Sony’s been concentrating on the 3D capabilities of its PS3 an awful lot lately, whereas the other two console manufacturers have been largely silent regarding the same. Nintendo has been giving glasses free stereoscopic 3D gaming the push with its upcoming 3DS handheld, whereas Microsoft’s been largely mum on the matter. This has led many to believe, and incorrectly so, that the PS3 is the first and only gaming console to support 3D gaming.
This assumption is actually incorrect, as it turns out. Not only is the PS3 accompanied by both the Wii and the Xbox 360 in its 3D gaming capabilities, it’s also only the latest in a long line of systems that have all supported 3D gaming, right out of the box.
The first game console that could display 3D was the NES, with several Square published games that could display 3D graphics. These included games such as Rad Racer and 3-D World Runner, both of which came packaged with 3D glasses, and both of which had 3D modes.
So the first 3D console wasn’t the PS3… it was the NES, way back in the 1980′s.
But that isn’t where it stops. You see, the 3D that the NES supported was not stereoscopic 3D, it was anaglyphic. The first system to support stereoscopic 3D was the the Gamecube, which was fully 3D compatible. However, it never had a 3D game release, so the 3D compatibility was never exploited or made much use of.
This generation, all three home consoles are 3D compatible. While the Wii retains the Gamecube’s 3D compatibility, the Xbox 360 is also stereoscopic 3D compatible. It’s already gotten the first stereoscopic 3D console game this generation, James Cameron’s Avatar, and it’s getting another one: Saint’s Row Drive By, which is also being ported over to the 3DS. Finally, the PS3 is, as everybody knows, 3D compatible.
The fact of the matter is, the PS3 isn’t the only console that can do 3D. The Xbox 360 and the Wii, both can do it too. Nor is it the first. The only reason that the PS3′s 3D is most talked about is because of Sony’s push towards 3D gaming, which is a part of a larger, concerted effort to push sales of their 3DTV Bravia models.
What this means, then, is that the PS3 is not the only system you can enjoy 3D gaming on this generation. This also debunks the fact that the PS3 is conclusively more powerful than the Xbox 360 because it can handle 3D gaming while the Xbox 360 cannot. As I’ve already demonstrated, the Xbox 360 is also 3D compatible. And also, surely, if the NES and the Gamecube could handle 3D, then stereoscopic 3D doesn’t require that much power, now, does it?
Loading ...
July 26, 2010
#1
Actually, the SEGA MASTER SYSTEM was the first to have Steroscopic 3-D, not the GameCube. There was a game on the SMS called “MISSILE DEFENSE 3-D” which used bulky 3-D glasses that were powered using the console itself. I still own it!
July 26, 2010
#2
Did you just compare the 3DS to the PS3 3D? Are you an idiot?
Nothing more to say…. you must be an idiot if you can’t tell the different between multiple 2d layers and ACTUAL 3D…. please give up writing… especially about technology and/or video games. You are a hack….
July 26, 2010
#3
But where did I ever compare the 3DS with the PS3′s 3D? Please point out in the article where I have done so.
And please, the 3DS does not use multiple 2D layers, it uses a technique called parallax barriers to produce a genuine stereoscopic 3D effect that is as ‘actual’ or ‘real’ as the 3D that the PS3 produces. Granted, that the 3DS’ 3D is inwards sinking rather than outwards popping, but it is 3D all the same.
July 26, 2010
#4
The 3DS is stereoscopic. It uses the same tech from the 3D monitors circa 2001. It will work on a small display for 1 viewer.
July 26, 2010
#5
No one said the PS3 was the only console to support 3D gaming. They said that it’s the only home console that’s making a big push towards 3D gaming, and thus is the console to own if you want the most comprehensive 3D gaming experience with the most extensive library of supporting games.
Also, it requires extra power to process and render the two images necessary for each eye and with double the refresh rate for realtime 3D videogames. The 360 is probably technically capable of such a feat as well, but on a technical level, the PS3 is likely much more well-suited for 3D rendering because of the extra CPU power afforded by the Cell processor.
July 26, 2010
#6
You forgot to mention “Out Run 3D” also. And that is from a loooong time ago
July 26, 2010
#7
Pramath, the anaglyphic system used by the NES games is stereographic. Stereoscopic just means perceiving 3D by seeing two different images with each eye.
July 27, 2010
#8
Crap, I meant to write anaglyphic, not stereoscopic. I even say, the ‘NES did not do stereoscopic.’ I have no idea how that slipped through. I’ll change that.
Thanks!
July 30, 2010
#9
Meanwhile, I said “stereographic” instead of “stereoscopic”.
It’s all to easy to get these technical terms mixed up.
July 26, 2010
#10
no one is saying that the ps3 is more powerful that is why there is 3d on it people are saying that because of blu-ray the extra spae can be added to put double the code to make it in 3d. get your facts right
July 26, 2010
#11
Making a game in 3D does not require “double the code”, and also does not need the extra space that blu-ray offers.
July 27, 2010
#12
Unfortunately, however, making a 3D game does not require double the code. A normal DVD9 is perfectly capable of holding a 3D game or movie.
July 26, 2010
#13
But who said the PS3 is the first console to support 3D?
I really don’t understand the point of your messticle.
July 26, 2010
#14
What?! PS3 is the first to support 3d tvs, they made no claim to be the first console to support 3d. wth
July 26, 2010
#15
True Stereoscopic 3d was around for awhile but it was cheaply implemented until last year when the Nivida gforce 3d came out bundled with Viewsonic the 1st 3d ready monitor. So actually Stereoscopic was never properly implemented until now.
The Xbox360 can do Stereoscopic 3d but at a sub Hd since it doesn’t have the bandwidth and it uses their 10mb edram as their framebuffer so you only have 5mb for each frame with no AA. That is clearly not enough to get a HD resolution, you need at least 7mb per frame. Sony uses their 256mb VRAM.
I can guarantee you that their is no game that’s built from the ground up that supports stereoscopic HD3D, until KZ3 comes out.
BTW, what’s up with your headline, flame bait 101.
July 26, 2010
#16
Really? Can’t we all just admit that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360? Sure, Microsoft says that the 360 can do 3D too – but the difference is that Sony has actually showed us. I doubt that the 360 can push their games at 120hz, but lets just see about that one? Stereoscopic 3D =/= Real 3D.
And as for the reason why Sony is the only one touting it’s 3D abilities – couldn’t it be because they are the only ones who are doing it on screens bigger than 3.53″ (the 3DS)
Or is it because they are, as stated above, they are the only ones doing it. Or can do it, until we are proven otherwise. I’m just saying that the PS3 is the only piece of hardware that has shown games with the graphical integrity of U2, inFamous 2, Killzone 3, The Last Guardian or GT5 (among many others, people who mention Forza 3 will be laughed at)
July 27, 2010
#17
Really? And just how is the Xbox 360 any weaker than the PS3? What tangible proof do we have?
Here, have a look at these:
PS3 GPU: 550 MHz Reality Synthesizer
PS3 CPU: Cell Broadband 3.2 GHz
PS3 MEMORY: 256 MB XDR @ 3.2 GHz, 256 MB GDDR3 @ 700 MHz, GPU can access CPU memory
Xbox 360 GPU: 500 MHz codenamed “Xenos”
Xbox 360 CPU: 3.2 GHz IBM PowerPC tri-core codenamed “Xenon”
Xbox 360 Memory: 512 MB GDDR3 @ 700 MHz shared between CPU & GPU
10 MB EDRAM GPU frame buffer memory
The Playstation 3 has bottlenecked RAM, that essentially kills any advantage it may have had over the Xbox 360.
And graphical integrity is absolutely subjective. There are many who would swear that Super Mario Galaxy 2 is the best looking game of this game of this generation, and they would be right in their places. And yet SMG2 isnt even HD… wonder what you would say to them.
Finally, Microsoft HAS already demosntrated 3D games running on the Xbox 360, and on several occasions. Yes, all their games are pushed at 120 Hz as well
July 26, 2010
#18
SEGA MASTER SYSTEM had 3D gaming in the late 80′s. I can’t believe this article didn’t mention that. No one remembers that NES tried 3D, but many people remember the SMS ads for Zaxxon-3D and SegaScope 3D. Way to miss the obvious in this article.
July 27, 2010
#19
Dumb, wrong about everything about PS3 not being the first 3D console.
PS3 is the first HD 3D console that doesn’t use the old 3D tech or the cheap paper glasses, oh and going by what this person is saying.
Every console can do 3D thanks to 3D tv’s.
July 27, 2010
#20
No. Like I said in the article, the Gamecube was the first system to be stereoscopic 3D enabled. This generation, the Xbox 360 has already received a 3D game, so I don’t see how the PS3 is ‘first’ anything.
July 27, 2010
#21
Your argument is still kind of moot since all of the 3D capable systems you have pointed out are outdated and sub-par to what the PS3 is doing with 3D. Using Avatar the game as a bonus point for the X360 is one of the most retarded things I think I have ever read, I mean really, you actually went there and you did it like it was exclusive to the X360 which it isn’t. The Xbox 360 cannot put out a caliber game on the level of any first party PS3 title, that’s the end all of this entire flaming article. I don’t think anyone really give two shits about which is more powerful but the X360 could never replicate the kind of 3D the PS3 will put out with any game that’s first party and who the hell cares about Saint’s Row Drive By, what are you a twelve year!? Learn how to write like a real journalist and stop with flamebait garbage articles that are in no way relevant to current trends because cardboard red/blue 3D glasses and the fact that the Gamecube could output Stereoscopic 3D are not in any way relevant to what the PS3, or the X360 for that matter, will do with 3D.
July 27, 2010
#22
Like others have said, the sega master system used stereoscopic LCD shutter glasses in the 1980s. It came packaged with the system when I bought it. Missle Defense 3D, zaxxon 3d, space harrier 3d, maze hunter 3d, were just a few of the 3d games.
But of course, the technology has been around for much longer and they’ve had it for the pc for a long time, it just never really caught on as a standard. Its the same thing with motion controls; the technology has been around a long time, it just never got popular until now. Nintendo made analog sticks and motion controls standard by forcing you to use them with their consoles and in their games. The wii’s motion controllers are truly terrible and jittery, but you don’t have any other choice. Kinect and Move wont be as popular because you aren’t forced to use them. This gives little incentive to developers.
July 27, 2010
#23
Continued…
The comparison being, of course, that 3D will fail to become a standard if you aren’t forced to use it.
July 27, 2010
#24
doesn’t change the fact ps is the first console to do 3d, if you can read it says “console” an not game, so doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong.
An you seem to forget the batman aa goty is in 3d to.
July 27, 2010
#25
If a NES game was 3D, then I’d say that the NES was 3D compatible, wouldn’t you?
Otherwise, how was the game 3D in the first place?
July 27, 2010
#26
Wow damage control much? Nobody, from my interaction on the internet, has proclaimed that sony is pioneering 3d.. They are simply stating that sony is the first to really “push” the tech. There’s a difference and its important you can differentiate them. It’s just like the wii, they in no way by any means pioneered motion controls but they are the first to push the technology so hard and they were successful because of that.. This whole sony bashing phenomenon needs to stop, despite their ferverent attempts at pleasing everybody they continue to be spit in the face by the media, yourself included. Slow your role for a second and think about things before posting this rubbish online please.. You are only succeeding in segregating your audience and diminishing the value of your opinions..
July 27, 2010
#27
25 you hit the nail on the head. Pramath your a weak journalist…wait let me refrace…you are a 100% Xbot with no life,stop writing, nobody believes you exept other Xbots, you are an idiot…move over, let real journalist do the writing.
July 27, 2010
#28
No I wouldn’t, just because one game is 3D doesn’t mean the system fully does 3D, keep in mind what you are lacking to understand is that everything on the PS3 can be 3D because it is on the system and your movies can to.
July 28, 2010
#29
The PS3′s 3D isnt stereoscopic though.. tons of consoles have been able to support stereoscopic….. douche.