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

Forums - Sony - 3D on PS3 is very limited

mirgro on 25 April 2010
joeorc said:
please read this:


Sony Talks 3D Firmware, PlayStation Move
Company gets technical about 3D tech and their forthcoming motion controller.
by Chris Burke

April 22, 2010 - At the 3D Gaming Summit in Los Angeles, Sony Platform Research Manager David Coombes talked about the PS3's upcoming firmware update, how it will affect the console's performance, and what's new with the PlayStation Move.

He also addressed concerns that 3D images will cut the console's processing power in half, saying developers can actually find non-3D information that can be shared between left and right images. Shadows, for example, are generally flat. The PS3's GPU can share that data between left and right eye images, instead of having to render it twice.

Similarly, games that are already capable of running in split-screen will transition to 3D more easily, since they're already designed to display two simultaneous images. By finding ways to optimize 3D, developers won't necessarily have to sacrifice detail or framerates.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1085581p1.html

No one ever said it will be cut in half, but it will be cut. Seeing how the PS3 already slides by on 720p games that run under 60 FPS it is bad news for the PS3 nonetheless.



Around the Network
Squilliam on 25 April 2010
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!



Tease.

greenmedic88 on 25 April 2010
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.



raygun on 25 April 2010

This is from Gizmodo, they are always anti Sony, trying to stir up crap. And this has been posted before in more detail. The quick fix on old games will require lower rez (WipeoutHD), yet some old games were tweaked easily to be 3d AND 1080 AND 120hz (60hz per eye) like StardustHD3D, and it came out in 2007! New games will be designed with 3d in the graphics engine, and one estimate I read was 3% extra computing time if they do it in a spu. Your not doubling the computation time, most of the calculating is done, textures loaded, physics, your just drawing the screen again at a different horizontal viewpoint. Relax, the games will look great, 3d is not just doubling your viewing pleasure, it's cubing it, and movies and nature documentaries in full 1080 3d will be amazing.



Xero on 25 April 2010
valen200 said:
I hope that places like best buy start having demo areas. I was talking with some friends earlier this week about those "wow" moments I have had in gaming. Playing the Original super Mario brothers. Seeing games played in 16 bit for the fist time. Seeing games in 3d for the first time. First time playing in Hd and first time playing Wii sports. I sometimes miss those moments were I am completely mesmerized. As a kid they happened so easily. Now, I have seen graphics get better so I know they will continue to do so. Motion controls and alternate control scheme will also improve. My first crack at 3d gaming by be the last wow moment for a while, until things really change.

You were mesmerized by Wii sports. 

Wow. 



Around the Network
mirgro on 25 April 2010
raygun said:
This is from Gizmodo, they are always anti Sony, trying to stir up crap. And this has been posted before in more detail. The quick fix on old games will require lower rez (WipeoutHD), yet some old games were tweaked easily to be 3d AND 1080 AND 120hz (60hz per eye) like StardustHD3D, and it came out in 2007! New games will be designed with 3d in the graphics engine, and one estimate I read was 3% extra computing time if they do it in a spu. Your not doubling the computation time, most of the calculating is done, textures loaded, physics, your just drawing the screen again at a different horizontal viewpoint. Relax, the games will look great, 3d is not just doubling your viewing pleasure, it's cubing it, and movies and nature documentaries in full 1080 3d will be amazing.

Why do people keep assuming the output is halved? Maybe I missed something but no one has mentioned halved at all. I am also well aware of just how this technology works, and while youd don't have to re-calculate the AI, physics, etc. You still have to draw all the polygons and shaders and other such stuff. As I mentioned before, games on the PS3 are already sliding by at 720p with barely reaching 60 FPS, if at all. Now add the fact that you have to draw the screen twice as fast, and imagine what will happen. Your Killzone 2, GoW3, etc. will never be in 3D this generation unless they slash the fidelity.



zgamer5 on 25 April 2010

damn i'm gonna have to get a sony 3d. well it looks like this 3d update will take the place of the ps4. basically instead of making another console for next generation sony are just going to upgrade the ps3 and give it 3d capabilities.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

Hephaestos on 25 April 2010
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.

Err PC 3D is very viable... you can even play old games in 3D without the need of a patch or anything. Some games have effects that don't work well in 3D but in most recent games you can turn just about any effect off in the options.

 

About the pricing....

In jan I built a new PC (SLI 260 OCed) with 3D vision and a new screen.... 1800€

screens are 250€ and i've seen ACER HD DLPs that are 3D ready for 600€ ... so less expensive than you think...



OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

ithis on 25 April 2010

I don't get the title of the thread. Why is it very limited??? You mean people will have to code for 3D? The title is hostile, without reason. GL with the unlimited 3d you will get from your xbox...



jneul on 25 April 2010

don't worry guys the PS3 has plenty of juice left in the box lol, I am sure if they can build a game from the ground up from the ground they will surprise us all just how much is actually possible on PS3, also the title is very hostile please remember x360 cannot do 3D which is why MS is making excuses that 3D is not needed



it's the future of handheld

PS VITA = LIFE

The official Vita thread http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=130023&page=1