This page is a sampling of how the U-DECIDE Initiative findings are shown and analyzed in the final report.
“Not that the whole dorky 3D glasses thing is any sort of a slam-dunk proposition, of course. But I've spent some time playing around with…” – The Tech Report
“To view the 3rd dimensional broadcast, you’ll need the dorky looking wearable 3D optics to decode the video content…” – Slash Gear
“…includes special drivers to access the 3D vision inside many PC and console games, as well as those dorky 3D glasses.” – Tom’s Guide
“…and this one requires you to wear a pair of dorky 3D glasses…” – Ubergizmo.com
“…it still requires you to wear glasses—dorky ones…” – Popular Mechanics.com
“In order to make the picture 3D, you have to wear the dorky glasses supplied…” – T3.com
“…3D glasses still have the dorky feel to them though the company says they are modeled after modern sunglasses…” – blog.wired.com
As demonstrated above, 3D glasses are regularly cited as a handicap to the at-home 3D market by the media. A web search of “Dorky 3D Glasses” gets as much as 10,000 results from Google alone.
However, this does not at all reflect what customers think. Only 12% of 2D customers object to 3D glasses for video games – content that is widely available today. This climbs to just 16% for BluRay movies, and only significantly jumps to almost 30% for 3D broadcast television. Experienced 3D customers are more forgiving with just a 3% objection level for video games, 4% for Blu-ray, and 12% for broadcast television.
MTBS Analysis: Almost every article written about stereoscopic 3D refers to 3D glasses as being “dorky” or unacceptable, but this is not based on any feedback written by customers. Worst yet, our industry has placed itself in a weak position by subscribing to the idea that glasses are a barrier for stereoscopic 3D success, when all the evidence at our disposal says otherwise. It is MTBS’ recommendation that this report be used as a tool to properly educate and inform journalists about these customer opinions, and help remove the fictional barriers of entry for the 3D industry.
“…ended up making 3D look like the gimmick that it is.” – Gizmodo
“…I definitely can't see it being the industry standard. 3D `pop out’ visuals have always been a gimmick, and tend to be a…” – Destructoid
“I feel like it just screams `gimmick’…" – The Tech Report
As demonstrated above, the media’s kneejerk reaction to S-3D is to brand it as a gimmick, tacky or uncomfortable.
Fortunately, customers have a broad range of opinions. Almost 65% describe S-3D as being “intriguing” and almost 27% more describe S-3D as “must have” technology. A very modest 5% think S-3D sounds uncomfortable, and less than 4% describe S-3D as being “tacky”.
MTBS Analysis: Using the word "gimmick", the media’s first reaction is to regularly criticize S-3D as being tacky and uncomfortable. It is a minority of traditional 2D customers who think the same way, and there is clearly a disconnect between what customers think and what journalists assume customers think. We analyze the factors that impact the opinions about 3D later in this report.
In MTBS’ opinion, the number one hurdle that has prevented gaming from taking off further than it has are the game developers. While stereoscopic 3D driver developers like iZ3D, NVIDIA, and DDD can create profiles and enhancements to make video games look their best, it is a time consuming process, and it is an inefficient way of getting flawless visual results.
MTBS would like to see native stereoscopic 3D support for all available driver and hardware solutions so game developers can release games the way they are meant to be seen the first time, drivers or extra programming layers are no longer necessary, and customers can get the best visual experience possible according to game developer specifications.
MTBS has had success with game engine developers like Unigine and The Game Creators, and they have earned MTBS certification by implementing native stereoscopic 3D support. However, the big question game developers need answered is do customers really want this?
The answer is a resounding yes! Without yet owning the technology for themselves, 93% of 2D customers want game developers to officially support true 3D in their games, and this climbs to 99% amongst 3D gamers.
MTBS Analysis: While the media has questioned the viability of S-3D gaming, the customers think very differently. Stereoscopic 3D gaming development is 100% justifiable, and MTBS’ hopes are high that game developers will listen to their customers and move ahead with this technology. Options include native stereoscopic 3D support, testing games with modern stereoscopic 3D drivers by iZ3D, NVIDIA, and DDD, and earning and acknowledging MTBS Certification so customers know how compatible their video games are.
Recognizing the customers who are enthusiastic about stereoscopic 3D technology in the home is only half the battle. It is equally if not more important to determine what criteria sets the naysayers or the critics apart from the rest.
While running the U-DECIDE Initiative, we expected the number one factor to determine whether or not consumers would be receptive to stereoscopic 3D in the home would be whether or not they had been to a modern 3D movie or had experienced a positive amusement park 3D experience.
Nothing could be further from the truth. After cross referencing these factors, we could find no relationship between the experience in the movie theater and the 3D demand and anticipated 3D experience in the home.
Seeing 3D movies had little to no impact on:
MTBS Analysis: If the 3D movie theater experience helps shape public opinion at all, it only does so for the 3D movie theater environment. However, this does not mean 3D theaters will not impact the appeal of consumer 3D. What this means is there has to be a direct linkage between the two markets, and an expectation of indirect promotional benefits created by the existence of 3D movies alone isn’t enough.
[additional analysis and findings in the complete report]
Google Results for:
NOTE: The reason “stereoscopic” was added to the gaming category is because “3D gaming” equally refers to a 2D experience. These results are not an accurate representation of actual media coverage, but they are a fair summary of the relative coverage of each S-3D industry by the media.
[DETAILED TABLES IN REPORT]
Unlike the media, customers demonstrate a very different set of priorities, at least in the home 3D market.
All respondents were nearly unanimous about video games with an 87% suitability rating by 2D, and nearly 96% rating by experienced stereoscopic 3D gamers. BluRay movies have a suitability rating of…[FULL DETAILS IN REPORT]
Clearly, stereoscopic 3D video games are going to be the first entry point for 3D in the home. It’s what customers want, the content is available today, and gamers are the early adopters of new technologies. It is our opinion that a big benefit of gaming is even though they require glasses to wear, it is media without distractions. You play a game from beginning to end without doing other things at the same time.
BluRay movies were…[FULL DETAILS IN REPORT]