Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said: Eh... maybe.
Personally I see 3D as the next HD graphics.
In other words I think it will be something that costs more then it's worth and most people won't care. |
71m HD consoles sold disagrees with you on that one, no doubt not all of them use the HD, but I imagine a fair number do, HD take up is good has been fairly good hasnt it?
|
Not really. HD uptake has mostly been caused by stores no longer selling SD widescreens. As for the consoles, i'd guess there adoption was quite similiar. With the only non HD console being the Wii which offered a whole different expierence.
Either way, after seeing how expensive HD is I hate to see how expensive 3D is.
3D HD may leave only EA standing if any company decides to launch with that.
|
I don't expect 3D to add much of anything to development costs.
You make an SD image HD by increasing the resolution 2-4 times. HD drove up costs because developers felt they had to spend a lot more money designing detailed models, textures, and environments that people expect to see with that increase in fidelity.
You make a 2D image 3D by rendering the scene twice from slighty different angles and sending each image to a different eye. Since the in-game world is already 3D, there's no extra design work needed. Same textures, models, and environment, used twice. Rather than making the design staff work twice as much, 3D makes the hardware work twice as much.
Nintendo will bear almost all the costs of 3D when they manufacture the 3DS, and we know they aren't much for subsidizing hardware or selling pricey consoles.
All that being said, I agree with you in that I'm not sure 3D will be a Big Deal. I see more merit in 3D in the living room, but also more barriers to be overcome (much more expensive screen, multiple viewers and more extreme viewing angles).