By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - 3D will push PS3 further

SpartanFX on 07 April 2010
Icyedge said:
waron said:

Sony has issued a statement saying that the idea that Killzone 2 would be getting a 3D update was an 'erroneous inference'.

Over the weekend, it was reported that Killzone 2, along with Wipeout HD, Super Stardust HD ,LittleBigPlanet and Gran Turismo 5 would be getting a 3D mode this summer. It appears, however, that that is not the case, and Sony has apologized for the misunderstanding.

"That last feature [in Qore] included interviews, footage from CES 2010, and a brief montage of SCEA titles intended as examples of what 3D gaming might encompass. It is hard to do justice to just how amazing 3D gaming looks in a 2D presentation-even in an HD product such as Qore."

"Unfortunately, our feature did not make it clear that the 2D game footage was included for demonstration purposes only. We apologize for the erroneous inference that 3D versions of LBP, Wipeout HD, Killzone 2, Gran Turismo 5 orSuper Stardust HD are in production."

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99733-Killzone-2-Not-Getting-3D-Update-After-All

 

for once before you post something just check GOD DAMN FACTS.

 

I hope you do realize I could post hundreads of links that say Sony is bringing 3D games. They havent officially announce titles or release date yet thats true. They only showed footage of games like super stardust, wipeout, gran turismo without ever confirming a release date, that is true. But they have said many times again they are going to release 3D games tho.

even the reviewrs have been playing the 3D games in PAX on PS3

here is a preview of the game the guy played on PS3 in 3D:

 

http://ps3thevolution.com/2010/03/31/sony%E2%80%99s-3d-shutter-glasses-the-ps3-impression-by-eddie-with-the-ps3blog/



 

 

 

Around the Network
Icyedge on 07 April 2010
andremop said:
Icyedge said:
waron said:

Sony has issued a statement saying that the idea that Killzone 2 would be getting a 3D update was an 'erroneous inference'.

Over the weekend, it was reported that Killzone 2, along with Wipeout HD, Super Stardust HD ,LittleBigPlanet and Gran Turismo 5 would be getting a 3D mode this summer. It appears, however, that that is not the case, and Sony has apologized for the misunderstanding.

"That last feature [in Qore] included interviews, footage from CES 2010, and a brief montage of SCEA titles intended as examples of what 3D gaming might encompass. It is hard to do justice to just how amazing 3D gaming looks in a 2D presentation-even in an HD product such as Qore."

"Unfortunately, our feature did not make it clear that the 2D game footage was included for demonstration purposes only. We apologize for the erroneous inference that 3D versions of LBP, Wipeout HD, Killzone 2, Gran Turismo 5 orSuper Stardust HD are in production."

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99733-Killzone-2-Not-Getting-3D-Update-After-All

 

for once before you post something just check GOD DAMN FACTS.

 

I hope you do realize I could post hundreads of links that say Sony is bringing 3D games. They havent officially announce titles or release date yet thats true. They only showed footage of games like super stardust, wipeout, gran turismo without ever confirming a release date, that is true. But they have said many times again they are going to release 3D games tho.

Well, post them, then.

This quote on Waron's post is pretty clear to me. I don't think any link you post can overthrow that.

Like I already said, they havent officially announce any game yet, but they have said numerous time they are going to release 3D games. The post by Waron simply state that they did not confirm any of those titles. I could literally post hundreads of link, dont get me wrong, they didnt officially announce titles yet, but they did say many times that they are going to do 3D games. Waron was saying earlier they arent going to release any 3D games, which is not the case.

 

"PS3 users worldwide will only need to upgrade the PS3 system software via the internet and there is no need to repurchase the system to enjoy 3D games," said Nainan Shah, vice-president of new platform, planning and development, SCEE.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/sony-readies-ps3-3d-update

 

"A presentation to investors yesterday underlined that the PlayStation 3 will be a fully 3D-capable game console by the end of 2010"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10402438-1.html

 

"3D is a major part of our initiatives in 2010 and we're currently developing 3D stereoscopic games to come in conjunction with the launch of Sony's 3D compatible BRAVIA LCD TV in summer 2010. The amazing thing about the PS3's technology is that all PS3 units that exist in homes and markets will be able to play 3D stereoscopic games as well as 3D BD movies through separate firmware upgrades - something that other platforms are unable to do. We'll be announcing actual game titles separately later, but we think that 3D stereoscopic gaming has a ton of potential, particularly in placing consumers within the actual experience."

http://gizmodo.com/5468505/this-summer-the-ps3-goes-3d-through-two-firmware-updates

 

"The news supports previous reports on Sony's 3D PlayStation 3 strategy, suggesting that a firmware upgrade would introduce the capability to existing consoles. Not only does Sony plan on upgrading the console to support 3D, but release games in 3D as well in order to take advantage of the enhanced capabilities."

http://kotaku.com/5408308/sony-to-upgrade-ps3-consoles-to-3d

 

 



vlad321 on 07 April 2010
Icyedge said:
vlad321 said:
Do people even realize what bullshit this whole 3D gaming is this gen?

Do you all realize that the PS3 doesn't have the power to handle 3D? You need to render each frame twice, basically running at 120MhZ total, for the 3D that you usee to work. What did KZ2 work at? Oh yeah, about 30. Now imagine if it required twice the resources to render. More so because you'd need it in HD as well.

If you are lucky, you will get games that looks like the worst Wii games in 3D, if you are lucky.

No you still need to render each frame only once, because your displaying the exact same frame twice. You display 120 frames but only render 60 that you display twice offset from each other.

No, you are just wrong. You render each frame twice, you don't just display it. The 2nd frame has to give the perspective as it was rendered a few inches to the side of the previous one, as if you were looking through the other eye.

Basically, the game has to render the first frame for your right eye, and then render a whole new frame for your left that is offset by a few inches. They are distinctly different images and each one has to be rendered. No console has the power to do this on other than simple Wii graphics, hell even my PC can't handle 3D well and it puts the PS3 to shame in power.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

disolitude on 07 April 2010
vlad321 said:
Icyedge said:
vlad321 said:
Do people even realize what bullshit this whole 3D gaming is this gen?

Do you all realize that the PS3 doesn't have the power to handle 3D? You need to render each frame twice, basically running at 120MhZ total, for the 3D that you usee to work. What did KZ2 work at? Oh yeah, about 30. Now imagine if it required twice the resources to render. More so because you'd need it in HD as well.

If you are lucky, you will get games that looks like the worst Wii games in 3D, if you are lucky.

No you still need to render each frame only once, because your displaying the exact same frame twice. You display 120 frames but only render 60 that you display twice offset from each other.

No, you are just wrong. You render each frame twice, you don't just display it. The 2nd frame has to give the perspective as it was rendered a few inches to the side of the previous one, as if you were looking through the other eye.

Basically, the game has to render the first frame for your right eye, and then render a whole new frame for your left that is offset by a few inches. They are distinctly different images and each one has to be rendered. No console has the power to do this on other than simple Wii graphics, hell even my PC can't handle 3D well and it puts the PS3 to shame in power.

In order to do 3D on a console videogame, one of 2 things need to happen.

1. Game needs to be built from the ground up with 3D in mind and optimized so that it runs at 30/60 frames per second in 2D and 60/120 frames per second in 3D.

2. Existing game needs to have the frame rate modified so that it is set to minimum 30 frames per eye. 60 fps games can be done in 3D with 30/30 per eye. Wipeout HD for example...

In any case, Vlad is right, frame rate needs to double and you need a monster machine to do 3D...console or PC. Also, a game can be done in 720p if they are 1080p to save some performance...but considering most PS3 games already run at 720p (or lower), that wont help.

Edit - I see what Icyedge was saying. While it may be true that PS3 may pull off some trickery like that where it renders the frame only once and then doubles it (the PS3 driver update is hinting at this actually)...this will provide a subpar 3D effect. that the same tech as the 2D to 3d tech which is included in Samsung and LG TVs. So lets hope thats not it...



waron on 07 April 2010

to all those guys posting previews from PAX/CES as proofs that those games are coming - those previews are based on playthrogh made in a booth where most likely was a PC doing all postprocessing that rendered 3d, that's first thing.
second, many developers already said that current gen consoles are too weak to render decent 3d effects without huge sacrifices(which proves my first point).
third, do you want me to list games that had previews of playbably versions of titles that were cancelled? cause it would take few posts if vgchartz.com have limit of signs per post. hell there is quite a lot of reviews of games that were canned even this gen like GTR.



Around the Network
Icyedge on 07 April 2010
disolitude said:
vlad321 said:
Icyedge said:
vlad321 said:
Do people even realize what bullshit this whole 3D gaming is this gen?

Do you all realize that the PS3 doesn't have the power to handle 3D? You need to render each frame twice, basically running at 120MhZ total, for the 3D that you usee to work. What did KZ2 work at? Oh yeah, about 30. Now imagine if it required twice the resources to render. More so because you'd need it in HD as well.

If you are lucky, you will get games that looks like the worst Wii games in 3D, if you are lucky.

No you still need to render each frame only once, because your displaying the exact same frame twice. You display 120 frames but only render 60 that you display twice offset from each other.

No, you are just wrong. You render each frame twice, you don't just display it. The 2nd frame has to give the perspective as it was rendered a few inches to the side of the previous one, as if you were looking through the other eye.

Basically, the game has to render the first frame for your right eye, and then render a whole new frame for your left that is offset by a few inches. They are distinctly different images and each one has to be rendered. No console has the power to do this on other than simple Wii graphics, hell even my PC can't handle 3D well and it puts the PS3 to shame in power.

In order to do 3D on a console videogame, one of 2 things need to happen.

1. Game needs to be built from the ground up with 3D in mind and optimized so that it runs at 30/60 frames per second in 2D and 60/120 frames per second in 3D.

2. Existing game needs to have the frame rate modified so that it is set to minimum 30 frames per eye. 60 fps games can be done in 3D with 30/30 per eye. Wipeout HD for example...

In any case, Vlad is right, frame rate needs to double and you need a monster machine to do 3D...console or PC. Also, a game can be done in 720p if they are 1080p to save some performance...but considering most PS3 games already run at 720p (or lower), that wont help.

No hes not right, yes you need double frame rate, but not rendering 120 unique frames. Its the same image +/- offset to each eye, thats why program like Nvidia is able to transform a 2D game into 3D.



disolitude on 07 April 2010
Icyedge said:
disolitude said:
vlad321 said:
Icyedge said:
vlad321 said:
Do people even realize what bullshit this whole 3D gaming is this gen?

Do you all realize that the PS3 doesn't have the power to handle 3D? You need to render each frame twice, basically running at 120MhZ total, for the 3D that you usee to work. What did KZ2 work at? Oh yeah, about 30. Now imagine if it required twice the resources to render. More so because you'd need it in HD as well.

If you are lucky, you will get games that looks like the worst Wii games in 3D, if you are lucky.

No you still need to render each frame only once, because your displaying the exact same frame twice. You display 120 frames but only render 60 that you display twice offset from each other.

No, you are just wrong. You render each frame twice, you don't just display it. The 2nd frame has to give the perspective as it was rendered a few inches to the side of the previous one, as if you were looking through the other eye.

Basically, the game has to render the first frame for your right eye, and then render a whole new frame for your left that is offset by a few inches. They are distinctly different images and each one has to be rendered. No console has the power to do this on other than simple Wii graphics, hell even my PC can't handle 3D well and it puts the PS3 to shame in power.

In order to do 3D on a console videogame, one of 2 things need to happen.

1. Game needs to be built from the ground up with 3D in mind and optimized so that it runs at 30/60 frames per second in 2D and 60/120 frames per second in 3D.

2. Existing game needs to have the frame rate modified so that it is set to minimum 30 frames per eye. 60 fps games can be done in 3D with 30/30 per eye. Wipeout HD for example...

In any case, Vlad is right, frame rate needs to double and you need a monster machine to do 3D...console or PC. Also, a game can be done in 720p if they are 1080p to save some performance...but considering most PS3 games already run at 720p (or lower), that wont help.

No hes not right, yes you need double frame rate, but not rendering 120 unique frames. Its the same image +/- offset to each eye, thats why program like Nvidia is able to transform a 2D game into 3D.

Edited my previous post before you posted this :)



Icyedge on 07 April 2010
disolitude said:
vlad321 said:
Icyedge said:
vlad321 said:
Do people even realize what bullshit this whole 3D gaming is this gen?

Do you all realize that the PS3 doesn't have the power to handle 3D? You need to render each frame twice, basically running at 120MhZ total, for the 3D that you usee to work. What did KZ2 work at? Oh yeah, about 30. Now imagine if it required twice the resources to render. More so because you'd need it in HD as well.

If you are lucky, you will get games that looks like the worst Wii games in 3D, if you are lucky.

No you still need to render each frame only once, because your displaying the exact same frame twice. You display 120 frames but only render 60 that you display twice offset from each other.

No, you are just wrong. You render each frame twice, you don't just display it. The 2nd frame has to give the perspective as it was rendered a few inches to the side of the previous one, as if you were looking through the other eye.

Basically, the game has to render the first frame for your right eye, and then render a whole new frame for your left that is offset by a few inches. They are distinctly different images and each one has to be rendered. No console has the power to do this on other than simple Wii graphics, hell even my PC can't handle 3D well and it puts the PS3 to shame in power.

In order to do 3D on a console videogame, one of 2 things need to happen.

1. Game needs to be built from the ground up with 3D in mind and optimized so that it runs at 30/60 frames per second in 2D and 60/120 frames per second in 3D.

2. Existing game needs to have the frame rate modified so that it is set to minimum 30 frames per eye. 60 fps games can be done in 3D with 30/30 per eye. Wipeout HD for example...

In any case, Vlad is right, frame rate needs to double and you need a monster machine to do 3D...console or PC. Also, a game can be done in 720p if they are 1080p to save some performance...but considering most PS3 games already run at 720p (or lower), that wont help.

Edit - I see what Icyedge was saying. While it may be true that PS3 may pull off some trickery like that where it renders the frame only once and then doubles it (the PS3 driver update is hinting at this actually)...this will provide a subpar 3D effect. that the same tech as the 2D to 3d tech which is included in Samsung and LG TVs. So lets hope thats not it...

But its also the same tech used by nvidia to transform 2D games to 3D, the result are good no? Since its the developer that will program it the result should be better than when its a software that does it, because they can adjust the offset ratio depending on the scene and whats going on, things that software have a hard time to do. Until now the playable demonstration receive good reviews so im pretty sure it will work well. Probably not as well as real 3D games on computer tho.



disolitude on 07 April 2010
Icyedge said:
disolitude said:
vlad321 said:
Icyedge said:
vlad321 said:
Do people even realize what bullshit this whole 3D gaming is this gen?

Do you all realize that the PS3 doesn't have the power to handle 3D? You need to render each frame twice, basically running at 120MhZ total, for the 3D that you usee to work. What did KZ2 work at? Oh yeah, about 30. Now imagine if it required twice the resources to render. More so because you'd need it in HD as well.

If you are lucky, you will get games that looks like the worst Wii games in 3D, if you are lucky.

No you still need to render each frame only once, because your displaying the exact same frame twice. You display 120 frames but only render 60 that you display twice offset from each other.

No, you are just wrong. You render each frame twice, you don't just display it. The 2nd frame has to give the perspective as it was rendered a few inches to the side of the previous one, as if you were looking through the other eye.

Basically, the game has to render the first frame for your right eye, and then render a whole new frame for your left that is offset by a few inches. They are distinctly different images and each one has to be rendered. No console has the power to do this on other than simple Wii graphics, hell even my PC can't handle 3D well and it puts the PS3 to shame in power.

In order to do 3D on a console videogame, one of 2 things need to happen.

1. Game needs to be built from the ground up with 3D in mind and optimized so that it runs at 30/60 frames per second in 2D and 60/120 frames per second in 3D.

2. Existing game needs to have the frame rate modified so that it is set to minimum 30 frames per eye. 60 fps games can be done in 3D with 30/30 per eye. Wipeout HD for example...

In any case, Vlad is right, frame rate needs to double and you need a monster machine to do 3D...console or PC. Also, a game can be done in 720p if they are 1080p to save some performance...but considering most PS3 games already run at 720p (or lower), that wont help.

Edit - I see what Icyedge was saying. While it may be true that PS3 may pull off some trickery like that where it renders the frame only once and then doubles it (the PS3 driver update is hinting at this actually)...this will provide a subpar 3D effect. that the same tech as the 2D to 3d tech which is included in Samsung and LG TVs. So lets hope thats not it...

But its also the same tech used by nvidia to transform 2D games to 3D, the result are good no? Since its the developer that will program it the result should be better than when its a software that does it, because they can adjust the offset ratio depending on the scene and whats going on, things that software have a hard time to do. Until now the playable demonstration receive good reviews so im pretty sure it will work well. Probably not as well as real 3D games on computer tho.


No Nvidia doesn't use this tech. Nvidia 3d vision pushes 120 hz to the TV at all times and needs atleast 30 frames per eye to make any game work. You can controll the offset but each frame still needs to be rendered 2 times and the video card has its work cut out when it comes to the fill rate.

If you need proof of this, run any game using Nvidia 3D vision and have the FPS counter in the corner. The game running sub 60 FPS will chug but is still playable... at 30 frames it is completely unplayable. I tested this with Street Fighter 4 and anything under 45 frames per second is completely unplayable for a fighter. this is because 44 fps in 3D is actually 22 fps.



Icyedge on 07 April 2010
disolitude said:


No Nvidia doesn't use this tech. Nvidia 3d vision pushes 120 hz to the TV at all times and needs atleast 30 frames per eye to make any game work. You can controll the offset but each frame still needs to be rendered 2 times and the video card has its work cut out when it comes to the fill rate.

If you need proof of this, run any game using Nvidia 3D vision and have the FPS counter in the corner. The game running sub 60 FPS will chug but is still playable... at 30 frames it is completely unplayable. I tested this with Street Fighter 4 and anything under 45 frames per second is completely unplayable for a fighter. this is because 44 fps in 3D is actually 22 fps.

Thanks for the info, I was sure it was using this tech, may explain why the result are good through software then. I dont need proof from you on this subject ;).