I completely agree. 3D movies give me a bad headache after awhile, so I will be very sad to see the effect coming standard to console games at the expense of better graphics. I enjoy the added depth of 3D, but anything that tries to stick out from the screen looks translucent, and makes it hard to focus for me. The 23 minutes of Avatar I saw in 3D at comic con was painful towards the end.
Will Dev Costs Flatten Next Gen (PS4, Xbox3)?
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
I completely agree. 3D movies give me a bad headache after awhile, so I will be very sad to see the effect coming standard to console games at the expense of better graphics. I enjoy the added depth of 3D, but anything that tries to stick out from the screen looks translucent, and makes it hard to focus for me. The 23 minutes of Avatar I saw in 3D at comic con was painful towards the end.
It was the same with HDTVs... and don't forget that the home cinema market will push 3D as well.
i can see that as likely but very disappointing
Not exactly since the same content can be played on any given set, even though they're made for HDTV's. I'm sure you know people who still play their 360's and PS3's on SDTV's.
For home video to support this type of 3D will require a new format with different specs. Pointless considering that it's limited to some gimmicky movies and as I mentioned earlier, Hollywood isn't exactly having an easy time pushing HD in general.
Display tech has been mostly going that way for the past 3 years - most major TV makers have high-HZ tvs with "3d"support now. It's already here, and it's going to be mainstream long before polarized displays iron out all the technical issues and actually become a viable alternative.Laa-Yosh said:
From software perspective the display method is largely irrelevant though - once you're generating Stereo-frames(or have them stored as video), it's a very simple matter of outputting them as Red/Blue shift, alternate frames, or just send to a display outputting them as merged polarized light.
And IMO that's the only way stereo-3d has any chance of catching on - the red/blue fallback is just enough to show people there's something there but it'll look like shit until they upgrade the TV.
Of course, the above would require a properly defined standard, which is yet to be defined afaik, and that doesn't bode well for stereo-3d taking off anytime soon (if ever).
See what I said above about 3 methods being the same internally.
3d Standard should define stereo-scopic data-sets and possibly how they are generated, NOT their method of delivery/display. Locking your software/content into a single stereo-3d display method, is equivalent to making 1080P games that only run on 1080P TV sets.
3d Standard should define stereo-scopic data-sets and possibly how they are generated, NOT their method of delivery/display. Locking your software/content into a single stereo-3d display method, is equivalent to making 1080P games that only run on 1080P TV sets.
I expect stereo 3D to be the next thing for the following reason:
- relatively cheap in human resources ("just add code") as it doesn't really require extra assets or reworking existing ones
- can be applied to movies, games, TV (sports)
- can be used to sell both new content and re-sell old content
- can be used to sell lots of new hardware
Whereas bigger, better games require a lot of extra work and can't be used to sell new TVs and re-sell old movies... so in short, it makes more economic sense in terms of bang for buck, even for the customer.
- relatively cheap in human resources ("just add code") as it doesn't really require extra assets or reworking existing ones
- can be applied to movies, games, TV (sports)
- can be used to sell both new content and re-sell old content
- can be used to sell lots of new hardware
Whereas bigger, better games require a lot of extra work and can't be used to sell new TVs and re-sell old movies... so in short, it makes more economic sense in terms of bang for buck, even for the customer.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
All sounds pretty well and good economically, I'm just not sure the market is really ready for it. Too many people have never even tried it, and its probably one of the most difficult things to actually market (as its a given you have to physically try it).
I once went to the IMAX in the National Science museum in London. Watched a dinosaur movie and absolutely loved the 3D effect. The downside was that with me requiring glasses normally to correct my vision, I had a heck of a time trying to keep the big 3D glasses on top of my glasses on my face. After a while it just gave me a headache as i couldn't look away from the centre of the screen without the effect distorting and messing with my eyes.
I'm sure the tech has a lot of refinement required yet before it goes mainstream. Also, from a purely enthusiast gamer perspective, I would quivver at even the thought of playing something like KZ2 in 3D.
IMHO, I'd much prefer it if devs went 3d next with a slight visual bump up to 1080p and a constant 60fps for the games. That would make me a very happy gamer and not require devs to increase their budgets excessively
You're right, sometime ago I'm thinking that Medias Markets go for 2K after the HD, but it's more suitable for them, actually cinema and TV don't totally mastering HD video, to go 3D HD it's a more easy and good way.
And for 3D HD you need a new TV, but also a New Player… yes 3D HD seem to need HMDI 1.4 so it's a new big and easy market…
I certainly don't think that it would be a quick transition. As we've already learned, a lot of people have played Gears of War in SD resolution, so even the switch to HD isn't fully complete. And it'll take 2-3 more years to move into the next generation of consoles anyway.
However, we're trying to look at it from the developers' point of view, and they have to start thinking about that future now. And all those economics are particularly important to them.
So I think they'd rather hire an extra coder to work on the stereo 3D support, and maybe a few more on motion sensing controllers, instead of doubling the art team again... in short they'd probably be easy to convince, even happy, to support it.
brain_stew
Regular
I think someone needs to mention Nvidia's 3DVision right about now. Nvidia are giving stereo 3D a really big push in the PC space and apparently giving developers plenty of support to help implement it in their games. Come 2012 plenty of studios are going to have as much as 3 years experience in implementing stereoscopic 3D in their games, so there shouldn't be too many teething problems on the development side, they can get their hands dirty in the here and now.
Its also worth noting that 3DVision has almost universally been accepted as finally "nailing" stereo 3D, so the technology is going to be in a very good place both quality and cost wise come 2012 after another 3 years of refinement on an already very decent starting point.
That push is also slowly building up an install base of users with 3D capable displays, which is crucial. And finally having an easy way to demonstrate the technology in stores should help sell displays that are compatible.
TheWretched
Regular
I concur... Nvidias tech is very cool. It works on driver level, and thus must games work out of the box. Since I only have a normal TFT, I had to use the anaglyph glasses I had around. Left 4 Dead plays really swell with those. Although you do get a headache after some time (and the missing colors are bad too ). But when the 120Hz displays become standard, at least in PC land, I can see every game using a real 3D solution.
). But when the 120Hz displays become standard, at least in PC land, I can see every game using a real 3D solution.brain_stew
Regular
I concur... Nvidias tech is very cool. It works on driver level, and thus must games work out of the box. Since I only have a normal TFT, I had to use the anaglyph glasses I had around. Left 4 Dead plays really swell with those. Although you do get a headache after some time (and the missing colors are bad too
I know any monitor/HDTV I buy from now on will have to have 120hz support. The system seems to have universal praise in both press and user reviews and that's without any titles even specifically being built with the technology in mind, RE5 will be first and it will have "out of screen" effects as well apparently. The fact that the glasses are so lightweight, normal looking and even have an adjustable nosepiece (so they work fine for glasses users) is a big step forward, big hulking and ugly looking glasses were always a huge barrier to entry.
Another 3 years of refinement and the prospect of it being both low cost and perfectly refined are quite appetising. I definitely think at least one hardware manufacturer will experiment, its potentially a very useful USP to have.
I need to see these. When I bought my specs, I scoured a dozen stores, and these were the only ones that fit because I have such a narrow bridge. Every other specs I wear occlude my vision. For cycling I bought a single-piece wrap-around shades. I hope 3D specs will be made that fit everyone, but imagine fringe cases will be ignored, much as it is with clothes.
Every time I suggest artists should stop working at the texel/wrapping/segmentation level Laa-Yosh calls me crazy
(In not so many words.) As long as artists demand 2D textures to work with automation is severely degraded.Personally I don't see why everything couldn't be done with 3D painting. Technical textures which need precise alignment/dimensions could be done by using aligned projections of the objects you are drawing on (orthogonal, cylindrical, with a metric grid super-imposed if you like ... whatever is handy). Wrapping and segmenting of textures can finally be done completely based on what's efficient to render while maintaining the necessary quality. Rather than needing compromise and lots of manual labour to produce textures convenient for 2D artists.
Even the tools they are used to could still be used, create the projection, make an image from it, edit in photoshop, backproject it in the 3D program to perform the equivalent of 3D painting. They just need to let go of texels like they have to let go of vertices.
I agree with Laa-Yosh - if only because we recently tried NVIDIA's driver support on the game we are about to finish soon, with crappy red/blue glasses; the whole studio took turns on my PC to ooh and aah, and stick the camera in the forest. I couldn't get my PC back for hours, and one of the programmers even kept working like this the next day. There's definitely something to this. And maybe this is what "next-gen"'s trademark brown-and-bloom color scheme has been preparing us for, there aren't many colors left after the red-blue glasses
How do you do texture reuse with 3D painting? Good texture reuse is crucial to maintaining good texture resolution, or pixel/texel ration with constrained texture memory.
Also, even though Zbrush/Mudbox has taken over for _some_ kind of modelling, I don't think anybody has "let go of vertices". Well, maybe the modelers for Heavy Rain's lead characters
How do you do texture reuse with 3D painting? Good texture reuse is crucial to maintaining good texture resolution, or pixel/texel ration with constrained texture memory.
Also, even though Zbrush/Mudbox has taken over for _some_ kind of modelling, I don't think anybody has "let go of vertices". Well, maybe the modelers for Heavy Rain's lead characters
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Games