Stereoscopic?

[earthworm48]

After spotting the RUMOUR from TeamXbox about a new Xbox platform that supports HD 3D stereoscopic TVs (http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/19960/Rumor-New-Xbox-Console-in-2010-We-Tell-You-the-Truth/) I got all curious. I mean what are the chances on this? I mean here in the UK HD isn't even all THAT widespread yet but it is spreading and I can see the worth of it myself, so I thought it was a worthwhile investment as it was at a more affordable stage and for the gains it was good. So I was rather enthusiastic about it being a boon on the current gen.

However the chance that it could happen AGAIN already with the next gen irks me. I mean are these things even really available like that link is talking about? What sort of costs would be involved? Surely it would be more of an upgrade/device rather than whole new TV? I don't see many people ditching HD and jumping to Stereoscopic HD... even if we are talking a couple or more years off? Or is that just me... It would have to be affordable. What are peoples thoughts?

[Cutter99]

Honestly, I think the chances of a 3D-xbox are impossibly slim. Here's why:

I'm fortunate to own a computer setup capable of running the Nvidia 3D stereoscopic glasses, and I think they're incredibly cool. Unfortunately, there are a number of serious technical difficulties that prevent that type of technology from becoming widespread:

1. Interface Issues. Put simply, any 3D-Engine doesn't "understand" where the interface is in a 3D environment. Usually the 2D elements of the interface get displayed at the depth of the monitor - with the 3D world extending behind it. While this might not sound like a problem, it gets really weird to be looking *past* your aiming cursor at the target. To simulate the problem - look at something far away, then stick your finger up in front of you to be your "aiming cursor." You either get two fingers, or two targets. In real life, marksmen only use one eye to shoot. Since the whole point of Stereoscopic displays are two images for both eyes, it's beyond pointless to run around with one eye closed playing the game - that's what you'd get without all the hardware.
This problem is semi-troublesome in FPS games (I don't mind playing without an on-screen reticle), but an extreme bother in games where you must select a 3D object with your pointer. Racing games avoid this problem completely. =)

2. Television inputs. While refresh rates are high enough on TVs now that you could display a perfectly solid image to both eyes, apparently televisions don't actually *receive* 120mhz inputs, it's just the refresh rate of the display. Meaning, you need a TV that can take two 60mhz HDMI signals from two different ports and display them simultaneously. Presently only a very very few televisions can do this (mine not being one of them.) So while I have the computer to output it, and the glasses to see it - I can only use the technology on my monitor. Bummer.

So, I'll keep my fingers crossed - the technology is *amazing*. Seeing such incredibly solid three-dimensional images constantly blows me away. I just think there are some big hurdles to get over first.

[Nath5000]

If you look at a lot of the Natal tech demos like the boxing one or the one Microsoft has shown with the balls flying at you, you can imagine how much better it would be if there was a sense of depth. It would be much easier to Seeing your 3D characters hands move in and out on a non-stereo screen is one thing but when 3D stereoscopy is thrown into the mix you've probably got something really amazing.

Just go to the 3DV Systems website (the company that Microsoft acquired to get the Natal technology) and you can see how the camera takes the real time image and adds depth. I’m guessing in the future a couple of these cameras placed at different sides of the room will allow people to be their character in the game and express emotions in real time as their character. Even the minority report style menu navigation would probably have a much different feel to it if it was in stereo.

So now we just have to wait for the commercialization of 3D autostereoscopic SHD (Stereo HD?) televisions from major manufacturers that use a parallax barrier technique or something similar to achieve 3D without glasses. Then you have to somehow set an industry wide standard format and get all manufacturers to adhere to that standard (which Sony will probably defy, doing their own thing as they always seem to). After that we’d probably have to wait a decade while those television manufacturers slowly try to introduce this technology as the upcoming standard, which everyone who bought an HDTV in the last 10 years won’t be happy about because they finally just overcame the last decade+ long transition.

We also have to hope that the big telecom/cable/internet companies don’t lock us into a technological dark age by capping bandwidth and suppressing technological progression for the purpose of keeping their current business model intact. So hopefully worldwide consumer bandwidth speed increases so that this controller/video/depth input data can be uploaded through the net and stereo visuals and surround sound download, so that we can play it all on the cloud like OnLive. Maybe they'll even be able to do all of this with the 360 as it is now with its ethernet and USB ports. Maybe the Xbox 360 or its predecessor will eventually become an OnLive device when commercially available internet connection bandwidth catches up with all of this other exciting technology. It’s got to be a lot harder trying to squeeze natal data up to a cloud than the OnLive controller which looks very basic in its input functionality.

Microsoft waited until HD was firmly on its way into being an established mainstream, selling an HD console just a few years before all stores would stop selling the old tech and 4 years before national American broadcasters would shut down their old NTSC television signals. I don’t think Microsoft is going to pioneer 3D and sell to a market that doesn’t exist at all yet. Who knows though, the Wii became successful by selling something nobody had heard of yet, the only difference is that with the Wii, all of the required tech was included in the box.

There are a lot of possibilities but I think the best way to look at it is from a perspective where you question whether it looks commercially viable, marketable, and profitable. Surely it would be marketable, but whether the tech and infrastructure is currently available or feasible is the biggest question, and whether they can make it cheaply and profit from it is another issue as well.