Funny how people are complaining that 3D TVs are too expensive. It was the exact same thing with HD (PLasma and LCD) TVs when they first came out. Pundits saying there was no market for the expensive HD TVs when CRT TVs "did a good enough job". Well, when was the last time you saw a new CRT TV in a store?

The TVs and the glasses will come down in price, and because multiple TV companies have invested heavily in 3D capability I think it's too big to fail. I don't think it'll have as much penetration as plasma/LCD/LED has now, but I think there will be a substantial market for 3D TVs.

One tech commentator I heard on the radio said what I think quite a few people think, and that is 3D TV and 3D movies at home aren't really where home based 3D is at. 3D gaming is where 3D TVs will really shine, and with 3D motion control it's got some real promise.

Me I still can't afford a top of the line 2D HD TV, though I do have a mid range HD TV. So 3D is a wee way off for me. I'll probably have a 3D TV about the time PS4 launches, so I'll almost certainly never get a chance to experience 3D gaming or movies using PS3.

A company only loses a race once it's finished, the race this gen isn't over, and I'd be very surprised of this was Sony's last console generation.

Also remember, as of today Sony is actually 2nd in hardware sales in terms of equal time on market. And outright 2nd in the vast majority of countries around the world. So sales position this generation is a bit of a relative thing.

Actually, the current 3D technology is shit, and Sony puttingit out there early, isn't "awesome" because in 1 or 2 years, when people figure out how to make a 3D TV that doesn't require glasses(oh wait, 3DS already exists) then people who buy one of these pieces of shit right now, will have been proper fucked by Sony and by their getting ahead of themselves.

I think they are exactly the right price, and would even be worth owning if they didn't require glasses, and didn't need to be replaced in a year when they actually do release a 3DTV which doesn't require glasses.

I'm sure the article would go over better if it didn't use sensationalist lines like this:

"Sony didn't just lose at their own game; they've lost their reason to exist."

I just wanted to point out that this portion of the article is dead on, and it sounds like I actually wrote it even:

But wait! PlayStation 3 does 3D! The Xbox 360 does it, but Microsoft has kept it basically a secret, and the Wii doesn't have the capability to do "real" 3D at all. But guess what? No one will use 3D—at least not this generation. Sony's 3D advantage is a waste of hype because it necessitates the purchase of a $2000 3D-capable TV and $150 glasses, even though you just dropped a grand or more on an HDTV just a couple of years ago. It'll be a nice bonus for certain games, but nobody will design an experience entirely around 3D to sell, because there's such a small market of potential customers in this generation.

In the Lap

Nintendo's 3DS highlights the miserable position of the PSP and the complete bomb that was the PSP Go. When the PSP was announced in 2004, its hardware power shamed the DS. Last year, instead of a true successor to the PSP, Sony released the PSP Go, a sleeker, completely disc-less iteration of the PSP. Great idea (sort of), botched execution.

Now, Nintendo, the same company whose most cutting edge home console is stuffed with 10-year-old guts, is beating Sony on hardware with the 3DS, which has horsepower comparable to a Wii. And it's 3D!

Viewed in the context of Sony's massive, company-wide push on 3D (an impressively unified effort for Sony), the real swift-kick-to-the-nuts aspect of the 3DS is that it will probably be the first mass 3D piece of consumer electronics. It's cheaper, easier, portable, and you don't need glasses. Sony, the gigantonormous hardware company, just got punked by Nintendo, the short-sighted game company.

indeed, i'm in the boat of the many people who bought a HDTV recently for a lot of money and i have no plan of getting another TV in a very long time.  Just when HDTV becomes mainstream now they're trying to make us all get new TVs, it's not a great enough feature for me to think about it. 

I hear the complaint alot of "don't diss Sony just because you can't afford a 3DTV."

I hate that argument for several reasons, but most importantly, it's because it's invalid.

Most adults could, in theory, afford a 3DTV if one was necessary. However, imho, I don't think they are very necessary, for a number of reasons, and I think the technology is horrible. Even though I CAN afford one, I think that it's a rip off.

1. The technology is already obsolete: NIntendo has proven that glasses aren't necessary for 3D gaming or movies.

2. The technology is evolving: There will probably be 3DTVs that don't require glasses on the market in 2011.

3. The technology is overpriced: Despite having the wear glasses, the poorly reviewed shittiest version of 3DTV from Sony that I've seen is around 2000 dollars.

4. There are better alternatives: The LN52B750 LDC HDTV from Samsung is hovering at a great price, and its PQ far exceeds most 3DTVs on the market.

5. Plasma TVs aren't recommended for gaming: The best 3DTVs are by far and away plasma. I don't recommend Plasma for gaming due to inevitable phosphor trailing, which is caused the the slower aging of green phosphors as opposed to other colors

6. There isn't a lot of content: No gaming company is going to design games around 3D because the market base is too small.

So, what you get is an overpriced, obsolete, non-ideal for gaming, poor PQ and size for the price, expensive glasses requiring status symbol with little or no real content available, godaweful n00b models starting at 2000 dollars.

Wait several years before purchasing one, because the ones you buy this year won't be worth 500 bucks in 3 years when they have them where they don't need glasses. What they are selling now is like betamax, and it will be nostalgic to remember that they existed one day.

Sounds like the BS I heard back in 2006

I think the article has some good points, but I agree that the title of the article is terribly ignorant.

@Zenfolder games like Killzone 3 which are being hyped as 3D-ready are displaying at a mere 640 by 720 resolution! The cost of going 3D this generation is up to half the graphics performance when many games can barely maintain HD resolution at 30FPS!