I think it is fine to raise a red flag and warn potential buyers of 3D TVs, that the coming models which utilize passive glasses reduce vertical resolution by half (each eye sees 1920x540), but I feel that one should actually see these products before casting them aside.  In fact, they look pretty good.

I have been shooting digital stereo photos for some time and my 3D LCD monitor is a Zalman which features passive glasses as described above.  Even 18” from the screen, the photos look good and moving 3 or 4 feet back makes them look even better.  I have seen the 65” Vizio which utilizes passive glasses and like it better than their full resolution models with active glasses. There is no flicker and the glasses pass more light with no color shift. Your mileage may vary, but at least wait until you have seen the product before bad-mouthing it.

I can assure you that no one who cares about the quality of the video experience will be acquiring these lower quality 3d televisions.  Many of us are also avoiding the streaming experience from those that render a poor product (Netflix) in order to enjoy higher quality bluray.
3d does not improve the video experience; it only makes it different.  If the resolution is lower, it certainly is then deficient.

I don’t consider myself to be all that tech-savvy but of my friends and family, I am the only person that has a receiver with at least, five speakers, a Bluray player and HD TV setup in my home. With respect to whether 3D is a success, I must say that I am indifferent at best.
Six years ago, I moved out of a town house and looked for a single family home that would support my desire to finally watch movies and listen to music without having to be concerned about disturbing my neighbors with bass thumping through the walls. (of course, this was not the sole reason for my desire to move)
When I found my home, I upgraded from a 30inch SD TV to a 62 inch HD set. Right away, I could see where the money went. I got a lot of enjoyment out of watching SD content on the much larger screen. I’ve finally gotten over the fact that two months after I purchased my 62 inch 1080i set, the same store put a larger 73 inch 1080p set on sale for less than what I paid for my 62 incher. (Now, you can get a 73 AND a 45 for even less than just the 73 inch set alone)
Not long after buying my TV, I added a 400 disk DVD changer and I was quite satisfied for a short while. I eventually purchased an HD DVD player and was knocked over by the difference in picture quality over my DVD changer. My satisfaction lasted two months. That’s how quickly the format died after I bought in.
Since purchasing my entertainment “rig” which now consists of a 62 inch 1080i television, a mid level receiver with HDMI inputs for the HD DVD player, region free Bluray player and HI DEF cable box as well as component inputs for my 400 disk DVD changer, I am loathe to purchase a whole new setup.
I’m currently saving up money to add on to the house to build a dedicated home theater that will feature a cinemascope screen and projector setup. 3D is not on my list of must-have features. The idea of spending so many more thousands of dollars to replace what I’ve already spent thousands on just doesn’t appeal to me. If I can add 3D when I’m finally ready to begin my home theater project without having to expand the budget tens of thousands of dollars, I might do so. Otherwise, I’ll be perfectly satisfied with watching Bluray content on a big wide screen. So, no, cutting the resolution in half just to add 3D when I’d still have to replace all of my current gear doesn’t seem to be the move that will get all of the folks that are thinking like me to jump on the 3D bandwagon.