You are partly incorrect, it will not require a special 3D TV, but it will require a more modern, higher resolution TV. Atleast to experience the 3D effect properly.

@OP
You understand that you're mixing up two very different things?

1) Head tracking
2) 3D imaging

The first obviously does not require a different TV, it improves the perspective by tracking the positioning of your head, but the resulting image is a single 2D rasterization. That's why it can be shown into a video recorded with a simple camera, actually.

The second means having real 3D depths, ie different images for your left and right eye. It will require different TVs and/or goggles or other hardware and it won't be possible to see it in a video, as a single camera recording it would be like a single eye.

Sony is working on both, but they are entirely different techs.

Actually i understand perfectly fine, Both Tech's working together gives the 3D effect, watch the video.

And it works on Standard def, obviously not as well as it would on a 1080P TV that's a given but it will work.

Fact is it all gives a 3Dementional effect, and thats all that matters.

I remember back when head tracking was going to be put in Boom Blox. Seems so long ago now.

@ PullusPardus

Watching that video crew try putting 3D glasses on a camera is hilarious. You'd think that they'd have clued in as to how stupid it was when they went to edit.

WereKitten already addressed the most important points (and really well I may add), so I'll just comment on this:

It sincerely doesn't seem so, because the video is not about both techs working together. It's about head-tracking only. But when people talk about needing new TVs for 3D gaming, they're talking about the other tech i.e. stereoscopic imaging.

As to everything being a 3D effect, that's silly. Drawing in perspective as e.g. formalized during the renaissance is "giving a 3D effect". That's what any 3D vector graphic engine does, it gives you a 2D representation of a three-dimensional scene, and still I bet you would not call MGS on the PS1 "3D gaming" in the context of this thread.

Head tracking is nice and gives that "window effect" as you move around but the image is still blatantly bidimensional when you look at it: all objects slide around in perspective or even reveal new details, but are still bidimensional as if printed on cardboard silouhettes.

On the contrary 3D gaming as in real depth perception of the image will require special hardware exactly as people said, which makes the title of the thread misleading or simply wrong depending on your definition of 3D gaming.

You'd be surprised howmuch processing power is needed. ITs not only twice the frame rate, but the image needs to be rendered twice slightly differently. Crysis will not run in 3D on my machine and other games like FEAR 2 chug a little. And they run without a problem when 3D is off.

I agree with this. I don't think the original article is talking of 3D the way that most of us think when we hear 3D, i.e. stuff popping out the screen and what not.

I would like to ask the OP how exactly it's doing this popping out 3D for people who aren't wearing the glasses, on a standard high def TV? Technically impossible.

im excited to see that for sure

when i first heard about this and you MIGHT need a new tv, i was like f-that. spent 1200 on my tv already . . .

but if it works on my tv? awesome. killzone 3 in 3d sounds nice

Where did you read that? I'm just curious because as far as I've heard the only difference is that each eye requires its own render.