milkyjoe said:
aragod said:
milkyjoe said:
aragod said:
Khuutra said:
aragod said:
Khuutra said:
You'r misrepresenting the argument, here.
Sony is oversooting the market with 3D in the PS3. There's only a few tens of thousands of people who can utilize it. It's analogous to the HD problem with the HD twins, only a couplpe of orders of magnitude worse.
Nintendo is waiting until a 30% adoption rate for 3D-capable displays before making a 3D-centric system. Timing and care in the console space is what separates Nintendo from Sony.
|
You've misunderstood my post, my point was that pretty much every Nintendo fan here was calling Sony pushing 3D as a silly decision and poor gimmick (which it may be, for all I care), but suddenly when Nintendo announced 3DS and is seriously considering 3D for the next generations, not it's "THE THING".
In other words, we have a nice bunch of hypocrites here without their own oppinion. Next time someone will try to tell me that Wii Party isn't the most embarrasing thing ever announced.
|
Oh no, I got you the first time. You're wrong, though, because that position isn't hypocrisy. A position itself can't inherently be hypocritical, only reasoning can be.
I hold that Sony's push for 3D on the PS3 (and PS4, if they do that) is stupid, but it's a good move by Nintendo on the 3DS.
3D on a console is an example of continuing to overshoot the market orders of magnitude greater than HD graphics was at the start of this gen, because 3D penetration is orders of magnitude lower. How many people own a 3D-capable TV and a PS3? Fifty thousand? Less? Much less? What is the projected penetration for 3DTVs by the time the next hardware cycle launches in a couple of years? Sony is providing a value incentive that few if any will be able to take advantage of due to prohibitive costs not associated with the system itself. They're tying the success of their 3D push into the adoption rate of 3DTVs before the technology has had time to mature or take hold.
Nintendo's 3D is inherent to the system itself, and requires no investment outside of the system. They are not overshooting the market unless the system itself is prohibitively expensive. More, they are undercutting Sony's initiative by providing a 3D experience for cheaper without the need for extra hardware, in a way that makes the use of 3D glasses look clunky before anyone's even had the attempt to get used to the latter experience. Nintendo's move is smart because it is self-contained, relies only on its ability to push its own hardware and software, and aggressively undermines Sony's effort.
That is why Sony's approach is dumb and Nintendo's is not.
For the record, 3D tech is awesome in general. It is not $4,000 of awesome.
|
For all the fluff you throw around we are still on different note and you are still missing the only thing I was trying to point out.
So again in a few words and simple sentence, this way it just might get through:
Sony - 3D - gimmick. Nintendo - 3D - awesome.
I'm not talking about business strategy, proper time to deploy given technology to masses, the right way to do it. Or which company's approach is dumb and which is smart. But the general idea that 3D was a gimmick, till Nintendo said it's in their future.
But you are right, I've used hypocrisy in the wrong context, as the correct word there would be simply fanboy.
|
I've never seen anybody state such a simplified argument as 'Sony 3D = bad, Nintendo 3D = good (or vice versa)' whilst ignoring all other factors. For one, they are different types of 3D. The Nintendo 3D is done without the need for a TV costing thousands of dollars/pounds, or glasses that cost hundreds of dollars/pounds, never mind the console which itself is still pushing $300. In terms of overall cost, the Nintendo approach could be much less than 10% of the price of the Sony approach. Maybe even less than 5%, we don't know yet.
Do you not think it is fair to say that a cheap approach to 3D is a better way to do it than having a massive initial financial outlay? And does suggesting such a thing equate to saying Sony's 3D is 'bad'? It doesn't to me. It's just being realistic.
|
You took the wrong impression from my post, that debate started on a completly different post and had nothing to do with the types of 3D or what not. Also I'm not talking about 3DS, but the "TV" 3D that Nintendo want's to adapt in the future for their home console.
So again and hopefuly for the last time:
It was about the general reception of the idea and it's change amongst many after it was announced by their favourite company.
I don't know how else to put it, maybe I'm just having problem translating my idea into english.
|
Even then, that's just Nintendo being Nintendo. Do you think the Wii is not HD capable because Nintendo are against HD? Or is it because when the console was in the later stages of its development in 2004-06 HD take up was minimal, much like 3D now, and as such they took the choice not to go that route?
Are we to believe that if the next Nintendo console is HD, suddenly everybody who has ever shown support to the Wii, Nintendo included, is a hypocrite just because that's the natural progression to where technology is at the moment? It's no different than what is being suggested here, they are waiting for takeup to be at an appropriate point before jumping in head first. That just seems like good business sense to me.
It's also important to remember that somebody saying 3D as a whole is a 'gimmick' or a 'fad' is not an attack on Sony alone, as there are far more companies involved in pushing 3D at the moment in wider media than just video games, and I honestly think that is what is causing the problem here, as whilst I've never seen anybody say 'Sony 3D = bad' or the equivalent, I have seen plenty of people state reservations about 3D tech as a whole.
|
