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

Forums - Gaming - Bad news for Sony, good News for Nintendo

irstupid on 06 July 2010
patapon said:
Rath said:
patapon said:

So 43% of the Japanese population say the price of 3D TVs is just right, 30% say they have no problem with wearing glasses, 60% feel that 3D presently has enough content to justify interest, and 31.2% are heavily interested/intend to purchase a 3D TV from the get go?

That's actually very good news for advocates of 3D considering prices will go down quickly and 3D content will increase.  



Actually you can't just reverse the results of a survey like that. It just doesn't work.

These people were asked questions like: "Do you think glasses will hinder 3D for you?" Their answers must have boiled down to one of two things... yes or no. If this is the case (which I guarantee it is) the data can be flipped.

It's just that the info was presented in a negative fashion to support the viewpoint of the author. because of this, the data comes off as glass half empty. I'm one of the people who looked at it from the half glass full prospective and was surprised at the, IMO, high current interest.

Plus,

Assuming this survey mirrors reality, 1/3 of the entire Japanese population will adopt 3D. I find that quite significant...

no does not mean that.  I take it those 57% that said too expensive are part of the group that WON'T or AREN'T interested in 3D glasses tv.  And that is the reason they chose why not interested.  out of teh 70%, 57% of them said too expensive, say 40% said hate glasses, and last 3% other.  Something like that.

You can never just flip results unless you show me the survey exactly.

personally if I was asked I would say no to 3DTV and reasons I would have 3 main reasons.  What if survey says pick MAIN reason.  I can only pick one, thus statistics put me under just one catagory even though i feel like they are too expensive I would have put wearing glasses as main main one.  So according to you I think the price is JUST RIGHT or affordable when that isnt' the case at all, its actually completely opposite.



Around the Network
ninty_shareholder64 on 06 July 2010

3DS movies or sport channels will have different resolution than the 3DTVs, so it's technically different.

And i think SD-3DTVs would have lower res, too.

But i do know that glasses-free 3D- and glasses-required 3D-stuff could be compatible.



joeorc on 06 July 2010
ninty_shareholder64 said:

It will take time.

But why should glasses-free 3DTVs not be  SD (or 480*240*2(or *4 for 2 optimal positions))?

I can imagine to buy a glasses-free SD-3DTV instead of glasses-HD-3DTV.

And the price will decrease faster for glasses-free 3DTV if  the consumer is more interested in that tech.

After all, the mass will decide which 3D tech will survive. And the 3D movies and sport channels will be available for that platform or tech.

3D Active Shutter:

One wonders why so many companies have gotten on board with such a thing. Well, it offers much more opportunity for making money, for one thing, and they don’t have to modify their screens in any way other than increasing the refresh rate, for another —saving them precious R&D money. My personal opinion is this technology will remain on top until someone’s skunk works research team produces a viable alternative in the form of circular-polarized TV display filters that don’t affect the image too much.






I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

ninty_shareholder64 on 06 July 2010

Yep!



Solid_Snake4RD on 06 July 2010
ninty_shareholder64 said:

3DS movies or sport channels will have different resolution than the 3DTVs, so it's technically different.

And i think SD-3DTVs would have lower res, too.

But i do know that glasses-free 3D- and glasses-required 3D-stuff could be compatible.

it does not matter what the content is but the display should be able to display it.

now if you play a 3DS game upscaled on a big screen or a PS3 3D game,it depends on the display what its effect will be.

SD-3DTV's shouldn't be,we shouldn't be going back



Around the Network
andremop on 06 July 2010
Nomad Blue said:
Saintdante said:

I personally hate glasses myself for the sole fact that I wear glasses so I have the put the 3d glasses over my glasses.


This has been mentioned by so many people, that i'm wondering if I only imagined the invention of contact lenses....


I like to use my glasses and I paid more than a launch price PS3 for them... so no.



greenmedic88 on 06 July 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
greenmedic88 said:

I think naming the device the "3DS" is a bit of a hint as to what the console is about. I seriously doubt there will be the slightest bit of confusion in that department, even among those who aren't familiar with the product.

However, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of consumer confusion over the difference between shopping for a 3D capable big screen HDTV and a little handheld console that plays 3D games on a 3.5" screen. Apples and oranges.

Anyone who actually uses a 3DS and sees how the 3D effect is limited to a narrow viewing angle, won't have to be terribly savvy to realize that a large version of the display used by the 3DS simply wouldn't be viewable in 3D by anyone without a near perpendicular viewing angle.


Alhtough buying a 3DS for everyone in a typical family would still be less than a 3DHDTV and glasses for everyone in that family, even when the prices go down.

Just to clarify: families would be more willing to buy 4 handheld players so they can all watch 4 separate copies of a movie in 3D together in the living room on three inch screens because that's the cheaper way to watch a 3D movie?

I'm not sure this even warrants a rebuttal.



LordTheNightKnight on 06 July 2010
greenmedic88 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
greenmedic88 said:

I think naming the device the "3DS" is a bit of a hint as to what the console is about. I seriously doubt there will be the slightest bit of confusion in that department, even among those who aren't familiar with the product.

However, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of consumer confusion over the difference between shopping for a 3D capable big screen HDTV and a little handheld console that plays 3D games on a 3.5" screen. Apples and oranges.

Anyone who actually uses a 3DS and sees how the 3D effect is limited to a narrow viewing angle, won't have to be terribly savvy to realize that a large version of the display used by the 3DS simply wouldn't be viewable in 3D by anyone without a near perpendicular viewing angle.


Alhtough buying a 3DS for everyone in a typical family would still be less than a 3DHDTV and glasses for everyone in that family, even when the prices go down.

Just to clarify: families would be more willing to buy 4 handheld players so they can all watch 4 separate copies of a movie in 3D together in the living room on three inch screens because that's the cheaper way to watch a 3D movie?

I'm not sure this even warrants a rebuttal.


That scenerio is so ridculous and improbable it smacks of a strawman. The actual scenario is that the family members can do whatever they want. So if Billy wants to play a game, and Sally wants to play a movie, they can do it on their own systems. And if dad wants to watch another movie, and is not in the mood for 3D, he can get it his way as well.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Solid_Snake4RD on 07 July 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
greenmedic88 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
greenmedic88 said:

I think naming the device the "3DS" is a bit of a hint as to what the console is about. I seriously doubt there will be the slightest bit of confusion in that department, even among those who aren't familiar with the product.

However, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of consumer confusion over the difference between shopping for a 3D capable big screen HDTV and a little handheld console that plays 3D games on a 3.5" screen. Apples and oranges.

Anyone who actually uses a 3DS and sees how the 3D effect is limited to a narrow viewing angle, won't have to be terribly savvy to realize that a large version of the display used by the 3DS simply wouldn't be viewable in 3D by anyone without a near perpendicular viewing angle.


Alhtough buying a 3DS for everyone in a typical family would still be less than a 3DHDTV and glasses for everyone in that family, even when the prices go down.

Just to clarify: families would be more willing to buy 4 handheld players so they can all watch 4 separate copies of a movie in 3D together in the living room on three inch screens because that's the cheaper way to watch a 3D movie?

I'm not sure this even warrants a rebuttal.


That scenerio is so ridculous and improbable it smacks of a strawman. The actual scenario is that the family members can do whatever they want. So if Billy wants to play a game, and Sally wants to play a movie, they can do it on their own systems. And if dad wants to watch another movie, and is not in the mood for 3D, he can get it his way as well.

you are talking as everybody wants to watch movies on a small screen.why the hell are you even comparing it in that department?



LordTheNightKnight on 07 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
greenmedic88 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
greenmedic88 said:

I think naming the device the "3DS" is a bit of a hint as to what the console is about. I seriously doubt there will be the slightest bit of confusion in that department, even among those who aren't familiar with the product.

However, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of consumer confusion over the difference between shopping for a 3D capable big screen HDTV and a little handheld console that plays 3D games on a 3.5" screen. Apples and oranges.

Anyone who actually uses a 3DS and sees how the 3D effect is limited to a narrow viewing angle, won't have to be terribly savvy to realize that a large version of the display used by the 3DS simply wouldn't be viewable in 3D by anyone without a near perpendicular viewing angle.


Alhtough buying a 3DS for everyone in a typical family would still be less than a 3DHDTV and glasses for everyone in that family, even when the prices go down.

Just to clarify: families would be more willing to buy 4 handheld players so they can all watch 4 separate copies of a movie in 3D together in the living room on three inch screens because that's the cheaper way to watch a 3D movie?

I'm not sure this even warrants a rebuttal.


That scenerio is so ridculous and improbable it smacks of a strawman. The actual scenario is that the family members can do whatever they want. So if Billy wants to play a game, and Sally wants to play a movie, they can do it on their own systems. And if dad wants to watch another movie, and is not in the mood for 3D, he can get it his way as well.

you are talking as everybody wants to watch movies on a small screen.why the hell are you even comparing it in that department?


No, I mean more people like to spend less money for a good thing than lots more money for a supposedly better thing. So even though a bigger TV is better, the much higher cost is a huge obstacle. And since Nintendo is presenting 3D at a lower cost, even future price drops will be undermined by Nintendo giving screens at a reasonable price now.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs