Gamescom 2011 : Sony conference discussion

[manux]

There seems to be a lot of consumer backlash against 3D in all it's forms, though. You often hear the new 3D phones being derided as gimmicks, 3DS already has a feeling of failure to it, etc. And I believe 3D is beginning to struggle in the movie theater as well.

I'm not sure what the final outcome is. If they can get glassesless big screens going that could help a lot, but OTOH if it creates all the same vision problems as glassesless 3DS seems to, I'm not sure even that would be bulletproof.

For me though as soon as 3DTV's hit the same price as regular, why wouldn't I want that, I suppose?

What 3d misses at the moment is killer app. How about next gen games both in party and hardcore flavor built around 3d. By the end of 2013 hardcore audience who buys expensive new consoles probably is 3d ready enough just in time for next gen launch. Next gen spans towards 2018-2020 which is so far away from today that we even might have the glasses free big screens before next-next gen.

I would be completely sold for MGS or splinter sell made to use 3d+kinect+move+head tracking(eye tracking) from the beginning.

As for 3ds, small screen+3d not a good idea. Especially not good idea with the graphics fidelity 3ds has. And to make matters worse 3ds doesn't look very desirable next to some fancy shiny all screen phones.

 

[patsu]

I played the submarine game on 3DS. The 3D effect is pretty subtle, except when the sub is underwater. Based on impressions on GAF, people seem to like Zelda 3D much more. There are Zelda 3D gameplay videos on YouTube. I'll check it out some day.

My monitor only has 1 HDMI input. Will need to get a HDMI splitter to play 3D Youtube on a Mac/PC.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Yap... nothing unusual although WiFi-less PSP is a little weird.

I guess the new PSP stil has usb, so you can download PSP games vie PSN to your PS3 and transfer them to the PSP.
Not sure if that would work with PC too.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I guess the new PSP stil has usb, so you can download PSP games vie PSN to your PS3 and transfer them to the PSP.
Not sure if that would work with PC too.

Yes, you can use a PC and Sony's Media Go software to do the same.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

3d tv's are inevitability. 3d doesn't really make display more expensive if glasses and syncbox are optional...

I agree the tech is inevitable, but whether it sees decent adaoption is a different matter. Sure, everyone buying a new TV from next year (or whenever) onwards will have a 3D emabled TV, but that doesn't mean they'll want to buy 3D content. The latest 3D movie I saw was Captain America, and the times it worked well were when it was less noticeable. Too often the 3D effect is too extreme that my eyes can't focus, or just poor visual language. eg. There's a scene of an empty room with a dripping tap prior to someone entering. The tap is in the foreground but out of focus. 3D invites a wandering eye but the photography is still limited to selective focus, and has to remain that way for 2D story telling where the viewers eye is controlled by the director and photographer. Maybe movie makers will develop a bet art with 3D, but at the moment I prefer watching 2D movies. They are easier to get into and less disruptive for me. As such I have no interest in getting a new TV to get 3D. Instead I'll wait until my perfectly adequate year old TV goes kaput, which hopefully won't be for years.

Now 3D games could be a different matter. I haven't tried any yet, but 3D enabled TVs may prove excellent for gaming. Move's Tumble would benefit greatly.

Relating this to Sony's announcement though, their offering isn't terribly practical. It's too early, and won't see any use. As you say, it's more chicken and egg preparation for the future. Perhaps it needs to be done, but it still makes the promise of split-screen PS3 games on this TV kinda misleading, I reckon. There won't be any games supporting this one TV. There's no standard mentioned for same-screen-two-player support and Sony own the patent on that, so are other companies going to want to pay them to support a niche feature only relevant to Sony's console? It's going to remain a remarkably niche peripheral that therefore won't be supported, meaning no-one should buy it (unless it's a good 3D display), meaning no dev should target it, making it even more pointless!

 

[Arwin]

The movie industry is definitely botching 3D's launch. There are some great exceptions, like Shrek Forever 3D. My biggest worry about Sony's display is actually that it won't make sense to buy it, with a far larger and more fully featured modern regular TV only a few hundred more. But it gets closer to the 299 I would spend in a heartbeat on a second screen for my PC that also does 3D.

 

[kagemaru]

How much does it cost to make a PS3 nowadays? Last I heard, it was around 275 making the PS3 a small profit for every buy.

199 makes no sense since it'll narrow the amount of leverage for more future drops since I believe the PS3 will stay on the market for a long time much like the PS2 transition to PS3. Consumers need reasons to buy a PS3 by then.

The console has been out for 5 years this November and the last proper price drop was 2 years ago. They could stretch the $200 price point for a year or two and still have some wiggle room later.

However if it's true that they would start losing per unit again if they dropped it to $200, I can see why they didn't. Makes no sense to deal with that again when the outcome probably wouldn't be worth it.

I just want my friends to get a PS3 already so I can play games on that with them.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I really thought a $100 price cut was what we'd get. But on the up side, I don't regret buying a used PS3 for $200 last month as much as I thought I would this week.

 

[Arwin]

The 160GB PS3 has been 269 at mediamarkt for ages here, so perhaps this means we'll see some cheaper offers from some retailers after the price-cut. But they will still feel some pressure from 4GB Kinect bundles, even if people don't realise these don't have a harddrive.

EDIT: on the 3D front, I just was at mediamarket again and just as I thought there was a 669 euro 104cm 3D TV that looked pretty good. Also, most buyers of TVs at least seemed interested in 3D now, so it's gaining traction and awareness. And I have to say, the 3D on the cheaper TVs is getting pretty good now. I also for the first time saw 3D stills, and some of them were absolutely stunning. They gave me chills, being so sharp and as if you could reach out and touch someone. It felt very intimite somehow.

I also noticed that it is very important that you sit straight in front of the TV, as higher or lower could skew the depth so that you got an uncanny valley effect where the dimensions weren't right. Also, the lighting is more important than ever - some photos with bad lighting looked really jarring as a result. There's definitely a learning curve in that respect.

 

[manux]

The latest 3D movie I saw was Captain America, and the times it worked well were when it was less noticeable. Too often the 3D effect is too extreme that my eyes can't focus, or just poor visual language. eg. There's a scene of an empty room with a dripping tap prior to someone entering. The tap is in the foreground but out of focus. 3D invites a wandering eye but the photography is still limited to selective focus, and has to remain that way for 2D story telling where the viewers eye is controlled by the director and photographer. Maybe movie makers will develop a bet art with 3D, but at the moment I prefer watching 2D movies. They are easier to get into and less disruptive for me. As such I have no interest in getting a new TV to get 3D. Instead I'll wait until my perfectly adequate year old TV goes kaput, which hopefully won't be for years.

I completely agree your assessment of the state of 3d movies. Movies with good 3d usage are far and few between. Further I think 24Hz for 3d movies is too little. Any fast movement almost always causes flicker, loss of focus and whatnot leading to eye strain and frustration. I think we need both directors who understand 3d better and also better technology for shooting and displaying the films.

The fact that users expect in your face effects for 3d and diss movies like avatar which has subtle use of 3d doesn't help. In fact I think avatar was one of the better 3d movies. I didn't have eye strain even though the movie was fairly long.

I think this might be the movie that sets the bar for 3d movies and convert quite a few people who say current tech/movies are not good enough.

http://worldwidegadget.blogspot.com/2011/04/3d-movies-avatar-2-and-3-coming-j.html

What does higher framerate mean for home blu-ray players which are not compatible? Perhaps home releases will be inferior or perhaps we will see 100GB+ disc with higher framerate content and 1 layer for 2d movie for backwards compatibility.

edit. Btw, tumble already has 3d support

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I completely agree your assessment of the state of 3d movies. Movies with good 3d usage are far and few between. Further I think 24Hz for 3d movies is too little.

Oh, that's true and something I grumbled about at the time. TBH I'd like to see some movies try post-effect frame interpolation to generate really smooth footage (capturing and processing higher framerates is costly and problematic). I think the ideal for 3D might be to think of it more as a stage production, where the 3D is kept in the range the viewer expects it save a few special effects here and there (imagine normal perspective for much of a film, only to suddenly warp distance in something like Inception to show a fantastic transition), and the framerate is kept very high to make things look realistic. That'd add to the immersion I think, contrary to my current response to 3D.

Ummm, this is getting way OT!

 

[manux]

Ummm, this is getting way OT!

At least it's good offtopic =)

 

[NavNucST3]

Yes, you can use a PC and Sony's Media Go software to do the same.

I can't wait to hear Shifty's story regarding this method!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Haven't tried Media Go. I think it's an okay piece of software. For users it's no different to transfering music or vids onto an iPod or similar, so I don't consider it awkward nor see wireless as essential. The downside is no multiplayer, which is kinda odd. You'd think they'd want to promote multiplayer as it encourages friends to pressure friends into buying into the same platform and games. It's also an area the mobiles aren't hot on yet.

 

[-tkf-]

The amount of money that has been invested into 3D by now more or less guarantees that it´s here to stay.
3D will just be a feature like 1080p over 720p or whatever. It will at some point be a part of even the cheapest TV sets.

Ridley Scotts new movie the "not before Alien movie" is shot in 3D and Ridley supposedly stated, that he wont shoot in 2D again.

The TV part of this, is the same, there are some mindblowing expensive OB trucks driving around that supports 3D for what is usually live sports. The required time to set them up is "stupid" compared to standard OB trucks. But obviously there is a market for them, high end sports that is usually on pay pr view or expensive cable/satellite.

And the long awaited successor to Panasonics A4000 Projector is finally here.. A7000 , now with 3D at a quality that beats all competitors, including 2D

EVERYONE is pushing 3D so hard that is makes the Blu-Ray push look like laserdiscs.

And with 3D sets becoming the norm sooner than later, it´s a given that we will have 3D games in lots of shapes. Those with glasses and bad eyesight is not losing anything since it´s not like one can´t live without the other. Everybody gains and our kids will laugh at us for being stubborn old men that preferred mono in black and white.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/panasonic_PT-AE7000U_home_theater_projector_review.htm

Regarding the 2 player games on the same screen, there are lots of casual games that would gain alot from this. Just think of all the wii games with 3D glasses.. Table tennis, tennis, bicycle race etc, all those not putting a heavy load on the GPU would be awesome to have in this way.

 

[boommoob1]

Wasnt Xbox360 pressured into becoming an HD console by the PS3? .HDTV, Bluray, 3D. The PS3 will be regarded as a legendary bit of kit in years to come. And yes 3D is here to stay.

 

[Rangers]

Wasnt Xbox360 pressured into becoming an HD console by the PS3?

Err, what?

 

[rabidrabbit]

Wasnt Xbox360 pressured into becoming an HD console by the PS3? .HDTV, Bluray, 3D. The PS3 will be regarded as a legendary bit of kit in years to come. And yes 3D is here to stay.

The first xbox360s didn't have HDMI and were capable of only 1080i via component, and if I remember MS didn't think HDMI and TV's that would have 1080p and HDMI would be widespread enough to warrant including one, in that sense MS was pressured into becoming a "HD console", but not necessarily just by PS3.

 

[mrcorbo]

The first xbox360s didn't have HDMI and were capable of only 1080i via component, and if I remember MS didn't think HDMI and TV's that would have 1080p and HDMI would be widespread enough to warrant including one, in that sense MS was pressured into becoming a "HD console", but not necessarily just by PS3.

At the time the 360 was launched, HDMI was far less well established (and still plagued by incompatibilities and general "janky-ness" in the form of handshaking issues - something which persisted even well after the PS3's launch). I could see why they would consider HDMI an unnecessary added cost at the time of the system's launch and most TVs wouldn't support 1080p over component. The 360 COULD output 1080p over VGA, though, so the system itself did support that resolution from the start.

The only real lasting deficiency the 360 has when it comes to it's a/v output as a result of design decisions made for the launch unit is the lack of multichannel PCM output.

 

[bkilian]

The first xbox360s didn't have HDMI and were capable of only 1080i via component, and if I remember MS didn't think HDMI and TV's that would have 1080p and HDMI would be widespread enough to warrant including one, in that sense MS was pressured into becoming a "HD console", but not necessarily just by PS3.

I love how many people were snookered by Sony redefining "HD". HD, until Sony got their grubby mitts on it, was 720p60 and 1080i60 (Both resolutions supported by the Gen1 Xbox360). This is because HD was developed for broadcast television using a 20 megabit QAM channel. You'll note that 720p60 and 1080i60 are actually pushing about the same amount of pixels per second.

The original 360 was software updated to support 1080p60 over component for the very few televisions that supported that.

When Sony came around and started harping on their "True HD" 1080p60, they were ignoring established standards to try give themselves an advantage. It worked, to a point. I had many many arguments at the time from people who believed 1080p60 was better for movies than 1080i60, despite the fact that the information content was identical, and the 1080i stream could be dejuddered by a good TV, but the 1080p60 one could not.