Sony Boss Responds To Nintendo 3DS

Nintendo caused quite a stir at the E3 gaming expo with its glasses-free Nintendo 3DS. In an interview with Japan's Sankei, Sony Computer Entertainment honcho Kaz Hirai had this to say about the glasses-free 3D tech:

"In in-house research, naked eye 3D for portable machines is not high and there are presently limits for it."

Sony is releasing a series of 3D high definition televisions that require viewers to wear 3D glasses. The PS3 is also 3D enabled, but likewise requires glasses.

At the time of the interview last week, Hirai had not yet checked out the Nintendo 3DS, so he was not in a position to comment on whether Nintendo has, in his opinion, successfully brought glasses-free 3D gaming to a handheld gaming device. Hirai seemed to indicate to Sankei that Sony is currently not thinking about bringing 3D glasses-free gaming to its own portable, the PSP.

Hirai does not mention this, but it can be assumed that once Sony is able to offer glasses-free 3D at level it seems suitable, then the company could conceivably offer this on a future iteration of the PlayStation Portable.

The Sony exec did stress that the goal was to bring well-realized 3D games to the PS3 — an admirable goal. It's just a shame that the initial buy-in requires several thousand dollars for a new television. The same steep buy in was required when gamers switched from analogue to digital gaming. That, however, was only a few years ago!

平井一夫SCE社長 PSP 裸眼3D追随せず [SankeiBiz][Pic]


Comments

    i read somewhere recently that 3d tvs only cost around $75 more to make than the same tv without 3d, but they charge over $1000 more on rrp, can anyone confirm theyve heard similar?

      Well, it is kind of true and kind of not.
      It doesn't cost much more to make a 3D active TV than a 2D one, but only when comparing to a pretty high-end 2D one.

      A 3D TV has to be able to do a complete refresh at a minimum of 120 times per second. Very few 2D panels do this, except at the higher end. So yeah, it doesn't cost heaps more to produce a 3D TV than it does to produce a high-end 2D panel, and doesn't cost that much more than a high-end 2D panel.

        Don't forget the cost of research & development, rolling the tech out to the content-makers, marketing, etc.

    Personally I'm not investing in any 3D until its all glasses free, the 3DS shows a lot of potential.

      It's impossible, hands-on impression of the 3DS say that whilst its good they still lack a pop-out depth of standard 3D glasses.

        Full 3D glasses-free technology has been available for years and works perfectly, there is no reason to invest in glasses based screens that are all ready outdated (glasses free tv's will probably go retail in mere years)

          From what I've read the problem with glasses free is a very limited viewing angle, and (from the impressions that have been given on the 3DS) a limited distance range.

          This means your glasses free tv could be great if you're sitting on a sofa but anywhere else in the room and it'll be blury... I think I'd rather glasses.

    Motion controls are for kids. Vibration is sooo last gen. Glasses-free 3D is for suckers. $50 says a year from now they'll be offering glasses-free 3D on everything they sell while claiming its going to change the entertainment world forever.

      I'll take that bet dogman!

    I've never re-entered the portable gaming scene since my first Gameboy was stolen... I'm looking forward to seeing this tech first hand, bit hard to gauge it's effectiveness through 2D media...

    Nearly all the hands on reviews of the 3DS have been nothing but ecstatic, praising it's 3D stereoscopic clarity and forgiving 'sweet' spot angle for viewing the 3D content, bar the odd few with eye problems (which is entirely irrelevant since it's not a flaw in the device).

    On limitations to the technology, really?, wearing bulky uncomfortable glasses to view dimmed 3D content as well as having to buy another T.V isn't a limitation?

    In my opinion, that by incorporating a glasses free solution, the big N have broken the barrier that may cause any potential buyers to skip 3D gaming all together. That should be praised.

    Don't get me wrong, I have all three consoles and enjoy all of them, but I believe that Hirai(Sony) is just jealous that they didn't think of it first.

    That's my two cents.

      Indeed. There's even 'sweet spot' viewing in cinemas. If you're off to the side, your viewing experience is screwed. You're not going to see the 3d properly. That's why it's always best to sit in the middle.

      Sorry Kaz you've said a big mouth full of nothing buddy.

      Sony and MS brought nothing to E3, Nintendo brought everything.

      How is price a limitation when we are talking about pure technology? Right perhaps we should stop buying high end PCs and all buy netbooks.

      Did you not consider that many initial impressions were merely clouded due to the ecstatic experience of trying the 3DS for the first time. In fact many retrospective previews mention the glasses-free experience to be lacking in depth but only good enough for the ocassional use.

        Considering you've said this twice already, backing that up with some links might be a nice idea.

      The technical limitations of the technology probably relate to screen size, resolution, viewing angle and price (we know at least that the 3DS is *much* more example to make than a DSi XL).

    Jesus Christ, does Sony NEVER learn?

    2 Years down the track i can see Sony announcing the PSP2 - featuring glasses-free 3D!

    Its good that the PS3 supports 3d technology for free. I'm not gonna upgrade my TV for probably 5-6 years though, I already spent money on a LCD so I could play HD gaming, I'm not about to fork out another $3000 to play 3d. But the option is there for those who want it and thats always a bonus.

    maybe it costs $75 extra to make, but software and hardware r&d is where most the excess add on would be?

    A glasses free 3D PSP would be awesome.

    As for TV's there is an obvious difference that all of the comments seem to overlook: PSP and DS are small screen portables designed to be used for a single players entertainment not for a crowd; a TV is more for a group of people, a glasses free 3D TV would be fine for just one or two people, but if you get the mates around to watch something then you can't watch it in 3D due to the "sweet-spot", with glasses you could all enjoy (some-one mentioned that if you're too far off to the side the 3D is'nt so good even with glasses, but I bet the sweet-spot is a lot bigger than with a no glasses design).

    What I wish they'd do for TV's is go a polerized design. They'd filter the light a bit more than the active shutter glasses they have gone with, but the glasses themselves would cost almost nothing and the TV would only be slightly more expensive than the ones using shutter glasses (they just need to throw a polerizer in front of the screen and polerize each frame).

    Agree... I definitely will not get 1st gen 3DS (after being burned by 1st gen GBA & 1st gen DS).

      I was more refering to 3D TVs, because of the price range, but yeah I'm in no rush to get a 3DS.

      I'll wait patiently. I remember buying the DS on the first day then waiting a year before buying a second game.

      Waited until FFT:WotL came before I bought a PSP and then was spoilt for choice soon after.
      Not so much now...

    I too am going to get angry when Holden release the 2011 model Commodore with a slight incremental upgrade and slightly prettier form factor.

    I feel cheated every time anyone doesn't give me free things that last forever and are made of lasers.

    Question: Does Nintendo non-glasses viewing technology work on large screen TVs or is the technology limited to its 3D game machines?

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now