3D and HD would narrow the market as opposed to expanding it, directly against Nintendo's strategy.

Nintendo has been successful, so there's no reason to change things up. Expect their next console to be directly against the core gamer's wishes, but then appeals to an expanded audience.

They could mandate that all/most third parties that develop 3D games also support non 3D, such that it doesn't narrow the market.

Very few people have 3D-capable TVs, that is the problem.

Well a current TV could do 3D, but at 30 Hz per eye which is way too low. It would mean flickering and lots of headaches.

So no, I don't think 3D will be mainstream soon enough for this prediction to come true.

If new technology is required to make 3D or HD games available, the price of that technology won't be justified by the low-end consumer. It would be a much smaller market. Third parties wouldn't even bother.

Trust me, Nintendo is not going to do 3D next generation. I certainly see Sony doing it though.

Did you ever saw a hologram ? there was a book holograph it was for an university, they spend 1 MILLION Dollar to do this. And it was just one picture a movement is hard to display almost impossible yet except with the fog wall.

There is no device out there to make something like a holographic TV. The fog wall, car manufacturer have this, is probably the best technology to make something like a hologram with movements. They need a complete room for it and dry ice for the fog and a a couple of lasers so they can display a 3d car modell without making it out of wax or wood. 

Hologram technology is atleast 30 years away. We are just not able to do this properly. everyhing you can find on youtube is just a trick or primitive or extremly expensive.  

If the price of that technology is minimal and normal TVs can also be supported then it can be justified by the low-end consumer.  People who purchased a 360 or PS3 with only a SD TV proved that.  This is no difference.

Actually the way the 3D technology is playing out, I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 could handle it already (although at a suffering frame rate) compared to the next generation Wii.  I think you are over estimating what is required in a console to support 3D TVs.

I see no reason to trust your opinion on the matter based on what you said so far.

I would *hate* to have to wear glasses when playing games. Also, what about people who already wear glasses to begin with?

I saw some 3D movies in theaters too, and while the 3D effect was nice, it got old fast, and imo didn't improve the experience in any meaningful way. Having to wear the glasses is a bother, the price of the movies goes up, plus the clarity of the picture goes down. Yes it's in 3D, but it's also not as sharp, vivid or clear as the normal 2D iterations.

Unless they find some way to overcome these problems, I doubt they'd go for 3D next gen.

Cheebee the glasses work on top of prescription glasses too.

The 3D effect with 3DTVs and shutter glasses is better than the passive glasses used in cinemas, so the sharpness of the picture is not an issue. In fact each eye gets an independent full-res picture at 60 Hz with the shutter glasses.

I still agree with the last part of your conclusion, though...

Honestly, if you payed $600 for a Playstation 3 at the beginning of this generation and you only had an SDTV, what were you thinking?

Only core gamers would do such things.

In any case, you can believe what you want. It goes against everything that Nintendo has stood for in the past 4 years, but I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just don't be suprised when Nintendo completely dissapoints at next year's E3 with the Wii Horse Riding thing.

My concern regarding 3D is wearing glasses -- because I wear glasses. So the cardboard cut-outs used with games now don't work well for me. Any home 3D system that used glasses would need them akin to what you find at theme parks for 3D effects -- the large plastic frames that fit over everything.

Mike from Morgantown