Originally Posted by Airion
My point is not that it's somehow ascendant, it's that console gaming is a big industry with the potential to provide tons of content for 3D, which is being realized right now. 3D content
on consoles is ascendant.
But it isn't.
2010: Almost exactly one year ago, EA boss John Riccitiello said that 3D may very well be one of the next and most important drivers of growth.
2011: Riccitiello says that EA havh not seen a big uptake [in 3D gaming] and that they have not seen a big uptake in 3D TVs in the home.
Saying that EA is not here trying to drive a market, choosing instead to react to what customers want...[EA] sees very poor returns focusing on 3D, so (is) allocating [their] resources to new innovations.
Is it possible that growth in 3-D gaming will get interesting? Yes. Same for growth in watching 3-D TV at home. Currently, neither is growing in an interesting way -- period
But maybe this is a silly discussion if you consider 5.1 a market failure. As a consumer, I see tons of 5.1 content from games, movies, TVs. The vast majority of what I watch/play is in 5.1 and it's here to stay. Market failure perhaps, but a big success for me.
5.1 is a giant market failure. Most people listen to the speakers built into their TVs. Don't even get me started on how many 5.1 soundtracks have virtually nothing in the surround channels.
I'm glad movie theaters use variants of surround sound so we get something on our BluRay and DVD -- and sometimes it's really good and immersive. But let's not pretend it's a hit.
Originally Posted by Airion
Sorry, I'm still just confounded by this. Did you think it was remotely possible that most people might actually buy a surround sound setup? Is this what you judge success/failure by? There was zero chance that more than a dedicated group of people would bother to buy and set up a surround sound system. I can't believe you actually thought success would be otherwise. Yes, I'm quite thankful for 5.1, but the fact is most
of everything is in 5.1 for those that have bought in...
Since you felt this was worthy of post spam, the industry has been pushing 5.1 sound for more than a decade. Yes, they believed everyone would buy in. The same idiotic way they believe most people will sit in their living room with battery powered glasses on to watch television in 3-D
What's funny to me is when people like you conclude that you knew surround sound would fail to be mass market -- which is blindingly brilliant hindsight by the way -- even though once the system is installed, there really is nothing much troubling about it. In our house, for example, one button turns on the TV and the sound. The surround speakers are so small and unobtrusive they take up no space in the room. But you knew most people wouldn't bother, despite inexpensive home theater in a box solutions, etc.
You hammer on about how active shutter glasses are bad and glasses-free is the only path, and yet I doubt you'd accept 3D in any form. You're an anti-3D curmudgeon like Ebert, though probably also well meaning
. Just say you're anti-3D and don't color it with false interest in Real-D tech.
... you can start expressing opinions for me. Listen, here's my reaction to you putting words in my mouth: Go to hell
. Don't you dare put opinions in my mouth or purport to know what I'm thinking or feeling.
You're the wizard who knew people wouldn't incur a one-time installation of surround sound and a universal remote, but you're the one who is convinced that people will regularly put on glasses to watch TV
. And for good measure, those glasses will be rechargeable, somewhat costly, ugly, somewhat heavy, suffer from occasionally spotty communication. etc.
I'm not anti-3D. I'm anti-terrible technology. I'll give you a great example. There is some gaming stuff that allows you to play like 3-D MMOs in 3-D. Fine, that's cool, right? Totally immersive. Well, no, because much of the UI layer is stuck in not just 2-D, but an immovable plane that requires you to constantly refocus your eyes way off from where you are gaming back to the UI plane. Terrible experience.
Active-shutter 3-D is a terrible experience. The fact that it will never be usuable at little Timmy or little Sally's birthday is just one of many examples. The fact that a not atypical Mormon or Orthodox Jewish family would need to invest in a dozen pair of active-shutter glasses at great expense (and that it's not clear many of these sets are even designed to support that many users at once -- especially now as they switch to Bluetooth) is just another. The fact that you need to remember to recharge or that if you sit on the glasses, you're out $30, 50, 100...
I want to be crystal clear, passive 3-D still sucks, but at least the glasses are under $1. At least they require no batteries and are lightweight. At least you can be assured that no one will walk between you and the IR emitter or that your Bluetooth pairing won't become undone. Current passive 3-D is a serious bummer because in the home, it blows up 1/2 of your resolution. That's pretty unfortunate too.
It's pretty obvious you like 3-D and want it to catch on. It's also true that the cost to keep adding it to TVs is low and much in gaming is built on a 3-D --> 2-D model already so having 3-D gaming is doable for some time regardless of the very very slow uptake. But pretending this represents market success is like saying electrical cars are a huge hit because Nissan has sold a few Leafs. (I like electric cars and the Leaf is important in establishing them; but electrical cars have a looooooooooooong way to go before we'd call them a hit).