Will 3D gaming succeed or fail?

Will 3D gaming succeed or fail?




People that say it will fail, hope that it will fail because they can't afford it which is such a shame.

Joined: 12/07/2010
Posts: 0

all games video quality rat race has one goal only ... to be able to recreate the reality (virtually) as we experience it. the 3d is the inevitable way to go for the video improvements. the only struggle is to be able to create fully experienced 3d image stable, low cost and without health hazard.
the consumer affordable 3d glasses solution existed 10 years ago and was offered by company not existing any more called Elsa.
i still remember sore eyes after hours of Colin McRae racing in my Elsa 3D glasses and Samsung 17" crt 100Hz screen (50Hz per eye). The absolute minimum is 60Hz for an eye.
another solution at the time was a helmet and close sight displays ... these died cause the costs, low picture quality and the weight of the helmet ... sore eyes and a neck.

The question was WILL the 3D gaming succeed ... ~YES it will ... sooner or later ...


I got the 3d vision and an acer monitor.. It is pretty awesome... Even if you don't play a lot of games.. The one thing that has made the purchase of the 3d glasses and monitor worth it to me is.... 3D Porn.... Once you go 3d porn.. You won't want to go back...

Joined: 11/17/2010
Posts: 7

I already wear glasses, due to the almighty power of computing and endless hours playing half-life, so I don't know how comfortable it would be putting yet another pair of glasses on my face for extended periods of time. Anyway there is no way I can afford it and even if I did have enough I don't think I would buy it, yet.

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 1

Until 3G can evolve to the stage where 3d glasses are not needed and can still produce great 3d affects it will never fully take off


I wear glasses and have a lazy eye. Lets just say I was not sure about 3d. I just ordered a 3d monitor and nvidia kit. It will be in next week, so I will have a better opinion then.

My current thoughts.

3d in games makes much more sense and is less costly than TV right now. It took 10 years for HD to get into my home after it was first releaseed. It will probably be that long or more before 3d stations are made.

However, games are very different. Games have always been about emersion. 3d adds a little something extra, just as surround sound and hd displays adds that little something.

Also, there are over 400 pc games that can run in 3d RIGHT NOW! Only a few movies will be in 3d anytime soon.

Let's face it, the price of a 3d monitor, is much less than a 3d tv, which also helps with 3d pc gaming, while hurting/ slowing down console gaming and 3d tv viewing.

Another great thing about 3d on the pc, (for me atleast) is going back to play previous games in 3d.

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't wait to replay Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic in 3D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do think it will be much more widely accepted when glasses are not needed. However, on pc gaming, I will only need to wear the glasses when I play a game which is interactive. This makes so much more since to me than just sitting and watching a movie in 3d.

So even if 3d doesn't get big, I doubt it will go away. Years from now the prices will be lower (I can get a 42 inch plasma now for under $500!! WTF) With prices lower, 3d will be built into all tv's even if people don't use it. It will just be added in there even if you don't plan to use it for 3d viewing... And when everyone has a 3d tv... Why not use it???

Like I said, I wear glasses, but I look forward to using my new 3d monitor and those cool looking glasses... To bad they won't be delivered until next week.


I almost forgot to mention something very important!!!

For those of you that say 3d doesn't add anything, then you obviously never had a great 3d experience.

I went to see 2 movies so far in 3d. Avatar was the first 3d movie I ever saw. The other was megamind. Both looked gread, but admitetly the 3d effects wear not all that spectacular for me. However, I believe it is the technology that the movies are using...


For anyone who wants to see the TRUE POWER AND EXCITEMENT of seeing something in 3d

Then go to Florida and then go to Universal Studios.

You have to ride the Simpsons ride, which is amazing.

But even better than that, you have to go see THE TERMINATOR IN 3D... (NO IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL MOVIE) BUT A LIFE ACTION/MOVIE HYBRID.

I went there this last summer. The 3d effects when at the terminator "ride" was UNFREAKING BELIEVABLE.


Joined: 11/10/2010
Posts: 2

The curent glass tehnology will fail but the new thnology which doesnt recuires any glasese will be more sucesfull



Hmm... I would expect the guy who calls himself 3D GAME MAN would be much more enthusiastic about 3D gaming. ;)

Joined: 03/06/2005
Posts: 131

it might succeed, but not on the PC. It's going to be on consoles, which is only on the PS3 right now.

PC nVIDIA 3DVision is too dark when 3D is on.
Plus I found it more amazing 3D depths on the PS3 than on PC. I don't know why. It's probably a different technology since the 3D for consoles is depending on the 3D TV.


when watching a movie in regular dvd, blu-ray or in eye popping 3d, does it make a difference? what does it provide for the viewer/watcher?

the answer is nothing! dvd is the standard viewing format so it is the default. watching a movie in blu-ray when compared to a dvd does not provide any difference in experience. dvd standard is 480i/480p. blu-ray is either 720i/p or 1080i/p and it makes the picture super clear. but when we look at it as a whole, does watching a movie in 480i/p compared to 720-1080 make any difference? no because when you watch transformers, it's still transformers regardless of the resolution.

it's the same argument for eye popping 3d. it does not do anything for the viewer when watching a movie in 3d. watching transformers in 3d will have those moments where things will looked popped-out and such but again, in the end, it's still the same movie that you get when compared to a dvd.

old cult movies, like that of "a nightmare on elm street" does not provide any 3d nor will high definition provide any sort of extra experience for the viewer. all these two things provide are gimmicks.

it's all about the entertainment of the media. high definition and eye popping 3d are not entertainment, they are gimmicks. gimmicks are not entertainment. they are illusions of entertainment.


eye popping 3d will fail because it's just a visual gimmick. saying it will fail because of having to wear the glasses isn't really a good reason because there will someday be a 3d tv without glasses and it will still fail. it fails because it does not provide entertainment for the person. they are only gimmicks and tricks for the person. gimmicks and tricks don't last long, which is why it will not succeed.

this also goes back to the arguement that many hardcore gamers often present, do graphics make a difference? the answer is no because graphics, just as how the hardcore declare the wii to be a gimmick due to motion control, is what it is, a gimmick. a game like tetris, which has been around for such a long time has the poorest visual effects and at the present time, we still play tetris. even a game like super mario brothers is still played today.

ClaudioxPT's picture
Joined: 11/11/2010
Posts: 4

And is proved that the "3D Tecnology" may in certain cases cause heath problems.

Life? Whats life? [Meaning]Unknown word[/Meaning]

Danny Lim
Danny Lim's picture
Joined: 04/06/2010
Posts: 129

3D Gaming will definitely fail because not all consumers are willing to wear this "goofy" glasses on to view in stereoscopic 3d technology. It's futile; even though, you have to actually spend more than $700 to purchase three 120Hz Monitor and/or TV to activate 3D stereoscopic technology! And, you also wastes more energy for nothing, too!

So, that's just an investment to see whether it'll will be fully implemented or not. Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous and atrocious whom innovated this type of technology...

What's the point?!


Your day has come to learn about Technology!


I'm sure that those who vote for fail have never experienced gaming in 3D. I personally own 3D Vision glasses and Acer H5360 projector and it's completely different experience than Avatar in movie theaters or some crappy old movie with red cyan glasses. Also, none of my friends or family members have never complained about any headache after playing at my place and all of them love my 3D setup.


Personally, I don't fancy 3D. But I know a few that do. So I think that 3D has great potential, but again it is limited.

Are you going to but out 1k for a new monitor and a graphics card that supports 3D? probably not. But a game console is something different. Here is something that offers not only 3D, but a great gaming experience as well. There is the thing about a new 3D TV, but they are getting considerably cheaper!

So I think that 3D gaming on PC won't take off just yet. but there are millions of people who already have 3D enabled consoles and perhaps a 3D TV, or maybe they are getting one?

Bottom-line. 3D on PC: meh... 3D on consoles: quite plausible!

Joined: 10/10/2010
Posts: 1

Though I'm sure 3D game are fun to play, I for some reason can't see that it will be successful. I don't get that WOW!!!! feeling that make me wanna go out and buy it. Unlike 3 monitor set up where i do get the WOW feeling and think this i wanna buy. It could be because 3D is still in it's early years, though it is much better than it was 20 years ago like with the Sega master system.

But who knows maybe it will be very successful.

A good idea would be 1 flexible monitor that you could bend around you to give 180 or even 360 degrees vision. Now that would be Nice

well that's my opinion, we'll just have to see what the future brings :)

timoglor's picture
Joined: 07/26/2010
Posts: 3

What about the upcoming Nintendo 3DS, it doesn't require glasses. i'm definitely gonna try to get it when it available. anyone else have an opinion on the Nintendo 3DS?

Joined: 10/04/2010
Posts: 5

3D is unnecessary, games are just as fun without it

Joined: 11/10/2010
Posts: 0

Due to how it looks today 3d gaming is failing due to its expencive and inconvinient but most of the reason for that is the glasses wich are the cheapest way to get 3d. There are artificial 3d monitors out there to buy but have a very hefty pricetag and you want to have really deep pockets to get one of those monitors also the contrast, resolution, picture quality and response is not ideal for gaming.

EL_Gato's picture
Joined: 07/08/2009
Posts: 171

I bought the first Gen 3D monitor for $200 when it first came out. I got the Nvidia 3D Vision for $150. I enjoy 3D but I don't think it will suceed, not until they make it easier to have. I was at Best buy and there was a 8 minute long tutorial/comercial about what you need for 3D and it just went on and on and on; First you need a 3D TV, then you need a player that plays 3D, then you need the glasses, then you need glasses for the whole family, then you need this and then you need that... Not gonna work, if they can Make a TV or a Screen you can use ON THE TV instead of the Glasses then maybe. 3D has happened in the 20's, the 50's the 80's its back again.

When people lose sight, they pray for better vision. Even though the path of ignorance was their choice, they believe it to be an outer entity like karma or bad luck - in thus believing an outer cause will cure it. You want change? Stop throwing dirt in your eyes to attain mercy for looking weak.

k37chup's picture
Joined: 04/17/2010
Posts: 18

Fail. 15minutes with 3D glasses makes my eyes feel as if I was gaming all night + headache.

Eduardo Tarik
Eduardo Tarik's picture
Joined: 09/04/2010
Posts: 6

Personally, I yet didn't start to totally appreciate this kind of technology, but from what I've seen there's still much to be done to turn a game in 3D appealing, I'm not sure!

Eduardo Tarik


Im want a monitor to mimic peripheral vision!

It would have to be a semi-circular design, covering your entire vision, or maby peripheral vision videogoggles...


I think it will succeed because it is the next step in DRM. Movies will push the tech into your house at affordable prices. Sony owns or influences a lot of the film industry. You cannot rip off a 3d movie for first day piracy like you could with cameras. And to play pirated media with the stream in tact you need.... the hardware Sony and its competitors sells.

Gaming gives 3d a true value added, all things considering, aspec to the tech. You can dismiss the immersive factors but in the end I think because it is tied at the hip with hardware that is tangible, TVs, blue rays, ps3's and the next gen of gaming hardware there is going to be more buyin from major players to push the tech out and like you said... if the tech is cheap it will succeed.

EL_Gato's picture
Joined: 07/08/2009
Posts: 171

I really like your statements.


I'm in agreement with most here AND I'd like to add that the concept of 3D isn't new and still seems pretty much like a sales gimmick. It is impressive to be sure, I was demo-ing one at the local store and it seems good, just not good enough to be the norm. We haven't even made the complete switch to Blu-Ray yet or all digital music.

It really isn't going to be the "next" new technology like they would hoped it will be. Nobody is going to ditch their somewhat new $1000 HDTV to buy one.

Joined: 11/09/2010
Posts: 0

I used to sit firmly in the "it will fail" camp, until someone pointed out the hype around SOUND in movies was similar to the current 3D hype.

People back then had quickly become used to silent films and saw sound as a gimmick that would not become mainstream. While currently we are used to the normal films (and games) in their '2D' form, once more developers/directors learn to use 3D to full effect and we all become more accustomed to it, we will wonder how we ever went so long without it. Im also sure, that just like sound, the technology will improve and what we have right now is going to be considered utter crap in some years to come

3D is going to be huge, just not using our current technology


Later on this year, Toshiba, followed by larger competitors are releasing glasses-less 3D tv's and computer screens. BUT, these will come a very large price.

Lvaneede's picture
Joined: 03/28/2010
Posts: 212

I reckon people will realise that 3D in games is a good thing when they play the 3DS. It wont become big with home consoles until prices drop and you dont need glasses


so i say fail.
iv never been able to see 3d! i understand what is happening but i never see it pop of the screen.

theres a lot of people in the world with bad eyesight so they got to make it where u can see 3d with out glasses and see with one eye

Joined: 06/08/2010
Posts: 5

I do believe it will some day succeed.
Heck, it's been working in the theaters.

Some day meaning that it is just in the beginning stages.
There is still much much work to be done to perfect this technology.
Especially for gaming.

By the time they "perfect" 3D they will already begin to introduce hologram gaming which will be even more of a fail than 3D.

We may need to call in Edward Nigma. Heh

AgentHydra's picture
Joined: 02/10/2010
Posts: 30

Assuming the technology advances so that we don't need glasses (which exists now but hasn't hit the mainstream market yet) then yeah I think it will succeed. Do I care about 3D? No. But I think later generations probably will. It's kind of like how my parents could care less about newer version of Windows or HDTVs (although I managed to convince them to get one). Eventually it will become the standard.

| Phenom II 955 BE 3.8Ghz || Asus M4A79XTD EVO, AMD 790X || PNY GTS 450 |


3D would work a lot better if the monitors were actually built into the glasses, it would allow the left and right content to be delivered directly to the eye. Also the smaller screen size would make it a lot cheaper.


I think it will succeed in a smaller market than non-3d.
As Rodney said, the glasses are a nuisance, drop the glasses and the success will rise.
I'm sure there will be some games that just work better as 3d, and that is where 3d gaming will succeed.
Some things just must be better in 3d. I saw Avatar in non-3d and I thought it pretty much sucked, while most of the world raved about it, those people must have seen it in 3d.


I think it will get big later on, just not for a few years.

falmatrix2r's picture
Joined: 09/26/2010
Posts: 574

it's a maybe for me just the same reason as you rodney

I have a gaming PC and all gaming consoles and it definately doens't get you laid!
My youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/falmatrix2r
TS3 server: ts3.ojoc.org:51432


i believe that in this period of time 3D technology is not at its best, humans just recently discovered the 3D technology and are pushing way to far, i believe that if they wait and advance the technology there might be some interest


Humands did not just recently discover 3d technolog. It has been around for over 100 years. Though it has advanced a lot. It will continue to advance as all things do.

TV's have advanced from no sound/ sound/ color/ to finally HDTV..

It will continue to advance, so will 3d technology and everything else given enough time. Saying 3d technology is not at its best is really not needed as nothing technological is at its best. Everything advances. As long as there are humans on Earth and we can keep the intellegence high enough to invent new things, things will keep getting better and better.

Joined: 09/02/2010
Posts: 0

No glasses and lower price= yes.

SunTzu1983's picture
Joined: 11/08/2010
Posts: 35

It could go either way, it really depends on consumer demands. Personally 3D gaming is a luxury, and even though it can increase your gaming experience, it's not necessary. What makes a good gaming experience is the game itself and the game mechanics involved. Game mechanics is very important to a really good game and how well it is programmed and how well it simulates realism. How real it looks is always a plus, but how well it performs is much much greater. You can have the best looking game in the world, but if it doesn't perform well, or simulate realistic physics and operations then that can be a problem. The structure of game is far more important than how it looks, but how it looks is always a bonus, but not essential. Lastly, I apologize for the duplicate post, but I decided not to be Anonymous anymore.

Toby R. Varga


It could go either way, it really depends on consumer demands. Personally 3D gaming is a luxury, and even though it can increase your gaming experience, it's not necessary. What makes a good gaming experience is the game itself and the game mechanics involved. Game mechanics is very important to a really good game and how well it is programmed and how well it simulates realism. How real it looks is always a plus, but how well it performs is much much greater. You can have the best looking game in the world, but if it doesn't perform well, or simulate realistic physics and operations then that can be a problem. The structure of game is far more important than how it looks, but how it looks is always a bonus, but not essential.


Btw, there are tecs allowing 3D without glasses.


In lots of years ahead it will succeed.

Joined: 09/13/2010
Posts: 196

3D has been around for what, 50 or 60 years. Pretty sure the first 3D movies came out some time int the 1950's. They seem to spike every 10 years or so and then fade away. Granted, this is the first major push into homes. Thing is that at the current state, it wont work. Glasses are the first problem. Just having to need them has two problems right now. First they are expensive. The cost of glasses alone adds $200-500 to the purchase price for a family. Also they are not standardized. So, Sony wont work on a Samsung or the other way around. So you can not take your glasses to a buddies house unless you have the same 3D TV. That brings us back to cost. Now you need more glasses for friends to enjoy the TV. If you are like me and wear glasses then they are just to cumbersome to have both on at the same time.

If they can at least standardize that will help things out a bit. Better yet, find a way to remove the glasses as a whole. Maybe some evolution of the tech in the new 3DS coming form Nintendo?

Joined: 09/28/2010
Posts: 5

not everyone wants to wear those 3d glasses for hours at a time. i think it will be more of a compatibility issue than anything. and it's expensive! and if older, 8 bit NES type games are catigorised ad 2D, aren't we playing in 3d now?

Joined: 10/23/2010
Posts: 0

I'm not quite sure, the price needs to drop but in order for that to happen The technology needs to mature a little more but thats usually how everything works in the electronics field. I remember when HDTV first came out, it was quite expensive, now the price has gone down alot now that the technology has matured. If they get rid of the glasses, there will be no question about it being successful, but as of now I see that as a major drawback. Only time will tell.

noir2525's picture
Joined: 06/29/2008
Posts: 71

I think 3-D will fail, it did in the past. The 3-d glasses is a dumb idea, since people who already wear glasses have to wear the glasses over glasses.

The only way for 3-d to be successful is to get rid of the glasses.

Qmicra v2F = Core i5 2500k ~ ASUS P8P67-M PRO ~ G.Skill DDR3 1600 2x2gb Ripjaw X ~ GIGABYTE GV-R687OC HD6870~ G.skill Phoenix Pro 120gb ~ Creative Titanium HD ~ Killer 2100 NIC ~ Seasonic 650watt gold ~ 3TB storage

Johny-47's picture
Joined: 04/09/2010
Posts: 95

I agree Rodney, right now it's very expensive and just like DX11 games with the wonders of Tessealation, there isn't near enough stuff using/supporting the technology =/

I honestly like it especially 3D TV and the glasses are not a problem, I even stood in the middle of Tesco(BIG suprmarket) wearing 3D glasses watching Monsters vs Aliens haha =P

"Maximum, Game".

Joined: 10/29/2005
Posts: 72

I went "Not Sure"...It may be a near failure early on, but with more time and tech, could become very successful, so I will go with inbetween. Fail early may succeed in time...