Sections

Survey: Only 2% of Britons thinking of 3D TV purchase

Friday, 27th August 2010 13:57 GMT By Johnny Cullen

3dtv japan

Looks like the UK’s not ready to ride the 3D TV gravy train. Far from it, actually.

According to a survey from YouGov for Deloitte (via GI), only 2 percent of those surveyed in the UK – that’s 89 people out of 4199 questioned – are considering a 3D TV purchase.

The 25-34 demographic was most interested in getting one, while those over 45 were least impressed.

Japan was surveyed on the subject recently, with only just over 30 percent of those questioned considering a buy.

Scatterbrain

The UK news comes as the three games hardware holders maintain very different stances on 3D: Nintendo is getting ready to launch a 3D version of DS next year, with launch details coming at the end of next month.

The device will enable you to play 3D games without the need for glasses.

Microsoft, meanwhile, maintained earlier this week that 3D won’t be mainstream in homes for at least another two-three years, with MS’s Aaron Greenberg questioning “consumer demand” for the tech.

“The question is whether or not the consumer demand is there,” he told VG247 at E3 in June.

“We’re not a consumer electronics company that’s trying to sell 3D TVs, so we have the benefit of waiting until the market responds. We’re going to take probably more of a pull than a push approach.”

As for Sony, it’s taking up a massive 3D push with PS3, showing some of its games in 3D at gamescom last week, including Motorstorm Apocalypse.

But SCE WWS 3D boss Mick Hocking wasn’t going to be drawn on if any future PSP iterations would support 3D, like 3DS.

“Our focus at the moment is really on living room-based, big-screen TV, because we think that’s the most imersive 3D experience you can have,” he told us in Cologne last week.

“In the future, we may look at other ways of doing it, but at the moment, that’s certainly our focus: the high-quality entertainment on your TV.”

Hocking added that glassless 3D TVs are a long way out and very hard and difficult to develop, despite Toshiba announcing earlier this week it was doing just that.

THQ also had a glassless 3DTV on show for its games at E3.

Latest

34 Comments

  1. Blerk

    I did this survey! \o/

    #1 4 years ago
  2. AHA-Lambda

    “89 people out of 4199″

    OUCH! hopefully this fucking fad will die a slow painful death

    #2 4 years ago
  3. Gheritt White

    I’m surprised it’s as high as 2%, quite frankly. I’d have said 0.2% was more likely!

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Psychotext

    Not really particularly surprising. I think there’s going to need to be a massive increase in content before most people feel like buying in.

    #4 4 years ago
  5. No_PUDding

    Everyone forgot about this Japanese woman. I’d.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. Psychotext

    I think that’s because she looks like a full on crayon eating retard in those glasses.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. No_PUDding

    You don’t have to be a retard to eat crayon.

    #7 4 years ago
  8. StolenGlory

    @7 Correct.

    @6 I wouldn’t hold that against her.

    #8 4 years ago
  9. freedoms_stain

    That’s how many of us still have (secure) jobs.

    #9 4 years ago
  10. itsucks

    Flop, gonna bomb just like PSPGo(ne)

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Freek

    This only means 2% of the popularion are early adopters, that isn’t the death of 3D.
    Once the technology has matured and the price comes down, then more people will be interested.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. Dannybuoy

    I think about it. A lot. Then I look at my available cash and most of it goes on keeping my daughter in nappies. Maybe when she has stopped shitting so much i might be able to save some cash for a new telly.

    #12 4 years ago
  13. Psychotext

    “I wouldn’t hold that against her.”

    What would you?

    #13 4 years ago
  14. Hybridpsycho

    When 3D Looks good and is cheaper, oh…and it doesn’t require those glasses (3DS <3 )…Then I might consider getting it :)

    #14 4 years ago
  15. Khanivor

    But I thought 40% of UK homes was gunna have a 3DTV by 2014?

    #15 4 years ago
  16. xino

    why are people retarded?!

    just because 3D Tv has been announced doesn’t mean EVERY who farking buy it!
    HD TV was around since 2005 yet no one bought one, half of the people didn’t even know HDTV exist. Till 2007 that was when people started picking HD TV up.

    Same thing with 3D TV, by the time it’s 2012, people would start picking 3DTV up.

    I mean we are starting to see more 3D Movies at the cinema which should mean that 3D movies will be compulsory at the cinema.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. frostquake

    @ 16 Xino

    1. HDTV doesn’t require that I wear Glasses, as of right now you HAVE TO with 3D! NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is going to wear glasses for 4-8 hours each night!!

    2. HDTV doesn’t induce nausea, Migraines, and the Vomiting of Zebra Rainbows all over oneself, 3D does one of the 3 things I listed in 1 of 4 people in a study I participated in, and I was one of those people who got MASSIVE migraines and Vomiting with extended wear.

    As far as I know their has been No HDTV that requires one to wear glasses, while one is nauseous, with an Exploding Migraines and Vomiting Monkey Rainbows all over oneself.

    3D has MUCH more of a MASSIVE HURDLE to overcome then HDTV…The only real thing that Stopped Massive HDTV penetration right away was the Price…and that is an easy Hurdle, called time!

    I WILL NEVER BUY a 3D TV unless it comes right down to all Programing and Games being in 3D and Forcing me to do it, because of all the problems I listed above. The only thing that kept me from buying a HDTV was Price and when it came down I went right out and bought one!! Price is only one of a larger amount of issues 3D is facing!!

    #17 4 years ago
  18. The_Deleted

    @12
    She’s not going to want for any less just cus she’s not filling nappies, mate. :) She’s only going to get older…brace yourself.

    It does seem odd that just as we’ve gotten into Hi-Def 1080p visuals that the companies want to ensure less visual quality with 3D. But I suppose if it’s used well, it all balances out.

    #18 4 years ago
  19. The_Deleted

    nevermind!

    #19 4 years ago
  20. DrDamn

    @17
    1. You don’t have to and aren’t meant to. These tvs do 2D too y’know. :). It’s an impact thing, use it on stuff which benefits from it and not on other stuff.

    So only 2%. That’s this year. Consider people only replace tvs once every 5-10 years, that we are already most of the way through the year. That 2% becomes 20-40% of people looking at paying extra for this with what is currently very little content.

    #20 4 years ago
  21. Gekidami

    Lets make a deal, everyone bitching about 3DTV’s posts the specs of the next TV they buy within the next 2-5 years. If it supports 3D you send me money.

    #21 4 years ago
  22. Robo_1

    LOL, nice one Gek. :)

    It’s going to become a bullet point feature of pretty much every high quality HD TV over the next five years. It’ll be completely up to the end user if they bother with it or not, much like motionflow etc.

    #22 4 years ago
  23. Crysis

    I would buy a 3DTV, once there is enough content, every network provides an 3D alternative, & most importantly the price drops a huge ammount. i can see this becoming an optional add on for future tvs
    for now i’d save up for a 3D enabled monitor, seems to already have more content

    #23 4 years ago
  24. LOLshock94

    3D is shite

    #24 4 years ago
  25. OlderGamer

    0% of this American household is thinking of getting a 3DTV.

    I do admit that at some point, when replacing then old TVs, the new ones may well have 3D built in. However at this point if one of my TVs broke, I would shuffle the ones I have around rather then buying a new one.

    You can’t get blood from a rock.

    And right now I can not afford a new TV 3D or not.

    #25 4 years ago
  26. frostquake

    I agree with OldGamer Dude on this…

    I will tell you this when I buy a New TV, which I hope is like 5-10 years away..If they have an HDTV next to a 3D TV, and the Whole Market is 3D, like every Channel is available in 2D and 3D and every Game is offered in 2D and 3D…I will still only buy a 2D HDTV..Hell I hope 2D HDTV’s become so cheap because all of yous out there are buying 3D…that I can buy a HUGE TRICKED out 2D HDTV on the Cheap…LOL….

    I can see the Future…all of yous out there go and buy 3D TV’s, but have the function turned off 90% of the time because ya hate having to wear the glasses for 6-8 hours, or you get Massive Migraines, HOLY COW, I need to buy Stock in Novartis, the Makers of EXTRA STRENGTH MIGRAINE EXCEDRIN!!

    #26 4 years ago
  27. Gekidami

    ^ Cool story, bro. Enjoy your shitty 100Hz plasma TV whilst everyone else has 480Hz full LED ones. you may as well go out and buy an SDTV instead of a HDTV now, because thats pretty much the difference in quality you’ll be forcing on yourself by picking up a TV that dosnt do 3D in 5 years.

    Never mind that a TV which can do 3D has a far superior 2D picture, as long as you’re sticking to your guns, eh?

    #27 4 years ago
  28. frostquake

    @Gek

    Ewwwwwwww I hate Plasma…

    Oh and they have 480Hz LED HDTV’s that are not 3D they showed them at CES 2010, the first ones are Samsung and Vizio

    http://www.hdtvbeat.com/480hz-led-hdtvs-debut-at-ces-2010/2010/01/

    Oh and the Eye can only see up to a certain refresh rate anyway.

    http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

    Good Try…LOL

    #28 4 years ago
  29. frostquake

    From Link:
    http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

    1. If your screen refreshes at 85Hz and your game runs at 50Hz (=50fps): Are you sure that you don’t need to synchronize them? Are you sure, you don’t need to play with a multiple of 85 to enjoy synchronized refresh updates? So the game running at 85fps may better than at 100fps. Maybe even a TFT display was better. It displays only with about 40fps but progressively.
    2. Even though single eye cells (rods and cones) may have their limitations due to their chemical reaction times and due to the distance to the brain, you cannot be sure how they interact or complement or synchronize. If 1 cell is able to perceive 10fps, 2 cells may be able to perceive 20fps by complementing one another. So don’t confuse “The human eye” with “The cell”.
    3. Some eye cells are reacting only when a stimulus is moving. Some react when it’s moving from A to B, some when it’s moving from D to Z. This may complicate frame-based simulation of reality.
    4. Motion of your body could alter the way how you perceive. Do you get headaches after watching 3 movies in the cinema in a row? Maybe that’s because you didn’t move with the filmed motion? This is the reason for front-passengers’ indispositions (= somebody else moved the car) and seasickness (=the sea moved the ship suddenly). Maybe this is the reason why 3D gaming glasses will never work perfectly. And this has nothing to do with frame rates.
    5. When you look straight (= with the center of your eyes) it’s not the same as if it was with the sides of your eyes. The sides are more sensitive to brightness and to flickering. The next time you are in the cinema do the following: Look up to the ceiling while the movie is playing. Especially during bright/white scenes you will clearly notice that the movie flickers.
    6. Sensitivity to blue is different than to green: You see green best, even when it’s dark, e.g. leaves in a forest at night. So “blue frames per second” may differ from “green frames per second”
    7. Do you like to play Quake? Do you think “More is better”? Maybe that’s why you think 200fps is better than 180fps.
    8. Do you think moving in 3D games is stuttering? Maybe your mouse scans motion with too little dpi (Dots Per Inch) or fps (Frames Per Second)?
    9. Do you think it is important that a graphics card can display 250 fps in your favourite game, because that’s a feature they write about in PC magazines and on covers?
    Now this is just a figure to show how fast the card is, not to show that you need such a high frame rate. It’s like with cars: 100km/h in 5 seconds. When will you ever need to go 100km/h in 5 seconds?

    #29 4 years ago
  30. G1GAHURTZ

    When will you ever need to go 100km/h in 5 seconds?

    lol.

    The person who wrote this obviously isn’t a fast car fan…

    Need and want/enjoy are two entirely different things.

    #30 4 years ago
  31. frostquake

    @GIGA…ROFL…Maybe he has Fast Car Anxiety…

    The only Point I was trying to make is that there comes a point where the eye can only see up to a certain refresh rate…also wanted to point out that there are going to be 480Hz LED HDTV’s that aren’t 3D….But hey if you want 3D go for it I say…I am sure there are Tons of people out there who want 3D…and in fact we need those people if 3D will succeed…as long as there is demand they will keep working on 3D to perfect it and get away from those stupid glasses…though there will be people who can’t do it, due to getting sick from it, headaches, or eye problems, but hey if they make them same price as 2D and you can turn it off…then that would be fine for others..but if 2D HDTV’s become super cheap because of 3D, but have the same display quality, then someone like me who doesn’t need 3D would buy the cheaper version, if all I am missing is 3D…and so far that is the case.

    #31 4 years ago
  32. G1GAHURTZ

    Yeah, I don’t like glasses 3D at all, personally.

    Don’t trust the technology one bit, and the things that I read about it makes me think it’s probably not even worth it anyway.

    Besides, companies are actively working on non-glasses sets ( http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/news/2010/08/24/Toshiba-Readying-No-Glasses-3D-TV/p1 ), so until there’s a ‘must have’ technological breakthrough, I’m not interested.

    #32 4 years ago
  33. frostquake

    @ Giga

    One thing that I am looking forward to, but maybe no one else is, is having the Internet on my TV and all the Apps that I can put on the Sidebar while watching TV. This was starting, but then 3D took the fore front and all this was kind of forgotten, but now I am starting to see commercials for this again, so maybe we will start seeing this come more to the front.

    The Best Buys I was in lately were trying to show me TV’s that could connect to the Internet and all the App’s I could get instead of trying to sell me a 3D TV, two Emps even told me that Buying 3D this early was a mistake and that an Internet TV with Apps was much more of a safe bet.

    So If I had that gravy boat of cash, I would definitely buy an Internet TV with apps, would Love to just watch Netflix on my TV without having to turn on one of my 3 consoles and navigate to the Netflix Channel!

    #33 4 years ago
  34. Crysis

    i would get a 3D monitor, cost me a bit over $600, but i need to find out what graphics card would support a 3D monitor =\

    #34 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.