Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: Creig
If you're ready to get off your high horse, you could go back through my posts and see that I already own, and have used, technology that is identical to what Nvidia is offering today. The ELSA Revelator glasses work exactly the same.
Not really.
1. Old glasses had no LCDs and DLPs to work with, so they pretty much burned your eyes out of your head on most monitors. What kind of res were you running to get the 75Hz that was pretty much bare minimum survivable with those old strobe lights?
2. Old glasses didn't have 350 user configurable driver profiles, and on screen tips for the games.
3. Those glasses looked like something from a 1950s sci-fi show.
4. Those glasses didn't fit over eyeglasses.
5. AFAIK, those glasses didn't work with movies.
6. Couldn't use SLi with those glasses.
7. The depth wasn't adjustable on those glasses
I'm guessing you never used the old Revelator glasses either because:
1. The ELSA glasses never burned my eyes out. I seem to recall running my display at 70Hz refresh which, although not perfect, was
vastly improved over the 60Hz minimum recommendation. As far as resolution goes, yes, it was low. But we're talking about 10 years ago. Everything back then would be considered low-res compared to what we run today.
2. The glasses may not have had user configurable profiles, but the technology still worked the exact same. So I already know what the Nvidia stereoscopic view is going to look like.
3. Looks? Who cares what they looked like? I'm not planning on walking around in public with my 3D glasses on. Are you?
4. Wrong, they did fit over glasses.
5. If Nvidia had continued to support them they would have. Both the ELSA glasses and the Nvidia glasses work exactly the same.
6. Probably not since SLI still belonged to 3DFX back then. But this would be a driver limitation today, not a limitation of the glasses themselves.
7. Wrong again. The strength of the depth of field effects were definitely adjustable.
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: Creig
If anybody here is misguided, it's you and Rollo with your constant praise of anything and everything Nvidia related just to keep those freebies rolling in.
Creig, you know me well enough to know I don't have to kiss any ass to get what I want in life- why do you keep trying to imply I'm on some video card grubbing mission? It's just tacky, dude.
Didn't it ever occur to you that to us, we see somebody who claims to be nothing more than an Nvidia enthusiast and who is constantly telling us all how much money he has to burn on his boats, houses, computers, hobbies, etc, yet he keeps getting free hardware? Wouldn't a
true Nvidia enthusiast with money to burn purchase all his computer hardware himself in order to help support his favorite company? Yet for all the extra money you apparently have lying around, you still keep accepting thousands of dollars worth of freebies. Since you claim you can so easily afford to purchase what you receive for free, we can only assume that you keep promoting Nvidia so heavily in return for Nvidia's sponsorship, otherwise you'd simply go out and purchase it on your own. To us, you're the tacky one here.
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: Creig
Once again you show who is really the misguided one here. Your last statement should read:
Stereovision is too damn expensive. "It needs to be cheaper before I'll consider purchasing it."
For who? You? Everyone I know can easily afford this. I spend this much (or more) on hobbies every month of the year.
To me, other members here and even other reviewers, it's too expensive for
one feature. Not many people are going to go out and spend $400 to replace their perfectly good primary gaming monitor simply to be able to go out and spend another $200 for 3D shutter glasses. Simple as that.
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: Creig
What's so wrong with saying that? Nvidia does have a history of pricing their products well above their cost to manufacture. $650 GTX280 ring a bell?
The logical fallacy of "false analogy" applies here. All tech companies have high margin products- X1900XT PE, QX9770, FX-60, Skulltrail, AMD 4X4 ring any bells? Why the cheap shot at NVIDIA?
However, given that this rocks, and there is no comparable competition on the market, I'd say it's cheap.
Because Nvidia was the most recent and had the most dramatic case of overpricing to be seen in quite awhile. A $650 GTX280 dropping down to $400 in a matter of weeks from launch simply because AMD's 48X0 came out? That simply screams 'price gouging'. Just because there wasn't any direct competition is no reason to overcharge your customers so much. The same goes for these glasses. The ELSA Revelator IR glasses were sold for $80 years ago, and yet Nvidia has dusted off the technology, repackaged it and is now trying to sell the exact same thing for $200? More price gouging.
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: Creig
It's my opinion that IR shutter glasses that sold for $80 ten years ago should be no more than $100 today, in my opinion. In fact, I think they should be even cheaper than that as the cost to produce the LCD lenses must surely have dropped since then. But I would probably spend up to $100 for them as long as I already had a compatible display and a fast enough Nvidia video card.
Why is that? Do tvs, houses or cars cost less than they did 10 years ago? How about video cards, motherboards, monitors, or CPUs?
These should though, because Creig says so.
Wow, talk about misleading... Houses appreciate in value, computer equipment does not. Are the TV's of today the exact same technology as the ones produced 10 years ago, or have they vastly improved? How about video cards, motherboards, monitors and CPUs? All the same as 10 years ago or have they improved dramatically as well? And yet these "new" glasses, which are basically the same as the ones produced 10 years ago, are being priced as if they are vastly superior to the old ones. Price gouging.
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: Creig
Well, right now 120Hz monitors are nearly twice as expensive as their 60Hz counterparts. That cost also has to factor the whole 3D stereovision package. So even if someone needs a new monitor anyhow, they'll have to spend $200 on the glasses, plus around $200 extra for the 120Hz capability. If you don't suffer any problems using a regular 60Hz LCD, then there's no reason to spend the extra money to get a 120Hz display unless you intend to purchase the Nvidia glasses as well. If you do decide to get the 120Hz monitor and the glasses, now you're still looking at $400 minimum, more if you need a video card as well. That's still a good chunk of change to enable a single gaming feature.
Do those monitors that are $200 less have 20K:1 contrast? Can they display at 19X10 @ 60Hz or 16X10 @ 120Hz? Do they come with dual link DVI cords? If not, they're not really comparable products, are they?
Well, let's see... A $200 1680x1050 monitor with 20,000:1 contrast ratio?
check. Running an LCD at 19x10 @ 60Hz or 16x10 @ 20Hz? Why would you want to run an LCD monitor at any res other than native in the first place? And if a 60Hz LCD looks just fine to a person, why spend twice as much simply to get 120Hz? Dual-link DVI cables being included?!? You can get them for under $10! Now you're
reeeaaally stretching.
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: Creig
Once 120Hz monitors become mainstream and 60Hz sets are naturally phased out, then the price of admission for 3D stereoscopic gaming will drop. Not to mention that hopefully the cost of the glasses themselves will have dropped as well.
So you think the price of a tech item will drop over time? Well, I guess as that happens every single time, you're probably right with that. So are you saying no one should ever buy things when they are relatively new on the market? They should all deny themselves to save a few bucks?
I don't get why you keep throwing the "we can't afford the likes of this!" card over...and over...and over.
I don't seem to recall you saying people should "wait" and not spend $550+ on a 4870X2:
Instead, they opted to release their cards at a price point that put them within reach of the average gamer while obviously still providing an acceptable profit.That's true, but ATI could have gone the route of Nvidia and priced their boards astronomically high to match Nvidia's pricing structure in order to maximize their profits, but they didn't.
Oh no, $550+ is "well within the reach of the average gamer" when ATi is selling the part, but let NVIDIA try and get $600 and it's best to "wait" and "it's way too expensive!".
I think we can all see why it's too expensive for you- the wrong company is selling it. It's just wrong Creig. You'd never see me saying a high end ATi part is too expensive- good stuff commands premium prices, no matter who sells it.
I was referring to the 4870 and 4850 compared to the GTX280 and GTX260 in that thread, not the 4870X2.
And it's not just me or people in this thread who are saying the entire setup required for Nvidia 3D sterescopic is too expensive. You keep going on and on about how the reviewers are saying we should all run out and purchase this. What about these reviewers?
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.
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...on-stereo,2121-10.html
The requirement for a totally new monitor though is what knocks the legs out from underneath the 3DVision, taking it off the market for those who were after a big boys toy. As an unproven technology it needs to be cheap enough for interested parties to buy it on a whim so they can check it out and tell their friends ? and the one thing that 3D gaming still isn?t; is cheap enough for the average consumer.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...orce-3dvision-review/8
Aren't they saying the exact same thing I've been saying?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I LIKE THE TECHNOLOGY. I had fun with it back when it was first release and I'll have fun with it again in the future if the price drops to what I consider reasonable. ie - less than $100 for the glasses. And since I already own both a high end CRT and a 3D ready DLP, I won't need to spend $400 on a new display. But I will need an Nvidia video card and I'm not currently planning on upgrading ATM. But when the time comes that I need a new vid card, I'll look at both Nvidia and AMD to see what each offers and at what price. 3D stereoscopic glasses
will be a consideration because I liked them. But I also refuse to pay for something if I feel it's being overpriced, which I think Nvidia's glasses currently are.