The Nuts and Bolts of PlayStation 3D 154
The Digital Foundry blog took an in-depth look at how Sony is introducing 3D technology to PlayStation 3 games. They give a step-by-step description of how the system generates a 3D frame (or rather, a pair of frames), and the graphical hurdles that need be to overcome to ensure the games look good. The article also discusses some of the subtle effects 3D technology can have on gameplay:
"'One interesting thing came through in the immersion aspect was that in the first-person camera view, it felt so much more like being there. Typically when most people play MotorStorm, something like 90 per cent play in the third-person view,' Benson explains. 'As soon as we put the 3D settings in place, the first-person view became a lot more popular, a lot more people were using that view. This could indicate that 3D could perhaps change the standards, if you like.' ... 'We found that in the first-person view the game is giving you all the sorts of cues that you're used to in normal driving: speed perception, the ability to judge distances, things like that. It's far easier to avoid track objects.' The insertion of true stereoscopic 3D into MotorStorm also brings about a new sense of appreciation of the scale and size of the game world and the objects within it."
Goofy glasses (Score:1)
3D will never really take off until they can figure out a way to implement it comfortably without requiring the ridiculous glasses.
This fad will pass soon, hopefully, and we'll stop thinking about how cool the technology is and be back to thinking about making playable games.
Re:Goofy glasses (Score:4, Interesting)
3D will never really take off until they can figure out a way to implement it comfortably without requiring the ridiculous glasses.
I dunno, I think we're seeing a new market emerging for designer 3D glasses for this specific purpose..
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For me, the eyestrain issues are more due to movies (3D or 2D) having scenes where some parts of the scene is blurry, and my eyes trying to focus on something that can never be in focus. I had that unpleasant experience when I watched Avatar in both 3D and 2D recently. It's fine as long as I looked at the nonblurry bits of the scene.
I doubt I'll have problems as long as everything is in focus - "far" or "near". No blurring especially artificial blurrin
Re: (Score:2)
Although you are correct when it comes to physical (and in some aspects, psychological) aspects of glasses, I'd like to point out that GP suggested designer glasses to deal with a -very real issue- in adoption of 3D that requires glasses... "goofy glasses", "ridiculous glasses", "Can you imagine sitting in your living room with friends all wearing those stupid glasses?", etc.
There will always be people who have issues with things like st
Re: (Score:2)
What does psychology have to do with 3D glasses? Unless you are talking about people being afraid of glasses (ocuphobia?), you probably meant to say neurological.
Neurological means a physical or chemical problem with the brain (among other things). You can have a neurological problem which causes psychological issues, but they are different things. Something which causes seizures is most certainly neurological.
To use a crappy computer analogy, think of psychological as a problem with the software, and n
Re:Goofy glasses (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, people like you said the same thing about the theatres as well.
Turns out that all you need to do is convince people it's good enough. Avatar was the 'killer app' for theatre 3d for many, many people. (I was hooked long ago.)
And now that there are TVs that support it natively, home adoption will spread as well. The cheapest Samsung 3D LCD TV is $1800 MSRP and it's 46". I bought a Samsung 46" 2 years ago for $2500. (MRSP was $2800, I believe.) So anyone who could afford a 46" TV 2 years ago can now afford a 46" 3D TV and a few pairs of glasses.
And the 'killer app' for home 3D TV seems not to even be movies or games. Everyone I've talked to about it says something like 'I don't care much about the movies, but have you seen football in 3D? It's just like being there! I don't want to buy stadium tickets anymore, I'll just watch from my house!' I'm not a sports fan, but the video I saw of volleyball in 3D made it pretty clear how cool sports look in 3D.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gerardo made a song had one really catchy lyric. Even today, just saying the word "Rico" will get people to at least think "Suave", even if they don't know *any* of the other song lyrics.
Avatar is the Rico Suave of 3D technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think it's a little early to be saying that? You might end up being 100% correct, and Avatar could be the only movie in the history of 3D movies to do it 'right'. But it could also be like claiming the generation 1 Prius in 1997 was the one-hit wonder of hybrid vehicles. Ten years later, that's definitely not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Even today, just saying the word "Rico" will get people to at least think "Suave
Not me. I think... "[Ric]ooolllaa..." Damn you, our advertising corporate overlords. Damn you.
Re: (Score:2)
See, that's part of the problem. I wouldn't mind buying into a plasma at today's prices - but I think for your typical household, anything at or above the $1000 mark is a little tough right now.
Of course, I'm always on the look out for a good deal - I'm almost thinking that saving $500 and going with a 720p over a 1080p plasma model would be a better financial decision (1300 - Panasonic 50" g25 vs a u2 or c2 model) as I probably won't see the difference at 12' away.
Back on point, for true adoption you're s
Re: (Score:2)
volleyball in 3D
Sold!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Still a gimmick, even if it generated some publicity lately. Where is the stream of big, good releases? Oh, could it be that we just had another "must see" 3D movie, just like it happens once every few years?
To see better what it is...where's the huge uptake of 3D photographs? I mean, "3D photography" (stereography) is here only slightly shorter than "normal" one - over 150 years. Surely it would be more by now than gimmick of novelty, gimmick for trade shows, gimmick for world expo, or Yugoslav-made toy th
Chicken, meet egg (Score:2)
We had many chickens and many eggs already here (Score:2)
People don't have much means to see 3D photos "correctly" because they just don't care much beyond short amusement value, a gimmick. Take this 3D Yugoslav toy that I mentioned; I can't quickly find it via google, but it was essentially a cardboard disk with dozen or so pairs of small cliches (photos of various landmarks), which you put into small handheld viewer. From the 70's.
It worked really good, the effect was very convincing (of course minus usual inability to focus naturally and natural paralax...). N
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was very close. A copy essentially (Yugoslav-made, I'm sure of that)
Re: (Score:2)
Might have been a View-Master like device?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View-Master [wikipedia.org]
You can't really compare it to a 3D display, though. Only one viewer at a time, and it's a device you have to store away / get out all the time. You also can't look at the images 'a
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it seems it was essentially a copy of View-Master.
And c'mon, only one person at a time usage shouldn't be much of a showstopper in the area of typical personal photos...certainly not when you want to remember something all by yourself ("relive your memories like you're again there!") or showing them to somebody. Upcoming 3D screens have similar limitations - you need to have 3D glasses for everybody ("a device you have to store away / get out all the time"; quite delicate to boot; and how weird will be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. I think the time for 3D glasses are now. I wear a comfortable over the ear high quality headset with a mic while i play Modern Warfare 2 on the PC... So why not throw 3D glasses into the mix? Hell make it a nice headset where the glasses slide up and down like a visor. I dont care.
I'm alreadyd wearing a headset.
So headgear really isnt a problem. Many of us are already wearing headphones and mics.
Re: (Score:2)
3D will never really take off until they can figure out a way to implement it comfortably without requiring the ridiculous glasses.
This fad will pass soon, hopefully, and we'll stop thinking about how cool the technology is and be back to thinking about making playable games.
I disagree. It's just part of the evolution towards neurally connected computing. Realizing that each eye is a distinct input is an important step.
Re: (Score:2)
They will cause some people to have epileptic fits and others to have migraines, though, so that might be good for a laugh.
It never really affected the sale of cheap, single chip DLP projectors with 4x or slower colour wheels.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it only works if you keep your eyes in a specific position relative to the screen. This is much easier for people playing a hand-held gaming system.
And how long? (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to me the PS3 has been in a constant spiral of removing features since the PS3 Launch, and I'm not just talking about the recent Other OS removal. So how long does anyone think Sony is going to let a novelty feature, i.e. 3D, fly before they pull the plug on who knows how many thousands of people who buy into this.
1) people are wowed by it right now. The only reason Sony's trying to get this in the PS3 is to capitalize on the fad before it disappears.
2) I've been to several 3D movies, Avatar being the most recent, and think it's a nice trick for a once in a while show. That being said, I know several people who have gone to 3D movies and complain about headaches, motion sickness, the 3D glasses are uncomfortable and they don't fit well over regular prescription glasses and some people can't see the 3D at all or find it just plan not impressive.
3) It's just another way the movie industry is going to get people to re-buy stuff they already own. Pretty soon you're going to be able to by Star Wars and Lord of the Rings digitally remastered for 3D.
I can't tell others what to do, but I recommend avoiding 3D for home theater and especially on the PS3 for gaming.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How long do you think this feature will last on PS3 once PS4 comes out? :)
Re: (Score:2)
You should have stated that as an answer not a question.
E.G. "Once the PS4 comes out, the feature will no longer be supported on the PS3."
After all how is Sony going to get people to buy the PS4 at launch? Everyone already knows what they've done with the PS3. So offering fancy features probably won't work as well as it did last time. The other option is to completely obliterate the PS3 so people that have money vested in PS3 3D games and movies will have to buy a PS4. Disable the feature, brick a few machi
Re: (Score:2)
/Tinfoil hat on
There is no real proof the 3.21 update is bricking PS3s; however, tons of users are reporting their machines aren't working after they do the update. According to post in the PS3 forums, PS3s 1) aren't playing games (FF XIII is a big one), 2) disks are getting stuck in the drives and 3) for a lucky few the consoles won't start at all.
Sony's solution, buy an new PS3 Slim or pay them $160 + shipping and handling to fix it for you
EULA "protects" them from being sued for damaging a console durin
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we are using consoles with 4-5 year old video hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, the last thing Sony wants to do with 3D is use it to actually sell some consoles. They're going to want to get that lucrative trade-show and press-junket dime instead.
Re: (Score:2)
How? Seeing as they (probably) weren't recorded by 3D cameras in the first place, how can they simply take the frames and render new viewpoints? I think we're a long way from being able to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Already covered
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/09/1512259/Software-Converts-2D-Images-To-3D?from=rss
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Constant spiral of removing features since launch"
huh?
What features have they removed?
They removed ONE feature. The Other OS feature. Every firmware update has ADDED features since launch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ah. I have an early 60GB fat PS3.
Forgot about the backwards compatibility removal.
I'm sure they wouldnt have removed it, if the PS3 had actually sold well. Unfortuantely it was terrible for 2 years. Sony lost a too much money on the damn thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
eems to me the PS3 has been in a constant spiral of removing features since the PS3 Launch, and I'm not just talking about the recent Other OS removal. So how long does anyone think Sony is going to let a novelty feature, i.e. 3D, fly before they pull the plug on who knows how many thousands of people who buy into this.
Right. [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And now they're removing 2d!!! :/
Re: (Score:2)
If I wasn't commenting in this thread and had some points, I'd mod you funny for that.
What I was trying to get at is Sony will update the PS3s and allow 3D, then in the future they could, and given their track record probably will, remove the functionality in order to force people to buy the next latest and greatest thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Nothing in the HDMI 1.4(a) specification precludes the ability to send 3D content from an HDMI 1.3 device. There is no form-factor or cabling change related to 3D in the HDMI 1.4(a) specification. The only cabling change is for Ethernet-over-HDMI, which is not a requirement for 3D.
The only requirements are:
1. the HDMI device must be able to send the correct signal. This is typically a firmware thing but it depends on the device whether it can handle e.g. framepacking/etc. Shouldn't be a proble
Re: (Score:2)
If that's so, why can't my PS3 phat bitstream DTS-MA or DD-TrueHD on HDMI? It only can output DTS or DD streams, and not the "high def" streams encoded on blu-ray today.
BTW, PS3 slim can bitstream, as can every blu-ray player out there.
It's weird to think (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lower frame rate for 3D? (Score:2)
he 3D version of WipEout HD is locked to 720p, but due to geometry issues, frame-rate is halved to 30FPS. Note that all screenshots in this feature are derived from the 2D versions of the games.
Other posts have alluded to this, but let me state it explicitly. You cannot get away with lowering the frame rate when adding 3D. The additional parallax effects will make it look stuttery. 30fps is not great for a high-speed game, but 30fps with 3D will look like 15FPS with 2D. For some people, I bet the two images won't even converge. Headache city.
Drop the geometry, but don't drop the frame rate!
It's NOT 3D! (Score:2)
The insertion of true stereoscopic 3D
Sorry, but it’s stereoscopic 2D!
Stereoscopic 3D would be two cubes.
This is just two fixed 2D planes in 3D space. The same thing as two flat panel displays in front of you.
That the images on it are ortographically projected, does not make it 3D. The rest of the 3D volume still is out of focus for that very reason. (= It all lying on the same plane.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:first post! (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the article, you would know that many games requires going from 1080p to 720p because the PS3 can't push enough pixels in 3D to maintain 30 FPS in a 1080p resolution.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, technically, Wipeout's creators couldn't make the PS3 do it. That doesn't mean it's impossible.
Also, Wipeout went from 60FPS at 1080p to 30FPS at 720p for the 3D upgrade. From the article, it sounds like they did it because they were lazy and didn't want to spend time optimizing their code any further to keep the FPS up.
All the hype I heard about Wipeout mentioned the 60FPS specifically, so I think that's a mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that the PS3 only has an HDMI 1.3 connector, not an HDMI 1.4. That means that at best, the 3D experience will have 1080i to each eye. Maybe 720p was a good compromise.
Re: (Score:2)
Do HDMI 1.4 cables have different connectors/pins, or is it just that one is guaranteed to work at a higher rate? If the latter, then I don't doubt that shorter HDMI 1.3 cables will suffice.
What was your source of the 3D content? Were you actually showing 3D content at the time? Is it a passive or active screen? Active 3D content is actually going at 120Hz (60Hz to each eye) for 1080p@60 (i.e. the display's info might have been accurate in a sense.)
Re: (Score:2)
You know whether you have active 3D or not because the for active, the glasses need a power supply (i.e. they need to be recharged occasionally, and turned on/off). Active 3D generally means shuttering (the glasses are synced with the video display and alternatively block the view through to each eye. Passive 3D generally uses polarisation or displays that require you to be in one of several very specific viewing positions. You probably know this if you work in a store.
You don't get to specify the screen
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess it's effectivelly indeed doing 60, but since each of your eye only sees half of those...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because you can just magically “optimize” any program endlessly forever...
Games already are on the very limits of a platform. They already are optimized to the breaking point. There’s nothing left.
You can only make the textures and models crappier and remove some physics and collision detection.
Also 30 fps from 60 fps sounds like no change at all, but simply rendering every second frame from the second pov. Which is exactly what I would have done, considering all resources already be
Re: (Score:2)
Games already are on the very limits of a platform. They already are optimized to the breaking point. There’s nothing left.
You can only make the textures and models crappier and remove some physics and collision detection.
And your point is that eg. Uncharted was optimised to the breaking point, and there was no way Uncharted 2 would look better, with better textures, models, physics and collisions?
The PS3 hardware is very complicated. Very few programmers can claim to master both the PS3 hardware and video game related algorithms. And most of them probably work at Naughty Dog or Insomniac Games.
Re: (Score:2)
It obviously could have been optimized more. With months of effort and a huge increase in their development costs, they probably could have squeezed out another 5-10% in performance.
It's a case of diminishing returns. You'll never get anything completely optimized; but you get to where it is more and more work for less and
Frame rate depends on the TV to a degree... (Score:2)
"Also, Wipeout went from 60FPS at 1080p to 30FPS at 720p for the 3D upgrade. From the article, it sounds like they did it because they were lazy and didn't want to spend time optimizing their code any further to keep the FPS up."
It's not quite like that. I was doing research on 3D TVs recently out of interest (I had just upgraded to an HD TV), and 30 FPS is about the most you will likely get out of a 3D game to a standard modern non-3D capable television set.
Here's why - you have three refresh rates on TVs
Re: (Score:2)
you have every reason to go with 120 or 240 Hz if you can...
Some blu-ray players do attempt to send frames at 120Hz using frame interpolation. But frame interpolation actually degrades the image - there's no good algorithms for it yet.
this means that it is displaying 240 Hz
A 240hz TV doesn't actually display anything at 240hz. They just flicker the back light quickly to create the illusion of a higher frame rate. Subjective comparisons don't actually show it looking any better, and the TV reviews I've seen tell you to turn the feature off.
So the only valid reason for a 120Hz or 240Hz TV is future 3D c
Re: (Score:2)
"A 240hz TV doesn't actually display anything at 240hz. They just flicker the back light quickly to create the illusion of a higher frame rate. Subjective comparisons don't actually show it looking any better, and the TV reviews I've seen tell you to turn the feature off."
Well, THAT can't be good for the life of the backlight. I didn't realize that it did that, though. Huh.
"So the only valid reason for a 120Hz or 240Hz TV is future 3D capability."
Well, I can see 120 Hz being good for 24 frame mode for mov
Re: (Score:2)
Both consoles have lists of epic PR BS trying to get the end losers into thinking they where gaming in the future.
The only thing that has changed is the 3rd party dev teams can get a bit more out of the units.
Next gen will solve all they promise - they understand 1080p at MS and Sony now and the 3d chips for your 2d 1080p displays are so cheap now.
This new 3d glasses fad and 3d games wit
Re: (Score:2)
And Most PS3 games arent even 720p. Many of the graphically intense ones run at a odd resolutions that are scaled to 720p.
There are very few if any 1080p PS3 games. The GPU really cant handle it.
But looking at God of War 3... they have finally managed to pull off a nice post processing anti aliasing filter that really improves image quality at 720p. It looks like 4xFSAA but has absolutely no impact on framerate.
If they can pull that off... They might be able to pull of 3D :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The new Samsung TVs are 240Hz, too.
As for the rendering, it's not 20% of the processing time. It's a lot more than that, especially when you work in all the reflections and other eye-candy that PS3 games are expected to have. I would guess it's pretty close to 90% of the time is spent rendering. (And that's an educated guess, as I've fooled around with 3d game programming on the PC for a while now.)
Of course, it also depends on that game. A game with thousands of AI opponents takes a lot more CPU betwee
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the rendering, it's not 20% of the processing time. It's a lot more than that, especially when you work in all the reflections and other eye-candy that PS3 games are expected to have. I would guess it's pretty close to 90% of the time is spent rendering.
The PS3 has a dedicated graphics chip. It can be running graphics at 100% and still not use up 100% of the CPU, which only hands data off to other components to be rendered.
Of course, it also depends on that game. A game with thousands of AI opponents takes a lot more CPU between renders than a game with just 5.
There is no "between renders". The GPU is working on rendering while the CPU is doing something else.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That actually depends on the game. The PS3 doesn't have a traditional CPU, and most of the really nice looking PS3 games use various parts of the cell for graphics (be it texture processing, or physics, or whatever). The cell isn't used for actual rendering, but it does affect many games graphics.
That said, some of those functions will be irrelevent, as the calculations will apply to both frames (or both views of the same frame if you want to look at it like that). Physics for example is, if I'm understandi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That actually depends on the game. The PS3 doesn't have a traditional CPU, and most of the really nice looking PS3 games use various parts of the cell for graphics (be it texture processing, or physics, or whatever). The cell isn't used for actual rendering, but it does affect many games graphics.
The PS3's CPU has one PPE and eight SPEs, one of which is disabled, and one of which is used by the operating system, leaving six for game development. The PPE is a PowerPC and its main job is to shovel data to the SPEs... if they are being used. Some of the weaker titles use the PPE for almost everything (except graphics, being handled by the GPU) and use one or two SPEs as if they were a math coprocessor... which I guess they are.
Physics for example is, if I'm understanding it correctly, is related to object position per frame (and effects like motion blur) so would apply largely, if not completely, to both frames. Texture processing on the other hand may not, depending on the game.
There's certainly games with procedural texturing. Creating these textures i
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The PS3 has a dedicated graphics chip. It can be running graphics at 100% and still not use up 100% of the CPU, which only hands data off to other components to be rendered.
That doesn't change his argument - PCs have had "dedicated graphics chips" for 3D for 10-15 years. This is hardly new information.
Yes, so the GPU does most of the rendering. So if it's running at 100% running a normal game, how exactly do you magically make it render twice as much information, with only a 10-20% slowdown as the OP claime
Re: (Score:2)
It’s way more complicated than that.
There are the streaming cores, where you have to define one simple algorithm, and then you can pass massive loads of data trough it. Which is good for rendering, and any other stream processing. But not for any event handling. The rest you do with the single full CPU core. And that one is very very weak, compared to the amount of stuff you can process in the streaming cores. But it has no limitations in flexibility.
So you can have 90% of your main core unused, but s
Re: (Score:2)
Rendering when you have a powerful graphics chip should not take all that much CPU power, since the rendering is offloaded. Now, keep in mind that since 3D displays with the glasses are a new technology, the current hardware is not really designed for it, so you are putting a huge burden on the system to make it work. With a new graphics chip that is designed with 3D output in mind, that additional processing drain will disappear with proper hardware support for 3D displays.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I can imagine a chip built to do "3D 3D" more efficiently (for example, two essentially independant renderpaths in the style of hyperthreading, with some logic between them that allows using roughly the same graphical assets from VRAM & caches at the same time (since they use nearly the same assets)). But you still want raw processing power to be roughly two times more than if you'd just render the same image once. There's still drain.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nothing. Wait 'til you hear my CD player.
Re: (Score:2)
120Hz doesn't solve the framerate issue, it just allows you to actually deliver those frames to the user. You still have to run at double the framerate of a 2D game, which is non-trivial.
Re: (Score:2)
3D gfx doesn't work by constructing the scene and then simply taking a snapshot of what "camera" sees (so no big overhead if you add second "camera", moved a little to the side, right?)
It goes "backwards", draws each frame from the point of view of the camera. If you have two cameras, that means doing it two times. Sure, it's not complete doubling of work done by GPU - for example the same assets in VRAM or local caches can be used at the same time, if done smartly. Or the far background and skybox probably
Re: (Score:2)
Lolwut? 'Just' flattening 'it'? Do you know anything about rendering? Two different angles means two different non-fixed pipes. You don't have the slightest clue...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry for being a dick, but from which ass did you pull that 10% or 20% number ? If you're rendering the same scene from two angles, the GPU still has to do twice the work. Shaders, occlusion, stenciling, all that stuff has to be re-run because the frame has changed. Rending left/right frames is no different than rendering one frame, moving right three inches then rendering the next frame. The reason they have to drop to 720p isn't so much because of CPU/GPU power but fill rate. There is only so muc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter to me because I won't buy anything with a Sony brand on it, ever again. Or if the platform is hacked. Whichever comes first.
To those who modded this troll: I bought a Playstation. Then it died, and I bought a PSOne. Later, I bought a fat PS2. It died, and I bought a slim one. I still have it. I also bought an Xbox 360, and a Wii. And though I can afford it, and though there are actually more games I would like to play on the PS3, I have not bought one, and will not buy one. I thought I might buy one someday down the road, to run Linux on it, if the Hypervisor were ever compromised such that you could actually use the GPU... But
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I decided Sony must be destroyed during the Lik-Sang debacle, but the rootkit and disabling Linux on PS3 pretty much make a perfect triangle of hate^H^H^H^Hcrazy.
FTFY.
Really, it's just a corporation. An entertainment one at that. Expending any energy beyond deciding whether the products contain value for you or not is highly irrational.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not up to the OP to determine how the customers are being treated. It's up to the customers. The OP can only decide for themselves.
Quite true. And I have decided not to be a customer because of the way Sony treats 'em. When even Microsoft treats its customers better than you do, you know you're fucking up. But the very point of my post is that it's not a troll to say you're avoiding buying product from Sony because of the way they treat their customers... MANY of us have made the same decision. If it says Sony on it, I'm not buying it.
Re: (Score:2)
When even Microsoft treats its customers better than you do, you know you're fucking up.
This is entirely subjective. Removing the ability to run another OS and simultaneously play new games is worse than never having it? RROD is irrelevant? HD-DVD fiasco? Overpriced peripherals? Charging for online multiplayer?
I'm not interested in a pissing match. Simply to point out the experience is subjective and Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and Apple all have their good and bad points. I'm a Sony customer (among others). I never touched the OtherOS option. The vast majority never did, hell, most
Re: (Score:2)
When even Microsoft treats its customers better than you do, you know you're fucking up.
This is entirely subjective. Removing the ability to run another OS and simultaneously play new games is worse than never having it? RROD is irrelevant? HD-DVD fiasco? Overpriced peripherals? Charging for online multiplayer?
Sure, I'd like free multiplayer, but at least there's no bait and switch. The latest 360 patch lets you use [most] USB storage devices, which is the opposite of overpriced peripherals, although I guess Sony's done that for a while. RROD is most certainly relevant, but it's pretty easy to get a RROD replacement these days (by most accounts, though I admit, not all) so it's a risk I was obviously willing to take. I keep the system on the top of a table where it can ventilate. HD-DVD was not a fiasco; it was c
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying Microsoft isn't evil, or even abusive to customers. I'm arguing that they're less so than Sony...
And I'm arguing that your perception is entirely subjective.
especially when you restrict your consideration to the game market..
Betamax, Memory Stick, MiniDisc and ATRAC3 and the copyright bit evil, crippled Linux in a hypervisor on two platforms, Rootkit, destruction of Lik-Sang to enforce region lockouts and protect their expensive peripheral (*ahem*) market...
You are contradicting yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not up to the OP to determine how the customers are being treated. It's up to the customers. The OP can only decide for themselves.
I'm a customer. I feel pretty mistreated.
I could be wrong, but what I'm getting from your statement is you feel people shouldn't be going around describing how Sony has screwed them over. So, who do you work for again?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a customer. I feel pretty mistreated.
Were you running Linux?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm running Ubuntu. I use my PS3 as an additional Testing and development platform when I'm developing and testing applications at home. I also use it as a 3D rendering node for hardware design.
I also play the occasional game on it, but mostly use it as a DVD/BD player. Sorry, I meant I did use it to play the occasional game and watch BDs on it. Still works as a DVD player and I can play the BD I already own, but I'm afraid of buying new BD or games that require the firmware update and disable my BD dr
Re: (Score:2)
Still works as a DVD player and I can play the BD I already own, but I'm afraid of buying new BD or games that require the firmware update and disable my BD drive if I'm not willing to update.
Hmmm, I am curious if the BD spec allows forced firmware updates like it would for a PS3 game. You're probably safe there from a technical standpoint rather than a company stance.
I can't say for sure though. Would be interesting if someone who knew BD had an idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I could be wrong, but what I'm getting from your statement is you feel people shouldn't be going around describing how Sony has screwed them over.
No, what I'm saying is that doing so in the style in which he did sounds a bit nutty.
Re: (Score:2)
You won't buy from Sony because they used a rootkit and disabled linux on their machines, yet you have no problem with Microsoft? Microsoft also disables Linux on their machines.
Microsoft has put most of their effort into making sure you won't be able to use linux or any other alternative OS. The antitrust trials where just the tip of the iceburg. If it wasn't for MS, we'd probably have OS/2, BeOS and many others on the market today.
Their OS is a rootkit on the entire software market. It is designed wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://marathon.bungie.org/story/blastfromthepast.html#31 [bungie.org]
More info at http://home.gwi.net/~pstewart/lcdneeds.html [gwi.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Dont forget the new HDMI 3d ready cable with extra quad-layer shielding and new gas-injected dieletric for the extended 3d frequency response.
For every 20 back yard "anaglyphic red/blue" 2d hacks sold, the terrorists fund a new "Omar" IED.
Cable news also warns grandparents that the 2d anaglyphic red/blue hack allows socialism to enter the home, the gateway ideology
Re: (Score:2)
Those of us who wear glasses as part of our day to day vision requirements? Wearing a pair of glasses over top of our regular frames is not only bulkier, but significantly more uncomfortable, annoying, and even difficult as a result of only having so much viable nose space to properly hold them on.
Maybe someone will make clip-on 3d glasses [google.com]. Er, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
ot to mention that I for one don't really want to pay for more eyewear than I need. 3D is great and all, but a huge chunk of gamers wear glasses
This is another case of "I can't use X, so there's no market for it". In case you hadn't noticed, gaming hasn't been just for geeks in quite a number of years... and while the stereotypical geek must wear glasses, in real life the majority of people don't. Not to mention that for a portion of that subset... it's not a hurdle, just an annoyance.
Re: (Score:2)
I have glasses (relatively large frames too) and have never had a problem getting the 3d glasses to fit over my normal frames. For home use, you could also get clip-ons.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern 3D glasses for cinemas etc. are actually half decent. They're a little big and bulky (to fit over your prescription glasses), but otherwise reasonably solid and well made. Certainly not cardboard and flimsy plastic, like you might be expecting.
Re: (Score:2)
Its possible that the 3D could be added as a feature via DLC.
of course i prefer on disc.. but.. if they didnt want to delay the game further.. they could do it as DLC