3D televisions

[Vanguard]

Why sell a system at a loss with a bunch of controllers when you can sell a bunch of profitable handheld devices at $200+ each and make all the players own one?  

Because you quickly make up the loss in game revenue.  Because you can sell advertising, movies, music, etc....   As I stated, the console and the maker of that console are going to replace your cable provider.   They will be making revenue off every single thing you watch, play or listen to.  


BTW, what makes you think handheld devices aren't sold at a loss?

[Gorotsuki]

All I know is that I'm not paying for digital downloads,
or other such things that aren't tangible.
They can print "lease" on the box of all my disc games,
but I'm going to do what I want with them because they're mine.
Any corporate bought "law" that states otherwise will be filed under
kiss my butt.
Yeah, video games and media are going to all be on a box that you purchase
that really only gives you the opportunity to rent things, but hopefully this
will all take place after I'm dead.

[SavannahLion]

You probably missed this statement which I was addressing:

Clock is ticking on stand alone consoles hooked up to a TV anyway.

+1 to Vanguard.

PBJ is missing a fundamental problem with handhelds.

Not everyone wants one.

Portable gaming is great. Great when you're at the doctor's office for (aka Nintendites  ). But imagine how stupid you would look swinging your portable wiimote or lollipop at the grocery market? Imagine the lawsuit when you kill some grandmother swinging that sword attachment? There is no way, on any planet, in any time, I'm going to be waving around a bubble gum farting firearm in public, sorry.

Thanks but no thanks. I like using the big screen TV for my gaming. I like having the bass shake the chandelier as the enemies turn into giblets.

Consoles and portables are different entirely breeds. We see them cross over, but one will never outright replace the other.

Same goes for PC's. The whole PC vs Console argument has been going on since... well... almost year dot. But these nutjobs forget that PC's aren't going away any time soon (thanks legacy ---uvulas---) and people, regardless of the original intent of their PC purchase, will continue to buy games for it. Crappy games, sure (Deer Hunter to name only one best seller ) but still games nonetheless.

Yeah, there are crossovers. Yeah, consoles pick up on handheld technologies and vice versa. Handhelds can play some of the console games. So what? That sort of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- has been going on for a long time.

Oh and:

All I know is that I'm not paying for digital downloads,
or other such things that aren't tangible.
They can print "lease" on the box of all my disc games,
but I'm going to do what I want with them because they're mine.
Any corporate bought "law" that states otherwise will be filed under
kiss my butt.
Yeah, video games and media are going to all be on a box that you purchase
that really only gives you the opportunity to rent things, but hopefully this
will all take place after I'm dead.

---fudgesicle--- yeah.

[RayB]

Consoles and portables are different entirely breeds. We see them cross over, but one will never outright replace the other.

You'll see. Within 10 years a handheld will have the same power to deliver 1080p of highly detailed 3D, and you will have the option to play it on the portable's screen, or wirelessly transmit to your big screen TV so you can play HOWEVER YOU LIKE.

There comes a point where graphic detail reaches a maxium. The iphone screen for example, squeeze 300 dpi. You can't see pixels on it anymore. Now, the 3D horsepower in it still needs a lot of catching up, but we're talking about the future, not "right now".

[massive88]

Eventually maybe.  I think your 10 years estimate is a bit off though.

Pixel density is one thing, realistic physics, particle effects, anti-aliasing filters etc is another.  There is still an incredible amount of headroom before real-time graphics approach that of even today's prerendered CGI (or hell, even 9 year old CGI ).  Much less what will be standard in the future.

We are no where near your graphic detail maximum, which is probably somewhere beyond even perceived reality, and the gap between hand helds and consoles/PCs will remain for a long time.

[DaveMMR]

I thought I was comparing consoles to computers hooked up to TV's.   I rechecked what I quoted, so yup.  

But again, don't think consoles are going anywhere anytime soon - not 10 years definitely.  Granted portables are outselling even the most popular consoles (particularly the DS and the iPhone/iPod Touch if you really must count that) but I have yet to meet anyone who had ONLY a portable and no other console to speak of.  

Here's the thing, portables are HORRIBLE at social gaming - something that sells the Wii (remember all those ads of smiling families waving around their Wiimote).   How many portable games do you play in groups?   Pokemon?  That was pretty much it.  

And as powerful as portable gaming will get, console aren't going to be sitting stagnant while the devices play "catch up".  

You'll see. Within 10 years a handheld will have the same power to deliver 1080p of highly detailed 3D, and you will have the option to play it on the portable's screen, or wirelessly transmit to your big screen TV so you can play HOWEVER YOU LIKE.

There comes a point where graphic detail reaches a maxium. The iphone screen for example, squeeze 300 dpi. You can't see pixels on it anymore. Now, the 3D horsepower in it still needs a lot of catching up, but we're talking about the future, not "right now".

There's always a "maximum" that engineers always say "oh yeah?!" to and proceed to blow past it.  And it's not just graphics - it's raw processing power as well.   More characters on screen with advanced AI and unlimited gameplay options.  We've yet to come close to the ceiling of what's possible.

As to your other point, it's quite possible that the next generation portables are going to be dual-purpose workhorses by doubling as a console - but I can't imagine it wouldn't be a big detriment to the hardware.   You can play it on the small screen or the big screen?  Okay, how are game developers going to know how someone's going to play it?  A portable screen and your living TV are HUGE differences.   What you can see on the big screen will be minuscule on the other.    Those were the big complaints about the TurboExpress and the Nomad.  As SavannahLion said, consoles and portables are entirely different breeds.

Well, maybe they can make two versions of the game on one disc (or download, actually).   But that just adds to production cost and time - something a company wouldn't be willing to do.   Wouldn't they rather just sell you the same game twice for different hardware?  

But I'll tell you what:  If in ten years consoles are non-existent, I owe you a Coke.  
(EDIT: Fixed code)

[DaveMMR]

I don't think anyone has said "consoles will be non-existent".

Clock is ticking on stand alone consoles hooked up to a TV anyway.

It doesn't take a great one to see that standalone consoles will soon be sitting on top of the CRT televisions in the landfills.

 

Handhelds aren't good for social gaming?    You can play the damn things online and share one copy of a game amongst multiple consoles.  How more social do you want it??

Geez, my copy of Contra 4 for the DS requires Player 2 to have his/her own copy.   Yeah, game sharing.     I know many games that support it but often it cripples features.  It's a great idea that's still very, very imperfect.  And they're not going to fix it anytime soon because that would cut into sales.  You want to play two-player Contra 4?   You have to buy the game twice (not to mention two DS's).  

And, BTW, by "social" I am not referring to playing online.  I mean hanging out in the living room, drinking beer and talking smack with your friends.   Online play is great, but I think there's a world of difference between that and what I describe as social gaming.

Bottom line:  When I see a DS or PSP being played, it's one person in his/her own little bubble ignoring the outside world.   

[SavannahLion]

Consoles and portables are different entirely breeds. We see them cross over, but one will never outright replace the other.

You'll see. Within 10 years a handheld will have the same power to deliver 1080p of highly detailed 3D, and you will have the option to play it on the portable's screen, or wirelessly transmit to your big screen TV so you can play HOWEVER YOU LIKE.

Sure... and there will still be consoles.

Your statement smacks of the PC vs Console argument that's been going on for far longer than I care to remember. But my statement still stands. For handhelds to completely displace consoles, I see two things need to occur.

Batteries need to see additional increases in their life. I personally prefer alternate sources of power. Fuel cells or even the work by Tesla. Wirelessly broadcasting to my big screen is going to suck ass if the batteries only last five hours. If you're going to be tethered to charge, what's the point?

R&D of new hardware is going to have to run parallel to power consumption R&D. There is a reason why portable computing devices generally have lower specs compared to their "fixed" tethered counterparts. Companies work on new tech first then develop lower power counterparts later.

Sorry. I don't doubt handhelds will become what you describe. I do doubt they'll ever completely displace their console counterparts.... well at least not for a very long time.

Besides, consoles are beginning to morph into that horror of horrors, the replacement for your video box. Doesn't look like any of the major players are in a rush to completely get rid of them.

[dre-w]

Here's the thing, portables are HORRIBLE at social gaming

How many portable games do you play in groups?   Pokemon?  That was pretty much it.  

Pretty much Pokemon roygbiv, Mario Kart, Resident Evil, New Super Mario Bros, Brain Age, New Track & Field, Diddy Kong Racing, Geometry Wars, Mario Hoops, Star Fox.. and most of those require only 1 cart.

I mean hanging out in the living room, drinking beer and talking smack with your friends.

Yep, thats how we do it.  There's no other way.

Well.. no better way I should say.  Almost forgot we used to bring'm to the movie theater, get some multiplay goin while waitin for the movie to start.  Occasionally there'd be some kids couple rows up within the radius whod get in on some Mario Kart action.  Fifth gear, tapped wide, cant lose..

[Vanguard]

You'll see. Within 10 years a handheld will have the same power to deliver 1080p of highly detailed 3D.

You won't see this in a truly portable environment.   It will be possible to have the kind of processing power you describe in a small packaged but the limiting factor will be battery life.

You don't see desktop quality 3D graphics on Laptops for the same reason.   Laptop 3D parts are good but are constrained heavily by power consumption requirements.  Many Laptop GPU's don't operate at full power unless the laptop is running under external power.

Handhelds will suffer from the same issue.   Heat and power consumption will limit the 3D capability of these devices.

To put it in perspective, a high end desktop GPU is pulling 200+ watts of power.   A handheld CPU AND GPU are pulling 3 watts.

[ahofle]

Can't believe no one has mentioned the real reason consoles/PC gaming will never disappear.  Controls.  Sorry, but there is only so much you can do with a microscopic Dpad or PSP-type 'analog stick' smaller than a dime, or lame accelerometers where you shake the whole screen to do something.  In fact, I think that's the reason PC gaming has not been killed by consoles.

[Vanguard]

Controls are why phones don't enjoy much more than causal gaming.   Playing FPS' on a phone sucks.

[ahofle]

Playing FPS in 2010 sucks, too.  Time for some new genres.... and I imagine we'll see some better suited to portable devices.

It's not just FPS, pretty much any game where absolute controllers like mice/trackballs can be used is better: RTS, RPG, even games like Zuma/Peggle/World of Goo/etc. 

I don't see the point of using a portable device when you don't require portability.  Especially given that just about every aspect of it is inferior (and always will be) to larger/less portable hardware of the same generation.  Every aspect except portability of course.  You can't tell me you prefer surfing the web on an iPhone over a keyboard/mouse + comfortable chair w/armrests + large monitor?  I would kill myself if I had to spend hours a day at work holding a small rectangle in front of my face.

[Gray_Area]

The fundamentals are truly ubiquitous wireless, peripherals becoming wearables, and cloud environment liberating devices from processing demands. (D/A converters have become pretty inexpensive. The above could likely be helped along if broadcast were [still] analog.) These are developing - just not so much here as in Asia, where the culture is far more mobile and flexibility-minded, and where the youth have much more  involvement and say in it.

[Howard_Casto]

My 2 cents (or buck and a quater... whatever)

3d tv is almost definately a fad.  Here's the deal:

For the longest time, there wasn't much money in tv sales.  That isn't to say that there wasn't money to be had, or else companies like sony wouldn't exist, but rather the technology had hit a wall... and other than replacement of old units... there was nothing for the consumer to gain by buying a new tv.  Then comes plasma and the game changes.  Now you have a tv with a high profit margin and a short lifespan.  Tv companies are back in business again!  But plasma kind of sucks so it is almost immediately ditched for lcd tvs.  So they actually convicne people who just bought a tv to throw it out and buy another tv!  Well now they tell us that lcd is crap and they we should buy led tvs and quad pixel tvs, which are essentially the same damn tech.  This sort of trickery won't last forever, so they fell back to the old tried and true cinema hustle known as 3d.  This is nothing more than a ploy to get us to buy tvs when we don't need them.  3d, no matter how much they improve it, is a crappy display method and over 70% of the population doesn't have adequate depth perception to be able to propely view 3d images anyway.  It's a scientific fact recently proven via testing!

See there are two problems with 3d aside from annoying stuff like glasses and lack of content. 

1.  It isn't 3d, it's stereoscopic imagery.  BIG difference.  When a camera can shoot an image and obtain a fully skinned 3d render of the scene.. THEN we have 3d... until then we just have a lame gimmick. 

2.  Generally we don't watch tv alone and we move around (either our bodies or heads) when we watch.  For true 3d this just doesn't work.  Each viewer needs an individual display that adjusts the image based on your eye level.  This is why the 3ds, crude as it may be will be a success while 3d games on the ps3 won't.  That isn't to say that the 3d on the 3ds will be very good, but at least nintendo isn't stupid enough to make a 3d wii. 


Long story short, yes, 3d tv is a gimmick and no, it won't stick around very long. 

Expect most of the population to skip right over it and led tvs to OLED technology.

[Vanguard]

I read a report that said 2-12% of the population are 3D-blind.   70% sounds a little far fetched.   If the technology had that high of a reject rate, I doubt it would be considered a viable consumer feature.

[SavannahLion]

The fundamentals are truly ubiquitous wireless, peripherals becoming wearables, and cloud environment liberating devices from processing demands. (D/A converters have become pretty inexpensive. The above could likely be helped along if broadcast were [still] analog.)

That's not even close to describing the fundamentals.

[Frigo]

Man, a couple of you should really see if NASA is hiring.  They're always looking for uncreative engineers.

I dunno, can you list "conjecture" and "speculation" as applicable skills? 

[ChadTower]

So the TV will work for only one person at a time and that person has to wear something clipped to them?  How is this better then the glasses?

Don't you sit with the remote in your hand or on your chair?

[Mikezilla]

These are developing - just not so much here as in Asia, where the culture is far more mobile and flexibility-minded, and where the youth have much more  involvement and say in it.

When you mean "asia" I assume you mean Japan?

[Xiaou2]

It isn't 3d, it's stereoscopic imagery.  BIG difference.  When a camera can shoot an image and obtain a fully skinned 3d render of the scene.. THEN we have 3d... until then we just have a lame gimmick. 

 Stereoscopic 3d, is when both eyes can see different perspectives.
You dont have to have full 360 degree holographic display for 3d.

 And I dont believe 3d will 'Fad' away.  This isnt the 1950s Red/Blue mess.
As more and more Good content becomes available, it will just get more and
more popular.

 I remember when I played a old FPS in 3D on the PC.  It was the only time I ever found an FPS to actually be interesting in the least.  Adding the depth really made the game feel completely different.  Much more immersive and realistic.

 And the last Harry Potter movie that just came out, was jaw dropping in certain 3D sections. Added real value and detail that you just cant get with a 2d display.

 I can only guess that maybe you are bitter because you may be one of the people who does not have good 3d depth perception.  For the rest of us, content in 2D, is like Mono Audio. Flat, un-detailed, boring.
 
 We hear in 3d, and see in 3d, and our content should be in 3d.

 As for holographic content... dont hold your breath.  The amount of data storage needed alone wont be commercially viable for ages.  Let alone holographic projector technology...

[Xiaou2]

Btw - with Stereoscopic glasses, and using Johnny Lees Wii head tracking... You could make a version of Mame that displayed an entire cabinet.

 Unlike todays mame, where artwork bezels get in the way of the display, you would be able to see around them, depending on your relative head position.

 All the artwork would be completely viewable, on all levels, and all depths, as was designed and intended to be experienced.

 Stereoscopic 3d is the future,
 (and should be the future of mame)

[Ond]

Just thought I'd slip in some observations amongst these expert opinions.  I sat down last night and thought I'd try out something from my '2D' DVD collection in 3D viewing mode. I grabbed Jurassic Park 3 which seemed to be a good candidate.  For starters the video quality on this DVD is pretty good as is the sound - especially in DTS.  Sooo, fired it up switched on the glasses and sat back.  Whatever the conversion algorithm is that's used its most effective on scenes with a mix of objects across the depth of field, especially in pan shots.  A really distinct feeling of separation and depth is achieved, close ups etc much less so.  One problem I noticed is with shiny highlights on faces in close ups.  For some reason the 3D processing gets confused with these making them appear to 'pop out' in front of the skin.  That aside I was quite impressed, short lived novelty or not it's a lot of fun! I watched the whole movie in 3D except for some breaks to see the difference in 2D.  I'll just say this, switching from '3D' Stereoscopic - whatever  back to 2D on a movie like this leaves you feeling well (dare I say it  )  FLAT and kind of disappointed.  With yells of “put it back in 3D dad” I got me a beer and switched back.   The kids  ooh'd and ahhh'd at all the right moments. There was no flicker and we managed to avoid going into blinded convulsing spasms on the floor.  Of course the Blu-Ray 3D titles look better than the converted 2D DVDs but it is fun to revisit some of these titles.  It certainly won’t be a big part of our TV viewing I haven’t bothered to try it out on broadcast material but it a fun thing to do now and then.  Here’s my prediction, it will just be another feature which separates consumer choice, buyers want choice – look at the mobile phone market for that proof  “this phone has 300 applications, oh and you can use it for calls too”.  “This TV connects to the internet as well as your NAS devices and consoles blah blah blah and it has 3D”.  “Does that model have 3D?”  “No”.  OK I’ll take the fully featured one”.

[Xiaou2]

Ond,

 What were you using to convert the 2d to 3d? 

 Is that a feature of the new 3d blueray / dvd players?
 
 Or is it a stand-alone unit?  Or PC software conversion?

[Ond]

Ond,

 What were you using to convert the 2d to 3d? 

 Is that a feature of the new 3d blueray / dvd players?
 
 Or is it a stand-alone unit?  Or PC software conversion?

It is a feature of the Samsung LED/LCD TV I've purchased  details here   http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/led-tv/UA46C7000WDXXY/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail&returnurl=

This unit does its own processing of the image regardless of the source.  It’s just an option on the remote labeled ‘3D’.  It’s by no means perfected and yeah ya gotta wear the glasses (for now).  I just thought a bit of feedback from a users point of view might be worth adding.  I hear a lot of talk about weird effects, flickering, blindness! etc etc. After sitting down and actually using the technology for a while, well, that (seemingly) sensationalist hype seems all a bit ‘overblown’.  It’s just a neat novelty, a bi-product of TV technology today.  To declare it a transient fad or whatever is, in my opinion, probably a bit premature.  Having said all that, queue the  report of somebody  having watched 3D TV and going apeshit and killing half the people in his home town or something  .

[DaveMMR]

My biggest concern with 3D is the sheer novelty of it.   I've seen a couple of films in 3D (particularly the re-release of Nightmare Before Christmas a few years back) and it was jaw-dropping, of course.  But about an hour in, I stopped noticing the 3D effects and was itching to get the glasses off already.

They're pushing 3D TVs but I think it's still very much imperfect.

[Mikezilla]

How can anyone forget the mind blowing 3D in Jaws 3D?!!? 

Its a fad and I cant wait for it to blow over. Blame James Cameron. Hack.

[eds1275]

IMO it's like a rollercoaster. It's fun, but if you had one at home and rode it every day, it wouldn't be. Leave it in the theatres is my vote. If there were a vote going on anyway...

[SNAAKE]

IMO it's like a rollercoaster. It's fun, but if you had one at home and rode it every day, it wouldn't be. Leave it in the theatres is my vote. If there were a vote going on anyway...

yeah but there are other possibilities. think about GOOD 3rd gaming. bullets, zombies, random stuff all in real 3d just movies in theater. yeah Id def want that in the future.

[Ond]

IMO it's like a rollercoaster. It's fun, but if you had one at home and rode it every day, it wouldn't be. Leave it in the theatres is my vote. If there were a vote going on anyway...

yeah but there are other possibilities. think about GOOD 3rd gaming. bullets, zombies, random stuff all in real 3d just movies in theater. yeah Id def want that in the future.

Hey yeahhh! This just got me thinking, I'm going to have to test some of my fav PC driving games and shooters on the new TV in 3D mode.  I have just started playing BioShock 2 (what a weird game)  Hmm maybe I should do a review.  I'll be completely objective I promise

[Xiaou2]

Ond,

 Try mame on the bad boy.

 It would be curious to see if it will auto-sync stereoscopic game output, such as with "Continental Circuit".  I think you have to press your "F1" key while in the game to enable the 3d frames.

 Also try a standard 2d racer like OutRun, and see how it fares.


 Ohh, almost forgot.. a couple of other Stereoscopic 3d games are on the sega master system emulator.  Most notably:

 - Missile Defense 3D
 - Maze Hunter 3D
 - Outrun 3D
 - Space Harrier 3D
 - Blade Eagle 3D
 - Poseidon Wars 3D

 The best being the 1st two games listed.


 Let us know,
 

[Howard_Casto]

I read a report that said 2-12% of the population are 3D-blind.   70% sounds a little far fetched.   If the technology had that high of a reject rate, I doubt it would be considered a viable consumer feature.

2-12% of the population are completely 3d blind... up to 70% don't get the full 3d depth perception intended by the creators of 3d imagery.  It has to do with various factors including not only vision, but eye fatigue.  Even the new 3d causes strain on the eyes.  Most people can't keep the damn glasses on for the full length of a movie.  Thus the 70%.

As for the second part of the statement you really seem to underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer.  If something didn't sell because it was useless then the snuggie wouldn't be one of the most popular tv products ever. 

[drventure]

you really seem to underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer

Well spoken. Snuggies, the Franklin Mint, that "Painter of Light" guy. There's lots of examples of that!

[Vanguard]

I don't see people spending $1500+ on any of those examples (and that's without purchasing the glasses).   Also, People will try a TV before they buy it.   If it causes them discomfort, they'll opt for a cheaper tv without the 3D feature.   If 70% of people do this, well...the result would be obvious. 

[eds1275]

2-12% of the population are completely 3d blind... up to 70% don't get the full 3d depth perception intended by the creators of 3d imagery.  It has to do with various factors including not only vision, but eye fatigue.  Even the new 3d causes strain on the eyes.  Most people can't keep the damn glasses on for the full length of a movie.  Thus the 70%.

As for the second part of the statement you really seem to underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer.  If something didn't sell because it was useless then the snuggie wouldn't be one of the most popular tv products ever. 

But if they get a cuddly mascot...

[Xiaou2]

they'll opt for a cheaper tv without the 3D feature.

There isnt much cost needed to make an LCD 3d.  Sure, they may get away with charging extra initially... but pretty much every LCD maker will eventually add 3d so as not to get pushed out of the market.

 If 3d cost $500 to instate, then sure, only a select few mfg. would instate them into their product.  Already Ive seen announcements for 3d screened laptops.

 Many LCDs are multitouch, and how many people really care about & use that?
Its a gimmick that has much less value than 3d vision does.

 And what? Yes, 3d LCDs can also display in 2d.

Most people can't keep the damn glasses on for the full length of a movie.

 Really?  Cause every single Imax movie Ive ever been to, and I dont see people taking off the glasses.  You tend to notice something like 70% of people taking off glasses for lengths of time. That would be like more than half of the people sitting near you.

 That being polarized glasses.  Not sure about flicker tech... cause I only have the master system to compare with... which uses simple graphics, and a low frame switch rate.

[RayB]

I'm on the fence.

One thing though, the argument of "eye strain" is not going to be a make or break factor when you consider that for some people even just a regular FPS video game on Xbox causes them either eye strain or "motion sickness". Yet you didn't see the industry abandon that genre just because of a few sensitive or aging people.

We shall see! (pun intended)

[dre-w]

So the TV will work for only one person at a time and that person has to wear something clipped to them?  How is this better then the glasses?

Well one you wouldn't have to wear it on your face  and two I was saying just because there's a slider switch to adjust distance doesn't mean it could never work for a television.  It could work..  for one person.....  ok for me 

It's perfect for a small handheld device, but in order to get something similar to work in our living rooms, then it'll be some new tech we likely haven't seen yet.

Agreed.  But they need to hurry up and figure it out, before we all go blind!
http://www.televisions.com/tv-news/No-joke-3D-contact-lenses.php

[ChadTower]

2-12% of the population are completely 3d blind... up to 70% don't get the full 3d depth perception intended by the creators of 3d imagery.  It has to do with various factors including not only vision, but eye fatigue.  Even the new 3d causes strain on the eyes.  Most people can't keep the damn glasses on for the full length of a movie.  Thus the 70%.

It sure would be nice to see some sources on these figures.

That said I fall somewhere in there.  That Harry Potter movie mentioned earlier was not great for me.  I had trouble telling what was going on in a couple of scenes where the 3D was integrated well enough that the depth was a determining factor in the action.  At other 3D movies I just don't see that much 3D.  I know some movies use it better than others but there just haven't been many movies where I walked out with the same wow factor that the people around me talk about.

[RayB]

Checked out a large Sony last night. Must have been 50"
Uses shutter glasses. Had Alice in Wonderland playing. Looked quite good !

$2185 and a pair of glasses is $150. There's no reason the glasses couldn't come down on cost to as little as $30 in the future. there isn't all that much to the tech.