Poll: So come on, who games in 3D?

[Doggie2k]

It was the same with HD 10 years ago and when wide screen tele's cost £20,000 people thought that was a fad. Companies like nvidia sky fox have invested far too much money for 3d to be a gimmick.

 

[malachi]

Nope, 'cause I have a dodgy eye so can't see 3D.

Same here and even if I could I wouldn’t bother anyway. It’s good for the cinema but for home use.......nah.

Just because developers/film makers are running out of ideas they try to ram 3D down our necks again, this is like the 3rd or 4th time now over the past 30 years they have tried to move customers over to 3D???

They need to let everyone get HDTV's in the homes first before even thinking about bringing 3D to the home and making it mainstream.

 

[ins0mn1ac]

Results aren't really selling 3D to me!

 

[iamtheoneneo]

Just wanted to see peoples thoughts on wether they would enjoy gaming in 3D.

I don't want any "3D is a gimmick or too expensive" class posts either, just general discussion about 3D gaming cos the 3D hating is getting abit old now.

I'll leave it with ya..

so let me get this straight. you essentially want this thread for 3d fanboys?

fact of the matter is that
a) 3d tech is expensive
b) 3d tech is a massive gimmick

i dont hate 3d, i just dont see the point of sitting at a pc for hours looking through darkened glasses just to add depth to games, its bad enough at the cinema! i dont want it in my home ever.

It was the same with HD 10 years ago and when wide screen tele's cost £20,000 people thought that was a fad. Companies like nvidia sky fox have invested far too much money for 3d to be a gimmick.

tell that to toshiba. it lost $461 million in a day over a fad.
and sky? one 3d channel? great investment and the take up of sky world is lower than ever.

 

[bledd]

No, but want to (expense)

I hate playing games at under 60fps

Which is mainly why I still only really play Valve games

 

[siege2]

so let me get this straight. you essentially want this thread for 3d fanboys?

fact of the matter is that
a) 3d tech is expensive
b) 3d tech is a massive gimmick

i dont hate 3d, i just dont see the point of sitting at a pc for hours looking through darkened glasses just to add depth to games, its bad enough at the cinema! i dont want it in my home ever.



tell that to toshiba. it lost $461 million in a day over a fad.
and sky? one 3d channel? great investment and the take up of sky world is lower than ever.

agree totally. +1

 

[NathWraith]

so let me get this straight. you essentially want this thread for 3d fanboys?

fact of the matter is that
a) 3d tech is expensive
b) 3d tech is a massive gimmick

i dont hate 3d, i just dont see the point of sitting at a pc for hours looking through darkened glasses just to add depth to games, its bad enough at the cinema! i dont want it in my home ever.



tell that to toshiba. it lost $461 million in a day over a fad.
and sky? one 3d channel? great investment and the take up of sky world is lower than ever.

Typical response here. I would like to invite all forum goers to look at this post as a way NOT to reply to a thread promoting general discussion.

This is a prime example of how to start a flame war, invite the trolls to play and be a general fool.

Sorry to bring it to you but I haven't created a thread so everyone can suck the d*** of 3D, no I made it to have a general discussion about it, IS IT THAT HARD TO BELIEVE. Not for you to pass judgement on why I created the thread in the first place!

Seriously just get out.

agree totally. +1

And take your mate with you.

 

[avatar12m]

i love the depth of field its truly amazing in some games even old ones like everquest 2 , i took my pc into work to let everyone see it on the flesh, not one person dissed it ppl were amazed , most said it looks 100 times better than what they have seen at the cinema.

personally the nvidia glasses let to much relective light in due to the fact they have been made to take into account all the normal glasses wearers ( theres big gaps at your temples etc )

i wish they did some 3d glasses for us non reading glasses wearers.

games like cod bo look amazing especially the gun / sights effect , it looks real.

glasses design 6/10
effect 9/10
price 4/10

i noticed acer next 3d screen has the transmitter built in and the glasses are 50% brighter.

oh btw avatar 3d in the cinema looks like 2d compared to 3d vision with shutter glasses

 

[rjk]

3d is expensive

but i cant wait for some 3d movies to come to my screen at home

such as this

 

[arc@css]

 

[Final8y]

3d is expensive

but i cant wait for some 3d movies to come to my screen at home

such as this

LOLOL.

 

[Cosimo]

I haven’t tried it and probably will at some point. That point is probably a year away. I do wonder whether the 3D experience from a huge screen can really be effectively transferred to a PC monitor. We shall see.

 

[Jono8]

Not very good options in the poll

 

[skullman]

I don't want any "3D is a gimmick or too expensive" class posts either

I'm guessing you're not diggin' those poll results then.

 

[Rroff]

I voted but none of the options quite match my opinion.

I think the effect is great and on some games works really well, I definitely don't consider it a gimmick but neither do I consider it the next logical step forward for gaming.

After 30-40minutes of playing my eyes start to feel fatigued - and its not just a case of getting used to it - I put quite a bit of time into trying it for the first 2 months.

I've had the 3D Vision kit since April give or take and I've not even touched it other than the odd 5 minutes - mostly to show it off to someone - in the last 4-5 months.

I found that for most gaming its just not convenient and for multiplayer gaming I feel like it comes between me and being able to apply myself fully to the game, especially online fps games I felt like it was holding back how quickly I could react to things, how precisely I could aim, etc.

Also while nVidia's 3D Vision supports a lot of titles with detailed instructions, tweaks, etc. I was finding I had to sacrifice a lot of visual features in many titles - often the 3D effect wasn't enough to offset the lack of high quality shadows, advanced shader effects, etc.

Also the selection of movies available in 3D is slim and most of the few that are don't have that great a 3D effect, coupled with the fact that watching them on a 22" monitor has nothing like the impact compared to watching a 3D movie on my projector or at the cinema.

 

[Klo]

Its interesting to notice on a tech forum how generally unpopular it is. I imagine in the general population, it is even less popular.

 

[carlazai]

I think 3d is very popular with the general public. There is no other way they cinemas can charge £20 for a rubbish film.

Without glasses and a couple of generations down the line i will happily stump up my £300 but until i know its a well grounded tech i wont bite. Need AMD/ATI to pull their finger out and get the technology into the market to compete with nvidia as we all know x-fire is better than sli (enter trolling).

 

[Redman]

Typical response here. I would like to invite all forum goers to look at this post as a way NOT to reply to a thread promoting general discussion.

This is a prime example of how to start a flame war, invite the trolls to play and be a general fool.

Sorry to bring it to you but I haven't created a thread so everyone can suck the **** of 3D, no I made it to have a general discussion about it, IS IT THAT HARD TO BELIEVE. Not for you to pass judgement on why I created the thread in the first place!

Seriously just get out.



And take your mate with you.

There's an awful lot of dummy spitting on this forum of late. Might want to fully star out that sweary too, family forum and all

 

[Flying Gribble]

The effect just gives me a headache at the moment. I have very lazy left eye, so have little depth perception anyway. Gets a "not interested" from me!

 

[Gideon Lorr]

Its interesting to notice on a tech forum how generally unpopular it is. I imagine in the general population, it is even less popular.

I did see this survey which said the majority of US consumers aren't that interested in adopting 3D in the home, and very few are planning to buy one in the next year. Further, another study showed that people who had had 3D TV demonstrated to them were less likely to buy a 3D TV:

http://www.nytimes.com/external/gig...f-us-wont-buy-a-3dtv-9881.html?ref=technology

It’s been nearly a year since consumer electronics manufacturers, Hollywood studios and even cable companies rallied around the concept of 3DTV at CES, announcing new products and programming aimed at translating the 3-D experience from the movie theater to the living room. But the dream of delivering 3-D video into consumer homes is one that probably won’t be realized — at least not anytime soon, and most likely not in North America.

We’ve been skeptics of the movement all along, but the latest data from Nielsen shows that not only are consumers in North America not particularly interested in 3-D TV, but the majority seem downright opposed to the technology. But the bad news doesn’t stop there: the global survey of more than 27,000 respondents found that less than a quarter of consumers worldwide are likely buyers of 3DTV sets.

Less than 10 percent of consumers worldwide said they would be buying a 3-D TV over the next 12 months, with an additional 15 percent saying they probably will purchase a 3-D capable set during that time. But those global trends don’t extend to North America, where only 3 percent of consumers surveyed said they would definitely buy a 3DTV over the next year, with an additional 3 percent saying they probably will buy one.

In addition to the meager showing of interested 3DTV buyers in America, there’s also the percentage that are outright opposed to owning a 3DTV, it seems. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said they would not be purchasing 3-D sets, compared to a third of respondents worldwide that said they wouldn’t invest in 3-D for the home. That’s bad news for consumer electronics manufacturers who have invested heavily in pushing 3-D in the North American market. It’s also very bad news for pay TV distributors and networks that have sunk millions of dollars into bringing more 3-D programming into their channel lineups.

So why are North American consumers so much less likely to want to buy a 3-D TV set? It could be a sign of overall 3-D fatigue, as consumers in the U.S. in particular have been bombarded with 3-D movies ever since James Cameron’s Avatar hit it big.

But it could also be that North American consumers might be more exposed to the 3-D experience on TV and just don’t like it; an earlier study by Nielsen found that consumers became less likely to purchase a 3-D TV after they’ve experienced one. For some markets — like Latin America, for instance — where the 3-D buzz has been less prevalent, interest in purchasing a 3-D TV could simply indicate that consumers haven’t actually watch TV on one.

Things are slightly more rosy outside the US, but given the size of the US consumer market, it could be a long road. I'm going to bet 3D doesn't take off in the home until no glasses 3D screens become an affordable reality.