|
Does 3D display really have a chance to revitalize the game industry (or, at least, sales of traditional console titles)?
I realize that a great deal of enthusiasm has been expressed about its prospects, but that's mostly by executives with a vested interest in seeing it succeed. What are the real chances?
I think it's doomed to be a mere blip in the sales charts, and here's 5 reasons why:
- 3D Is Expensive. The new generation of consoles helped catalyze the purchase of HDTVs, and now we ask customers to drop at least $2000 on a new set so they can play 3D titles?
We don't even have complete penetration of HDTV yet, and asking for a major upgrade when the economy is still recovering seems a bit much. Then there are the 3D glasses, which are $150 to $199 a pair right now. Yes, those prices will drop, but it's not going to happen until numbers get very much higher... which may not ever happen.
- It's Nauseating. Some games with fast motion, like Wipeout, can induce motion sickiness in susceptible people even without 3D. A 3D display exacerbates the problem; some estimates have 15% of the population affected. Headaches, dizziness, nausea... not exactly the effects you want your game to induce. Samsung even warns users on its web site about 3D. (See some other articles here and here.)
Now, this effect may get less over time as developers learn how to properly use 3D, and perhaps Nintendo's 3D slider might help if it gets used on other hardware (though the very fact they felt it necessary to include it should tell you something).
- Resolution/frame rate loss. 3D requires you to give up half the frame rate, or give up resolution, in order to display twice as many frames as normal. Many processes result in lower brightness (a big problem with 3D movies).
Some developers have looked at the 3DS and said that they may just want to use the higher resolution and frame rate and not even implement the 3D effect. Many hardcore gamers are annoyed at low frame rates, especially with FPS play. Will they really opt for 3D and watch their framerate get halved?
- No new gameplay. So far it's not clear what 3D display brings to the game design table in terms of enabling new forms of play. The Wii showed that relatively simple and cheap technology could bring innovative new gameplay modes; so did the DS with its two screens. I have yet to hear how 3D display will enable new game play, or even refine current gameplay. Without something new to offer, will customers buy into it?
- 3D is dying in theaters. The highly anticipated wave of 3D movies has washed over the theaters and pulled away, leaving the beaches exposed. Avatar did great business, but successive movie had lower audiences.
Critics have complained about the process and the higher prices, and it looks like the fad is fading. This does not portend well for 3D display in gaming, especially since the 3D movies were supposed to help drive adoption of the 3D TVs necessary for 3D gaming.
These problems could, I suppose, be overcome, but it's hard to see how 3D gaming will be the Next Big Thing.
|
As for using 3D display to accurately gauge depth in the screen, perhaps... that depends on the implementation and to some extent on the user's depth perception ability in that environment. Until I see it demonstrated, I am skeptical of this being a noticeable improvement in gameplay, let alone allowing new forms of gameplay. Motion detection does allow different gameplay, which is why the Wii has been so successful (and now the PS3 and the Xbox 360 are bringing motion detection to their platforms). I haven't yet heard of developers building a new type of game around 3D dsiplay, one that simply wouldn't work without the technology. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but on this issue I'm Missourian: You have to show me.
First of all, the 3D tvs will mostly likely be adopted because of 3D movies, not because of games. I think HDTVs were adopted mostly because of movies and HDTV cables, not because of games.
Playing games on a 3D tv is a "by product".
The frame rate drop might be true, but you didn't specify the real reason. 3D TVs will be capable of at least 200HZ frame rate, 100HZ for each eye. So technically you can keep the frame rate with 3D TVs. The problem is that consoles will need twice the processing power(approximately) to keep the double frame rate.
I am not sure about the theaters, but you know 3D has made many comebacks in the last century.
I think the 3DS is just a gimmik though. I would love a hand held with a 3D screen, even if I give up a bit of the resolution or frame rate. The biggest problem with the 3DS is that you can't move your head much, otherwise you lose focus of the 3D effect. And people do move often.
Bottom line, I have no idea what is the future of 3D in movies and gaming, but I think it's too early to say it's doomed.
Fads die.
Deal with piracy.
3D future could be here, but the technology seems to die, because NVIDIA killed stereoscopic driver used by Vuzix.
http://www.vuzix.com/iwear/products_vr920.html
If 3D so with headtracking todays implementation is strange..
Great would also be able to move, because running with Natal in place will be terribly unnatural.
But allow players running, would like something a crazy expensive steel constructions, which we saw 18 years ago in The Lawnmover men..
As you indicated 15% of the population experiences nausea watching 3D, but that means 85% don't, which is still a significant segment of the population. If 85% of the population bought my game. I'd be very happy.
The framerate drop will be non-existent for true 3d ready video cards as they will handle the perspective flip on the gpu.
In regards to the "no new gameplay" comment. I'm afraid that just shows a lack of imagination. It is way too early to claim you know how this technology will be implemented.
Finally, is 3d dying in theatres? I think the costs have to realign but that is natural. Again, when the filmmaking technologies catch up, making a 3D film will not cost much more than a 2d film.
When new technologies emerge there are those that rush to claim they are already dead. The great thing about confirmation bias is that it can be employed to prove anything you like. An interesting comment I heard recently about new technologies is that people overestimate the short term impacts but underestimate the long term consequences. I think 3D is here to stay, what is left to be seen is how game developers will innovate around the technology.
New technologies can be adopted swiftly (Wii and DS) if they are relatively inexpensive, have an obvious advantage that is shown by software which only works with the new technology, and are relatively easy to implement. I don't think 3D display fits any of those parameters. Sure, 3D in TVs will get cheaper, but that's not going to happen very swiftly. A slow rollout means a new technology will have a more difficult time getting established, especially given the lead time for console development.
And of course, there are always those early adopters. The rest of the population tend to adopt the new technology a bit later. From what I am seeing, there seem to be the essential core of early adopters to start rolling the ball.
Again its the content that drives the sales of consoles not the other way around. The same could be said for 3D. No one is going to buy 3D setups unless there are a few EPIC titles that meets the benchmarks of re-playability (experiences audiences can revisit constantly) be that single player, multiplayer, DLC,..anything that extends the longevity of these products.
Also games are not ready for 3D cause outside of environments that have true parallax, particles and effects do not render in 3D, most shaders and post processes do not render in 3D and a lot of illusion of high fidelity is loss in these formats. So in the end what you end up with is a combination of true parallax in some spaces mixed with the cardboard cut out scenarios of 2d elements.
In the end it's truly about, DO I WANT TO BUY THIS TITLE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WHY?
Buying 3D to play crappy titles is useless and customers are not simply going to buy a title simply because 3D formats are available.
Lets take the 3DS, I wonder if future games could take advantage of the slider for gameplay. The payer has to adjust the perspective depth to solve a puzzle. In short, BREAK the perspective to reveal the solution in order to progress through the game. FEZ is an example of a game that could be interesting to play on a 3D display as well as Echochrome as they both involve perspective manipulation to beat a challenge.
If the sole purpose of 3D gaming is to try and simulate reality then yes, the technology is limited. The moment we let go of that line of thought, when we look away from the most obvious application of technology is when we can create amazing if not interesting experiences.
Eventually the way we interact with 3D displays has to catch up with the tech. Kinect offers depth-based controls using the camera. We had 2D controllers to go with our 2D display-based games, for 3D to work our means of interaction must be compatible with the game space.
2. The resolution and frame rate issues mentioned are fitting when discussing the 3Ds because it is a hand-held device with limited processing power. Game consoles and computers, however, are only getting more powerful, so this will be less and less of an issue practically by the day. The framerates of 3D tvs are far above the detectable numbers as far as our eyes are concerned, so it isn't limited on the display side.
3. There are multiple different technologies used for 3D tvs. Sure, the glasses are expensive for tvs that require active shutters, but very cheap for sets that polarize light or don't use glasses at all.
4. His note about no new gameplay, while true on that aspect, doesn't look at current patterns in the industry. If people never bought equipment just for additional levels of immersion rather than new gameplay, there would be no video game graphics card industry and we'd still be playing games in 8-bit.
5. Sure the sets are expensive now, but that was the same for HD tvs as well. As with all electronics, the prices will fall as technology improves.
6. Good or bad, I'm seeing more movies show in theaters in 3D than ever before.
*Note* I realize that game consoles are fixed as far as power goes for each generation, but this has its own benefits. Developers can know exactly what type of experience the end user will have, so they can iron out problems with frame rates and lag ahead of time. This can't really be done on computers because of the huge difference in power levels of used hardware. Also because consoles are fixed hardware, developers can get to know them and evolve ways to develop more and more efficiently as time in the console's life-cycle goes on.
The difference between HD TV consumers and 3D TV consumers is that HD TV consumers really just want a bigger screen, and don't want to sacrifice picture quality. 3D TV consumers are "videophiles", and are not mainstream.