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

Forums - Sony - Sony is “pleased” that Nintendo is releasing 3DS!!!

kaneada on 18 June 2010
jarrod said:
steverhcp02 said:
jarrod said:
steverhcp02 said:

@Jarrod

I dont see how Avatar made 3d a standard everyday. People can go to the cinema and fork over an extra 3 bucks thats easy, its convincing them its worthy of being used in their homes. Terrible analogy.

Im argueing against it because you seem to believe that if someone experiences 3d on a mobile device with a 3.5 inch screen they will all of sudden expect the same experience on a 55 inch screen in their home or on a 50 foot cinema screen.

3DS will not set any consumer standard because its a 3DS, its a 3.5 inch screen that people use to play videogames. I also said Sony isnt "pleased" because all of a sudden people will go buy all their 3D stuff for home theaters, the fact a company like Nintendo is embracing 3D is good overall for the market in the long term

I'm argueing against it because i firmly believe people are not as idiotic as youre implying, assuming they will expect a similar 3D experience on their 3DS as in their living rooms given the very different variables. 

Avatar was the proof on concept for 3D entertainment.  I'm not saying it set any standard, I'm saying it cemented the concept of 3D entertainment.  It's the springboard everyone's working from.

What Sony needs to do is prove their own standard out.  3DS actually works directly against that, 3DS literally is "the standard" Nintendo's pushing.  If consumers adopt that standard foremost, and align with Nintendo's position that "glassesless" should be the standard for 3D, it works directly against Sony's format.

And I'm not implying consumers are "idiotic", I'm saying if Nintendo sets the standard (glassesless) consumers will expect more in their living rooms than what Sony's pushing.  If the technology isn't there, then they'll simply wait until it is.  

I guess i should clarify, what i mean is, the glassless 3D being affordable enough to mass produce or sell is too far off. By me saying people arent idiotic, i mean people will not expect glassless 3d in their homes right now. Thsi in no way hurts Sony or other manufacturers. Just like when AVatar took off and 3D in cinemas was going strong for a while it didnt make people stop buying 2D television to wait for 3D, just like i believe the 3DS will not stop people from buying 3D TV's because they need glasses.

Long term glassless 3D will be essential, what im saying is, opening the door on this market over the next 3-4 years is essential and the 3DS does NOT harm Sony from doing that in the living room, it helps them.

Consumers will not associate what they see with the 3DS and extrapolate that to what they expect from a live action movie on a big screen. They wont view them as identicle, but they will view them as 3D which is whats so important and th epoint i was trying to make. Seeing the Ocarina of Time in 3D on a 3.5 inch screen will not increase expectations for watching Toy Story 3 in 3D on  a 55 inch screen. I feel consumers will understand the difference in image quality as well as screen size and thus not expect such a thing in their homes right now.

The avatar/television comparison really doesn't work though, as Avatar wasn't a consumer level product.  There's always been that fundamental divide between public and private consumer entertainment.  Avatar wasn't competitive with television, Nintendo and Sony's 3D formats however are starting to take a competitive approach (particularly from Nintendo's end, that's exactly how they're positioning 3DS).

If Nintendo defines the standard, their goal is define it as "glassesless" and to define glasses-baed-3D as goofy, expensive and archaic.  That doesn't support Sony, that impedes them, pretty directly.  Even worse for Sony (and everyone pushing 3DTV, and Apple as well actually), in addition to gaming Nintendo's aggressively pursuing film content seemingly, and they already have the ear of Disney, Dreamworks and WB (and likely other content providers).   Nintendo's made it pretty clear what direction they're heading, and it rather obviously does not support Sony's 3D standard...

Sony's 3D standards are not limited to stereoscopic technology, it can also be used with autoSS3D as well. Idon't know how much you know about the tech that Nintendo is using, but the only difference is the use of a paralax barrier included on the screen, rather than in glasses.

Nintendo's choice in technology really doesn't matter in this debate as Sony is more interested in pushing PS3s and their gaming standards, which yes will inevitable lead to people buying TV's, but ultimately is meant to sell PS3s. However, though they have pioneered the advertising, they would much rather let Nintendo assume the risk of selling the first mass market device then come in later with living room technology when it is cheaper. Sony has no intentions of running a short term campaign on this.



-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.

Around the Network
jarrod on 18 June 2010
Alic0004 said:

But Jarrod, you're side stepping (or not noticing) the fact that people are more and more going to theaters and putting on the glasses.  Avatar was watched through glasses.  People are getting more used to glasses every day.  A remarkable little handheld device with a magical picture doesn't necessarily completely erase that trend.  I think you're basically articulating what Nintendo would like to happen.  And it very well could, I'm not arguing with the possibility of what you're suggesting.  But, if 3DTVs and 3D glasses fail to catch on, I would bet it will have more to do with the ridiculous price of the glasses rather than a game handheld making people not want to bring the experience they're getting at the theater home to their family.

Oh sure, that's where 3D entertainment is now.  I totally agree, and at the moment consumers have no problem putting on glasses to go watch a movie or some other such event.  But that's not where Nintendo wants to take 3D at home, and their entry into the market for 3D entertainment doesn't support the direction the television manufacturers want to take it.  That's all I'm saying, Nintendo's entry doesn't potentially help Sony, it potentially hinders them really.



kain_kusanagi on 18 June 2010

The 3DS is going to make people never want to wear 3D glasses again. This isn't good for Sony and their expensive 3D TVs. Sony was hoping to capitalize on the 3D fad, but I doubt 3D is going to take over like HD is still trying to finish.



jarrod on 18 June 2010
Alic0004 said:

*edit*

Ok, I see that you're depending on the distinction between "public" (home) and "private" (theater) products.  The problem for me is that you haven't really made an argument for that outside of the categorical statement, "There's always been that fundamental divide between public and private consumer entertainment."

How fundamental do you feel this divide is?  Is it so significant that it makes the handheld experience and the TV experience look like the same thing?  Will the 3DS make it so that families all sit around in their living rooms, everyone staring into their own handheld, rather than all watching something together on the TV?


Ack!  I missed the edit! ;_;

I say the divide seems pretty self-evident historically, though I'd also say there's definitely some crossover.  Television and feature film co-existing for decades in largely separate markets sort of emphasizes that... fundamentally the experience there is different.

I guess one could make a similar argument for "living room" versus "handheld", but there's also not near the period of sustained co-existance as compared to public vs private, and there's indications that handhelds may in fact cannibalizing more "central" home entertainment as well.  That's actually already happened to some degree in some sectors and industries (laptops versus desktops, the music industry, Japanese games market, etc).  I think something like the iPad is a baby step, but sort of charts where we may be headed in the future (individual screens at home, shared screens in public).



kaneada on 18 June 2010
jarrod said:
kaneada said:

I have to wonder, who is manufacturing those auto stereoscopic screens for Nintendo?

Sharp.  And considering the volumes Nintendo buys in, plus their history with the company, they're likely getting a killer deal.


Makes sense. I read that Sharp is the current owner of the parlax screens that are being used to create autoSS3D.



-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.

Around the Network
MARCUSDJACKSON on 18 June 2010
LoveGenie said:

I agree, it's good to have other companies like Nintendo pushing 3D even if it is competing with their PSP. This helps Sony out in the Console department!



agreed



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

kaneada on 18 June 2010
jarrod said:
Alic0004 said:

*edit*

Ok, I see that you're depending on the distinction between "public" (home) and "private" (theater) products.  The problem for me is that you haven't really made an argument for that outside of the categorical statement, "There's always been that fundamental divide between public and private consumer entertainment."

How fundamental do you feel this divide is?  Is it so significant that it makes the handheld experience and the TV experience look like the same thing?  Will the 3DS make it so that families all sit around in their living rooms, everyone staring into their own handheld, rather than all watching something together on the TV?


Ack!  I missed the edit! ;_;

I say the divide seems pretty self-evident historically, though I'd also say there's definitely some crossover.  Television and feature film co-existing for decades in largely separate markets sort of emphasizes that... fundamentally the experience there is different.

I guess one could make a similar argument for "living room" versus "handheld", but there's also not near the period of sustained co-existance as compared to public vs private, and there's indications that handhelds may in fact cannibalizing more "central" home entertainment as well.  That's actually already happened to some degree in some sectors and industries (laptops versus desktops, the music industry, Japanese games market, etc).  I think something like the iPad is a baby step, but sort of charts where we may be headed in the future (individual screens at home, shared screens in public).

This is very plausible as well, but I think there will still be a huge market for shared screens in private living rooms, espcially in America. I can't really think of anyone that I know that doesn't have multiple game systems hooked up to a 42" screen or better. I think that starting with handheld AutoSS3D is a smart move due to the low risk and cheaper costs that goes with handhelds though.



-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.

Alic0004 on 18 June 2010

Yeah, I agree -- it's Nintendo's job to try to make 3D with glasses feel obsolete, so they're not helping their competition, while it's Sony's job (and all the other companies who have a stake in 3DTVs, movies, and console games, as you said) to show that the experiences are fundamentally different.  This is a battle which will be fought (and it seems to be starting right now).  But I suspect Nintendo will be better at leading with what they do, rather than what they say. 

 

 

One of the most interesting things to me in Nintendo's conference was hearing Miyamoto (or was it Iwata?) saying that 3D really changes the gameplay experience in a three dimensional world.  When Nintendo starts talking like that, I'm on board immediately, in fact I get a little choked up, because I believe what they're saying isn't just marketing speak.  But the problem is, their arguments for the beauty of 3D gaming actually help the competition, and they have to try to counteract that at every turn with the glasses caveat.  They're kind of having to fight against their own brilliance in what they're doing, which is one of the reasons I suspect the argument won't be enirely sucessful.

Then again, I'm saying this as someone who intends to own 2 3DS pretty early on (my girlfriend wants one) and probably will never get into 3DTV tech, but that's really because of the prices involved -- I don't intend to buy a new TV for many years (hopefully) and paying more than ten dollars for the glasses is a hard sell to me.



 

Alic0004 on 18 June 2010
jarrod said:
Alic0004 said:

*edit*

Ok, I see that you're depending on the distinction between "public" (home) and "private" (theater) products.  The problem for me is that you haven't really made an argument for that outside of the categorical statement, "There's always been that fundamental divide between public and private consumer entertainment."

How fundamental do you feel this divide is?  Is it so significant that it makes the handheld experience and the TV experience look like the same thing?  Will the 3DS make it so that families all sit around in their living rooms, everyone staring into their own handheld, rather than all watching something together on the TV?


Ack!  I missed the edit! ;_;

I say the divide seems pretty self-evident historically, though I'd also say there's definitely some crossover.  Television and feature film co-existing for decades in largely separate markets sort of emphasizes that... fundamentally the experience there is different.

I guess one could make a similar argument for "living room" versus "handheld", but there's also not near the period of sustained co-existance as compared to public vs private, and there's indications that handhelds may in fact cannibalizing more "central" home entertainment as well.  That's actually already happened to some degree in some sectors and industries (laptops versus desktops, the music industry, Japanese games market, etc).  I think something like the iPad is a baby step, but sort of charts where we may be headed in the future (individual screens at home, shared screens in public).


Yeah sorry, stealthy edit :)  I'm just a bit slow, really.

 

I agree with you.  My only criticism is that you might be thinking more like Sony (market trends) rather than Nintendo (how unique and amazing is the actual experience, which sets the trends).

 

I mean, if someone invited me over to play Killzone 3 in 3D on their 60 inch TV, let's just say I would be extremely punctual.  And I don't even particularly like Killzone 

I don't think having a 3DS would change that for me, either.  But I could be wrong.  We'll see.  A lot of it comes down to the actual quality of the experiences, and whether you want to have them more than once.

The difference right now is that I'm not going to pay thousands of dollars for Killzone or GT, whereas I will definitely pay whatever Nintendo's reasonable asking price for their handheld is.  I mean, it's a whole next gen handheld on top the 3D stuff.  I almost feel like I should pay them extra



 

Robbie2010 on 18 June 2010

Any move that helps push 3D into the mainstream is good news for Sony.

 

They might not release a mainly portable gaming device and may instead focus on an Android type smart phone where you can D/L and play PSP2 quality games.