This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

After years of hype (and several, more contempo years of near-total invisibility), the 3D revolution is finally dead. LG and Sony were the last ii companies backing the standard, and both have dropped all support for the format on modernistic televisions. Any 3D content y'all yet own tin can be played back on any TV that supports information technology, of course. Only none of the companies that were at CES 2017 are shipping it on whatever panels.

3D TVs debuted at a time when 3D was making broad inroads across computers and televisions alike. The loftier-profile success of multiple 3D movies made theaters salivate, thinking of the increased revenue from premium ticket sales — sales that, theoretically, would besides drive increased sales of 3D movies on Blu-ray. Sony patched 3D support into the PlayStation 3, while Nvidia put a hefty push button behind it on GeForce cards (AMD too had its ain 3D implementation, but it mostly focused on pushing multi-monitor gaming during the same period).

3D TV was supposed to be the 2d coming. Instead, it fizzled. "3D capability was never really universally embraced in the industry for dwelling house use, and it'due south but non a fundamental ownership factor when selecting a new Idiot box," LG's Tim Alessi told CNET. "Purchase process research showed information technology'south not a top buying consideration, and anecdotal information indicated that actual usage was non high. We decided to drop 3D back up for 2017 in order to focus our efforts on new capabilities such as HDR, which has much more universal appeal."

Why 3D Television set failed

In that location were a number of reasons why 3D TV failed in the market, and some cautionary lessons for VR fans (including myself). First and foremost, 3D content was gated to expensive equipment purchases. It wasn't plenty to have a Blu-ray role player; you had to have a Blu-ray player with 3D support and a TV that offered the same. Many 3D TVs required you to either have a pair of glasses for each person or, in the case of TVs that didn't require spectacles, had limited viewing angles and distances.

A sure corporeality of living room finagling is cypher new to TV watching, but this was a larger problem than just rearranging a few chairs. It was difficult and expensive to rig a living room for multi-person 3D viewing, and y'all had to have plenty 3D glasses to fit your entire audience.

Another major problem? Content. A handful of movies made for and shot in 3D, like Avatar, may have popularized the format, but few movies were filmed to take full advantage of it. Many limited themselves to using 3D in specific scenes and were filmed in 2D earlier being converted for 3D. It's cheaper (or seems to be, based on how many people went this route) to convert films in post production than to film them in 3D from the beginning. It's one thing to ask people to pay for The Next Big Thing, and something else entirely when they're shucking out premium greenbacks for a TV, a motion picture, and extra goggles, all while knowing that only 20-xxx minutes of a film may be truly 3D in the first place.

In addition, 3D is besides prone to giving some people headaches and move sickness, which again, can make it harder to watch a film or 3D content. The third time Grandpa runs for the bathroom or your kid decides to pigment the 3D spectacles black because information technology makes them look cool, you'll wind upwards wishing you'd saved money and just bought the regular TV and Blu-ray instead.

Killzone 3 3D art

For a brief moment, 3D art was really, actually cool.

What does this hateful for VR?

The story of 3D'due south rise and fall is a cautionary tale for the VR industry as well. I love VR and would similar to encounter it shape the time to come of gaming, simply many of the issues that doomed 3D TV and 3D content could besides kneecap VR adoption. Like 3D, it requires expensive, personal peripherals. Like 3D, games need to be designed explicitly for VR in society to showcase the technology to best effectiveness. Similar 3D, VR tin cause nausea and headaches. Like 3D, working in VR has an entirely new gear up of best practices, some of which aren't intuitive to people who spent their careers working on conventional design.

There are two major differences betwixt VR and 3D. First, VR is a stronger, more than immersive feel. I hate to autumn back on the "Only it's really cool, man" defense, merely it'south honestly true. If 3D was more immersive than 2d by virtue of having things jump "out" at you, VR is more than immersive past virtue of making you feel similar you're really at that place.

2d, VR is debuting as a gaming peripheral, and gaming is still much more of a solo activeness than TV watching (and PSVR even tries to solve this issue by allowing output to a second screen). That lone may brand the difference, provided the gaming manufacture tin can push button content that takes advantage of virtual reality quickly enough for people to want to buy it. But either fashion, it's worth remembering that many of the forces that killed 3D TV could wind upwards killing VR likewise. If game developers want to avoid this problem, care for 3D as a cautionary tale of a new technology whose promise and potential never justified the toll and headache in the eyes of the general public.

RIP 3D TV: 2010 – 2016. It's hard to believe you lot were with united states of america for only six years. Your various promises of washed-out colors, expensive glasses, limited viewing angles, extra wires, and specialized idiot box sets somehow never caught on with the mass market, even though 3D gaming via Nvidia's 3D Vision was really pretty absurd. May you notice a better adoption rate among the angels than yous were gifted here on World.