Yeah, I think it is a total gimmick too. When I was a kid and something was in 3-D, it was like it came off the screen and right at you.

I don't go to the movies a lot, but last I did I took the wife and kids and everything was 3-D. We paid over the usual rip off price and it didn't seem like the 3-D I remembered, it was like a meh version. For like $15 each I sure expected more.

Then we went to look at TV's and they had all these 3-D TV's and I just knew it would invade the gaming world. I really hope not, or if it does it is an option because I would hate to see more expensive games for this latest gimmick.

They do? Are they more expensive? Do you have to have a 3-D TV?

Oh yeah, and my son has been asking for the new nintendo DS 3-D which is a rip off also.

3D is a huge gimmick and always has been. Obviously the movie companies and theaters love it because they can charge the surcharge and make more money off of you.

Everything ive read about 3D TV's is that to date its been a disappointment. Nobody wants to pay extra for it, wear the dorky glasses in their living rooms. Pluse, theres just not alot of 3D broadcast content out there.

Do we really need to see Modern Family, the Bachelor and Greys Anatomy in 3D???

Yes, you have to have a 3DTV. Other than that I think all models of PS3 can do it.

The Nintendo 3DS is not a rip off, IMO.

Nope.

And Move is WORSE.

They're already doing it on the 360.

I know but the games I play are still disk based. I don't do the downloadable shit. If they were to actually go all cloud I wouldn't even bother with them. Last thing I need is my bandwidth cap getting pulverized over games.

Well, the cloud is more about access to apps and storage. You can download or load games from disc anytime. But they're offering the availability to store CONTENT (like saved games) in "the cloud".

It's not the optical drive they're looking to replace, it's the hard drive.

If I have to download a 10gb game to play it I won't buy it. That feature is listed under the Disk Format segment.

You wouldn't download a 10GB game. The game would be streamed to you real-time in just the bits and pieces you need at the time.

Cloud storage means no hard drive - there's no place on your device to PUT a 10GB game.

10Gb in small bits you need at the time is stil 10Gb, though, is it not?

Unless they use some type of temporary caching to disk (which I would think they would have to do just for performance reasons), it would likely end up being a whole lot MORE, because you'd ultimately load some portions more than once.

EDIT: Back to his original concern, though, his bandwidth cap may or may not be an issue. The point is that it wouldn't be 10GB all at once - it would be bits and pieces delivered over time. If his bandwidth cap is daily, it likely wouldn't be an issue. If his bandwidth gap is MONTHLY, he's going to have a big issue I would think.

THIS is exactly what I am referring to. Guess I was being too complicated about it. The last thing I want is these companies going to complete cloud storage. I average 75gb per month already. factor in games I would easily exceed the 150 I am allowed. There is absolutely no reason to get rid of physical media for games. Now if they want to put the games on encrypted flash drives I'm fine with that but it it goes 100% cloud based they won't get my money. Now, when the ISPs stop bleeding people over bandwidth I might reconsider that stance but for now, NO WAY.

75Gb/mo? Jesus. No wonder they want to institute bandwidth caps. :cuss:

I have news for you - EVERYTHING is moving towards the cloud. When Google first unveiled their operating system concept, it had NO local storage. Microsoft is gradually moving applications from the desktop OS to the cloud.

We're moving further and further into a realm where we, the consumer, do not and will not own content. We'll consume it on-demand, with permission from the actual owner/provider.