I thought it was a fad until i bought a 46inch LED SmartTv this week.. it also does 2d to 3d convertor so i can play any game and watch any tv station in 3Dhd, i think once you've got it and then go back to 2d its not a fad at all, watched the F1 qualifying this morning and was blown away and now watching fance v spain in the euros, also gaming looks amazing with the conversion aswell.

Nothing went wrong really. It's a tad too expensive today, but in the future 3D gameing is going to be great. I believe this.

Am I missing something or NONE of the upcoming games (fall and next year) will be in 3D?

Tomb Raider, The Last of Us, Beyond, Assassin's Creed III, LBP Karting, Hitman Absolution, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Dishonored, Resident Evil 6, Bioshock Infinite, Playstation Battle Royale, etc.

None of the have been announced in 3D have they?

Yea 3d vision is amazing if you have the computer to run it. Plus even if you don't run 3d the 120hz monitor (required fro 3d vision in the first place) makes for a game changing experience on it's own.

If you have a 120hz+ 3d tv and still don't agree it is most likely because your on a console. First the 3d will be horrible in comparison Second, your not gonna be able to use the true power of a 120hz or faster refresh monitor when your game can't go past 30 or 60fps.

3d is cool and all, but I'd rather enjoy amazing graphics high frame rate. That's what impresses me. 3d just takes away from detail. It also kills the frame rate. So I hope the developer focuses on HD gaming rather than 3d.

Bought an LG 3D 50 inch with free glasses from currys for 500 pounds great deal btw. Overall I am impressed with 3D gaming and movies look break in 3D but I don't use 3D as much as I should maybe 3 or 4 times a week on 3D games. When converting tv shows in to 3D it's nonsense there's nothing there really I can barely make out the 3D

The problem is 3d is not natural, you won't use it all the time. But my advice for anyone buying a 3dtv, go for a passive model, not active.

Nothing went wrong, 3D is awesome, 3D is the future.

Having a tv with the convert to 3d option is helps if there is little 3d content.

3D benefits games more then it does movies, though it all depends on usage, Prometheus for example had excellent use of 3d, the cave scenes were crazy, you actually feel claustrophobic. Can't wait for its 3d bluray

Uncharted 3 and Arkham City in 3d were pretty dam cool. To everyone calling it a fad, you should really try it out with gaming before dismissing it (though I doubt the people calling it a fad have even tried 3d in their houses....)

Too expensive, doesn't help that I live in Venezuela...

3d is the way WE SEE the world

seeing games in 3D is the NORMAL way to play because thats how we NORMALLY see

i play 3D all the time and if i take it off, everything just seems flat and its hard to tell the distance of objects

you wont understand unless you play in 3D alot

people use the word GIMMICK as a bad thing
GIMMICK DOES NOT EQUAL BAD

Having to buy a 3d Tv(which costs quite a bit), and on top of that the cumbersome glasses

Maybe in the future

It definitely works well enough and i enjoy using my 3d tv for this but clarity does suffer as a result of this very convincing effect. I'm happy if 3d dies out though despite enjoying it on and off

3-D was never going to be the next big thing because parents weren't going to run out and buy a 3-D television so their kids could have another way to strain their eyes.

I enjoy 3-D from time to time, but I'll never buy a 3-D TV or game with it, my eyes hurt with about an hour or so of 3-D at the movies, at about that mark I have to start rubbing my eyes and they bother me the rest of the night.

I just bought a 55 inch LED television last year, so I'm definitely not in the market for something else and I think a lot of people are in the same boat, I mean when you consider that 50% of the population are still using standard definition televisions, you tend to understand why 3-D wont catch on.

dont really understand why people are saying 3d tvs are so expensive, you can get a half decent one for £500 anything lower and ull be buying a rubbish tv with motion blur, 50hz, contrast ratios of 40,000 and 1 hdmi port, 3d tv quickly become annoying for me. i would get prompts telling me i can watch in 3d. i turn it on... bored after 10 mins. the 3d effect seems to wear out and not seem as good compared to when i 1st put the glasses on

When 3D doesn't make the graphics look like crap it adds immensely to the immersion in games. You really feel like you're in the world, especially FPS games but 3D for movies adds very little imo.

This gen of consoles isn't ready for 3D, the only games that looked good were Crysis 1 and 2, which apparently weren't real 3D but who cares, because they looked better than anything else... Super Stardust HD looked good too.

i thought assassins creed revelations looked damn good on my 3D samsung. no cross talk that i noticed. graphics seemed just as sharp as in 2D. one of the best 3D experiences i've had. One of the worst, ratchet and clank: all for one. in 3D the graphics seemed really fuzzy and blurry. but to each their own i suppose.

i have a Vizio 3D some of the games i played in 3D looks great...but 3D was a big thing back in the day...now it had a bit of a come back...if you already dislike 3D your not going to really care for 3D games or movies...but if you havent tried a 3D movie or 3D game (i wouldnt play the game that long) but give it a try

1. too conservative 3d in games and movies
2. unconvincing reprojection and converted 3d in games and movies

and also

3. the fact that 3d looks drastically different depending on how close or far away you are from the screen. try moving a 3ds 6 inches too close to your face to 6 inches too far---you go from squished depth, to exaggerated depth.....and there is no way for programmers or filmmakers to control this.

I bought my Samsung 51 inch 3-d 1080p plasma about 5 monthes ago for $899. That came with 2 pair of active glasses, ( ya some people say go with a passive 3-d set but unfortunately passive 3-d always lowers the resolution, down to 480p on some lg sets, my Samsung active is still 1080p on 3-d movies and the games that run 1080p.). If I paid $899 for it 5 monthes ago give it another 6 to 10 monthes and they will be in the range of $599. And $599 for a 51 inch 3-d 1080p set that doesn't suffer from refresh rates is a steal.

passive is so so so much better then flicker prone battery sync active

Everyone forgot about Nvidia 3D Vision, it was briefly mentioned in the article.

Nvidia has been pushing 3D years before Sony.
Nvidia technology allows games, movies and pictures to be displayed in stereoscopic 3D.

3D Vision Ready = Native support
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Excellent = This game facilitates a solid 3D experience without distracting anomalies or artifacts.
http://3dvision-blog.com/10...

Good = This game facilitates a solid 3D experience, enabled by reducing certain quality settings or incurring minor anomalies

Glasses are the problem.
Glassesless TVs are the solution.

It's hard to buy an expensive hdtv what more with 3Dtv?

3D just isn't that amazing really IMO, i'll be more amazed it they can make 3D without glasses.

I have a "lazy eye" and can't see the 3D effect, wish I could experience it at least once to make a judgement. But, oh well I'm thankful to have one good eye at least.

I just bought a Sony Bravia 40 inch HDTV with 3D (I figured, why not, the difference wasn´t THAT much here in argentina)... It came with a set of glasses. At first I was, Meh... then I played Trine 2. Best so far and REALLY inmersive and worth it. True: it´s just a "graphic upgrade". 3D is far from being "real" and important gameplay wise, buts when pulled off well, it looks impressive. Just play Trine 2 If you have the gear and haven´t tried it out yet.

On the other hand... Killzone 3 and Battlefield 3, kinda awful, it´s like the image won´t stay right... Maybe FPS are harder to look at in stereoscopic 3d... go figure.

when they suss the 3d effect out properly then i will purchase a non glasses 3d tv,but untill then its not worth it.ill get one now and in 6 months a proper one will be out leaving the last gen 3d useless just like xbox hd disc player. n e ways tried my daughters 3ds and even thoe it looked ok ish it really done my eyes in. i couldnt focus on normal world properly for a good 20 mins.

Its simple....cable TV has never gotten behind 3D. HD TV struggled for a bit too until more HD offerings were made available. It became a standard and 3D needs that in order to be more than a gimmick.

Some people her edont seem to know the difference between passive and active, passive is deff not the way to go, crap viewing angles and its more like slides over slides, active has a much better viewing angle and also make objects look like they should in 3d, someone said about flicker, charge the damn glasses.

There is also the horrendous 3D quality on active sets. look at any sony active set made before 2012 to see an example of how not to do 3D. i am in the process of trying to change my sony set because 3D on it is a disgrace..

google sony 3D crosstalk toget an idea of just how much good old uncle sony shafted two years of 3D tv buying consumers

crappy flamebaiting article full of idiots who aint got 3d saying its a fad , anyone who has a 3d tv or enjoyed a quality 3d film or game would highly disagree with this bull shi..

I love my ps3d tv and I enjoy playing 3d games like nba2k12,u3,kz3,MLB 12,black ops,motorstorm apocalypse and my blu-ray movies, I dont need a big screen to play!

3D when done right is amazing! And with Dolby 3D we wil not need any glasses in a realy near future.

Anyone saying passive is crap is mental.

Passive is used at the cinema.

I've got a passive set at home, the images come out to you. and you also have depth.

Shutter glasses did not impress me at all.

isnt high def passive coming this year?

Can we stop having this argument? Comparing HD to 3D is comparing Apples to Oranges. A fair comparison to 3D should be something more along the lines of home audio equipment. Some people have outrageous 7.1 surround sound systems in their homes. These systems can be obnoxiously loud when watching a movie with the owner, for the owner wants to show you how good their stuff is. It's not for everyone, all movies support the dolby format, it's there if you want it. This pertains to 3D movies and gaming as well. I have played a couple of very good 3D experiences on my PS3 and have seen some awesome 3D movies that would not want to watch any other way. I own a stereoscopic 3D t.v.. I thought the glasses would be a nuciance at first, but they havent been. People wearing glasses can also use them. I enjoy 3D and wish there was more content to support it. I apologize to anyone who has had a bad experience with 3D, but because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's a gimmik or a fad. It's not going anywhere soon.

i have a cinema 3d tv which adds to immersion in games but where its gone wrong is games and films have tried to go for the subtle depth to try and make the experience immersive but what they need to do is add loads of poping out the screen scenes to make it better...super stardust being one of the highest praised 3d experiences proves my point

The economy is what went wrong. I would love to own a 3DTV but I can't afford it right now.

As someone who actually owns a 3DTV I can say that when done well like in Killzone 3 it beats 2D hands down, I tend to find that the people who slate it off are the ones who haven't experienced it properly so shouldn't really be judging it!!

Never seen a 3D tv I've liked, even at the Gadget Show in the UK. Be it movies or games, it's no more than a gimmick, the glasses are a pain and the 3DS gave me a headache. It's a resources hog for games, would rather they gave us true 1080p hd then mess with 3D.

3D's main problem is the longevity factor in the actual viewing.

It's not the technology's fault, but the users' depth perceptions ability to withstand the grueling hours with 3D.

It was made. That's what went wrong. It was a crappy gimmick and most people aren't trend-whores. This was a terrible fad. One that not many companies actually supported fully.

Never have I once regretted dropping nearly a grand on it either, if I can watch a film in 3D I will and I actively look for 3D films over 2D as it adds so much to them. As for 3D gaming I am yet to see one on consoles that doesn't suffer a huge graphical hit when you turn it on. I think next gen is when gaming on consoles can truly become 3D without compromise.

its not that it was a fad, it aint no fad, your a moron if you think so, its a alternative viewing method, its expensive, thats why it hasnt done so well.

I paid $1,127 roughly for my HDTV
its a 52 incher. 1080p

this was january 2 years ago.

I have no interest in buying a $2000 HDTV that I have too wear glasses with.
it all kinda hurts my eyes

IMO

What went wrong? Nothing. It's just that the "jump" between HD and stereoscopic 3D isn't that huge. Also at first 3D was very very very expensive and you still have to always wear glasses to benefit from the 3D effect which I don't like at all. Also the glasses aren't universal and you have to buy many more if you have even a small party of people say watching a movie on your new fancy 3D TV. One of my biggest problem with the current 3D tech are the glasses, they're kind of big and uncomfortable and make everything seem darker. I don't know if the darker colors could be fixed with increasing your brightness since there isn't a single person I know who has ANY steroscopic 3D technology. Also, there aren't actually that many ways to take advantage of the 3D effect. Not too many games are made for 3D, it's just added later and same goes for movies (only movie I know that was shot in 3D is Prometheus but I don't really keep up with the movie world that much). I can't watch TV in 3D either 'cause there's only a handful of channels that support it and I'd have to pay extra just to see those few.

All in all 3D hasn't reached it's true potential, yet. You still have to pay quite a bit of extra money just to get a small upgrade from HD and IMO, it isn't nearly enough. I might consider switching my HDTV to 3D in the future when there'll be many more fully supported movies and games but right now, it clearly isn't worth it (to me).

Tell me again how the multiplatform strategy was supposed to fix everything. Look at your results and compare them to Nintendo, which keeps thriving with exclusives. Your loyal fans are gone. And let’s not forget the pile of IPs you purchased only to let them rot.

The worst thing is this is down from last years numbers/expectations which was down from the previous years numbers/expectations. You think about how long “down” has been a consistent part of the communication and you realize those subscriptions are what’s holding that boat together. The price cut of gamespass is still a price raise in a string of price raises. They are trying to use players to offset the missing revenue. Now call of duty is out of gamespass, which is literally WHY they bought the company. To draw people to the subscription. They realized they missed a boatload of money and that wasn’t sustainable. Now you pay for it like you would have if they never bought the company… so why buy the company? Mind you those billions still need to be paid back. Yeah it gives you a chance to say we make the biggest FPS… but the internal conversations must be brutal at high level on topics that really matter. Like revenue. Profitability. And ROI for the shopping spree.

Is this like the 10th quarter in a row they're down 33% on hardware how is that even mathematically possible. You would think their mediocrity would Plateau