3D on PS3 is very limited

[Squilliam]

greenmedic88 said:

Squilliam said:

disolitude said:

I am not going to comment on PS3 3D quality as it remains to be seen what it looks like and what games get supported (my guess is not many)...

I will say that if you want be part of the 3D craze you have 2 options.

PS3 - 299 bucks
50 inch 3DTV - 3000 bucks
Glasses + games (if you can even find any games you want to play) - 200 bucks + content

OR

Decent computer - 1000 bucks
Nvidia GTX470 SLI - 700 bucks
Mitsubishi 60 inch 120 hz DLP TV or 3 24 inch 3D monitors (surround 3D) - 1200
Nvidia 3D vision glasses (over 400 supported games) - 200 + content

Both will play 3D games, both will play 3D blurays. But my guess tells me that one is going to be much supoerior to the other.

I adjusted your numbers for accuracy and err um relevance to a normal effective budget. You're not gonna stick a pair of GTX4xx cards into a $50 case!

Some probably would just to support the notion that a hobo box only needs $600+ worth of VGA cards to turn it into high end gaming PC. Playing in the Danger Zone with cut cost components along the way I might add.

I think both lists just illustrate that 3D gaming really isn't very viable on either platform currently due to the prohibitive initial set up cost for what is likely to be a scant handful of titles that may not even warrant the initial investment in hardware. Lackluster games in full 3D are still... lackluster games. You just will have paid a lot more to play them.

Sure, I'd like to see Avatar in mindblowing 3D like I saw on IMAX. Would I pay $3000 for a special TV to watch it on? Probably... not.

I wouldn't say that. Most people reading this are enthusiasts who spendhundreds to thousands of hours a year gaming. If anything I would say most of the people here if they were enthused about 3D could justify the expense, the issue isn't what the above gaming computer costs but how much people value their entertainment time. The cost of the 3D is only what it costs above and beyond what you already have divided by the number of hours it would get used. At even a rate of 250 hours a year over two years $1000 worth of expenditure only comes out at $2 an hour.