Xbox One won't play 3D Blu-ray movies at launch

Watching movies at home in 3D is a privilege that few people have at the moment, but if you have a 3D TV and a collection of 3D Blu-ray movies, Sony's PlayStation 4 might be of interest. Engadget has confirmed with the company that the console, which launches on Nov. 15th, will be able to play 3D Blu-ray movies in addition to the standard Blu-ray and DVD discs. It will even play 3D games (although there are currently no such titles in their launch lineup). Of course, you won't be able to play any discs without downloading and installing the required "day one" 1.50 software update.

Man of Steel's 3D Blu-Ray comes out a few days before the PS4 launch.

And what about the Xbox One? CNET has heard from Microsoft that their next-gen console won't be able to play 3D Blu-ray discs for its Nov. 22nd launch. All is not lost, however, as the statement hints Microsoft could release a software update for the Xbox One that would enable 3D Blu-ray support.

In the overall battle between the two consoles, the 3D Blu-ray bullet point is a relatively minor one but if you absolutely have to have that feature right away, it would seem that the PS4 wins this particular skirmish.

Source: CNET and Engadget | Image via Warner Bros.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Review: iPad Air

Next Story

Microsoft: Xbox 360 game support on Xbox One via the cloud is "problematic"

54 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

> Watching movies at home in 3D is a privilege that few people have at the moment

A "privilege"? How so? In my experience, any 3D you get at home on current equipment isn't any better than what you get from the theaters, which is garbage.

3D isn't a privilege, it's a punishment. It's a fad, and has already become relegated to being just another bullet point on a TV's feature list.

"Of course, you won't be able to play any discs without downloading and installing the required "day one" 1.50 software update."

So basically, neither console is fully working at launch. Both need a day 1 update before working anywhere near what they should.

All the "PS4 won't do this", "XBox One won't do that" is a load of bull**** e-peen measuring.

I have a 3D plasma and love it. Watching movies like Star Trek into Darkess, Life of Pi, Avatar in 3D at home is awesome. Plus I have all my discs ripped to a NAS and watch movies via XBMC so it's not a deal breaker for me personally.

Microsoft, you got some splaining to do.
Honestly, if they were aiming for that one device to rule them all in the living room, they missed the mark completely.
But anyhow, I still got my day one edition ordered and I have no plans to cancel it, just disappointed I still need devices connected that do what the xbox one should.

Wonder why MS didn't use HD-DVD anyway.. But I wager a guess that my HD-DVD player won't be supported on the Xbone.

Not a huge issue as long as I can do blu-ray movies in general. On that note I don't have a 3D tv right now anyways and my eyes hate 3D arrangements.

If youve got a 3D TV and a collection of 3D movies youll have bought a 3D bluray player to so its bloody stupid reasoning to bash on MS for that. 3D is mostly rubbish, some films make good use of it but alot of films ive actually struggled to see where the 3D is in the film and the film becomes centered on making the 3D aspect of it stand out like resident evil but it just makes the film crap. Avatar is a shining example of how 3D is supposed to be done but alot is just an after thought then get charged an extra £5 go see it.

If it can be enabled by a software update then its obviously got a 3D bluray player in it so there not one step behind the competition at all. There getting all the stuff fixed that NEEDS to be fixed then they can think about that

How do you figure? Have you compared the feature lists? Sony seems to have regurgitated the PS3 while MS actually made a modern system. I suspect Sony's horrible financial situation limited their R&D budget.

Spicoli said,
How do you figure? Have you compared the feature lists? Sony seems to have regurgitated the PS3 while MS actually made a modern system. I suspect Sony's horrible financial situation limited their R&D budget.

THIS...

hdca18 said,
For a product you spend good money for, it should be fully capable out of the box.

I would prefer a product that is supported... Bigger ROI...

hdca18 said,
school me. When you say "supported" what do you mean?

I don't feel there's much need to make the case for the support Microsoft puts behind their consoles... Several years from now the PS4 will essentially be the same console. The XBox One, through the constant support, updates, and OS refreshes, will be an entirely different console and experience.

In short, the console will grow with the needs of the users and developers. Things like 3D Bluray support will be added along with a host of other things.

People need to step back and see the bigger picture here and stop being so ridiculous about every little thing these consoles don't do at launch.

I have no issue with this at all. A first release should prioritize features that affect the most people AND they future proofed the hardware allowing this to be added in a software update later...

What? You can't play bluray movies natively on PCs either, you need to install powerdvd or something similar to get it to work properly. You can thank the bull**** ass encryption for that.

That maybe true but at lease you can install the software now with out having to wait 6 mos to year on MS

Strange, a short while back all the tech blogs made it seem like 3D was a passing fad and that sales of 3D TV's and players were tanking because consumers didn't care about them.

Funny how it suddenly just now starts to matter again when it becomes another salvo in this mind numbing console war.

Funny how now it's not a problem. I'd say if you have an mp3 collection you also have an mp3 player or sound system that is capable playing mp3's around but somehow it's a huge problem of the PS4.

Not a strawman argument, but someone pointing out that one seems to justify Microsoft's actions, while criticizing Sony for similar actions.

The argument can be made that if you have a CD collection, then you probably already have a CD player, but it's a, "silly omission," since Sony chose not to support it. When you really think about it, it's really not silly since CDs have been around for thirty years and they are on their way out the door.

I've tried 3D and it wasn't worth the extra price. True it doesn't help much that two of my children see out of only one eye, so 3D isn't something they can watch.

Its not really a gimmick if used right. I bought the 3D Blu-ray of the Hobbit: Unexpected Journey and it is actually better watching it in 3D as you get sucked into the movie and totally immersed. I have also noticed its easier to pick out detail in the environment.

Mandosis said,
Its not really a gimmick if used right. I bought the 3D Blu-ray of the Hobbit: Unexpected Journey and it is actually better watching it in 3D as you get sucked into the movie and totally immersed. I have also noticed its easier to pick out detail in the environment.

Dude the last time I was impressed by 3D were holographic Yu-Gi-Oh! Cards.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
3D is not an essential thing for watching videos. In my opinion, 3D for games and movies is a gimmick.

3D for games is far from a gimmick. For things such as racing, and more so, when you're jumping in third person mode onto ledges and such, the spatial awareness 3D gives allows you to perform actions in a way that we're used to in real life when interacting with them.

In real life, you can get away with using 1 eye, but anything that you need to be aware of distances that you can't use your hands or other parts of your body to judge become something of a task and you start to rely upon the known distances of other items in the world, such as how long that Mustang is in relation to the gap in the parking space.

I have to agree. I have a 3D TV, and I plug my gaming laptop into it and can play all my steam games in 3D. The novelty wears off pretty quickly and it becomes annoying. This is even with the polarized light weight glasses. I can't imagine wearing those heavy active shutter ones for any length of time.

They won't, but consumer 3D has been a bit of a fad since 2010 anyway so I'm not in the least bothered by it being in an update. My 3D combo has seen so little action since I got it that I frankly don't even care.

trooper11 said,
MS will add the feature later just as Sony adds MP3 support later.

I highly doubt they just ignore it.

mp3 licencing is pretty expensive, i doubt sony will add support. They could release a paid for mp3 codec that you pay for via paypal/debit/credit card but they won't give it to everyone for free, it is a waste of money.

blade1269 said,
I like 3d. On a bad note I gives my wife a headache.

approximately 12% of people can't see 3d as their brains cannot process 2 images simultaneously and they get a headache as a result. This is one of the many reasons why 3d is a terrible fad.

blade1269 said,
I like 3d. On a bad note I gives my wife a headache.

Is your instrument playing that bad that it gives your wife headaches?

spenser.d said,
As I said in the forums...I'm glad 3D is a dying fad.

Same here, you pay more for the privilege of a headache, which ends up turning in to a migraine. 3D doesn't agree with me at all for much longer than 5-10 mins.

Northgrove said,
Why do you not like the option to view 3D movies if you happen to have the hardware?

Personally no for the reason above, however I'm all for people having options. I know 3D would appeal to some people i know who have a 3D projector.

Northgrove said,
Why do you not like the option to view 3D movies if you happen to have the hardware?

I don't like 3D because the studios think they have to throw cheap 3D tricks at the audience all the time. When watching a "3d" movie in 2D, it's so obvious where they wanted the effects to be and it looks really bad. Now a movie like Gravity did 3D right -- although I have no idea how good it will look in 2D (and the movie itself was rather dull...)

InsaneNutter said,
Same here, you pay more for the privilege of a headache, which ends up turning in to a migraine. 3D doesn't agree with me at all for much longer than 5-10 mins.

3D doesn't make me sick but I find that 90% of the time it doesn't contribute to the experience and there is a noticeable loss in picture quality. That said, I saw The Hobbit in 3D HFR and thought it was superb.

Mr.XXIV said,
You know what's better than 3D? 2D & Anime.

You know what's better then Anime? A girlfriend. ... *runs for the hills*

Honestly though, jokes aside, I don't understand why people dislike 3D so much. For those of us with perfect vision, maybe using a set of glasses feels a bit weird to watch TV. For those of us who do need glasses, maybe not so much a problem if they fit over our glasses properly lol.

Personally, I'll wait for proper head sets, such as oculus rift for my 3D gaming and probably 3D movies too... mostly because I won't be able to see the funny looks people give me as I swing my head about ... oh yeah, and I won't need to wear my corrective glasses as well as another '3D' set.

sagum said,

You know what's better then Anime? A girlfriend. ... *runs for the hills*

Honestly though, jokes aside, I don't understand why people dislike 3D so much. For those of us with perfect vision, maybe using a set of glasses feels a bit weird to watch TV. For those of us who do need glasses, maybe not so much a problem if they fit over our glasses properly lol.

Personally, I'll wait for proper head sets, such as oculus rift for my 3D gaming and probably 3D movies too... mostly because I won't be able to see the funny looks people give me as I swing my head about ... oh yeah, and I won't need to wear my corrective glasses as well as another '3D' set.

BEAT YOU TO IT *shoots anyways*

It's not that I dislike, I just don't believe in it. lol I bought Samsungs first 55" LED 3D TV when I was 16 and I just didn't like how un-native it felt.

sagum said,
Honestly though, jokes aside, I don't understand why people dislike 3D so much. For those of us with perfect vision, maybe using a set of glasses feels a bit weird to watch TV. For those of us who do need glasses, maybe not so much a problem if they fit over our glasses properly lol.

Personally, I'll wait for proper head sets, such as oculus rift for my 3D gaming and probably 3D movies too... mostly because I won't be able to see the funny looks people give me as I swing my head about ... oh yeah, and I won't need to wear my corrective glasses as well as another '3D' set.

People hate them because 3D TV's are a gimmick that has been a sales flop. It has too many downsides and don't even look good. You also lose image resolution, sharpness and colour accuracy. 4k TV's on the other hand are something that is a clear improvement in all areas (apart from price right now).

Gaming on the Oculus Rift already has far better 3D but don't use Stereoscopic like 3D TV's, on Oculus each image for each eye is slightly different, like in real life because of the space between each eye, so you get a sense of depth perception without the gimmicky Stereoscopy 3D tech that TV's use. So theres no need for that cheap effect with the Oculus. 3D movies on the Oculus would still look just as bad though as they will need to use Stereoscopic.

Edited by NoClipMode, Nov 9 2013, 10:42pm :

Much is correct here except for the use of the word "Stereoscopic", and the idea that the immagery being slightly different for the right/left eye is unique to the Oculus. ANY illusion of 3D from a 2D image source is stereoscopic, that includes the Oculus Rift, and to get this illusion, you have to have a slightly different image going to the right/left eye.

What the Oculus rift does differently is that it provides independant viewing surfaces for each eye, whereas traditional 3D projectors and TVs will have a shared viewing surface that needs to have the image projected filtered for each eye. A few ways this is done are polarization filters (typical for projectors), or synced shutters (typical for TVs)

Sraf said,
Much is correct here except for the use of the word "Stereoscopic", and the idea that the immagery being slightly different for the right/left eye is unique to the Oculus. ANY illusion of 3D from a 2D image source is stereoscopic, that includes the Oculus Rift, and to get this illusion, you have to have a slightly different image going to the right/left eye.

What the Oculus rift does differently is that it provides independant viewing surfaces for each eye, whereas traditional 3D projectors and TVs will have a shared viewing surface that needs to have the image projected filtered for each eye. A few ways this is done are polarization filters (typical for projectors), or synced shutters (typical for TVs)

What you also need to remember is the rift also does head tracking, so the two images you see, are in relation to where your head is (at least for games). So rather then squirming around on your couch playing racing games in 3D and not having the world you're racing in react, with the rift, you're going to get a world that moves with your head, more like real life.
The entire feel of 3D is less of a headache for the reasons that people that don't 'get' 3D gaming on a TV, but at the same time, if the game is more then just a bit off with how it generates the 3D it can become more sickening with motion sickness due to it tricking the brain more then that of your regular static 3D TV set.