cAPSLOCK said:
Most consumers are not tech whores, you're not going to negotiate with them on this -- they hate the glasses and that's that. As far as the price going down, being that they're locked to manufacturer (stating this again because its HUGE) any social event would have to cost a lot, plus kids will break them. They're not going to have to go from $200-$150 all the way down to the low low price of $100 or even $50. They're going to have to be something to the tune of $10. This is an issue of consumer demands. It may be hard for gamers to grasp because even if our xbox 360 shits the bed every 2 months or our playstation costs $600 with no games we'll still be playing them and buying them. By and large as a community we're crackwhores who take any level of abuse it means shiny fun box makes us happy. By our nature we're fascinated with this stuff to the tune of $1000 a year. 99% of the consumers out there are not like that. Most of them JUST bought a HDTV within the last 2 years even though they've been on the market for something like 10. Getting your average consumer to jump on the bandwagon just isn't going to happen. The tech just isn't there yet. It's too expensive and too clunky. Besides, I'd be happy about the total lack of 3d adoption and the disappointing sales. What that means is companies have to go back to the drawing board because they're FORCED to actually come up with a workable solution. At the very, very least glasses that are no manufacturer specific. |
And that's why the 3DS looks crappy from a tech point (lesser 3D and small screen), but its low cost (as the system is not going to cost as much as a 3D HDTV) and no glasses are great from a mainstream standpoint.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
