3D Video Games Sound As Good As Dead. Good.

3D was everywhere a year or two ago. Now it's...nowhere. Not even the 3DS, a handheld designed with the tech as its key selling point, uses it that often anymore. So is the tech dead in the water?

It is according to EA, with EA Sports boss Peter Moore telling Eurogamer "3D is certainly not in any way on our list of things we are focused upon as a company. I look at gaming, and it just doesn't seem to be a major factor."

"It's just not a technology particularly in our world of gaming that seems to have got traction", he later adds. "If I was sceptical 18 months ago I remain sceptical."

While Sony, who led the charge with its push for 3D tech on the PS3, remains at least publicly committed to the idea (despite offering little in the way of incentive or new product over the past 12 months), when EA and even Nintendo come out and shrug at the concept you're not far away from hearing a death rattle.

Which can only be a good thing. While some kind of three-dimensional display is almost inevitable somewhere down the line - maybe soon, maybe in "flying cars" time - right now it's simply too expensive and cumbersome for the mainstream.

EA says stereoscopic 3D "isn't a major factor" as tech fails to turn up at Sony press conferences [Eurogamer]


    I feel that the technology behind 3D is a lot more useful then the 3D feature itself.

    I bought a shiny Samsung laptop with 3D glasses and a 120Hz screen, and the glasses have sat on a shelf since I tried them the first time. The 120HZ refresh rate is fantastic in games, however.
    Even though people say the human eye can't see past 30fps, there IS a noticeable difference, and I think it's great.

      Anybody who says the human eye can't see past 30fps is mistaken. 30fps (or 24fps) is just a number settled on because it creates a decent illusion of movement for film/tv. If you have a constant 30fps with realistic motion blur and movements that aren't to extreme, then 99% of people will find it perfectly adequate. But 60 and even 120fps is better for gaming in particular.

      3D has the potential to be awesome, but not with glasses that darken and wash out the image. I value image quality over depth, though I'm sure eventually one day we can have both.

        My understanding is that you actually can't see much past thirty BUT there are benefits from higher fps because our brain sees faster rates as motion blur, which looks smoother particularly for panning and fast movement shots.

          The human eye can tell a big difference between frame rates past 30, but usually that's only when it has something to compare it to. When you look at a 30 fps video, your brain "fills in the blanks" to create a bit of a smoother transition between frames. So to most, it would look fine. But when you look at a 30fps image next to a 60 fps image, you will notice a huge difference.

            Yeah I think that's right. Older 2d animations were often done on twos ( at 12fps) which looked perfectly fine if you had nothing to compare it to. So basically any similar sequence of images, even at a really low frame rate, will get interpreted by your brain as movement. The higher the fps, the smoother it will look, but for most people you get diminishing returns above 30.

              I think you've hit the nail on the head right there.
              I took the laptop to a LAN and had people walking past and commenting on how good my game looked compared to the standard screen of my friend next to me.

              There's also the case of that old Quake glitch where movement speed was controlled by how many frames were showing per second on your screen.

            Thom actually had it right. 60fps 'looks' better because it better simulates real blur. 60fps looks better than 30fps, but doesn't look as good as 24fps filmed with a camera because the latter naturally includes blur.

            Imagine you're watching a swinging lightsaber or something. With blur you'd see a continuous arc. At 120fps you'll see 4 distinct lightsabres in your eye's 'frame'. With 60fps it'll be 2, with 30fps 1, so the higher the framerate the closer you are to the continuous arc.

    WipEout is incredible in 3D, totally mindblowing. Super Stardust is very impressive, too. 3D is too much hassle, though. Who wants to wear glasses? They don't fit with my headset! Simulview is very slick, however.

    This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.

    Maybe the future isn't with current 3D tech where you wear glasses and still look at a 19inch or bigger screen. I think it's more along the lines of what id software has been pushing of late with the head mount screen thing. The movement of your head is captured so instead of pressing a key or moving the mouse, your head does it. You would think that would be easy to convert to 3D and go from there.

    I have a 3D monitor, and I played Jak 2 with it. It was fine, but a pain in the ass.

    Recently played through Kingdom Hearts 3DS. 3D was a complete fail. It added depth to the menus, but you couldn't focus on the menus and the game at the same time. Keeping track of your HP gave you a headache. I watched a few cutscenes in 3D, but it really, really didn't work in combat. It gave me a headache because everything moved too fast (compared to SSFIV which looks good) and everytime I pressed a button I'd lose the sweet spot. Drove me nuts. Finished the game in 2D in the end.

    There are only 3 or 4 games that use it PROPERLY like wipeout hd and killzone 3, so honestly, its not that suprising that it didnt take off... it got no suport :P

    I can't use 3d goggles, so I'm hardly lamenting its loss.

    Sony was pushing it to sell televisions, cinemas are using it to increase prices and Nintendo... I don't even know what.

    I thought crysis2 looked pretty amazing...

    I thought it was more the 7 year old hardware holding the tech back rather than the idea itself. But I guess you'll always have to render two views so the problem won't really go away in the future.

    In my opinion, 3d would be infinitely better in games then movies... immersion factor people.

    Oh, you don't like 3D gaming? Guess you're not going to pick up a Oculus Rift when it goes commercial or maybe just be blissfully ignorant of all VR gaming in the future because it's in stereoscopic 3D. Good luck with that...

      Huh....so VR gaming is a thing again?

      Why I remember the last time people were excited for VR gaming...waaaaay back in the '90s. Everyone lost interest, because much like the kinect, there's no tactile response to actions within the games.

      This explains it quite well:

        No, the main problem with Kinect is there's a huge disconnect because of the gigantic latency between the actions you perform and the actions that occur on-screen.

      I'm very keen on 3D gaming (put in for a Oculus Ref dev kit which I'm keen to start tinkering with) - but currently it's just not there. I tried uncharted 3 in 3d, the batman Arkham games, Trine 2 etc, and while they all have moments of "WOW!" they also have a bit of ghosting and lose a lot of the image quality, which is important to me,.

      When 3d works, it's an amazingly immersive experience, and I can't wait till the tech is mature and overcomes all the current drawbacks. I'm hoping the commercial Oculus can do it, once they double the resolution and halve the latency,

      Yeah, he's not going to pick up that thing, just like almost everybody else in the world.

    I personally have no interest in 3D what so ever. I'd rather the focus be on improving hardware so that we can be playing bigger and better games, with great framerates and top notch sound. 3D means fuck all to me personally :)

    I read something once on how 3D rears its ugly head in movies every 10 years or so, then everyone remembers they hate it and it goes away again until the next cycle.

    Jeez, negative article much? I know 3D is a popular target for hate, but that's only because of how the film industry has so badly mishandled it. The place to see 3D at it's best is on PC with 3D Vision, it makes games super immersive. And since it works with any polygon-based game, you've got millions of games to play in 3D, which solves the lack of content issue every other form of 3D has.

    I'm glad that there's an increasing number of films coming out in only 2D again. I've also noticed myself turning 3d off on my 3ds about 90% of the time now. It adds nothing, and turning it off usually doubles the frame rate. I do think that games in 3d on a tv look amazing though!

    3D is not dead at all. You're just speculating based on what Peter Moore says.
    3d for games is an incredible experience. And it will be perfected with the Oculus Rift.

    3D glasses annoy the heck out of me and have seriously dampened any love I might have had for 3D. Glasses on top of glasses is way too much weight on my nose and leads to headaches, and I'm not a fan of how they darken the image.

    That said, even though I often turn it off to save battery, the 3D on the 3DS is actually quite awesome. Most games don't have any practical use for it though. The only case where I'd deliberately put it on was in some of the Party Modes in Tetris 3DS where it really did make a big difference in spatial awareness.

    So won't be sad to see the format die, but also think that if they kept working on it a bit more, it could potentially still go places.

    Shadow of the Colossus was pretty amazing in 3D - but the game environment suited it particularly well, and they did a great job of only using negative depth. Problem was....I'd just prefer the higher framerate. Every time. Gran Turismo was also cool in 3D but for 60fps dropping to 30fps...never, ever worth it. 3D will come back, when the hardware pushing it can be as good as the display is capable of

    When it works its amazing and despite the dorky glasses i enjoy the experience so much that i can play games i have already finished again because in 3d for me anyway it feels like a new experience. Its far from perfect and alot of games dont support it but for those that do its excellent. Just wished more games supported it. Worth every cent i paid for it.

    i find nvidia 3D vision 2 with lightboost is fun for RPG and MMORPG but not so much for FPS or anything quick reaction/competitive, i'd love to try one of these one day: http://oculusvr.com/

    3D is a gimmick, look at the movies abd games that use them only for a 1 second thrill factor and the movie or game lacks the other majors areas because of it e.g. Story gameplay. The only thing that has used it properly was Avatar which didn't just focus on constant snippets of in your face 3D (it did have some moments that you could tell we're just there cause of 3D though). I knew 3D wouldn't never work as the hardcore and competitive gamers don't give a shit about it, plus it strained your eyes after a while.

    3D TV's were rushed to market and have major image problems like darkened image,ghosting(active) and loss of perceived resolution(passive).
    But head mounted displays like Sony's HMD Z1 ant the Oculus Rift that use two separate images or screens that mimic the way our eyes work eliminate these issues.
    My own Samsung plasma has the ghosting issue but some games like Uncharted 3 and Skyrim on pc work well and really do add to the immersion.
    So if your serious about 3D gaming get a HMD.

      I love my 3dtv not so much for gaming but a good well shot 3d movie like Hugo is amazing to watch I have passive so the darkness and heavy glasses aren't my problem and If there is a loss of resolution with passive my eyes must be screwed cos everything looks just as nice and hd as the 2d I hope they continue to make and shoot 3 movies and games anyone who hates it play arkham city on a pc or lg cinema 3d tv in 3d guaranteed to change your opinion

    Put the 3D IN the glasses and not 8ft away on a screen in a box, you loose the effect... I for one welcome our 3D overlords providing its an immersive experience wherever I look around!

    "Which can only be a good thing." says who? Oh, Luke. So nobody, that's who!

    Video game news is why I scan kotaku most days, not for personal negative opinions. Not liking or agreeing with someone is fine, splattering ridiculous opinionated headlines and statements in articles such as above put you on the same level as trashy gossip magazines or a certain Sydney news paper.

    Otherwise, Peter Moore has said a lot of things!

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now