Ruffiana wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 15:25:mag wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 11:47:Cutter wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 11:39:
LOL! Remember a few months back, Cres when some clown was trying to argue that 3D wasn't a fad and it was here to stay. Haha! I wish I could pull a Nelson on all those jerks who bought 3D TVs.
I actually want a 3D TV just so I can have an enormous display that can actually accept and display 120Hz inputs. Mmm, 120fps.
No engine is running at 120fps, but I am intrigued by the idea of using the current 3D tech to do coop gaming, full-screen, on the same TV. Any TV capable of 120hz should be able to do that, whether it's labeled "3D" or not.
Beamer wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 13:28:
What I meant by "3D-ready" is that Mistubishi makes TVs that CAN do 3D but need a separate hardware purchase to do so. The screens can do it but the TV can't process it (or so I assume.)
That wasn't directed at you and I'm talking about how consumers distinguish them when they are shopping, not the underlying technology.Gotcha.
And yes consumers have absolutely paid for 3D, particularly in the ~50" LED market where prices over the past year have stayed relatively tight despite feature sets being mostly stagnant. That was literally the point of 3D, trying to keep profit margins up.
Ruffiana wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 15:28:Verno wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 14:23:
Plasma is a bit of an outlier in terms of price. Vendors have no choice but to compete on price because while plasma's typically have great PQ and black levels they also often have fucking ugly bezels, are heavier and still to this day use more power than comparable LED/LCDs. They have a negative stigma due to image retention and burn-in as well, many people think that they can't game on a plasma because the UI will burn in for example. Educating the public on that stuff takes years so its often easier to just break down the prices. That's mostly at the mid and low end of the market though. If you look beyond the entry level 3D plasma stuff, it's still very expensive.
And they're hot as shit. When our 55" plasma finally blew out, we replaced it with a 50" LCD. The ambient temperature in the room dropped significantly...especially for my family who watches TV most of the day in a non-air conditioned house.
Verno wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 14:23:
Plasma is a bit of an outlier in terms of price. Vendors have no choice but to compete on price because while plasma's typically have great PQ and black levels they also often have fucking ugly bezels, are heavier and still to this day use more power than comparable LED/LCDs. They have a negative stigma due to image retention and burn-in as well, many people think that they can't game on a plasma because the UI will burn in for example. Educating the public on that stuff takes years so its often easier to just break down the prices. That's mostly at the mid and low end of the market though. If you look beyond the entry level 3D plasma stuff, it's still very expensive.
mag wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 11:47:Cutter wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 11:39:
LOL! Remember a few months back, Cres when some clown was trying to argue that 3D wasn't a fad and it was here to stay. Haha! I wish I could pull a Nelson on all those jerks who bought 3D TVs.
I actually want a 3D TV just so I can have an enormous display that can actually accept and display 120Hz inputs. Mmm, 120fps.
PropheT wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 14:00:Creston wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 13:27:
Eh, yeah they did. The price of TV units basically stayed the same for type and size for two years, where normally it would have fallen several hundred dollars. So they paid for it that way.
I paid the same price (if not less) for a 3D plasma set this year as I would have for any comparable non-3D set. I'm not sure I understand the argument that there was more paid by not buying one when they were more expensive since, well, I didn't buy one then.
Creston wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 13:27:
Eh, yeah they did. The price of TV units basically stayed the same for type and size for two years, where normally it would have fallen several hundred dollars. So they paid for it that way.
Beamer wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 13:06:
Or something else? Can you link to examples? I don't know what you're distinguishing between.
Cutter wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 11:39:
LOL! Remember a few months back, Cres when some clown was trying to argue that 3D wasn't a fad and it was here to stay.
All the major manufacturer have 3D capable TVs.
Beamer wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 11:49:
It's something being forced on people as a feature, but not one they are paying extra for,
TVs with 3D technology, not 3DTVs. There's a big difference between those things
mag wrote on Jul 29, 2011, 11:47:
I actually want a 3D TV just so I can have an enormous display that can actually accept and display 120Hz inputs. Mmm, 120fps.