There will never be enough 3Dtv's in homes to make this big. I know that sounds presumptuous in a way, but its not. Look how long it took before the FCC stepped in to force HD on all of us just to get HDtv's to sell to a larger audience. That will never happen with 3Dtv's.

I, personally, LOVE 3D. Not for the gimmicky stuff, but for the immersion factor. And that will be even more impressive with gaming than with movies. But I can pretty much guarantee that I won't be buying another expensive tv for a long, long time and I'm sort of a tech guy. So what about others, then, if I'M like this???

MS will support it, but not feature it or push it. Sony . . . I just don't know what they're thinking by financially pushing this. Makes me honestly feel that they haven't learned a thing . . .

I don't think that you'd need 120FPS, I would say halving 60 back to 30 would be just fine unless theres some reason for the glasses?

I suspect that the Xbox 360 could implement a more basic form of 3d rendering by implementing an update in their Ed-ram (forward compatibility) which would be similar to the Nvidia technique and allow them to rasterise the same scene twice with a slightly different camera angle (perhaps as im not 100% sure if im right here) to allow 3D on legacy titles and advanced 3D on future titles which support it.

Me neither, ugh, it sounds just plain stupid, I'm not gonna play games with some sort of glasses on. If they make something without the need for glasses or any other kind of funky getup, then yes, it'll be great, imho, but otherwise just no.

I *hate* all those new 3D movies in cinemas too, seen a few ones, but the image quality is just terrible compared to regular (2D) picture quality, and imho it really doesn't add that much more at all. Seems like nowadays every other movie is coming out in 3D just because they can. And they make you wear these gross smudgy glasses that hundreds of other people have worn before you, yuck no thanks.

It's not the same. You TV's display is seperated into 10 fields each running at 60hz.

10x60=600hz.

A deliberate mis-leading marketing ploy.

Plasma TVs don't suffer from the motion problems like judder that LCDs do so doesn't need to go to high refresh rates (hz) or low ms either to compensate for these difficulties.

Off the top of my head that is.

I think 30 Hz would be very hard on the eyes. At least I suppose that's the main reason why Nvidia uses 120 Hz.

I believe 100fps or 100hz is fine it's just that those pushing 3d prefer a fluid 60fps per second per eye.

I don't see why having 3d at 60fps (30 per eye) wouldn't work. I heard on 3d forums that if a game on nVidia's 3d vision (which I'm getting soon)  can't keep up with 120fps the 3d effect isn't lost when it stutters.

I'm sure theres a reason that smarter people than I have for needing 120fps.