3D televisions are new and pricy, to make things worse is the fact that they need glasses that are very expensive as well. The average cost of a 3D TV is around $1800, with glasses costing around $150. After tax we are seeing a minimum of $2,000. (USD). The adoption rate of HD was slow because of the economy but now HDTVs are now close to the same percentage of SDTVs in the general public.
The reason why I bring all this up is the fact that PS3 and the 360 (to a lesser) are starting to push 3D hard core and I feel that it is a waste of money for them because such a small percentage of people can take advantage of it. Is this another example of the gaming industry getting ahead of itself?
Will you spend $2,000(USD) on a 3D tv just for gaming RIGHT NOW? (not in a few years, has to be right now)
3D Console Gaming, useless feature for most people
And no, I wouldn't spend money on a 3D enabled television right now as I don't even have an HDTV, at the moment.It's never going to be mandatory. This technology isn't accessible to everyone as several have eye problems, preventing them from experiencing the 3D. If you don't like it, ignore the feature and just make as if it doesn't exist. It's not for you and that's fine, just leave it be. Leave those who actually want to play with 3D play it. To each his own. It's just like enabling or disabling rumble in video games: not everyone likes rumble so not everyone leaves it on. It's not mandatory.
I am asking "is it a waste of time for the console manufacturers, or developers right now?"
" Other threadsame here i feel urpainAnd no, I wouldn't spend money on a 3D enabled television right now as I don't even have an HDTV, at the moment. "It's never going to be mandatory. This technology isn't accessible to everyone as several have eye problems, preventing them from experiencing the 3D. If you don't like it, ignore the feature and just make as if it doesn't exist. It's not for you and that's fine, just leave it be. Leave those who actually want to play with 3D play it. To each his own. It's just like enabling or disabling rumble in video games: not everyone likes rumble so not everyone leaves it on. It's not mandatory.
We don't actually know how much time, resources or funds are necessary for the implementation of 3D in video games. We don't know if it really takes away from other aspects of the game (except for cases where, when 3D is enabled, the frames per second need to be doubled).
I could go on the net and find the exact same thing people said about HD TV and Blu Ray
But y'know what. I actually agree. 3D gaming is a waste of time now (developers wise).
What we're seeing now are the publisher that are trying to claim "FIRST!" on the 3D gaming "feature".
The devs are merely following orders, hopefully the core content does not suffer from it
Maybe on the next gen of consoles, where hopefully everybody already adopts 3D TVs. I.. still haven't adopt LED TV yet =(
" Maybe on the next gen of consoles, where hopefully everybody already adopts 3D TVs. I.. still haven't adopt LED TV yet =( "The percentage of HDTVs in American households is at around 53% now. That's only an 18% increase in 2 years (35% in 2008). The next generation of consoles would need to be pretty far off for the adoption rate of 3DTVs to be high enough for a big investment.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment