well i have spend over $300 on sun glasses over the last 3 years and i don't even going to speak about my wife... excuses i tell you...

PS: and i am far from being rich or something!

Hilarious!

I'm not convinced 3D is set to become a new industry standard like HD just on the basis of content. Until broadcast programming is regularly shot in 3D, reasons for the mass consumer to specifically buy a 3D capable HDTV remains limited to 3D movies and 3D games.

On the other hand, 3D capable HDTVs will eventually cost the same as current 1080p HDTVs, which are now available as entry level models (priced as premium barely three years ago). Basically it means 3D will cease to be a "premium" HDTV feature that consumers have to pay premium prices for and may well end up being a feature not often used by many consumers even though they have a 3D capable HDTV.

Nobody will care, they'll see Nitnendo doing it without glasses, and expect TV's to do the same, most people aren;t tech savvy

Which is why simplified interfaces are more popular. Mice were looked down upon like the Wiimote because they were clearly inferior to command lines. Now while the latter is better for more intensive computing, the layman does not do intensive computing, so the mouse and GUI are the mainstream computer interfaces.

So 3D that doesn't require glasses will look like something simpler.

Even in the short term these active shutter 3DTVs are obsolete. Obviously in order of priority it will go something like this:

Passive >>>> Passive glasses >>> Active Glasses which corresponds in reverse order of the above with:

Little 3D content <<< moderate 3D content <<< mainstream levels of content.

When all is said and done, the active shutter 3DTVs may end up like the HD CRT style screens in the U.S. Remember the complaints about the fact that the PS3 didn't support 1080i? We may see the same complaints as passive glasses replace active shutter over the coming years.

Passive glasses only have the one valid complaint, which is people don't like to wear glasses. Active shutter has about 3 major complaints. The cost/inconvenience of glasses which need to be charged, major losses to contrast/colour gamut and the fact that people need to wear glasses. So automatically you'd have to be pretty foolish to buy a 3DTV this year.

Comparing the Nintendo 3DS with 3D HDTVs in general is an apples and oranges argument.

It's basically arguing whether those who would pay for a 3D experience would rather watch it in their living rooms on a 40" display like a regular TV, or a sub 4" screen in their hands.

Glasses or no, the portable experience does not replace the living room experience. As much as I was impressed with the 3DS, I feel it was pretty pointless for Nintendo to even make the comparison. It's like saying why watch Avatar in 3D in an IMAX theater when you can watch it on a 3.5" screen instead (no glasses!!!).

As for these wish/claims that Nintendo can or will show the world how glasses free 3D is done in the living room; you can stop. As it's already been mentioned, Nintendo doesn't make TVs. They don't even make the 3D displays that make the 3DS possible.

That and the current lack of 3D content in general. Buyers pay an early adopter premium price as it is with most new consumer technologies.

Personally, I'm not "allergic" to glasses, but the current level of content available simply doesn't offset the price. With any luck, by the time more content is shot in 3D (broadcast programming), autostereoscopic displays will be common enough to be accessible to general consumers.

Usually the answers actually boil down to yes/no or I don't know / No answer. You're grouping two answers together. I also guarantee you that the questions "Do you think glasses will hinder...?" and "Are you ok with the glasses?" would get different sets of results.

Basically a negative for one is not the same as a positive for another.

I dont think you know what you are talking about...