Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:3DO

No it did'ent!

Hey the 3do was never released, April 1993 in Japan and September 1993 in North America, the Amiga CD32 pre-dated the 3do by at least 1 month, I am sure (well I know) that the 3do was first ever released in North America in October 1993 as the Panasonic 3do, later releaced in Japan around early 1994 (not early 1993) and late 1994 in Europe, and later released in different brands at various times, but no never april or september 1993, it seems that with the 3do (sometimes the Jag) but mostly the 3do, that people get the wrong releaced date, dunno why but they do. But yeah wrong date of launch for the 3do, like. Needs to be changed. -- Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cos I have given sources to say that the 3do was released in October 1993, indeed the 3do is the 2nd (or even 3rd) 32 bit console, as the Amiga CD32 was released in September 1993 and the 3do in October 1993, that is why the article is wrong and the sources I have given is right, this is the sources I have given[1] and the source is correct, and the source says the 3do was released in October 1993 not September 1993, the source I have given is right, the wikipedia article is wrong. Thankyou, mcjakeqcool -- Mcjakeqcool (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the 3do *was* released on the 4th of October in the US. Source[2] is a review from that time, which was upped to the Aminet in November 1993. Reliable enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.183.99 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Reorganized

I've just finished a reorganization of this article to pull it more in line with other game system articles.

  • Created a history section that culls information from the old "demise" section and contains info from the 3DO company article.
  • Moved technical information from the "features and catalog" into the "Technical Specifications" section.
  • Created a games section with the remaining info from the Catalog section.
  • Added an accessories section.
  • Added information on the AV ports available on the console.
  • Also changed some formatting, removed excess headings and did general cleanup.

Sourcing still needed in places, but I think it's a stronger article now.--Lendorien (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Archived discussions for 2007-2008. --Lendorien (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status effort

I'd like to try and get this article to GA status. It'll involve some work. Super Nintendo Entertainment System should be used as the standard from which to build this article (as it's a featured article). The following are areas I've identified as needing improvement. Feel free to strike out items that have been addressed and to add items you see need to be added.

  • Expanded history section.
  • More information about the development of the system is needed
  • More information about the product launch
  • More detailed info on system demise
  • Expanded discussion of variants and the 3DO hardware licensing model. This is a unique aspect of the 3DO and should be discussed in more detail
  • Expanded Technical specs section
  • Tech specs should be changed to paragraph form.
  • Infoboxes covering the different specs could be added (see SNES article)
  • Peripherals
  • Accessories changed to peripherals
  • Expanded information on bundled controllers. The 3DO bundled controllers were considered poor. add and source this.
  • Expansion peripherals. What was made to use to expansion ports on the unit, what was planned?
  • More info on 3rd party controllers
  • More information on games, including innovations specific to the 3D0
  • Possibly a section on Emulation?
  • More info on market share
  • Sourcing
  • Sourcing needs to be normalized to proper formats
  • Undocumented claims need to be sourced

--Lendorien (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

Links placed here for later reference. --Lendorien (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/51854829.html?FMT=FT&dids=51854829:51854829&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+09%2C+1994&author=YARDENA+ARAR&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&desc=CD-Rom+based+3DO+struggles+in+video+game+marketplace+Series%3A+Discovery

I have a picture of a FZ-10.

I don't want to screw anything up so if one of you could place it somewhere on this page, I'd thank you.

Heres the picture.

[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliteDashOne (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opera File System

Apparently the on-disc file structure/format was called "Opera File System", and a short stub article exists which describes it. See Opera File System. Originally I came here to add a link to this article to the prose, but didn't really seen an obvious spot to add it. It's a technical issue, but the technical section (as of now) seems strictly concerned with the hardware, not with the software/BIOS formats/functions. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why a software section couldn't be added, you know. What's here is here because it was added by folks like yourself. --Lendorien (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely Wrong

Isn't this sentence completely wrong? "Outside of Japan, the 3DO was both the first 32-bit console and the first to store games on a CD-ROM, instead of cartridges". The Amiga CD32 was released in the west in September 93, a month earlier than the 3DO. And the Sega-CD was released a full 12 months before in October 92. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverboxhandle (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and the Turbo CD was released a whopping two years before even the Sega CD. I though I had reverted that sentence along with the one about the 3DO being the first fifth generation console, but I guess I missed it somehow. Anyway, it's been removed. Thanks for pointing it out.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"16 bit palettised color"?

Is there any reference or expansion on what this actually meant? I've seen it referred to in the Atari Falcon article as well (I think it was 15-bit there?) and it seems rather suspicious in both cases, possibly a misunderstanding. The Falcon was never specified as such in documents of the time, for a start... it was a misreported direct colour mode AFAIK.

Other problems with such an idea: A 65536-entry pallete table, indexing from a 24 bit master palette, would consume a full 192kb of memory - meaning much of the memory saving from reducing the colour depth at higher resolutions would be lost, and there would be no net benefit at all in low rez.

There would also be very little benefit in terms of data transfer loads if any, as the colour would have to be picked out of a CLUT ... usually in palettised devices that means out of expensive-to-implement registers in the video chip itself rather than RAM, for speed (hence the highest palettised depth is 8-bit, already requiring 256 X-bit wide registers (4608 bits' worth in the VGA card, for example) ... 65536 would basically mean much of the chip die would be given over to 1.5 Mbits worth of register...). If instead it was being read from much cheaper and easier-to-implement RAM, that would just slow things down as what would be a 3-byte fetch in 24 bit flat mode becomes a 2-byte fetch... followed by a 3-byte one.

16-bit colour alone would already outstrip what almost any other console, most low-to-midrange PC cards and all but the latest non-PC home computers could muster. The SNES master palette was only 15-bit, and that was class leading. The Playstation and Saturn had similar limits, though they could render to them direct. 16-bit rendering was pretty much the defacto choice for 3D systems (console and PC) until the Dreamcast, PS2 and Voodoo3 came along, and it generally looked alright once you became accustomed to the very slight banding effects.

A 320x240 screen barely has any more than 65536 pixels on it anyway, so the only benefit of a 16-bit index into a 24-bit master palette would be potentially smoother gradients vs 15 or 16-bit direct mode... if you couldn't be bothered to dither and thought that your audience would notice; but 24 bit direct would still be a more efficient way. In high rez, sending the output to a regular TV, you may as well just implement dithering.

Programming for it would be an absolute pain in the nads, too, and not worth the small upgrade you could achieve vs the huge one of having even a slightly posterised direct-colour mode available that could massively outstrip the 256-colour (or lower) standards of the time.

I can believe it had 24 bit colour, and maybe direct 16-bit for devs who chose to use it and gain a 33% render speed and 70~300kb free-memory boost in exchange for slightly lower colour fidelity (as was the way for much of the mid to late 90s on other platforms), as well as certainly an 8 bit (or even 12 bit?! 4096 colours is still a lot less than 65k, but a lot more than 256) indexed mode for efficiency and easier programming of sprite-based titles...

Or it could be I'm wrong and they went for the gonzo option, and that's part of why the system cost so much?! 193.63.174.211 (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm! Looked at the linked citation for the video modes and specs, and I think we may need to get hold of a programmer's guide or something. It says that the console operates in "16 or 24 bit mode", with the former mainly for 2D and the latter for 3D games... and 16 bit mode can use CLUTs, as can the texture maps in either mode. It isn't any more precise than that, so who knows whether it actually just means there's provision for e.g. an unlimited number of 8-bit palettes (one per sprite/texture, etc) or similar?
It also says that individual textures can have a 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16 bit colour depth, though whether the last one is indexed or in fact direct-colour isn't made plain. With only 3mb of total system RAM you'd run out of memory pretty fast; 16 different 16-bit palettes would fill both the VRAM and CPU RAM. Surely indexed color up to 8-bit, and direct for 16? Which would also remove the potential paradox of setting up a 16 bit texture that indexes into a 24-bit master palette (and is perhaps itself semi-transparently overlaid by another)... being displayed using a 16-bit-mode viewport instead of a 24-bit one. (Whereas you could have a few different 8-bit palettes for various textures in 24-bit mode, eg full 256-level gradients from black to white, red to yellow and so on, that could overlay each other and look better). There's also mention of variable transparency and the like... but not whether that's a rather simple per-texture/per-sprite setting, or if "16 bit" actually means, e.g. a 4096-colour palette (direct or indexed) plus 16-level per-pixel transparency (RGBA).
Additionally, said reference notes that the "only" internal resolutions are 320x240 (effectively progressive), and 320x480 (interlaced), and the vid chip upscales and interpolates from that to smooth off the final on-screen image ... which I find questionable, as it would be hardly necessary with RF or composite connection (making things even more blurry, if anything), and maybe counterproductive on a higher quality connection (e.g. if it rendered text hard to read even on a pure RGB monitor). It does however call the "640x480 or 320x480 NTSC and 768x576 or 384x288 PAL" figures into doubt.
If anyone out there has a better and more reliable technical reference that data can be drafted in from, rather than a quick FAQ on a retrogaming site, then please do so with all speed. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the references to hand, but to answer the question about the 16bit palette: The 3DO uses three separate 5 bit palettes for red, green and blue, so there are effectively 32 shades of each colour that combine to form a 15bit (32768 colour) image. Presumably the 16th bit is alpha or a genlock bit. 81.174.170.145 (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Profit and Third Party.

Added profit for 3Do based on actual texts: "However, the 3DO unlike other competitors such as Atari's jaguar, and Sega's Saturn, was a profitable success selling millions of consoles world wide with debatable numbers sold, but not quite reaching the success they were aiming for. 3DO Company made Profit off of the 3DO continued to be active for years once they became a software company, and is often cited in business books and newsprint."

Also added the library of 3DO known titles. It is also not true, nor is there proof of the 3DO having no third-party support which is mentioned many times on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you copy-and-pasted the wrong link, but the two sources you cite just go to search results from Google books, and there's no mention of whether or not the 3DO Company made any profit in them. As for point two, the article doesn't say that the 3DO had no third-party support anywhere that I can see, and in fact makes a couple explicit mentions of third-party support. I think you misinterpreted something.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't have them in front of me right now, but I have newspaper articles that show this is clearly inaccurate. 3DO was a publicly traded company and therefore reported its revenues and earnings on a quarterly basis. Newspaper articles show that the company did not record a quarterly profit at any point during its first three years of operation and lost $113 million total during those years. The company had to continually seek new funding to cover losses and started charging developers a publishing fee on top of the regular royalty rate in an attempt to make ends meet. The company was not profitable until 1996, which was after it sold its hardware operation and became a software company. Indrian (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New archive of references.

Some of the new references added are from a site that archives news articles! I don't know where who edited found this but ever since Good removed the archive project, and then a couple months ago removed it even from the news search section it's been really really hard to find correct information of historical importance. It does not have everything, but it has sources that I otherwise would not have found or would have came from questionable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeroyhim (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party?

User had used an excel sheet source for third-party support. From the looks of what I see these games for the most part on that list do indeed exist. However is his source allowed? Here is the source he has posted, Souce TP. I always believed it was exclusives that was the issue for the 3DO. Similar to the Dreamcast issue. Leeroyhim (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the third-party support issue for 3DO is a little more nuanced than either side has acknowledged. First, there is no doubt that third-parties released games for the system as that spreadsheet indicates. What most sources mean when they say that third-party support was poor is that major third-party publishers ignored the system almost entirely. Electronic Arts was lavish in its support initially because of the Trip Hawkins connection, but you will find almost no games released by Konami, Capcom, Acclaim, Namco, Bandai, Activision, Sierra, Interplay, Midway, Spectrum Holoybyte, etc., which were some of the other major PC and console publishers of the period. Some of those companies released a game or two, while others released none at all. Electronic Arts itself regretted the focus on 3DO in hindsight, as they missed the boat a bit on the early stages of the PlayStation. The other aspect of the lack of third-party support, which Kent discusses, is that over 80 companies pledged games for the system initially, but most of these companies did not come through. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that the 3DO enjoyed little support from major publishers, but that it is not fair to say there was no support at all. Indrian (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so shouldn't that also be a fact for the N64 also? Because the edits on both sides I see in the view history act like this only applies to the 3DO.Leeroyhim (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I personally think its clear that lack of third-party support was a huge problem for the N64, particularly in Japan. In the US it was looking for about half a year after its launch that the N64 might end up catching and surpassing the PlayStation, but the lack of software finally caught up to the system and sales fell off. Indrian (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always found it strange why the N64 went so well in the U.S. but i guess it's because the U.S. was 3D crazy since around 1992. Might explain why the Satrun did better in japan.Leeroyhim (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, a minor correction: Interplay released a lot more than "a game or two" for the 3DO. Off the top of my head, they put out Alone in the Dark, Alone in the Dark 2, Wolfenstein 3D, Kingdom: The Far Reaches, and Cyberia. And I'm pretty sure there was at least one more.
Anyway, the problem here is there seems to be a misunderstanding of what the article says. The article does not say that the 3DO had a lack of third-party support; it says that lack of third-party support has been cited as a cause of the 3DO's commercial failure. And even if the 3DO had more third-party exclusives than any other console in history, it would have no bearing on that statement. Personally, I think the lack of third-party support was an effect of the 3DO's poor performance in the market, not a cause; the fact that its third-party support was exceptionally high by the standards of such a low-selling console (compare to the third-party lineup of the Jaguar, for instance) should be proof of this. But that's not what the sources say, so we can't put that in the article. If we can find a source saying that the 3DO had decent third-party support and that it failed for other reasons (I haven't been able to find one yet, but that doesn't mean they're not out there), then we should add that in as an opposing view. But even then we'd have no justification for removing the fact that notable sources have claimed that the 3DO failed in part because of poor third-party support.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe you are correct that a lack of success led to a lack of third-party support, I do not think that changes the fact that the console also failed in part because of a lack of support from major publishers, a real Catch-22. Because of the 3DO model, there really were no true first-party games because the hardware manufacturers were not also major software companies. Therefore the console required third party publisher support to be successful. Most publishers will not commit to a console, however, until the install base is large enough to guarantee a chance to recoup development costs. So sure, the publishers stayed away due to the small install base, but the console was never going to reach a sizable install base without some impressive third-party titles. Price was certainly the more important factor in stunted early growth, but just because some factors are more important than others does not mean that multiple factors did not play a role. Indrian (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an owner and ex-distributer of the 3DO, I cannot agree in anyway that the 3DO had limited third party support. The fact that is still in the article make no sense to me. The link above provided by the questioner also makes this a bit too obvious. The 3DO's best selling games were from 3rd parties outside maybe a handful of their own titles. They had big name developers and publishers that put games on the system, and I would almost dare say that's why it sold 2 million units+, dependent on you you believe, in the first place. The 3DO may have sold 100,000 at most without strong third-party support.KombatPolice (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update! Unfortunately, I was not able to find a source that states the 3DO did not have limited third-party support since that is how references work here. I however, did not find a legitimate source for the opposite either. So it may not be valid to include either, but those are just my thoughts.KombatPolice (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the cited GameSpy article, and have to say that I'm shocked that no one else here bothered to do the same, because it say nothing about the 3DO having limited third party support! On the contrary, it says that the 3DO had a surprisingly large library of third party games for such a short-lived system. I have made the appropriate edits.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derision

User ‎NukeofEarl has insisted that the line " ‎Since its discontinuation in late 1996, the 3DO has been frequently derided by video game historians.[4][5][6]" be kept as is in the lead section. None of the sources go so far as to "deride" the console. I have tried to tone down the statement to better match the cited source only to be reverted again by NukeofEarl. I would appreciate somebody impartial take a look at this and give an opinion.--Asher196 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it should be removed entirely because I can find 2x as many sources that say it was good. He may have left that there because he might have seen an unprofessional review of the system on Youtube and decided to continue the defaming that usually happens with most niche and only modest selling consoles. Which is a lot of consoles. KombatPolice (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Asher, I'd be more than happy to tone down the statement to a wording that still fits what the sources say. "Negatively reviewed" doesn't fit what the sources say, because the 3DO hasn't been reviewed since it was discontinued. Discontinued consoles don't get reviews, at least not from notable sources.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STUDIO IS IN 3DO

T = Three 3

D

O

STUDIO = TDO or 3DO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.18.19 (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's dumb. But on a related note, does anyone know the official pronunciation of 3DO? Is it "three dee oh", "three doo", "three doh", "three dee zero"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.7.227 (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's "three dee oh" Kap 7 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy protection

The 3DO is one of few CD-based units that feature neither regional lockout nor copy protection, making it easy to use illegal copies or homebrew software.

I don't think this is entirely true. I believe some of the later Goldstar models e.g. have copy protection. See patent no. WO09745836A1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.234.190 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:3DO-FZ1-Console-Set.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:3DO-FZ1-Console-Set.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 22, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-01-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 23:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


3DO Interactive Multiplayer
The 3DO Interactive Multiplayer is a home video game console platform developed by The 3DO Company. Conceived by entrepreneur and Electronic Arts founder Trip Hawkins, the 3DO was not a console manufactured by the company itself, but a series of specifications, originally designed by Dave Needle and R. J. Mical of New Technologies Group, that could be licensed by third parties. Despite a highly promoted launch and a host of cutting-edge technologies, it was discontinued in late 1996, three years after its first release.Photograph: Evan-Amos
Archive – More featured pictures...

Hardware sales

This article still uses the "Worst-selling Consoles of All Time" article, which has since been determined to be unreliable, for the 3DO's sales figure. 3DO enthusiasts seem to agree that worldwide sales were somewhere from 1 million to 1.5 million, not 2 million, but unfortunately, at present I don't have a good source to replace the "Worst-selling Consoles" article. However, I've been finding bits and pieces of 3DO sales figures here and there, so I'm going to try compiling them here in hopes we'll eventually be able to narrow down a figure.

First, there's the Next Generation piece already cited in the article, cover-dated November 1995, which says worldwide sales for the 3DO stand at 750,000.

Second, the June 1996 issue of GamePro says 3DO sales in North America have yet to hit the 1 million mark.

If anybody else comes across something, please post it here!--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already found more. An article in the July 1996 GamePro (the same one I just cited in this article) gives more specific North American sales information than the previous issue: 300,000 sold in North America as of April 1996. That figure actually seems too low; if we take the Next Generation figure as accurate, that means the 3DO sold more units in either Japan or Europe (or both) than it did in North America, which doesn't make much sense given that North America is a larger market and the 3DO had a definite American slant. Maybe they rounded down from 390,000, or something? Anyway, if it's even remotely accurate, this is one more piece of evidence that the "2 million worldwide" figure is much too high.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 3DO was more popular in Japan than in the United States, at least for a time. According to the New York Times, by late 1994 Matsushita had sold 200,000 systems in Japan compared to 100,000 in the rest of the world. Kent claims this was due to its video digitization capabilities, which allowed it to play Pornographic CDs well that were only available in Asia. Kent also claims more consoles were sold in Asia than in the US over the life of the system, but Kent's book suffers from numerous accuracy issues, so I would not take that as the final word. Indrian (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting info, thanks! I really would have thought the 3DO did better in North America just based on there being about five times as many killer apps released here than there were in Japan. One point of clarification: You say "Matsushita had sold". So does that figure not include sales for the Goldstar and Sanyo models? I don't think those models would've made a huge difference in the figures at that point since they both launched in the second half of 1994, but it would be nice to know.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confused with 3DS?

The name is oddly similar to the more popular (and better received) 3DS console; wouldn't it be a good idea to add some sort of a warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyy8fh (talk • contribs) 02:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the 3DO article is "3DO Interactive Multiplayer" and the 3DS one is "Nintendo 3DS", so I don't think there's much chance for confusion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 3DO Interactive Multiplayer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3DO's CPU Speed

Hello,

I have decided to make an edit and change the CPU speed for the 3DO, [since updated technical information to indicate both native chip speed and a given running speed] as references for its ARM chip (VY86C06020FC / VY86C06020FC-2) point to it as actually being 20mhz, not 12.5mhz as priorly quoted (with its reference being an old magazine article and not a technical reference) . [since added reference to running speed]. The number VY86C060 is the main chip number, with 20FC being the designated speed.

(Incidentally, there are also other ARM chips in this series demarcated 25FC which run at approximately 25mhz for different systems.)

I have also changed the CPU image (to another one found in Wikimedia Commons' 3DO page) to better show the number, as some 3DO chips are marked differently (and less transparently).

All references about this particular chip that I have found point to it as being 20mhz.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.177.11 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC) edited 05:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

No comment on the speed issue, but some research suggests the image change is correct. Google images has a fair number of images of 3DO system boards. The FZ-1 has the YLSI-ARM chip the IP has switched the article to, while while the replaced image of a P60ARM appears to be for the FZ-10, not the FZ-1. Note, there's actually two images of the P60ARM on commons. The second one (Which is higher res too), is labelled as being from the FZ-10. -- ferret (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As to the speed issue, everything I found said that the VY86C06020FC is 20mhz, but I'm seeing a lot of things still saying that the 3DO was 12.5mhz, including a video series referencing overclocking it to 20mhz and forum posts refering to it as 'underclocked'. Nothing definitive, but it raises the thought that maybe they underclocked the chip to 12.5, even though it's natively 20, which would explain the odd discrepency. --PresN 01:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example, as a non-RS, this Russian 3DO forum is talking about physically modding the hardware of a 3DO, and they talk about the CPU being 12.5mhz as well as that the only other easy clock speed to adjust it to is 25mhz, because it needs to be an easy multiple of the GPU, which runs at 25mhz. They're talking about the FZ-10 version, not the FZ-1, but I really think this is what it was- that the CPU was underclocked to 12.5mhz to match 1 to 2 the 25mhz GPU, and the gaming press of the time was correct, even though the CPU can natively do better. --PresN 01:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the clarification is appreciated. So actually it does look like a 20mhz chip that has been (is being?) underclocked to 12.5mhz. Both GPUs look to be running at 25mhz each. Here is another reference:

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/panasonic-3do-overclock.87074/#post-679058

The chips in each 3DO (regardless of being FZ-1 or FZ-10 etc) should be practically identical. (it seems unclear as to whether the numbered chip in Wikimedia is actually from an FZ-1 so changed to just "3DO".) Some are marked VY86C060-20FC and some are VY86C06020FC-2 (which seem to be very similar). It looks like there may only be native 20mhz and 25mhz variants of this chip (with FC likely denoting "Clock Frequency", or fc).

I have changed the article to state both the native CPU speed of the 20FC chip and a running speed. However it may be able to do more than 12.5mhz.

08:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Source

Sales figure

I couldn't convince myself that this info is important enough to add to the article, but I found it interesting and thought it might be of use in later research for the article. According to the May 1997 issue of Next Generation, the 3DO had sales of 5,000 units per month "in the run up to Christmas 1996". They cite TRST figures.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you not think this is important? It shows that the 3DO by the EOL was completely overshadowed by Sony and that sales were screeching to a halt. The only thing that's questionable if if TRST is reliable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike Danton (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 3DO was discontinued by Christmas 1996, and virtually all software support had been dropped many months before. If anything, it's striking that sales were as high as they were at that time.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1997 actually because they were still selling off remaining shipments until a seller was confirmed. But regardless, it's not striking at all. 3DO had a big library was cheap and bundled 2-4 games with the console depending on where you got it from. The 3Do launched in japan in 1994 and that's also when it picked up in America and Europe to a lesser extent. The first 500,000 3DO World Wide (not including korea) was right before the holidays. 3Do sold over 720,000 in japan alone so most of those sales had to be in 1995-1996 along with Korea and whatever the rest of the U.S> sales were. Which are rumored between 550,000-750,000+ depending on which sources you believe. The Majority of that 1994 500,000 was U.S., which was just taking off, and Europe< which kind of stayed at the same pace and petered off by early 1996.
Personally I believe 5,000 units is pretty bad even if it was before the holidays. That's 15,000 3DOs across 3 months with a massive library, ridiculous bundles, and constant price cutting, sometimes even more by the retailers themselves. Spike Danton (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was 1996. "Discontinued" does not mean the product has been completely removed from store shelves, just that the manufacturer has halted production. And yes, 5,000/month is high for a discontinued console. Your argument for buying a 3DO in Christmas 1996 is perfectly logical, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of buyers favor new games over old ones, consoles which are heavily advertised over ones which are not, and games which get great reviews over ones which get middling reviews. In short, parents are much more likely to buy their kids a current gaming console which has a bunch of "hot" games than a defunct console with a library of games they've never heard of just because it's cheaper.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Years later and unfortunately the 2 million+ figure still stands here without a reference. I too am very dubious about that number. Sceeegt (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video quality

I've finally decided to just remove this commentary entirely. The low video quality is an inappropriate application of hindsight (video quality can only be perceived as bad if there's a wealth of better options available), and the idea that a separately sold add-on which was supported by about three games completely solves the video quality issue in the eyes of the average consumer is beyond ludicrous.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Hawkins' analysis

Looking at this edit, which noted that the excised text was "poor analysis of the TG-16", in fact the remarks had little to do with the TurboGrafx system and had much more to do with Hawkins' perspectives of viable routes for new entrants to the console market. This is interesting from a historical perspective because Sony did indeed try and team up with Nintendo before going it alone. Moreover, Sony achieved its success by a means that Hawkins thought implausible. That NEC was a bigger company than Sony also suggests that, in hindsight, Sony was able to overcome difficulties more skilfully than potentially bringing greater resources to bear. --PaulBoddie (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the excised text. To reiterate, it doesn't matter if anyone agrees with the analysis or not when that analysis was driving 3DO strategy. --PaulBoddie (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison Issues

The Panasonic 3DO's looks similar to the Nintendo 64. Does this mean that Nintendo stole the 3DO's design when the Nintendo 64 started development in 1993 under the codename, "Project Reality?" Chadalvarez2021 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no design thievery. People entertain this same idea regarding the GDO-203, implying it was trying to mimic the Playstation. Most things regarding design can be chalked up to mere coincidence. Archive 3DO (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming?

I think there is a case for having the page name changed to just '3DO'. The reason is because '3DO Interactive Multiplayer' is a name only used for specific hardware models. As shown in the article the home console players are named 'Interactive Multiplayer' but the 3DO platform is more than that. The Creative 3DO Blaster for example doesn't have 'Interactive Multiplayer' branding anywhere. 3DO is a platform and specification so naming this 3DO Interactive Multiplayer is not right.

Also related to that I think the intro needs changing. It's funny how contradictory it is: "the 3DO is a console ... the 3DO was not a console manufactured by them but a set of specifications". That means 3DO is not a "console", it's a platform/specification, much like something like DVD is a format not a "player": they are two distinct things. So I also propose having the intro read something like 3DO is a video gaming platform that was designed by The 3DO Company. - also note not calling it the 3DO but just 3DO because it is not one single device, similar to how we say PC instead of the PC. Sceegt (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: If there is agreement for renaming then List of 3DO Interactive Multiplayer games will also have to be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceegt (talk • contribs) 01:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also two categories that will also need renaming, along with a category change on every article in them. - X201 (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heading into this discussion, I found myself thinking "You know what, maybe 3DO is the WP:COMMONNAME. But I'm less certain about the rationale above - as in, I can't confirm or deny any of that. Seems weird that we'd miss an oversight like that for so long though... Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think 3DO is the common name and we don't need to track down any patents/trademarks to make this title change. The specific provenance of any other names is interesting but unneeded to this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case should we get it changed to the commonname now? Sceeegt (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved – as no opposition. Keith D (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– As explained above, to cut it short: 3DO is COMMONNAME to refer to the topic. It is also technically more accurate as 'Interactive Multiplayer' only refers to certain hardware models. I used the example of The Lego Group & Lego as the format distinguishing the 3DO product from The 3DO Company. Sceeegt (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Tarkus. Ringtail Raider (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:3DO