surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
@Dv8thwonder HOW is this desperate. It's a promotion. It benefits the customer. This will also allow for people to actually see the difference between 3D and 2D. Let's not forget the people who will be inspired to buy PS3's since they already have 4 games.
I'm not buying another TV. And all those game are $5 on PSN, so that's not a deal. I gotta agree with @Dv8thwonder and call desperation on this.
Not really, it's tapping into their market quite nicely.
Want a 3DTV? Well have some free stuff to show it off! What's that? You don't have a PS3? Well go get one, Sargent Moneybags! You can afford this fucking TV after all.
Want a 3DTV? Well have some free stuff to show it off! What's that? You don't have a PS3? Well go get one, Sargent Moneybags! You can afford this fucking TV after all.
lol no thanks. Even if I needed/wanted a new flatscreen (nevermind ZOMG 3D!) those aren't exactly the cream of the crop when it comes to enticement. Oh shit? MOTORSTORM? I'm fucking on board! No Sony, just no.
BECAUSE NO ONE WILL BUY THEM LOLOLOLOLOL
...wait, Db8th wonder beat me to it. Damn.
Also, @Bigmoose85, quotations for emphasis? That's a "BIG" fail.
...wait, Db8th wonder beat me to it. Damn.
Also, @Bigmoose85, quotations for emphasis? That's a "BIG" fail.
They aren't even 3 games...
That's like throwing in non-HD games with the FULL HD 1080P SONY BRAVIAS...
That's like throwing in non-HD games with the FULL HD 1080P SONY BRAVIAS...
Misleading information is misleading. This article makes it sound like you get all the games for free. Wipeout HD and Super Stardust HD are full games. Pain is only 3 episodes and MotorStorm: Pacific Rift is only a demo. Or at least that's what the source for this article says.
On that note, I think it's a cool incentive to stick with a brand name. But it does kind of suck that not all games are going to be the full games. I mean that would help with the price tag a little (whatever it may be).
On that note, I think it's a cool incentive to stick with a brand name. But it does kind of suck that not all games are going to be the full games. I mean that would help with the price tag a little (whatever it may be).
This is b/c nobody buys Sony's TV's anymore. They lost so much market share to Viszo LG etc. etc. that they barely hold on to like a sliver of the market now
None of them are five dollars. Some people are bitter and dot know what a promotion is. I'd say it's a fair deal for people wanting to upgrade, but oh well.
Oh no a Sony PROMOTION!! They must be desperate! Heaven forbid they want to try to make their product look more appealing by throwing in a few extras.
In other news:
Grocery stores are desperate because they were seen giving away free samples in the frozen food section! More at 5!
In other news:
Grocery stores are desperate because they were seen giving away free samples in the frozen food section! More at 5!
These aren't very good bundles. I've never heard of some of these games. And throwing in a game assumes that their consumers have a PS3, considering that sales wise, the PS3 is dead last, that is not an assumption that can be made.
Personally, I think Sony is desperate too. Not very many people will want the archaic old glasses 3D at the low, low price of $2000 when within a year they can buy 3D without glasses for $200. Now, I'm NOT saying that the content is the same. However, any product with a selling point of 3D is going to be compared to other products with the same selling point. And by not needing glasses, the 3DS is promising to have a superior version of 3D than these TVs. Sony would have to be crazy to not be terrified.
This is the Playstation 3 all over again. Overpriced, high quality, complicated product versus simple, cheap, underpowered product. I am very pessimistic this will catch on. After all, it didn't catch on the previous 50-100 years we used glasses for this effect, so why should now be any different?
Personally, I think Sony is desperate too. Not very many people will want the archaic old glasses 3D at the low, low price of $2000 when within a year they can buy 3D without glasses for $200. Now, I'm NOT saying that the content is the same. However, any product with a selling point of 3D is going to be compared to other products with the same selling point. And by not needing glasses, the 3DS is promising to have a superior version of 3D than these TVs. Sony would have to be crazy to not be terrified.
This is the Playstation 3 all over again. Overpriced, high quality, complicated product versus simple, cheap, underpowered product. I am very pessimistic this will catch on. After all, it didn't catch on the previous 50-100 years we used glasses for this effect, so why should now be any different?
@ Genius - they seem kind of desperate because they are trying very hard to sell you a Playstation 3 with your TV.
To get the most out of your 3D TV you need 3D content. Frankly, the playstation 3 will have the majority of all 3D content. Without selling the PS3, 3D TVs are an even tougher sell, because they have no function.
To get the most out of your 3D TV you need 3D content. Frankly, the playstation 3 will have the majority of all 3D content. Without selling the PS3, 3D TVs are an even tougher sell, because they have no function.
No 3D TV is glasses free. For some reason or another, 3D TVs without glasses aren't practical, while handhelds, typically held at a set distance away by a single person, are ideal.
Actually, the 3DS is ideal for 3D without glasses also because to make the effect, all you need is two different camera angels to be manufactured by the game. This is much easier in a video game than in real shows.
Actually, the 3DS is ideal for 3D without glasses also because to make the effect, all you need is two different camera angels to be manufactured by the game. This is much easier in a video game than in real shows.
@lolipansu
He's not saying people are buying them for their quality, but people are indeed buying them since they're the cheapest sets usually at Wal-Mart, K-mart, etc. They're number 1 dude.
He's not saying people are buying them for their quality, but people are indeed buying them since they're the cheapest sets usually at Wal-Mart, K-mart, etc. They're number 1 dude.
WipeoutHD/Fury is one of the best games on the PS3. I'm sure my face would melt off if I were to play it in 3D in the fastest mode.
@garethxxgod
If you're dissing on Wipeout I'm going to have to ask you to take this outside.
When the 3D version comes out, I am gonna buy a 3DTV. It's not even a choice.
If you're dissing on Wipeout I'm going to have to ask you to take this outside.
When the 3D version comes out, I am gonna buy a 3DTV. It's not even a choice.
You know what, if I hadn't recently bought an LCD (grumble grumble) I'd bite Sony's hand off for this deal.
my 1080p bravia will last a long time. I'll go 3d when I'm ready for another tv, but that'll be awhile.
Why did Pain have to be included, it's the most unfun thing I've messed around with that PSN had to offer. Despite that, even though those other games are pretty good, it still doesn't seem like that great of a deal.
@HCAPT---you can't be serious about the 3DS being better than that 3d tv's! It has already been stated, but obviously nintendo hasn't shown off the system, taht the 3ds only works in 3d from a certain distance, and the technology is old, kind of like the 3d stickers from what i guess.
So the 3d tvs will be superior 3d than the ds.. that is just common sense! just because it uses glasses doesn't mean it is not as good, just means it is true 3d in my opinion.
So the 3d tvs will be superior 3d than the ds.. that is just common sense! just because it uses glasses doesn't mean it is not as good, just means it is true 3d in my opinion.
Hcapt said: "These aren't very good bundles. I've never heard of some of these games. And throwing in a game assumes that their consumers have a PS3, considering that sales wise, the PS3 is dead last, that is not an assumption that can be made.
Personally, I think Sony is desperate too. Not very many people will want the archaic old glasses 3D at the low, low price of $2000 when within a year they can buy 3D without glasses for $200. Now, I'm NOT saying that the content is the same. However, any product with a selling point of 3D is going to be compared to other products with the same selling point. And by not needing glasses, the 3DS is promising to have a superior version of 3D than these TVs. Sony would have to be crazy to not be terrified.
This is the Playstation 3 all over again. Overpriced, high quality, complicated product versus simple, cheap, underpowered product. I am very pessimistic this will catch on. After all, it didn't catch on the previous 50-100 years we used glasses for this effect, so why should now be any different?"
So by your standards because you haven't heard of some of these games, clearly it's a lousy deal.
You know what? I haven't heard of other games. Maybe they should include those instead. Oh no, wait, by your standards that'd still be crappy.
Next year there will be $200 3DTV's? AMAZING! I can't even buy a 24" HDTV for that price right now.
What you fail to realize is technology is always more expensive for early adopters. That's why all 3D TV's cost on average $3000. When CD players went on the market in 1982, they cost around... $3000. By 1983, you could choose from a whopping 16 albums. It's going to take years upon years for 3DTV's to drop drastically in price. But early adopters are necessary to keep a product on the shelves in order for that to happen. Production costs go down, manufacturing goes up, and companies involved begin to multiply in their product catalogs.
Do you work for Fox News? Your "facts" are pretty out there.
Personally, I think Sony is desperate too. Not very many people will want the archaic old glasses 3D at the low, low price of $2000 when within a year they can buy 3D without glasses for $200. Now, I'm NOT saying that the content is the same. However, any product with a selling point of 3D is going to be compared to other products with the same selling point. And by not needing glasses, the 3DS is promising to have a superior version of 3D than these TVs. Sony would have to be crazy to not be terrified.
This is the Playstation 3 all over again. Overpriced, high quality, complicated product versus simple, cheap, underpowered product. I am very pessimistic this will catch on. After all, it didn't catch on the previous 50-100 years we used glasses for this effect, so why should now be any different?"
So by your standards because you haven't heard of some of these games, clearly it's a lousy deal.
You know what? I haven't heard of other games. Maybe they should include those instead. Oh no, wait, by your standards that'd still be crappy.
Next year there will be $200 3DTV's? AMAZING! I can't even buy a 24" HDTV for that price right now.
What you fail to realize is technology is always more expensive for early adopters. That's why all 3D TV's cost on average $3000. When CD players went on the market in 1982, they cost around... $3000. By 1983, you could choose from a whopping 16 albums. It's going to take years upon years for 3DTV's to drop drastically in price. But early adopters are necessary to keep a product on the shelves in order for that to happen. Production costs go down, manufacturing goes up, and companies involved begin to multiply in their product catalogs.
Do you work for Fox News? Your "facts" are pretty out there.
I kind of like the vertical integration strategy they have going for them. That's something Microsoft and Nintendo can't compete with them on.
Pass, Sony's customer service is awful on home electronics. Every firmware update on my uncle's bluray just means there's another batch of dvds it can't play.
I can't wait to play the worst game in 3d: Pain! Now, my eyes will feel the pain...
SuperStardust OWNZ.
SuperStardust OWNZ.
I can't wait to play the worst game in 3d: Pain! Now, my eyes will feel the pain...
SuperStardust OWNZ.
SuperStardust OWNZ.
@ MastrMeatWad
I am quite serious. Sterioscopic 3D is sterioscopic 3D, and old tech is an irrelivant point that assumes the new tech is somehow inherently better. Depending on the value system, this is not always the case. I'm not sure if you agree or not from the grammer of your content, but I think the true 3D would be on the 3DS, because it is the one that works without the need for peripherals. Furthermore, as a gaming device, it uses 3D models rather than multiple cameras, meaning it can easily show you two different images from different angles, while television shows more often (but not always) rely on the take one picture and show it two places method for cost reasons.
Solid Squirrel - I wonder if you defended the PSP Go with the same arguements. If you live in Europe, then those arguements could be directly applied to a PSP Go defence.
In addition, you are forgetting than nintendo has yet to release a product that was not competitively priced with it's previous products. You can buy a Sony 3D TV for $2000 3 months from now, or you could buy it a year from now for $1000, or you could buy a 3DS a year from now for the cost of the 3D tv glasses you'll need. The Nintendo 3DS will be a much cheaper device than any of these TVs when it comes out while capitalizing on the primary advantage of a 3D TV over a regular TV, but doing so much more cheaply without requiring its users wear 3D glasses.
What you fail to realize is that technology evolves from the low end, until it destroys the competition by taking its opponents' customers from the low end in a process called disruption. Technologies and companies have an extremely difficult time going down from the high end. Since this pattern was documented twice already in Nintendo's history, once with the NES and once with the Wii, and multiple times in Sony's history of working with transistors, it makes sense to say that the 3DS is more in-line with disruption than the Sony 3D tvs, which are blatantly sustaining innovations in an overshot market that hasn't even fully embraced Blue Ray and HD yet, let alone gotten to 3D tvs.
I am quite serious. Sterioscopic 3D is sterioscopic 3D, and old tech is an irrelivant point that assumes the new tech is somehow inherently better. Depending on the value system, this is not always the case. I'm not sure if you agree or not from the grammer of your content, but I think the true 3D would be on the 3DS, because it is the one that works without the need for peripherals. Furthermore, as a gaming device, it uses 3D models rather than multiple cameras, meaning it can easily show you two different images from different angles, while television shows more often (but not always) rely on the take one picture and show it two places method for cost reasons.
Solid Squirrel - I wonder if you defended the PSP Go with the same arguements. If you live in Europe, then those arguements could be directly applied to a PSP Go defence.
In addition, you are forgetting than nintendo has yet to release a product that was not competitively priced with it's previous products. You can buy a Sony 3D TV for $2000 3 months from now, or you could buy it a year from now for $1000, or you could buy a 3DS a year from now for the cost of the 3D tv glasses you'll need. The Nintendo 3DS will be a much cheaper device than any of these TVs when it comes out while capitalizing on the primary advantage of a 3D TV over a regular TV, but doing so much more cheaply without requiring its users wear 3D glasses.
What you fail to realize is that technology evolves from the low end, until it destroys the competition by taking its opponents' customers from the low end in a process called disruption. Technologies and companies have an extremely difficult time going down from the high end. Since this pattern was documented twice already in Nintendo's history, once with the NES and once with the Wii, and multiple times in Sony's history of working with transistors, it makes sense to say that the 3DS is more in-line with disruption than the Sony 3D tvs, which are blatantly sustaining innovations in an overshot market that hasn't even fully embraced Blue Ray and HD yet, let alone gotten to 3D tvs.
@Hcapt "blatantly sustaining innovations in an overshot market"
Someones been reading their Malstrom.
Someones been reading their Malstrom.
follow
