3d gaming, why the slow adaption?

[Phier]

I never played Portal, even though I've owned it since it came out. I just never decided to give it a go for whatever reason.

So I decide to try it out on my new system with 3d vision and it adds another dimension (no pun intended) to such a great puzzle game.

So what I'm wondering is why the slow adaption by the gaming public to 3d gaming, either AMD or Nvidia style?

I personally do not think its money. Sure for a lot of people it would be, but there is a large group out there, using multiple GPU's and the best systems money can buy who don't seem interested in trying.

I do hear a lot of 'That 3d stuff gives me headaches' but those people are usually taking about 3d movies and the like and never tried 3d gaming.

My only thought is that the hands on nature (to see it) and the horrible marketing must be to blame. This really should be the future of gaming, the technology is already there, yet even techy people seem to know almost nothing about it. I only found out about it from a poor display Nvidia had up in a frys when 3d vision was first introduced.

[Doono]

It's definitly the money, you need a 3d enabled screen and the glasses, having admittedly a very brief look, the cost is easily in the region of £300+ on top of what you need for a standard gaming rig. And even after all that the games take a massive performance hit in 3d for the most part, requiring a better overall system all for the sake of a feature still in its infancy.

[Bolkonsky]

Well, let's look at a few things here:

1) You need a 3d screen and glasses. Very expensive, lots of people can't justify spending it on 3d that isn't even that fantastic, nor does it add a huge element to the gameplay, imo.
2) If I remember correctly, you need twice as powerful of a graphics card (since it renders two images) to achieve the same performance you had before 3d.
3) Lots of people are prone to dizziness and headaches, as well as nausea, with 3d.
4) Fact is, it's just really gimicky. It's not that great 3d, it's not even close to worth the price, and lots of people just flat-out prefer polished 2d over 3d.

For the last point, myself included. I just don't like the 3d, I think the colors are washed, it looks like crap, and it detracts from the experience of a good game. I really couldn't be more apathetic to 3d if I tried. I have played games in 3d many times, I end up just being annoyed with the glasses, don't see what the rage is, yeah sure it's kind of neat but just...bleh.

[Phier]

Well, let's look at a few things here:

1) You need a 3d screen and glasses. Very expensive, lots of people can't justify spending it on 3d that isn't even that fantastic, nor does it add a huge element to the gameplay, imo.
2) If I remember correctly, you need twice as powerful of a graphics card (since it renders two images) to achieve the same performance you had before 3d.

I realize that for many people this is a stumbling block, but then you also have people with money to blow on quad sli/crossfire set ups, and there are quite a few of them.

3) Lots of people are prone to dizziness and headaches, as well as nausea, with 3d.

Only being most have never tried 3d gaming they have no real idea. Often the dizziness is an issue of seeing flims etc on a huge screen where you get motion sick. I know I have no problem with 3d but I can get a bit iffy playing a regular game on a LCD tv.

4) Fact is, it's just really gimicky. It's not that great 3d, it's not even close to worth the price, and lots of people just flat-out prefer polished 2d over 3d.

For the last point, myself included. I just don't like the 3d, I think the colors are washed, it looks like crap, and it detracts from the experience of a good game. I really couldn't be more apathetic to 3d if I tried. I have played games in 3d many times, I end up just being annoyed with the glasses, don't see what the rage is, yeah sure it's kind of neat but just...bleh.

Did you play with an active or passive set up? The new 3d vision automatically corrects for colors, the old one you had to boost gamma when you played, but I can't say it washed out anything if that was done. Which games have you played in 3d?

[Bolkonsky]

I realize that for many people this is a stumbling block, but then you also have people with money to blow on quad sli/crossfire set ups, and there are quite a few of them.

Most likely they'd rather have larger displays or more of them, then. I'm sure there's a good amount of people with 3d setups too.

Only being most have never tried 3d gaming they have no real idea. Often the dizziness is an issue of seeing flims etc on a huge screen where you get motion sick. I know I have no problem with 3d but I can get a bit iffy playing a regular game on a LCD tv.

LCD gives me headaches, LCD LED not so much, stereoscopic does very easily, on any monitor, and the newer 3d can make me a little dizzy. I'm very prone to motion sickness though, I have to turn off post-processing in most games I play to avoid this.

Did you play with an active or passive set up? The new 3d vision automatically corrects for colors, the old one you had to boost gamma when you played, but I can't say it washed out anything if that was done. Which games have you played in 3d?

Couple years old, I'm not sure which is which as I'd never have the money to blow on this personally. I played Just Cause 2 in 3d, everything was very gray. Same with Bad Company 2, again just very bland and not sharp at all imo. It's possible it's changed, I haven't felt much inclination to actively pursue it recently. Everything I know about them was when a cousin of mine was getting into it a couple years ago.

Again though, having my games in 3d is just a gimick to me. Kind of like touch-screen monitors. Yeah they're neat, they're cool, I just would rather stick with what I have. If I had a 3d setup, I'd probably never use the thing. To me, immersion comes in sound, hell I got a 1080p monitor and I don't notice the difference between that and my PSP screen when I'm actually playing a game.

[irishron]

May you enjoy yours, Phier, but I'm at the point in my life where the odds of me doing it will be in another lifetime.

I don't have this kind of a bankroll nor the inclination to invest in one.

For those that want to persue it, wish you all the best of luck with it.

[Totalheadache]

May you enjoy yours, Phier, but I'm at the point in my life where the odds of me doing it will be in another lifetime.

I don't have this kind of a bankroll nor the inclination to invest in one.

For those that want to persue it, wish you all the best of luck with it.

same. closest i get to 3d will be the cinema...

p.s i love it in movies though so would def have to try it out to pass judgement for sure...

[Phier]

Based on the responses I am going to have to think that it is in fact the marketing and how they have to market it vrs other products.

What seems to be happening is people see a game or two on someone elses system, not properly set up for them or not a great game for it and say "meh". When I first saw it that was my reaction too, it was a poor set up, the convergence was set wrong, and the games picked for the demo were not good for it (it even used spore as a demo). Added when the settings are right it will hurt your eyes/head much like trying to focus on something you can't focus on will. The only reason I went for it was I wanted a 120hz monitor, and I read a lot of praise for it on blogs and the like. I figured I'd take a gamble 2 years or so later.

If you played warband with it, or M2TW I don't think "gimmicky" would be a term you use. M2TW with the Third Age mod was by far my favorite. You get that same movie feel with a huge army of orcs, each perfect miniatures, stretching out on the planes. Warband is actually easier in 3d because of the depth perception. You can see weapon reach and I've found hitting while mounted is much easier in 3d now than in regular. Its not just these two games where it works really well. Trine 2 is simply spectacular with its graphics in 3d. Skyrim is fantastic with it. As I've just discovered Portal is almost perfect with it, as is killing floor, LFD2, and while I never played HL2 with it I'll have to assume being they are all valve games. There are many others.

As for expense, I had no problem with any of these games with a 460 SLI set up. Thats not an expensive set up these days. Yes that means instead of running on ULTRA I'd use High settings. To me, I really can't tell the difference.

The monitor is more expensive yes, but as a gamer its what I want anyways. 120hz with VERY low response times. If you play multilayer twitch games, you want that as it does make a difference.

The way I look at it, if you are going to drop $400 on a graphics card that will be obsolete in 4 years, you can drop the same on a 120hz monitor and 3d kit.

I know this won't convince anyone who has made up their mind, and I can't show you screen shots (which is the problem), but if anyone reading this is on the fence, DO IT, you won't regret it.

[paradamed]

Definetely money. I would need to buy a 3d tv (A small monitor just doesnt do it for me, specially when it comes to 3d), glassess and probably need a 680 sli if I wanted to play the newest games in 3d with at least 30 fps in 1920x1080. That's a lot of money. I mean BF3 with a single 680 gtx in ultra+3d in 1920x1080 wont give fluid fps according to some benchmarking Ive seen lately.

[Musthavename]

So what I'm wondering is why the slow adaption by the gaming public to 3d gaming, either AMD or Nvidia style?

There's several reasons why I haven't purchased any 3D equipment.

a) It's horribly expensive.
b) The few times i've seen it in use, it didn't do anything for me.
c) It actually made me feel sick within a few minutes.

So yeah, i'm not wasting a few hundred quid on something that doesn't do much for me and if anything would be turned off.

[Bolkonsky]

OK, I'll admit the thought of playing Total War in 3d never even occurred to me, TATW would be pretty epic, in fact I might go find my stereoscopic glasses and see what that kind of looks like.

Warband I've played in 3d, got an insta-headache, it was kind of neat but again, no wow factor. I'm waiting for hologram desktops before I break into any real 3d stuff.

[Crazyeyesreaper]

facts
1 in 10 ppl can't see 3D properly or at all thats 10%
cost vs adoption

proper support lets face it not every game works well in 3D Toms hardware article i posted in another thread awhile back they had and noticed glitches in almost every game or visual anomalies they can be
ignored or fixed by dropping some settings,

performance hit

I for one can't see 3D well its a nifty feature

for example in the UK 12% cant process 3D images properly do to poor binocular vision, thats 6,000,000 people that can't see it well get sick etc when trying to watch 3D

another pair of glasses to wear on top of my regular glasses oh the fun lulz no more seriously this is a bit of a problem

so on top of having to compromise some game settings, the fact not all games work with it, support is shoddy or unacceptable in many titles, 10-12% of the population cant even see the 3D effect properly or without getting sick, cost of entry, thats why it doesnt take off alot of small things add up to make it an unattractive purchase.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

I have 3D HDTVs but I've never had the desire to play my games in 3D. I've never even tested it just for the lulz. Honestly 3D gaming has no appeal to me which is odd seems how I like 3D movies...

[Phier]

I have 3D HDTVs but I've never had the desire to play my games in 3D. I've never even tested it just for the lulz. Honestly 3D gaming has no appeal to me which is odd seems how I like 3D movies...

From your sig.... 3 in Nvidia 3D Surround

YOU, YOU were my last hope for this forum, and you let me down.

I'm feeling like the one eyed man in the land of the blind.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

From your sig.... 3 in Nvidia 3D Surround

YOU, YOU were my last hope for this forum, and you let me down.

Yeah.... sorry.

Since I could run 3D surround I put it in my sig but I never actually tried it. I get enough eye strain from 2D gaming on one screen so I'm pretty sure I couldn't do 3 screen in 3D. Dirt 3 is awesome on 3 screens in 2D but other than that...

With movies movement is much slower and not jerky which lends itself to 3D far better. Quick movement in 3D never looks all that great IMO which is one reason I stayed away from 3D gaming. Perhaps on a small screen like you have with better pixel density the 3D is fine that way.

[Taiji]

Ugh, just tried M2TW in 3d... Utter fail, turns out I need a third eye.

The reason being I cannot focus on the 2d stuff without the 3d going double vision.

So I can either track my mouse pointer or look at a unit.

Looks nice as long as I don't actually try to play...

[Phier]

Ugh, just tried M2TW in 3d... Utter fail, turns out I need a third eye.

The reason being I cannot focus on the 2d stuff without the 3d going double vision.

So I can either track my mouse pointer or look at a unit.

Looks nice as long as I don't actually try to play...

Using what 3d system?

[Taiji]

Using what 3d system?

Nvidia, but I could have worked out in advance it was going to suck if I'd put some thought into it, so I'm quite sceptical that the system can make a difference.

Surely 3d mixed with a 2d mouse pointer like that simply can't work. And I know more than enough about M2TW to be able to anticipate the 2d in the wrong places, it just never occurred to me until I saw it.

[Zerosliver]

I think it needs to be made more accessible and easier to use. First of all it costs too much, like many have pointed out above. Secondly, I can't be arsed to go trough all the hassle to set it up. And last but not least, I think the only real future for 3d will be without those damned glasses, like the 3ds does but on a much larger scale.

[Phier]

I think it needs to be made more accessible and easier to use. First of all it costs too much, like many have pointed out above. Secondly, I can't be arsed to go trough all the hassle to set it up. And last but not least, I think the only real future for 3d will be without those damned glasses, like the 3ds does but on a much larger scale.

Expense: the only real big expense is the 120hz monitor. Being I'm a gamer, I like FPS's, this is a no brainer anyways. You can use your triple buffered 130 dollar monitors if you like, I'll pay double for a 120hz TF monitor with close to zero response lag.

But expense is a legitimate issue.

The setup is not a legitimate issue. Allow me to explain how you set up a 3d vision system.

You plug in your monitor.
You install the normal geforce drivers.
You go to the control panel and enable 3d.
You play games.

If the picture isn't quite right you hit f3 and f4 for depth and f6 and f5 for convergence (configurable).
Some games do require a bit more tweaking but its not difficult.

As for 'no glasses' well yes, some day they will have holographic displays. Until then the glasses are needed. My son has a Nintendo 3ds, its awful 3d.