Gamescom 2011

Sony goes in-depth on 3D

By Jane Douglas, Brendan Sinclair

Gamescom 2011: SCEE senior group studio director Mick Hocking gives a progress report on the PS3's 3D game push, says the technology's time has arrived, leaves door open for a 3D-capable iteration of PlayStation Vita.

Sony has been pushing stereoscopic 3D gaming on the PlayStation 3 for nearly two years, and the company is maintaining its commitment for the foreseeable future. This holiday season could be a particularly significant one for Sony's 3D initiative, as the electronics giant is releasing its own PlayStation-branded 3D monitor that will allow for full-screen two-player head-to-head gaming in supported titles, along with anticipated 3D-supporting titles like Resistance 3 and Uncharted 3.

To get the latest on Sony's 3D efforts, GameSpot talked to Sony Computer Entertainment Europe senior group studio director Mick Hocking at the recently wrapped Gamescom. Hocking went into detail on a number of subjects, including Sony's quality checks for 3D games, why the PlayStation Vita will launch as a 2D system, and why Sony isn't trying to single out a killer app for the new technology.

GameSpot: The performance of Nintendo's 3DS suggests that maybe gamers aren't quite as wild about the technology as previously thought. As an outside observer, has Sony taken any lessons from its competitor's struggles?

Mick Hocking: So I wouldn't comment directly on 3DS, but I think what we've seen over the last 12 months is a strong correlation between good-quality 3D content and great response from our fan base. The opposite is also true. When people see 3D that doesn't work very well, or content that isn't very compelling, I think quite naturally they're not as interested in it.

A message we've been giving to all of our PS3 developers is add 3D where it adds something to the game. It's not a tickbox we want on all the game boxes; we want 3D to add to the experience, whether it's enhancing a racing experience or creating greater immersion in Killzone or Uncharted 3. The other really important thing is to do it well. We've now got 10 3D quality checks that we want all games to adhere to. And we're telling everyone about how to do this. If 3D's done well, it can really enhance the game experience.

GS: Can you tell us about those 10 checks?

MH: They're things like making sure you have the same content in each eye. When you look at the real world, your eyes see exactly the same thing; the only difference is a horizontal offset. So when you produce in 3D, make sure both eyes are the same, make sure they're in sync. Make sure you're giving enough 3D to give the user a good 3D experience, but not too much to make it uncomfortable. And there are lots of technical things like depth conflicts and fusion issues.

We've had examples in the last 12 months with crosshairs in a shooter game is a good example. When you go into 3D, the crosshair is still on the screen, but the gun points into the screen and they don't line up. So you have to decide where in 3D space to draw your crosshair. If you draw it at the depth of the enemy, that's technically correct, but then as you move and pan around the scene, it's jumping because it sits at the depth of whatever it's looking at. So it's not very comfortable. With shooters, what we have to do is find a position at 3D space to draw the crosshairs so that it looks at the point the gun's aiming at, but it's between the end of the gun and the enemy, and adjusts slowly. So there are lots of things like that we ask developers to look out for.

GS: That sounds like rigorous quality control for 3D at Sony. Do you feel like 3D movies in cinemas are spoiling it for everyone else, spoiling consumers on the experience?

MH: I think it's back to my earlier point. Consumers are very savvy with quality in all aspects of media, whether that's the story, the dialogue, the special effects. And 3D is the same. They can tell 3D when it's done well. It's important when 3D is done, it's done correctly and considered.

GS: The PlayStation Vita is conspicuously 2D. Was 3D discussed for the handheld? What was the reason that feature was left out?

MH: At the time we were looking at Vita, there were several issues. One was the quality of the glasses-free 3D screens. It can work very well on small screens, but to get the best effect, you need to keep your head very, very still. Now with a handheld gaming device and Vita having Sixaxis motion control in it, there may be gameplay where you're moving the Vita around. And if you're doing that and having glasses-free 3D, the two things don't sit very well together. We wanted to offer a really, really high-resolution OLED screen, and the best way to do that was in 2D. At least for the first one.

GS: Consumers often wait until gaming hardware has a killer app before they invest in it. Will there be a killer app for 3D TV adoption, or is it just a matter of amassing enough high-profile 3D-capable games?

MH: I think it will be gradual. We've seen a gradual growth over the last 12 months, and we see that continuing and getting stronger, if anything. The price of 3DTVs is coming down rapidly. The glasses are improving all the time. In the next three or four years, about half of all new TVs will support 3D, and that number will grow rapidly. The TV manufacturers are just building this into their production processes now and having it as a value-added feature.

One thing we've tried to be careful of is with cinema, Avatar is the pinnacle of 3D. In games, I've been asked where is the Avatar of games, the big killer app. And we don't want just one of those. We're working really hard to make all of our games very high quality in 3D. We don't want peaks and troughs. We want a consistent level of quality.

GS: Does Sony have a sense of what proportion of PS3 gamers are experiencing 3D?

MH: It's growing rapidly. And to enjoy 3D, you need a 3D display, so it is a function of how fast the 3DTV market is growing. I don't have specific figures today, but we've had a very successful first 12 months. We've got 50 million 3D-enabled PS3s out there, more than 50 3D games which have had great reception so far.

GS: What is the ideal 3D setup for gaming? Active glasses or passive? LCD or plasma? Does Sony expect the market to tilt in any particular direction?

MH: My completely unbiased answer would be a 3D Bravia with a PS3. [Laughs] It's about quality for us. In all of our electronics and software, we're pushing for quality because you do need good quality for 3D. I think there's a lot of good quality out there at the moment and it's improving all the time. In the next couple of years, all the problems will probably get solved and the prices will come down. Our job is to keep the software improving at the same level.

GS: And perhaps lower-priced 3D as well, seen with the small Sony TV that allows same-room, non-split-screen multiplayer.

MH: It's actually a monitor, not a TV, as it hasn't got a tuner in it. But that's PlayStation's first monitor. It's really fantastic. We've worked very closely with the team developing that in Japan. You're getting full high-def 2D and 3D, and a very high quality screen. It's an ideal one for the second room in the bedroom or the office. And we've been able with the single-view technology to now give them the ability to do two-player fullscreen head-to-head gaming. It's extremely effective. It's quite weird to watch when you see one person bowling and one person batting, but you can't see each other's screens.

What's great for us is a year ago, this was an R&D exercise, an idea we had. And now we've released it in the market a year later. That's really exciting for us because it shows we can come up with new technology ideas and get them out to market quickly.

GS: We asked you this last year, but it's always good to get an update. How far are we from glasses-free 3D TV sets as a viable option for consumers?

MH: At the moment, the best way to get high-quality 3D is with active shutter glasses. If you want full high definition, you need active shutter glasses and a Sony Bravia screen. There are glasses-free TVs now, from small screens to large screens. The issue with glasses-free is however you do it, you've got to get a different image to each eye. So you're essentially playing with the laws of physics here. You can use filters on the screen, prisms, lenses… And they can work very well for a single viewer, as long as you keep your relative position to the screen constant. The problem comes when you move your head relative to the screen and you see artifacts, or when you want three viewers to enjoy the same experience. Lots of people are working on this at the moment.

With glasses, we think if the content is compelling enough, people don't mind wearing them because they're being excited and amazed by the 3D experience. But there are a lot of people working on glasses-free, and I don't know how long it will take because it is a very difficult problem to solve. There is a technique called integral imaging which possibly offers a solution. The issue at the moment is it's hard to build into a display at a very high resolution. It's like a collection of very, very small fish-eye lenses. So if you imagine we took a picture of you with a special integral imaging camera, we'll have a whole array of tiny pictures of you with fish-eye lenses, so it captures the light from every angle. And then you have fish-eye lenses on the screen, so that wherever I sit and look at it, each eye is getting the light as it would have done from any point in front of you. So it means you can have true 3D from any angle, but it's very, very difficult to think how we could build that into a display.

GS: EA has said that it's not so keen on pressing users with 3D. It would rather follow what the users are interested in adopting, so it's going off with social and mobile. Do you feel the better approach is to push it more because consumers don't know how great 3D is going to be?

MH: Our position on 3D is it's a great new feature for many games. One thing we've been saying is that it's also very low investment…at a maximum around 2 percent of the dev budget, but mostly around half a percent of the development budget. It's a couple of coders for a few months to actually get it integrated, and then some creative work with designers to understand it. 3D can be done very well at low investment, and we think it's a great feature to offer all our gaming fans.

GS: We've seen waves of 3D tried and failed in decades gone by. Why is it going to succeed this time when it hasn't succeeded before?

MH: What's different about today is this is the first time we've been able to offer high-quality 3D: a high-quality display with high resolution, high refresh rates, high-quality software and movie experiences. Previously, you could have high quality at huge expense, or you could have low-cost items, but it was difficult to achieve any kind of quality. So this is the first time the technology's really allowed us to do high-quality 3D. I think this time we'll see 3D continue to be adopted and continue to grow. It'll just be another way to enjoy gaming experiences. I don't think it's going to replace 2D, but it'll be another way to enjoy certain types of games.

152 Comments

  • XBLACKXVIPERX

    Posted Nov 6, 2011 3:37 pm GMT

    but regardless I think by the time the PS2 is complete shut down of production they'll reach prob 160 or 170 million I highly doubt it get to 200,000,000 units sold ,Id love to see which videogame device reaches that number and no several devices that have the same OS dont count cause there are all sorts of low end n high-end cell phones(smartphones) n tablets that use the same OS so thats unfair to count it has to be from a single device and its hardware incarnations maybe the PS3 might reach 200 million before it stops production,the Nintendo DS...ummmmm maybe evrything else I highly doub it I dont think xbox 360 will get 200 million sold by the end of its production the only ones the can get to that mark right now might be the PS2,DS,PS3 or Wii,the 360 i dont think so although I think the PS2 might get ot the 200 million mark 1st

  • XBLACKXVIPERX

    Posted Nov 6, 2011 3:30 pm GMT

    I doubt it for the most part but the PSV or most likely the PSV's successor will have dual screens at some point so the only thin nintendo 3ds has over the PSV (other than its fan base and their reputation) is dual screens and 3D and one of those is sure to be had by the PSV before its end of production....everything else the PSV is superior to the 3DS, Processing power and graphics: lol forget about it the 3DS would be shamed, brand:its sony so even though they might have not won the handheld wars with nintendo it is the only "1" that actually gave nintendo something to think about and worry cause no other videogame handheld manufacturer has ever being as successful as sony, Period. the PS2 is the best selling video game device of all time and its going to be 12 yrs in production if its still made by march 2012.....thats crazy and the nintendo DS is just about 7 yrs in production and its about to pass the 150 million unit mark and it took a longter time for the PS2 to reach that mark

  • XBLACKXVIPERX

    Posted Nov 6, 2011 3:20 pm GMT

    "We wanted to offer a really, really high-resolution OLED screen, and the best way to do that was in 2D. At least for the first one" like any piece of electronics it always gets updated the only thing nintendo 3Ds has over PSV if u even wanna call it that is dual screens and 3D everything else the PSV is superior to the 3DSnow the PSP has had or will have with the upcoming PSP e-1000 model 5 different external redesigns that offer improvement on each redesign for the most part, so if the PSV-1000 if they call it that wont have 3D since I doubt soething like that could be added through a firmware upgrade I know for sure the PSV will at some point have glasses free 3D either as a firmware or as a new external redign model a la PSV-2000 but it will happen I guarantee it and thats the main attraction of the "3D"S but once the PSV has that 3DS is pretty much in a very harder position than it is now in other words they 're FKD

  • omho88

    Posted Sep 5, 2011 10:02 am GMT

    I would like to try it out but the price prevents me.

  • kriggy

    Posted Sep 3, 2011 7:58 am GMT

    Everytime I have tried 3D it was no good at all. I'm just saying out of old experience that I don't want a warzone in my livingroom. I want it in my TV. At least as the technology looks like at the very moment.

  • Double_Wide

    Posted Aug 29, 2011 7:56 am GMT

    Why is 3D being shoved down everyone's throats? And who are the people demanding it because I haven't met one person yet that "simply loves" 3D and can't view anything without it.

  • KrazzyDJ

    Posted Aug 27, 2011 2:28 am GMT

    3D is good but it should never be done with the intent of throwing off 2D completely !!!

  • excelx213

    Posted Aug 26, 2011 12:55 am GMT

    my girlfriend punched me in the eye, i now see everything in 3d! it's amazing!
    i need to lay down the controller and start paying more attention to her... =x

  • deathblow3

    Posted Aug 25, 2011 6:41 am GMT

    @godzillavskong yeah i have seen and played killzone in 3d the effect is usefull for judging distance to some degree. but i see it as just a fad you will have some people that love it, some that dont care and some that hate it, in killzone i found it distracting. i love it for movies not so much for games.

  • Ripper_TV

    Posted Aug 25, 2011 5:10 am GMT

    3D sucks, it's NOT the future. Case closed.

  • simon1812

    Posted Aug 24, 2011 9:02 pm GMT

    Stereoscopic 3D is overrated.

  • SC-Recruiter

    Posted Aug 24, 2011 1:55 pm GMT

    The technology is advancing rapidly with the new LG TV's that only require battery free glasses like what is supplied at theaters. Soon glassless 3d will storm the market and soon after that it will be the standard. I will not buy a 2D Vita. I was really looking forward to it.

  • Sigil-otaku

    Posted Aug 24, 2011 1:37 pm GMT

    3D is not a bad feature, but it's not a worthwhile feature in my opinion. In the end how many people buy 3D TV's, a PS3, the glasses and then games just for that little feature? And how many games do we have that run in proper 3D to back up the expense? There's not enough support, not enough of a market yet because of the price and not enough justification. As long as Sony keeps it optional it'll be just that, an optional feature most will skip as it's too expensive to waste time on unless you've got so much cash that any under supported product can do no wrong and is 'worth it'. The other problem besides dev support and lack of a decent library is that it could become another one of those time wasting and expense stacking features for the minority that leave devs to not just do next gen games, but NEXT gen games (i.e. even less focus on good gameplay and more on graphics and features). It's not needed for good games, it's just an expensive thing for people to pay for that enhances gameplay in no way.

  • sizzlingdviper

    Posted Aug 24, 2011 12:58 pm GMT

    If Sony launch a 3D monitor to use with a PS3 then that would be good,especially if you can view it without the need for sitting around in those Daft 3D glasses-I wont be interested in viewing 3D movies or playing 3D games until such a device is available.

  • shadowhunter0

    Posted Aug 24, 2011 11:57 am GMT

    @Rahnyc4 everyone that I know that has a ps3 and it is allot of people play on their ps3 in 3d

  • Rahnyc4

    Posted Aug 24, 2011 11:04 am GMT

    hey, sony. no one play in 3d on your system, only a small few does.

  • OmegaBob

    Posted Aug 23, 2011 11:05 pm GMT

    My problem with 3D on Bluray and on the PS3 is that there is very little content for adults. 90% of the BD are kids films & the other 10% are demos, IMAX and select PG-R rated films... and there are only a handful of games that currently have a 3D option. So unless you have a 3D cable channel, there is really no point to own a 3D HDTV as there is no real content. Oh, the 3D cable channels have limited programming that repeats 24/7 in a loop so even that is worthless after watching for a day or two (I own two Samsung HDTVs bc I shoot 3D photos and videos and its an easy way to display them)

    Note: the kids films are fine if you have kids or want to show off the 3D effects but it would be nice to have more PG-R rated titles.

    Also, 3D has been available for PC gamers since the late 1990's (any PC game that uses polygonal gfx can be played in 3D). I owned the wired shutter glasses and the FPS I played in 3D were cool, but I eventually got annoyed with having to wear the glasses and tweaking the settings. Basically, the tech is the same now as it was back then, but it still hasn't caught on... I doubt it will now (although I wish Sony luck as I want that PlayStation 3D TV)

  • SolidTy

    Posted Aug 23, 2011 10:25 pm GMT


    I'm not a big fan of 3D, but if this push allows for some really sweet ideas in gaming, I'm all for it.

  • godzillavskong

    Posted Aug 23, 2011 5:16 pm GMT

    @deathblow3
    Interesting. I'm just not that huge into the 3D phase of gaming. I guess if I get a chance to experience it and actually see what all the hype is about then maybe, but right now I'll just wait it out.

  • flyinknee91

    Posted Aug 23, 2011 3:42 pm GMT

    @godzillavskong
    I understand that some people might be worried about Sony and Microsoft conforming their software to solely cater to move/kinect specific titles. Here's why that will never happen: Nintendo already made that mistake; the market was flooded with crapware because the ease of development allowed companies to shoot out gimmicky games on the Wii platform.They created a system that's hardware could really only be functional for those style of games. If you look at the best games for the Wii, they all come from within Nintendo itself, and take little use of the motion controls (I.e- Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy, SSBB, etc...) I think Nintendo had the right idea of how to incorporate motion controls into their system, however, failed on the follow through. Initially, motion control seemed like it was intended to further immersion of a game, but third party developers saw it solely as a way to make cheap gimmicky games that families would drool over. Sony and Microsoft seem to have the right idea (Kind of picking off where Nintendo started); they have the hardware to back up motion control, and they already have deep libraries of games that could never be over-run by crapware. -------->