Opions: Is 3D Gaming Dead?

D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
When I say 3D gaming, I mean games that run on 3D monitors.

I know VR is all the rage, but the selection of supported games and hardware that support 3D seems to be almost non existent now.

This reflects a trend in consumer TV's where 3D is once again a niche item that is only offered by a few manufacturers on top end models. Some manufacturers have dropped 3D all together.
 
Was it ever really alive? Always seemed like a PR fad that only existed because companies kept pouring money into it.
 
Consider that practically all high calibre games are internally rendered in 3D, its never been dead.
The problem for me has been low res unless you get poor quality 120Hz+ monitors and needing dual fast gfx cards.
Icing on the cake (for now) would also be passive glasses.
I have a passive 1080p LG TV and its an easy watch, just the res sucks.
Some games are ok with effective 720p per eye but not many.
Even the current VR headsets are too low res, mine is about to be returned due to that and some damning quality issues.

The capability to give a good experience on almost everything exists, its just taking a long time to reach us.
I havent yet tried a 3D 4K TV with passive glasses.
A decent quality 4K TV should be able to do 60Hz per eye @ 1080p if the Stereo software can drive it.
But this will need dual fast cards to keep the quality settings high. Or maybe the new 10xx series cards will change this.
 
Nenu said:
Consider that practically all high calibre games are internally rendered in 3D, its never been dead.
The problem for me has been low res unless you get poor quality 120Hz+ monitors and needing dual fast gfx cards.
Icing on the cake (for now) would also be passive glasses.
I have a passive 1080p LG TV and its an easy watch, just the res sucks.
Some games are ok with effective 720p per eye but not many.
Even the current VR headsets are too low res, mine is about to be returned due to that and some damning quality issues.

The capability to give a good experience on almost everything exists, its just taking a long time to reach us.
I havent yet tried a 3D 4K TV with passive glasses.
A decent quality 4K TV should be able to do 60Hz per eye @ 1080p if the Stereo software can drive it.
But this will need dual fast cards to keep the quality settings high. Or maybe the new 10xx series cards will change this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps i haven't given it a fair chance. VR and 3D were always tough sells to me.
 
There are 3 big problems with 3D gaming.

1.) Tri Def software found out that after they sold us software, they had to provide support for titles for free. Most of the Tri Def software came free with monitors; at least my AMD setup did. I purchased an updated license, but there really wasn't a way for them to monetize their product after the initial sale.

2.) Gaming titles like Tomb Raider really push the power of video cards. Then you tack on the load of trying to do 3D, and it all goes downhill from there. Your 60 frame target suddenly becomes 45 fps or 30 fps. Here is a Black Desert Online profile that a fan created that runs at 24 fps. :(

3.) If game developers took the time to write a Tri Def profile it would be a great system. Forcing Tri Def to write profiles for games years later is a failed business model without some form of compensation.

3D was a great feature. AMD 's version allowed most any game to be 3D if you were willing to make a profile in Tri Def. I wish that more people had given it a chance. I think that the Microsoft Hololens is the future of 3D gaming. I'd love to play Black Desert Online in my living room.

Edit:
I wanted to add that if Tri Def had released their software onto Steam, and allowed that community to create profiles in the same manner as the Steam Controller, it would be much more useful as a tool.
 
Last edited:
3D gaming isn't dead, it just isn't fully supported in everything. You can get TriDef going for most games and it works great. Certainly better than Nvidia's crap. You need a niche setup to get 3D working well these days, but you can still get most new releases working in 3D if you want, it just takes a bit of work to accomplish since they don't ship that way by default.

Rise of the Tomb Raider for example looks pretty good in TriDef's 'power 3D' mode which requires considerably less GPU power than its standard 3D mode, which needs 2x power.

3D got hampered by the garbage HDMI 1.4 standard limiting every 3D TV to 720p @ 60 Hz or 1080p @ 24 Hz; obviously unacceptable resolutions and framerates for gaming.

But in 2014, Samsung released TVs that fixed this problem. Samsung's 2014 and 2015 model 4K TVs support a side-by-side 4K signal at 60 Hz, giving you an effective 3D gaming resolution of 1920x2160 @ 60 FPS, on a TV. Unfortunately it came a little too late, but I think if 3D gaming weren't hampered by the garbage HDMI standard it would've been more popular.

Here's an example of Rise of the Tomb Raider running at 4K and in 3D using TriDef:



Per the YouTube video's description:

Here is a brief video of Rise of the Tomb Raider on PC using the following setup:

GTX 980 Ti (x2)
Core i7 4770K
32 GB RAM
TriDef 3D Ignition software for stereoscopic 3D; using the Tomb Raider (2013) profile

For some reason, Power 3D looks better than standard 3D mode for this title.

This is outputting to a SAMSUNG 65JS9500 2015 Series 4K TV -- Samsung's 2014 and 2015 model 4K TVs are the only displays on the market that can support stereoscopic 3D at 4K resolution!

This is accomplished by using the TriDef 3D software and outputting a 3840x2160 side-by-side 3D signal at 60 Hz, which the TV supports via its HDMI 2.0 inputs.

All other 4K TV manufacturers only support stereoscopic 3D at a maximum resolution of 1080p@24 Hz, or 720p@60 Hz because they do not support side-by-side 3D at 4K resolution like Samsung does! NVIDIA 3DTV Play also does not support side-by-side 3D like TriDef does, so achieving resolutions higher than 720p@60 Hz on a 3D TV is impossible if using 3DTV Play
Click to expand...

So yeah, if everybody got to experience 3D properly, using a setup like this, I don't think you would find nearly as many denouncing it... their opinions of 3D were ruined by garbage displays that could only do 3D @ 720p resolution instead of a quality niche setup that can do 3D @ 4K resolution like this.

3D is on a life support but if you put a bit of effort in you can play most everything new in 3D if you want and of course you have thousands of older PC games you will always be able to play in 3D as long as you keep a 3D display.
 
I played a few games that way (using Nvidia 3DTV Play or the PS3/360) and found that either visual quality or performance suffered. It's also reliant on the type of 3DTV you have, the type of glasses you're using, angles, etc.
I don't think the concept is inherently bad, but it's a niche of a niche that can play these games well. I tend to think VR is a better solution anyway.
 
Not sure it was ever truly alive behind manufacturer's marketing. A few hours of 30 fps per eye flickering is enough to give a lot of people a good sized headache.

I much rather a silky smooth 100+ fps than other options currently available.
 
I have a feeling we're going to see similar threads about VR in a year or two.
 
I don't think so ^.

VR is in a primitive stage right now, almost very similar to how 3D gaming is/was.

I will say that when I used NVIDIA 3D glasses it was actually a lot of fun (more so than without) but had some issues.

I have faith that they can combine the two ideas into something that's good at both, and create something really interesting in a couple years max.

I played the original Tomb Raider in 3D (100% of the game) and it blew my mind. To this day, I haven't had a gaming experience like that, but it could be perfected a bit.
 
Mystique said:
I don't think so ^.

VR is in a primitive stage right now, almost very similar to how 3D gaming is/was.

I will say that when I used NVIDIA 3D glasses it was actually a lot of fun (more so than without) but had some issues.

I have faith that they can combine the two ideas into something that's good at both, and create something really interesting in a couple years max.

I played the original Tomb Raider in 3D (100% of the game) and it blew my mind. To this day, I haven't had a gaming experience like that, but it could be perfected a bit.
Click to expand...
Until the cost for a decent headset isn't 1k then i have to say it'll remain a niche.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Until the cost for a decent headset isn't 1k then i have to say it'll remain a niche.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And people are saying "the costs will go down" But they completely forget: look at all the crap that Oculus DOESN'T have yet? Higher resolution, motion controllers, infinite floors created by smart treadmills - those are just the beginning of that increasing list of "NEED." But without those there's only so much you can do with your VR "experience."

Every time a new revision comes out it will add a piece of that missing puzzle, and add cost. There's not that much price reduction in integrating big sensors and electronics together.

EDIT: the only real price-reduction long-term may be beaming things direct to your retina, and that's a big MAYBE: something that precise may cost MORE than a high-resolution screen. You'll still need the rest of the elements to immerse your body.
 
Last edited:
I'm still out until it's a good experience. Seems like it's just bragging rights now, hey I just spent a bunch of money on something sub par. They just got rated B and C- in Game Informer.
 
It'll be interesting to see if people are more willing to drop major $ into VR. 3D was a fun gimmick, but I don't think it wow'd anyone enough to go out and specifically buy a TV that had it. At least unless they needed a new TV. It's not like you could buy a new model that didn't have it.
VR offers a different experience, but it requires and will continue to require a much larger commitment. That's everything from a headset, to hardware to power it, to control mechanisms, to everything else.
I do find it pretty compelling (I've only used the Samsung phone headset version) but that price is pretty steep for something everyone knows will likely be obsolete in a year. It makes the Apple Watch seem like an investment for the future.
 
Domingo said:
It'll be interesting to see if people are more willing to drop major $ into VR. 3D was a fun gimmick, but I don't think it wow'd anyone enough to go out and specifically buy a TV that had it. At least unless they needed a new TV. It's not like you could buy a new model that didn't have it.
VR offers a different experience, but it requires and will continue to require a much larger commitment. That's everything from a headset, to hardware to power it, to control mechanisms, to everything else.
I do find it pretty compelling (I've only used the Samsung phone headset version) but that price is pretty steep for something everyone knows will likely be obsolete in a year. It makes the Apple Watch seem like an investment for the future.
Click to expand...
I think it will need consoles to push it into that mainstream.
 
Domingo said:
I played a few games that way (using Nvidia 3DTV Play or the PS3/360) and found that either visual quality or performance suffered. It's also reliant on the type of 3DTV you have, the type of glasses you're using, angles, etc.
I don't think the concept is inherently bad, but it's a niche of a niche that can play these games well. I tend to think VR is a better solution anyway.
Click to expand...

Another person whose opinion of 3D was ruined by incompetent manufacturers, Nvidia's crappy 3D software, and the pathetic HDMI 1.4 standard that topped out @ 1080p24 or 720p60.

I too thought 3D was shit... but that was when I could only play 3D games at 60 FPS at a maximum resolution of 720p. That was before Samsung's 4K TVs and HDMI 2.0 and TriDef.

After I played stereoscopic 3D at 4K resolution and at 60 FPS on my Samsung 4K TV using HDMI 2.0... it became abundantly clear to me that this was a very impressive technology which greatly improved video games. It is such a shame that 3D at proper resolutions came out into such a small niche within a niche well after peoples' opinions had been soured by HDMI 1.4's limitations. The shitty HDMI 1.4 standard ruined 3D gaming, but I'll always treasure my Samsung JS9500 and use TriDef when I can for 3D PC gaming @ 4K, getting to enjoy something really cool but only a very tiny number of people on this planet will ever get to enjoy unfortunately... so the 3D haters will never understand when I praise 3D because the ability to do proper 3D is now in such a small niche, they'll never get to experience it for themselves.
 
Going to have to try this out on my Samsung 40js7500 when I get my new cards. Figure dual 1070s should be enough for most games. .
 
wigglywaffles said:
Another person whose opinion of 3D was ruined by incompetent manufacturers, Nvidia's crappy 3D software, and the pathetic HDMI 1.4 standard that topped out @ 1080p24 or 720p60.

I too thought 3D was shit... but that was when I could only play 3D games at 60 FPS at a maximum resolution of 720p. That was before Samsung's 4K TVs and HDMI 2.0 and TriDef.

After I played stereoscopic 3D at 4K resolution and at 60 FPS on my Samsung 4K TV using HDMI 2.0... it became abundantly clear to me that this was a very impressive technology which greatly improved video games. It is such a shame that 3D at proper resolutions came out into such a small niche within a niche well after peoples' opinions had been soured by HDMI 1.4's limitations. The shitty HDMI 1.4 standard ruined 3D gaming, but I'll always treasure my Samsung JS9500 and use TriDef when I can for 3D PC gaming @ 4K, getting to enjoy something really cool but only a very tiny number of people on this planet will ever get to enjoy unfortunately... so the 3D haters will never understand when I praise 3D because the ability to do proper 3D is now in such a small niche, they'll never get to experience it for themselves.
Click to expand...

What is the quality of 3D gameplay? How much crosstalk do you notice? I am looking for the best 4K 3D gaming setup.
 
Someone should just make a headset for 3-D gaming only. That shouldn't be too expensive to make IMO. 2 decent 1080p/90Hz screens shouldn't cost too much, and there would be basically nothing else in the headset.

If someone does that then I think 3D gaming can make a comeback. The headset shouldn't cost that much because it's basically just 2 screens and maybe a few lenses. Motion control, head/eye tracking are all superfluous right now IMO.
 
3D gaming never took off. Look at all the Avatar Bullshit. 3D failed horribly.

I have always said I would go 3D for sure if you didnt have to wear glasses of goggles.
 
Brackle said:
3D gaming never took off. Look at all the Avatar Bullshit. 3D failed horribly.

I have always said I would go 3D for sure if you didnt have to wear glasses of goggles.
Click to expand...

Saying something never took off because the mouth-breathing majority of the population didn't embrace it is like saying that PC gaming never took off because the majority of the mouth-breathing population plays video games on peasant boxes or phones instead.
 
I've played around a little bit with 3D when I got my 120 Hz monitor (23", 1080p, Samsung S23A700D w/active shutter glasses). For me it's a neat gimmick and something cool to show off to people for a few minutes, but I feel it doesn't really add much to the experience. TriDef3D didn't work particularly well and was a pain to mess with, though there are a number of games that work in 3D natively (Tomb Raider, Thief, Sleeping Dogs, Trine, recent DiRT and Grid games, etc.). Even then, The framerate hit on my aging HD 7950 just wasn't worth it - I'd rather have a smoother 2D image over a choppy 3D one.

Keep in mind that I don't even like 3D in movie theaters, so YMMV.

3D gaming may be effectively dead, but the one great legacy that it left was making 120 and 144Hz monitors much more commonplace, which does a lot more to improve image quality and my overall gaming experience than 3D ever could.
 
Personally, even imagining 3D in a perfect situation (like some really nice theaters) - I still don't think it would be as good as VR. It's far less intrusive, but it's still offers a lot less, too.
VR offers a "you're in the game" kind of perspective while 3D just offers some additional depth. In every TV I've seen, it's typically depth inward rather than outward, too.
I'm not saying it isn't neat and can't be really awesome with specific setups. I just think that even at its absolute best, it's a middle-man between normal gaming and VR. I'm happy choosing one or the other.
 
I think all the effort is now going into VR headsets, which are really just an evolution of this technology. So is it dead? It all depends on if you consider VR to be "3D gaming" or not.
 
In Tomb Raider, the Nvidia 3D was not choppy. It was epic. Just epic. I want more stuff like that, but alas, everyone just calls it a failure ;|
 
Sad that the popularity of it is what dictates it's future. For those that had the technology, a decent display, and played Tomb Raider 100% to completion on it, you could definitely see how amazing it was.

I have a XB271HU 27" G-Sync display, and if it had Nvidia 3D I'd be happier, but alas....

Having the option is always nice.
 
I loved playing games on my 3d surround setup. But the biggest hurdle for game compatibility was the fact that shader effects such as smoke, reflections, shadows, and most overlays, are all rendered in 2d as post processing. I was hoping VR popularity would prompt game developers to compensate for this, but it appears to be an entirely different method of rendering, so that's unlikely.
Additionally, I recently picked up a PS3 for cheap to check out it's exclusive 3d games, and my god, are they pretty bad. Texture/resolution reduction AND frame rate issues. I'd say Sony probably hurt 3d gaming more than help it with what they released. I'm about ready to give up on it entirely for gaming.
 
Skylake is a fair upgrade for the 60fps min crowd, but no cpu will inspire those who dont care unless it drops below around 45fps.
However, Skylake isnt putting people off PC gaming because they can stick with what they have, its no skin off their nose.
Windows 10 though is a shot to the skull for PCs with the fucking stupid forced updates.
MS are moronic.
 
bigyellocup said:
I really hope so :p

But in all seriousness, I think VR is the evolution here.
Click to expand...

VR isn't everything. Not every game needs a goofy helmet strapped to your head the whole time.

3D and VR are two unrelated technologies. 3D just adds an extra dimension of depth to a flat 2D screen. It is just an improvement on the traditional gaming experience on a screen, not something which requires fundamental game design to be altered like VR.

I see no reason why the two cannot co-exist dependent upon the type of game.
 
I know that Samsung did not order any of the 3D glasses from their vendors this year, and LG cut back to like 10-15% of their TV's having 3D. Is it dead? Not yet, but I imagine it will be soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top