Survey says consumers want 3D at home

We've joked that in the next year some will say we might as well change the name of the site to Engadget 3D, and that's because we've seen the technology and loved the experience. Apparently we're not alone as a recent survey by Quixel Research showed that 78 percent had experienced 3D and 68 percent would recommend it to friends -- we assume the rest are basing this on their Dallas Stadium 3D experience. Almost half of the respondents said they'd like to receive 3D content via cable or satellite and about a third said they'd actually be willing to switch providers to get it. Now we've seen the BCS National Championship Game and Avatar in a 3D theater and while both were enjoyable, we think 3D sports is the bigger motivator to upgrade our HDTV.

[wyldtek Posted Dec 22nd 2009 2:23PM]

I'm only interested in 3D when the next generation of game consoles come out. By then I might be ready to get a new TV. I don't care about 3D for TV or movies. Avatar was cool, but I don't need it at home.

Because I multitask so much while watching sports I'm probably not interested in watching them in 3D either. The only sport I'd even be remotely interesting in seeing in 3D is football, and usually I'm chatting with my brothers or friends on my laptop (or checking fantasy stats) while doing so. Maybe 3D would be cool during a Super Bowl party, but otherwise I'll pass.

[andyg8180 Posted Dec 22nd 2009 2:24PM]

I'm still not convinced... didnt they try this in the 80's? And everyone started walking around with cool 3-d glasses? Or was that just in 80's movies... In any case... Would you really want to sit with glasses on your face all the time? Plus if you have a superbowl party, are you going to supply glasses to everyone? Or are they going to start selling Louis Vitton 3-D glasses? I enjoy HD as much as the next person, but how is 3-D gonna make things better?

[ack154 Posted Dec 22nd 2009 2:46PM]

I still have zero interest in 3D. I'd like to see BluRay reach DVD levels of affordability before giving a crap about 3D. Then again, anything the manufacturer's can shove down people's throats is sure to be a good thing, no?

[truelove79 Posted Dec 22nd 2009 3:02PM]

@ack154

I'm with ya. I've seen plenty of movies in 3D and I'm still not very impressed. Sure, it's sort of cool, but I wear contacts to the theater so I don't have to wear glasses.

Let me know when they do 3D with NO glasses and I'm in.

[travis8214 Posted Dec 25th 2009 4:09AM]

@ack154 Blu-Rays, depending on where you go, already cost as much as DVDs did about 2 or 3 years ago. As the price of a Blu-Ray drops, so will the DVD. This whole "I'm just waiting for it to be as cheap as DVD" excuse a lot of people have is really just beating a dead horse

[barkingghos Posted Dec 22nd 2009 3:09PM]

Like one survey is a conclusion for the entire 300 million folks in the USA. Maybe EngadgetHD needs to grow up a little and stop buying into its own hollow hype machine.

[firesign Posted Dec 22nd 2009 3:41PM]

When they can do it without the stupid glasses give me a call. Even then it's still pretty much a gimmick to me.

[JBerg Posted Dec 22nd 2009 3:41PM]

Cue the stubborn "it's just a fad" and "I hate teh glasses" complainers.

3D is here, whether you want it or not. Just like Blu-ray, the consumer electronics companies are putting in way too much money to have it fail now. Now that James Cameron and Panasonic have developed a 3D, studio-quality camera that only weighs 50 pounds you can be damned sure that a lot of studios - both movie and TV - are going to be going 3D, and the 2D compatibility of the new 3D BD spec will guarantee that a lot of 3D-optional material is going to be coming down the wires.

It's here. It's not going away. Get over it. But, rest assured, that I will at least come to your defense to keep 3D as **optional**, not mandatory.

[(Unverified) Posted Dec 22nd 2009 3:59PM]

I guess until we see a finished product all the posturing is moot. If there is plenty of content and the product is cool then we'll jump on the bandwagon.

[frizbplaya Posted Dec 22nd 2009 5:31PM]

I saw Michael Jackson's Captain EO in 3D at Epcot Center in 1987, I saw a diet coke commercial on the 1989 Super Bowl in 3D, and I saw Bolt in 3D in 2008. It was all the same. What kind of survey was this? What was the sample? I call hogwash.

[nrb Posted Dec 23rd 2009 1:41AM]

"about a third said they'd actually be willing to switch providers to get it"

A third of the third above of them would really follow their claim. 80% of those left would grow tired of dealing with the glasses and/or having a blurry picture while others have glasses.

For those too lazy to do the math, that comes to 2.2% that would actually stick with 3D at home.

Disclaimer: I'm making this up as I go along, but so are they.

[Brien Posted Dec 23rd 2009 3:22AM]

I would be fine if it's optional, but I think it's a real PITA to keep having to update all my electronics every 2-3 years. First for HD, then for HDMI, now for this? C'mon.

[anarchyjim Posted Dec 25th 2009 3:21AM]

Who paid for the study? sounds like the TV manufacturers trying to wag the dog. To say nothing of the hardware issue... oh, you mean I have to buy a new TV with those 3D glasses? Did they mention that to the folks in the survey? And for sports... are you really going to hang out with some friends and watch sports with glasses on? Seriously. Yes, 3D is here to stay, but only because TVs will eventually come with it for free, once they realize they can't get people to pay for it...

[protozoider Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:21AM]

They either surveyed dumb people or people who have never seen 3D in the theater. This just isn't practical when most people have under 40" of screen space. What makes this cool in the theater is the hundreds of feet of screen space. In concept it's a cool idea but until everyone has a high quality projector this just won't work. I would love 3D but I know even on my 50" set it would just look pathetic.