yes they are pushing it now so that they can bring out a more worked on 3d at a lower price later on

do you think if didn't push BLU-ray and make a loss,it would still be where it is now and would we see the same games on PS3 now

I personally hate glasses myself for the sole fact that I wear glasses so I have the put the 3d glasses over my glasses.

If Sony is planning on putting all their eggs in the 3D basket in their future, they're going to be in for one rough ride.

You don't push it to that degree until you have a price later on.

Blu-ray isn't where you think it is, and you are pretending a loss that big is a good thing, when we are still in a recession.

Blu-Ray has lost its premium cost which only took about three years after its introduction. Budget players can be found for not much more than $100, and if you don't pay regular retail price on media, typically you won't pay more than $5 over the cost of the equivalent DVD.  A large part of that had to do with the current adoption rates among consumers, regardless of whether it's only 13% or whatever the actual number happens to be.

I'm already seeing 47" 240hz 3D ready HDTVs for just over $2k (with LED backlighting) so the current additional costs are not as extreme as some want to make it out to be. Arguably, the most expensive thing about 3D lies in the number of pairs of glasses a home ends up buying.

I really won't be surprised if we start seeing 3D capable HDTVs (in the 40" range) under $1,000 within the next 1-2 years.

As for autostereoscopic displays, the technology needs to be further refined before it's viable for large screen displays due to limited 3D viewing angles. And yes, I'm sure they'll be more expensive when the technical issues are figured out for general consumer use.

exactly more the people buy it more costs will go down and more 3D will be improved

by next gen we will see AUTOSTEREOSCOPIC displays at todays 3DTV's prices

This survey doesn't yield the results I prefer, so it is therefore untrustworthy, it didn't have enough respondents, it was only targeted towards a certain demographic and not the consumers in general, and whatever other excuses people come up with when surveys show a negative to what company they prefer

I think you are massively mistaken.  Maybe in certain age groups(a lot of school age children, some college age teens, some people at uni), but in the general population?

I think people are savvy enough to know that because one device can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that another can.  Even if it costs more.  Especially when they are completely different types of device.

This has been mentioned by so many people, that i'm wondering if I only imagined the invention of contact lenses....