3D is on life support, is the fad finally over?

Are poor 3DS sales the result of an anti 3D backlash?

[Kamikaze135]

I hope so...my eyes can't take it.

[JoGam]

I like 3D. Besides the 3DS poor sales if any had nothing to do with the 3D. It was more of a price thing. Lets see what happens with the new price drop.

[TurismoGTR]

Whats after 3D?

[NukaCola]

3DS is nothing like Real D 3D technology. And the poor 3DS aren't because of some anti-3D movement, it's because it's $250, has nothing innovating outside a slight increase in visuals over the PSP, and the software line up is weak.

[evrfighter]

I wouldn't wanna be one of those people that bought a 3dtv. That buyer's remorse has got to be eatin em up.

ouch. just think you could have bought a top of the line gaming pc with that would have been a 10x better inveestment.

[morganfell]

I encourage anyone to go down to BestBuy and look at the LG 55 inch 3D. I was in there last week and it was $1499. That's a great price for a true HD TV of that size in the first place. But this also uses passive 3D (Real 3D). The effects were amazing.

I am not sure what the current price is on this model but the 3D was stunning and the glasses, as they are passive, were cheap. This is the first passive 3D set I have seen that had such great image quality.

[Sprudling]

evrfighter, your comment reeks of jealousy...

Besides, a 3DTVs doesn't have to be expensive. And even if it was, all expensive TVs are excellent at 2D.

[kneon]

The passive 3D TVs are only half the vertical or horizontal resolution of the active glasses TVs, that's why they are cheaper.

And the mediocre sales of the 3DS has nothing to do with the 3D market in general. It's sold poorly because 3D on such small screens is unimpressive and certainly not worth the premium they were asking. Now that's it's more reasonably priced it should do better.

[colonel179]

I like 3D in TVs. I was trying out some demos on the store and it looked great. It is just that is is better to have the screen go in, instead of having things to pop out. I saw a demo of some flower petals flying in the air, and it looked like I was watching the window, whereas another demo of some cards popping out, was distracting and blurry.

[nopunctuation]

"Are poor 3DS sales the result of an anti 3D backlash? "

Yes. I found the best way to predict trends was to listen to the hipster in my school. Mostof them were like "BO WILL BE AWESOME" and then it sold well.. They said the 3DS would suck and then it sold terribly. They also started talking positively about Battlefield 3 for the first time and say that MW is getting old so hopefully that will mean the rise of a new FPS.

[godzookie]

Falloutboy, my eyes!!, these goggles do nothing!!!

[Brownghost]

so is 3d movies waste of money and the glasses make it too dark to see in 2d the movie looks way better

[lashes2ashes]

3d tv dont have that problem. my tv auto adjusts the brightness when it detects the glasses. but the 3ds is selling like shit because there is no software.

[Pozzle]

I agree. Sadly, I don't think 3D has quite been perfected yet. They're on the right track, but I don't think it's really worth paying such expensive ticket prices for just yet.

[Brownghost]

2 dollars more for crappy sunglasses is expensive $1 is much better

[Pozzle]

Only $2? I've been to cinemas that charge an extra $4-5 for 3D movies. :(

[fr0sty]

you can get 10 pairs for $10 if you look in the right places online. Also, you can get 32 inch 3dtv's that use passive glasses for as low as $500 at Wal Mart.

[Brownghost]

thats what my theater charges $8 for tickets and $2 for glasses

[Pozzle]

My cinema usually charges $14-$17 for tickets and glasses. But if you bring your own glasses, they don't lower the price. :(

Tickets for 2D movies usually only cost $10-$12. Depending on where you go. Only $8 on Cheap Tuesday.

[fr0sty]

Passive 3DTVs do not use the dark and expensive shutter glasses, they use the same glasses you get at the movie theater that only cost a dollar or so.

[Disccordia]

They also halve the screen resolution so it's not a great option either..

[fr0sty]

the newer ones operate at full resolution.

[Sprudling]

I know a couple of people (irl) who say the same thing. That the 3D movies are darker. They are also the same two who complain that they can't really see any 3D effect worth mentioning. There must be a connection, because I and others I know don't experience that problem.

[Orionsangel]

The new modern 3D was around before Avatar, but Avatar really ignited the whole 3D craze. I say craze like the world fell in love with it, more so a craze created by manufacturers.

When the studios and TV companies saw how Avatar made 3 billion or whatever. They saw dollar signs and the push for 3D went into overdrive. What they don't realize is that Avatar was a fluke. One that won't easily be duplicated.

[Neko_Mega]

Its more of the lines it is overprice and the only selling point is the 3D.

Other then that 3D sales well for TV's.

[ShadesMoolah]

3DS decline or lack of sales has nothing to do with the 3D movement. 3DS has failed due to lack of good software, poor branding, lack of features at launch and poor pricing. Maybe this can be turned around in 2012.

3D in the home suffers from a lack of content and poor pricing also, but this is changing every month.

[yavorsv]

Hope the hollywood hacks die out, they slap 3D only to charge people more. People like James Cameron do it right. He will not abandon it. :)

[L6RD7BLU3]

eventually 3D will be on all TV'S so it doesn't matter.

[r21]

i dont really care for 3D in games and such but when they're used in movies, the effects are stunning!

[bumnut]

It the opposite for me, Games look so much better in 3D.

[FriedGoat]

Yeah i'm pretty sure that guy is a madman games are 100x better in 3d. especially on my pc in 1080p checkerboard at 30hz

[green]

I dont care about 3D at all. I watched Avatar in 3d and without it and while 3d was great, i still enjoyed it as much without it. Then watched Transformers 3 in 3d and have since decided that all movies i watch at the Cinema from now on will be the 2d versions.

As for 3D in games, that to me is even the worst. How on earth people felt that the average consumer will want to watch TV or play video games at home while wearing those useless glasses is beyond me. As long as those glasses are there, then it will never be widely adopted.

[FriedGoat]

Wrong, glasses arent a problem. unless you think the thousands of people who wear "useless" glasses everyday just to see are wasting their time. I love my 3d TV i have a vast amount of 3d content ranging from films to games in 1080p on my pc and some inferior sub-HD ps3 games, im not sure what games you have played in 3d but The fact you went to see transformers 3 invalidates your opinion to me anyway.

[green]

80% of my family wear glasses on an everyday bases and all of them hate 3d because they have to wear the 3d glasses on top of their glasses and 8 out of 10 cases, it just wont work. If you think that the vast majority of the worlds glasses wearing population will adopt along with the other skeptics out there, then you are very naive.

As i said earlier in my post and even after E3 2010, until they get rid of those glasses, then 3d media content for home consumption will never take off. It seems i am right with E3 backing it up and i am sure every other publisher out there bar Sony feels the same way. Watch and see the way 3d games will slowly fizzle out.

[DigitalRaptor]

No it's not. There are plenty of people still in confident support of stereoscopic 3D.

What the 3DS uses is auto-steroscopic 3D technology, which quite frankly is not good enough yet to justify getting into. Your eyes have to be at a certain active-3D zone on the screen to view the effect and if you move the handheld away or shift your eyes, you lose the effect.

And as others have said, this is Nintendo's own fault. They priced the device to high for what it's worth, when all it offers is slightly better PSP graphics and redundant auto-stereoscopic 3D. Not to mention a crappy lineup of games so far.

[rmedtx888]

3DS is not selling because people are not stupid. They are not whiling to pay an outrageous amount of money for a handheld with such small screen/s. Besides as mentioned earlier that's not your traditional 3D technology...It may not require glasses but it comes with other problems.

I'm all for 3D but right now I can't afford a new 3D TV but but I will get one as soon as I can.

[Average_Joe]

I think once in a while something comes along that makes 3-D work really well. Avatar was a fair movie, but when you watched it in 3-D at the movies it was AMAZING. Then you get all the companies trying to copy that.

Putting 3-D on a sub par movie or game just to try to capitalize on the gimmick was never going to work long term. 3-D has come and gone since the 1950's and I can see a market for it with certain movies, but why slap it every new movie out just for the sake of it?

It seems like we've been saturated with pointless 3-D lately and the lack of quality 3-D content is killing it off pretty fast.

[charmer]

first of all 3d is something new thats getting ready to take off..so 3ds will win despite haters...ps vita is nothing worth it....unless you a sony fanboy that want ps3 on the go....but the right pricing is genius move by nintendo

[stuna1]

@charmer
I disagree with you're comment, for the simple fact that I have never been a lover of handhelds, but for the vita it will be a first day purchase for me. Mainly for it's functionality with the ps3.

OT: Having a active 3d tv, I have been able to experience the pro's and con's of the technology and, for me the pro's outweigh the con's! I'm pretty optimistic that 3D is not going anywhere anytime soon, considering the majority of movies coming out are using the technology.

[BlmThug]

3D is still in its baby steps plus 3DS sucks thats why it sold so bad