PS3 News: Ebert: I Hate 3D, And You Should Too - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Ebert: I Hate 3D, And You Should Too

Roger Ebert is at it again, but this time, he's not specifically singling out video games. However, the fact that gaming will soon embrace new 3D technology - and that the PlayStation 3 is now a functional 3D system that will play 3D movies - makes his statements relevant.

And despite his recent claims that video games can't be art, some of you might actually agree with Ebert on this subject: can 3D be considered a 100% positive thing for movies (and for games)? Is toiling in that dimension worthwhile? Does it enhance the experience as advertised? Well, Ebert has given six reasons as to why he hates 3D, and we leave it to you to judge those reasons. The very first case he makes against the technology is an interesting one, at the very least; it's called "It's the waste of a dimension:"

"When you look at a 2-D movie, it's already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, 'Look how slowly he grows against the horizon'? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing."

He goes on to talk about how it "adds nothing to the experience" (what would "Casablanca" gain from 3D?), and the fact that it can indeed be a distraction. Personally, I haven't really seen enough movies in 3D to form any sort of opinion, and I've never yet played a game in 3D. However, I can understand his points and in some ways, I do think 3D is a bit silly and its effects are somewhat over-exaggerated. I'm wondering how it might be for games, though...if it's interactive, maybe it really would enhance the experience.

4/30/2010 10:34:57 AM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (103 posts)

Jawknee
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 10:46:43 AM
Reply

Typical of leftists. "only my opinion matters and every must follow!"

Man Im getting tired of this a**hat. Some one should take his key board away for awhile.

Agree with this comment 16 up, 31 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:35:40 PM

I think everyone should know why all their posts are gone...

Political wars don't belong here.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:45:55 PM

Sorry Ben, i didn't mean to start a fight.

:)

Agree with this comment 8 up, 17 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 2:01:49 PM

It's all right. Just bear it in mind.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Superman915
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:01:15 PM

Good job, but then shouldn't you have deleted Jawknee's posts too? As well as the ones below that continue to rant? If you want to remove a cancerous body part, you need to amputate the whole thing, not just bits and pieces.

Agree with this comment 11 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 5:21:44 PM

If you didn't want to start a fight you shouldn't have, you know, started a fight.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Byakko2009
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 4:44:14 AM

Probably the reason I stay away from the comments, and frequent this site less is because of users like Jawknee. The guy manages to push everyone's buttons and throw out one line insults that generalize everyone who disagrees with his view, yet somehow he has a squeaky clean slate with Ben. The guy rarely has anything of substance to say, and when he tries to, he butchers the english language. I would have rather the first comment been removed altogether. Were it not there I might have cared to put my 2 cents in about this.

Oh well, it appears Ben only regulates people who scrape his ego with 2nd grade insults. If that gets priority over removing off-topic political rants, that only leave the comment sections a mess, then I've no reason to visit this site anymore. Not like there's any other reason to visit this site. The reviewers suck. Ben may have writing talent, but he's a casual gamer at best and can't even grasp the intricacies of many game's mechanics. Arnold on the other hand, is just a plain old hack; reading one of his articles is pitiful.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 5:27:12 AM

" Were it not there I might have cared to put my 2 cents in about this."

But by commenting, wouldn't it be safe to say you added ur 2 cents? just sayin...

Also, not sure why someone who hates the reviewers of this site as well as some of the more annoying members here would continue to come back ( the main reason i don't visit forums on some other sites )

but i can agree with the first part you wrote, it would have been better to just get rid of Jawknee's comment all together cuz someone's bound to see it again and comment on it.

Last edited by aaronisbla on 5/1/2010 5:33:32 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

gangan19
Sunday, May 02, 2010 @ 3:34:50 PM

i agree totally, don't tell me what to hate

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Silent_J
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:00:44 AM
Reply

Same here Ben ,I have literally only seen two movies in 3D and for me it wasn't a big deal,however I'm really interested to see how 3D gaming is gonna turn out.As for Ebert ,movies are his thing so let him say what he got on his mind ,videos games are a whole different story since he clearly doesn't know that it is a form of art.

Last edited by Silent_J on 4/30/2010 11:08:19 AM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dancemachine55
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 8:54:30 PM

Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon were the only things worthwhile seeing in 3D at the movies, cos they were done really well.

After seeing Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland in 3D, I honestly thought the experience woulda been the same in regular viewings, the 3D just didn't add anything.

Now, games are a different story. After trying Avatar the game in 3D at a Ubisoft convention, I was pretty much convinced. The 3D picture looked much better, made some distant objects a little clearer and made you feel like something really was coming right at you. It worked far better than what you see at the movies.

With GT5 coming in 3D, I am convinced that 3D is the way to go for some things, but not everything. Broadcasting live sports in 3D is a waste of money IMO, cos it doesn't add anything to the experience. It's a gimmick. It doesn't make the sport look or feel any better.

3D should be left to movies and games that do it right. Like GT5 when approaching corners, or Avatar when flying through the world of Pandora. If it's done right, people will notice. If 3D is slapped on as a cheap afterthought like in Titans or Alice, people like will not be impressed.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Silent_J
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 8:56:02 AM

I would love to see World Cup in 3D.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Vivi_Gamer
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:03:23 AM
Reply

I think 3D is a good idea for games and Digtaly Animated movies such as Dreamworks or Pixar; but not for live films. I saw Coraline in 3D and was very impressed, but when i watched Avatar, the parts at the base i noticed the structure of the 3D, it was just 2D layers on a 3D map... it was just weird.For games it makes sense though as games are more interactive.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Shiva369
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:06:14 AM
Reply

Gee I bet Ebert hated it when colour and sound appeared in movies too...Having said that, I have to admit I've been a bit unimpressed by 3D so far. Avatar, Titans- meh. He has a point in that our brains already 'see' movies in 3D anyway. Anyway, I await the whole 3D in games thing and reserve judgement on that til I see it...but I'm not saving up for a 3D TV just yet.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:09:46 AM

He has a lot of good points actually and I don't think he would have objected to color, or sound or even moving images.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:54:13 PM

New technologies always have to mature. Remembering various older movies, when colour was first used, the quality of the picture and the contrast wasn't always that great compared to other black and white movies at that time.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sunspider13
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:01:02 PM

I really do think that until devs have the right tools and the right story to make 3D work I'll pass. 3D is the big thing right now and as far as I'm concerned it's a fad until proved otherwise.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:06:22 AM
Reply

I think many of us here, even, will argue non-stop for a while about the usefulness of 3D technology, and ol' Rodge Podge may have some good points.

However, lately I feel like this old coot is rebelling against technology. It's pretty classic behaviour. (Yes... I spelled it behaviour. I apologize in advance. That's how we spell in Canada... also... Colour... or flavour... we're psycho here. Too many pucks to the head.) But ya... classic. For him, change is frightening. Either he can stick with what's comfortable, or he has to branch out and expand his horizons. Which would be hard.

SO, it feels like he just sticks with what's comfortable and finds opportunities to speak out against 3D, games, etc. in a way that makes him at least feel like his views are intelligent and convince others afraid of change that they are intelligent and that they are allowed to use his views as their own.

Mind you, there are plenty examples of 'change' that can be harmful, but I hardly think "video games as art" or 3D technology fits the bill.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/30/2010 11:13:10 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:14:49 AM

I wanted to reinforce the fact, though, that he does make some good points on the 3D issue. I just feel like he's more apt to be against technology than find reasons to support it. It's not like his critique bothered to point out ANY possible potential or positives, you know?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Simcoe
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:04:44 PM

Underdog, the whole English speaking world spells words the "more" correct way, it's the Americans that are "psycho". ;-)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

little dreamer
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:07:29 AM
Reply

Guys you need to chill Jawknee just giving his opinion, he's not meaning to offend anyone.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:20:44 AM

Lefties don't like opinions that differ from theirs. they proved my point beautifully.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 24 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:24:22 AM

Can you guys take the politics and stick it where it belongs please?

Agree with this comment 21 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:28:49 AM

Since you asked nicely. Will do. :)

Agree with this comment 5 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:52:02 AM

kinda hard when he makes generalizations like the one he just made, you don't have to be a lefty to get annoyed with this guy. Trust me, im so not interested in politics so im neither this or that but find statements like the ones he's made annoying

I agree with Highlander, keep that sh** away from here.

Last edited by aaronisbla on 4/30/2010 11:54:22 AM

Agree with this comment 10 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bOnEs
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:07:30 AM
Reply

i don't want 3D in my home at all... even if it's cheap in a couple of years, i don't want to wear the required glasses when i want to watch TV or play video games... it's a gimmick... a fad... it's not the future, it's a distraction and way for companies to milk some more money out of your pockets...

i am not on board with 3D and i hope i never am... none of the 3D movie experiences are all that great to be honest... they feel like a cheap gimmick... at least with avatar, the 3D was just there... other movies that use 3D, use it for cheap thrills and "in your face" visuals that really don't do it for me...

i am not on board with 3D... i see no benefit to seeing my games in dimension... i too feel like it takes away from the experience rather than draw you in like a good movie or games does... i get this feeling that 3D will be used to cover up mediocre games just like it does for movies...

pass...

Last edited by bOnEs on 4/30/2010 11:08:04 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Mysterio Spyder
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:28:44 PM

" don't want 3D in my home at all... even if it's cheap in a couple of years, i don't want to wear the required glasses when i want to watch TV or play video games... it's a gimmick... a fad... it's not the future, it's a distraction and way for companies to milk some more money out of your pockets..."

EXACTLY! well put. I don't plan on reinvesting in ANOTHER NEW TV technology this soon 3D or not. I'm perfectly satisfied with what I see now, I've ALWAYS hated 3D because of the stupid glasses.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Superman915
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:13:22 AM
Reply

I actually would prefer more movies shot in IMAX instead of 3D.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:23:39 AM
Reply

I find myself agreeing with him on a lot of these points. The fact that someone with as experimental a mind as Hitchcock shot a movie in stereoscopic 3D, and hated it so much that he released it in 2D only should tell you something.

Think about this for a moment though. We humans have stereoscopic vision. If you look into the distance, you might as well be looking at a 2D backdrop. Apart from the geometry of perspective and depth of field with your eye's focusing power, your stereoscopic vision is useless at any significant distance. It's only up close that the depth perception provided by stereoscopic vision becomes available. The only reason we need stereoscopic vision is to provide that depth perception. But beyond a certain point, depth perception is based purely on the perspective, and not the stereoscopic vision. The brain takes care of marrying these two fields of vision together so we don't think about it, and it's seamless to us.

3D in a movie cannot be such a subtle effect, it has to be more dramatic. Things are supposed to pop from the screen, it's entertainment. But in reality the difference between a 2D presentation of something and a 3D presentation (on a screen) is really not that much, unless it's over done to kind of wave a flag saing "It's 3D - see!?".

Now, 3D is all fine and good, if it's 3D as in holographic, so I can move around and my view changes as my position changes, that's different to the passive experience of watching a movie in 3D.

I agree with Ebert on this, 3D for movies is nearly pointless. For games, perhaps less so, though I do agree that depth of field and depth perception of natural vision are very different to that experienced in a 3D game environment. I foresee a lot of headaches and motion sickness.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jed
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 5:15:47 PM

Is there anything you don't know?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

erislocker
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:29:11 AM
Reply

i watched avatar at imax...
i watched couple of other 3d movies.

what excited me wasn't really the 3D... it was the story and the execution.
i read eberts blog about his 3d hate. i wouldn't as far as he does, but i sort of see his point.
mostly though, it's just a very immature technology. so i'm going to wait a yr or 2 to join in. sure i like tech stuff, and 3D sounds awesome in theory, but after reading eberts comments, it made me think and i tend to agree. the greatest movie going experience wasn't really the 3D effect.

furthermore, if a movie sucks in "2D" but rocks in 3D, what does that say about the story?
for now, i will wait and refer to the cheap-red/blue glasses...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

I_defenestrate
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:37:04 AM
Reply

My question is, does he actually watch movies or games in 3D or is he basing his views on videos he watches on YouTube?

I kid!

Last edited by I_defenestrate on 4/30/2010 11:38:26 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

isaya85
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:38:32 AM
Reply

I personally can't wait to get a 3D tv...Screw what you guys up there are talking about

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 2:48:28 PM

However just remember that the tv in your house won't be any where near as impressive as imax 3d.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lotusflow3r
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:42:51 AM
Reply

He's bang on.

It's the nail in the coffin for mainstream Hollywood cinema who do all with an IQ of 12 and for money.

It's turning the cinema into a damn amusement park.

I don't agree with his games can't be art theory but, with this, he is bang on.

Independent cinema is the way to go. I went to a movie premier not long ago to watch one of the most profound, important and heartfelt pieces of art i have seen in a long time.
I chatted to the director after he did a panel discussion with a critic from the Guardian (whom the director destroyed due to the critics terrible, dumb questions, much to audience amusement...he hates them critics!) and we spoke of the dumbing down of just about everything!

The director was none other than Christopher Morris (One of the most influential media personalities in UK history who dislikes popular culture and is a satirical and artistic genius) with his new film, Four Lions.

Was this profound film in 3d? I don't think so!

Instead it was loaded on the best special effects of all! Emotion, heartfelt, painfully funny, haunting, awe-inspiring....an effect that stays with you long after the credits.

I cannot remember the last time Hollywood even achieved just one of these effects.

What effect does it best? An explosion coming out the screen....or an effect on your life or heart?

I know where i am.

Last edited by Lotusflow3r on 4/30/2010 11:54:11 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

laxpro2001
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 6:33:25 PM

OK... but this isn't a movie forum, its a gaming forum. I'm not getting involved in whether or not it should be in movies, however I think it can greatly enhance gaming. Because games are so interactive adding that extra dimension can do a lot for someone immersed in the game.

Consider a racing game, wouldn't it be so much cooler to be driving extremely fast while stuff like trees, traffic, etc. zoomed in a blur right past your head.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Hezzron
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:47:48 AM
Reply

Roger Ebert is dead wrong about video games not being able to qualify as art. Maybe we can chalk up his view on the matter to his age and failing health.

However, I believe he's right about 3D....as the technology stands now.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:57:15 AM
Reply

I find it hard to buy into the hype of 3D gaming. I guess i'd have to try it out in person to see if there is a huge difference. The price on these 3D tvs aren't likely to convince anyone either

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:00:16 PM
Reply

Technology moves on, so should he.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:10:29 PM
Reply

Off topic I know, but I just have to post this. A group of annoyed OtherOS users in california are trying for class action status against Sony over the removal of Linux. The case will likely center around how Sony adertised the PS3, and what mention they made of OtherOS, as well as the EULA and other ToS conditions users agree to when accessing PSN.

However this one paragraph just has me rolling on the floor laughing. Well, actually there are several paragraphs like this in the papers being filed.... Anyway

"By engaging in the conduct described above, Sony has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class and is required, in equity and good conscience, to compensate the Plaintiff and the Class for harm suffered as a result of its actions."

They repeatedly claim that Sony has been unjustly enriched by selling the PS3 with OtherOS but then removing OtherOS. Now I know that it's legalese to some extent, but guys, Sony is still selling the PS3 at a loss, and in fact every OtherOS capable system lost Sony between $300 and $75 depending on the model. So, far from being enriched, Sony has in fact lost money. When calculating the 'enrichment' that Sony is supposed to have engaged in, I can't help wondering whether the court will ignore that simple fact.

It's hard to be enriched by something that actually costs you money to provide.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:16:21 PM

Yeah. Sony will show up in court and say "This is how much it cost us to give him a PS3. He owes us!"

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:17:50 PM

If there were any advertisements about the OtherOS i dont recall seeing them. I found out about the OtherOS system a year after owning the console. I just found it when i was playing with the settings and had to turn to Google to figure what the function was for and why it was even important.

Also, doesn't Sony have us agree to the agreement that says they can change anything they want in the firmware at anytime? Seems to me this guy has no case and it should be thrown out asap.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:32:35 PM

There were plenty of advertisements of OtherOS, it actually did appear on Magazine Covers in 3 languages, along with public statements recorded on video, press releases, and other advertisements.

"It's hard to be enriched by something that actually costs you money to provide."

I'm sure that will come up, but then so will the following:

They aren't making money off the consoles, they made (and are still making) plenty of money off of Blu Ray licensing.

It was an investment that paid off by winning against HD DVD.

To win that, they had to sell Blu Ray Players. One of the methods used in selling the PS3 (also a Blu Ray player) was by advertising Other OS on magazines, public statements clarifying it wasn't a game console, etc, etc.

So ultimately they became enriched off of licensing Blu Ray which occured as a result of PS3 sales.

"Also, doesn't Sony have us agree to the agreement that says they can change anything they want in the firmware at anytime?"

That's refered to as an "Unconscionability Clause", which is in the suit and won't hold any weight in court.

Last edited by bridgera on 4/30/2010 12:35:00 PM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

JackC8
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:55:35 PM

The guy seriously needs to get a life.

Last edited by JackC8 on 4/30/2010 12:57:04 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 4:11:33 PM

@bridgera

Do you think that all the different license agreements that are used now still contain language that can be so easily dismissed with the "Unconscionability Clause" argument? Want to bet whether that was the first discussion Sony had with their own attorneys prior to removing Other OS?

BTW BluRay continues to function with the PS3 even if you do not update to the latest PS3 firmware. The question that no one has an answer for is whether the lack of an up to date system firmware will prevent future BluRay discs from playing. It seems that is not yet tested and it is difficult to argue a loss based on a future unknown. There may in fact be a way to allow the update required for BD playback without updating the system firmware. In which case the argument that the PS3 somehow causes a kind of indirect enrichment through BluRay loses even more steam.

I still firmly believe that this case will fail.

The point of my comment though was simply that Sony gifted purchasers of those early PS3s $300 in free hardware with their PS3 purchase. They were not enriched by those sales. You would also have to prove precisely how much of that 'enrichment' was due to OtherOS functionality.

Whether Sony talked about the OtherOS feature or not is not in question, did they rely on it as a marketing tool to sell PS3s? Having it mentioned in a magazine article isn't sufficient. You have to show that the feature was more than simply an extra, but was in fact a specific part of the marketing of the PS3.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

laxpro2001
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 6:47:42 PM

Wait Highlander... The PS3 was really never making a profit, ever? I could have sworn I read it was making it at some point.

Then again I guess after reading the article about the new chips in the slim it would be impossible since people think that will allow the console to break even. Thats just mind blowing for me though since I thought otherwise

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 4:45:09 PM

Highlander you clearly support a company being able to remove features after purchase of the product, you are entitled to that opinion.

I philosophically disagree with that viewpoint.

"I firmly belive this case will fail"

You are entitled to that opinion, I don't want it to fail, because I don't want other companies selling me software, then changing features and terms of that software and license post sale. If MS prevented me from going online because I didn't do a Windows update that disabled any given advertised feature, I'd have a problem with it.

You think a company should be able to legally do that. I disagree with you completely on that position.

"Do you think that all the different license agreements that are used now still contain language that can be so easily dismissed with the "Unconscionability Clause" argument?"

The clause in reference was Unconsciouable, and that clause will be dismissed immediately. Clearly not all clauses in EULA are Unconsciouable, but that one obviously was.

"Want to bet whether that was the first discussion Sony had with their own attorneys prior to removing Other OS?"

So what's your point? That Sony doesn't do anything illegal? Sony has already lost Class Action Lawsuits in the past because they broke laws on products they sold.

They probably did a cost/benefit analysis, figured out how much that illegal action would cost them, and went with it.

"The question that no one has an answer for is whether the lack of an up to date system firmware will prevent future BluRay discs from playing."

Yes, it will. "...It will prevent new BluRay discs from playing as new Blu-ray discs can disable the Blu Ray drive entirely if they contain an AACS Host Revocation List that affects the old software version."

"The point of my comment though was simply that Sony gifted purchasers"

If I pay $500 for it, it's not a gift, selling at a loss really doesn't matter, it was apart of their marketing strategy as explained above.

"You would also have to prove precisely how much of that 'enrichment' was due to OtherOS functionality."

No you actually don't. The legalities of false advertising, breaking various state/federal laws are not dependent upon how much the company made.

"Having it mentioned in a magazine article isn't sufficient."

The cover of a magazine that specifically lists: PS3, OtherOS, Linux, you would say isn't sufficient advertising?

You are completely wrong on a magazine cover not being considered a sufficient advertisement.

Advertising isn't defined as however you want it to be.

Advertising as defined by the FTC:

"any form of public notice however disseminated or utilized."

... that includes Magazine covers.

"You have to show that the feature was more than simply an extra, but was in fact a specific part of the marketing of the PS3."

Yes, and that is no problem, so I show them the MAGAZINE COVER, the press releases, the VIDEO of Phil Harrison saying

"...one of the greatest features about the about the PS3 is the install OtherOS feature. It won't be Vista, it'll be Linux."

Then I'll throw in a clarification made by Phil Harrison:

"The PS3 is a computer, we do not need the PC"

I'm not trying to persuade you Highlander, as you clearly support companies removing advertised features from products post purchase.... That's why you come up with all of these excuses defending Sony's actions rather than trying to find a way to help the guy that felt he got screwed.

I write this so that anyone reading your post isn't fooled into thinking nonsense such as magazine covers not being sufficient advertisements of features.

Last edited by bridgera on 5/1/2010 4:46:31 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:15:19 PM
Reply

I hate 3D but it has nothing to do with Roger. The technology is annoying. Even worse, now the games are being dulled down so they can be offered in 3D. Hows about you give me every game in 1080p for the TV I have now instead of giving me 3D for the TV I will never have?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Superman915
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:31:56 PM

Seriously. Master 1080p gaming first and then work on 3D without dumbass glasses. They really expect me to buy a pair of goofy shades for everyone who comes over to watch some movies and play some games?

Last edited by Superman915 on 4/30/2010 12:32:21 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bridgera
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:20:20 PM
Reply

One of the many reasons why I disagree with Ebert on almost everything:

His statements reminds me of the great (false) quote

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."... So close the patent office.

Ebert doesn't see that this 3D technology is a stepping stone... towards move awesome 3D stuff.

You make the product, you learn how to improve it, a few iterations later, you have projected holograms, that allow you to see more information that would not be available in a 2D image.

He's probably that guy thinking "why would you ever need a cell phone when you have a radio?"

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:25:14 PM
Reply

You can dress up a bad movie any way you want but the result will be the same, it will still be a bad movie. Ben Dutka has the same mentality that I have regarding the American cinema of the 21st century...Meh!

I don't care for 3D. It isn't going to make any bad movie any better.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:29:28 PM

Exactly. Graphics don't make the game and the CERTAINLY don't make the movie.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

tes37
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:30:51 PM
Reply

I haven't seen the new 3D tech demoed yet, so I don't have an opinion of whether I like it or not. When it comes to buying another tv, I'll do all the research myself and base it on what I think.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Craigo
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:31:51 PM
Reply

I have got to say... Watching sports in HD3D is a huge step into the future. I am from the UK and watching Football in 3D from SkySports 3D channel. The best way I can explain it... Its like looking through a hole in your wall. It has change my view in 3D.

3D games I'm not too sure about. But give it 12 months.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:56:38 PM

It'll take longer than 12 months. I was reading that over half of the people in the UK that own HD TVs believe the TV is the only thing they need to benefit from HD. They don't know anything about HD channel subscriptions or BD movies.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JackC8
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:59:31 PM
Reply

Before I could form an opinion on movies in 3D, Hollywood would have to make something I actually wanted to see.

I'll stick with my low budget independent stuff, thanks.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Imagi
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:19:16 PM

You sure about that low budget bit?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Imagi
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:19:19 PM

Misread your comment, Ignore mine, as I agree with you.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MadKatBebop
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:07:37 PM
Reply

I don't care 3D that much. I am perfectly fine with HD.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NeoHumpty
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:13:06 PM
Reply

Ebert's an old fart sniffing douchebag. He was probably against "Talkies" when movies started having sound, too.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:15:30 PM
Reply

I just read the comments. This entire comment section is filled with off-topic posts.

Good stuff.. LOL

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

RadioHeader
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:55:45 PM

When's GT5 coming out?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:57:18 PM

WKC is so much fun

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 2:52:06 PM

@ alienange

Heck yeah it is!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Imagi
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:21:35 PM
Reply

This guy is half an ass! He does have some substance to his remarks but if we all listened to people like him we would still be looking at cave paintings for our visual entertainment.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:40:12 PM
Reply

Personally I won't get into 3D for a looong time. I mean I'll definitely try it.

But the costs is too much...

And I feel it's a gimmick (wasn't it already done in the 1980s?). Seriously, I don't think games will benefit from it. But who knows, we'll see

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Sol
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:45:39 PM
Reply

I've never truly experienced 3-D (went and saw a movie in 3D at a theme park but the place started to shoot water in everybody's pants so I don't think anyone who saw it got the full 3D experience... though it was kinda funny looking at everyone leave with psuedo "Pistains").

I may try it because I have an open mind, then I'll make a decision. But it isn't one of my highest priorities... I still gotta get the PS3 first (and HDTV, etc.).

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mavfan321
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:57:46 PM
Reply

I could care less about 3D in movies or in games. I can enjoy the experience sure, but it doesn't add anything for me.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 11:10:27 PM

Exactly how much less could you care?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

RadioHeader
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 2:15:39 PM
Reply

You know how good blu-ray movies sometimes give a greater illusion of depth. Well I think game developers should strive to achieve that same effect, as of now depth of field in games is far from convincing. But I'd love to see full-on 3D for certain games, like horrors.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 2:30:44 PM
Reply

I see 3D as our viewing standard evolving. From B&W to Color to Hi-Def to 3D. Neither of these viewing standards told a different story, but it can make the experience that much more immersive. Just as surround sound has evolved. Those who care will pay extra for more technology, and those who don't won't have to. Sometimes I'm okay with a cheeseburger but other times I want to have an 1/3lb Angus.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

InBlackestNight
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 2:56:03 PM
Reply

You know what sucks? Even if you can see out of only one eye you can enjoy movies and games. With 3d you can't enjoy all these "wonderful" new viewing options. Seems like a bit of a problematic bit of information no one seems to talk about.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

InBlackestNight
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:09:46 PM
Reply

How the hell does my comment get thumbs down? My wife seriously can't see out of one eye so she can't enjoy 3d. The thumbs downer is a dick.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Shams
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:21:59 PM

You can assure her she ain't missing much.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:19:17 PM
Reply

I agree with Ebert on this one. I won't watch a movie in 3D.

I'm not sold on Video Games either, but if 3D could actually be USED some way, and not just be a surface thing, it might be neat. Until then, I think its a worthless addition.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FlyingKickPunch
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:53:08 PM
Reply

3D? pfft. so pedestrian. i see things in 3D all day long. come get me when you make movies in 11D!!! lol, string theory joke. i fail.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Danny007
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 4:25:17 PM
Reply

I love 3D and you should too

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gamer Girl Gemo
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 4:36:19 PM
Reply

Err... For one, this guy shouldn't really hate 3D. It's just a new way of doing things. That much I can appreciate. I don't like the idea of 3D either, but I'm not going to bash it just because it's something new. This guy seriously has some problems, even though I agree with him just a bit on the side of 3D gaming may ruin things.
I'm an original type of person who doesn't like to give up the oldies - pry it from my dead, lifeless fingers type - but it's not bad to have something new out there. And video games aren't art? I must've missed the article for that one.
All video games are IS art. What are all the characters made out of? Raw computer graphics from scratch? There's a reason why they have artists on their team.
This guy, honestly, needs to think some things over and look before he leaps. I think he also needs to get the stick out of his butt... I can hear him chewing on it from here.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FullmetalX10
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 4:51:43 PM
Reply

I saw a movie in 3d-IMAX once (like 3 years ago in an IMAX theater in London), got me a headache after about half an hour of watching dinosaurs walking across the screen.

Anyways, the man does have good points, especially the '3-d is the newest hollywood fad' argument, which I really agree with. Almost every damn movie comin' out these days is in 3d, even if they totally don't need it(still need to see kick-ass, good movie, no 3d).

Yeah, I won't need 3d any time soon, until they've found some way to cancel out the headache beams I receive from watching 3d...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NiteKrawler
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 5:11:47 PM
Reply

I tend to agree with him, but like most here, I haven't seen enough to make a good judgement. So far though, 3D has been pretty meh. Gaming may be different though. As for games not being an art? Get real. It's one of the best art forms in my opinion. Art to interact with. To control. It's definitely art.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FlyingKickPunch
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 5:57:35 PM

art rhymes with fart. i love farts. so i guess i like art.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

NiteKrawler
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 9:59:38 PM

I'm glad that out of every post here, this crazy decides to pick mine to reply to...:P

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Superman915
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 11:11:13 AM

'art rhymes with fart. i love farts. so i guess i like art.'

EPIC.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 6:12:59 PM
Reply

i gotta agree with him. 3d is a fad and wont stick around, atleast i hope not! its not worth making a great story into 3d. i go see movies for the plot, story and talent. now some movies are great in 3d, but regardless how good avatar was in 3d i didnt and probably never will see it in 3d. again some instances its ok for an entertainment purpose. But i really hope its just a fad, and it hopefully will just take a place in some movies and not become a norm, where everyone is making movies in 3d. same goes for games!

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 4/30/2010 6:13:09 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

laxpro2001
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 6:49:54 PM
Reply

To Ebert or whoever the *** is saying games aren't art... WHAT ABOUT FLOWER

N00b - stick to what you know... which is nothing

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TEG3SH
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 7:25:26 PM
Reply

I HATED 3-D and I wish it will never become mainstream, %$££@ AVATAR

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NiteKrawler
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 10:01:21 PM

Dude...Why the hate on Avatar? It's not like Avatar made up 3D...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TEG3SH
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 5:23:45 AM

no i hated the whole experience of Avatar, the story, the actors, the cables in the ponytail thingy, and especially 3-D (worst headache ever), I know Avatar didn't make 3-d but its one of the movies that made it mainstream

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FlyingKickPunch
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 1:30:57 PM

avatar was one of the best movies i've seen in a LONG time

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Milonakis
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 8:07:16 PM
Reply

A: Your my boy Jawnkee. B: This guy is right. 3-D is a load of bahoogie.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Dancemachine55
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 8:58:31 PM
Reply

When developers and directors do 3D right, like James Cameron, by using 3D throughout the entire creation process, then it shows and it does impress.

But 3D slapped on as an afterthought is a gimmick, and one that few people may get into.

Why didn't they just cut out the middle man and go straight for holographic projection technology in the home? No silly glasses and 3D is achieved better than ever!!! Leave flat screen televisions in the 2D realm where it belongs?

I have a feeling this will be the biggest tech blunder of the decade. Millions wasted on a gimmick. Anyone agree or disagree?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 10:51:08 PM
Reply

I say bring it on.

And if it's done right & it works well, then I'm all for it & I'll get it.

And if not, then I won't

But.....I'm still going to wait for the 2nd gen 3D before I make a move in order to see what changes or upgrade have been done to it.

Hopefully by that time, there's some 3DTV's out then that don't need 3D glasses.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TonyRob
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:47:47 PM
Reply

I kind of have to laugh when people call movies art and 3d ruins that art. In a college class I took we would have called movie immediate gratification. Things that are immediate gratification are not art. It is used purely for escapism. I don't see them using really great literary tools to make a movie. They just have people write the plot and slap it together, but in a way that entertains. That doesn't mean you can't watch them and enjoy them as entertainment, but nothing that comes to a local theater is art. If it were truly art you would not be at the theater.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 3:31:28 AM
Reply

i think someone needs to pull their head out of their a$$ and get with the times!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mounce
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 10:52:47 AM
Reply

1. He's a stubborn senile old fart who doesn't know how to grasp the future technology that will come that is completely different from 'back in mah' old times' scenarios.

2. 3D is a gimmick due to the fact that this technology will be improperly used and isn't ready for the world yet, so for now we don't need it. There is also the simple problems for people like me where I already wear god damn glasses, you know how damn weird it was going into a movie theater and wearing TWO glasses? The 3D glasses being thick and clunky nerdy-huge pieces of plastic slightly holding at the tip of my nose? They have to implement the 3D glasses some other way for people who already wear glasses.... liiike, hmmm, idunno...something simple like 3D-Glasses Clip-ons. So they just slide over the lens....DANG! Such hard thinking! Got a headache now.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

RebelJD
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 8:07:08 PM
Reply

People like to be entertained. Why is 3-D being bashed on so much? It's just ANOTHER form of entertainment.

You know, there are circuses, fairs, broad way shows, Vegas shows, live performances, etc. All forms of entertainment that not everyone enjoys but nevertheless are fun and enjoyable.

3-D baby! (:

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TonyRob
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 9:10:48 PM
Reply

RebelJd you are right. Movies are not great works of art, they are entertainment. We know that because if the person does not feel some kind emotion when watching a movie what do they say "This is boring" Movies are only to entertain and have no other purpose. Now, there is nothing wrong with being entertained by a movie, that is fine, it is good to have some play time in your life. Keeps us young at heart. 3d for many people is just another tool that adds to the entertainment factor. The fact that some have become so bitter about its rise is unique, but we are talking about movies here. Some people like 3d, those who don't like it are just going to have to accept that, or be bitter. I think Ebert kind of got his ego stepped on because people didn't listen to him when he wrote an article 2 years ago that people should not buy those 3d tickets. Those people didn't listen to him and now Hollywood did 3d without his blessing, "How dare they!"

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Caanimal
Sunday, May 02, 2010 @ 2:15:16 AM
Reply

I have seen Avatar, Clash of the Titans, and Alice in Wonderland in 3D now, and hope to see How to Train Your Dragon among others. I have also just bought Avatar on Blu-ray and after watching it tonight I can say, for myself and my girlfriend that 3D has added a LOT to the experience. I'm fairly certain that mr. ebert is little more than an old fuddy duddy set in his ways and refuses to acknowledge anything new. I remember back in the 80's that he felt the same way about the 3D back then, which is nothing compared to the tech we have now, and fairly understandable.

Stuff like what is happening now w/ 3D has happened every time some new form of entertainment or art (and remember, "Art is in the eye of the beholder") has appeared, some people have been against it. It has happened w/ every new style of painting, with every new style of music, when TV came along, when movies started being made, when movies moved from black & white & silent to color w/ their own audio; this is just the latest in the long line of evolutionary steps for entertainment and art. It isn't one person's place to judge what is or isn't art, that should be left up to the individual, and for mr. ebert to say "this is what I say and YOU ALL MUST listen" is really showing just how over inflated his ego has gotten and what a big head he has.

The “six reason to hate 3D” are all highly situational and have no grounds in my opinion.

1. “It’s a waste of a dimension”, WTF does this mean??? Watch the “trumpet plant” scene from Avatar in 3D then in 2D and tell me which one is “less convincing”.

2. “It adds nothing to the experience”, this is pure OPINION. And who the **** said they were going to go back and redo old movies in 3D, that would be a bad move on the part of Hollywood. If anything they would have completely remake the movie, not just pull it off the shelf and turn it into 3D (which I don’t think is how it works). I seriously doubt that movie companies are going to start going back and "up-dating" movies into 3D,(or I at least really hope they don't try it) so no one has to worry about their "beloved classics" getting "ruined".

3. “It can be a distraction”, using an OLD photography trick, one I learned in my high school photo lab class, is not actual 3D, it’s layering or pseudo 3D or 2.5D as it’s also called. Video Games and other forms of entertainment (even paintings) have been doing this for a LONG time, a prime example (in video games) is Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. With true 3D the individual shouldn’t be seeing a “layering effect”.

4. “It can create nausea and headaches”, this is purely on the individual. As stated I have seen 3 movies in 3D and have yet to have either of these things happen to me. If they do happen then I would stay away from further 3D movies, but I wouldn’t call them a “total waste of time” for everybody.

5. “Have you noticed that 3D seems a little dim”. Ummm nope, sure haven’t. And what he describes in the paragraph just sounds plain stupid… If light intensity is divided between the eyes then you should be able to look at the sun w/ one eye covered and absolutely nothing would happen, but we all know that isn’t true.

6. “There’s money to be made selling new digital projectors”. Uh yeah, money makes the world go round you know… Everybody likes to make money, and those who make digital projectors sure as heck don’t make them for sh*t and giggles, they make them to make money… Although, if what he claims about studios saying theatres can’t have the 2D version if they don’t also get the 3D one are true that is some major BS on the movie studios, but still not a reason to hate 3D IMO.

I agree w/ what others have said about not everything having to be done in 3D, do it too much and it will lose some of its appeal and “magic”, if done correctly 3D can add a lot to an experience and hopefully those in Hollywood realize this before it gets to the point that 3D saturates the movies and ruins the experience. With as many companies, both movie companies and TV manufacturing companies, that are backing the current 3D I do not see it going anywhere soon.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

realmadpuppy
Sunday, May 02, 2010 @ 4:41:28 AM
Reply

Frankly, everybody is different, If you like 3D more power to you, Personally, I went and got eye surgery so I wouldn't have to wear glasses again and deal with the annoyance dirty,foggy and the discomfort.
that is my gripe with 3D, if they ever develop a 3D tech that requires no glasses (or head gear of any kind) kudos.
As for now I will enjoy all my entertainment glasses free thank you very much.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TonyRob
Sunday, May 02, 2010 @ 8:15:41 AM
Reply

realmad, I have no problem if you don't really care to watch movies in 3d, I can totally understand that. It is just not your thing, but to say to the rest of us that have waited to see movies in 3d for years and years, and that we should not like it, is a tad selfish to me.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

realmadpuppy
Sunday, May 02, 2010 @ 12:28:13 PM
Reply

You misunderstand me, TonyRob,I never said that anyone else should not like it.
The gripe is mine and shouldn't effect any other persons feelings toward 3D.
Like I said, if they ever come out with 3D that requires no head gear I will be glad to enjoy it like everyone else.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TonyRob
Sunday, May 02, 2010 @ 6:08:24 PM
Reply

No, sorry realmad. I just meant people like Ebert or whoever should not say I should not like 3d. To me it does not ruin the movie. I didn't mean you directly. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I now see why you would think that now that I reread what I typed.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ThePoetRazel
Tuesday, May 04, 2010 @ 5:35:18 AM
Reply

Typical of the usual anti-tech nonsense you'll hear everytime a new advance in technology is made.
Nothing but nit-picking at limitations in the tech that will be gone quickly, as the technology advances further and claims that what we have already is good enough. Why invent phones when we can talk? and so on.
Truth is, even with tricks of the mind a 2d image cannot equal sights in reality. Why do people still go to the zoo when they can watch nature documentaries?
His points are a cheap justification of a conclusion reached before he even thought about the subject. I'd rather look at the facts and then make a judgment. So far, i don't see 3d as particularly adding much, but it certainly doesn't take away.
Oh, and hate? yeah, that sounds like a rational mind is giving this opinion.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Got the Wii U?
Yep, had mine since day one.
Yeah; I just recently picked it up.
No, but I might get one soon...
No, and I don't ever want one.

Previous Poll Results