Sony To Launch First 3D PS3 Games On Friday 151
Stoobalou writes "Sony plans to show off the first 3D PlayStation 3 games in the UK on 10 June, with a retail launch on 11 June. If you were wondering why Sony is shutting down half the PSN today for maintenance, then wonder no more. We reckon the company's simply gearing up for the launch of the PlayStation 3's first stereoscopic 3D games. Unfortunately, many game developers are seemingly indifferent to the 3D revolution at the moment. In fact, EA CEO John Riccitiello reckons that it's going to be a good three years before 3D becomes a standard gaming feature. Riccitiello explained that there's a big difference between converting a game to run in 3D mode and properly developing it to take full advantage of the extra dimension."
Sony reserves the right (Score:5, Insightful)
Tired of false advertisting (Score:3, Insightful)
Stereoscopic imaging is not real 3D. It doesn't allow you to change the focal point. That's why stereoscopy is fatiguing. Also, you can't change your point of view. Yes, there are some kludgy workarounds like head-tracking or displays that work like lenticular images. Still, it's not the same as real 3D [engadget.com].
Fighting this word abuse is an uphill battle that probably can't be won. Hacking isn't cracking either. Gotta go, have to shoo some kids off my lawn.
Re:Tired of false advertisting (Score:3, Insightful)
However, holograms aren't the solution either, since they've a limited distance before images would get cut off by real-world objects. The only real solution would still be stereoscopic imaging (or equivalent) coupled with both head and eyeball tracking. We've 2 parts of the solution publicly available and mass-producible.
This makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
"If you were wondering why Sony is shutting down half the PSN today for maintenance, then wonder no more. We reckon the company's simply gearing up for the launch of the PlayStation 3's first stereoscopic 3D games."
I don't see how graphics-rendering technology requires an overhaul of the network. The third dimension doesn't require more bandwidth.
Re:First 3D games? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for your "fake simulation on a 2D image" is like calling video a "fake simulation of moving pictures using still frames", technically its correct, but if its enough to fool the eyes, its very much the real deal :)
Only if you have two functional eyes. Non- depth perception 3D is perfectly acceptable to use with only one eye. New polarised glasses do nothing for those with only one eye, if games start going in the direction of requiring depth perception of the type requiring two eyes, that just fucks up gaming for them. Sure they could still enjoy a movie but playing a game where they have to interact at $distance?
Re:Fulltime wearer of Glasses (Score:4, Insightful)
Wearing things on your face for 2 hours is a completely different matter to colour or stereo sound. It's also extra annoying if you already have to wear glasses anyway.
The only reason they're making everything 3D is so people can't cam it anyway, stop making it sound like it's some kind of breakthrough in technology when it only exists to charge you extra.
Re:Tired of false advertisting (Score:3, Insightful)
Good luck getting either of these changed. Public view is already skewed, and it's only a matter of time before common use dictates a change in definition in the dictionary.