Ubisoft: Half of all new games will be 3D-ready by 2012

Matthew DeCarlo

Matthew DeCarlo

Posts: 5,271   +104
Staff

While most gamers and media buffs are still on the fence regarding 3D-mania, Ubisoft believes it will take off in only two years. The developer recently said in a conference call that it expected to see 3D gaming take off on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, as well as portable consoles – though none of that is unforeseen.

Microsoft recently inked a deal with LG to promote 3D gaming on the Xbox 360, Sony is leveraging its in-house divisions to push extra-dimensional content, and Nintendo is hard at work on the 3DS – a 3D-capable DS successor that doesn't require glasses. All three companies should have something on display at E3, and Sony is already selling 3D TVs.

"We can count on substantial [growth] in the 3D market just because it's more immersive, so it will be a good way for the industry to give even more emotion to the gamers," said Ubisoft. As early as next year, 15 to 20% of games will be 3D-ready, and that will grow to half of all games by 2012, the company believes.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/39018-ubisoft-half-of-all-new-games-will-be-3d-ready-by-2012.html

 
hello ...

i'm one of the PRO 3D, but getting a bit sick of all this, LOL! Yet i'm sure someday i'll have a 3D capable PC monitor & / or 3DTV .,, so why not, bring 'em ON !

cheers!
 
Well deerr, Like before in the 80's and 60's, it'll be a big boon for 3-4 years then everyone gets fed up with wearing glasses, looking at fuzzy images (although the latest 3d isn't half bad) and paying extra for everything just so its "3d capable" to eventually realise that its still a FAD.

I wish Ubisoft is wrong as i really hate seeing soo many people waste their money to gain a head ache and some glasses (which require batteries) with a slight hint of extra depth to images.

MAD!

And to all that say "you've never experienced it" I have! in the cinema, on the PC and as soon as I know someone that does have "3D" TV and Blu-ray player with a decent surround sound, I will decide if it really is worth it.

Note to all that have read my past notes on 3D, my friend that had the full 3D setup on his PC has litterally "given up" with it because he's fed up with playing games and having to wear glasses, took him like half a year or so though before the novalty wore off.
 
I completely agree with burty117. The software and hardware companies can beat the drum on this all they want. But it's been a total failure in the past and it will be a total failure now. No one wants to pay extra for a marginal looking 3D effect while having to wear glasses for who knows how long.

I saw Avatar at the IMAX theater and it looked gorgeous. But the glasses gave me a headache and the peripheral vision was iffy. If you weren't looking straight at the center of the screen, it started to get fuzzy around the edges. Until technology gets it to a point where it looks like Avatar on an IMAX screen without the glasses - and that's just to start, there will still be clarity issues - this is doomed to failure. Again.
 
you folks against 3dtv are just plain ignorant towards this topic. definition of ignorant: uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication. tomSea, you talk about a bad experience in a theater... what does that have to do with an in home 3D hdtv? nothing. in the theater you are watching a projector. you need to at least drive down to best buy and take a look at some floor models, just to educate yourself before you argue. and burty, you talk about fads like its the new fad. you need to go and look at a 3d hdtv as well. looking at 3d on the pc does not compare, just like the theater because the only way to get 3d on your pc is to have nvidia. in my opinion, invidia is lacking compared to ati. im sure 3d on the pc will get better eventually, though you can't really use that to compare to 3d hdtvs. just to clarify, i mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone.
 
You must be kidding. First show me proof that UBISOFT will be SOLVENT in 2012, chasing off more gamers (READ: Customers) with every release. I'm certainly proof of their lost revenue. Let them keep fantasizing about business they probably won't be a part of while the rest of the industry makes money.
 
You really can't compare today's 3D to the technology from 30 or 50 years ago and say it's going to die the same way. Granted the current generation of 3D shown in theaters can be improved, but it is still 1000x better than the last generation. I have also noticed that the peripheral vision is iffy on movie screens, I'm wondering how much of that is due to the glasses and screen size.

Next time you go to the theater, close one eye then the other. For me the frame of the glasses get in the way. You really need an unobstructed view of the screen from both eyes. I think if they make comfortable glasses that wrap-around the eyes (like Oakley sunglasses) it would improve the fuzziness. Also with a closer and smaller screen size, I think the picture will be much clearer and more detailed.

I would (and probably will) pay extra for 3D. Like I've said before, you only have to wear glasses when you want 3D (watching a movie or playing a 3D game). If you don't feel like wearing the glasses, don't turn on the 3D...

Side note: I am really looking forward to what they will do with the Playstation Move in 3D games.
 
And all of their new games will have the most draconian DRM in the industry. So I couldn't care less what they do, I'm not buying Ubisoft anything period.
 
To Guest:

You Obviously haven't actually looked at the older tech compared to the new have you? or Natefalk for that matter.

Ok, this is easy to sort out, a few years back a bad film call "Spy Kids 3D" came out, it uses the older tech of blue and red glasses, watch that film with its paper glasses until the end and you'll notice that it also is 3D and also creates Depth to the picture.

Now go out and replace you £1500 46" HDTV with a £4000 46" 3D HDTV, power up your new plastic glasses and put on a new modern Blue-Ray film that uses 3D.

Now which one looked better? i bet the new one, how much better, well the color is a fair bit better, and the image quality is definately better, was it worth the money considering you could use the Spy Kids 3D on any tech? Not a chance.

See the thing is, the Jump from Standard Definition to High Definition was a fairly big jump technologically (if you work out the pixels and all the details of progressive scan and Interlacing) but 3D hasn't made any real leap at all. It just looks slightly better than Spy Kids 3D days.

If you really do do what I have suggested and feel it really is a huge leap forward and worth the hundreds or even thousands of pounds extra and the future (because of course its that much better) then your a fool to yourself and proving how stupid a consumer can actully be.

To Guest, You obviously haven't tried 3D on PC though, so your arguement as you have put it in your comment is as you say, just as invalid as mine.
 
The games may be 3D capable, but that doesn't mean they will be any good. Chances are they are going to focus on the 3D nature of the games, with plot and gameplay being put second. So you'll have very pretty crappy games.
 
burty, I can see what you are trying to say. i definately do not agree with you. you say that the old red and blue lense 3d technology is not far off from polarized lenses. polarized 3d technology is way ahead of the old red and blue lense "technology". you are being pretty small minded if you think these are the only two ways to achieve a 3d effect. take a look at the liquid crystal shutter glasses. these are unbelievably awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_crystal_shutter_glasses - this is the tech you are looking for. with this method each eye can only see the image intended for each separate eye. using these should eliminate the headache caused by the eyes wanting to cross while looking through polarized or red and blue lenses. as the price goes down on the shutter glasses and a wider variety of glasses are made, you will see more and more people upgrading there regular hdtv. Also to answer your question, i have looked at 3d on the pc. its horrible, in some areas it doesn't even look 3d. i won't be buying any 3d peripherals for my pc for a while. Also fyi, the best buy near me has a 3d hdtv set up that use these shutter glasses. I encourage everyone to go and try them out. they don't have the glasses sitting out, you'll need to ask the salesperson for a demo. have a great day.
 
Just think glasses for viewing in 3d are only $200+, X how ever many that watch at the same time.
 
Waste of money imo, I just don't see it taking off. Now I'm not saying all 3D is a flop, just when it comes to gaming for most titles. There are plenty of niche markets for 3D, but as a whole on everything is a waste. And I agree with Burtys analogy the difference between SD and HD is night and day but the difference between new and old 3D is not. It may be better but I personally don't see it as that big of a deal. It's fun, and a cool thing to do every now and then, but not something I want everyday.

@guest: I don't know where you live but people upgrading there HDTV's is a bit far fetched for the norm. The average consumer is finally adopting HDTV's, I don't see them just throwing that out and buying a whole new 3D capable HDTV. I have no doubt it'll become a more standardized feature on all future models, but the way they are forcing 3D onto consumer isn't the smartest move.
 
Guest said:
burty, I can see what you are trying to say. i definately do not agree with you. you say that the old red and blue lense 3d technology is not far off from polarized lenses.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that at all, Actually if you re-read my comment, I said it looks better than the Old tech, not that they are not far off, I'm saying it just isn't that big of a leap forward in 3D tech to warrent anyone needing or wanting to upgrade their HDTV's to 3D HDTV's. Serously, you can get a copy of Sky Kids 3D for like £1 in most shops. Just look at them both, there is a difference thats for sure, but not big enough to change most peoples minds that their brand new HDTV needs replacing already. It is a Fad so the company's can gain some money after a recession, At most it will just be a feature most new TV's get for the odd niche film or game that uses it, nothing more.

polarized 3d technology is way ahead of the old red and blue lense "technology". you are being pretty small minded if you think these are the only two ways to achieve a 3d effect. take a look at the liquid crystal shutter glasses. these are unbelievably awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_crystal_shutter_glasses - this is the tech you are looking for. with this method each eye can only see the image intended for each separate eye. using these should eliminate the headache caused by the eyes wanting to cross while looking through polarized or red and blue lenses.
Click to expand...

I have read about those glasses and it doesn't completely stop head aches at all, it just allows you to wear the glasses longer before you do get a head ache. Again, when they remove the need for glasses then finally this will be a lot more friendly to . . . well everyone.

as the price goes down on the shutter glasses and a wider variety of glasses are made, you will see more and more people upgrading there regular hdtv.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?! yes, because everyone are millionaires that can just simply afford to replace their brand new, perfectly fine HDTV for 3D capable ones. Thats of course logical to invest soo much money in a technology that simply will not take off as an everyday used piece of tech and will vanish in a few years.

Also to answer your question, i have looked at 3d on the pc. its horrible, in some areas it doesn't even look 3d. i won't be buying any 3d peripherals for my pc for a while.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you agree its crap on the PC, Crap in the cinema? so you're saying its only any good on a 3D capable HD TV? considering PC screens that are capable of the 3D output Nvidia requires is the same if not higher than an equivilent 3D capable HDTV, and converting a 3D game into a 3D image isn't anywhere near as hard to do than converting a 2D moving image of Football from TV and therefore produce a better perspective of the depth of field, which at the end of the day is what all this "3D" effects is supposed to do? Mate - your arguements are completely pointless and basically saying the same tech (almost) used in the cinema and PC AND 3DHDTV's is rubbish, but only on 3DHDTV? I think you may want to re-think your arguement.

Also fyi, the best buy near me has a 3d hdtv set up that use these shutter glasses. I encourage everyone to go and try them out. they don't have the glasses sitting out, you'll need to ask the salesperson for a demo. have a great day.
Click to expand...

If anyone does, please comment here . . . wait a minute, i've lost my mind reading powers! i don't know where you live! nnnnnoooo!

ooowwww well, its only some stupid 3D effect that doesn't really work and is a total waste of money ;)
 
hello ...

to make it clear for everyone. i DID experience 3D back then, had this shutter glass hook up to my voodoo 2 but i agree with you, it wasn't great, not really that bad, but not good either. I liked stereograms better, for i have a visual problem that makes it easier for me.

There are no 3D theaters in my country, the few 3D movies that were played were with that weird plastic bi-color glasses.

I had the opportunity to watch some '3D' IMAX documentaries on a normal SD TV with the same plastic glasses, it was really different of what i was expected, i found it wonderful, no headache like with the shutter glass & even really interesting.

I never experienced any of the new tech '3D vision' or SONY soon-to-be 3D for PS3, but i feel like as with HD TV, the quality of media has greatly improved over the years, so 3D can be a great addon, if i get at least same effect as with the IMAX docs for all movies or even games, i'm buying it!

Now like for everything, you may like it or not, but it doesn't make it forcibly bad, just not your taste & as a business if i can sell my product to at least a quarter of the gamers out there, it's all good!

with motion controllers, people will be more active in front of their monitors, it won't be easy for them to be immersed in 3D with glasses, but i'm sure it won't take long before glassless 3D technology is used on bigger screens (yeah exist but cost too much & see how 3Ds will work) ...

now let's go back on our preferred system, enjoying our games the way they are & with future options, we can switch off or on some settings & why not switching off our PC or console!

remember it is wise to question the unknown, but is foolish to reject it for somehow sometime it will find someway to please to someone & it would be too bad if you missed that train, just because of preconceived ideas!

cheers!
 
I actually agree with some of what burty117 is saying. However, I get the feeling that the whole 3D tech is mainly targeted at people who already own a HDTV and are thinking about upgrading or getting a second. Lets say someone bought a LCD TV in 2006-07, they will probably be looking for an upgrade in the next 1-3 years. When you are comparing TV features it comes down to "Do I want to spend the extra for 3D functionality?" Some people say yes, some say no... it probably depends on if you want to wear glasses and if the current gen. gives you a headache. Some people don't mind glasses and don't get headaches.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about the whole Spy Kids 3D... I have watched and compared with my own eyes another movie in 3D that uses red and green lenses. Coraline was released on Bluray with a 3D version included (blue/green lenses) and it was horrible, mostly because of the color distortion which made it hard to pickup on the depth illusion. You can also watch Coraline on a 3D capable HDTV (Real3D) and the difference is night and day. You can actually pickup the depth illusion and the screen color is just like the original.

I have a feeling 3D in gaming is going to take it to another level; especially with the Playstation Move and Xbox Natal. It will be more like interacting with an open window than staring at a screen. I'll wait 'til I see it to make a judgment, but I think this is what Ubisoft is saying in this article.
 
Personally I'm not jumping for the 3D any time soon. I hate wearing glasses, they alone give me a headache, and add the 3D to it, makes it even worse. I have seen a couple of the 3D movies in theaters, and they are kinda a fun novelty, but I pay for everyone one afterward with a migraine. That's not something I want to do to my self on a day to day basis.

So when they ditch the glasses, and make it so I don't get a headache from the 3D effect, then I will get into.

And from what I have seen a lot of people feel the same way. I think this will blow over like any other fad as long as they have the glasses, and people are complaining of headaches.
 
Somehow think that this is all a fad, and will fade until a reasonable jump in the technology is made.

Either that, or the price difference between 3D and non-3D hardware reduces to oblivion (which usually requires widespread acceptance of the tech in the first place).

As it stands today, Blu-ray movies are still being outsold by DVDs (I'm not questioning its mainstream-ity). This should give you an indication of how long it'll take for 3D to sink in.
 
The funny thing is that everyone is arguing, without knowing that by 2012, the 3D HDTVs will not require 3D Glasses. If Nintendo is doing it now, by 2012, every company will.

LOL epic fail guys.
 
Guest said:
The funny thing is that everyone is arguing, without knowing that by 2012, the 3D HDTVs will not require 3D Glasses. If Nintendo is doing it now, by 2012, every company will.

LOL epic fail guys.
Click to expand...

Not really, EPIC FAIL arguement on your end really...
 
I don't think this tech will die out. Simmer down a little, maybe, but not die out. The original 3D kind of faded away, and now all these years later, it's back and better than ever. Its future has two options:

1.) It will be adopted despite its issues amongst a few consumers, but it will get better and better every few years

2.) It will fade away like it did last time, but just like last time, it will come back bigger and better. As long as people are interested in it, it will be there.

As for comfort, it all depends. Some of my friends (including me) have no issues with headaches. We watched 2 movies back to back (ushers aren't always there to stop you from going from one movie to another, lol) and had no headaches. But my wife and some of my other friends get headaches after a minimum of 10 minutes of watching. So it varies from person to person.

I can say for certain that we will come to a day when we will no longer need the glasses. At first, there where will be issues with it, but as with all technology, it will improve. Some of you seems to think this technology will die...have you looked around you today? Look at any piece of electronic equipment and think about how far it's come. Technology doesn't die, it gets improved. i think it will take a long time for this technology to become near perfection (after all, nothing is ever perfect), but it will happen and people will eventually adapt to it and it will become the norm. Whether or not it'll happen in my lifetime, I don't know. I sure hope so. But you can bet it will happen.
 
You serious, a 3D display that doesn't require glasses? o_O

I'd like a link to that, I'd love to see the theory behind it.
 
@CMH,

anything is possible. I truly believe that one day, someone will develop this. Whether it's during my time or not is hard to tell, but i'm sure someone, somewhere will do this one day. I mean, look at all the technology around us. Before it was created, someone said "yeah, right, like that'll ever happen" and now here we are browsing the internet on a device the size of your palm, flying in space, processing data and complex mathematical equations in the blink of an eye, and so on and so forth (i'm sure there are better examples, but I just can't think of any right now, lol). What's to stop us from being able to create a 3D TV that doesn't require glasses? I'm sure someone will eventually figure it out...it'll be a pain in the @ss for sure...no doubt about that...but I bet it'll happen sometime in the future.

Or perhaps we will no longer watch tv, but rather a flat, horizontal table that produces a hologram or some variation of that. Who knows what the future holds.
 

Similar threads

Daniel Sims
Ubisoft argues players don't own their games in wake of The Crew lawsuit
2 3
Replies
53
Views
619
ZedRM
ZedRM
S
Samsung's latest Odyssey gaming monitor features glasses-free 3D, now available for pre-order
Replies
8
Views
148
New Day
N
Shawn Knight
Touchable 3D holograms are now a reality in world-first breakthrough
Replies
7
Views
130
jeffbert
J

Latest posts

Back