Support NeoGAF

[Brimstone]

I'm pretty sure Superstardust in 3D outputs full 720p frames at 120hz, keeping the game running at the 60FPS. At least that's what the developers of the game were saying and guys from Digital Foundry were seeing. Wipeout running in 3D is 30FPS so clue if it needs to output 120Hz or not.

I can only speculate.


If a game developer is using a checkerboard format, they wouldn't be technically saying something misleading by claiming 720p@120fps is full resolution.


HDMI 1.3 & 1.4 have the same bandwidth. Sony has to work with the bandwidth given.

Displayport 1.2 has a lot more bandwidth, but that really isn't standard for TVs. You can't fault Sony in any way if they are using checkerboard formats. Anyway high frame rates are cruical for stereo 3d.

 

[Fusebox]

I played Wip3out 3D at the Sony store in Tokyo. Here's a snap I took of their setup, that's some random dude playing it.

It was just okay. When the effect worked it was great, but for the majority of the time I was playing it I could see really weird shit happening on the screen.

 

[missile]

A visitor at the Sony Building in Ginza, Tokyo, tries out a PlayStation 3
game on a 3-D TV on January 21, YOSHIAKI MIURA PHOTO

Yet another lucky dude.

 

[mckmas8808]

When all is said and done, this shift to 3D will be regarded as a huge mistake

People said the same thing about HDTVs and Blu-ray. :lol

 

[MightyHedgehog]

People said the same thing about HDTVs and Blu-ray. :lol

I don't see how 3D and HD are even in the same boat.

 

[Yoshichan]

People said the same thing about HDTVs and Blu-ray. :lol

...

 

[Azerach]

I don't see how 3D and HD are even in the same boat.

Agree.


With HD it was all "casual viewers can't even tell the difference between HD and SD". Can't really miss it when another dimension is added, unless you have lazy eye or something.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't see how 3D and HD are even in the same boat.

Only in the sense that they are new technologies that people seem to hate on before they are given a chance.

There's no reason for people to hope that this technology will fall on its face.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

So, at The Gadget Show Live today I was lucky enough to play Wipeout HD in 3D. I absolutely love the game, so I was pretty excited as you can imagine.

The good news

As expected with any game in 3D, it's in perfect 3D. If you've used Nvidia's solution, you'll know what to expect. Sony's 3DTV worked perfectly.

The bad news

No, not just the cliched having to wear glasses. But 30fps. Yes, thirty fucking frames per second. This isn't the Wipeout HD I love. 3D or not.

Conclusion

One step forward, two steps back. I understand why 3D theoretically takes twice the graphics processing power, but in cases like this, I really wonder what the point is. I'd take 60fps 2D Wipeout HD over 30fps 3D Wipeout HD (with 30% colour reduction)... any day.

3D gaming? Not quite the future just yet IMO. On existing consoles it is simply going to mean 3D at the expense of graphics or framerate degradation: I'm not signing up for that.

EDIT: Apologies if this sounds a little bloggy. I'll stop ranting now

I had the same experience back in January at a Sony Style store.

the framerate made it a fucking joke.

whoever that dev was that said 3D on the PS3 would be limited because of framerates hit the nail on the head. it will be used in only certain games because the game will have to run at better than 60fps (120fps ideally) in order to run well enough to not give you a fucking headache while trying to play it.

Wipeout = FAIL. not because of the 3D (the depth looks great), but because Wipeout was not made for 30fps. it felt choppy and wrong.

I don't think we'll see 3D in anything but arcade games. Next generation it may mean something...but in 2010? 3D is not what's up.

 

[2 Minutes Turkish]

Only in the sense that they are new technologies that people seem to hate on before they are given a chance.

There's no reason for people to hope that this technology will fall on its face.

Glasses say you're wrong.

No one, ANYWHERE on the planet will want to:

a) Wear glasses daily to watch TV, what happens to the Xzibit customers?

b) Wear $100 glasses to watch TV daily

c) Buy multiple pairs of $100 glasses to watch TV


If they can go the Toshiba route and manage to get the 3D WITHOUT the glasses, then I'm sure ti should be relatively successful. As long as glasses are needed.

Flop.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Only in the sense that they are new technologies that people seem to hate on before they are given a chance.

There's no reason for people to hope that this technology will fall on its face.

Yea, I've seen it. I gave it a chance.

3D won't matter until they can figure out how to make 3D without glasses work without terribly compromising the viewing angle. the tech is already available for 3D without glasses...it's just that it only works well within a small range.

but anyone with a brain knows tech that costs $150-$200 extra AFTER purchase was going to be relegated to a niche market.

3D is less like HDTV and Blu-ray...and more like Laserdisc. Maybe not even that, as Laserdisc didn't ask for $150-$200 per person to view the content, nor did it ask you to wear an impractical peripheral that drops the brightness a full light stop.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Glasses say you're wrong.

No one, ANYWHERE on the planet will want to:

a) Wear glasses daily to watch TV, what happens to the Xzibit customers?

b) Wear $100 glasses to watch TV daily

c) Buy multiple pairs of $100 glasses to watch TV


If they can go the Toshiba route and manage to get the 3D WITHOUT the glasses, then I'm sure ti should be relatively successful. As long as glasses are needed.

Flop.

this.

it's a gimmick until 3D without glasses works out.

a small niche of enthusiasts will want it. gamers won't buy in because there won't be enough games using it (because of the afore mentioned problem with consoles pumping out 60fps-120fps...a problem we've seen all generation).

by next console gen, we'll see legit 3D technology ready to enter the market. THEN, we can talk about 3D.

 

[mckmas8808]

Glasses say you're wrong.

No one, ANYWHERE on the planet will want to:

a) Wear glasses daily to watch TV, what happens to the Xzibit customers?

b) Wear $100 glasses to watch TV daily

c) Buy multiple pairs of $100 glasses to watch TV


If they can go the Toshiba route and manage to get the 3D WITHOUT the glasses, then I'm sure ti should be relatively successful. As long as glasses are needed.

Flop.

Yet this movie made $2.5 Billion.

I'm not saying everybody will own one. I'm just saying it's WAAAY too early to claim that it will be a flop. Let the general public decide its fate.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Yet this movie made $2.5 Billion.

I'm not saying everybody will own one. I'm just saying it's WAAAY too early to claim that it will be a flop. Let the general public decide its fate.

there's a bigass, gaping difference between agreeing to pay $12 to wear glasses and watch something for 2 hours in a controlled environment designed for it...and asking someone to wear them in the privacy of their home for hours on end at a $150-$200 premium for each pair of glasses for each person who wants to watch the content.

glasses just waiting to be misplaced, broken, or fail to work properly. glasses that mom standing in the kitchen cooking dinner won't want to wear. glasses that will become uncomfortable and look ridiculous.

some things don't translate well into the home environment. this is one of them.

 

[Azerach]

there's a bigass, gaping difference between agreeing to pay $12 to wear glasses and watch something for 2 hours in a controlled environment designed for it...and asking someone to wear them in the privacy of their home for hours on end at a $150-$200 premium for each pair of glasses for each person who wants to watch the content.

glasses just waiting to be misplaced, broken, or fail to work properly. glasses that mom standing in the kitchen cooking dinner won't want to wear. glasses that will become uncomfortable and look ridiculous.

some things don't translate well into the home environment. this is one of them.

The mom in the kitchen is not the early adopter who will get this thing rolling, early adopters will probably gladly pay the premium to be among the first ones to get their hands on this tech. And once more and more people are buying the TVs and glasses, lo and behold the prices will come down to a more affordable level :OOOO

Not to mention that better no-glasses solutions will be introduced over time and there is no reason why no-glasses solutions wouldn't work with 3D gaming.

 

[ionicbluebird]

I think 3d is more important than hd... 3d can make crappy games look decent and more immeresive. 3d can make great looking HD games rid. awesome looking and almost fully immersive. I would LOVE to play Uncharted 2 in 3d. Or even a game like heavy rain, complete with move functionality.

 

[Haint]

Glasses say you're wrong.

No one, ANYWHERE on the planet will want to:

a) Wear glasses daily to watch TV, what happens to the Xzibit customers?

b) Wear $100 glasses to watch TV daily

c) Buy multiple pairs of $100 glasses to watch TV


If they can go the Toshiba route and manage to get the 3D WITHOUT the glasses, then I'm sure ti should be relatively successful. As long as glasses are needed.

Flop.

Here's the important distinction. Most people won't buy 3D TV's to watch "daily". They'll buy them for the 1 or 2 Blu-Rays they watch per week. They'll buy them to play through spectacle-driven single player campaigns in games, not hundred or thousand hour online careers. They'll buy them (on the promise) of potentially to watching their favorite weekly drama or sporting event. Arguing the display is kind of moot though. Contrary to the shameless gouging going on this year, 3D is not a particularly expensive feature to add to a TV set. Barring collusion, I fully expect "3D Ready" to be standard in 40-70% of model lines offered by any given manufacturer next year. The real barrier is going to be the content, not the TV.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Yet this movie made $2.5 Billion.

I'm not saying everybody will own one. I'm just saying it's WAAAY too early to claim that it will be a flop. Let the general public decide its fate.

This does not apply. A 2 and half hour film versus every time you want to watch tv?

Hmmm.

 

[rjcc]

Glasses say you're wrong.

No one, ANYWHERE on the planet will want to:

a) Wear glasses daily to watch TV, what happens to the Xzibit customers?

b) Wear $100 glasses to watch TV daily

c) Buy multiple pairs of $100 glasses to watch TV


If they can go the Toshiba route and manage to get the 3D WITHOUT the glasses, then I'm sure ti should be relatively successful. As long as glasses are needed.

Flop.

I have no idea why anyone would think these things.

a and b don't exist and c is a problem that will go away.

I have on idea what Toshiba route you think you're espousing, but it's not coming.

 

[mckmas8808]

This does not apply. A 2 and half hour film versus every time you want to watch tv?

Hmmm.

Why do you 3D haters seem to think that people at home will be watching TV shows in 3D for 8 hours a day.

Like the guy above you said, it's going to be for special events (The Grammys), big sporting events (Daytona 500 or the Super Bowl), huge TV shows (LOST), and movie channels like HBO.

I'd like to watch the Superbowl in 3D. I'd love also watch Avatar at home in 3D also. Let me play MLB '10 in 3D on my PS3. Why don't you want me to do this?

 

[Haunted]

Why do you 3D haters seem to think that people at home will be watching TV shows in 3D for 8 hours a day.

Like the guy above you said, it's going to be for special events (The Grammys), big sporting events (Daytona 500 or the Super Bowl), huge TV shows (LOST), and movie channels like HBO.

I'd like to watch the Superbowl in 3D. I'd love also watch Avatar at home in 3D also. Let me play MLB '10 in 3D on my PS3. Why don't you want me to do this?

No one cares how you burn your money, they're just saying that the tech probably won't catch on that quickly in the home space, especially in its current implementation.


On a personal note, I just bought a new HDTV a couple months back, so 3D that needs a new special 3DTV can fuck right off.

 

[zoukka]

Why don't you want me to do this?

Because I want the industry to focus on something sensible and good.

 

[Stillmatic]

This does not apply. A 2 and half hour film versus every time you want to watch tv?

Hmmm.

Yes, because putting glasses on is a huge chore. I'll happily put glasses on to watch sport/a movie/play a game in 3d.

Like my HDTV i don't always watch HD content on it, i'd imagine the same would apply to 3D content when i eventually grab 3DTV.

 

[rjcc]

No one cares how you burn your money, they're just saying that the tech probably won't catch on that quickly in the home space, especially in its current implementation.

how is it not going to catch on that quickly, if 3DTVs are already available for the same price as HDTVs in the same space, and the content he wants to watch will be in 3D over the next year?

I don't get it.

That seems like perfectly fast enough.

 

[Brimstone]

Sony have hit the bullseye with PS3 3d. It is a testament to Sonys engineering prowess to launch a console without Blu-Ray 3d and games in 3d, then several years after launch smoothly transition into 3d. Previous owners are getting these updates for free, except for having to buy the glasses and a 3d TV.


The 3d won't be perfect, but it is a start. Sony is doing a good job instead of re-inventing the wheel, they embrace REALD.


I think Sony realizes that people aren't going to wear 3d glasses for all content. For special events such as sports and certain games people will find it worhtwhile to put them on.

 

[Fusebox]

My eyes were bleeding after playing Wipeout 3D. Count me out of the 3D revolution until it's perfected.

 

[kitch9]

So, at The Gadget Show Live today I was lucky enough to play Wipeout HD in 3D. I absolutely love the game, so I was pretty excited as you can imagine.

The good news

As expected with any game in 3D, it's in perfect 3D. If you've used Nvidia's solution, you'll know what to expect. Sony's 3DTV worked perfectly.

The bad news

No, not just the cliched having to wear glasses. But 30fps. Yes, thirty fucking frames per second. This isn't the Wipeout HD I love. 3D or not.

Conclusion

One step forward, two steps back. I understand why 3D theoretically takes twice the graphics processing power, but in cases like this, I really wonder what the point is. I'd take 60fps 2D Wipeout HD over 30fps 3D Wipeout HD (with 30% colour reduction)... any day.

3D gaming? Not quite the future just yet IMO. On existing consoles it is simply going to mean 3D at the expense of graphics or framerate degradation: I'm not signing up for that.

EDIT: Apologies if this sounds a little bloggy. I'll stop ranting now

I'm a gadget freak. I like my shit, and I'll not even get started on how much I've thrown at my entertainment system and PC over the past couple years.

I too went to the gadget show, and I left feeling underwhelmed with a sharp headache...... I went looking forward to seeing the 3d stuff, like really looking forward to it and it popped any kind of bubble I had for it.

I actually found the passive glasses easier on the eye than the active as there was a very fast flicker I could notice in the corner of my eye with the active ones. The 3d effects were more the illusion of a moving pop-up book rather than true 3d and the colour loss with a grey / green tint over everything using the glasses I found less then optimal too.

I was with a couple of guys who you would describe as Joe six pack type of guys and they thought the whole concept was a big joke even after trying it..

Best thing of the show was the girls on the Nvidia stand...FAFAFFFAFAFLLALALFALLAFALGGAGA!!!!

 

[metareferential]

Sony have hit the bullseye with PS3 3d. It is a testament to Sonys engineering prowess to launch a console without Blu-Ray 3d and games in 3d, then several years after launch smoothly transition into 3d. Previous owners are getting these updates for free, except for having to buy the glasses and a 3d TV.

This is a great start for sure.

The problem with 3D nowadays - aside from obvious improvements (which are on the way in any case) - is money.

The vast majority of the gaming population are kids or young people who simply can't afford this kind of upgrade. Therefore many of the complaints are coming out straight out of this.

In a sense it is similar to what the hd shift meant to quite a few people.

The market though always offers various possibilieties; we're not forced into buying a 3'000 $ tv-set to experience 3D. A good 22" 120hz lcd will get the job done requiring a much smaller investment.

Moreover, 3D is not going to be mandatory; it is not that from now on (or from the moment Sony releases the 3D firmware update) people who don't own a 3D set will be forced into buying one.

3D is an appealing tech, and Avatar stands to confirm it. It's just a matter of time, as with any new technology.

EDIT: I am referring to 3D-gaming alone, of course.

 

[Monty Mole]

Yet this movie made $2.5 Billion.

I'm not saying everybody will own one. I'm just saying it's WAAAY too early to claim that it will be a flop. Let the general public decide its fate.

Wearing glasses in the cinema for a few hours as a one-off is a far cry away from having to wear glasses for your daily, casual viewing, or someone spending lots of money on a TV + glasses just to watch a selection of 3D content on it.

After experiencing a shit load of 3DTV at The Gadget Show on Friday, it made me realise that I'd get bored of the novelty pretty quickly and probably just switch the TV back in to 2D mode. 3D strangely felt like a chore.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

^ exactly.

how is it not going to catch on that quickly, if 3DTVs are already available for the same price as HDTVs in the same space, and the content he wants to watch will be in 3D over the next year?

I don't get it.

$150-$200 per pair of glasses.

a family of 4 has to pay $800+ for everyone in the house to watch in 3D AFTER purchase of the television.

people will buy TVs that also support 3D, but they won't be the selling feature anymore than "motionflow" is. a gimick that will come to be little used, though for different reasons.

when 3D without glasses is legit, we can talk about something that can last.

 

[Brimstone]

According to Panasonic for optimal 3d viewing you are supposed to sit 3x the display height (3x the display height is the 3d "sweetspot"). This guy looks like he is a bit close to the screen.

The closer to the TV the less depth there is to the picture.
The further away you sit from the TV the more depth you get.

 

[Plinko]

Those arguing that people won't want to wear glasses to watch TV remind me of those who argued that the Wii would fail because they'd look stupid while playing. It doesn't make a lot of sense and most people have common sense and don't care what they look like when doing something like sitting and watching television.

The comparison between the 3D emergence and the HD conversion is laughable. HD took off because of the giant governmental conversion to digital channels. Many were completely confused and thought that, had they not bought a new TV, they would have lost television signals altogether (instead of buying the box). Had that not happened, I bet we'd still be looking at much less than a 50% penetration rate into households.

There is absolutely NO pressure this time for people to buy a new television. 3D will be niche for many years--at least until the prices drop to around $1000.

 

[1-D_FTW]

According to Panasonic for optimal 3d viewing you are supposed to sit 3x the display height (3x the display height is the 3d "sweetspot"). This guy looks like he is a bit close to the screen.

The closer to the TV the less depth there is to the picture.
The further away you sit from the TV the more depth you get.

That seems awfully generous. There was a thread on AVS about why 3D made the screen look so much smaller (Because the added depth into the screen) and someone posted that NHK calculated that the optimum seating distance for viewing 3D is .75X the screen height. So by that definition, he's probably on the outer edge of it.

I took it to mean you want to sit closer not because it cancels out the depth, but because you need to be close so it appears larger.

 

[gofreak]

It's OK for it to be niche at the outset.

Most new tech is.

The long term vision is autostereo TVs that work and are cheap.

When that happens, who can really say they'd prefer to play today's games on a 2D display? If that happens, and I think and hope that is inevitable, how can one say that it will 'flop'? It'll just be standard then, and an obvious way to view certain kinds of content, games among them.

In the meantime, those who can afford it, and those who don't have a hangup about the glasses can enjoy this experience today (via a PC or soon with some PS3 games). And what the hell is wrong with that? In order to get to that longer term vision we have to start at the start, and get the ball rolling for the sake of content support. It doesn't have to be cheap nor in its ultimate incarnation at day one. It has to be 'good enough' to get things started, and that's it.

 

[suffah]

Whoa whoa whoa.

Why would people want to watch their daily news/sitcoms/dramas/etc in 3D? You guys really think people want to watch 2 and a half men in 3D? Please. 8 hours a day watching 3D? 3D != HD. They don't have to make EVERYTHING 3D.

3D is for sports, action movies, and the occasional special event.

Yes, the cost of entry is expensive, but so were $1000 VCRs. And $1000 blu ray players. Of course, since it's 3D, the glasses will remain $150-200 FOREVER.

This is a young technology (relatively speaking, for the home market) so of course prices will be high. Yes, it will probably remain niche but who gives a damn as long as they make it to available to those who care.

It reminds me of HD movie hating retards that were calling HD DVD/Blu rays niche. Screw these short-sighted idiots, I just wanted my movies in HD. It's the same with 3D. Give me 3D sports + 3D movies. I don't give a damn if it remains niche or if every senior citizen on the planet goes 3D.

I agree with everyone that says gaming just isn't ready for 3D yet.

In the meantime, those who can afford it, and those who don't have a hangup about the glasses can enjoy this experience today (via a PC or soon with some PS3 games). And what the hell is wrong with that? In order to get to that longer term vision we have to start at the start, and get the ball rolling for the sake of content support. It doesn't have to be cheap nor in its ultimate incarnation at day one. It has to be 'good enough' to get things started, and that's it.

Thank you for bringing some common sense to the table. These 3D haters seem to think it's an extra $800 for every family and you have to wear the glasses for 8 hours daily.

 

[FleckSplat]

If you've used Nvidia's solution

Ugh, really?

 

[Brimstone]

That seems awfully generous. There was a thread on AVS about why 3D made the screen look so much smaller (Because the added depth into the screen) and someone posted that NHK calculated that the optimum seating distance for viewing 3D is .75X the screen height. So by that definition, he's probably on the outer edge of it.

I took it to mean you want to sit closer not because it cancels out the depth, but because you need to be close so it appears larger.

Not sure about NHK...but here is a Panasonic PDF on 3d Plasma.

http://uploads.avforums.com/PanasonicTechPapers3D/3DPlasma_mw.pdf

 

[Kinan]

3D Pong as PS Move launch title - me buying 3DTV asap.

Seriously, there are some experiences that will be better in 3D, no doubt. Ignoring this is god damn shortsighted.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Glasses say you're wrong.

No one, ANYWHERE on the planet will want to:

a) Wear glasses daily to watch TV, what happens to the Xzibit customers?

b) Wear $100 glasses to watch TV daily

I wear $100+ glasses to view my whole life daily. This is no big step.

 

[deepbrown]

The bad news is some pretty fucking bad news. I'm of the mind that thinks graphics don't need to get better or 3Disher. Give me solid framerates and controls.

I'm not loving this direction that Sony is moving towards.

What, working really hard to get two 30fps 720/1080p images running at the same time in 3D, making it possible for the 2D version to be 60fps 1080p?

I know that's not the route WipEout HD took - but developing with 3D in mind, I think will very positively affect the 2D version of the game - because they'll have a whole bunch of resources left over =)

 

[Goldrusher]

They should've linked 2 consoles. Then the game would be running in 60fps.
Sony even demonstrated GT5 at 240fps once, using 4 consoles.

 

[JimboJones]

I'm all for 3D, just make a 3DTV that doesn't need me to wear glasses, until then i'm just not interested.

 

[iceatcs]

Ouch 3D hater extremism around here. Good luck to buy non 3D support on 3 years time.


But the questions are will it going to huge or not and will it even use glasses-free in the future for some people didn't like being touch on the nose.

 

[gofreak]

On Wipeout, I think it's a shame they sacrificed framerate over resolution (or if both's necessary). I thought they might use their dynamic resolution system to adjust resolution more aggressively and try to keep the framerate at its standard level.

On the other hand, for other types of games, if you can get 30fps in 3D with a Wipeout level of graphics, that seems pretty enticing to me. The framerate is not optimal for Wipeout but would be fine in many other games. We'll see what else comes with games designed from the start with 3D support in mind, but I think claims that 3D is premature for console games on this generation, in terms of performance tradeoff, are themselves premature. There's whole swathes of games that don't look as good as Wipeout at 30fps, so if you can do that...

 

[rjcc]

^ exactly.


$150-$200 per pair of glasses.

a family of 4 has to pay $800+ for everyone in the house to watch in 3D AFTER purchase of the television.

people will buy TVs that also support 3D, but they won't be the selling feature anymore than "motionflow" is. a gimick that will come to be little used, though for different reasons.

when 3D without glasses is legit, we can talk about something that can last.

how much does it cost for a family of four to get lower bowl tickets to any sporting event?

with NO television.

yeah.

lol @ jacking up the price to $200 just because. if you don't think there will be loads of value packs and bundles then I'd certainly like some of whatever it is you're high on.

 

[FleckSplat]

Not to mention that better no-glasses solutions will be introduced over time and there is no reason why no-glasses solutions wouldn't work with 3D gaming.

FFFFFUUUUUUUUUU!

 

[metareferential]

They should've linked 2 consoles. Then the game would be running in 60fps.
Sony even demonstrated GT5 at 240fps once, using 4 consoles.

They should give us the option.

Just like FM3 multiscreen setup. It's there, if you want to use it (like with friends).

Dual-ps3 3D support.

Hell, I'll even buy one more just to do it xD

 

[Chû Totoro]

Constant 30fps is ok for me.
Good animation is more important. I mean sometime you have 60 fps but the movements don't like realistic it's like the characters where break dancing...

 

[Red]

People said the same thing about HDTVs and Blu-ray. :lol

I will hold your hand when the GAF mob comes to get you.

Honestly, though, think about some things that have been predicted to fail:
Nintendo DS
HDTVs
Blu ray
PS3
Wii/motion controls
etc.

Every time something new rolls around, 95% of people freak out and try to rationalize what's different about it that guarantees yes, this time for sure it's going to be a flop. Change is good, guys. Change is good.

 

[zoukka]

I will hold your hand when the GAF mob comes to get you.

Honestly, though, think about some things that have been predicted to fail:
Nintendo DS
HDTVs
Blu ray
PS3
Wii/motion controls
etc.

Every time something new rolls around, 95% of people freak out and try to rationalize what's different about it that guarantees yes, this time for sure it's going to be a flop. Change is good, guys. Change is good.

Lol. What were the downsides of higher resolution and bigger storage? The 3D effect takes clear sacrifices to work. Lower rez, lower framerate, headaches and blurriness. I mean this isn't rocket science here...

And the DS/Wii hate was just fanboyism. Which can be left aside here when Sony and Nintendo are both pushing 3D and Microsoft will follow.