Had an interesting chat over breakfast with David Reeves (yep, I'm name-dropping) about, amongst other things, 3D.
He reckons that adding 3D features to games for the home consoles is relatively cheap and doesn't add significant costs to the already expensive game development process. He also claimed it isn't a massive increase in the work load, with a good quality team able to add 3D features in two to three weeks.
The counter to this is at this point and for at least the rest of the year, 3D is an extremely significant cost to the consumer. Presuming they've already shelled out for the console, the price for the TV to play 3D is ridiculous. It's not a new point to make, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the assumption that consumers will eventually adopt 3D as standard.
I didn't hear it so much in David's chat today, but from speaking with a couple of developers serious about 3D there is an attitude of "if you can't afford it, tough." I'm not comfortable with that either, it sounds a little too much like an enforced format change without listening to the consumer. To gauge the success of home 3D we're going to have to adopt a wait and see approach once the early crowd have spent their money, and how significantly the price of 3D sets come down.
Of course the other significant adoption of 3D is in Nintendo's new handheld console and if they price it right (which they have an uncanny knack of doing), it could be the catalyst that will turn on the more price conscious consumer. And then that raises the question of why shell out on a TV when you can buy a much cheaper alternative?