Speaking at a recent event to launch Sony's 3D TV range, SCEA president Jack Tretton impressed the crowd with statements and slides stating that not only are PS3 owners "voracious technophiles" but that "3D is critical to PS3 owners".
Tretton threw around some facts and figures to support the claim. These include:
"Among the consumers who don't already own a PS3, their purchase intent increases when they learn about those 3D capabilities."
Some numbers arose from 'a recent survey':
- 63% of PS3 owners are aware of 3D gaming.
- 71% say that 3D games are "important".
- 50%+ PS3 owners said that they would use their consoles more because of 3D gaming and 3D movies.
And yes, the classic "PS3 is poised to be the 3D hub of the living room".
In terms of games, "This fiscal year alone we will release 20 gaming titles that are stereoscopic 3D compatible... every genre will be covered."
Strangely, with a large slide of PAIN behind him, he also pointed out that "these titles aren't being converted to 3D, they're being created in 3D." This would appear to be counter to yesterday's statement from SCEE that, "...those who already own the games can upgrade their games to stereoscopic 3D via a free patch".
See the full speech here to ensure that Jack's not been misquoted.
Tretton threw around some facts and figures to support the claim. These include:
"Among the consumers who don't already own a PS3, their purchase intent increases when they learn about those 3D capabilities."
Some numbers arose from 'a recent survey':
- 63% of PS3 owners are aware of 3D gaming.
- 71% say that 3D games are "important".
- 50%+ PS3 owners said that they would use their consoles more because of 3D gaming and 3D movies.
And yes, the classic "PS3 is poised to be the 3D hub of the living room".
In terms of games, "This fiscal year alone we will release 20 gaming titles that are stereoscopic 3D compatible... every genre will be covered."
Strangely, with a large slide of PAIN behind him, he also pointed out that "these titles aren't being converted to 3D, they're being created in 3D." This would appear to be counter to yesterday's statement from SCEE that, "...those who already own the games can upgrade their games to stereoscopic 3D via a free patch".
See the full speech here to ensure that Jack's not been misquoted.
Read More Like This
Comments
YenRug 11 Jun 2010 11:34
1/10
Some numbers arose from 'a recent survey':
Of rabid Sony fanboys.
I've got a PS3, but I cannot seriously see myself going out and buying a new TV that supports it, quite literally, as I only ordered a new TV last night and 3D was not an aspect I considered in any way in my decision on what TV to buy.
Spunwicked 11 Jun 2010 11:42
2/10
Give it six months to a year and the tv tech will have improved loads. I'm itching to jump on the bandwagon but £2K for a tv is a lot to ask. Titles like GT5, Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 will proabably push me over the edge, it's hard to believe how far gaming has come in the last decade. When i was a kid I was happy with this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnUKHXmoXx4 - bring on 3d!
more comments below our sponsor's message
Itachi 11 Jun 2010 12:41
3/10
Yea I'm getting a 3DTV for KZ3. That combined with Move will proved true immersive gameplay.
Daz 11 Jun 2010 12:55
4/10
other than price (which lets face it, is easily solved by this thing called a savings account), the only thing stopping me getting a 3DTV is I don't have enough room to sit back far enough from a 40" TV
Joji 11 Jun 2010 15:31
5/10
Sony are smoking that same 3D crack pipe, as all the media suits. They are trying to pass it onto us, and sure some will smoke, but you punks can count me out. How man times have Sony said that same kind of thing? (mini disc, their stupid AAC format over mp3, mp4 over DivX, PSP/PSP Go etc)
Having 1080p HDtvs out there now at reasonable prices is enough for me, after many years of standard def. 3Dtv is something that's fine for short cinema experiences, but long perods of gaming is a different kettle of fish. Besides that, games are already 3d enough for me thanks, I'm happy enough to be able to get such huge displays so cheap, and I hope it bombs.
I'm all for innovation and moving things forward, but this is clearly them trying to railroad and convince us with the awesomeness of their new clothes laced in snake oil. They want it to succeed because TV's have more or less reached their peak, without blinding you, and they are unsure what to do next. 3D at the flicks is one thing, but I don't want all my content that way. Studios and execs are scrambling onto the 3D bandwagon, never really thinking if its necessary or not.
After 3D, they'll probably want to push Super OLED HD to us, and like fools many will bite again.
Having 1080p HDtvs out there now at reasonable prices is enough for me, after many years of standard def. 3Dtv is something that's fine for short cinema experiences, but long perods of gaming is a different kettle of fish. Besides that, games are already 3d enough for me thanks, I'm happy enough to be able to get such huge displays so cheap, and I hope it bombs.
I'm all for innovation and moving things forward, but this is clearly them trying to railroad and convince us with the awesomeness of their new clothes laced in snake oil. They want it to succeed because TV's have more or less reached their peak, without blinding you, and they are unsure what to do next. 3D at the flicks is one thing, but I don't want all my content that way. Studios and execs are scrambling onto the 3D bandwagon, never really thinking if its necessary or not.
After 3D, they'll probably want to push Super OLED HD to us, and like fools many will bite again.
Dredneck 11 Jun 2010 17:00
6/10
@YenRug
If your buying a TV now you really should consider the 3d - I was a skeptic before I went in the store and tried it for myself , it looked great-- now I am a believer and can't wait till I can start to see depth in games -- why wouldn't you want to see the depth in a FPS or racing game? As a 3d artist the depth is there we just haven't been able to view it to not is like saying why do anything in color?
If your buying a TV now you really should consider the 3d - I was a skeptic before I went in the store and tried it for myself , it looked great-- now I am a believer and can't wait till I can start to see depth in games -- why wouldn't you want to see the depth in a FPS or racing game? As a 3d artist the depth is there we just haven't been able to view it to not is like saying why do anything in color?
Ahmad 11 Jun 2010 21:25
7/10
@Joji
About Oled HD TVs , they already pushed it to us ( samsung thin led TVs) . My point of view about 3D TVs is (I'm tired I don't want to wear a Fu glasses just to play a game !) . On the other hand full hd TVs will get a good price cut .
About Oled HD TVs , they already pushed it to us ( samsung thin led TVs) . My point of view about 3D TVs is (I'm tired I don't want to wear a Fu glasses just to play a game !) . On the other hand full hd TVs will get a good price cut .
cosser 12 Jun 2010 18:16
8/10
"these titles aren't being converted to 3D, they're being created in 3D."
wtf is trenton on? a 3d game is already 3d and its just the 2d tvs that take it away
wtf is trenton on? a 3d game is already 3d and its just the 2d tvs that take it away
Garie 12 Jun 2010 22:45
9/10
Percentages are meaningless without disclosure of same sizes and locations. 100% of my recent survey knew this. Sample size 1, sample location my address.
YenRug 14 Jun 2010 12:02
10/10
@Dredneck
For starters, I went a bit higher than I intended, at £700, as it is, so a 3D capable TV in the size I was looking at wasn't really an option, money-wise.
Secondly, there are competing products/standards and you're already hearing that they're not all 100% compatible with different ways of encoding of media. As usual, the tech needs time to mature and become affordable.
Thirdly, as a photogrammetrist I'm already familiar with using 3D viewing techniques long term and how tiring it can be on the eyes. I am also a contact lens/glasses wearer, so current tech is pretty much pointless for me until they get beyond having to wear glasses over the glasses I need to see with.
For starters, I went a bit higher than I intended, at £700, as it is, so a 3D capable TV in the size I was looking at wasn't really an option, money-wise.
Secondly, there are competing products/standards and you're already hearing that they're not all 100% compatible with different ways of encoding of media. As usual, the tech needs time to mature and become affordable.
Thirdly, as a photogrammetrist I'm already familiar with using 3D viewing techniques long term and how tiring it can be on the eyes. I am also a contact lens/glasses wearer, so current tech is pretty much pointless for me until they get beyond having to wear glasses over the glasses I need to see with.