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

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft dismisses 3D as "future" technology

calvinandhobbes on 16 June 2010

Everyone is pushing 3D way too soon. Jeez I just got an HDtv, i don't want to have to upgrade again. 

For most consumers, 3D is not realistic for their present situation, so yes it would appear to be a future technology. 



  Kinect! who needs video games!

Around the Network
Nightwish224 on 16 June 2010

The market for LCD/Plasma has finally went down to "reasonable" pricing. Now we have to move to the 3D market? No. Not unless it's reasonable... which we know it won't be! :)



Everyone needs to play Lost Odyssey! Any opposition to this and I will have to just say, "If it's a fight you want, you got it!"

calvinandhobbes on 16 June 2010

oh, also, will is still doing fine in standard def, so i think that 3D is a ways off for both micro and nint. (home consoles that is)



  Kinect! who needs video games!

irstupid on 16 June 2010

read above me for proof of people saying "i just upgraded"

I think peopel are sick of every year thinking I need to buy a new what.

And movies and games mean jack shit, 3D won't push off and become big until TV shows, news, and sports or everyday stuff on TV starts to broadcast in 3D as well.



calvinandhobbes on 16 June 2010
irstupid said:
<table style="width: 90%;" border="0"><tr><td><strong>CrazyHorse said:</strong><br /><p>I don't think anyone, including Sony, expects 3D to take off in living rooms over the next year or 2 due to the costs involved but I wouldn't rule it out quite so early. 3D content is being pushed by everyone in the industry from electronic manufacturers to tv companies (Sky 3D is launching in autumn) and movie studios. It is already talked about in the media far more than HD was and is currently very popular at the cinema. The difference between non 3D and 3D obviously speaks for itself and so it adoption rates may well be far quicker than SD to HD.</p> <p>As for people not wanting to upgrade due to just having bought a HD tv, this is nothing new. Many have had a HD tv for years and maybe ready to upgrade very quickly. As for everyone else, technological uprgrades are nothing new, people adapt and upgrade all the time. As for the idea of wearing glasses being very off putting, the huge revenues of recent cinema releases would disagree. I'm not saying it's ideal or that some people will refuse to wear them but I certainly don't think it's the deal breaker many claim.</p> <p>Clearly the biggest issue is cost. It won't stay that way forever. Why not let early adapters pay over the top before inevitably lowering the prices to more mass market levels. Sure it will take a few years but Sony is trying to position themselves as the leading brand in 3D by getting their products associated with the 3D living room experience as soon as possible. It's all part of the bigger picture for Sony. When the next gen consoles launch with 3D as default (of course there is a chance they won't but I would be suprised if it wasn't the case), Sony will by then have a cheap entry level console that is 3D ready for those who don't want to spend a fortune on a new console thus prolonging its life greatly.</p> <p>Will it pay off? Maybe not but I think people are writing off Sony's gamble far too early and not looking at the wider implications for its products.</p></td></tr></table><br /><br />


nice wall of text



  Kinect! who needs video games!

Around the Network
irstupid on 16 June 2010

the quote thing messed up somehow, so i just removed quote and posted what i wanted



CrazyHorse on 16 June 2010
calvinandhobbes said:
irstupid said:
<table style="width: 90%;" border="0"><tr><td><strong>CrazyHorse said:</strong><br /><p>I don't think anyone, including Sony, expects 3D to take off in living rooms over the next year or 2 due to the costs involved but I wouldn't rule it out quite so early. 3D content is being pushed by everyone in the industry from electronic manufacturers to tv companies (Sky 3D is launching in autumn) and movie studios. It is already talked about in the media far more than HD was and is currently very popular at the cinema. The difference between non 3D and 3D obviously speaks for itself and so it adoption rates may well be far quicker than SD to HD.</p> <p>As for people not wanting to upgrade due to just having bought a HD tv, this is nothing new. Many have had a HD tv for years and maybe ready to upgrade very quickly. As for everyone else, technological uprgrades are nothing new, people adapt and upgrade all the time. As for the idea of wearing glasses being very off putting, the huge revenues of recent cinema releases would disagree. I'm not saying it's ideal or that some people will refuse to wear them but I certainly don't think it's the deal breaker many claim.</p> <p>Clearly the biggest issue is cost. It won't stay that way forever. Why not let early adapters pay over the top before inevitably lowering the prices to more mass market levels. Sure it will take a few years but Sony is trying to position themselves as the leading brand in 3D by getting their products associated with the 3D living room experience as soon as possible. It's all part of the bigger picture for Sony. When the next gen consoles launch with 3D as default (of course there is a chance they won't but I would be suprised if it wasn't the case), Sony will by then have a cheap entry level console that is 3D ready for those who don't want to spend a fortune on a new console thus prolonging its life greatly.</p> <p>Will it pay off? Maybe not but I think people are writing off Sony's gamble far too early and not looking at the wider implications for its products.</p></td></tr></table><br /><br />


nice wall of text


Apologies for trying to debate the issue in an intelligent manner with points backing up my opinions. I shall in future stick to Sony/Microsoft sucks/is right.



tuscaniman on 16 June 2010
leo-j said:
badgenome said:
chocoloco said:

It doesn't matter that 3D might be to expensive for the average person because Sony also has move now.

Move may also be too expensive for the average person when they consider the fact that you can almost get a Wii for the same price.


I think $399 for a 250gb PS3 with move/Pseye /a game isn't that bad.. considering they were selling the 250gb for $349 alone

Except you need the second controller "nunchuck" or whatever its called which bumps the price to $429. Nobody is going to hold the dualshock in one hand so don't say that's an option.



Rainbird on 16 June 2010
tuscaniman said:
leo-j said:
badgenome said:
chocoloco said:

It doesn't matter that 3D might be to expensive for the average person because Sony also has move now.

Move may also be too expensive for the average person when they consider the fact that you can almost get a Wii for the same price.


I think $399 for a 250gb PS3 with move/Pseye /a game isn't that bad.. considering they were selling the 250gb for $349 alone

Except you need the second controller "nunchuck" or whatever its called which bumps the price to $429. Nobody is going to hold the dualshock in one hand so don't say that's an option.

Lol. "You can do this, but nobody is gonna do it, so it's not possible. Pay up!"



Pyro as Bill on 16 June 2010
kowenicki said:

Why are people quoting the 3DS???  lol

this is about home console gaming.

Reggie said it in the ninty presentation - he said it was too "expensive..... costing $'000s"

and now MS are saying it.

They are right.

Console 3d gaimg is too expensive right now...

 

The 3ds is one hell of a mighty kick in the teeth for Sony.

 

This.

Reggie agrees with Microsoft. I could actually see MS putting some 3D content on 3DS just to rub a little salt in Sony's wound.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!