AlNom]

Nothing against furries mind you, but it's just not for me.

 

[corduroygt]

One good thing about all this 3D is more games getting split screen support...If Sony wasn't pushing 3D, I don't know if we'd have split screen in Killzone 3 or Unchart3d.

 

[NavNucST3]

Here is a timely piece:

Home 3-D Is DOA: Majority of U.S. Won’t Buy a 3DTV
...
We’ve been skeptics of the movement all along, but the latest data from Nielsen shows that not only are consumers in North America not particularly interested in 3-D TV, but the majority seem downright opposed to the technology. But the bad news doesn’t stop there: the global survey of more than 27,000 respondents found that less than a quarter of consumers worldwide are likely buyers of 3DTV sets.
...
"...an earlier study by Nielsen found that consumers became less likely to purchase a 3-D TV after they’ve experienced one."

 

[dobwal]

Adding 3d or split screen does take some effort from the developers, the question will always be: is the effort worth it? If the 3d user base is under 10% they're probably not going to bother. Is the game not worth buying if its not 3D? Is your 3D audience going to limit themselves to purchasing 3D content only?

It's easy enough for the console hardware to support it, the question is do you push it as a feature or not?

All MS, Sony or Nintendo has to do is simply mandate 3D inclusion in all full packaged games just like Sony mandates use of BluRay disks or MS mandates Live inclusion.

 

[AlphaWolf]

All MS, Sony or Nintendo has to do is simply mandate 3D inclusion in all full packaged games just like Sony mandates use of BluRay disks or MS mandates Live inclusion.

But why would they?

 

[Toaddio]

But why would they?

But why do they mandate those things now?

 

[AlphaWolf]

But why do they mandate those things now?

Because they actually make money on those things. ie. MS has put money into to Live and they want the products to support it. They have no vested interest in 3D.

 

[Toaddio]

Because they actually make money on those things. ie. MS has put money into to Live and they want the products to support it. They have no vested interest in 3D.

Would Sony make money on the sale of 3-D TVs, and content for said TVs?

 

[AlphaWolf]

Would Sony make money on the sale of 3-D TVs, and content for said TVs?

Potentially.

But when you look at stuff like what NavNucST3 has linked above, you have to wonder if that's a path you want to try to force the consumers down. There's lots of room to lose money that way as well.