More U-Decide 2010 Findings!

Post by **PressBot** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:17 am

Today we revealed preliminary findings about acceptable premiums for 3D compatibility on PC and console video games.

Do you see this happening? What criteria would you look for before spending money on a 3D game compatibility premium? What does 3D compatibility mean to you?
Read full article...

Post by **Dom** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:49 pm

Maybe if the game studios are gonna try and sell the premium for an extra 30 dollars they should include a coupon for a pair of 3d glasses or a 3d points system that will let you accumilate your points to buy something more thats 3d. Cause they are gonna be rich companies.

Post by **cybereality** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:49 pm

If companies are going to charge a premium for 3D content then it better be amazing. I am talking leaping out of the screen and giving me a heart-attack level of graphics.

Post by **skabais** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:49 am

i would consider paying premium if the game was developed for 3D. e.g. the gameplay built on interaction that is based on depth.
simply being "3d ready" doesn't qualify for extra price imo.
it could be for example a separate gameplay feature analogical how many single payer shooters have multiplayer feature
we would get extra feature 3D gameplay..

Post by **harveyfloyd** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:01 pm

3D is not a premium. Its an evolution in entertainment. Did TV get more expensive when it switched to color? You want to build a better, cooler more immersive game then 3D is a tool a designer can use to try and accomplish this. 3D doesn't enhance EVERY game. By calling it a premium you are saying that ANY game that adds 3D viewing capabilities is automatically worth more. It's not.

Post by **Fredz** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:27 pm

harveyfloyd wrote:3D is not a premium. Its an evolution in entertainment. Did TV get more expensive when it switched to color?

Hem, actually yes, color TVs were a lot more expensive than B&W ones when they first appeared in 1954.

The first color TV from RCA (CT-100) was sold for $1000 although it only had a 15" diagonal, but their black & white model from the same year (17S349) sold for $189.95 with a 17" diagonal. RCA was even forced to lower the price to $495 some months after the launch to be able to sell their many unsold sets. And it was not specific to RCA either, the first color TV in history from Westinghouse was sold for $1295 in 1954.

Post by **ssblade** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:16 pm

Anybody that has the capability to play games in 3d has spent hundreds if not thousands on 3d hardware for their rigs. Content that is compatible should not command a premium. It didn't cost more to watch color tv, other than the initial investment on hardware.

Post by **tritosine5G** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:58 pm

Fredz, color tv story is different. Dig deeper.

Post by **tritosine5G** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:58 pm

Fredz, color tv story is different. Dig deeper.

Hints: Peter Goldmark, field sequential, colorwheel...

Post by **Fredz** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:43 pm

I was only speaking about the introduction of the technique to the general public, but I can give you more background if you want...

Color TV broadcast first appeared in 1951 thanks to a formal authorization of the FCC using the system invented by Goldmark, but it was cancelled four months later due to the Korean war. It could only display 343 lines, was not compatible with the B&W sets available on the market and got very little exposure (100 TVs were sold when they halted the broadcast).

Color TV was officially introduced in 1953 in the US using the new NTSC standard (525 lines) which was compatible with the B&W sets. The first color TVs supporting this standard were produced in mass for the public in 1954 (RCA and Westinghouse sets) and this standard is still in use in the US.

You can always find earlier examples, Baird demonstrated the first color television transmission in 1928 and the first color broadcast in 1938. In 1928 he also invented the 3D TV ("Stereovision") which could be used with a Holmes stereoscope. You can even find traces of earlier attempts at color TV by Maurice Le Blanc in 1880 and Jan Szczepanik in 1897.

Post by **cybereality** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:16 pm

I wrote a piece on color tv and how it relates to stereo 3d, maybe you guys want to take a look:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 79&p=28820" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **Fredz** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:09 pm

Interesting piece but I don't think 3D is going to evolve the way color TV did. By then, everybody knew it was only a question of time before mass adoption of color, just like for sound in films, but that's not so evident for 3D.

We can all observe the resistance of quite a lot of specialized websites (engadget being a good example) which should normally push for such new technologies. It was not the case for color TV if you read old issues of Popular Science from the early 50's for example (available on Google Books).

With 3D we've already got several examples of failures due to public progressive lack of interest (the 1952-1955 golden era or the 1981-1985 revival) which didn't happen for color or sound. Maybe these failures were due to technical problems, but since we now have standards like HDMI 1.4a, Blu-Ray 3D and frame compatible side-by-side broadcast, technical aspects should no longer be a problem.

I think it's now only dependent on the real desire of the public, and I don't think the question of the added cost is an important factor in this regard. If people want 3D, they will pay more just like they did for any other technological advance.

The real question is : are we going to keep a critical mass of people interested in 3D for it to stay this time, but I've unfortunately no answer to this question. Still, we should know quite soon since technology adoption or rejection goes generally much faster today than it did 50 years ago.

Post by **cybereality** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:59 pm

Well I think one of the biggest issues now is content. In terms of 3D films, they are dominated by children's animations and the few live-action 3D films released have been mostly conversions and generally bad. Aside from some IMAX documentaries and other niche content like that, there really aren't a lot of films that appeal to the target demographic of 3D hardware. Of course there are early adopters that will gladly pay the premium to watch a handful of niche content, but this won't attract the masses. And 3D has a limited time to gain a critical mass. So I think it is very important to have more content than just a dozen or so 3D Blu-Rays. Video games will play a big factor, and I think this can really get people stoked on 3D. Especially since some of the big PS3 games going 3D are core franchises like Gran Turismo, Kill Zone, and Crysis. And we know gamers seem to have a large disposable income (especially PC gamers). And 3D is relatively easy to add to a game (unlike film where conversions can take half a year or more and still look like crap). So we have a good chance of getting some new converts once they see 3D at their friends house, at the movies, etc. But the technology and the content has got to improve before it goes mainstream. But I have faith.

Post by **Neil** » Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:35 pm

The following is an excerpt of a blog article. Read Full Article

Today we revealed preliminary findings about acceptable premiums for 3D compatibility on PC and console video games.

Do you see this happening? What criteria would you look for before spending money on a 3D game compatibility premium? What does 3D compatibility mean to you?