A lot of people agree with the relative lack of content vs. relative premium price for 3D.
Personally, I don't think there's much to be debated, even without taking the current low consumer adoption rates into account.
But, the boundaries have to be pushed, even when it comes to mass market electronics, and as always, there will have to be early adopters who are tech-philes, willing to pay the premium cost and drive the market.
I'm not convinced consumer 3D can fully take off until there are broadcast channels recording shows (sports, TV shows, etc.) in 3D. But if the entry level costs hit a low enough point that the premium is nominal, there should be enough incentive for those who want to buy what's current because they don't plan on buying another HDTV for another 5-10 years.
I've had my main 1080p display for about 4 years now and the next set that I buy (if it's not a low cost replacement if it breaks) will have 3D capability although I prefer to wait to see how glassless 3D development will progress over the next couple years. By then, if they aren't ready or far too expensive (most likely), I may just end up buying a 3D set that requires glasses for not much more than a regular HDTV.
Currently, I see the glasses as being the primary added cost for those who need multiple pairs. The displays themselves really don't carry much of a premium on a feature set to feature set comparison unless you're in the market for a budget HDTV.
