New report casts doubt on 3D popularity

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 23 June, 2011

1 in 3 UK homes will own a 3DTV by 2016.

Fewer than half of the 11 million 3DTV-ready homes in the UK in 2016 will be active and regular users of 3D TV content, a new report predicts.

According to research from Informa Telecoms & Media, 3DTV is not expected to be a mainstream success.

Last year, almost 90 per cent of homes with 3D-ready TVs were "active" users, a high figure Informa said was the result of early-adopters being more likely to sign up for 3D content.

But going forward, as 3D becomes a "default" technology embedded into more and more TVs, it will reach consumers who are not particularly interested in the tech, so the active percentage will fall, the report reasoned.

The findings will no doubt trouble PlayStation 3 maker Sony, which has invested millions of dollars into 3D entertainment.

It makes 3D films, 3DTVs and 3D video games across its various subsidiaries.

The PS3 is a 3D-enabled home console, and a number of 3D-enabled video games, including MotorStorm: Apocalypse, Killzone 3 and Gran Turismo 5, have been released.

Naughty Dog's Uncharted 3 is expected to be a 3D gaming standard-bearer when it launches later this year.

And at E3 this month Sony announced a budget PlayStation 3DTV designed to attract those put off by the high cost of the tech.

However, this is cause for hope. Informa predicted significant growth in the penetration of 3D-ready sets with one in three households in the UK owning one by 2016.

"3DTV has the backing of the major UK broadcasters like Sky and Virgin, and most recently the BBC announced its plans to show the Wimbledon final in 3D for the first time," said senior analyst and author of Global 3DTV Forecasts Adam Thomas.

"Irrespective of existing public demand for 3D, major set manufacturers (Samsung, LG, Panasonic, et al) increasingly see 3D capability as a feature that they must include in their sets, or the perception will be that rival manufacturers are producing a technically-superior product (with 3D included)," Thomas continues.

"The result is that an increasing proportion of TV sets are having 3D capability built into them. But instead of a USP, 3D is now often marketed as just one of the set’s benefits – along with features such as internet-connection capability and LED backlighting."

The problem is getting people interested in 3D content, said the report.

"We do not share the view that 3D represents the obvious next evolutionary step for TV, in the same way that colour followed black and white, or HD is following SD.

"A case can be made that colour and HD offer noticeable enhancements to the technologies that preceded them. But 3D TV is less of an enhancement and rather more a new type of viewing experience – one that many people will enjoy, but some way from becoming ubiquitous."

Last year French game publisher Ubisoft told Eurogamer a 3D-enabled telly would be in every living room in just three years time.

Gaikai boss Dave Perry, was less enthusiastic, telling Eurogamer there will be a 3DTV in every home in eight or nine years.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (66) Latest comment 11 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Erinan #1 11 months ago

    I can't see this happening while we will still have to wear those ridiculous glasses. I have yet to meet a 3D-TV owner and I'm definitely not getting the (obviously-forced-by-companies) hype.

  • Eraysor #2 11 months ago

    I'd get one, but there's a lack of content and the prices are absolutely bonkers right now. Hopefully the prices will fall in the same way HDTVs have.

  • UsernamePending #3 11 months ago

    The glasses are so off-putting.

  • Ford #4 11 months ago

    I've demoed many sets and remain unconvinced. Shutterglasses are quite awful.

  • bad09 #5 11 months ago

    No one cares about 3D. The falling 3D cinema shows this, the luke warm reception of 3DS shows this, the slow uptake of 3D TVs shows this.

    I for one say thank god.

  • Trigga_Tybalt #6 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 15:43:01 23-02-2012

  • Beano #7 11 months ago

    "HD will never catch on"

    - Random analasyst, 2005

  • Toothball #8 11 months ago

    I've been using 3D hardware on my PC for a while now and would quite like to upgrade my TV to match. I wear glasses normally so adding some 3D ones really wasn't that much of a stretch. Doesn't really take all that long to get used to either.

    Seems to be working better with games than with other content though. The range of 3D movies is slim at the moment, but it turns out that many games do work to some extent in 3D. Gamers are proving to be one of the harder groups to convince though, which I think Sony was relying on to spread the word.

  • Ford #9 11 months ago

    As usual HDTV has been brought up, but the obvious difference is that every film ever committed to 35mm can show noticeable improvement from SD to HD resolutions. There is simply no such archive of 3D material.

  • bad09 #10 11 months ago

    "HD will never catch on"

    Realistically it hasn't. People are still watching SD content on those HD tellies ;)

  • LHH #11 11 months ago

    Not interested myself really.

  • IronCladChicken #12 11 months ago

    Does it matter if every TV is 3D enabled if people don't then buy the glasses?

  • J0rdan_KZ #13 11 months ago

    Once those glasses-less 3DTV's that are in development/super expensive in Japanese stores, I'll be in. Right now? I'm happy with my HDTV.

  • Huddy #14 11 months ago

    Old tech dressed in new clothes does not make good tech.

    Until I can sit on my couch and experience 3D without glasses on a screen big enough to do it justice I will pass.

  • Torkin #15 11 months ago

    What's the point of watching Wimbledon in 3D?

    it's 3D for the sake of 3D.

  • Jolly_Armadillo #16 11 months ago

    Think there is a vocal group of people who can't experience 3D properly whether it be poor eye sight or what ever are making 3D sound less attractive than it is.

    Been watching 3D movies atcinema for a long time now andwhenever there is a choice I go for the 3D viewing, 3D works for me perfectly, and adds to the experience for me.

    I have a 3D tv, no significant content as of yet just a few downloadable titles (PAIN, red faction battlegrounds & wipeout). But I am majorly looking forward to upcoming 3D games, especially uncharted 3.

    /thinks 3D is good

    :)

  • Whitster #17 11 months ago

    @Bad09

    True dat, my parents have had a HD enabled TV in their living room since 2006 and never had a HD/BR DVD player or HD package on Sky/Virgin rigged up to it.

  • Quint2020 #18 11 months ago

    They should have given me the money they spent on this "study", I could have told them that.

  • dangermouseuk78 #19 11 months ago

    @beano the fact of most tvs being HD or Hd Ready dont make for something catching on more not having a choice to have it. My New tvs HD ready but i still watch SD broadcast.

  • Tyrhinis #20 11 months ago

    Games are the one place I think 3D might be an actual improvement over 2D, but I definitely won't be going out of my way to buy a 3D TV or anything. It's just not a big enough deal to warrant how much it costs - and in the case of TV and films, requiring everyone in the room to wear glasses just makes it even less attractive. (I know about glasses-free displays and I also know the huge, unsolvable drawbacks).

    Bring on the Star-Wars-style holograms, then we'll talk!

  • schnide #21 11 months ago

    @bad09

    That's for people who don't have HD TV content. For those with Sky, I'll bet you'll find them going to the HD version of it wherever it's available - also true to a limited extent for those with Freeview HD content as well. DVDs will be watched in HD, Blurays too for sure, and gaming should be a no-brainer. Have you compared playing a Wii to a PS3/360 on a HDTV? Because I know which looks better, and what I'd choose between any available content on a CRT, a HDTV with composite connection or a HDTV with HDMI input.

  • nuanimal #22 11 months ago

    Last year, almost 90 per cent of homes with 3D-ready TVs were "active" users, a high figure Informa said was the result of early-adopters being more likely to sign up for 3D content.

    Err.... does this mean that those 90% of "active" homes are just using their TVs normally? Do these guys know that 3D capabale TVs can still display legacy 2D images?

  • t8yman #23 11 months ago

    the sooner 3D fucks off, the better.

  • KD #24 11 months ago

    Still seems a gimmick imo and it's not like HD in the way every channel could be hi def, you'll never get news channels in 3d.

    Personally my lazy eye stops the 3DS working for me I found out in a game store latelly, for that reason alone I wouldn't gamble on buying a 3D tv for my house.

  • Subdominator #25 11 months ago

    3D is always a short time trend. It's nice and new in the beginning but then people realize the cons outweigh the pros (with the current tech it's 3D vs image quality and fidelity) and they will stop being interested. 3D doesn't add anything that is necessary for a better experience, it's just different. Hardware like the 3DS is built around that. If Nintendo would be confident that it would sell the 3D pitch they wouldn't have included the ability to play in 2D as well.

    In the end it is always companies trying to create a demand for stuff we don't need. We bought HDTVs because they actually enhance the experience. But we don't buy a new TV every year or so, more like every ten years. So they had to create something new for us to get rid of our new TV and buy an even newer one. With 3D. I'm glad they fail to achieve this. It's the same with DVD. We all had our players, they couldn't make alot of money with the format anymore, so they invented a new system. Thankfully Blu Ray is nowhere near the instant success of DVD, in fact DVD is still by far the market leader. The consumer has spoken and he has given Blu Ray a kick in the butt. Because in the end not the slightly improved quality difference that you can actually see on HDTV compared to DVD counts, the movies and prices count. And if you have to pay double the amount for the Blu Ray you stick with a DVD.

    3D will one day sucessful. With glasses free, viewing angle free pupil tracking 3DTVs for multiple viewers at once or with holographic displays. But we're still a long way from either one of them. Even cinemas won't be showing 3D films in less than five years, 3D revenues are already on the decline. You pay twice the price for a ticket for outstanding achievements like Avatar, but after a while you realize it's just stupid to pay more for having to wear a pair of glasses and reduced image quality. All of that is well known. It's been like that whenever 3D was sold to us over the last fifty years. And the tech we have now is not different from the one we had on PCs ten years ago.

  • BOFH_UK #26 11 months ago

    Three things stopping mass-acceptance of 3D content right now:

    1) Glasses. Actually this is a double whammy, not only do consumers REALLY not want to be wearing 3D glasses for hours at a time but the active versions cost a fortune and aren't compatible across manufacturers. Net result is a family of four might have to drop a few hundred quid just on glasses and that's hardly going to encourage mass adoption.

    2) Availability of content. There's very little content in 3D and only a small percentage of that is actually worthwhile. The lesson that Avatar should have taught the industry is 3D is only really a selling point when it's done WELL. Add on the additional premium for 3D content from many sources and it's hardly a recipe for success.

    3) Timing. Most people have only recently upgraded to HD sets and aren't going to be keen to upgrade again. Worse, there's a considerable backlash against 3D right now for several reasons (poor quality experiences, headaches, cost etc) and that's going to have a knock-on effect.

    Ultimately 3D will likely take off but it's going to need someone to come out with a really good quality and relatively cheap glasses-free solution. Until that happens it's likely to be a niche product that gets bought more because it's included with the TV instead of being a desireable feature in its own right.

  • bigtechno #27 11 months ago

    I'll go to the movies to watch a 3D (transformers coming up) as a gimmick and on a huge screen
    but at home I don't think so
    i have Sky HD and there is not enough content or stuff that i would want to watch in 3D
    i don't think sky would ever need more than 2 channels dedicated to 3D

  • coolbritannia #28 11 months ago

    Been saying this for 2 years, 3D is a gimmick. Sony made a mistake backing it, as did Nintendo.

    Not until the glasses come off, and 3D can be enjoyed by all, will this catch on. Those glasses look stupid, and exclude friends and family from the experience.

  • StuDevo #29 11 months ago

    I am waiting for 3d without glasses. I cant stand wearing two sets of glasses, its ok in cinema for a few hours, but not everyday

  • berelain #30 11 months ago

    Glasses-free 3D, I like, and I'm all for. I can't argue that some of the 3D content on the 3DS isn't hugely impressive, because it is, and even the likes of Zelda *do* benefit from the 3D, just from an immersion perspective. That said, I'm just as happy playing games in 2D; there's no jarring difference between the two and the little you gain isn't necessarily worth it.

    However, when you have to wear those stupid glasses, the immersion goes. I wear glasses anyway, so slotting a pair of 3D glasses on top of my regular pair is just plain uncomfortable, especially over longer periods of time, and the payoff just isn't worth it - especially not for the price involved.

    3D will become more popular than it is now, that I don't doubt. But honestly, we're not even ready for HD yet - most TV content is still only broadcast in SD, and even the HD channels don't always have enough content to fill their schedules with HD-only shows - BBC One HD, for example, often broadcasts upscaled versions of SD programmes to fill the gaps. Until TV's and freeview boxes start receiving HDTV, and channels start broadcasting in HD, as standard, there's just no reason to invest in something 3D-enabled, because it's still going to take the market a good few years to catch up.

  • insincere_dave #31 11 months ago

    "What's the point of watching Wimbledon in 3D?

    it's 3D for the sake of 3D."

    I agree, last time I was in the crowd at centre court, I made a point of keeping one eye shut for the duration of the match.

    (Seriously though, 3D can fuck off until it's like the Star Wars holographic chess.)

  • BBIAJ #32 11 months ago

    I had a go on a Samsung last year that could convert any 2D game into 3D, tried it on the Batman Arkham Asylum demo and it was bloody amazing, even better that the TrioViz GOTY version.

  • Darren #33 11 months ago

    1 in 3 homes may well own a 3DTV by 2016 but I bet many people won't actually make use of its 3D features, just as many people undoubtedly don't watch HD content on their current HDTVs because they're still using SCART cables!!! There may come a time when the only new TV people can buy will be 3DTVs, just as you can only buy HDTVs now, so manufacturers will be able to twist facts and make out that, yes, 3D *is* popular after all. The problem as I see it with this technology is that it really hasn't changed since the 1950s and it still requires glasses, albeit these new ones are far more expensive. Yes, the quality of the 3D is better than it was with those red/blue glasses but until I can view it without glasses at all then it is still unwatchable because...

    ... sadly for me, I'm one of the 10% whose eyesight isn't good enough to see 3D so the technology is useless to me even if I was interested in it. I avoid seeing 3D movies at the cinema for example (they tend to give me headaches anyway). As long as I always have the option to view TV/movies and play games in 2D then I'm not bothered whether 3D is a success or not.

  • bad09 #34 11 months ago

    @schnide

    Well yeah if you go to the extra cost of a Sky HD box then yes there is some HD. Having one myself I find that unless you have the movie package or sports the extra expense over a normal box is utterly worthless. Most "HD" channels actually show a mix of SD and HD anyway. Funnily enough I realised just the other day that outside of the movies I still actually watch more SD than HD on thing, even the movies are less now as the anytime plus stuff is in SD! :)

    DVDs are only in HD if you go for an upscaling one and Blu, I don't know how well that's doing these days in terms of uptake. The players themselves are certainly much cheaper now but discs can still be double the price of DVD in some places and comically they have to bundle it with DVD a lot nowadays so I don't think it's the success they thought it would be at least. Personally I don't actually know anyone with blu except my mum (and I bought her that for Christmas!) that's a big difference to when DVD took over. Certainly most people I've shown blu to don't see any difference but obviously that is my own experience.

    As for 360/PS3, as they don't supply HD cabling with their HD consoles you'd be surprised the amount of people who actually play in SD on a HDTV. In fact Epic somehow found out a while back more people game on the 360 in SD than HD.

  • Darren #35 11 months ago

    @Jolly_Armadillo - What a selfish post, that was.

    There seems to be a lot more people complaining about the need to wear glasses than there are people like me complaining because we cannot see 3D properly. I can see SD and HD clearly, I don't wear glasses either, but until someone invents holographic TV which EVERY sight-abled person can watch without the need for glasses or perfect eyesight then 3D will never catch on IMO.

    I'd happily buy a 3DTV if I could watch movies and play games on it without getting a headache from straining my eyes. I'm always keen to embrace new technology and would love to be able to have 3D once it works properly.

  • PaladinFenris #36 11 months ago

    I am wearing glasses, and to be frank, I'd rather play in 2D than exposing myself to the discomfort of wearing two pairs of glasses at the same time, just for some nifty effect which only comes with an additional price...

    Maybe that's why I like the thought behind the 3DS.

  • Ryze #37 11 months ago

    3D is certainly an enhancement, but the glasses are a hindrance.

    Once the technology evolves to make glasses-free 3D that 'just works', THEN it'll become standard.

    That also gives us plenty of time to create better content than the novelty 3D bollocks that's being released thick and fast at the moment.

  • Jolly_Armadillo #38 11 months ago

    @Darren

    Don't know how you managed to see my post as being selfish.

    I gave my opinion of 3D. Alot of people stating that 3D is a waste of time go on to talk about headache issues or other problems that people have due to vision issues.

    People will also go on to state how the glasses are a problem, I don't where glasses myself. I just see it as wearing a heavier pair of sunglasses. People go there whole day wearing glasses so I don't see much to complain about having to wear glasses for a couple of hours infront of the tv, it's not like they cause any pain or discomfort.

    I take offence that you would call me selfish just because I wanted to show my appreciation for 3D

  • Daeltaja #39 11 months ago

    3D really needs to piss off. Why is it rated so highly? Over-expensive (for now), gimmicky, sore on the eyes after prolonged periods, uncomfortable €60 glasses you can sit on and need probably 3-4 pairs per house.. the list goes on. I've tried 3D gaming and it does absolutely nothing for me. Unless the standard can be raised considerably, I imagine it will stay that way.

    Same goes for Hollywood, 3D is on a wobbly rope with such a split opinions amongst consumers.

  • Weezer #40 11 months ago

    "According to research from Informa Telecoms & Media, 3DTV is not expected to be a mainstream success." No shit Sherlock. Did everyone not see this coming a mile away? 3D in the home is just plain crap - end of story. And I will even call it for non-glasses TV as well. I just don't see it being a flawless 'window to another world' any time soon.

    I wonder what Sony and Panasonic will do with all those unsold glasses? Serves 'em right for foisting an unwanted and largely unnecessary technology on the masses in the pursuit of profits.

    EDIT: I have perfect 3D acuity, but I'm generally just not that bothered, even at the cinema. Although I might watch Dark of the Moon with the specs on. Maybe.
    Edited by Weezer at 23/06/11 @ 13:25

  • Toothball #41 11 months ago

    @PaladinFenris

    I use some nVidia 3D glasses over my regular glasses without any particular discomfort. I did raise the nose bridge on them as they sit further down than my regular glasses, but with that they entirely cover my glasses without making them uncomfortable.

  • Geowolf #42 11 months ago

    Why would I? It's prohibitively expensive. You have to purchase compatible pairs of glasses to your set for every member of your family. If friends or relations drop by you would need spare specs for them. There's no freeview 3D outlet to encourage it. Frankly I remain one of the many who refuse to pay the prices of Sky TV each month considering I already pay for a TV license. Additionally, it's less than a decade since they made us all change to HDTVs. In fact the time is so short that the broadcasters haven't caught up yet and put HD Freeview to all areas of the UK.

    In the cinema, 3D is all wow and grand. At home it's, "crap my shutter glasses batteries just died, anyone got spare batteries?", "Shush, you're ruining the film", "Just pause it a moment, I need new batteries", "For F**k sake! I'm just turning it off! You should have checked your batteries before we started!"
    Edited by Geowolf at 23/06/11 @ 13:36

  • Darren #43 11 months ago

    Jolly_Armadillo - You're perfectly entitled to state your opinion of 3D and I respect that but you seemed to be implying from the opening paragraph (forgive me if I'm wrong) that the opinions of people like myself don't count. And how can current 3D tech be attractive to us if we cannot see it properly anyway? It's not the concept of 3D that is the problem, it's the flawed technology it currently uses.

    That's how it reads to me since you failed to mention that, in fact, the biggest complaints about 3DTVs are a) their cost and (b) those expensive glasses you need to wear that are required for each member of the family. ;)

  • tap #44 11 months ago

    Couldn't agree with Jolly_Armadillo more.

    I should add that I find the idea of grown adults complaining about having to wear glasses frankly embarrassing. A lot of you are in danger of sounding like jaded old gits who presume everyone and everything is out to fleece them :)

    Go to an IMAX theatre and experience it properly. Demo a nice big Panasonic, it's actually really impressive.

    Anyway, I'll enjoy it while I can before the luddites shout me down!

  • Darren #45 11 months ago

    @Daeltaja - Hollywood loves 3D because it allows them to make poor movies and people will flock to see them regardless and at a higher cinema ticket price because they're in 3D. It worked for them in the 1950s and 1980s and it's working now, although how long for remains to be seen. I suspect it'll lose its popularity over the next few years.

  • Darren #46 11 months ago

    @tap - If people want to complain about wearing clunky, expensive glasses to watch 3D then they can; it's as valid an argument for not embracing it with open arms as prohibitive costs or imperfect eyesight! And if that embarrasses you then it says more you than it does them IMO. :p

  • Jolly_Armadillo #47 11 months ago

    My opening paragraph was only meant to highlight that people experience 3D at varying levels. Some people get the full experience some unfortunately don't, and that the people who don't were writing off a perfectly valid piece of technology.

    I felt the views were being represented for everyone, I wanted to state that my experience with 3D differs to other peoples exepreinces with 3D and people shouldn't be put off by the nuisances of 3D that might not affect them.

    Yes it is unfortunate that people may have a condition that stops them from enjoying it to it's full potential, but people shouldn't be put off until they know whether they are affected.

    I don't want to come across like I'm not caring for people who can't experience it, I just want to represent the people who do enjoy 3D

    Edited by Jolly_Armadillo at 23/06/11 @ 14:08

  • fongy #48 11 months ago

    I just don't know what the negativity towards 3D is all about!
    It's a great ADDITION to any gaming experience... or TV experience (Sky 3D is free)
    I for one love going to the Imax and experiencing some of the blockbusters in 3D - yes it's a novelty, but it actually does improve the film look and feel (thinking Tron)
    But similarly - I'm just about to get a 3D TV - £1600 for a 60" telly... that to me is a good deal!
    And games for it - there are about 100 titles so far, GT5, MK9, Enslaved, Tron, Wipeout, Resistance 3 (imagine that!), etc.
    Sure it's not for everyone, but don't say nobody wants it, because there are a lot of people who do - but don't always trawl pages like this to express their opinions!

  • Hastur #49 11 months ago

    As long as TV manufacturers use 3D as an added bonus to sell their expensive models, it will remain a fad.

  • berelain #50 11 months ago

    @fongy - £1600 for a 60" telly? And you think thats a good deal? Bloody hell.

  • Darren #51 11 months ago

    I don't think it's the concept of 3D viewing that most people are against, it's their perceived inadequacy of current technology and the costs involved in buying it that they're opposed to. Personally, I'd love to view all my games and movies in 3D... once the technology works properly and I can view it like I do 2D content now.

    I like the idea of the 3DS's tech, even though it is reportedly flawed too, and although I haven't yet had the chance to experience it for myself, I do believe that the technology is a step in the right direction as it removes the need for glasses. 10 years from now I'm sure we'll all look back and laugh at how rubbish these current 3DTVs really were. ;)

  • Darren #52 11 months ago

    When I look at Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, etc., and their big push for all things 3D, all I can see is that it's a marketing gimmick so they can sell more HDTVs to people who would otherwise have not bought a new TV (seeing as most people seem to only buy new TVs when the old one breaks... after 10 years or more!). It's kind of like what happened with mobile phones; where they reached their market saturation point so the manufacturers started throwing in lots of other stuff besides being able to talk to others so people would be tempted to upgrade... then upgrade again... and again.

    I guess I can't blame them; they're in the business to make money after all so they have to find new ways to sell stuff, but I do wonder how much of a future 3D really has. You have all back catalogue stuff that is in 2D (and will likely remain that way) and unless all movies and TV broadcasts are filmed from now on in 3D then it's never going to become mainstream. It isn't cheap to film in 3D either so it'll be a long time, if ever, before Eastenders and Coronation Street are shown that way. And if that happens then that's the day that 3D officially goes mainstream!
    Edited by Darren at 23/06/11 @ 14:31

  • Toothball #53 11 months ago

    @Jolly_Armadillo

    I'm just glad to see there are some other people out there who actually like 3D. Here's to more of that sort of thing!

  • iamtheoneneo #54 11 months ago

    wow im so surprised....oh wait we all knew 3d sucked 2 years ago.

  • kingpin3000 #55 11 months ago

    I would love a 3DTV. If the prices were more affordable to me then I'd absolutely buy one. I'm just waiting for a large sized quality one to dip to about £400.

    One of the big problems with 3D is it's difficult to show potential customers how good it is without them having to go into a shop for a demo. Uncharted 3 is supposed to be absolutely breath taking in 3D, but how does Sony show everyone that? I'd expect a UK shopping centre tour with their booths leading up to Christmas showing 3D games, including Uncharted 3.

  • DwarfyP #56 11 months ago

    I'll buy/use a 3D TV when I don't need the glasses and I can have a room full of people who can all see it from the angle they are sat/standing at.

  • Jolly_Armadillo #57 11 months ago

    @toothball

    Once uncharted 3 is out in 3D (assuming it's good) and other big games come in 3D, these forums will have more people who like 3D. I do feel more will appreciate 3D overtime once more content is there.

  • chuck_bone #58 11 months ago

    Mark Kermode has long blasted Hollywood for foisting 3d upon us again.
    Many films really re only retrofitted for the technology, and the end result is rather underwhelming, and yet you have to pay extra for the privilege of watching it.

    he'll feel vindicated no end by the recent downturn in 3ds fortunes.

    Me? I think it's OK as long as its an option, and costs no more to see.
    I bought my TV the year before 3d became standard in higher end HDTVs, so I missed out - but I wont bother upgrading just to get 3d - it'll be for DNLA/Streaming/Internet TV functionality rather than anything else if I do.
    Games probably will be the real hotbed of 3d sales, but movies are just too thin on the ground and 3d blu-ray is too expensive compared to regular at the moment.

    If all future BD disks are put out with a 3d version on them as standard, and all 3d BLu-Ray players and TVs are standard in future, then I cant complain - at least I have the option.

    I want to see Star Wars holographic projection first though :-)

  • george1976 #59 11 months ago

    At my first 3d movie at the theater, my eyes hurt so much, along with my head and i sweared i'll never watch a 3d movie again untill a new technology for this comes out.

  • reeferchief #60 11 months ago

    I recently managed to pick up a 42" panasonic 3D tv for £500. It didn't come with any glasses however so they'll have to wait till I can afford them, 4 pairs is going to set me back just shy of a further £200, I may sneak buy one pair so I can have a shufty of GT5 and Wipeout HD when the kids are in bed.
    Me personally, I couldn't give a shit about 3D films(but the mrs and kids will), but if it adds and enhances the experience of games then cool, I'm all for it.
    I think how the Uncharted 3 review pans out may sway a few people, given it's one of PS3's flagship titles so to speak. I'm fairly certain the game will do awesome, it's just how much if any the 3D adds or negates from the experience.

  • ghiest #61 11 months ago

    "That's for people who don't have HD TV content. For those with Sky, I'll bet you'll find them going to the HD version of it wherever it's available - also true to a limited extent for those with Freeview HD content as well. DVDs will be watched in HD, Blurays too for sure, and gaming should be a no-brainer."

    Well when Sky stops charging for both HD and 3d then people might be more inclined to bother with it. For those of us in areas without Fibre (Virgin) we have little or no choice for HD tv let alone 3D tv. I'm not paying another 20% on my sky bill just for a little more resolution and/or 3dtv. As for blu-rays, there is no 'rental' shop in 30 miles now because they are all going bankrupt due to what ever reasons, so although I have both sky and freeview HD (pointless and waste of time btw), there is little to no choice but to be forced to pay more just to have HD over normal.

  • TRUTH #62 11 months ago

    I seen Avatar and Tron 4 is both 3D and 2D - and I preferred 2D. The deeper color, no dimmed tint, much wider viewing angle with no sweet spot needed, and none of this strange layered effect when watched in 2D...I found the 3D that was there wasn't actually that special esp in Tron 4. Lots of the time it didn't work or was needed; even on the much hyped 3D in Avatar. It just seems the 3D is more a odd gimmick rather then a real feast for the eyes. I also find watching a 3D movie with pizza lazed in front of the tv watching in 3D is not the same experience when watching in 2D (which many still prefer); due to many reason inc resolution, color, tint, angle all lost when in 3D and esp if there's other people with you - the whole fun atmosphere is lost!

    Gaming can work, but, not for long periods. I don't think this gen consoles can use 3D to full effect. Rather wait and see for next gen consoles and how it uses 3D technology before I even consider getting a 3D tv, as I haven't been impressed with what I seen on 3D tv at present (which my a couple of my friends have - bought due to needing a new tv, not for it's 3D).

    The football is just odd in 3D as experienced recently.
    Edited by TRUTH at 23/06/11 @ 21:00

  • reeferchief #63 11 months ago

    @Truth, can't say I've seen either film, like I say I'm not massively bothered about watching films(or tv in general, let alone in 3D), however I saw Alice in Wonderland at the local Imax screen which was awesome the effects used were good. And so far the best film I've seen at a cinema in 3D would be A Christmas Carol, the effects on that did enhance the experience as I've seen that one in both 2D and 3D.
    But as you can see both kids films, watched with the kids, if it wasn't for them I'd have seen neither.

  • MrVengeance #64 11 months ago

    I love my 3DS but I'm not all that bothered about 3DTV - and I'm certainly not going to EVER wear 3D glasses watching it.

  • sjmlondon #65 11 months ago

    I've got a 50" Panasonic TV which is 3D enabled.

    The main reason for upgrading was to get a top notch full HD1080p set to appreciate Blu Ray. The 3D function was a bonus.

    I have to say I am not a big fan of 3D, having yet to be suitably impressed by anything at the cinema with the exception of a couple of animated movies where the effect does work. I even flogged off the 4 free 3D blu ray discs that came with the set to offset the cost.

    Obviously I wanted toi check out the 3D capability on the TV, so I upgrqaded my Sky package for a month to get the 3D channel (whiich is only free if you take movies and sports), ie costs a small mortgage.

    The amount of 3D content on Sky TV at the moment is miniscule, is virtually repeated every other day and the odd movie is only available at an additional pay per view cost. So I soon cancelled that.

    If 3D is going to take off it is certainly going to need a lot more accessible content that doesn't come at hugely increased cost.

    From my own experience, re movies, it works better for animation than live action and therefore might find a home in video game. As many people have mentioned 3D TV are only going into homes as most manufacturers are including as standard on top end sets, rather than people specifically buying / upgrading to a TV solely to get that functionality and the current requirement of 3D specs and the other downsides aren't going to help.

    I did have a go at playing Crysis 2 (Xbox) with the 3D enabled which was effective but tiring on the eyes and agree with other that to a certain extent 3D is bascially the 'Emperor's New Clothes' and is solely there shift new sets before next year's gimmick comes along. Manufacturers and retailers used the World Cup to shift sets last year, this year 3D, next year it will be the Olympics.

  • Mono_X #66 11 months ago

    'Realistically it hasn't. People are still watching SD content on those HD tellies ;) '

    Exactly - all of my friends bar 2 have now got HD TV's, but all of those HD TV's except for1 were replacements for broken SD TV's.

    - One bought a dedicated Blu Ray to go with his replacement TV and has a few Blu Rays (or they might be PS3 games) and he plays his PS3 in HD (once I set it up for him correctly) AFAIK his Sky is still in SD.
    - One has HD freeview and bought a dedicated Blu Ray player to go with his replacement TV - it's all connected up with HDMI (did it myself) but AFAIK he watches DVDs - I suppose he watches HD content via the built in freeview. He tends to play games like CIV on his laptop and doesn't even have a PS3/360. Nor does he have Sky/Virgin
    - Another one bought a HD TV as a replacement, he doesn't play any console games, or watch much TV (although his family does) and he's content to watch movies on DVD, they have SD freeview AFAIK
    One has more money than sense (or rather his father does) and will have HD in everything no doubt. He's probably considering getting a 3D TV to replace the HD one he upgraded to about 2 years ago. - Note; he's the upgrader, his SD TV was probably fine before he got a HD TV.
    - Myself; when my old widescreen TV broke for the 3rd time - I got a HD replacement. I have a PS3 and play games in HD, but I don't buy any Blu Rays preferring DVD because of the cost - although BR movies are catching up in price to DVD so this may have changed in 12 months. I have Virgin - but can't be bothered to pay the £50 to upgrade to HD, the quality of their service is awful and most of the stuff on TV is rubbish, anything I really like I generally end up buying on DVD, things like Dr Who I can watch on the iplayer.

    So you see nearly everyone I know still mostly consumes SD content.
    And one other thing, we've all bought are new TVs in the last 2 years, that means none of us will be looking to upgrade (apart from one) for at least 7-8 years, that's a long wait for 3D. But I'm fine with that, because by that time 3D will be widespread and cheap or will have flopped horribly.
    Edited by Mono_X at 24/06/11 @ 00:09