PS3 3D titles priced, out this week

By Tom Bramwell Published 9 June, 2010

Patches free to owners, 3D TV buyers.

Sony has announced launch details for PlayStation 3's early stereoscopic 3D line-up.

As with Japan, 3D versions of WipEout HD, Super Stardust HD and PAIN will be made available tomorrow, 10th June, along with a single-level 3D demo of MotorStorm: Pacific Rift.

The stereoscopic 3D Collection will cost £23.99 / €29.99 new on PlayStation Network, or comes free with any new Sony Bravia 3D TV. Existing owners of the above games can download 3D patches for free.

Obviously you'll need a TV capable of stereoscopic 3D to play any of them.

"PlayStation has always been about outstanding entertainment. The stereoscopic 3D Collection showcases the depth of technology behind PS3 and gives us a feel for the potential for future releases," said Andrew House, president of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe.

"Stereoscopic 3D technology coupled with the likes of PlayStation Move motion controller allows us to create an ever more compelling, realistic and immersive experience.

"Add to that our online capabilities, community interaction features, our film and music services and you've got a very exciting proposition for the future of home entertainment."

Sony released a firmware update for PS3 that introduced 3D support in late April.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (47) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • DonnieDarko333 #1 2 years ago

    Brilliant news!

    Is everyone able to get the Motorstorm 3D Demo now? I thought that was an exclusive to Bravia 3DTV buyers!

  • M4RV #2 2 years ago

    Still not interested quite honestly. I can only take like 30 minutes of 3D gaming... Even though I thought it look great, Arkham Asylum gave me a headache shortly after. Hope the ones interested ( and with enough dough ) enjoy it nonetheless.

  • DoctorFouad #3 2 years ago

    Excellent news !

    so it is free to download 3D patches for those games !!!

    great ! I hope this would work with the new cheap 3D 720P videoprojectors, like the acer at 550 euros !
    if ps3 3D games work on this cheap videoprojector, I will buy one just in a couple of week, I am waiting reviews !: does anyone tried this ?

  • speed182 #4 2 years ago

    i doesnt tried this yet Doc.

  • FireMonkey #5 2 years ago

    @M4RV - Don't dismiss 3D that easily. The method Arkham Asylum uses is not the same and is not as good and is more likely to strain your eyes than the method that is getting used on PS3.

    Also, even though the PS3 works to the HDMI 1.4 standard of 3D that is still only a format to deliver the data to the TV's. The actual way the TV's output the data can actually make a huge difference to the 3D effect and any possible side effects.

    The cheaper method which is to have active shutter glasses flickers the image on the TV between 2 views very quickly and each lense of the glasses blackens out in time to only allow one image to each eye. As you can imagine, any slight difference between the rate of the TV ad the glasses (due to low battery in the glasses or poor tech) will result in visible flicker and headaches. Also if the lenses do not blacken completely then you will end up with some ghosting of brighter images between eyes.

    The more expensive method is polarised (although the glasses are really cheap). The TV's show both images at a time but with the light from each view being polarised differently. The glasses you wear are passive (no battery needed) and each lense is polarised to block one or other of the views. This method has no flicker and as such shouldn't case a headache (unless the game really tries stretching your focus, but that's the fault of bad game design). Even better is circular polarisation. I don't understand it but the light is polarised in circles (?) which basically means you can tilt your head to any angle and still get a the 3D view (normal polarising needs your head to be level at all times)

    (They go over more details of how it works here: http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/digita...

    Edit: Sorry about any bad grammer or spelling. I'm knackered and am currently on an older PC with a screwed keyboard and no spell checker
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/10 @ 21:56

  • Miths #6 2 years ago

    "M4RV"

    Have you been using active shutter glasses or those decades old colored glasses? I have yet to try shutter glasses myself (I should probably swing by the local Sony store some day, they must have 3D TVs on display by now), but anaglyph 3D (I've been experimenting with red/cyan glasses and various video, photo and game content on PC lately) is indeed extremely tough on the eyes, not to mention completely destroying color reproduction and potentially causing ugly ghosting/shadowing effects.

    The passive polarized RealD glasses used in the cinema are nothing like that though, even though it did take me eyes a while to initially adjust when I saw Avatar, and I'm very much assuming that applies to active shutter glasses as well, particularly now that they are able to run 60 Hz per eye (is that the case for the Nvidia shutter glasses for PC as well, or are they limited to 30 Hz per eyes?).
    While I haven't tried them yet as mentioned, I'm assuming 60 updates per second should be enough to eliminate visible flickering for most people - although admittedly if the eyes perceive the image through shutter glasses as they would the image from an old CRT monitor, I do foresee problems, as anything less than 85 Hz back in those days gave me a headache. But without having seen it in action I obviously don't have a clue - since they are working with LED LCD screens, I'm just assuming 60 Hz ought to be enough.

  • sanctusmortis #7 2 years ago

    Bah. Look, it took a LOT of trickery to not make Avatar tiring to watch, so games, which I normally play in 3 hour bursts? Bad. Sorry, can't see it taking off.

  • FireMonkey #8 2 years ago

    @DoctorFouad - "I hope this would work with the new cheap 3D 720P videoprojectors, like the acer at 550 euros !"

    I just had a look and couldn't see any Acer's that would work sorry (I may have missed some though as I only had a quick look).

    It's really gonna confuse customers I think, but for some time now there has been '3D Ready' TV's and projectors and quite a few different standards. Most used a single image compressed so that 2 images could be placed next to each other in the same space (known as side-by-side or over-under depending on the direction they were compressed). A lot of 3D games now output in these formats and Sky 3D is going to be broadcast in one of them too.

    However the new standardised format that Sony are going to be using (and hopefully everyone from now on as we don't need another format war) is to actually have 2 full sized images placed above and below each other (so no compression) with a small gap between. This gives a very good image but does mean you have a resolution of something like 1024*1470. This format is not compatible with the older 3D Ready TV's. If you want to make sure it will then the TV / Projector must specify that it uses HDMI 1.4. Even then it is probably best to double check before laying down your cash.

    Oh, one other thing, the HDMI 1.4 standard is actually backwards compatible and so will still except a fair few of the older methods such as side-by-side and so things like Sky 3D will work on the newer TV's as well.

  • TRUTH #9 2 years ago

    The problem I found with 3D tv (after watching Avatar) is that some (I actually mean a fairly larger amount then average!) do need to turn away from the screen for a few minutes in fairly short intervals when watching; this happened with me, my 2 mates - 3 out of five when experiencing Avatar 3D...this can sort of pull people away from 3D, rather then embracing it. Also with warnings for 3d IS NOT SUITED FOR: pregnant women, drinkers, epilepsy sufferers, headache sufferers, eye strain esp those who wear glasses, dizziness, and various medical conditions and other side effects...I think 3D tv will be a niche market.

  • el_pollo_diablo #10 2 years ago

    Betamaxtastic! ;D

  • DazzaJsy #11 2 years ago

    :D Awesome, bought my 50" Panasonic 3D TV last Friday and been waiting for the PS3 games and films update as I currently have no 3D content to watch :p

    Was still expecting the UK release date to be mentioned at E3 this year so this is great news :D

  • makeamazing #12 2 years ago

    I say good luck to anyone who gets a 3D tv, and hope you enjoy it... for the moment its just not for me though. Doesnt help that i suffer from virtigo alot recently... so i cant say that helps the overall situation :). The tech is also too new, not a fan of wearing glasses to watch TV... unfortunately for many 3D still brings back memories of Jaws 3D... yes i know weve moved on alot since then, but it still doesnt seem like a real benefit to me... well i am sure seeing it properly at some point might change my mind :)

  • drumbaby #13 2 years ago

    I was pretty dismissive of HDTVs...until I got one. I'm sure 3D is the future...I just need to accidentally break my 40" Sammy and/ or stump up the cash one year soon.

  • djed #14 2 years ago

    Allow me to reiterate;

    If you need glasses either way, why not build the screens inside the damn glasses?

  • djed #15 2 years ago

    @ Miths

    I believe the Nvidia tech requires 120hz capable screens, so that probably means 60hz per eye.

  • Stuz359 #16 2 years ago

    From what I can gather, there is still no standard 3d tech, so another round of wars akin to HDDVD v Blu-Ray is on the cards. I can see several early adoptors of technology getting burned.

    Considering HDTV was the 'future,' a future that has not been realised yet, 3dtv seems as if it is coming too soon for people to catch up.

    Remember, the vast majority of ps3/360 owners don't hook it up to a hdtv, and another section play on a hdtv but NOT in HD, I think it just shows how unready the mainstream is for 3d tech.

    Companies should just take a step back for a while and consider that people really are NOT made of money, the market needs to absorb the previous 'next big thing' before the next big thing.

  • Miths #17 2 years ago

    "Companies should just take a step back for a while and consider that people really are NOT made of money, the market needs to absorb the previous 'next big thing' before the next big thing."

    It's a good thing most companies don't actually subscribe to that philosophy. If they did I imagine there's a good chance we might still be using horse carriages as our main means of transportation, and be forced to spend an awful lot of time talking to each other instead of watching TV or playing video games :).
    Or at the very least I imagine the general level of consumer technology would be a couple of decades behind where we actually are today.

    Brand new technologies are pretty much always for "early adopters", but I don't think there has ever been a time where the prices have dropped faster than in recent years, placing said new technologies within more or less acceptable reach (in objective if not necessarily subjective terms) of families with a fairly average income within a matter of just a couple of years rather than five or ten.

    Because let's face it, there may still be a whole lot of homes without HDTVs, but in cases where we aren't talking about truly poor people (by Western European standards), price can hardly truly be what's still holding them back. At least not if they are willing to settle for less than the largest, top of the line models.
    There are probably just many families that simply aren't willing to replace an old TV that still works. Only around a month ago did my own father finally manage to convince his wife to let him replace their ~15 year old CRT TV in the living room with a 32" Sony 1080p HDTV (and he used the opportunity to buy a Blu-ray player as well) - but it was a tough battle. I casually suggested to him several times that he might want to consider discretely sabotaging the old TV :p.

  • seasidebaz #18 2 years ago

    The stereoscopic 3D Collection showcases the depth of technology behind PS3 and gives us a feel for the potential for future releases,

    Ho ho ho ho ow my sides. I think they just split.

  • Drpwnage #19 2 years ago

    There shouldn't be a format war for 3D TV the TV's are capable of working with the various different techniques used to generate the a 3D image. Handy guide below:

    http://ww w.avforums.com/forums/lcd-led-l...

  • FireMonkey #20 2 years ago

    @Stuz359 - "From what I can gather, there is still no standard 3d tech"

    There is a standard for 3D and it's HDMI 1.4. It's been developed by the HDMI group along with a number of the big players in the AV industry and a lot of the big companies have already signed up to use it. It is also backwards compatible with most older signals so if you have anything that currently pumps out a 3D signal it should still work on these newer TV's.

    Details of the standard here if anyone is interested: http://ww w.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_...

    Oh and PS3 doesn't meet the full HDMI 1.4 standard as it hasn't got the correct HDMI port but it does follow the 3D component of the standard.
    Edited by 2 at 10/06/10 @ 09:02

  • azazel_fallenangel #21 2 years ago

    The biggest thing prohibiting me from rushing out and getting a 3D TV, instead of standard HD, to replace my SD set(too many D's), is price, or lack of it.
    Quick google, and I can't really find much on how much it'll be. Any one know?

  • StooMonster #22 2 years ago

    FireMonkey: "even though the PS3 works to the HDMI 1.4 standard of 3D"

    The PS3 is unlikely to work to the HDMI 1.4 standard, as one cannot update HDMI Transmitter chips with firmware. However, HDMI 1.4 is not a requirement for 3D stereoscopic processing; simply half-horizontal side-by-side is required.

  • Drpwnage #23 2 years ago

    Overall I am more excited about 3D gaming than Natal/Move, on the basis it has a lot more to offer core gaming than a novelty control method.

  • alcides #24 2 years ago

    @Stuz359

    The PS3 IS the fucking norm. It will work with every 3D screen, for games and movies. HDMI 1.3 isn't a problem, 3D was thought around the PS3, Blu-Ray Overlord Extraordinaire. Should it be a problem, SONY wouldn't be the first to re-release its console with new connectivity.

    I see people are still bitching about 3D... It's pathetic. READ websites, magasines, get your FACTS straight!

  • Dave52 #25 2 years ago

    StooMonster: "half-horizontal side-by-side"

    This is the method Sky are using, so I suspect all the Sony's will do the same. It's the TV that decides what to do with it. I've seen demos with Active Shutter 3D, and it looks great with a movie. I'm really looking forward to seeing what the game devs do with this tech.

  • ignatiusjreilly #26 2 years ago

    Quick google, and I can't really find much on how much it'll be. Any one know?

    Around £1500 for a 42" set. You can pay a lot more if you want to though ;)

  • Widge #27 2 years ago

    RE: Price, I saw a Samsung 42" LCD for around the £1.2k mark, however someone on the forums has been talking about 3D Ready sets that are more alongside the £500 - 600 mark. I really am not to up on the difference on the dedicated 3D and 3D Ready TVs though.

  • vizzini #28 2 years ago

    One of the questions that should get asked of all HDTV manufacturers in the next few weeks is:

    Are you working on firmware updates for the HD screens you've previously sold that are capable of being 3D Ready?

    When you think about a TV's job, all it has to do, is just display an image progressively or interlaced @ a frequency (such as 420/400Hz, 240/200Hz, 120/100Hz or 60/50Hz).

    If all HD material is limited at 60/50Hz 1080p, then a picture for each eye in 3D only requires a Full HD screen!
    2 images at 60Hz interlaced fits any (Full HD) 60hz progressive TV.

    Manufacturers need to start working on firmware/workarounds(even with stupid retail prices) to add 3D capabilities to good HD TVs; as an issue of customer trust.

    Failure to include people who invested heavily in good HD (with 4 -5 year TV life in mind) will be a big mistake for the manufacturers; and one I fear they've already made.

  • StooMonster #29 2 years ago

    Dave52: "It's the TV that decides what to do with it."

    Actually, in Sky 3D case and others it's the human that decides what to do with it if the content is not HDMI 1.4; not the display.

    For example, you set the 3D channel on your non-1.4 set-top-box or 3D output on your non-1.4 games consoles, then you press '3D' button on the televisions remote, which then displays an option to select either (a) horizontal half side-by-side or (b) vertical half above-and-below (the Samsung set has pair of big fat icons for this) and it says "Select whichever you see on your screen", the human then selects the correct view and the display makes it stereoscopic.

    HDMI 1.4 carries the appropriate flags so that displays knows what is being sent (e.g. full horizontal side-by-side or 2160p); so this only happens for legacy non-1.4 sources.

    Speculation is that Sony might have some kind of proprietary flagging on PS3's HDMI 1.3 output that their displays detect, so that the manual selection isn't required; if this is the case, we might find that PS3 3D works "automatically" on Sony televisions but on other brands needs a manual selection.

    It was interesting to note Microsoft partner with LG, if Sony have implemented some kind of flagging system then Microsoft might have done the same with this OEM partner.

  • StooMonster #30 2 years ago

    vizzini: "Are you working on firmware updates for the HD screens you've previously sold that are capable of being 3D Ready?"

    Firstly, no matter what refresh rate a screen supports it also needs hardware to support 3D: either polarised screen (for RealD passive glasses) or Bluetooth control (for active shutter glasses). This hardware does not appear on non-3D display with a firmware update. If a display is "3D capable", then it will support 3D; non-3D sets are not "3D capable" simply because they have a high refresh rate.

    Secondly, it would make absolutely no commercial sense whatsoever to make older display hardware support 3D when they could sell you a new display instead.

    So, no, they will not be.

  • callum9999 #31 2 years ago

    TRUTH - Don't they also have warnings saying you shouldn't play games for more than 15 minutes at a time? They are just put there to cover themselves in the event that maybe 1 or 2 people have a serious reaction to it.

    As to 3D gaming, I went to a Sony Store demonstration and I thought it was brilliant - I didn't notice any flicker at all. I think Motorstorm was by far the best.

  • vizzini #32 2 years ago

    @StooMonster
    Bluetooth control (for active shutter glasses). This hardware does not appear on non-3D display with a firmware update. If a display is "3D capable", then it will support 3D;

    I was meaning in conjunction with the PS3(Blu-ray/3D games player/PlayTV) so anything the TV firmware couldn't add, like controlling the IR transmitter; for synching the shutter lens glasses would attach to the Playstation via USB(rather than the TV).

    .Secondly, it would make absolutely no commercial sense whatsoever to make older display hardware support 3D when they could sell you a new display instead.

    What? so selling a £300 worth of workaround to add 3D to a flagship Sony screen (that cost in excess of £3500) has no commercial benefit to Sony?
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/10 @ 11:42

  • StooMonster #33 2 years ago

    vizzini: TV firmware couldn't add, like controlling the IR transmitter; for synching the shutter lens glasses would attach to the Playstation via USB(rather than the TV).

    Wouldn't be accurate enough timing to control 3D shutter glasses, only the display itself can do this.

    What? so selling a £300 worth of workaround to add 3D to a flagship Sony screen (that cost in excess of £3500) has no commercial benefit to Sony?

    Nope.

    Not when they could (a) sell you a new television if you're that interested, and (b) how many of said workarounds would they sell and thus breakeven on, and (c) if they were a success would cannibalise sales of new displays which have a much greater margin.

    How do I know this? Late last year, early this year, I partnered with a Silicon Valley based company (whose video processing chips are inside many OEM devices) who took my ideas for "3D on existing 2D displays" to all the major global OEMs this spring; not one of them in the least bit interested for the reasons I outlined above.

    flagship Sony screen (that cost in excess of £3500)

    If you want new things in the world of consumer electronics, you just have to bite the bullet; I spent £6000 on a 50-inch plasma (when most people though "widescreen TV was neat";) and then another £6000 on the first 1080p plasma. If I wanted a 3D display I fully expect to have to buy a new one, c'est la vie.

  • FireMonkey #34 2 years ago

    @StooMonster - "The PS3 is unlikely to work to the HDMI 1.4 standard, as one cannot update HDMI Transmitter chips with firmware. However, HDMI 1.4 is not a requirement for 3D stereoscopic processing; simply half-horizontal side-by-side is required."

    Yes, I mentioned that the PS3 is not fully HDMI 1.4 compliant (was in an edit so you may have missed it), but it does use the HDMI 1.4 standard for 3D.

    They do not use a compress the images to half horizontal or vertical size like side-by-side or over-under methods (so they can get both views in one screen), but have 2 1280 x 720 views placed one above the other with a 30 pixel spacing between (so basically has a output resolution of 1280 * 1470).

    Edit: Oh! That 1280 * 1270 resolution is also what messes up some older TV's and would stop any work around as some of them physically can not cope with that amount of data at the speeds required.
    Edited by 3 at 10/06/10 @ 12:18

  • StooMonster #35 2 years ago

    @FireMonkey: interesting, thanks for the PS3 info. :)

    FireMonkey: It's really gonna confuse customers I think, but for some time now there has been '3D Ready' TV's and projectors and quite a few different standards

    Yep, agree. I did some work a couple a months ago with a company whose "3D Ready" kit is not HDMI 1.4 and only accepts full-frame 120Hz (i.e. 720p/1080p with alternate frames for each of the 60Hz stereoscopic images); if I bought one of their products, I would be mightily annoyed that it didn't work with PS3 3D or Sky HD 3D for example.
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/10 @ 12:33

  • vizzini #36 2 years ago

    @StooMonster
    Wouldn't be accurate enough timing to control 3D shutter glasses, only the display itself can do this.

    1/120 second is a lifetime when talking about USB/hdmi/IR/PS3 Cell; it just sounds like a convenient excuse.

    If you want new things in the world of consumer electronics, you just have to bite the bullet;

    Agreed, but 3D doesn't exactly fit that criteria, is the concept of 3D new? Did Sony not do 3D PC VR headsets a decade ago?

    Telling someone they can look at the same painting a different way, does not make the painting new; or justify replacing an expensive masterpiece because a cheaper replacement does a cubism FX.

    Just because people will like 3D gaming doesn't mean that it will have the same pull factor that SD to HD did.

    I'm aware that all manufacturers are doing it with all new TVs; but without consumers buying into the idea, the risks of producing 3D content (Games/Tv/Films) gets bigger and harder to justify.

    3D could be in every TV in a decade, yet still be a dead technology if consumers opt-out of the content; through late adoption.

    As I said, they need to try an include as many people now (120Hz Full HD or better) , so that the content and newer 3D screens in future will have a bigger target audience.
    Edited by 2 at 10/06/10 @ 13:40

  • Gormless #37 2 years ago

    3D will never be used for regular broadcasting so it will fall flat on its arse as a mainstream product. None of the current DTV platforms have enough bandwidth to do simultaneous 2D and 3D broadcasts so it will end up being a niche product on Sky and media you purchase no matter how eye popping it looks.

  • ignatiusjreilly #38 2 years ago

    so it will end up being a niche product on Sky and media you purchase

    I think this would be OK. 5.1 Dolby Digital and 1080p video aren't used for regular broadcasting either, but they are doing fine and the people who have invested seem to enjoy them. That's probably where 3D will sit too.

  • FireMonkey #39 2 years ago

    @Gormless - Exactly the same issue as the HD channels, but they are not doing too bad are they?

  • Dave52 #40 2 years ago

    I saw some of the Sky Sports 3D stuff in a trailer when I went to see Alice In wonderland 3D at the cinima.

    No kidding, it blew my head off completely. 3D will be niche for a while, but once Sky start to roll out the Football on a regular basis, people will get interested. 3D gaming will jump on the back of that.

  • BlinxHDD #41 2 years ago

    The upgrades to Super Stardust HD are nice, even for us regular HD folk.

    4xMSAA at 720p now and 1080p's now got a full 1920 horizontal pixels. Splitscreen's 60fps now too.

  • IronGiant #42 2 years ago

    Where's the 'eyes on' article from EG.. There's impressions of the games over on techradar.

  • knightmt #43 2 years ago

    Do people still play ps3 or 360 on SD. I bought my first HD tv just for the PS3 and it took me about 6 months to buy the console. HD tvs work pretty well as monitors.

    I would still prefer a dual projector to wear polarized glasses, but I cannot wait to try even the most basic set up.

  • StooMonster #44 2 years ago

    vizzini: I am not disagreeing with you, if you read my post you would see that I actually tried to do something about it in a real-life business context; but the feedback from the OEM was they are not interested, they simply want to sell new displays or support new displays.

    3D could be in every TV in a decade, yet still be a dead technology if consumers opt-out of the content; through late adoption.

    From what I understand, almost all new displays on sale in the next couple of years will support 3D; and seeing as modern technology has built in obsolescence (plasma half-bright- life is less than most people think and LED backlights don't last forever) it's probably fair to see that most people will have a 3D display in ten years time. I can see that being true.

    It's hardly late adoption for them to do something now though is it? There's what, two or maybe three 3D Blu-rays out this year, and half-a-dozen next year (including Avatar in the spring); and the 3D television channels haven't even launched to public yet.

    Sports and video games are my predictions of what will drive adoption of 3D technology; and people who bought HD displays but see 3D football (or PS3 games on their mates) will simply have to buy a new display ... thus fulfilling the plans of the display OEMs and making them margin.

  • trubadman #45 2 years ago

    I went into comet the other day, they had an amazing £2500 Samsung 3D TV. Good things: TV was only 30mm thin!! Bad things when you put on glasses you can see lots of reflections of lights on in the store on the screen, obviously would be less of a problem at home. 3 D was cool, but not 'amazing' in that it wasn't so good that it was a must have feature. Also, you had to sit right bang middle in the of the screen to get the best pic. Wearing glasses was a bit annoying especially since they're not that ergonomic.

    So overall, wouldn't get one atm due to cost, lack of content and necessity of glasses, address all 3 issues and these TV's will proliferate. However 3D is not a must, it's being advertised that 3D is a jump like going from black to colour, or SD to HD, but in actual fact it's just an extra feature. Look at HD TV's, what percentage of people with HD TV's have access to HD content other than consoles? Much less than 50%.

    Something that i found out, was that by using a monster power surge extension you get the best picture as it removes electrical interference.

  • vizzini #46 2 years ago

    @StooMonster
    It's hardly late adoption for them to do something now though is it?

    No, not if they look at work arounds.

    The nature of 3D TV; is that public opinion is still very much divided on whether it is good or just a gimmick. Where surround sound & HD were quickly recognised as being superior, 3D TV/Films/Games are not, and has an added inconvenience of the glasses; wearing and cost.

    Without enough early adopters to champion 3D TV's cause (eg 120Hz Full HD TV or better customers) public ridicule could once again ensue, like it did after Jaws 3D.

    You could be right, the sales strategy for 3D TV might work and dictate public opinion; but I very much doubt it will. Without a work around option for many Full HD customers I think it will fail in a 3 year window.

  • TRUTH #47 2 years ago

    I'll wait for the 2nd/3rd gen of tv sets...Too early, to quick and still a testing ground to go and spend £1000+.