So far the big story at CES 2010 is the seemingly inevitable march toward 3D TV. Nearly every major manufacturer is announcing a high-end 3D HDTV at the show, including Sony, Vizio, and LG. (.)

And there is going to be new 3D content, too: , and ESPN started plugging the upcoming ESPN 3D on SportsCenter yesterday. Add in the good timing that number one movie in the country—+$640 million and counting—is Avatar, also available in 3D. There's just one little problem, which no one here at CES seems to want to discuss: 3D TV just doesn't look very good.

I saw Avatar in 3D at an IMAX theater over the holidays. I liked the movie and was even game for wearing the goofy glasses. The movie was spectacular, but the 3D effects fell flat. Although parts of the picture would pop, the rest of the screen seemed to suffer for it. More often than not, the effects distracted from the story instead of enhancing it. There was one scene where some insects buzzing the foreground really caught me, but other than that I think I would have preferred plain old 2D, as long as it included IMAX, Dolby Surround, and a really comfy seat.

What's more, the viewing experience became less about the story and more about spotting 3D effects. That novelty might fade with time, but so will the patience with those glasses. If you want a formula for failure, ask your customers to change their behavior to use your product. Wearing 3D glasses is tolerable for an event like Avatar, but are the guys really going to gather around for the Sunday games wearing goggles? Probably not. Definitely not, if the effects are as poor as what I have seen so far at CES.

Furthermore, retrofitting your living room for 3D is going to be expensive. For most consumers, the privilege of watching a 3D version of Avatar at home could cost as much as $4,000 after the cost of a 3D-capable TV and 3D-compliant Blu-ray player is factored in. After all, a big reason vendors are pushing 3D is so they can start selling HDTVS for more than $1,000 again. (One savvy PCMag staffer found a 47-inch Sharp LCD HDTV that does full 1080p for just $800 this holiday. Score!) The economy might be turning upward, but not many of us can afford high-end TVs these days.

I should note that 3D TVs have been on the market for years. Mitsubishi has been touting the 3D capabilities of its DLP HDTVs, mainly as a key differentiator for games. Did you know that? No? That probably means there hasn't been a huge market for it. In a post-Avatar and ESPN 3D world, that will certainly change. But it will also take a while before 3D TV really goes mainstream.

I'm not being naive about costs; they will come down eventually. When the hordes howled at the $1,000 price tags for Blu-ray players a few years back, I told people to relax and wait for the volumes to bring prices down. Now, for just $150, no one would consider just buying a DVD player. (Or, incidentally, a Blu-ray player without some built-in Internet streaming capability.) Of course, prices will fall, but not in 2010. Probably not even in 2011.

The one place I see 3D catching on faster is with gamers. Nvidia and others are pushing 3D programming into gaming and it works great. Gamers tend to be patient with new technologies, especially if it increases the realism of game play. Can you imagine a bunch of geeks huddled in front of their TVs playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 in 3D? Yeah, me too.

Despite my reservations, I do think there is a future for 3D TV. It just isn't the near future. In many ways this is akin to the early days of HD, where there were a handful of channels that a pathetically small number of people could actually watch. Who am I to argue with research firms like DisplaySearch, which predicts the 3D TV market will reach $1.1 billion in 2010 and swell to $15.8 billion by 2015. That may be, but Dan Costa Research guessestimates those sets will be showing 2D content 92 percent of the time they are on.

And if anyone tells you differently, those aren't 3D goggles they are wearingthey're rose-colored glasses.