Why Sony is wrong about 3D video games

It is not the future of gaming. It is an over-enthusiastic misfire

Words: on August 18, 2010

Another Sony press conference, another huge block of time dedicated to the idea that 3D gaming is the future. It’s a strategy that’s typified Sony’s public appearances of late, to the point that it now threatens to outweigh the amount of stage time given to pie charts and sales figures. And you know how much Sony loves banging on about sales figures.

But to me, all the effort seems hugely misdirected. Because for a variety of reasons, I think Sony’s all-encompassing focus on 3D right now is a massive misfire. In terms of timing, technology and even the potential effect on the health of gaming, it just seems seriously misguided. And right now, I’d like to tell you why.

It’s just too damn soon

I wrote an article a while back, after I’d first played a game in 3D (Blitz’s Invincible Tiger). I was pretty impressed. Impressed enough, in fact, to entitle that very same article ‘Why 3D is the new HD’. But that article was about the potential for the technology, written on the proviso that a big push for 3D gaming was way off in the future, leaving plenty of time for the TVs and glasses required to become mainstream mass-market items with price tags to match, and for the all-important game rendering technology to get up to speed.

None of those things have happened, but Sony is going all-out 3D bonkers regardless.


Above: This steak looks a tasty prospect, but it is not yet ready to eat. It is also a metaphorical steak

As serious gamers (and in the case of the men of Radar, sometimes-serious games journalists), we’re the people on the cutting edge of technology adoption. We have the knowledge and the passion (and from time to time the money) that fuels early purchases of cool new stuff. But few if any of the hardcore I know feel ready – or inclined – to fork out for the required new TV to play games in 3D. We’re happy with our current sets, thank you very much. In fact most of the more tech-minded have been waiting for HDTV technology itself to mature to the point where incandescent wonder-TVs are now available at semi-affordable prices. Very few are into the idea of starting all over again with still relatively immature 3D.

And even more fundamentally than that, we need to think about the average man on the street. The guy to whom HD itself is still a new and shiny innovation. Those guys are more numerous than you think. In fact there are bloody loads of them. In the UK, a huge proportion of the population has only just upgraded, and then only because the switching off of the old analogue TV signal gave them an excuse. But plenty more just bought an external digital tuning box. Are this new wave of recently-popped HD virgins going to upgrade again any time soon because Sony tells them they need 3D? Are they arse.

And with the glasses costing between £60 and £100 for a single pair, family movie night just got flagrantly expensive. The market just isn’t ready yet. It isn’t ready at all. In three or four years maybe, but definitely not now.

Next: It gets worse. Twice.

Related

Platforms:

Xbox 360, PS3, Wii

Topics:

Gamescom, Sony

55 Comments
Order Comments: Newest First | Oldest First
  • micky-noka

    micky-noka  - 3 months, 3 weeks ago  - Report

    well just imagine the cost of 3D games,regular games are 60$,3D would be like 80$?,maybe even 100$
  • Anduin1

    Anduin1  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    All I ever see on this site is blatant Sony hating. Good to see nothing's changed in the past few years.
  • axelgarcia1

    axelgarcia1  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    not to mention the extra vision damage by the glasses. im skipping the 3D.
  • Octoboy

    Octoboy  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    I played GT5 in 3D at Gamescom. It's a joke, a bad joke.
    Played other 3D titles as well, neither of them were any good.
  • oryandymackie

    oryandymackie  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    I agree with you, Houghton - to a point. No, the market is not ready for 3D yet; but 3D itself could prove to be a major advance in later years.

    Imagine a game like Condemned in 3D. 'Nuff said.
  • presc1ence

    presc1ence  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    No one will adopt this crap until we move on to the tech (already avaialbe) without glasses. (how 70/80/90's glasses are)!
    Sharpe have better tech, no glasses, thats nealry five years old. Although wouldn't expect sony to push this (much better) rival 3d system.
  • pollenski

    pollenski  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    A lot of people are complaining about the current tech and saying they'll invest when they don't need glasses. I think Sony are barking up the wrong tree for that:-
    For 3D to work you have to present a different image to each eye...so at the moment you can either go the 3DS route of using an autostereoscopic screen with a beam directed from the screen at each eye independently (using lenticular lenses) or you can go the Sony route of sending two images in the same viewing field and using glasses to 'shield' one eye from each image. There are however third and fourth techniques: One which uses two screens and then the viewer wears lenses to converge them into the same field for each eye - but this requires double the screen size AND glasses so probably isn't going to be popular. The other is holography, presenting a 3D world which can be viewed from 'anywhere.' This won't work with the current 2D film and game making techniques as foreground objects will obscure the action for some viewers unless the viewing angle is restricted somewhat but this would be amazing for watching sports and 'real' events!

    Of the first two methods, autosteroscopy is the only technique which doesn't require glasses. Nintendo are already using this and Microsoft have already developed an improved form which tracks different viewers (using something similar to Kinect) and then adjusts the direction of each image from the screen for different viewer positions. Other TV manufacturers have a similar technique but with a few fixed rather than dynamic positions which will see the 3D effect. So far Microsoft have their dynamic technique working for two different view points (4 different directional beams), so it seems Sony is working on obsolete tech already and it's Microsoft and Nintendo who are leading the field in the glassesless tech.
    http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/25524/
    http://www.tomsguide.com/us/3DTV-autostereoscopic-CES,review-1490.html <- Two good articles on this tech
  • grim08

    grim08  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    Once again, Sony is trying to kill an existing tech with a "new" one. They tried it with Blu Ray killin the DVD. That didnt work.

    Now 3D killing HD? I dont think so.
  • mrhongkongdave

    mrhongkongdave  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    You can get a Samsung LE40C750 40-inch Widescreen Full HD 1080p 200Hz Motion Plus Allshare 3D Ready Internet LCD TV with Freeview HD for £860 on amazon so prob get it for under £800 if you shop around on the net.

    That's around $1300. That's not expensive.

    I'm definitely gonna upgrade for killzone 3. I bought a Samsung UE55B7020 55" led last year. £2500 but shopped around and got it £1800. The retail price for the Samsung UE55C8000 55" 3D is £2800 but have just spotted it for £2300.

    This shows prices are dropping fast by February I should be able to get Samsung UE55C8000 55" 3D for under £2000 hopefully it'll sit on the same wall mount.
  • mrhongkongdave

    mrhongkongdave  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    the other good thing about 3d tvs is that in the future you'll be able to play local multiplayer on one tv fullscreen by splitting the signal to each set of glasses i.e. one set configured to see what the left eye should see only and the other set to see what the right eye would see.

    Also the Mrs can watch tv with one set of glasses and you can play games using a another seperate set using the same tv!!!! Each set of glasses will have built in headphones.

    Check it out on the net, sorry no time to look for links.
  • philipshaw

    philipshaw  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    For me it's the future but as in 4 years from now when it becomes afforable and you don't have to wear 3D specs
  • reaperman22

    reaperman22  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    yeah sure, 3d is still a few years off being ready for mainstream but think about it like this, when the time comes sony will already be prepared and have plenty for everyone that upgrades to the tech whereas the other consoles will have to struggle to catch up
  • AuthorityFigure

    AuthorityFigure  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    3D comes around every decade and it never lasts. Don't worry, it's almost gone away again.
  • jmcgrotty

    jmcgrotty  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    3D is already a dead technology, thank god.
  • Ultima

    Ultima  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    If it means I have to sit there wearing stupid and expensive glasses I am not interested. The Nintendo 3DS however I find appealing.
  • gamewriter

    gamewriter  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    If its 3d it makes u pay more fn money a game that already is in 3d....duh
  • Syncmaster

    Syncmaster  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    I already hate the overhyped 3D talk for movies... imagine for games.. its just a gimmick, not the future, and stop saying it is sony, everything you make is the future now? until they make a glassless 3DTV, I wont even think about having one.
  • ElGrinchoid

    ElGrinchoid  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    I've personally had a PS1,2 and now 3 and i can honestly say that now is the first time i've been thinking that Sony are leaning away from what I want. To say i'm not keen on this new 3d fad is an understatement. I personally think that it's already done it's best to ruin the movie industry and I really feel that it's going to hit hardcore gamers hard over the next couple of years.

    I'm seriously worried that our games are going to get dumbed down, or at least aimed more at the casual gamer. I don't even like to refer to myself as a hardcore gamer as i'm really quite shite at them, but i play them a lot. I don't care about 3d, if you want to immerse me more in games then put the damn effort in and make the releases have excellent writing, voice acting and a single player mode that lasts more then the usual 8 hours that we seem to get. I can't wait to see the price hike that we'll get hit with for the "full" 3d games as well. I've already cut back on game spending as it costs so damn much.

    If sony, and anyone else looking to push this had mastered immersive games then yeah, go ahead and look at trying to improve things graphically with the 3d. But since most of the releases are a sham anyway due to it taking only an afternoon generally to complete the sodding things, this really is a cop out for me.

    As long as the more independent companies like Bioware, Rockstar (to name but 2) keep putting out games that are actually great, long, involving games, then i'll be happy. I just think that sooner or later Joe "I'm a total window licking sheep" public will cave and embrace this crap and the numbers will be too hard for them to pass up.

    Am i paranoid or just a misery?
  • ShaneCedt

    ShaneCedt  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    i don't get brit writing...anyways, i agree that i can't afford 3D TV. But the history of videogames is littered with "too-soon technology" (Virtual Boy). I can't afford no 3D technology.
  • sid440

    sid440  - 1 year, 5 months ago  - Report

    Normally im not one to jump on to the nintendo bandwagon, but for 3D they have the right idea, designing a Non-Glasses Handheld from the ground up for 3d definitely puts them ahead of others who just happen to be upgrading thier games to look 3d, also with a cheap handheld, nintendo is going to not only destroy sony in the handheld market but also in the 3D market.
Most Commented
Connect with GamesRadar