Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Conclusion

Nvidia 3D Vision Surround: Is This The Future Of Gaming?
By

Let’s start with what 3D Vision Surround does well. In games that are “3D Vision-ready,” the experience is as profound as going from a 2D VGA card to a 3D graphics accelerator. I BS you not. If this technology didn’t have such a steep barrier to entry in its cost, I can guarantee you’d be all over it. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Just Cause 2 are perhaps the two poster children of what 3D Vision Surround can do. They’re simply stunning. Trying to describe going from 3D gaming on a 2D screen to a three-dimensional experience is really an exercise in futility. You have to experience it. And if you have your doubts, find someone with the setup and try it yourself.

And while I might sound like a flowery fan boy after that paragraph, the technology is of course not without its faults—the most grievous of which is the fact that not all games are as well-optimized as Battlefield and Just Cause. In fact, there are six playable games listed as 3D Vision-ready on Nvidia’s site (others are either demos or not yet available). The rest have varying degrees of issues that require addressing. Sometimes that means turning off quality-oriented features. Sometimes that means putting up with an anomaly that can’t be worked around.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. requires a hefty sacrifice in the lighting dept. to get 3D Vision looking right.S.T.A.L.K.E.R. requires a hefty sacrifice in the lighting dept. to get 3D Vision looking right.

Factor in the fact that 3D Vision Surround is an expensive proposition, indeed. Three monitors, some number of glasses, a pair of GeForce GTX 480s, if you’re doing this right, and maybe even a stand. That’s $2,500+ before you even start in on the rest of your machine (which had better also be beefy, by the way). No doubt that’ll be one the most significant inhibitors. Though again, this is Nvidia’s big “look at me” technology, similar to AMD’s Eyefinity 6 Edition card.

For those of you who don’t mind throwing down big bucks, 3D Vision Surround is a sight to behold in a handful of games. In others, you’ll want to run in Surround (2D) mode. As we’ve already seen from AMD’s Eyefinity capability, that’s cool technology too. It's just a shame that AMD doesn’t have anything to compete with in the realm of stereoscopic gaming. We were told to expect results back when single-screen 3D Vision launched, and have since conceded that this is a one-horse race.

At the end of the day, the conclusion I reached back in January of 2009 about 3D Vision is still eerily applicable:

GeForce 3D Vision reminds us a lot of 64-bit processing, multi-core CPUs, and hardware-accelerated transform and lighting (T&L). It’s a product based on technology with the potential to completely change the way you do something—in this case, game. However, the caveats shouldn’t be ignored. The cost of entry is high, enabling the functionality often means turning off other quality-enhancing features, and you’ll need a fairly potent graphics subsystem in order to really enjoy it.

This next line is going to be flame bait, but the ace up Nvidia’s sleeve has to be its The Way It's Meant To Be Played (TWIMTBP) program. TWIMTBP might just give the hardware vendor enough sway on the software side to not only make sure upcoming titles are wholly compatible with GeForce 3D Vision, but that they also include additional features, such as content able to pop up through the latest 120 Hz screens. GeForce 3D Vision cannot truly succeed without some sort of embrace from game developers, and that's what we imagine Nvidia is working on right now. Until that happens, we’d be inclined to let the prices on those brand-new monitors and glasses come down a bit. The technology is remarkably novel—there’s just so much else you can do with $600 right now.

Hopefully Nvidia is still cranking hard on the developer support it needs to engorge that list of 3D Vision-ready titles. Those are the ones that’ll sell 3D Vision Surround. Once you sit down in front of a properly-optimized game, it’s truly hard to get back up.

Display all 87 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 30 Hide
    Reynod , June 29, 2010 2:15 PM
    I wish I could afford all of that hardware ... alas not.

    The Samsung 120HZ 24" monitor, glasses and GTX card cost us arond $780.

    Played it for a few days and got sore eyes.

    Gave it to the kids.

    They played with the glasses for a week.

    Now the glasses are in a drawer.

    Not much more to tell really.

    The whole experience with the glasses reminded me of:

    The yoyo
    The pogo stick
    The hat with the beer cans on top of it and the tubes
    The Bling "Gaming" case with neons that I disconnected
    The Superfloppy
    The external CD Burner
    The ex-wife

    All terribly short experiences of delight (dynamic quality) followed by a feeling of bewilderment and a sense that I had been played by a consumerist market.

    C Wright Mills please save me ... from myself.

    Chris ... is there a cure ?
  • 25 Hide
    meat81 , June 29, 2010 1:21 PM
    Without sounding ignorant like killerclick, they do need to start producing mainstream monitors that have little to no bezel. If not then i might as well buy a 32-40 inch TV that does 120-240hz and go with that.
  • 13 Hide
    ravnoscc , June 29, 2010 2:18 PM
    I have a question:

    Could you explain how the bezels are compensated for in 3D Surround mode? I am trying to imagine how having 2-3 inch spaces in between each projected image would look in 3 dimensions... Having difficulty, but maybe a short explanation?
Other Comments
  • 25 Hide
    meat81 , June 29, 2010 1:21 PM
    Without sounding ignorant like killerclick, they do need to start producing mainstream monitors that have little to no bezel. If not then i might as well buy a 32-40 inch TV that does 120-240hz and go with that.
  • 11 Hide
    liquidsnake718 , June 29, 2010 1:30 PM
    all for the cost of around $7500... this would last you for about 3years of fun.... then after, youd have to get rid of it
  • 2 Hide
    gxpbecker , June 29, 2010 1:32 PM
    better yet, a single fold out (nearly bezel-less) display.
    As the article says, this is all nice and dandy but the costs are high, to say the least. However as time passes this technology will be more affordable for us average joes. Good too see GRFX companines are pushing new toys
  • 1 Hide
    gxpbecker , June 29, 2010 1:35 PM
    liquidsnake718Hell you might as well go all out and connect 3 32 or 42 inch samsung series 6-8led tvs and tri sli or crossfire 5970's..... one would definitly need watercooling systems and core i7 6 core chips, with an ROG x58 board with ssd's max RAM, win 7 64bit, and 1000watts... this machine would then have to played in full airconditioning and with crazy sounds with some amps and extra lighting effects.....You would then have total fun playing games like Crysis, Resident evil, left for dead, Dirt, and Cod MW2..... one can imagine

    And will cost as much in power to run that machine as an Air COnditioner during the Houston Summer.
  • 0 Hide
    Onus , June 29, 2010 1:58 PM
    The scales are way too big. Too much money, too much power needed (which means more money), and way too much physical space. Cost and power usage may come down, but space? In the mainstream, I'd sooner expect the VR headset to make a return.
  • 30 Hide
    Reynod , June 29, 2010 2:15 PM
    I wish I could afford all of that hardware ... alas not.

    The Samsung 120HZ 24" monitor, glasses and GTX card cost us arond $780.

    Played it for a few days and got sore eyes.

    Gave it to the kids.

    They played with the glasses for a week.

    Now the glasses are in a drawer.

    Not much more to tell really.

    The whole experience with the glasses reminded me of:

    The yoyo
    The pogo stick
    The hat with the beer cans on top of it and the tubes
    The Bling "Gaming" case with neons that I disconnected
    The Superfloppy
    The external CD Burner
    The ex-wife

    All terribly short experiences of delight (dynamic quality) followed by a feeling of bewilderment and a sense that I had been played by a consumerist market.

    C Wright Mills please save me ... from myself.

    Chris ... is there a cure ?
  • 13 Hide
    ravnoscc , June 29, 2010 2:18 PM
    I have a question:

    Could you explain how the bezels are compensated for in 3D Surround mode? I am trying to imagine how having 2-3 inch spaces in between each projected image would look in 3 dimensions... Having difficulty, but maybe a short explanation?
  • -2 Hide
    theroguex , June 29, 2010 2:21 PM
    So long as there is a bezel, there is no point to having surround in games. None at all.

    Well, racing games could get away with it.
  • 2 Hide
    rocky1234 , June 29, 2010 2:31 PM
    The future of gaming maybe but at this point the cost to get into it is off the charts so yes maybe is a few years when the cost of entry is about 70% cheaper then yes maybe. Also until they can get rid of the silly glasses I do not know to many people wanting to wear these silly glasses just to play a game.
  • -5 Hide
    Poisoner , June 29, 2010 2:39 PM
    killerclickWhat are those lines between the screens? Oh yeah, it's the black plastic the monitors are made of! Three monitor gaming = FAIL.

    It maybe fail but I bet it would look good on your dual socket motherboard.
  • 1 Hide
    CaptainBib , June 29, 2010 2:42 PM
    Once this technology matures, then it will be a revelation.

    Although 3D is something I see as more of a fad; for the next 2-4 years it will be huge, then it will fade into oblivion.
  • 2 Hide
    killerclick , June 29, 2010 2:42 PM
    I didn't use Trinitron CRTs because of that tiny teenie line in the middle, I sure as hell wouldn't use three monitors for gaming with those giant bezels.
  • -6 Hide
    killerclick , June 29, 2010 2:47 PM
    CaptainBibOnce this technology matures, then it will be a revelation.Although 3D is something I see as more of a fad; for the next 2-4 years it will be huge, then it will fade into oblivion.


    3D has been coming and going for decades. I wasn't impressed 20 years ago and I'm not impressed now.
  • -5 Hide
    Dirtman73 , June 29, 2010 3:02 PM
    It's a fad, and it's going to continue to be a fad until the technology doesn't make people sick with vertigo.
  • 7 Hide
    RADIO_ACTIVE , June 29, 2010 3:07 PM
    I think they should just create wider curved screens. This multiple screen thing.....
  • -1 Hide
    dark_lord69 , June 29, 2010 3:35 PM
    Well, it certainly would be cool but honestly who has the money to spend on 3 3D monitors? Plus you would need a hell of a video card setup as well.

    Say the monitors are $200 each.
    Then your gonna need a couple good video cards say $150 - $200 each.

    So 200 X 3 = 600
    Plus 150 X 2 = 300
    So we are talking $900 on the low end.
    Up to about $1,500 on the higher end.
    Plus these monitors are 3D meaning $200 is unrealistic. It would be more like $350 on the low end.

    Because of the extremely high cost of having 3 monitors I don't see it really taking off. If you ask me it's just a way for nVidia and ATi to try and lower the frame rates of your games so you need to buy a better video card and spend more money. Because, lets be honest, that is what they want.

    If you want a big monitor do like I did... I have a 37" LCD HDTV that I used as my monitor. With 0% intrest I pay on $28 a month. I don't care if you work at McDonalds that price is doable.
  • 4 Hide
    spartanii , June 29, 2010 3:43 PM
    Ok how about OLED Glasses with some sort of gyroscopic sensor that when you turn your head the screen turns too. I thought OLED tech was suppose to be coming. Or how about this metal rod that you shove into the back of your skull then your mind gets downloaded into some sort of cyperspace world. I swear if they ever invent true virtual reality, like the holodeck from star trek, the human race will slowly die out.
Display more comments