When questioned about 3D’s noticeable trade-show absence, and near abandonment in 2012 (in high contrast to last year) Sony’s UK boss Fergal Gara admitted in an interview that gamers aren’t exactly marching towards 3-dimensional gunfire like they had hoped:
Consumers decide how relevant it is. It’s fair to say consumers have decided it’s not hugely important at this time. It’s a capability we’ve got. It may have a bigger life a little further down the line. It’s great we can do it. It doesn’t seem to be the most powerful USP [unique selling point] at the moment.
Gara continued onto the general unpopularity of 3D, and how incompatible it is with consumers’ daily lives:
Whether you look at movies or games, wearing the glasses and consuming 3D in that way in the home isn’t hugely popular. That’s just a fact. I haven’t read detailed research on it, but the glasses will certainly be a big part of the hassle factor. I also think there’s a bit of a difference between the highly focused viewing and the more casual viewing. In the home people tune in and tune out a bit, and doing that with glasses on and glancing at your tablet or pausing for a bit, compared to the cinema experience which is a solely focused experience, you know there is a difference emerging there.
As a 3D TV owner I’m inclined to agree with Fergal Gara; 3D isn’t something a person generally utilizes regularly (despite the availability of surprisingly decent 3D conversion) because it’s just another small hurdle before enjoying your content, and it’s not multitasking friendly (the glasses make LCD screens hard to look at). The type of content best suited to 3D is something you’re prepared to become singularly absorbed in – like an AAA game, but the trouble is rendering in 3D usually comes at a graphical drawback which always has me questioning whether 3D is worth the visual trade-off.
What do you think? Is 3D important, or are you glad Sony is admittedly neglecting the once prominent PS3 feature?
