Sony: Gamers Get Better Scores in 3D

[cookoy]

i thought if i score higher i'm getting better at playing.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]jcb82[/nom]I agree, it is a lazy gimmick because it just hasn't delivered the sort of immersion that customers thought they were getting. The way the promote 3D is like you're literally immersed in the space when that's not the case. Give me 3D that's close enough to virtual reality and then I'd be sold. Until then I'll be pretty happy using my imagination *draws a sparkly rainbow with a wave of my hand* (spongebob reference) to immerse myself in movies and games.8k4k TVs arn't going to sell even if they came down to cost. For resolution increases, Its like diminishing returns in terms of a TV's value proposition. Remember you're not going to get 8k4k sources of video for a long long time.[/citation]

Really? Have you played games with 3D vision with 120hz monitor? I bet you haven't. Until there are holodecks, there will never be immersion to the point you described, but 3D vision, when done well, makes it as if everything is in true 3D. It's more like a doll house, however. Everything is miniature and inside a box, but it's as if it's in true 3D.

 

[silver565]

"It doesn’t make them a better games player, but if you can see something more clearly and understand something more naturally, whether it’s speed distance or scale, you can respond better to that. So we’ve found that people do get better scores in 3D."

Contradiction much?

It doesn't make you better. But you get a better score

 

[hcforde]

I have found that those most critical of a technology do not own it, have not really used it or can't afford it. Newegg understands this and so they verify "ownership" by their 'reviewers'. I own it? It is NOT for everybody but it is also NOT a fad. In the past you have had a single company trying to promote 3D of some proprietary type. Not so much this time. All the major companies support it even if it is not a unified technology. Also the very best 2D TV is also 3D. The technology is still in its infancy stage, as was the automobile at one time. The SAME crap was being said about it also. I am old enopugh to remember B&W TV and the transition to color. IT WAS NOT PRETTY!!! Look what we have now, TV's bigger that 15" that are not fuzzy. 3D does have a future; we live in a 3D world.

However, gaming in 3D is not as easy as 2D, at least for me. Good news is that it makes older games that have been played a new challenge. That equates to "FREE GAMES" that look real good. So the higher cost argument people need to reconsider that point.(They can't /won't because they probably can't afford to buy 3D in the first place).

If you are getting into 3D then don't get a 27" monitor to start off. Go with a 1680*1050 unit first, and also consider Craigslist(used). What you may find is that you will have to wait a while because people that buy them don't part with them (so much for the fad aspect). It took me a couple of months to find a 22" monitor and glasses from 2 different people for $210.

 

[jamie_1318]

[citation][nom]tranzz[/nom]"Just using a screen too long does however, and most people just ignore that."Using a screen dosn't damage your eyes[/citation]

Ever heard of computer vision syndrome? It is only temporary but a huge number of people have it all the time. It impacts the ability to focus your eyes, and causes poor ability to adjust to bright sunlight.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]jamie_1318[/nom]Ever heard of computer vision syndrome? It is only temporary but a huge number of people have it all the time. It impacts the ability to focus your eyes, and causes poor ability to adjust to bright sunlight.[/citation]

I have a story from my experience you might find interesting. About 3-4 months ago I got a 3D monitor. When I first started to use it, my eyes would feel a little strained at times, almost always as result of a particular game I chose to play as my 1st run through, Lora Croft: Underworld. The straining was sometimes images would appear as though it was at your nose in depth. I eventually learned to adjust conversion and the problem stopped.

Now to the interesting part. After gaming with it for a month, and not playing normal games without the glasses, I went to play a game I was already playing in 3D, but in normal 2D (Gothic III). The interesting thing was, my eyes felt strained to play the game in 2D. My mind was used to playing the game in 3D, so it would try to refocus like I normally do with 3D and in the real world, but the game was in 2D, so it would have to refocus again.

This leads me to believe one of the reasons people may feel eye strain is that you are trained to use a 2D screen, and just need to readjust, which takes a little bit.

The only times I might feel eye strain now, is if I go to 2D, or if a game tries to display things at a depth too close to your face. I have also experienced it when experimenting with different Hz, but that's not a hardware issue.

 

[mikenygmail]

This is a ridiculous attempt by SONY to brainwash gamers into buying 3D.

 

[mikenygmail]

3D is currently nothing but a big scam.
3D movies cost 50% more, are mostly useless and strain your eyes.
3D gaming does NOT result in higher scores.

It's all a marketing gimmick, for now.

 

[jcb82]

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]Really? Have you played games with 3D vision with 120hz monitor? I bet you haven't. Until there are holodecks, there will never be immersion to the point you described, but 3D vision, when done well, makes it as if everything is in true 3D. It's more like a doll house, however. Everything is miniature and inside a box, but it's as if it's in true 3D.[/citation]

No I haven't, I've watched movies at the theatre in realD 3D and I've tried out 3D tv sets in electronics stores and I just haven't been blown away. I watched a clip of Rio on an LG 3d 120hz set in a store and saw very obvious vertical lines on the display.

Until the technology matures I don't think 3d currently provides enough value to consumers. I'd rather take the price premium of going 3d and spend it on a bigger 1080p HDTV set or just buy more HD content for my current setup. That's just me.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]jcb82[/nom]No I haven't, I've watched movies at the theatre in realD 3D and I've tried out 3D tv sets in electronics stores and I just haven't been blown away. I watched a clip of Rio on an LG 3d 120hz set in a store and saw very obvious vertical lines on the display. Until the technology matures I don't think 3d currently provides enough value to consumers. I'd rather take the price premium of going 3d and spend it on a bigger 1080p HDTV set or just buy more HD content for my current setup. That's just me.[/citation]

Not one of your examples was 3D gaming. I too was disappointed with 3D movies, but 3D gaming a whole lot better.

 

[sockso]

I hate 3D anything.

 

[rohitbaran]

[citation][nom]keyanf[/nom]Though, 2d keyboard+mouse will still beat 3d console gamers.[/citation]
Yep

 

[gmp23]

[citation][nom]Abdullahg[/nom]I'm sure many people would want a 3D setup. The thing us, prices are just beyond some, if not most, of our budgets. I believe someone mentioned before that people already own HDTVs, which is a good reason why we cannot be a 3D TV ATM. HDTVs aren't so expensive when compared to 3D TVs of the same size. What makes 3D TVs successful? Consumers. What makes consumers want to buy one? Affordability. Until prices lower and become more affordable, 3D TVs will remain amount a small percentage of consumers.[/citation]


I guess it depends on what you consider expensive. I bought my 40 inch samsung 1080p 3D tv fot 1200 bucks. Also, you don't have to get the specific manufacturers 3D glasses. I paid like 60 bucks for a pair that you can use with any 3D tv. I bought my tv used at best buy for 700 bucks less than what it costs brand new at the time. You just have to be a smart shopper, that's all.

 

[feeddagoat]

Yet bit-tech tested this months ago and nearly everyone tested done considerably worse in 3D. I guess its what you adjust to and how good the game is at simulating speed etc in each dimension. Without hard numbers Sony statement is as believable as "We haven't had data stolen". Hmmm yea I believe you /scarcasm

 

[cats_Paw]

What a crack of bullshit . Sorry, there is just nothing more to say .

 

[Gonemad]

The real good gamer can still play with one hand tied behind his back (almost), in a black'n'white blurred CRT monitor over 40 years old, for 8 straight hours, and still get great scores. Everything beyond that is just eye candy.
Think like driving a R/C car through a surveillance camera.

River Raid anyone?

Plus I use prescription googles, contact lenses aren't a 24/7 hour deal, and demand some care. Some 3D glasses fit over my glasses... and some don't. And I don't believe in no-glass 3D as a no-eye-strain solution Not from a laid-back couch.

The secret to derive 3D spatial perception from 2D images is in your brain, so the better your visual cortex is at it, the better gamer you ought to be. Excluding eye-to-hand coordination, and other aspects, of course.

I want real 3D, where I can walk around an object e.g, a car, see its headlights, walk around the display and see its tail lights.

 

[wooodoggies]

to even argue about this like its valid is complete idiocy

 

[of the way]

Anaglyph 3d for the ever so cheap win. Now if only I had a decent video card so I could play games at decent frame rates...

 

[jacobdrj]

I consider myself an early adopter on a lot of tech... But I just don't get how 3D continues to sell! It gives me, and everyone else I know, a huge headache. It adds little value to my viewing experience, except in a rare few instances where depth helps the experience (some large space scenes, for example).

This tech is WAY to immature, and needs a LOT of improvement... I would have thought features like this would have gone the way of the dodo...

 

[Guest]

The problem is that even PS3 is slow when it comes to online gaming in 3D. I notice a lot more lag when playing in 3D. My score is way higher in 2D than in 3D.