Most Households Have HDTVs, But Few Care About 3D

Thanks to steady price drops and ubiquity on store shelves, HDTVs have become the norm in American homes, entering 60 percent of households. Those who have gone the extra technological mile to don glasses and buy 3D TVs, though, are still a tiny minority.

Home Media Magazine relays results from a Leichtman Research Group survey that found people know about 3D TV, they just don’t care about it. Despite 80 percent of respondents saying they are aware of the technology, only 8 percent are interested in adopting it. Fewer than 1 percent of households actually have a 3D TV.

What do you think about 3D TV? If you’re not interested in it, is it the price, the glasses, the eye strain or something else that turns you off?

3DTV Interest Modest Despite 60% HDTV Household Penetration [Home Media Magazine via High-def Digest]


Edit Your Comment

  1. agent 47 says:

    The whole 3D gimmick has reared its ugly head from time to time starting (I think) in the late 1800s, but it never lasts very long. I think it has very limited appeal. It’ll be back in 20 years or so, perhaps with the Virtual Boy II!

  2. Derigiberble says:

    I just bought a new TV and did not get a 3D model. In addition to the headaches I get after 30 minutes of stereoscopic viewing, they just doesn’t fit how I watch TV. I get up, I walk around, my friends and I will turn and chat during boring parts, etc. The glasses make that sort of viewing problematic. It just wasn’t worth the price premium for a feature I will find annoying to use.

    Really the only time I think 3d would be neat would be in single player video games.

    • Mom says:

      Exactly. The Amiga was awesome, 25 years ago. 3D TV? I don’t see the point. It’s a gimmick that will go away soon.

      • Reading_Comprehension says:

        I sure hope so

        • TimothyT says:

          Why? I don’t get this mentality. Is it too scary? What?

          • regis-s says:

            I don’t get it either. If someone doesn’t like something ignore it. I don’t see why they care if others enjoy it.

            • OutPastPluto says:

              3D would be a good example of vendor-lock. Everyone wants to sell 3D content and no one wants to sell regular content anymore. You are stuck living like an Amish person because your alternatives are to go with the herd or to simply live without.

              It’s like Windows and MS-DOS.

              Network effects.

              Of course people are concerned about “standards” shifting to something they can’t stand.

              Not all products are commodities that can be switched frequently and trivially.

              • shepd says:

                Unless we’re talking either mixed field (probably doesn’t exist but could) or anaglyph stereoscopy (UGH!) this won’t be a problem. You’ll just select an “eye” to watch and the picture will be perfect 2D.

  3. rpm773 says:

    I just bought an HDTV, and had no interest in a 3D model. When I watch TV in the evenings, I’m often doing other things on my notebook, so I don’t want to be completely immersed in the program.

    Also, I have a tendency of getting nauseous in a very short period of time while playing certain games. I haven’t tried it, but I perhaps I’d be susceptible to the same thing with a 3D TV.

    Ultimately, I just don’t care enough about 3D to shell out for it.

  4. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    1. Price. Won’t be interesting until the price is essentially the same as a regular TV, perhaps a tad more.

    2. Glasses – no noticeable market penetration will happen with any TV that requires all viewers to wear glasses, or some other bespoke device.

    3. Content…content? Why am I getting a 3D TV again?

    …and on top of all that, at a minimum you’d have to wait (hopefully) several years until my current TV dies. Even if 1-3 were addressed tomorrow, the vast majority of people aren’t just going to replace their current TV for it, just because.

    • Stoli says:

      +1, you summed up my exact thoughts. All three of those are too big of an issue right now…

    • dru_zod says:

      “2. Glasses – no noticeable market penetration will happen with any TV that requires all viewers to wear glasses, or some other bespoke device.”

      Exactly. The glasses are just an annoyance. Plus, think about this: a lot of people I know have issues keeping up with their TV remote. So what’s going to happen to the glasses for a 3D TV? Sorry, can’t watch it in 3D because I can’t find the stupid glasses! They’re just something else to lose or break.

      My eyes must not be suited for 3D TV anyway. I have only seen one such TV, a demo model at Best Buy, and when I put the glasses on it just made my head hurt. The picture did not look very good at all, and I can’t imagine watching a 90 minute movie like that. Maybe that TV just wasn’t set up right (it was in Best Buy, after all), but I still think I’ll pass on 3D.

  5. IphtashuFitz says:

    I manage a 3D visualization wall (8’x11′) at a major university. It’s comprised of two 4K projectors and stereo imaging provided by Infitec GMBH. When consumer grade 3D HDTV’s exceed the 3D capabilities of this system then I’ll consider buying one. But that’s likely a LONG way off. Existing consumer 3D technology has nothing on high end setups like this, and even they are fairly limited in terms of “true” 3D imagery.

  6. PLATTWORX says:

    I purchased a 60″ LCD just a few weeks ago. I briefly looked at, but had no interested in 3D TVs. Why would anyone want one? They cost much more and by the time the volume of media available in 3D builds to enough to give you enough to watch in 3D… your TV will be outdated and/or replaced with the next buzz… I can hear the promotion of “3DX” already.

    If I want something in 3D, I’ll go the movies. Heck, I am dizzy about a while of a 3D movie as it is. Why make myself sick at home?

    I suspect these TVs won’t move and will fade away.

  7. BuyerOfGoods3 says:

    If I want 3D – I’ll go outside into the real world. 0 Interest Whatsoever. I haven’t even stopped to see what it looks like (really, how many people have put those glasses on their faces? how many sticky kids?), or been to a 3D movie (no, not even Avatar).

    Just not my thing.

    • DerangedKitsune says:

      >> “I haven’t even stopped to see what it looks like”

      Really, if you want actual credibility judging a socially accepted activity, you should actually TRY it at least once. And do it properly, go to a theater that has one of the RealD 3D systems, the ones that use polarized glasses, so you get what would be the best experience.

      >> “(really, how many people have put those glasses on their faces? how many sticky kids?), or been to a 3D movie (no, not even Avatar).”

      That statement alone shows that you haven’t been to a modern 3D theater and know nothing of the current state of the technology. If you had, you’d know that all 3D glasses are single-use and come in individual plastic packets for your sanitary convenience, like this: They’re tossed out in dedicated recycling boxes at the end of the movie.

      He’s what you do; find a theater near you that uses RealD or smilar polarized-glasses system. Don’t go near the old dual-color glasses systems, if those even exist. Then see a GOOD 3D movie, one that was intentionally shot in 3D and not post-processed. Right now that would be Tron Legacy. At least have a proper experience before dismissing as overblown.

      • Silverhawk says:

        “you’d know that all 3D glasses are single-use and come in individual plastic packets for your sanitary convenience”

        And you’d be wrong. I went to see Tron: Legacy 3D a few nights ago, and the glasses were reused, and had been poorly “washed” prior to being handed out. I had to clean the water spots off the lenses to see, and the view was still poor. I won’t be paying for another RealD movie experience.

        On the topic of 3D in general, I’m just not seeing (literally) what makes the extra cost worthwhile, both in the theater and at home.

      • Chest Rockwell says:

        “Then see a GOOD 3D movie … Right now that would be Tron Legacy.”

        Uh, riiiight.

        Anyway, even with the top of the line systems (such as RealD), you’re still gonna have to deal with my number one complaint about seeing movies in “3-D”: The fact that the picture is demonstrably dimmer than those selfsame images are in 2-D.

        “3-D”. How did Shakespeare put it? Oh, yes: “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

  8. Rachacha says:

    Not interested in 3D TV because it really only makes sense in long form movies, and to date, I have yet to see a 3D movie in the theatre where I felt that 3D MADE the movie. When I watch 30-60 minute TV shows, I usually will also read a magazine or do some other task, and with 3D glasses, that would be difficult. Add to that the fact that I wear perscription eye glasses, so throwing on another pair of glasses over that is just plain annoying.

    Manufacturers and content creators, start producing 4K (Ultra HD) sets and content and then I will start buying them.

  9. minjche says:

    I’ll be in the market for a new TV next year and unless something amazing happens between now and then, it won’t be a 3D TV.

    For the rare few movies that I think are worthwhile in 3D, the overpriced movie ticket is still a much better choice than purchasing my own 3D equipment.

  10. odarkshineo says:

    3d…the tv is still a flat screen! I think what has been lost is the meaning of 3d. You want to sell me 3d sell me a holodeck…

  11. chucklebuck says:

    Price, accessory lock-in (i.e. glasses for one TV won’t work with glasses for another), content exclusivity deals that annoy me, and the fact that the glasses don’t fit well over MY glasses. All reasons for me not to get one.

  12. TimothyT says:

    What I have become to hate is when people say “I got a new flat screen TV.” Really? It’s a flat screen? Hmmm, actually, if you bought a new TV I’ll assume it’s a flat screen. In fact, I’d only like clarification if you bought a CRT screen TV. :-)

    • shepd says:

      Worse yet, most CRTs that are still produced (if they still are) are flat-screen. Just watched Cash Cab and even the judges on that show don’t know the difference between a flat screen TV and a thin screen TV.

      On a flat screen TV you can put a straightedge on the image and the left and right parts of the ruler can touch the screen at the same time (try it horizontally on your trinitron, silly!) What most people want is a thin screen, one where the ruler measures only a couple of inches of DEPTH on the set. Or they may want a flat panel TV (you watch, that will be ruined at some point too!).

  13. yessongs says:

    I could care less about 3D, it is of no desire to watch TV like that with those idiotic glasses on. It’s an expensive fad that will die out soon anyway.

  14. johnrhoward says:

    You’re asking the wrong question. It shouldn’t be “why aren’t you interested in 3D TV?” The question should be “why should anyone be interested in 3DTV?” It’s a gimmick, a novelty, and there’s no compelling reason for anyone to want it. Even if I think it would be cool to watch Avatar in 3D at home, I don’t think it’s cool enough (or more cool than watching 2D Avatar at home) for it to influence my thinking when buying a new TV (and certainly not enough to make me buy a new TV if I wasn’t already), make me buy glasses, make me pay a premium for content, and deal with the hassle of watching it with glasses on and worrying about how many people want to watch vs. how many glasses I have.

    All in all, there’s just way too much working against it. But even if there wasn’t, there’s still nothing that I can see that is working for it. For that to change, there has to be enough content out there that is not available to me without 3D, and that just isn’t going to happen.

  15. phonic says:

    I just bought a 3D TV a couple months ago. Let me explain why…

    First, I have very little interest in watching 3D programming. Maybe a movie once in a while, or the Superbowl, or to show guests how ‘cool’ it is. But I don’t want to pay $40 for a movie I’ll watch once, and so far I have yet to see any 3D broadcasts on Fios (though I hear they are coming).

    We went to HHGregg with the intention of getting a new TV with a good Black Friday deal. After looking around at the various BF deals, none of the doorbusters drew our attention since we wanted a mid-high model. HHGregg seemed to have the best non-DB deals and they had them early. We also bought our washer/dryer from them a few months prior and were happy with it.

    So anyway, we spent a good hour or so looking at different models. It wasn’t until the end that I looked at the 3D models, and I wasn’t really that interested in them. However, they had a very good deal on a Sony model. We were able to take advantage of two deals that just so happen to overlap on the same day. We got a $2499 retail price TV, which normally sells for about $1999, for only $1499. That was the BF deal. But the day we went there was the last day for a special Sony promotion where you buy that TV and get a 3D Blu-Ray Player, the 3D Transmitter, and 2 sets of glasses for free.

    I was actually very nervous about buying it without doing any real research. I did a quick look on my phone in the store, which was about to close so it was now or never, and didn’t see anything bad. Fortunately, when I got home after buying the TV, I did some more research and found the TV had 4.5-5 stars all around, and so far we’ve been very happy with it.

    The one major deciding factor for my purchase was not the 3D part, though the whole kit for free did help. It was the fact that 3D requires that the TV be of a higher caliper anyway, that even 2D shows look excellent. For example, normal TVs operate at 60hz. Higher end models at 120hz. But 3D operates at 240hz. And you can really see the difference.

    Anyway, longer post then I intended and I imagine I rambled for most of it. But yes, we bought a 3D TV, and when our relatives came over for Christmas they were all impressed and jealous. :)

    • vastrightwing says:

      Basically the image on the new 3D Sony looks really good in 2D. Is that what you mean to say?

      • phonic says:

        Pretty much. My main goal was to get the best quality TV for ~$1500. After looking at all the other models, I thought the 2D picture quality on the Sony 3D was the best. The added benefit of having a 3D TV was supplemental.

        • bigTrue says:

          The thought of spending 1500 dollars for a tv is where I balk at it. Also, maybe you have really great eyes, but I sat and looked between tv’s that ranged from 60-120-240 and I barely saw any difference. This was also only because they were side by side. Now, I don’t watch live tv (sports or the like) and I download all shows and feed them through an HDMI cable to the tv. Most computers only output video at 60hz anyway.

    • DerangedKitsune says:

      Well, with the 3D kit thrown in, that at least was a good deal.

      What model TV?

  16. TimothyT says:

    Another perspective: 3D TVs can be watched as 2D, in fact, probably 99% of viewing will be 2D. 3D TVs however, do offer that feature when you want to experience it. I think that it would be interesting to see sports in 3D but I am very skeptical of the actual experience.
    One other note to take from this though is the performance of 2D on 3D capable TVs. From the reviews that I’ve read, 3D sets’ performance of 2D programming blow away 2D only sets. Almost every HD TV I’ve watched (mine included) has motion blur, especially during sports. If these sets solve that issue, I’m in.

  17. HalOfBorg says:

    I looked at the picture on a 3D tv in a store once. OK – it was cool, but not cool enough for me to wear those glasses even IF I could afford the tv. Or the glasses. Or a glass of water……..

  18. catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

    eh, i’m still not interested in HD tv. but since i have difficulty viewing 3D movies and those magic eye picture things that used to be all the rage, i think i’ll skip the 3D tv too

    • TimothyT says:

      Also heard in the 1950’s: No, I’m not interested in the that new-fangled color tele-vision. Too realistic. Bonanza is better in black-and-white. I can never imagine enjoying TV in any other way than I do right now with my 10 inch, black and white, analog, mono set. Technology at it’s finest. Give me a light.

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        um, actually i own a black and white bakelite tv. limited viewing on it since i haven’t got the converter box hooked up to the aerial yet and the rabbit ears attached to the converter box only pick up one channel.
        but it amuses me. really i’m saving it for when i get the corroded electrical system restored on the salvaged pong console someone gave me.
        i also own several other tvs, CRTs. used to be one for each game console i have but i’ve recently been given a few more consoles so now i’m back in the market for a larger piece of furniture and more little old tvs. my dream is to someday have one of everything all across the wall

      • Coelacanth says:

        Umm, her argument is very different. Also, the first colour TV sets were extremely saturated and perportedly caused some people to experience extreme eyestrain. If new technology either is useless to you due to some physical or mental quirk – what point is there to rush out to embrace a new expensive new technology? (I’ve never been able to see magic eye puzzles, and I’ve had cataracts in both eyes to the point where 3D viewing simply didn’t work – now they do, since they were removed).

        Eventually colour TV improved to cause less eyestrain, and thus it probably seems foolish if one refuses to buy a colour TV versus a B&W set. Perhaps 3D television will become more natural and less gimmicky as well. However, I think your anti-technophobic rant was mistargeted in this case.

        There are lots of people with compromised stereoscopic vision, or simply get nauseated due to current implementations – and why *would* they a premium for no benefit?

        • TimothyT says:

          She said, and I quote, “i’m still not interested in HD tv…” HD is mature to the point of being mainstream. BTW, not a rant, just a humorous (at least to me) take on a strange comment.

      • OutPastPluto says:

        Some of those ancient shows and movies are still considered classics. So the idea that someone might be watching some 50 year old movie or TV show on their monster big screen with all of the HD or even 3D bells and whistles is not entirely out of the question.

    • George4478 says:

      I went HD last year with all three TVs in the house, a Bluray player and a Uverse upgrade. We are now spoiled.

      On occasion, we visit the riff-raff in their non-HD homes and we weep tears of HD longing. So, I have a beer or five to console myself.

  19. vastrightwing says:

    This is yet another example of the Blu-ray phenomena: otherwise known as good enough. Sure 3D is cool, but it adds very little value to the consumer, much the way Blue-Ray does. Sure, technically it’s “better” but most people don’t care enough to upgrade or pay the extra freight. I will never own a blue-ray player. I already know this because I rarely even use my old DVD player. I opt for good enough streaming. Sure the quality isn’t great, but it’s good enough for me. The only way I will own a 3D TV is when all new TVs have 3D as a feature. I’m not going to buy a TV because it has 3D capabilities. yawn!

    • Mom says:

      Never own a bluray player? Never? Not even when your DVD player breaks in a couple of years, and the bluray player is the same price as a new DVD player? Sure. I’ll believe that. Really, I do.

      If my HDTV breaks, and 3D tv is the same price as a comparable 2D, then yeah, I’ll buy one. Otherwise, never mind. I’m not interested.

    • CBenji says:

      I felt the same way as you did, but now I stream Netflix on my Blu Ray player and since canceling my Blockbuster subscription I have to say it was worth it. There is a Blockbuster near my house that I don’t believe will ever close since it is one of the busy ones (believe it or not), but I am very happy that I got it. I don’t play games like with a Wii, or a PS3, so the Blu Ray player is actually really nice, and I never saw the point of Blu Ray either. But you can’t stream on a regular player and they have a lot of shows on streaming so in my opinion it is worth it.

    • baquwards says:

      I bought a Blu-ray player just to use up the remaining balance on a rebate card that was about to expire. I have played one borrowed blu-ray disk on it in the lat 9 months. I have used it mostly for the Netflix streaming. I don’t even have it hooked up to the big TV in the living room, just the small one in the bedroom. I now have a Roku in the bedroom (much more versatile, can actually search netflix instead of just seeing your instant queue). The blu-ray will come into the living room, but will be rarely used, we own no blu-rays and use the HTPC for dvds.

  20. Jemish says:

    I like to place 3D in the same category as video phone calls. The fad shows up and falls away. Sometimes, people just don’t want certain things.

  21. backinpgh says:

    I checked out a 3d set at Best Buy the other day. It was kinda cool, but it didn’t interest me enough to actually buy one, especially for not for $2k. I just don’t see the appeal personally.

  22. framitz says:

    3D can be cool, but after watching Tron Legacy last weekend in 3D I am in no hurry to adopt 3D in my home.

    The movie was horribly done and it seemed obvious that it was done in “Digital 3D” as a gimmick to sell tickets rather than enhance the experience.

    There is no reason I would pay more for a TV with 3D capability, I’ll wait until it is a standard offering.

  23. AllanG54 says:

    Bought my second HDTV last month, a 50″ plasma. Specifically didn’t want 3D. The salesman told me there were limited choices but I got a Panasonic for $999 with free delivery. Who wants to wear those ridiculous specs while watching and of course if there’s a bunch of people over as when I have my super bowl party we couldn’t watch in 3D anyhow because I”m not shelling out $150 per for an extra eight pairs. Oh…I did NOT get it at Best buy.

    • Goatweed says:

      I recently bought a 58″ tv and yes, it’s 3D. I paid the same price for it as I would have for the non-3D model and since the panel was a superior 2D set to its lower end cousin, I went for it.

      I’ve watched a handful of 3D movies on it and I’ve enjoyed them. Gaming in 3D is more fun for me, but I wouldn;t have spent the extra $$ on the TV for the option.

  24. alternety says:

    3D is a premature product. They should not have introduced it until an affordable and viewer friendly system is reduced to practice.

    • TimothyT says:

      2001: HD is a premature product. They should not have introduced it until an affordable and viewer friendly system is reduced to practice.

  25. ZacharyTF says:

    I think the studios and television manufacturers should have waited another 5 years or so before introducing 3D TVs. Only in the last few years, have prices on HDTVs come down to the point where one can get a 40″ or bigger HDTV for under $1000. After dropping that kind of money on a TV plus buying a Blu-ray player and a HD cable box to take advantage of the HD, people aren’t going to turn around and buy another TV just to add 3D to the mix.

  26. Starfury says:

    We got a 46″ HD set as the family Christmas gift. It’s not a 3d model and none of us here have any interest in 3d tv sets.

    What I’m waiting for is the wall TV like in Total Recall.

  27. CBenji says:

    Even if there were only premium channels offering 3D tv choices, which as of now they aren’t, I still wouldn’t want one because of the glasses. Can you imagine if you wanted to have a super bowl party or something? You couldn’t even afford the glasses. I have 3 large screen tv’s in my home right now, two LCD, and one plasma. I have no desire for a 3D tv.

  28. RobofNYC says:

    Went to the Sony building and watched 3-D for about 30/40 minutes. It was intriguing, but not worth the headache with the glasses. If a set ever comes out without requiring me to wear glasses, I would definitely consider. As it stands now, It will be awhile before I replace my 50″ Panasonic.

  29. dvdchris says:

    So…HDTV has gained no ground in the last year? I remember reading there was a 65% household penetration a year ago, with a projected 85% by the end of 2010 based on how many households ‘plan to buy in 2010.’
    Are these results just from months-old data, or is this article based on a survey with different results than what the industry was touting a year ago?

    • dvdchris says:

      Yes, reports were that in 2009 we were at 71% HDTV household penetration. 29 million HDTVs sold was the projection for 2010.

  30. eds70 says:

    So, my cable company went digital, and I got only 4 channels! Then, I bought new digital flat-screen tv’s…. I still got only 4 channels… How wonderful this new technology is. So. They said I needed digital adapters for my digital TV’s??? So, at extra cost, I got those.. But, no HD.. Oh, they said, you need HD adapters.. Still higher cost… Oh, and something called HDYZ?? Cables, they cost more also.. And I am going to pay even more for an 3-d TV!! Just to get more headaches, plus eye strain… No Way.. What a dumb idea…

  31. Span_Wolf says:

    I have one! I use it exclusively for games.

  32. Fafaflunkie Plays His World's Smallest Violin For You says:


    I’m surprised the penetration of HDTV isn’t even greater in the US, given the digital TV transition rendered your old tube TV obsolete if it didn’t have an ATSC tuner or you didn’t have cable/satellite. I can’t fathom watching standard def anymore, even if the TV I own does a pretty nice job in up-scaling standard def, it’s still not the same. As for 3DTV, it’s merely a gimmick. Maybe if TV manufacturers can make them so you don’t need the glasses and need to sit perpendicular to the screen, and networks/studios offered programming that would make the experience worthwhile, then maybe I’ll bite. For now, I’ll stick in my 2D HD realm, thank you very much.

  33. DerangedKitsune says:

    I wear glasses already, so while I can use the 3D glasses, it still sucks to do so. I also don’t see any real benefit; sure there are some movies that look alright in 3D but not enough to make me want to watch them over and over again in that format. Seeing them that way in theaters is fine.

    Outside of movies, there’s also negligible 3D content out there. Sure, some stations are trying to push it, but there’s no interest and no one is doing it outside of sports. I don’t care about sports in general and this sure won’t make it. So that gives me no reason to want it.

    And let’s not get into the cost of the glasses; $100 a pop? That gets obscene for large families, not to mention the danger of breakage. Anyone know if manufacturers offer accidental damage coverage warranties?

    With a $50 addon, my TV can do 3D. Plus cost of glasses. Plus cost of a new graphics card and PSU for the HTPC driving it. Plus proper 3D movies to get a really good show, and not a post-processed horror show.

    So, no, I really have no interest in 3D TV at all.

  34. HogwartsProfessor says:

    When they can make 3D TV that you can watch without glasses and EVERYTHING is shot in 3D (not added later – that looks like crap), then maybe I’ll go for it. It’s a novelty and a fad and never sticks around very long.

  35. kathyl says:

    I have no interest in 3D, either at home or at the movie theater. I recently went to Tron in 3D because our friend wanted to see it that way and we wanted to see the movie with him, and I was unhappy for the duration of the movie.

    1) The glasses are annoying. I already wear glasses, which correct both nearsightedness or an astigmatism. The 3D glasses don’t fit over my glasses (not even uncomfortably, which would still be annoying) so I have the choice of taking off my vision correction to wear the 3D glasses by themselves, or holding up the 3D glasses in front of my regular ones.

    Even when I try to use both pairs and bear the arm strain from holding the glasses on my nose for 2+ hours, the 3D never looks “right” to me, and the effects vary if I do something crazy, like shift in my seat or move my head.

    2) What about guests? (When you’re talking about a home 3D setup.) Do I keep extra pairs of glasses for when I have guests over? Do I ask them to bring their own? (If they had a 3D set at home, I suppose, they might have a pair.) Could I have a reasonable number of guests over? Could they sit at varying angles to the television and still perceive the 3D effect? (We currently have a long, narrow TV room, and while everyone seems to be able to see just fine at the different angles the layout of the room makes necessary now, I doubt the same would be the case for a 3D setup.)

    3) What about children? I have a five year old, and there’s no way she’d keep glasses on just to watch television. Most other kids around her age would similarly refuse, in my experience. While many would say that it’s better for kids not to watch television, I’m not willing to exclude them from moderate television use just because the television requires glasses they aren’t comfortable wearing.

    4) Many people can’t perceive the 3D effects even with the glasses, or they develop headaches after viewing 3D content. Even if that’s a relatively small portion of the population, I don’t think a product that excludes those people can or should really take off. Nor would I have it in my home, because I would not want to exclude any of my guests who might be in that percentage from enjoying the entertainment while they are invited into my home.

    I think 3D is overblown, and it’s a grab for money on the parts of the television manufacturers and movie theaters. It’s not that great, it annoys a lot of people, but they present it in such a way that they charge a premium for it. I guess HDTVs came down too much in price and now a new product with new features needs to step in at the top of the price scale, so they pressed 3D technology into that role. Ditto for movie theaters, which had raised ticket prices for 2D showings about as high as anyone is willing to pay, so they had to introduce a premium product at a more premium price to make more money. I just don’t think they’ll succeed in the long run, as there are too many people who either are made uncomfortable with the glasses or the 3D aspect itself, or whose vision doesn’t allow them to perceive the effects properly. If they want a premium product to introduce, I really think they’re wasting energy on 3D and they should keep looking for something else.

  36. martyrd0m says:

    My christmas present from myself was a new 50″ 3dtv and glasses kit. I have no problem wearing the glasses to watch a movie or while gaming. I think it adds to the movie and games enough to make it worthwhile. Ive bought the last couple 3d blu ray releases and sat and watched resident evil afterlife first in 2d then in 3d and the 3d verison just was alot more fun. Its gonna be like any new technology. It will be in limited households til the market makes it affordable to everyone. I don’t get all the “i hope it dies off soon” type comments. if you dont like 3d then umm i dont know, dont watch it?

  37. gman863 says:

    Although there are early adopters of any technology, history has shown with VCRs, DVDs and PCs that 3D won’t hit mainstream status until two things happen: The prices drop and there is enough content available to justify the cost.

    This being said, I suspect the biggest draws to 3D in the next few years will be gaming and porn. Nothing impresses friends like either virtual blood and guts or 44EEE in 3D.

  38. Donathius says:

    3D gives my wife and I migraines, not coming to our house any time soon!

  39. MountainCop says:

    3D is an interesting fad and nothing more. Some friends like it for certain movies.

    Now if they only had a technology that didn’t give me migraines every time I watch it…

  40. Levk says:

    Well HDTV you kinda have no choice to get thats all they sell nowadays you may find older sets but for those prices you may as well get an HDTV.

    As for 3d Theres only a hand full of movies that did the 3d Right and after that all other movies use it as a gimmick when it is far from needed, That is why they loose money and that is why 3d won’t take off much. Also wearing glasses for a movie is annoying and if you loose em you are screwed so may as well just but 3 really big tvs for the same price.

  41. Posthaus says:

    It’s the damn glasses. Get rid of them and [sadly] just 3D sports telecasts will probably sell them like hotcakes.

  42. kathygnome says:

    We treked two hours from home to see Avatar in Imax 3d. I like 3d. But in terms of home use, until it either becomes so cheap it’s essentially a free add on or the glasses aren’t required I don’t see it as being particularly worthwhile and I believe it will remain a very small niche.

    The problem, for me, isn’t wearing the glasses for a big blockbuster or the world cup final. The problem is with day to day viewing. The kind of thing where my partner might be working on crafts. I might be walking into the kitchen from time to time to work on dinner. The problem with current 3d is it’s unwatchable without the glasses. So if you’re turned to a 3d channel everyone needs to have the glasses on or they’re excluded from even casual viewing.

  43. Adam says:

    NOT interested at all.

  44. Mephron says:

    I have a condition called Strabismus, which causes my eyes to not line up properly. My glasses are rather expensive due to the special lenses they need to make for them – each of my eyes has a completely different prescription.

    In a Best Buy, they tried to get me to test the 3D TV. i sat down, and the glasses… didn’t fit over mine. I said something about this, and was told that “Oh, well, you’d probably have to special-order the over-glasses ones” which turn out to be $150 each.

    Over the cost of the TV.

    Yeah, no.

  45. HollzStars says:

    I hate 3D movies. They make me feel sick, and for the most part the effects are done cheaply and as an after thought (Seen in: The Last Airbender.) I have, out of morbid curiosity, tried out three different 3D models in stores. Not only was everything absurdly blurry, the “3D” was like looking at a holographic pokamon card. Not remotely worth it. Die Gimmick Die!

  46. FreeShaggy says:

    I’m waiting for “Feel-Around” Televisions.

  47. mbd says:

    If you’re not interested in it, is it the price, the glasses, the eye strain


    In addition, there are no 3D movies I would be interested in watching available. I don’t care for any of these technically well done but not entertaining computer animated junk. When they start releasing some of the 3D classics made in the 1950’s, I mightn’t reconsider.

  48. th3v6cann3val0s3 says:

    3D will not become a fixture until they find a way to get rid of those glasses.

  49. dush says:

    Yes, the price and the glasses and the lack of programming.