The reception to 3D gaming was mixed, with some people liking the effect or seeing plenty of potential in it, while others were left literally in tears at how awful it looked. Of the 12 people tested, only two rated the 3D effect as 4/5 (with 5 being brilliant), and no one rated the effect at 5/5. Half of the participants rated the 3D effect at a fence-sitting 3/5 while the rest gave it a 1 or 2.
These aren’t the most promising results for the 3D gaming experience – even the two people that liked the effect would only pay an average of £85 for the technology. However, those that considered themselves as having above average gaming skills said they’d pay on average £99 for 3D, which is £52 more than the overall average price the testers said they’d pay.
Those that considered their gaming skills to be average said they’d pay an average of £28.33 for 3D, while poor gamers wouldn’t spend any money on it at all. While we might constantly moan that manufacturers constantly overcharge for products marketed at gamers, the numbers don’t lie – apparently, we’re willing to pay over the odds for gaming kit.
We saw no correlation between how people rated their eyesight and whether they enjoyed the 3D experience – the two people who need to visit an optician as soon as possible (they rated their vision with corrective lenses as 2/5) both gave the 3D effect 3/5. Those with better vision rated the 3D effect anywhere between 1/5 and 4/5 for quality.
We also saw no correlation between the rated comfort of the glasses and how much people would pay for them, or their opinion of the 3D effect. For example, one person rated the comfort of the glasses at 4/5 and the visual effect at 3/5 but would still pay £30, while another rated the comfort and effect at 3/5 yet would pay £120 for it. The disparity between comfort and perceived value might be a result of our relatively short test procedure.
The crux of the test was to determine whether or not 3D gaming affected the skills of our testers, and on the surface, our testing would suggest that it didn’t. The average fastest lap in 2D was 2:06:75, while the average fastest lap in 3D was 2:07:50. However, a closer look at the numbers revealed a distinct pattern – fast drivers consistently suffered from switching to 3D while slow drivers tended to improve.
We defined a fast driver as anyone hitting a lap time of less than two minutes, and on average, these drivers lost 5.33 seconds with 3D enabled. Slow drivers – those that took more than two minutes to complete their fastest lap – became 3.83 seconds faster on average. However, one slow driver lost time (two seconds) from the switch to 3D, while another was equally slow in either mode.