I don't think I would go that far, the industry is putting tons of money into it, it is still in the early stages, the bad economy has stalled many purchases, and there are tons of versions out there waiting to get released like the several viewing point, no-glasses screens. Several industries were actually banking on 3D, so it has support unlie the Dreamcast.
As for rendering angles the uniqueness of the two angles of views are sooo minor that your character could achieve the same view by bouncing back and forth, so while there is more rendering it would be like keying a camera to jump back and forth every frame. I tried to look up memeory usage or drag by 3D, but it did not pull up something quick. It would be cool to see the cost of adding 3D into a game, since they added 3D to some games that were already out.
At the same resolution? 3D requires rendering from two points--which requires about 2x power. And yes, splitscreen ruins the picture quality. Look at U3. That changed the vertical resolution to 540p, which is NOT HD. The only reason somebody like me would play splitscreen would be if a friend was over. Until the PS3's power is doubled, 3D games will look worse than their 2D counterparts. With multiplayer, B&B, special effects, and all of the other pretty stuff in Starhawk, as well as having a limited amount of resources, 2D will suffer if 3D is introduced. Badly.
Are you SURE about that two times the rendering, since it renders frames at alternating times. To my knowledge 3D TVs still are not able to do the real rendering, which is why they have the polarized or shutter glasses. It is why 3D reduces the FPS to half, therefore the rendering is halfed for each point. I could literally set up a single cam and have it key back and forth every 1 frame on a 30 fps animation and it would take the same rendering time as a single angle image, or set up two at 15 fps and get the same result, which is why I wonder if it really costs more (since hte FPS is halved).
Yes, but what about those of us who have 2D TVs? For 3D, textures have to be downscaled, models have to have a lower triangle count, and detail in general has to be lowered. Especially with B&B. I, being one of these backwards 2D TV owners, find this a bit... annoying.
Ummm....no...even if 3D games DID have to lower the graphics ....they would be so minute that even Killzone 3, Crysis 1&2, Wipeout HD, Stardust HD in 3D can attest to not changing one bit....
Besides...the 3D image is different the 2D image.....if they did make a big change....the 2D graphics wouldn't change....ONLY the 3D graphics would change. (So if you played it in 2D the graphics would be perfect...and in 3D they would supposedly be less perfect even though they aren't)