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)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect they'll revoke it based on the performance requirements, citing their whims.
3d by nvidia seems to require twice the graphics performance to hit 60fps - aka you have to do 120FPS and alternate it between each eye.
PS3 at this point is old hardware, to push it further with 3d will probably necessitate a hardware upgrade (PS4).
Re: (Score:2)
That's assuming that they maintain 60 fps for each eye. It's far more likely that they'd drop down the FPS to 30 per eye, and still maintain 60 overall.
Honestly, 30 fps per eye probably isn't the end of the world... though I think you'd perceive a darker picture than normal.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame (Score:2, Funny)
It's a shame there are no YouTube videos of this 3D game in action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is this game? TFA is kaput at the moment but you'd think the name of it would be mentioned at least....
About time! I'm tired of 2D platformers (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
No, you haven't.
You've played games with a 3d world locked in by a 2d interface.
Doom would be 2,3d, quake would be 2,6d and now, finally, comes 2,9d.
Full 3D will also require multiple screens or bent screens.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They see the same world we do, but from only one point of view which means that they have no in-built sense of depth. Do you honestly believe a person with only one eye can perceive depth the same as a normal sighted person?
Of course 2 displays are just two 2D interfaces. Two cameras (or eyes) on the other hand, enable a new way to interpret the world around you in what some would call "2.5D".
Re: (Score:2)
You can get a sense of depth with a single camera/eye by moving around -- perspective changes as you move.
I have two eyes though, so I don't know what people with only one eye actually do. But a friend's university project used a single, moving camera to construct a 3D scene -- I think it worked best indoors, as the software was looking for straight lines and right-angles.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's also the fork method, but it's permanent.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you honestly believe a person with only one eye can perceive depth the same as a normal sighted person?
Yes. I've seen it.
One eyed archer. He looks downrange and moves his head side to side. and can tell me the range to target. Same as the two eyed people can.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I tried going one eyes earlier and you can tell depth with side to side movement, but that's not exactly efficient when you're doing something like driving for example... then again I can drive fine on 2D computer games so driving with one eye for real probably wouldn't be much different..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moving your head gives you more than one perspective. Same effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. I highly recommend reading the post you're answering before posting a response. I'm estimating that it could more than double your perceived IQ.
Good luck, carry on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, that's bogus. I spent 14 years blind in one eye, in the middle of my life. Yes, there are many tricks that you can use to compensate for lack of binocular vision, and I learned most of 'em, but it is not the same, and I missed my stereoscopic vision terribly. I was fortunate to get my stereo vision back with a cornea transplant, and have never taken it for granted since. Integrating a 2d video signal over time is much harder work for your brain than the relatively instant and effortless 3d awaren
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bleh, I will wait till 4.5D when they are bringing out more classes and such, I bet they will have a whole new set of books to buy too.
Wait, what were we talking about again?
Re: (Score:2)
*watched you roll a 1*
Looks like you have to go Emo now, thats -4int and -8cha
Re: (Score:2)
*watched you roll a 1*
Looks like you have to go Emo now, thats -4int and -8cha
Lose 1pt of blood per day as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually wish there were more... and I would love to see a true high definition sequel or remake of Symphony of the Night (the planned Harmony of Despair [gamekicker.com] actually recycles sprites from the standard def games and the DS games, so it is not true high def).
Re: (Score:2)
First 3D games? (Score:3, Funny)
Sony plans to show off the first 3D PlayStation 3 games in the UK on 10 June
That's weird. I've had 3D games on my PS3 for years. Even had them on the PS2 as well.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But we're talking about real 3D graphics, not those fake simulations on a 2D image.
Of cause, how to implement this 3D without it being a mere add-on is the question. For some reason, I'd think Nintendo would do it better, seeing their extensive forays into worlds which implements 3D environments in a not-just-2D-planes-stacked-on-top-of-one-another manner.
Existing games which I'd think would benefit from 3D:
Flight sims (like X-Wing vs Tie Fighter)
Atmospheric games (like Shadow of the Collosus)
3D platformers
Re:First 3D games? (Score:4, Informative)
But we're talking about real 3D graphics, not those fake simulations on a 2D image.
You mean, Sony has implemented holography? I don't think so. They are talking about stereoscopic imaging, which is pretty much a slightly advanced "fake simulation on a 2D image," hardly "real 3D graphics." Anyway, "3D graphics" has been a term used to describe 3D perspective renderings on a 2D plane for decades.
Even then, it's still not the first stereoscopic gaming on the PS3 - for example, G-Force [wikipedia.org] used red-blue anaglyph stereography on the PS3 and Xbox, and there were many other stereoscopic games on older platforms such as the PS2 and PC.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd think a system which delivers separate images to each eye is sufficiently 3D, but I'll admit it's just schematics. Still, this is more of to go with the stereoscopic technology which many TV makers are trying to sell these days.
Also, a nitpick: I wouldn't call the PC an "older platform", since it is essentially an evergreen, evolving platform. Probably more suitable to use "generations", which technically would go all the way back to the NES days... (and the Virtual Boy for a dedicated console, for that
Re: (Score:2)
There are many types of 3D.
One that we all know, is 3D projection on a 2D surface. This is what most games currently use.
There is Volumetric 3D. This permits the display of any 3D object that fits within the confines of the display area. Such an image can be viewd from any angle. Think of say of 3D array of highly translucent LEDs. Better methods do exist though, such as at least one that uses pulsed lasers to create individual spheres of plasma suspended in the air.
There is stereoscopic, non-immersive 3D.
Re: (Score:2)
PC has supported multiple types of stereo vision for quite a while now (from the old days of taping a piece of cardboard to the middle of your screen and resting your head against it, to colour glasses to the newer shutter glasses systems).
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 :)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Golf Channel (Score:2)
Unless your idea of a game is, guess how many meters away this pole is
They have a whole channel on cable TV about such a game.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but it's not how current 3D works. Current 3D is using stereoscopic vision to judge distance and not vectoring and other abilities the brain uses to judge distance when vision is impaired to only one eye. 3D perception is often slower in those individuals as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup just like how one eyed people cant aim and fire a gun, or shoot archery, target practice....
Oh wait, they do. lack of 3d does not hamper them at all as they learn to adapt. and the cheesy 3d we will get with video games will not affect gameplay.. it's only going to be put in as a "by golly" effect and nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Just like switching from monochrome displays destroyed gaming for me due to my colorblindness.
Granted, I'
Re: (Score:2)
If the developers had included a single user with color blindness in their QA testing they could have avoided it. Bad QA IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
shutter glasses systems have been around for PC 3d far longer than the cardboard and 2 color glasses. It's not new.
I had a set from Sega that plugged into the printer port back in 1995....
They sucked then.... They suck now. Until you can eliminate the glasses it will continue to suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Cardboard... I was playing a modified version of mechwarrior 1 on my 286 with cardboard down the middle of the screen ;)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bah! as always, Sony keeps imitating Nintendo. I played 3D games in the original NES almost a quarter of a century ago [wikipedia.org]. ... as real as what GP called real (using some type of glasses)
That's REAL 3D games
Now, regarding holographic games, I remember playing such an arcade game around 1991 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Time Traveler wasn't holographic. It just used a cute trick with a curved mirror and a regular monitor of mostly black background video to make you think it was holographic. It wasn't even close to holographic. They even sell a similar "holographic" trick science kit in most gift shops at museums and science centers.
http://www.chinaberry.com/prod.cfm/pgc/11900/sbc/11907/inv/16066/tid/628021801?zmam=7946946&zmas=2&zmac=40&zmap=16066 [chinaberry.com]
There is a company that sells one of those kits that is just a se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta agree with 'not the first': Invicible Tiger [edge-online.com] has been out a while now (pretty good too).
Notably on the PC I had Descent with full 3D enabled by 3dfx and shutter glasses many many moons ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? [seereal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
News flash: It's still fake.
Another news flash. It's gonna suck unless you own a TV capable of it or a 120hz tv that really IS 120hz and not all marketing hype like most of the sets that touted it were.
I.E. Displays 120hz! but wont accept a signal that is 120hz refresh rate....
YOu got them on a 2D television... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Those game used a trick to make your brain think stuff looked in 3D when in reality they are all flat. Now they want to gear up to be able to send *stereoscopic* signal to a TV, which is another trick to make your brain seeing a 3D image by sending two different image to the right and left eye.
But as I noted in my previous post up-thread, this is definitely not the first stereoscopic imaging in PS3 games. There are PS3 and PS2 games that used stereography via red-blue anaglyph.
Re: (Score:2)
In other word Sony climb up on the 3D TV bandwagon.
Weren't they the first ones to sell 3D TVs?
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, Samsung got their one to market about a month before. In the UK, at least - I'm not sure which came out first internationally.
Cross-Media (Score:2, Funny)
Late to the niche market by some time (Score:2, Informative)
the 3-D adventures of world-runner (by square) on the NES already had this feature, just press Select button.
And IIRC, it wasn't the only game on the NES to showcase 3-D.
And does anyone wonder why it's been mostly forgotten?
Re: (Score:2)
Other than it being essentially monochrome because of the 3D technology being used at that point in time?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mean this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_WorldRunner [wikipedia.org]
http://www.google.com/products?q=3-D+World+Runner&output=nojs [google.com]
Because it didn't work well (Score:2)
The problem that past stereoscopic stuff has had is that it was based on the red/blue anaglyph techniques which suck. Even at the best of times, it still messes with colour and doesn't give all that convincing an image. So while it was toyed with, it was never really used much. Also games had to be specially designed to do the 3D. Since they were just sprite based, you had to take the time to implement whatever 3D effects you wanted in a game.
The new 3D technology does it with high speed shuttering. Each ey
Re: (Score:2)
JJ (the sequel to 3-D WorldRunner), also for the NES, "requires special 3-D glasses whose left and right lenses switch on and off for every scan of the TV to give a perfect 3-D effect." Sound familiar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JJ_(video_game) [wikipedia.org]
Also, since Square has experience with these stereoscopic stuff, I won't be supriced to see FFVII: 3D edition sometime soon.
Knowing Sony (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, all the demos of gameplay I've seen using the 3D technology (not counting FMV and trailer) has always been car racing.
Re: (Score:2)
Fulltime wearer of Glasses (Score:1)
Until they develop 3D that doesn't require wearing special glasses, I for one have absolutely no interest in this technology.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm with you. It's the same as 3D movies which I also hate as does my girlfriend. It adds nothing to the experience, is annoying and just costs more.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, but for gaming it can add a new - uhm - dimension.
Not just visually, it can change the way we play a little. People have already commented that playing Racing Games in stereo changes the way how you approach turns. I myself tried stereoscopic Q3 a few years back and found that it was a bit easier to calculate trajectories of grenades.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So if you're one eyes Sony just put you at a disadvantage in racing games. Another reason to hate sony I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're at a disadvantage in a shooter if you don't have 3D sound too, because I can hear where you're coming from faster than you can tell where I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Who was responsible for the urine in your cereal?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, just like colour film and stereo sound.
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: (Score:2)
The only reason they're making everything 3D is so people can't cam it anyway,
What do you mean can't cam it? All you need is the appropriate polarized lens. Well, two cams and the polarized lenses if you want to get the 3D effect. Probably takea a lot of post processing at that point, but you could do it.
Personally, I figure they're making things 3D as a gimmick to get people to go to the theater.
Between bigger widescreen TVs and blue-ray, they were losing a lot of their business to people willing to wait to watch it on their 'home theater'. $3k for a 3D capable LCD TV is still q
Re: (Score:2)
All you need is a 120+hz/120+fps video camera to make sure it actually catches ever frame that is put up on the screen and your fine. The cycle your glasses at the correct 60hz or whatever, and you will see the exact same thing as what everyone else in the theater saw. So no it isn't hard in theory to still cam a 3D film. The problem is, if you can find a camera that records enough fps to do it. I have no idea how many fps most camcorders do these days.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
[citation needed]
Can't cam it, are you kidding? All one needs to do is put one polarizing lens (from say a pair of 3D glasses) in front of a camera lens and you have no problem.
The 3D (stereoscopic) movies I've seen, where done well at least, have provided a much more immersive environment than their 2D counterparts. T
Well they have. (Score:2)
It is exactly what we were gaming for years. The gimmick of adding perspective and focus to an image is as far as we can get to 3d in a flat screen. As long as both eyes receive the same image, of course.
The only new thing here is that they are trying to sell these so-called 3d screens. And you know what is their innovation? It's called interleaving. They show one image for each eye, with the old pal flicker.
Try attaching a 3d blu-ray to a 2d tv set. You will see both images, one after the other. Both with
Re: (Score:1)
huh?
Whats interleaving got to do with it?
The 3DTVs sold around here (=Austria) rely on shutterglasses.
You run your TV in 200 Hz, and show one frame for the left and then one for the right eye and shutter accordingly. Wouldn't interleaving defy the whole concept?
Also 100Hz per eye is not exactly PAL flicker anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
They do, but the discs are delivering 960x1080 frames, rather than doubling the bandwidth requirements.
the first 3D games (Score:4, Informative)
* WipEout HD (full game): Experience the adrenalin rush of navigating the twists and turns of futuristic racetracks at breathtaking speeds like never before.
* Super Stardust HD (full game): Experience asteroids fly past you as you navigate the deadly battleground — only a battle on a cosmic level will save the indigenous life below from destruction.
* PAIN: The stereoscopic 3D content will include the Downtown area and tutorial along with three modes, including two new modes created specifically with stereoscopic 3D in mind, Alien Toss and Ice Breaker.
* MotorStorm Pacific Rift (demo): MotorStorm Pacific Rift in stereoscopic 3D puts you in the driver’s seat of a buggy for a one track, single player race around the deadly Kanaloa Bay for a dangerously real battle against ruthless opponents.
I haven't been a fan of the whole 3D TV thing, but I could really get into 3D video games. For that, I'd wear the silly glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
I never got the point of 3D anything, games or movies using shutter glasses/colored glasses. The effect isn't of things flying out of the TV/screen it has always been more of a depth of the TV/Screen appearing to be deeper, rather than flat. Like you could stick your hand in to the TV, rather than something leaping out of it.
The ONLY time I ever really got the point of 3D was when I used to go to a local arcade that had those Virtuality 1000/2000/3000 systems that Edison Brothers had for the US. We had one
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, 3D gaming actually sounds appealing in a way that 3D movies simply don't to me. Only problem? Everyone not playing will either have to leave the room or put up with the very, very annoying flickering coming from the TV. I don't see my wife being real thrilled about that, and I don't see any realistic way to remedy the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been around for a while. LINK [nvidia.com]
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: (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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe because "Fake depth perception gaming" is just such a mouthful ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
So, I suppose, every time you hear of a 3D movie/television/game, there's some confusion. You hold out hope that they are referring to real 3D, but every time, you are crushed and disappointed. False advertising only occurs when there is some kind of fraud being perpetrated, that is, when the advertisement exploits some confusion about what is being sold. If everyone knows what they're talking about (and, for practical purposes, everyone does), then it's not a fraudulent advertisem
Re: (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.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Just wait until comcast hears about this!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The third dimension doesn't require more bandwidth.
A 3D movie or a 3D FMV in a video game needs more network bandwidth to store the motion vectors from the left-eye view to the right-eye view for each frame. A 3D video game needs more bandwidth to and from video memory for two frame buffers, and it needs more bandwidth on the HDMI cable to transmit both left and right eye images.
Oh effing great! (Score:2, Interesting)
Do we now get the same kind of games that we have in movies? I.e. completely content-free, riding entirely on the "IN 3D!!!" ticket?
Are we going to get games that HAVE to use that 3D feature whether it makes sense or not, as it's been done far too many times with whatever gimmicky new technology was the fad of the day, from the advent of easy three dimensional rendering (in all seriousness, did we really want to have that "free 3D movement" in SimCity-ish strategy games?), to the Wii controller that made se
so.... (Score:2)
Virtual Boy (Score:5, Funny)
Now PSN can release the Virtual Boy back catalog! Everyone's been clamoring for that!
Re: (Score:2)
Now PSN can release the Virtual Boy back catalog! Everyone's been clamoring for that!
Did Virtual Boy even have notable third-party games? Ports and emulations from Virtual Boy are more likely to happen on the successor to the Nintendo DS, expected to incorporate a parallax-barrier autostereoscopic display.
Big deal... (Score:2)
So they upped the bust size of the Dead Or Alive chicks from double D to triple D? I mean thats great and everything, but do you really need to shut down the psn and get your network ready for triple D's?
Meh. (Score:2)
Meh. Meh says it all.
Que? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, many game developers are seemingly indifferent to the 3D revolution at the moment
Why is that unfortunate?
Like most gamers, I couldn't care less about 3D.
Framerate issues (Score:2)
The main problem with 3D stereoscopic gaming is that current console hardware can't push the polygons required for it. With stereoscopic 3D, you need a 120 hz. TV. Your console needs to put out 120 fps so that the TV can send 60 fps * 2 (60fps to each eye). When most console games now are struggling to push 30 fps, what makes you think they can get to 120 on the same hardware?
This means the quality of the 3D games will be abysmal. Developers have no choice but to put out dumbed down games if they want t
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "dumbed down"? Are you talking about the polygon count? That's the only thing I can think of that would really matter and IMHO, the polygon count isn't all that important.
My favorite PS3 games right now are Little Big Planet and Mod Nation Racers and both are mediocre from a graphics point of view (720p).
ec
These are not the first 3D PS3 Games (Score:2)
Mr. PAIN? (Score:2)
TFA mentions "Mr. Pain" as one of the 3D PS3 games. I hope they mean PAIN, a PS3-only game. PAIN and Burnout Paradise are the two reasons I purchased a PS3. I already have a 120Hz TV, so I guess it"s just the glasses and the 3D version of the game?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)