3D Games Need Next-Gen Consoles To Succeed

3D games will no doubt accelerate the adoption of 3DTVs, provided it’s financially viable for 3D TV manufacturers to incorporate the extra dimension on their mid-range sets. But for 3D gaming to become prevalent, Microsoft and Sony need to launch their respective next-generation game consoles as soon as possible, even though both the Microsoft Xbox 360 and the Sony Playstation 3 (PS3) can currently render games in Single-Frame stereoscopic 3D (SS3D).

In the coming days, Sony will release a firmware update which will equip the PS3’s HDMI port with a selection of protocols native to the v1.4 specifications, allowing the PS3 to fully support up to 120p (60p per eye) Frame-Sequential SS3D. However, the majority of 3D games will initially be restricted to simple arcade games due to present-day limitations in hardware resources. For games such as KillZone to be rendered in 3D, in-game graphics or resolution must be sacrificed to maintain 30 fps per eye (total of 60 fps). Here’s why.

The majority of games on the Sony PS3 are rendered in 720p30, which translates into 27,648,000 (1280 x 720 x 30) pixels per second (on average). Forcing the Sony PS3 to deliver double the frame rate (for both eyes) for 720p Frame-Sequential SS3D is not possible without reducing graphics quality/ resolution. In addition, the Sony PS3 lacks true hardware-accelerated vertical scaling, so rendering 3D games in frame-sequential 540p (960 x 540) could pose a problem, unless 3D game developers resort to utilising the Sony PS3’s Cell microprocessor for vertical scaling, which may in turn impair the game’s performance.

Even for Single-Frame SS3D, the required pixel output remains stupendously high (62,208,000 PPS for 1080p30). And because the game has to natively support 720p in both 3D and 2D, the longer development time adds significantly to the cost.

Despite Sony’s marketing claims, the PS3 is not an all-conquering hardware powerhouse, and its internal architecture offers limited flexibility for 3D game developers. To increase pixel rate, the PS3’s GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) has to be freed by reallocating a number of processing tasks to the Cell, which is not easy to accomplish. And although the Cell is quite capable of rendering vector graphics, it is not a replacement for the RSX GPU.

In theory, what game developers can do is to cut the horizontal resolution of 720p (1280) to 640 (640 x 720 x 30p x 2 = 27,648,000). Since the image is horizontally compressed (anamorphic), developers can use the horizontal hardware scaler to scale 640 to 1280 (via an integer) without round-off errors. The image may contain artefacts, but it ultimately benefits both players and developers.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how 3D game developers can maximise performance while maintaining certain visual quality/standard.

As for the Microsoft Xbox 360, it is not possible to update its HDMI controller to enable Frame-Sequential SS3D. However, Microsoft has hinted at the possibility of Xbox 3 (X3) with native 3D support, which is not surprising considering that Project Natal and 3D go hand in hand.

On the computer front, PC gamers will benefit from 3D TVs as both ATI and NVIDIA support Frame-Sequential SS3D, but the halving of frame rate per eye can pose a problem if the hardware cannot maintain an average of 60 fps. There is also the issue of headache and nausea caused by 3D due to active viewing (as opposed to passive viewing).

3D gaming is touted as the main driver for 3D TV take-up, and rightly so since 3D games bring us one step closer to interactive virtual reality. But for the benefits of 3D gaming to be fully realised, a breakthrough in hardware limitation is needed, which is why Microsoft’s and Sony’s next-gen game consoles can’t come soon enough.

10 comments

  1. David Mackenzie

    Nielo, I agree totally. In fact, the current generation of consoles is not even enough for standard “2D” games. I have no idea when 30fps became acceptable, because it is just not fluid enough for truly immersive gameplay. There were more 60fps games on consoles 10 years ago than there are now, and that is truly depressing. And 3D is only going to make the processing demands higher as you say.

  2. I’m even more confused now. Is Sony updating the PS3’s HDMI port to version 1.4?

    I was under the impression that 3D is techically possible with version 1.3, albeit with certain limitations. I assumed that Sony couldn’t actually update the HDMI port to 1.4, as that would require physical hardware changes. Based on this assumption, I was hoping that people with HDMI 1.3 AV receivers, such as myself, would be able to route 3D signals from their PS3 through their receiver. Is this not going to be possible?

  3. First of all, Sony already enabled 3D on the PS3 with firmware update 3.30. What’s coming in the next days are GAME updates that actually add 3D.

    Metalex, 1.3 is fine for 3D via PS3. The HDMI chip in the console is programmable, which is what firmware 3.30 did. The limitations hardware wise of HDMI 1.3 against HDMI 1.4 are unrelated to 3D stuff. The bandwidth, for example, is the very same.

  4. @TTP

    I really think you shoud go and read the specs of HDMI 1.4,because the bandwidth are way above 1.3 in terms of connection speed!Also 1.4 can give you digital audio and image on the same HDMI 1.4 cable ,and the 1.3 version its only able to give digital image and no digital audio!

  5. @Miguel – I think it might be you who needs to go and read the specs of HDMI 1.4!

    The bandwidth of HDMI 1.4 is exactly the same as HDMI 1.3 – 10.2Gb/s. HDMI 1.4 simply supports higher resolutions up to 4096x2160p24, but this does NOT use or require more bandwidth.

    What do you mean by, “1.4 can give you digital audio and image on the same HDMI 1.4 cable”? HDMI 1.3 can easily carry full HD 1920x1080p60 and HD digital audio. I suspect you are talking about the Audio Return Channel, which is not the same thing.

    See that’s the problem with all this 3D/HDMI 1.4 stuff. People are throwing about so much mis-information, which is causing confusion.

    TTP is right in that the bandwidth of HDMI 1.3 is perfectly adequate for 3D. It would easily be able to handle the frame packing 3D format at 1080p24, for example.

    My confusion arose because the article above lead me to wonder whether Sony were somehow updating the HDMI hardware in the PS3 to make it HDMI 1.4 compatible, and thereby causing problems for those with HDMI 1.3 AV receivers, etc. etc. I know that Sky HD boxes aren’t HDMI 1.4 compatible, but they are offering 3D in the side-by-side format, so I can only assume this won’t cause any problems for HDMI 1.3 AV receivers. Or maybe I am wrong to assume this.

    You know what? I’m still not 100% sure on this. Until someone shows me proof that they’re running 3D from a PS3, via an HDMI 1.3 AV receiver, then through to their 3D telly, then I’m sceptical of what anybody says. There is so much conflicting information out there.

  6. @Metalex

    The new Sony PS3 Slim features hardware HDMI controller manufactured by Panasonic.. All Sony is doing is updating the controller to enable some of the features found in HDMI v1.4. But since not all features can be implemented, it cannot be classified as HDMI v1.4.

    PS: I don’t know who manufacturer the HDMI controller for the older models. But I’m sure Google will reveal the answer.

  7. In addition, neither HDMI 1.3 nor 1.4 support Frame Sequential 1080p120 (frame-packed) due to insufficient bandwidth allocated for video.

    So in FS-S3D mode, the maximum resolution for 60p double-packed stream is capped to 720p (60p per eye). However, 1080p24 (double packed) is will within the bandwidth but insufficient for most fast-paced games.

    It is why the PC community is not extremely thrilled with the new 3DTVs. But considering average viewing distance, minimal crosstalk and size in addition to increased frames (render), 720p can be considered as a compromise between high resolution and lower frames and low resolution with higher frames.

    If one wishes to exceed the DVI (Dual Link) and HDMI limitations, then DisplayPort 1.2 is the best best option.

  8. Just to point out that none of the 3D PS3 games out now are using Frame-Sequential SS3D. They are all frame packing (two 720p frames with a 30 pixle gap), this is what was added in the firemware update. There is fine bandwidth for this to work even on a HDMI 1.1 connection (e.g. Sky HD)

    Also the motor storm 3d demo is running at a sub HD res and is being upscalled.

  9. Frame Packing is identical to Frame-Sequential S3D in a sense that both horizontal and vertical lines are preserved. The difference is in method of transmission.

    ATM, FS3D is only used in PCs. All 3D BD players, PS3 etc use frame packing (1920 x 1080 x 2 or 1280 x 720 x 2). Displays based on active shutter extract the information and convert it into frame sequential 3D.

    PS: Frame packing is also know as over and under.