>Maybe in 2 or 3 years when there is no need for 3D glasses, i'll jump on it.
Not very likely. The basic mathematical rule of parallax means you will never have a front-facing image that can produce 3D over a range of locations. Handheld game makers are working on single-player video games that will use parallax and that might be a huge winner. But basic geometry says there will never be, can never be, a conventional television that displays 3D to multiple people or even one person across different locations. It's glasses, or it's Tom who happens to be sitting dead center 7.4 feet away.
There of course WILL be true 3D but it will be a different technology. Holograms, or transsecting lasers, or destructively interfering neutrinos, or (most likely) something we haven't yet imagined. This will not be the appearance of three dimensions within a box in front of us but occupying actual three dimensions in space. That might be in three years, or in thirty.
Or there could be a completely unexpected breakthrough regarding a way to regulate information being passed from the retina to the brain - forcing the optical pathways or processing centers to flash on and off exactly like shutter glasses. That may sound like science fiction, but there is amazing research going on about how the eye actually works that makes this frankly the most likely possibility from a technological standpoint. But the practical reality of this approach, even if it were to become possible tomorrow, is it wanders across the definition of a Medical Device and would probably be disallowed in most countries (well, any country where enough consumer buying power makes it worthwhile) by regulatory agencies. Note they never bring that angle up in SciFi movies...
People are not going to wear glasses as part of their normal, ongoing, entertainment routine. Think about it: if you are willing to wear glasses, you don't need to buy a new television. There are already glasses that contain two separate little TV screens that provide the same 3D effect. They're actually much better, because you can watch the 3D movie regardless of your position - you can be lying down and still watch, you can toss and turn and still be watching. So there is already an existing technology that accomplishes the same thing that could be refined, improved, and reduced in weight and cost that does everything 3D TV sets do and more, and nobody is buying them or particularly investing in their future. I suspect this is because the marketeers know that 3D TV will be a flop, but possibly get more programming content out there as a lure, and then have the Next Big 3D Thing waiting that you'll have to buy.