Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Consolidation

View
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

24. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 30, 2011, 16:55 Tanto Edge
 
Because 3D hurts my eyes and is fake.
Real 3D would project a nifty thing called a hologram into my space.
Technology companys: Look to Sharon Apple. I want that, in my living room.
 
Avatar 13202
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=705LEH3j2g0&t=0m24s
http://www.youtube.com/user/tantoedge
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: 3d shows very poor returns Jul 29, 2011, 18:33 mag
 
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.

What smoketh thou? Any PC game will run at 120fps if you've got the hardware for it.

Edit: Almost any. Have to make an exception for the ones that are hard-locked at 60--which are pretty few.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 29, 2011, 17:58 Bodolza
 
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.)

This is only true of TVs made a couple of years ago or more which were built before the current 3D standards were finished. They handle 3D just fine, but it has to be in a different format. Most DLP and some older 3D plasmas required checkerboard input, which generally meant the signal needed to come from a PC, except for a few exceptions like the Avatar game that supported checkerboard natively on consoles. There are also some blu-ray players that will output in checkerboard.

All the external box does is convert the frame-packed or side-by-side content to checkerboard. More recent models have the converter built in, so no external box is needed.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Iwata cuts own salary in half Jul 29, 2011, 16:11 Parallax Abstraction
 
If North American businesspeople operated this way, I think people would hate big business a lot less. Instead of obfuscating and blaming everyone else for a misstep while happily taking a ton of investor's money, Iwata went "Yeah we screwed up and we're going to take pay cuts as a punishment." He also only made $2M a year to begin with, even though Nintendo is one of Japan's biggest companies. How much do you think Kotick will walk away with when WoW and CoD dry up and Activision collapses? Hey Wall Street, pay attention!  
Parallax Abstraction
Geek Bravado | YouTube
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 29, 2011, 15:54 Beamer
 
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.

For manufacturers it was less about margin and more about revenues. They wanted people to turn over their old systems, not necessarily spend more. There are very, very few TVs on the market where you can buy a version with or without 3D. Instead most manufacturers have a line in the sand, so to speak. Everything above has 3D, everything below does not. It is not the only distinguishing factor, just one of them. Again, all I wanted was a top of the line picture quality. Starting in 2010 that was impossible to get without also getting 3D. Any fully functioning, high quality 2D TV also included 3D. No avoiding it.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 29, 2011, 15:52 Creston
 
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.

Really? My plasma runs pretty cool, definitely compared to my old LCD and my current DLP?

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 29, 2011, 15:28 Ruffiana
 
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.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: 3d shows very poor returns Jul 29, 2011, 15:25 Ruffiana
 
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.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 29, 2011, 14:23 Verno
 
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.  
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Gauntlet, Dark Souls 2, Wasteland 2
Watching: Intruders, 24 Live Another Day, The Signal
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: 3d shows very poor returns Jul 29, 2011, 14:19 Creston
 
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.

TVs drop in prices by 5-10% every year. They're old models, old technology, size is too small, etc. It's been this way since basically the 1970s, when color tvs and lots of choice really started becoming the norm.

Since the advent of 3D, the price for, say, a 50" plasma model has remained relatively the same. Sure, there might be sales etc, but in the two years since 3D was available, we've not seen the normal dip in prices as we normally would have.

This is an artificial freezing of prices (and why it's not an anti-trust issue is beyond me, as obviously all the set manufacturers agreed to keep their prices the same,) which is being justified with the "It's all 3D now! That's expensive! It costs more to make these units!"

Except the non 3D units haven't fallen in price either. Of course they haven't, because if they had, NOBODY would buy the 3D screen.

So when you bought your 3D screen this year, you paid for it by the ~20% artificial inflation you received because the normal price drop didn't happen.

Still doesn't explain it well, I guess, but maybe it's a bit clearer now.

And before someone starts linking to a single TV set that did actually drop in price, yes, I'm sure there's evidence to be found that's an exception to the trend. However, the trend has been for a prize freeze on type/model vs the normal trend of 10% price drop per annum before 3D came out.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: 3d shows very poor returns Jul 29, 2011, 14:00 PropheT
 
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.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 29, 2011, 13:31 Verno
 
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.

That wasn't directed at you and I'm talking about how consumers distinguish them when they are shopping, not the underlying technology.

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. At least the various "Apps" that these companies are trying is potentially useful, there is that. The good thing is that many people don't seem interesting in upgrading sets on the pace that the industry desires so vendors are beating each other up on price, at least at the low end.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Gauntlet, Dark Souls 2, Wasteland 2
Watching: Intruders, 24 Live Another Day, The Signal
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: 3d shows very poor returns Jul 29, 2011, 13:29 Creston
 
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.

Yep. Always plenty of people who operate by the simple equation of: I like it, therefore, everyone likes it.

Weird how it doesn't always work out that way.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 29, 2011, 13:28 Beamer
 
All the major manufacturer have 3D capable TVs.

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.)

Most other manufacturers make TVs that just need a source, not any additional hardware.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: 3d shows very poor returns Jul 29, 2011, 13:27 Creston
 
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,

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.

Plus, they undoubtedly needed to buy new HDMI cables. Not a big deal if you know about monoprice, but the large majority of people doesn't and they just buy Best Buy's 190 dollar cable.

So yeah, it's the TV industry ripping people off with "features" that very very very very very few people want, no matter how much you're trying to defend it.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 29, 2011, 13:20 Bodolza
 
All the major manufacturer have 3D capable TVs.

I've had a Samsung DLP for years now that could do 3D, and the quality is great. I frequently use it for PS3 games, movies, and TV shows. ESPN has X Games in 3D all weekend. I watched about 3 hours of it last night.

I also purchased a passive 3D monitor a couple of months ago so I could play PC games in 3D. The Portal games really shine in 3D.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 29, 2011, 13:18 avianflu
 
Don't be surprised if the 3ds is completely discontinued and a new simpler non-3D design is introduced in Summer 2012.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 29, 2011, 13:06 Beamer
 
TVs with 3D technology, not 3DTVs. There's a big difference between those things

Wait, what?
Do you mean 3D-ready TVs? I think only Mitsubishi makes 3D-ready TVs.

Or something else? Can you link to examples? I don't know what you're distinguishing between.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Morning Consolidation Jul 29, 2011, 12:25 Verno
 
TVs with 3D technology, not 3DTVs. There's a big difference between those things, particularly to the consumer who isn't buying them for that reason anyway.  
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Gauntlet, Dark Souls 2, Wasteland 2
Watching: Intruders, 24 Live Another Day, The Signal
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: 3d shows very poor returns Jul 29, 2011, 12:19 killer_roach
 
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.

That right there is the only interest I have in a 3D-capable TV. The 3D tech itself is bollocks... 120Hz, however, isn't. (Also, for cinemaphiles, 120Hz allows for more accurate timing of 24Hz film content - unlike 60Hz, 120 is a multiple of 24. I personally think the issue is overstated, but some people probably find value in it, and possibly more than have need for 3D.)
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo