Why 3D gaming won't work for the next couple years

 Ever since those cheesy monster flicks in the 80’s, 3D has been a symbol of the future. The thought of being “part of the experience” has brought many people to the movie theater so that they may be wowed by optical illusions. 3D-capable TVs and monitors are finally commercially available, but many tech journalists have been giving them the cold shoulder. So why is a technology that was once exclusive to movie theaters, now being shunned when introduced to the living room?

 
Price

3D-capable TVs and monitors are a somewhat new technology, and like most new technology, are expensive. A Samsung 43BWT 22’ LCD monitor from Falcon Northwest is $299 while a Samsung SyncMaster 2233RZ 120Hz 22" LCD Monitor from the same seller is $649. Paying more than double the price of a normal monitor is a hard sell to those who only have a mild interest in 3D.  The culprit behind the large increase in price is the high refresh rate that is required when displaying a 3D image. Less expensive 3D-capable monitors are available; however, their refresh rates are significantly lower than 120Hz. This can lead to a “ghosting” effect that makes motion displayed on the screen appear blurry.

You have to be Looking Directly at the Screen 
 
While looking directly at a screen may not sound like that big of a deal, you need to take into account the number of times you change your viewing angle. If you are leaning back, to the side, with your head tilted, then the 3D images that your computer or TV displays will look distorted and unpleasant. When sitting in the center of a movie theater, there isn’t a problem. However, if you are sitting in a chair that swivels and reclines, it can be difficult to stay in one position for very long.

3D Takes a Toll Your GPU  
 
This is a problem that many people don’t take into account. Most 3D-capable monitors display two images in order to make something look 3D.  This can take a toll on a computer’s GPU, resulting in lower quality visuals, and/or a lower frame rate. If you have a powerful graphics card already then there isn’t much of a problem, but if your card is a couple years old and is already showing its age, then 3D could be too much for it to handle. If that is the case, you will have to upgrade your graphics card if you want a 3D display. This can create problems associated with upgrading a GPU, like possibly having to get a new motherboard or power supply.

Only Certain Games can Display in 3D 
 
Let’s be honest, pretty much the only reason someone would buy a 3D monitor would be for games. (TVs are an exception) Companies like Nvidia are pushing 3D as “The future of gaming” showing off Batman: Arkham Asylum and Metro 2033 in 3D at events like GDC and CES. One thing to notice is that those games can be displayed in 3D because the developers made them 3D ready. As of now, few games can actually be displayed in 3D. (Unless there’s some third party software I haven’t heard of) While a 3D-capable monitor can still display in 2D, it defeats the purpose of having a 3D-capable monitor.

 
Now, I want to make it clear that I don’t hate 3D. In fact, if I have the option, I generally pay the extra money to see a movie in 3D. It’s the reasons listed above that makes me skeptical about its move from the movie theater to my living room. While none of those reasons on their own are deal breakers, they add up to an expensive feature, that most of us don’t really need. It is my belief that until game designers can come up with something original that makes 3D a viable option to the average consumer, it will remain where it is now: At the movie theater.

 Ever since those cheesy monster flicks in the 80’s, 3D has been a symbol of the future. The thought of being “part of the experience” has brought many people to the movie theater so that they may be wowed by optical illusions. 3D-capable TVs and monitors are finally commercially available, but many tech journalists have been giving them the cold shoulder. So why is a technology that was once exclusive to movie theaters, now being shunned when introduced to the living room?

 
Price

3D-capable TVs and monitors are a somewhat new technology, and like most new technology, are expensive. A Samsung 43BWT 22’ LCD monitor from Falcon Northwest is $299 while a Samsung SyncMaster 2233RZ 120Hz 22" LCD Monitor from the same seller is $649. Paying more than double the price of a normal monitor is a hard sell to those who only have a mild interest in 3D.  The culprit behind the large increase in price is the high refresh rate that is required when displaying a 3D image. Less expensive 3D-capable monitors are available; however, their refresh rates are significantly lower than 120Hz. This can lead to a “ghosting” effect that makes motion displayed on the screen appear blurry.

You have to be Looking Directly at the Screen 
 
While looking directly at a screen may not sound like that big of a deal, you need to take into account the number of times you change your viewing angle. If you are leaning back, to the side, with your head tilted, then the 3D images that your computer or TV displays will look distorted and unpleasant. When sitting in the center of a movie theater, there isn’t a problem. However, if you are sitting in a chair that swivels and reclines, it can be difficult to stay in one position for very long.

3D Takes a Toll Your GPU  
 
This is a problem that many people don’t take into account. Most 3D-capable monitors display two images in order to make something look 3D.  This can take a toll on a computer’s GPU, resulting in lower quality visuals, and/or a lower frame rate. If you have a powerful graphics card already then there isn’t much of a problem, but if your card is a couple years old and is already showing its age, then 3D could be too much for it to handle. If that is the case, you will have to upgrade your graphics card if you want a 3D display. This can create problems associated with upgrading a GPU, like possibly having to get a new motherboard or power supply.

Only Certain Games can Display in 3D 
 
Let’s be honest, pretty much the only reason someone would buy a 3D monitor would be for games. (TVs are an exception) Companies like Nvidia are pushing 3D as “The future of gaming” showing off Batman: Arkham Asylum and Metro 2033 in 3D at events like GDC and CES. One thing to notice is that those games can be displayed in 3D because the developers made them 3D ready. As of now, few games can actually be displayed in 3D. (Unless there’s some third party software I haven’t heard of) While a 3D-capable monitor can still display in 2D, it defeats the purpose of having a 3D-capable monitor.

 
Now, I want to make it clear that I don’t hate 3D. In fact, if I have the option, I generally pay the extra money to see a movie in 3D. It’s the reasons listed above that makes me skeptical about its move from the movie theater to my living room. While none of those reasons on their own are deal breakers, they add up to an expensive feature, that most of us don’t really need. It is my belief that until game designers can come up with something original that makes 3D a viable option to the average consumer, it will remain where it is now: At the movie theater.

Here's another reason: what're you gonna do that doesn't feel gimmicky? I'm sure that that problem will disappear with time, but right now, I don't remember a lot of games that made use of 3D to the point where it was absolutely necessary. Remember the Virtual Boy? The Master System games that had 3D? No on the last one? Exactly.

Yeah, It's going to suck. I'm glad that only a few games coming out now will have 3D, and it will prove how gimmicky and unnecessary it is. Killzone 3 I'm looking at you.

Apparently Nvidia 3D is pretty good.  But it falls under your second point.  It strains the video card.  But still, the list of the playable games is quite large.
 
Edit:  And your first point.  120hz monitors are pricey.  And the glasses are $200

Home 3D is going to suck until glasses-less tvs become an affordable reality. Those solve the problems of "sitting directly in front of the tv" and, you know, glasses. As far as straining GPUs, that will become less of an issue once games take 3D into consideration from the get-go. What will probably happen is that next-gen games on a next-gen console will look similar to what they look like now as far as model detail, texture resolution, etc., but will run in 3D at an acceptable framerate. 
 
Of course, there are a lot of smart graphics programmers out there that will probably make some pretty drastic improvements to the way 3D games are rendered. Just rendering the same thing twice from slightly different angles is obviously not the best way to handle it.