Even Video Game Geeks Can’t Save 3D Technology Any More



Comments (7)

  1. -Z- says:

    I know your article is supposed to be about 3D but did you even saw a Nintendo 3DS yourself? saying that 3DS its basically the same as the DS but with 3D shows how ignorant you are, so how could we trust you know what people thinks of 3D technology?, if you are going to write an article about any kind of technological device you should either know about it or investigate about to get the right information, and also you think video game geeks play on smartphones? if you say yes, are you serious? ask real gamers and you will know that only casual gamer actually play on their smarphone or other mobile devices as the iPod but most of them just buy them for being cheap apps they play twice and left them, those mobile devices are not yet something for video game geeks its a totally different market if you want an example try Assassin’s Creed games on Nintendo DS, PlayStation Portable and PlayStation 3 and then try the smartphone and iPod versions to see which are more enjoyable.

    [Reply]

  2. Colt says:

    I’m sorry but just have to point out one instance of sheer ignorance in this article. Had you done proper research before commenting you would know the 3ds has far superior graphic capabilities about on par with a gamecube or wii even. The system struggles due to a lack of good games nothing more.

    [Reply]

    Justin Fritz Reply:

    My point here is that the 3D technology used in the device isn’t where it needs to be to convince everyone to make the switch. Most people aren’t paying an extra $100 just for superior graphics.

    [Reply]

    c Reply:

    I wonder what research you did because this article makes a point that has been made many times before and is practically an accepted fact about 3d technology: whether you are playing 3ds, watching 3d television or watching a 3d movie in a theater you are seeing an inferior image. 3d technology is a huge step back in resolution and brightness and few people are willing to accept that. The new DS suffers from its 3d capabilities when you consider that it limits battery life and that the gpu is working double time to produce two images with half the maximum resolution. Think of it this way, if there was no 3d capability the image would be twice as bright and twice as crisp.

    [Reply]

    Justin Fritz Reply:

    I obviously agree that 3D offers an inferior image. But if my argument represents an “accepted fact” as you say, then why are companies pushing so hard to make it happen? I’m saying that if they want to gain traction with more consumers, they need to address the limitations of glasses-free displays.

    [Reply]

    c Reply:

    They are pushing for it so that they can make more money. There is no good reason to buy a new TV right now because resolution from devices is not getting any higher. Besides making thinner and brighter screens, 3d is the only new technology on offer. It isn’t worth it though. Look around the internet and you will find your article is representative of the majority opinion out there that 3d technology is not worth it and that many people would prefer that manufacturers just dropped the 3d thing.

    3d movies were big in the 70s, but they went away because it was a gimmick that made things more difficult and expensive for everyone involved. In New York it can cost around $20 a head to see a 3d movie. Also what we call “3d” is not appreciably more three-dimensional then regular “2d” movies as it is.

    c Reply:

    In fact, I just read an article to that effect on this website. It is the umpteenth time I have heard those points made though. I guess “accepted fact” is not the right choice of words but it is a more prevalent opinion than unanimous support of 3d technology.

Add Comment