Is the 3D Industry Its Own Worst Enemy?

[Neil]

Is our industry jumping off bridges instead of building them? Are we needlessly putting ourselves in a weak and defensive position? Are manufacturers playing on their strengths?

Regards,
Neil

[BlackShark]

Gaming is generally underestimated by the mainstream media. So i'm not surprised about them only focusing on cinema and sports events (both of which TV broadcasts). It's about their own business after all.
I will always remember this quote from the head of TF1 (biggest french TV channel), that translates roughly into : "when people play videogames, they don't watch our channel, we don't want to promote them"

Gaming is also mostly seen as a childish occupation. Most parents don't care about the games their children play, and when they care, it's mostly about "is the game violent ? or contains sexual scenes ?" and that's about it.
The problem is : only adults have access to the money wallet, not children, not teenagers, not youngsters with low paid part time jobs.
Only the parents are actually able to buy the highly priced 3D TVs. since the parents don't play the games, they have no 3D contentto watch on them, so they have no use for 3DTVs.
Why in the world would they buy an expansive 3D TV for the living room when only the kids can use it (and who use the old TV in the kids room, so that parents can watch the evening news and films on the big screen in the living room)

This will change over time as the gaming generation grows up and become parents in their turn but this takes a lot of time.
This change is starting to happen, but we won't seen the real changes for a few more years.
After all, I also remember my granpa only reading newspapers, rarely going to the cinema and not even watching the TV (except when an old film was aired).

I am absolutely not talking about the new casual gaming market exploding with the nintendo wii and nintendo DS making gandpa and grandma starting to make their mii and playing wii sports, this is a completely different thing, than nobody saw coming, even the gaming industry itself.


Hollywood is trying to grab some attention from the general TV/Cinema audience.
Younger audiences are already tuned on 3D but with the bad reputaion that shutter glasses has managed to get, they want to see new stuff before believing again.

I also have some personnal thoughts on 3D for the TV, and my personnal reasons to believe that 3d television, and even 3D cinema at home is less interesting than 3D gaming and 3D cinema (at the theatre).

[chrisdfw]

Each corporate player in the 3d gaming/movie world looks like they are each willing to put up their piece of the puzzle, but nobody will wrap it all up and make it easy for the consumer.

Can I go into Best Buy and see a demo of one of these 3d capable TVs playing a 3d movie demo or game?

Nope.

Can I buy a movie in 3d that I pop into my Blu Ray player, set the TV for 3d, put on the glasses and enjoy it?

Nope.

Can I buy the 3d glasses that work with the TV at the same store I get the TV from?

Not usually.

Are there standards to make it easy for all of these 3d technologies to work together without the end user having to learn what convergence and screen depth means?

nope.

My biggest disapointment is with Nvidia for locking down their 3d support to only specific products using just thier glasses. My second biggest disapointment is with TV manufacturers not working with movie/game providers to at least provide demo's to include with the TV and demonstrate in stores.

All of this is just making 3d a big joke to the average consumer and leaving it something only those of us in this forum have the patience to put up with in order to get the game/movie immersion that everyone should be able to enjoy.

(edit) Here are forums topics posted over the last year regarding these problems that aren't getting any closer to being addressed:

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1219" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1254" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1450" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[wnielsenbb]

I watched and waited for 3D->2D video cards for years before 3DFX finally released a 3D->2D video card. Now they all are.
I waited a long time for force feedback joysticks, and finally got the CH ForceFX joystick which was amazing, but by then mice games had taken over and the ForceFX died. Although the force is still strong in steering wheels.
Hopefully S3D will go like the 3D->2D video cards and not force feedback. The large movie push to 3D and sports going 3D will really help I think. Nascar and NFL in 3D could do more to push 3D than gaming even. Maybe not, but I hope so.
One thing that would help gaming is if one company had the resources to give all major game developers 3D systems so they can see how cool it would be. It really is a small bit of programming to support native 3D.

But yeah, the industry is it's own worst enemy. If all the industry players would get together and standardize it would really help. With Nvidia aligning with Zalman and ATI aligning with iZ3D and everyone else going off on their own tangents it is only working to delay the great future, when everything is 3D.
Warren.

[cybereality]

The industry is just as fragmented as its always been, even moreso maybe, and I don't see that changing any time soon. On the movie side of things they seem to have their act together, at least in the theaters. But I see no real push to get standards in place necessary for 3d at home. Without standards its a chicken and the egg situation which means no real progress. On the gaming side there is still a big barrier for entry for casual consumers although with the iz3D at $399 that is quickly fading. But we need game developers that will at least test their games with stereo3d drivers let alone support it natively. Again, I don't see this changing soon. The problem is that there is not enough perceived demand yet. We have to wait for the kids growing up on Disney3D to grow up and start demanding things. Its a generation too soon right now, so we must wait.

[Neil]

Ok - I have to disagree with a lot of this.

Let's begin!

I will always remember this quote from the head of TF1 (biggest french TV channel), that translates roughly into : "when people play video games, they don't watch our channel, we don't want to promote them

I don't see how this mindset applies. 3D manufacturers just want to sell their televisions. If it's cinema, video games, home movies, or whatever - it doesn't matter. Whatever justifies the equipment will win. There is no excuse for 3D manufacturers to claim there is no content when there clearly is in video games. We also have the benefit of a well backed study demonstrating the demand for this technology.

Gaming is also mostly seen as a childish occupation. Most parents don't care about the games their children play, and when they care, it's mostly about "is the game violent ? or contains sexual scenes ?" and that's about it. The problem is : only adults have access to the money wallet, not children, not teenagers, not youngsters with low paid part time jobs. Only the parents are actually able to buy the highly priced 3D TVs. since the parents don't play the games, they have no 3D contentto watch on them, so they have no use for 3DTVs. Why in the world would they buy an expansive 3D TV for the living room when only the kids can use it (and who use the old TV in the kids room, so that parents can watch the evening news and films on the big screen in the living room)

Check this interview out:

http://mtbs3d.com/cgi-bin/rss_interviews.cgi?news_id=56" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Modern research demonstrates the complete opposite of what you are saying. Parents do care, they play with their kids, gamers are more adult than ever...this isn't the 80s anymore!

Each corporate player in the 3d gaming/movie world looks like they are each willing to put up their piece of the puzzle, but nobody will wrap it all up and make it easy for the consumer.

Yes and no. You list very good examples in your message (see below for those who haven't read it). This editorial is focused on manufacturers completely ignoring gaming in favor of cinema. They put all their eggs in one basket - a basket that won't be ready for years. Gaming is here today.

The large movie push to 3D and sports going 3D will really help I think. Nascar and NFL in 3D could do more to push 3D than gaming even. Maybe not, but I hope so. One thing that would help gaming is if one company had the resources to give all major game developers 3D systems so they can see how cool it would be. It really is a small bit of programming to support native 3D. But yeah, the industry is it's own worst enemy. If all the industry players would get together and standardize it would really help. With Nvidia aligning with Zalman and ATI aligning with iZ3D and everyone else going off on their own tangents it is only working to delay the great future, when everything is 3D.

If you are talking about the movie cinema experience encouraging 3D in the home, I agree with you completely. The learning curve alone is shortened when people sample it firsthand.

I agree with you about the different companies going their separate ways, which is why I founded MTBS to create an independently run joint leverage of 3D manufacturers and 3D end-users to help push things forward.

Standardization will impact cinema, and potentially console gaming (thought Blitz has demonstrated that this is not holding them back), but gaming is not impacted or held back by standardization. Not at all.

The problem is that there is not enough perceived demand yet. We have to wait for the kids growing up on Disney3D to grow up and start demanding things. Its a generation too soon right now, so we must wait.

Check the interview I linked to above. They have already grown up. The manufacturers are instigating this perceived lack of demand because they are missing the boat on gaming. Even Jeffrey Katzenberg sees the light in gaming...but not enough manufacturers. No excuse.

Regards,
Neil

[chrisdfw]

I don't see how this mindset applies. 3D manufacturers just want to sell their televisions. If it's cinema, video games, home movies, or whatever - it doesn't matter. Whatever justifies the equipment will win. There is no excuse for 3D manufacturers to claim there is no content when there clearly is in video games. We also have the benefit of a well backed study demonstrating the demand for this technology.

The study you are referencing was a study of gamers, not all consumers. It only shows that there is demand for it from gamers. If the manufacturers of $1000+ TVs think that there is a greater chance of a family buying their TV in order to sit down and watch a 3d disney movie together than to play games, then it is in their best interests to use that as their main marketing strategy.

If I think about all of the families and single people I know (and I probably know more gamers than the average person) I would have to guess that about 80% of those people would be more likely to watch a 3d movie at home (if the technology was plug and play) than to play a 3d video game at home. All of those that would play a video game in 3d at home would also watch a 3d movie at home.

It is probably true that “3D in the home will be led by gamers.”. The "3d gamers" are the ones that are willing to experiment and go out of their way to learn how to make 3d work. We have been leading the 3d innovations that got us where we are today. But, just like "velcro" was invented for the niche market of astronauts needing a way to keep something from floating away in space, "3d in the home" may have been pioneered by 3d gamers but we may not be the big money making opportunity for mass distribution.

Frankly, if 3d cinema in the home can be "plug and play" and content made available for it, then I think it only benefits gamers in the long run because we will have a variety of manufacturers, lower cost, and better support going forward.


Chris

[Neil]

Hi Chrisdfw!

The study you are referencing was a study of gamers, not all consumers. It only shows that there is demand for it from gamers. If the manufacturers of $1000+ TVs think that there is a greater chance of a family buying their TV in order to sit down and watch a 3d disney movie together than to play games, then it is in their best interests to use that as their main marketing strategy.

This simply isn't true.

You are correct that the strategic partners on U-DECIDE include AMD, iZ3D, Blitz Games Studios, The Game Creators, and Guild Software - all of whom work in the gaming industry. However, the surveys were also well promoted through general contest websites, press releases, and news stories that are not necessarily gaming related.

Finally, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, over 50% of American adults play video games:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28101518/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gamer or not, the lines are very much blurred between who qualifies to be a gamer, and who qualifies to take an interest in 3D home cinema and broadcasts.

I agree with your points that gamers are the starting point, and I agree that additional content will make the 3D HDTVs even more attractive than they are today.

The concern I have is with units on store shelves today. The manufacturers are completely ignoring the markets they have today - right now - in favor of something that hasn't been invented yet. How does it benefit them to throw away perfectly good sales on Christmas?

Regards,
Neil

[chrisdfw]

This simply isn't true.

You are correct that the strategic partners on U-DECIDE include AMD, iZ3D, Blitz Games Studios, The Game Creators, and Guild Software - all of whom work in the gaming industry. However, the surveys were also well promoted through general contest websites, press releases, and news stories that are not necessarily gaming related.

Finally, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, over 50% of American adults play video games:

The main page for the U-DECIDE survey clearly states "The idea behind U-DECIDE is very simple. Gamers are spending their hard earned money on video games, computer equipment, and similar entertainment, but we have found very few organized reports that accurately capture the true mindset of gamers FROM gamers."

Regardless of where the survey was posted, once the person sees this site they are not very likely to go through a survey that is not geared toward them if they are not a gamer. The questions were specifically geared toward gamers. This survey simply can't be used to show anything related to an average consumer.

I also see no benefit to using the Pew Internet & Amercan Life Project as relevant data since it defines "play video games" to mean any form of electronic gaming including computer solitair, cell phone games, and hand held games. We would need it further narrowed down to PC/Console gaming for it to be a relevant number.

I agree that manufacturers are ignoring a market they could move into quickly in regards to 3d gaming. There is nothing to stop Samsung or Mitsubishi from working with game companies, video card makers, and 3d goggles companies (though Samsung has their own goggles too) to get major retailers like Best Buy to have 3d demos of their products and present it in a way that is user friendly to the consumer. They could do that very quickly and it could have been the newsmaking "thing" for the current holiday season now that the Wii is old news.

[Neil]

We agree more than we disagree!

I think there are mover average consumer gamers than you are giving credit for, though. When you figure that gaming dwarfs cinema, that our 2D survey asks defining questions about the equipment they use and what they spend, and how the surveys were promoted - the numbers are sound.

But let's see! You raise valid points.

Regards,
Neil

[wnielsenbb]

November video games sales near $3 billion. 10% over last year. On track for $22 Billion for the year. (why doesn't the media report good news as much as bad?) That isn't all kids. Almost all adults I know play video games. The concept of playing them in 3D just isn't there for them. They can't imagine it, because they can't see it. Once iZ3D gets bigger monitors and their new glasses I think that will really help. I have a 37" monitor, so my friend had to out-do me with a 42" so I had to go front projection at 120". Stepping down to 22" just isn't going to happen (26" I might go for.) Now I am saving up for a second 1080p projector. I have the polarized screen and filters. Of course that is a system I will be able to show off to my friends, but one they are unlikely to reproduce, and telling them they can get 3D on a tiny 22" monitor isn't really going to impress them.
Warren.

[BlackShark]

I will always remember this quote from the head of TF1 (biggest french TV channel), that translates roughly into : "when people play video games, they don't watch our channel, we don't want to promote them

I don't see how this mindset applies. 3D manufacturers just want to sell their televisions. If it's cinema, video games, home movies, or whatever - it doesn't matter. Whatever justifies the equipment will win. There is no excuse for 3D manufacturers to claim there is no content when there clearly is in video games. We also have the benefit of a well backed study demonstrating the demand for this technology.

This quote was in relation to the mainstream media not being interested in video games, and manufacturers not talking about it simply because they perfectly know that their audience (mainstream journalists) are not interested.
Your experience with the journalist completely ignoring the video game market, is the perfect example of this mindstate.

About the state of gaming in the society, i agree with the general trend of the average age of the gamer increasing, but it is no where close to what the article says. And especially all the economic hopes behind them.
First of all the samples are way to small to be of any statistical use. The ESA survey of 650 people and The Pew Internet & American Life Project survey, claiming a 2% accuracy with barely 2000 samples relatively to the total Canada and US population, is absurd. I'm not a statistics expert, i only went through a statistics 101 course in college, but the little stuf i know about them tells me that these kinds of surveys have absolutely no value.

In fact i don't need to do any surveys to get the same kind samples. I can use my own life as an example : my family, family friends, school, college experience, and now my professionnal work (I have a non computer or gaming related work).
I have a lot of friends who are games and computer geeks, these people are all extremely interested in high tech stuff and play video games regularely.
On the other hand, when i look at the rest of my relatives, i get the completely opposite image, even in my own family : my father who bought an apple II computer when i was 1 year old, showed me computer games and even programmed on it, who bought me my first console (a super nintendo) when i was 6 years old and played with me... he no longer plays anyhting, he doesn't buy any console for himself, he bought a low range laptop for work.
My mother bought herself a nintendo DS, my father barely dare to touch it.
when i bought a wii and bought a wii and brought it home for christmas, everybody played it, including him and loved it, but when i took it back none of my parents bought one.

With the casual gaming market exploding today, everybody wonders what the hell is happening. And so wee see people trying to build up statistics and try to find some answers with these figures. But these answers will always be wrong since the industry itself is making them.
Wherever i go, the vast majority of people i meet are simply not gamers in their heart.
They don't play videogames or videogames hardware by themselves for themselves. They need a reason, they need an excuse to play.
It can be either their kids, neighbours, colleagues at work or a friend or whatever. Then once the console is installed in the living room they give it a try when the kids are in bed, but they would never have done it by themselves.

As I previously said, the Wii/DS mania that happened recently is way too often wrongly understood. The Wii/DS casual gamers play casual games, very few of them are ever converted into the hardcore gamers we would like them to be. This casual gaming audience does not play the same games as us, they do not enjoy highly complex, highly sophisticated and ultra immersive games like we do. It is a completely different world.
Technically it is still called video games, but it's very different from what we call video games.

The gaming population grows and will continue to grow as the gaming kids become adults and then parents it's an unavoidable natural phenomenon.
But you can't run faster than the train.
We are seeing the beginning of videogames becoming a mass market. It started 10 years ago with the playstation era, when early gaming population entered active life, and it's been going on and on and on ever since but we are not even 20 years away from the day when you will finally be able to claim that videogames has finally become a universal medium.
As gaming enthusiasts we would love to this this day coming faster, so we promote gaming and technology and 3D and all the stuff we like. We love when we hear the fun news about elderly people playing wii sports but we really need to keep focused and to always remember what the situation really is in the real world.
We need to remember there is is very important part of the population which is not interested in videogames, first because they haven't tried, and second because they consider them fun for an hour and then switch to something else more "important" or "in the real world" like watching TV or reading a book (I have heard these expressions soo many times i can't even count how many times i heard them).


When james cameron says "3D will be lead by gamers" is it perfectly true, and in fact it is already the case.
Gamers have been beta-testing 3D at home for 15 years. even current 3D monitors are highly specialized devices with huge drawbacks when used as conventionnal monitors : flicker on shutter glasses (almost solved), ghosting on iZ3D monitors (the new glasses are being tested) and colour calibration causing issues with the front pannel. HMDs (are seen as geeky, even by geek standards and are not very popular). And for now 99.99999% of the content is games.
But still... some gamers buy them even with these issues.
The 3D market is still a niche market (gaers + some rare businesses) but this market allows 3D hardware to improve and be more mass market friendly. So that when 3D is finally ready for mainstream mass distribution, it's really good and the market can enjo the technology at once.

Imagine what would have happened if the industry was trying to sell the mass market the hardware we used 10 years ago. How do you think the market would react ?
Or maybe when i see the old shutter glasses reputation i can maybe safely claim it already did, isn't it ?

[wnielsenbb]

Not too sure how you don't see $22 Billion a year as a mass market.
Warren.

[BlackShark]

I said the videogames market entered the mass market area with the playstation 1 era and keeps growing every year.
The market is big when talking about the money, but the problem is that the audience isn't that big.
The videogames market is able to generate more money with less audience. I put this on the fact that videgames cost way more than a DVD or a music CD.
Most games at the videogames store costs between 50€~60€, DVDs cost three times less, even Blu-Rays cost barely half.


The media isn't seeking for the biggest revenue generating industy (otherwise all the media would be talking only about the stock exchange).
The media needs the biggest audience possible and this is clearly not the hardcore videogaming audience that S-3D is targeting.

[Doom Lord]

My two pence worth:

The TV manufactures will need a new unique selling point to sell us new TV's. They have done big screens, they have done HD, they had done surround sound and thin LCD so I rekon its going to be 3D.

When you hear that SKY are going to to do football in 3d and the olympics in 3d that is big news in the UK. Men in the UK will buy a new TV just for the football.

Let me also just repeat to what someone previously Stated - We need standards and I think these should somehow be built into windows i.e Microsoft set the standards in Direct-X and all the board manufacturers have to adhere to these. This is also why I think that S3d will be more successfull on the consoles than on the PC, in fact I would go as far to say that S3D for gamers might end up being driven by the consoles simply because it's a closed system and all they have to do is implement it once.

[Neil]

Hi Doom Lord,

I'm completely unconvinced of your standards argument. Guidelines yes, standards no.

The whole advantage of S-3D gaming is you can do it today. Even with the biggest names behind it, it is only now starting to get the attention it deserves (though not by the companies who direly need the gamers to buy their products, it seems!). Just because you have the means to program something a certain way doesn't mean the motivation is there to create the content.

If I were an outsider looking in, and I had to choose between having a standard DirectX API for S-3D which nobody cared about, and having 10,000 MTBS members talking about 3D amongst themselves and their friends, I'd go with the 10,000. Standards have no marketing benefit whatsoever in the gaming world.

Look at DirectX 10! It's a "standard" API. Microsoft has backed it with all its might since the beginning. Are 100% of the games released today written in DX10 with the full DX10 applet being used? By the time DX11 is released, will this be the case? I'd have to say no to both questions.

Demand first, motivation first...standards - if relevant - later.

Regards,
Neil

[Doom Lord]

Hi Doom Lord,

I'm completely unconvinced of your standards argument. Guidelines yes, standards no.

The whole advantage of S-3D gaming is you can do it today. Even with the biggest names behind it, it is only now starting to get the attention it deserves (though not by the companies who direly need the gamers to buy their products, it seems!). Just because you have the means to program something a certain way doesn't mean the motivation is there to create the content.

If I were an outsider looking in, and I had to choose between having a standard DirectX API for S-3D which nobody cared about, and having 10,000 MTBS members talking about 3D amongst themselves and their friends, I'd go with the 10,000. Standards have no marketing benefit whatsoever in the gaming world.

Look at DirectX 10! It's a "standard" API. Microsoft has backed it with all its might since the beginning. Are 100% of the games released today written in DX10 with the full DX10 applet being used? By the time DX11 is released, will this be the case? I'd have to say no to both questions.

Demand first, motivation first...standards - if relevant - later.

Regards,
Neil

Firstly i'll just state that this is my "opinion" and I don't work in the gamming industry then that is all it reallys is

Any way with reference to you post about DX10 - although you may not be using DX10 yet you are still using the DX standard as a whole just the not the latest implementation. So I still go with needing a standard.

However I do agree with you in that there has to be demand first but not all demand comes from the consumer. A lot has to do a good product and even better marketing.