I still believe in 3D and had some fun with it in '98 with a projector and 3D glasses. (Descent 2 was great in 3D) But now I'm still waiting for a better version then the static stereoscopic method we've had since 1922. Sure we got rid of anaglyph glasses, reduced flicker almost completely, mostly eliminated cross-talk, color production is getting better, but we're still stuck having to focus on an image on the screen while your brain is trying to tell your eyes to focus in front or behind the screen.

I wish they would at least stop with the 3D gimmicks in movies. It only gives me a headache faster, even in the 2D version. Same with depth of field focus shifts. That simply doesn't suit stereoscopic 3D.

Maybe I'll buy a 3D projector when my current one needs replacing, but I'm not in a hurry. Good 3D content is still pretty rare and costs $5-10 extra on blu-ray. Not worth it imo, and in the end I rather have the full bandwidth for the 2D picture then splitting it for 3D.

3D without glasses, great
3D with glasses, bad

Personally I'm waiting for Holograms

3D is so friggin lame. I admit I never saw Avatar 3D in theatres, but I've seen plenty of 3D movies and none of them have been made any better by the inclusion of 3D. It's just a cheap gimmick that makes the movie cost $5 more.

Speak for yourself! 

@ OP

I like 3D.  I'm hoping to get a 3D TV be the end of the year.  Have quite a few PS3 games that support 3D and I've been dying to try them.  Though, it is probably better for Sony to not spend so much time and money pushing it.  Especially since it's their TV department that has been causing most of their loses of late.

yea, exactly, things will be so much better once we spectators can focus on what we want in the picture in Light Field 3D, but I guess that's still about a decade off, so I'll probably invest in a 4k passive 3D set if that turns out well

i like 3D but i'm really glad i didn't buy a 3D tv. it's obviously a fad.

glasses 3D really is an easy to implement feature, so I think even though it didn't take off it will just be another feature every new TV has, like full HD, 120Hz ,multiple tuners or smart TV and so on

and I think most TVs that released the last year already have it

in regards to myself ... i had bought a tv then ~1 years later avatar came out and soon after that sony's big "3D" gaming push came.  I was really really excited at the time and almost convinced myself to upgrade my tv with a 3D tv.  i'm really glad i didn't.

i agree, it isn't hard to put it into any tv being sold right now but they are still selling it at a premium as far as i can see.  and by that i mean my sister in law got a 3D tv spending ~$300 extra for it.  i suppose that's mostly the cost of the glasses but regardless it seems most people i know what just rather have their $300 back as i know very few people that care about 3D anymore. 

very little 3D content.  massive premium on the 3D content there is.    3D is dead as far as i'm concerned and it isn't hard to imagine why.

That's a very good point.  I think what really killed the big 3D push was the fact that the companies didn't get together and come up with a standard before putting 3D in their TVs.  Some went with passive tech, like the movies.  Others went with active shutter glasses, but handled it in different ways, so a lot of glasses didn't work with different TVs.  Then a lot of TVs didn't have built-in emitters for the glasses, so that was another few hundred customers had to drop to get the 3D to even work.  It was just too expensive and, more importantly, confusing to the average shopper.