[citation][nom]stephen0983[/nom]jeesh they need a new xbox already, one that will actually play in full 1080p. same with playstation.[/citation]
The Xbox and PS3 are both capable of 1080p. That's just the resolution and has less to do with actual visuals shown on the screen. I've shown people a 720p game beside 1080p game and the 720p game looks overall better. Fewer pixels to render provides more horsepower to render other visuals that enhance the game experience while still having smooth game play.
3D will likely push the console makers towards the next generation sooner than their 10 year expected life cycle but nobody has been talking about those next consoles yet. They still want to milk the current cow a while longer before new investment. New hardware won't be needed to enable 3D gaming but it's the same situation as pushing 1080p on underpowered hardware. It just won't look as good as it should.
3D is going to fail miserably, I'm Not wearing glasses or any sort of device just to watch my own god damned television ! This pathetic attempt by Hollywood to make money out of this will also fail miserably. If you don't have a good script it makes no difference, Avatar is proof.
True 3D is the next jump in video gaming. Current systems render a 3D image on a 2D surface, basically a 3D world behind a window. Because the human brain see's depth using stereo vision, you can reproduce the effect using stereoscopic technology. I used to mess around with this back in 2001, but back then the computational HW didn't exist to make it viable. Playing on a good CRT monitor at 85/42.5 hz at 800x600 (1024x768 high settings pushed the GPU too hard) gave a surreal experience, especially in Unreal Tournament and AVP2.
Nowadays we finally have the GPU horsepower required to fully render two separate in-sync frames at high resolutions at the same time. And we finally have the display tech capable of displaying those two frames on top of each other on the same screen. Also game companies are now aware to make their games naively compatible with stereoscopic displays. The GFX driver doesn't have to do hand-waving magic to render two screens. This makes for more consistent game-play and less graphics glitch's. Personally I'm waiting for a 150hz capable screen so I can do 75hz 3D displays. 120/60 produces very little eyestrain but it can become a problem if your happen to have a florescent light overhead (they pulse at 60hz).
After 3D displays they need to get virtual interfaces working, hand / body motion detection and possibly holographic displays .... my dream.
I have dabbled with 3d gaming and watched several of the latest movies in 3d. While it is neat, I honestly can't say that I feel anymore immersed into the movies that watching in good 1080p resolution. I would rather watch a new movie at the theater in 1080p than in 3d. I mean if I have to shell out 11.50 I think I should at least have a superiour image to that of home. If not, I might as well wait and watch it at home. Gaming seems to be a bit more promising, but I think it will take another 2 to 3 years for the hardware to catch up for it to be more mainstream. Face it trying to render crysis in all of it's glory in 3d 1080p with a refresh rate higher than 60z per eye isn't happening anytime soon. Frankly, playing or watching anything at 60 hz is an eye strain after playing on a 120hz lcd. Currently 3d tech almost seems like stepping back to stander def after getting used to hd. Just my opinion.