Plasma screens cost over $100,000 at one point. The price will of course come down and the quality of the screens will of course improve over time. The point people are making is that by the time enough 3D content becomes available there will be better screen technologies to take advantage of the content. At the very least passive glass 3DTVs using polarised displays will probably become relatively mainstream far sooner. Its better to wait and get the right technology with content to play than buy an early 3DTV which will become obsolete very quickly with little content to watch in the mean-time.

and i think that is what will happen spcially since most people just bought their plasma/lcd tv for a good amount, i am one not ready to spend US$1000 after just one year of having my tv because a half working tech come out

It totally is.

As much as I like the idea of being able to watch portable 3D movies, if you ask me how many movies I'd actually buy on a memory chip specifically and only for the 3DS, the frank answer would be "not many."

But if that's the only way you can watch 3D movies without going to the theater... it does have some novelty value, but I definitely have a hard time seeing EVERYONE with a 3DS building up sizable collections of 3DS format 3D movies.

I've tried watching 2 hour movies on the PSP too and came to the rapid conclusion that I'd rather watch my DL movies for the PSP on the PS3 (on the big screen) instead. The only way you can realistically watch a full movie on a handheld screen is in 5-10 minute bites rather than an hour plus stretch.

So how are you going to watch 3D TV or 3D Blu-ray movies on the 3DS? exactly, you wont. Not mainstream.

I feel like we're just arguing over the definition of "mainstream". Does a device really need to include all major media formats to be considered as such? My understanding (and the definition from m-w.com) is that mainstream means "a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence". My point is that glasses-less 3D is obviously not "prevailing" on big screens yet (which is also exactly what you're saying), but we expect Nintendo to make the technology extremely popular throughout the world, with or without Blu-ray or 3D movies. I don't understand why those things are required for something to be considered "mainstream". The Wii doesn't even support HD, but it definitely made motion a mainstream form of control.

The Wii is a mainstream game console just like the 360 and PS3. They are all very much mainstream. Back 4 generations it would be impossible to call any game console mainstream as their sales were tiny compared to the 5th, 6th, and 7th generations. Gaming was still very much niche back then and considering nerd entertainment.

I am not, and wont, state that the 3DS wont be a mainstream portable system or bring 3D portable gaming to the mainstream. It just wont bring glassesless gaming to the mainstream console or full-scale entertainment media markets anytime soon. Popularising this type of tech on small devices will probably only lead to the next iPhone and iPod Touches (and othersmartphones) to have similar style 3D screens.

I am not, and wont, state that the 3DS wont be a mainstream portable system or bring 3D portable gaming to the mainstream. It just wont bring glassesless gaming to the mainstream console or full-scale entertainment media markets anytime soon. 

Now that makes a lot more sense. 

I agree with you with just one difference: 3DS can actually help glasses-less 3DTV development indirectly, as Nintendo, if 3DS will be very successful, will give a lot of money to small screens manufacturers and as they produce big screens too, they have the interest in reinvesting part of that money to accelerate big screens development too. Obviously also manufacturers not having rich deals with Nintendo will have to push their tech developmant anyway to not be left behind (but they can fund their R&D like they are already doing, selling the already working small screen single user tech to cellphone manufacturers, or making cellphones themselves). Money can't do miracles, though, even producers with immense cash available aren't able to furtherly accelerate the pace at wich a new tech becomes viable and affordable, all the more reason considering that elecronics and IT are already the fastest industries to do so.

an this is exactly the same reason that has been running through this thread:

the 3DS show's consumer's no need for Glasses when the 3DS does not need it and consumer's will just wait for it...

the problem is their going to be waiting a hell of a long time!

the effect's of passive also have problem's, too dark, and resolution once again suffer's.

just think as an example to get 1080p resolution out of the same type of Technology that the 3DS uses, the screen in Question would need a 4k resolution!

the entire screen has to be modified you just cannot up the refresh rate..that is one of the advantages of Active shutter. those glasses will be far cheaper in the next couple of year's before even the glimmer of glassless 3D in Home theatre even become's a viable solution to even start to get to that level of price.

it's not that the companies cannot do it. it's the fact that they cannot offer it at a price the main consumer would need it to be in order the be a solution to glassless.Not Now other than small screen's and not for quite a while..this is the very same thing with new Holographic disc format's the disc's are very expensive, but the drive cost's are way up there and have been for quite some time.

example:

This is all very early-stage stuff, and in an area littered with previous attempts to bring multi-hundred gigabyte holographic disks and drives to market. It hasn't happened yet but there are people, like the InPhase rescuers, and Pavel himself, who sincerely hold the holographic faith. Good luck to them. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/04/storex_1pb/

passive has it's own problem's to contend with more so than even the parallax barrier that is in the 3DS

The consumer has two options.

1. Get a 3DTV now, and not watch any content in 3D because theres hardly any made for 3D.

2. Wait.

I think waiting is of course the better bet. It'll take a hell of a long time for good content to come out on 3D anyway.Its like all those people who skipped buying a PS3 until 2008 or later, they didn't miss much.

In any case the pixel density on the large format autostereoscopic screens isn't too bad. Its still not higher than a PC monitor.

An you do not think that 3D content is going to be invested into by network's for Sport's?

your trying to point to a IDEA that people in the majority are going to do that over the IDEA that the 3DS is showing the consumer to just wait that the glassless Technology will be released soon because the 3DS will force the other manuf's, to Do it because of very limited consumer interest in 3D if there is glasses still needed.

the Problem like everything is How it's looked at. Even if the 3DS get's people the Notion to think about waiting. but still even after 3 year's still no glassless tech, and still the Home Theatre TV's are still using Shutter and so is the Theatre's are also. Not to mention More TV station's broadcasting their content in 3D. what then?

the Problem even 3 year's from now Even when the 3DS is on the Market selling very well, Which In my Opinion it will sell very well and may indeed break the DS's record sales. It will still not change the landscape in Home theatre's direction of halting the progress of Active shutter, for the simple fact the Glassless solution is anywhere from 5 to 10 year's away and that's being optimistic about it.

The Consumer Has the Buy Power , yes but if that is the only Product availiable and no other alternitive other than the 3DS. The 3DS is fine an dandy for portible on the Move but it's not going to change the fact that it's not the same as the Home Theatre Market.

IF all the main manuf. and there are many are pushing Active shutter and will infact be for the next 5 to 10 year's. the Consumer only has the choice to buy or not buy it, but I doubt very much the Home Theatre market is going to sit out on great 3D content for that length of Time when somthing Like for Example the Super Bowl is being broadcasted in 3D!, That Alone will get people interested in it since by that time, Let's say 3 year's like your Example..Active shutter will be cheaper and if many on here still think the Glassless is going to be a viable mass market price over Active shutter by then Even 3 year's from now, than i do not know what to Tell you.