| Martain Chandler |
|
|
2013: Electronic Arts has seen poor returns when allocating its resources to social media, according to CEO Nextinline, who says that the company would prefer to use those resources focusing on 3D.
Speaking to company shareholders in a meeting remotely attended by Gamasutra, Nextinline said that EA's business responds to the needs of consumers, and from what it has seen, consumers are sick and tired of social media. |
|
|
| Carlos Sousa |
|
I can understand where they're going, they won't have return, at least not yet, spending on R&D for such a low demand (by public) displays.
And it's not like they're switching their games to farmville category... At least I hope so not! |
|
|
| Jane Castle |
|
lol! When I read the head line I thought what???!!!!! They aren't making 3D games anymore????? They are only going to make 2D from now on???? :)
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Thomas Grove |
|
|
Doesn't making a 3D display game simply mean adding a second camera? I can't imagine too much R&D needs to go into it. Maybe more QA testing and UI tweaking to get things to look "good".
|
|
|
| Charles Castermans |
|
@Jane Castle:
Yes, it would be better if the term 'Stereo 3D' or 'S3D' would be used in articles to see the difference between the two concepts. @Thomas Grove: On the contrary, turning a 3D game into a Stereo 3D game takes a lot of effort. For example: when the 3D engine has to render two images instead of one, simply stated your framerate cuts in half. But there are many optimizations to be made, not all 3D art tackles the Stereo 3D ghosting effect that well, you need additional testing, and this list goes on and on... In the end Stereo 3D influences all parts of the game production pipeline which makes it very expensive to implement. And looking at the disappointing Stereo 3D television sales, the lack of Stereo 3D content, the Stereo 3D effect in itself not being all-that-revolutionary (at least outside cinemas), dropping Stereo 3D cinema sales in the US... it is save to state it's a bad investment at this moment. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Tiago Costa |
|
|
I'll admit that I'm not the smartest person in this planet...barely but I'm not.. :P
But was this so unexpected? The first time I laid eyes on 3D tech (back in AVATAR days) I saw it as nothing more than a gimmick that would not hold. I would even suspect that no person would really like to play a game in a "real" holodeck. Also, social? really? sigh... ok, next year don't come crying because social didn't made you enough money and telling us that you'll be jumping the bandwagon for the next hype. Just focus in good games and forget about gimmicks... and give us Mirror's Edge 2. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Tory Schram |
|
3d in games are very different to 3d in movies. Games have full, realistic depth, while movies have about the depth of a theater stage and kind of look like card board cut-outs. Ie, in Mirrors Edge, when standing at the edge of a building and looking down, the street below [and the buildings] above, truly appear as though they are far away [since your eyes are able to stare straight on, unlike in movies] and give a very visceral feeling of height, distance and....fear. In 2D it played more like a traditional game, while in 3D, calling it a game felt like an understatement, it felt like an "experience" and i kept telling myself when sizing up a big jump, "this is just plain not safe man!". I agree that 3d in movies doesn't always add much to the table, especially combined with the current drawbacks like reduced brightness and crosstalk (which have already been improved upon). But, the full 3D in games I find just plain amazing over 2D. It looks like the game world has been laid at your feet. Hopefully they can add this to movies as well.
|
|
|
More: Console/PC, Business/Marketing