Current Events > The 3DS came out 10 years ago yesterday

(+) Yeah! (+)

i still play mine. i've been replaying phoenix wright spirit of justice.

---

darkstar4221 posted...

That's not proof, that is your assessment. Are you seriously going to compare some shovel-ware games like Candy Crush and Angry Birds to a triple a title like Fire Emblem or Mario?

The vast majority of people who bought a DS are not hardcore gamers. You can look at the attach rates and the sales figures for casual games. Most people have no idea what Fire Emblem is. Once again, you're under the impression that literally everybody who plays games is a hardcore gamer.

The 3DS is 240p! Obviously the 3DS is underpowered which made it difficult to develop games for hence why 3rd party support is lacking. The 3DS being 240p obviously meant the graphics were an abomination. This is just my opinion but I think the 3DS is the worst handheld that Nintendo ever created.

Once again, you have this bizarre fixation with 240p, when practically no one cares, or even acknowledges it. The only instances where 3DS development was difficult, was with multiplatform ports, primarily due to porting an engine to weaker hardware. The PS Vita had the same exact issue for plenty of games. As for the graphics being an "abomination", you're really reaching with that one.

You really think that the 3DS' graphics were hindering its success, and that the only thing keeping the Vita from steamrolling the competition was its proprietary memory cards.

---

darkstar4221 posted...

The 3DS wasn't selling as well as people make it out to be. Nintendo was losing money on the 3DS because they were missing sales expectations.

I'm talking about GAMES.

Compare the best selling games on the 3DS to the Vita.

---

This argument is amusing to me, tbh

---

lucariopikmin posted...

That isn't what I asked for at all. But everyone here knows you aren't gonna man up and provide it because it just doesn't exist.
And again, learn to read or stop making irrelevant "arguments" that are completely worthless.

There's a lot of irony in crying about "no proof" when you're not man enough to prove any of your claims and even admit you can't prove the bullshit you pull out of your ass.

There is no proof, and none of your buddies can't provide proof either. It's called common sense. Unless you can conduct a survey that asks 20 million gamers why didn't buy a 3DS or Vita than your guess to why they didn't buy one is just as good as mine. Well given your responses you can't come up with a reason why. It's not bs you are just angry because I criticized the 3DS, and you can't believe someone would dare criticized "a rock solid gaming handheld". I have owned a 3DS btw, I even owned the Sky3DS+ which allowed me to play pirated 3DS games. It's not something I just made up.

But did the anti-consumer practices of the 3DS and Vita played a part? Certainly it did. I've heard of people say they didn't want to buy a Vita unless they can pirate their games just like they did on the PSP. Piracy was rampant on the DS and PSP. Piracy made the DS and PSP cheap gaming systems, although if you bought games legitimately it was still pretty cheap. Given that the 3DS and Vita were much more expensive especially the software, and the 3DS and Vita had much stronger anti-piracy protection, and during that time (and still is today) there was a global recession, yeah sales dropped significantly compared to it's predecessors the DS and PSP.

Imagine thinking mobile gaming hasn't affected handhelds.

---

CRON posted...

The vast majority of people who bought a DS are not hardcore gamers. You can look at the attach rates and the sales figures for casual games. Most people have no idea what Fire Emblem is. Once again, you're under the impression that literally everybody who plays games is a hardcore gamer.
Once again, you have this bizarre fixation with 240p, when practically no one cares, or even acknowledges it. The only instances where 3DS development was difficult, was with multiplatform ports, primarily due to porting an engine to weaker hardware. The PS Vita had the same exact issue for plenty of games. As for the graphics being an "abomination", you're really reaching with that one.

You really think that the 3DS' graphics were hindering its success, and that the only thing keeping the Vita from steamrolling the competition was its proprietary memory cards.

Buying a 3DS or Vita doesn't mean you are a hardcore gamer. Stop thinking you know what the casual gamer wants. The 3DS graphics was definitely hindering it's success, that's why Nintendo made a "New 3DS". The 3DS was difficult to develop for because it was so underpowered. Also the 3DS was expensive (both software and hardware) on top of that the hardware was trash, so you weren't really getting your money's worth. You don't think the 240p wasn't an issue? Go to the 3DS board and search up 240p, you will see a bunch of topics and both 3DS fan and non-3DS fans were not pleased about it. I can't believe someone would think the shoddy hardware of the 3DS is not an issue. The 3DS is abomination, complete garbage, there is no excuse to release a 240p gaming handheld in 2011.

Darmik posted...

I'm talking about GAMES.

Compare the best selling games on the 3DS to the Vita.

Market-share has to do with everything, obviously the 3DS sold more units than the Vita, therefore it was going to get more support and more software sales. Although I heard Vita software sales were really good. I never owned a PS Vita, I owned a PS TV, and my friend had a Vita, but that's about it.

crazy fast!

I really wish they took advantage of new 3ds's hardware. 6x CPU, 2x Ram and 1.5x GPU speed wasn't really taken advantage of, especially the GPU (should have been 2x as much at least also, imo).

I would have liked a 480p screen too or course on new 3ds, if gpu was 2x as powerful at least.

---

darkstar4221 posted...

Market-share has to do with everything, obviously the 3DS sold more units than the Vita, therefore it was going to get more support and more software sales. Although I heard Vita software sales were really good. I never owned a PS Vita, I owned a PS TV, and my friend had a Vita, but that's about it.

Software sale were good for indies. But anything with a budget flopped hard. Persona 4 Golden was likely the biggest success story on the platform. I don't think a single game sold over 2 million. 3DS had over 30.

Wii U also had a similar install base to the Vita and even that had over 10 games that sold over 2 million.

This is yet another example of Vita having major, major problems that go beyond memory cards.

---

I feel old, but yet I loved the 3DS a lot!

---

It was alright

Darmik posted...

Software sale were good for indies. But anything with a budget flopped hard. Persona 4 Golden was likely the biggest success story on the platform. I don't think a single game sold over 2 million. 3DS had over 30.

Wii U also had a similar install base to the Vita and even that had over 10 games that sold over 2 million.

This is yet another example of Vita having major, major problems that go beyond memory cards.

The major problems with the Vita was that it was too restrictive with CMA and mandatory kernel updates to prevent people from installing CFW. The proprietary memory cards was also part of the problem. The proprietary memory cards was a huge hidden cost because you needed to use it to play PSP games, watch movies, play your music etc. There was no other alterative, you were stuck with the expensive memory cards. This is just Sony being the copyright aggressors that they are.

The Vita only sold 15 million units far less than the PSP. It was a failure and no one can't figure out why. The reasons don't make sense. They said it was a lack of marketing, lack of games, or consumers would rather game on their mobile phone. None of that is true. It was obviously the memory cards and not being able hack their Vita was the primary reason.

darkstar4221 posted...

None of that is true. It was obviously the memory cards and not being able hack their Vita was the primary reason.

All due respect, you really don't seem to follow logic or common sense. I've laid out concrete reasons why the Vita was a failed platform, and once again, you're assuming that literally every single gamer is a hardcore gamer.

Why are you only looking at things in terms of your own theories? Why would you deny the obvious fact that poor marketing and a lackluster games library would lead to a platform not being financially successful? The reasons make entire sense, and it's fairly easy to see why the Vita failed.

---

I was never a big fan of the 3DS, probably my least favorite handheld console. I only had it for Pokemon games.

Everyone is over looking the fact that Sony dropped support for the Vita almost immediately.

There is a severe lack of first party titles which is generally the big selling point for Sony.

The way the Vita was handled makes it seem like someone higher up at Sony wanted it to fail.
---

harley2280 posted...

Everyone is over looking the fact that Sony dropped support for the Vita almost immediately.

There is a severe lack of first party titles which is generally the big selling point for Sony.

The way the Vita was handled makes it seem like someone higher up at Sony wanted it to fail.

It was too powerful and feature-heavy for its own good, and developing even "AA" games for it required huge budgets and development cycles. Many major Vita games started out as resurrected PS3 prototypes.

Sony wasted a shitload of money on a joint development effort with Bandai Namco to create AAA Vita projects; only for its first game to flop so bad, the company went out of business.

---

Looooved the 3DS. Had one of the greatest game libraries of any Nintendo system. Streetpass was a brilliant idea that actually helped me make friends.
The 3D effect was cool from a tech standpoint, but it's a shame it ultimately held the system back a little.

Either way I consider 3DS to be Nintendo's greatest handheld ever.

---

darkstar4221 posted...

There is no proof, and none of your buddies can't provide proof either. It's called common sense. Unless you can conduct a survey that asks 20 million gamers why didn't buy a 3DS or Vita than your guess to why they didn't buy one is just as good as mine. Well given your responses you can't come up with a reason why. It's not bs you are just angry because I criticized the 3DS, and you can't believe someone would dare criticized "a rock solid gaming handheld". I have owned a 3DS btw, I even owned the Sky3DS+ which allowed me to play pirated 3DS games. It's not something I just made up.

But did the anti-consumer practices of the 3DS and Vita played a part? Certainly it did. I've heard of people say they didn't want to buy a Vita unless they can pirate their games just like they did on the PSP. Piracy was rampant on the DS and PSP. Piracy made the DS and PSP cheap gaming systems, although if you bought games legitimately it was still pretty cheap. Given that the 3DS and Vita were much more expensive especially the software, and the 3DS and Vita had much stronger anti-piracy protection, and during that time (and still is today) there was a global recession, yeah sales dropped significantly compared to it's predecessors the DS and PSP.

Ah yes, you're the only person in the entire world with this "common" sense, which you will 100% guarantee not give proof for either. Not even the companies themselves and experts at this have this knowledge a random lying nobody on gamefaqs has. At this point you should just admit you're lying and show that you at least have a little bit of dignity left.
Once again, stop crying about any of us needing to provide proof when you haven't done it a single time and even admit that no back up for your claims exists, so stop crying about it like I told you before. Also no reason to cry about me "not coming up with any reasons why" when I'm not the one making idiotic claims, I've already told you this several times but it's very obvious that you can't read well considering you keep putting words into my mouth because you don't have an actual argument and aren't man enough to admit that you're factually wrong.
You do obviously make shit up, that's why when called out on proof you link to a random article that doesn't back up anything at all , don't even address that when called out on it twice and it's why you keep bringing up totally irrelevant stuff to arguments. Guess what, doing that doesn't make you seem "smart", it just makes you desperate because anyone with actual common sense, so not you, knows you are grasping at straws.

Also funny how you're went from "anti consumer practices are the only reason" to "they played a part". You can't even keep the bullshit you're spewing straight anymore.
---

I'm still slowly buying games for it. >_>

---

darkstar4221 posted...

It was obviously the memory cards and not being able hack their Vita was the primary reason.

Hack their Vita to do what?

---

lucariopikmin posted...

Ah yes, you're the only person in the entire world with this "common" sense, which you will 100% guarantee not give proof for either. Not even the companies themselves and experts at this have this knowledge a random lying nobody on gamefaqs has. At this point you should just admit you're lying and show that you at least have a little bit of dignity left.
Once again, stop crying about any of us needing to provide proof when you haven't done it a single time and even admit that no back up for your claims exists, so stop crying about it like I told you before. Also no reason to cry about me "not coming up with any reasons why" when I'm not the one making idiotic claims, I've already told you this several times but it's very obvious that you can't read well considering you keep putting words into my mouth because you don't have an actual argument and aren't man enough to admit that you're factually wrong.
You do obviously make shit up, that's why when called out on proof you link to a random article that doesn't back up anything at all , don't even address that when called out on it twice and it's why you keep bringing up totally irrelevant stuff to arguments. Guess what, doing that doesn't make you seem "smart", it just makes you desperate because anyone with actual common sense, so not you, knows you are grasping at straws.

Also funny how you're went from "anti consumer practices are the only reason" to "they played a part". You can't even keep the bullshit you're spewing straight anymore.

Oh so now it's you guy's vs me, even though you guys haven't provided proof either. So called experts can't provide proof either. They don't have a data sheet that "explains why" sales for the 3DS and Vita are significantly lower than their predecessors, except for the numbers that show sales for the 3DS and Vita are significantly lower then their predecessors. Why are you just attacking me for not providing proof, why not attack Darmik and CRON for not providing proof either.

Where in my posts that I am factually wrong, because you can't admit I am factually wrong. You have no evidence to support that I am wrong. Here is an article blaming the 3DS for Nintendo's net loss during that time when they were losing $229 million dollars and wasn't selling as well as people claim it was.
https://gamnesia.com/articles-the-wii-u-may-be-a-flop-but-the-is-3ds-to-blame-for-net-loss/#sthash.O71LSoE3.dpuf

People often point to the 3DSs overall popularity, but its actually sold significantly less than the DS in the same time period, and is on pace to be absolutely demolished going forward. In the same breath, each of the DS sales in the same time span were infinitely more profitable. In addition, the DS had a stunning 6 to 1 attach ratio for games. As in, for every DS sold, 6 DS games were also sold. Despite all the great games released, the 3DS is average 2.3 games per one 3DS sold. Thats a rather significant drop in attach rate.

Now the article doesn't explain what's causing people to not want to buy the 3DS, but it's pretty obvious why the 3DS wasn't selling as well as the DS, it's much more expensive.

Darmik posted...

Hack their Vita to do what?

Obviously to pirate games and use it for emulation. Or some people just want to use it for multimedia purposes, but that is a problem with the proprietary memory cards. It would be easier to transfer files had Sony opted for regular sd cards.

CRON posted...

All due respect, you really don't seem to follow logic or common sense. I've laid out concrete reasons why the Vita was a failed platform, and once again, you're assuming that literally every single gamer is a hardcore gamer.

Why are you only looking at things in terms of your own theories? Why would you deny the obvious fact that poor marketing and a lackluster games library would lead to a platform not being financially successful? The reasons make entire sense, and it's fairly easy to see why the Vita failed.

I would accept any theory that makes sense. There were 80 million people who owned a PSP, you don't think they never heard of the PS Vita? Lackluster games? There were plenty of good games on the PS Vita.

darkstar4221 posted...

I would accept any theory that makes sense. There were 80 million people who owned a PSP, you don't think they never heard of the PS Vita? Lackluster games? There were plenty of good games on the PS Vita.

For the millionth time, you're under the impression that every single person who plays games is a hardcore gamer who has their thumb on the pulse of the industry. Just because you purchased a single platform doesn't mean you're automatically going to buy its successor.

Why don't you think my "theory" makes sense? That's literally what happened. It released in a climate where people were more interested in smartphones when it came to feature-rich mobile devices. It sold under initial expectations, and even before its launch, developers were so skeptical of it, they viewed developing "AAA" games for it as a financial risk.

Are you a troll or something? Even with the other argument you're in, you have your head in the sand and have no concept of anything you're talking about.

---

darkstar4221 posted...

Obviously to pirate games and use it for emulation. Or some people just want to use it for multimedia purposes, but that is a problem with the proprietary memory cards. It would be easier to transfer files had Sony opted for regular sd cards.

Things that people were using smartphones for without the need of hacking?

Pirating isn't the path to a successful platform either.

You're saying we're ignoring proof but we've given you several obvious shifts that you're outright ignoring.

Casual games from DS to 3DS were significantly less relevant.

PSP sold physical movies and made a big deal about being a multimedia player. Vita did not.

Why do you think those changes happened?

---

darkstar4221 posted...

Obviously to pirate games and use it for emulation. Or some people just want to use it for multimedia purposes, but that is a problem with the proprietary memory cards. It would be easier to transfer files had Sony opted for regular sd cards.

Literally no one wanted a Vita for multimedia purposes. At the time of its release, countless smartphones, tablets and even the iPod touch were considerably more viable options. Sony even killed off Near, as no one was using it.

You don't even understand what the issue with the memory cards was. It had nothing to do with transferring files; it was the fact that Sony was charging a ridiculous amount of money for hardly any storage.

---

CRON posted...

For the millionth time, you're under the impression that every single person who plays games is a hardcore gamer who has their thumb on the pulse of the industry. Just because you purchased a single platform doesn't mean you're automatically going to buy its successor.

Why don't you think my "theory" makes sense? That's literally what happened. It released in a climate where people were more interested in smartphones when it came to feature-rich mobile devices. It sold under initial expectations, and even before its launch, developers were so skeptical of it, they viewed developing "AAA" games for it as a financial risk.

Are you a troll or something? Even with the other argument you're in, you have your head in the sand and have no concept of anything you're talking about.

Are you a troll? Because your argument doesn't make sense. You say it's financial risk, developers take a financial risk all the time when making a video game, and besides your argument is mute because there plenty of triple a titles on the PS Vita.

The reason why there weren't more triple a titles has to do with market-share. Development costs are rising for all gaming platforms, that's not the issue. The issue with the PS-Vita was it's install base, developer cater to systems that have a large install base.

I believe this one EA developer said why didn't they make video games for the Wii-U, and he said it had to do with market-share, the install base for the Wii-U was not large enough to take that financial risk. The PS2 was very difficult to develop but that didn't stop developers from making games for it, because it's market-share was large.

darkstar4221 posted...

Are you a troll? Because your argument doesn't make sense. You say it's financial risk, developers take a financial risk all the time when making a video game, and besides your argument is mute because there plenty of triple a titles on the PS Vita.

The reason why there weren't more triple a titles has to do with market-share. Development costs are rising for all gaming platforms, that's not the issue. The issue with the PS-Vita was it's install base, developer cater to systems that have a large install base.

You can't grow an install base if the company who looks after the damn device barely released anything on the thing after the first year. Vita was barely supported by Sony because they no longer believed that it was viable. Which is also why they've never released another portable and never will again.

Sony themselves acknowledged it was a battle they'd have to fight.
https://www.theregister.com/2011/08/19/sony_says_vita_will_pull_gamers_away_from_smartphones/

When you look at the type of consumer that's playing cell phone games currently, it's someone that enjoys smaller 'kill time' gaming and has not gravitated to the larger, richer, deeper experiences that true handheld gaming provides," said Koller.
You're going to see PS Vita expand what a lot of people believe to be true about handheld gaming, and you're going to see a lot of those current mobile phone and tablet gamers come over to Vita. We're very convinced of that.

They weren't convinced for very long. Here's Sony themselves blaming smartphones.

https://www.digitalspy.com/videogames/a543704/ps-vita-lacklustre-sales-attributed-to-smartphones-tablets-by-sony/

"In all honesty, higher sales would have been what we had hoped for," PlayStation UK managing director Fergal Gara told VG247.
"The market Vita entered was more complicated than it was when the console was originally thought about and designed. Games on tablets and phones have changed the marketplace and people can't carry too many things around at one time."
He added: "The truth is that the number of people that want the core experience [that Vita offers] is not as big as the number that simply want any sort of game available on the move and, because the likes of a tablet and smartphone are so multifunctional in their use, they will always be very appealing.

---

Darmik posted...

You can't grow an install base if the company who looks after the damn device barely released anything on the thing after the first year. Vita was barely supported by Sony because they no longer believed that it was viable. Which is also why they've never released another portable and never will again.

Sony themselves acknowledged it was a battle they'd have to fight.
https://www.theregister.com/2011/08/19/sony_says_vita_will_pull_gamers_away_from_smartphones/

They weren't convinced for very long. Here's Sony themselves blaming smartphones.

https://www.digitalspy.com/videogames/a543704/ps-vita-lacklustre-sales-attributed-to-smartphones-tablets-by-sony/

You are quoting Sony, a lying corporate bastard. Of course they would blame the rise of smart-phone gaming, but not their own damn mistakes to why many consumers were turned off by the Vita. They are not going to admit that consumers weren't happy with the proprietary memory cards.

darkstar4221 posted...

You are quoting Sony, a lying corporate bastard. Of course they would blame the rise of smart-phone gaming, but not their own damn mistakes to why many consumers were turned off by the Vita. They are not going to admit that consumers weren't happy with the proprietary memory cards.

The proprietary memory cards were overpriced, and everyone was aware of it. Even if Sony used Micro SD cards for the Vita, that still wouldn't change the fact that there was significantly less interest in it than the PSP, and it still wouldn't change the fact that its library was lacking because developers viewed it as a risk to make games for. What about this logic don't you understand?

The Vita was pretty much doomed from the start, and it was for a number of reasons that you seem to be afraid to acknowledge.

---

Ok so Sony is lying.The experts are wrong. Even Nintendo having to consolidate their home and handheld business into one market as a response to mobile gaming are also wrong.

All of these people need to be wrong or lying for you to be right. You also can't explain the shift of casual gaming from DS to 3DS or the lower focus on multimedia from PSP to Vita. Probably more wrong executives?

If it was something as simple as memory cards nothing would stop Sony from trying again. That's an easy thing to fix for a successor (or even a revision). But they won't. Because dedicated handhelds aren't a viable market anymore. Which was made obvious a decade ago.

---

CRON posted...

The proprietary memory cards were overpriced, and everyone was aware of it. Even if Sony used Micro SD cards for the Vita, that still wouldn't change the fact that there was significantly less interest in it than the PSP, and it still wouldn't change the fact that its library was lacking because developers viewed it as a risk to make games for. What about this logic don't you understand?

Had Sony used SD cards the Vita's install-base would have grown larger therefore more games would have been ported to the Vita. But there were plenty of good games on the Vita, I don't know why people continue harping there were hardly any good titles for the PS Vita.

I mean Nintendo released the "New 3DS". It's basically Nintendo admitting they weren't happy with the original 3DS hardware. Vita sales should have rose sharply during that time, but it didn't.

The New 3DS cramps my hands.

---

darkstar4221 posted...

Had Sony used SD cards the Vita's install-base would have grown larger therefore more games would have been ported to the Vita. But there were plenty of good games on the Vita, I don't know why people continue harping there were hardly any good titles for the PS Vita.

Even if SD cards doubled the Vita's lifetime sales that still wouldn't be enough.

darkstar4221 posted...

I mean Nintendo released the "New 3DS". It's basically Nitnedo admitting they weren't happy with the original 3DS hardware. Vita sales should have rose sharply during that time, but it didn't.

When the New 3DS released the biggest Vita release for that year was Freedom Wars. Which was the only new release Sony released in retail for that entire year that wasn't a remaster or port.

Also I'm just going to point out that the gap between the 3DS and New 3DS is larger than the Game Boy Advance and DS.

---

Darmik posted...

Ok so Sony is lying.The experts are wrong. Even Nintendo having to consolidate their home and handheld business into one market as a response to mobile gaming are also wrong.

All of these people need to be wrong or lying for you to be right. You also can't explain the shift of casual gaming from DS to 3DS or the lower focus on multimedia from PSP to Vita. Probably more wrong executives?

If it was something as simple as memory cards nothing would stop Sony from trying again. That's an easy thing to fix for a successor (or even a revision). But they won't. Because dedicated handhelds aren't a viable market anymore. Which was made obvious a decade ago.

You are not quoting experts, you are quoting a company that is trying to save face. A company that refuses to blame themselves for their own mistakes. When they say s*** like this

When you look at the type of consumer that's playing cell phone games currently, it's someone that enjoys smaller 'kill time' gaming and has not gravitated to the larger, richer, deeper experiences that true handheld gaming provides," said Koller.

Do you think the average consumer would rather play a shovel-ware game on their smartphone rather than an AAA title like Gravity Rush or Uncharted: Golden Abyss?

darkstar4221 posted...

Do you think the average consumer would rather play a shove-ware game on their smartphone rather than an AAA title like Gravity Rush or Uncharted: Golden Abyss?

When they're out and about? Yes. That executive is right.

---

Darmik posted... When they're out and about? Yes. That executive is right.

So it brings me back to my point, that smartphones is not a better alternative to handhelds for gaming. It didn't phase out handhelds, because in order for something to be phased out it would have to provide a much better experience.

darkstar4221 posted...

Oh so now it's you guy's vs me, even though you guys haven't provided proof either. So called experts can't provide proof either. They don't have a data sheet that "explains why" sales for the 3DS and Vita are significantly lower than their predecessors, except for the numbers that show sales for the 3DS and Vita are significantly lower then their predecessors. Why are you just attacking me for not providing proof, why not attack Darmik and CRON for not providing proof either.

Where in my posts that I am factually wrong, because you can't admit I am factually wrong. You have no evidence to support that I am wrong. Here is an article blaming the 3DS for Nintendo's net loss during that time when they were losing $229 million dollars and wasn't selling as well as people claim it was.
https://gamnesia.com/articles-the-wii-u-may-be-a-flop-but-the-is-3ds-to-blame-for-net-loss/#sthash.O71LSoE3.dpuf

People often point to the 3DSs overall popularity, but its actually sold significantly less than the DS in the same time period, and is on pace to be absolutely demolished going forward. In the same breath, each of the DS sales in the same time span were infinitely more profitable. In addition, the DS had a stunning 6 to 1 attach ratio for games. As in, for every DS sold, 6 DS games were also sold. Despite all the great games released, the 3DS is average 2.3 games per one 3DS sold. Thats a rather significant drop in attach rate.

Now the article doesn't explain what's causing people to not want to buy the 3DS, but it's pretty obvious why the 3DS wasn't selling as well as the DS, it's much more expensive.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that you're the first one who was making claims, go read post 3, and were crying for proof when you don't have the balls to deliver it yourself. And I don't need to call anyone else out on it considering they actually provide links, but of course you're not man enough to accept those and immediately act like they are lies or wrong for ass pull reasons anyway. Nobody here has to prove you anything at all until you man up and back up your bullshit but you have said yourself that it doesn't exist because it just isn't true.

Did you forget the posts where you kept claiming that I have been making arguments?
The ones I asked you to quote but you never did.
And again, a random irrelevant old outdated link that doesn't prove your original claim doesn't matter at all. Already explained this to you in the post you literally quoted but you ignored that too just like you completely ignored the last point where I pointed out that you can't even keep the shit you keep pulling from your ass straight anymore.

Btw, the attach rate for the 3ds is 5. You'd know this if you did even the most basic of research because nintendo has their sales numbers for platforms and games sold easily available.
---

darkstar4221 posted...

So it brings me back to my point, that smartphones is not a better alternative to handhelds for gaming. It didn't phase out handhelds, because in order for something to be phased out it would have to provide a much better experience.

Which is why Switch went with a hybrid model and consolidated all of their games to the one platform that can function as both a home console and handheld. This is also why retro handhelds and android handhelds are a thing.

But the concept of a traditional dedicated handheld with its own library is dead. Mobile gaming shrunk that market to the point where it isn't sustainable. You can't blame memory cards or resolutions on that.

---

lucariopikmin posted...

And I don't need to call anyone else out on it considering they actually provide links, but of course you're not man enough to accept those and immediately act like they are lies or wrong for ass pull reasons anyway.

Except they didn't provide links. That's what I thought you're aggressive towards me but not them because I am attacking your beloved gaming handheld the 3DS.

My original post was criticizing the 3DS and Vita, and explaining why the mistakes they made are the reasons why both systems didn't sell as well as their predecessors. There argument is because of the rise of smart phone gaming, but they didn't provide proof that consumers switched to smartphones for their gaming needs because smartphones was a much better gaming experience.

All my criticims of the 3DS are factual: That Nintendo lowered the prices of their video games at a very slow rate, that the 3DS is very expensive for an under-powered system. That the 3D gimmick turned out to be useless. Did that resulted in not people not wanting to buy the 3DS? Most likely.

darkstar4221 posted...

they didn't provide proof that consumers switched to smartphones for their gaming needs because smartphones was a much better gaming experience.

Because nobody is arguing that. It's a more convenient experience.

Most people don't need a premium portable gaming experience. They're happy with time wasters on their phones. They don't even need to buy a handheld to keep their kids occupied anymore. They can just hand them a phone with Angry Birds on it.

Reading a newspaper is a better experience than reading news on a phone but that doesn't matter to most people. Most people are happy with the convenience.

The evidence for this is literally everywhere. Mobile phone gaming made 85 billion bucks last year. You literally just need to take your head out of the sand and look at the numbers. Look at literally anything. Literally every single thing out there is screaming the obvious at you and you're just in some weird denial over it. People on a message board like this do not represent the average consumer. Nobody cared about Uncharted Golden Abyss even though it was a portable entry off a successful series. This literally was a success for Sony a mere generation before. How do you not possibly comprehend this?

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-big-is-the-global-mobile-gaming-industry/


Here is is in an easy chart for you to understand.

---

darkstar4221 posted...

Except they didn't provide links. That's what I thought you're aggressive towards me but not them because I am attacking your beloved gaming handheld the 3DS.

My original post was criticizing the 3DS and Vita, and explaining why the mistakes they made are the reasons why both systems didn't sell as well as their predecessors. There argument is because of the rise of smart phone gaming, but they didn't provide proof that consumers switched to smartphones for their gaming needs because smartphones was a much better gaming experience.

darkstar4221 posted...

You are quoting Sony, a lying corporate bastard.

Also post 28.
And now you are lying about them not providing links too. Would also love a source from you where you quote me saying I love the 3ds as much as you are claiming that I do. But I can already guarantee everyone here that you aren't man enough to do that.

darkstar4221 posted...

here is this myth that mobile gaming is what caused the demise of dedicated handheld gaming and that is simply not true. It was Sony and Nintendo's anti-consumer practices that caused consumers to not trust those companies when it comes to dedicated handheld gaming.

This is part of post 3, the first one in the entire topic with a claim that still hasn't, and won't be proven.
No need to lie about others making arguments against you first.

And why don't you have the balls to address the rest of my arguments again?
---

Darmik posted...

Because nobody is arguing that. It's a more convenient experience.

Most people don't need a premium portable gaming experience. They're happy with time wasters on their phones. They don't even need to buy a handheld to keep their kids occupied anymore. They can just hand them a phone with Angry Birds on it.

Reading a newspaper is a better experience than reading news on a phone but that doesn't matter to most people. Most people are happy with the convenience.

The evidence for this is literally everywhere. Mobile phone gaming made 85 billion bucks last year. You literally just need to take your head out of the sand and look at the numbers. Look at literally anything. Literally every single thing out there is screaming the obvious at you and you're just in some weird denial over it. People on a message board like this do not represent the average consumer. Nobody cared about Uncharted Golden Abyss even though it was a portable entry off a successful series. This literally was a success for Sony a mere generation before. How do you not possibly comprehend this?

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-big-is-the-global-mobile-gaming-industry/


Here is is in an easy chart for you to understand.

Except that link doesn't state that consumers prefer mobile gaming than to dedicated handhelds. It just shows that mobile games are selling well because everyone has a mobile phone.

Most people who have a phone don't even use it for gaming, it's to take pictures, browse the web, call their friends, and play maybe a shovel-ware or freemium game here and there. I mean are you seriously going to compare Candy Crush to an AAA title like Resident Evil and Final Fantasy? So people casually play some shovel ware game while their waiting for an appointment at their doctors office. So now dedicated handhleds are suddely phased out?

darkstar4221 posted...

Except that link doesn't state that consumers prefer mobile gaming than to dedicated handhelds.

Darmik posted...

Because nobody is arguing that. It's a more convenient experience.

darkstar4221 posted...

It just shows that mobile games are selling well because everyone has a mobile phone.

And you honestly, legitimately believe that has no impact on handheld sales?

darkstar4221 posted...

Most people who have a phone don't even use it for gaming, it's to take pictures, browse the web, call their friends, and play maybe a shovel-ware or freemium game here and there.

Yes a mobile phone has several functions that has shrunk the market for several different products including cameras, home phones. desktops and dedicated handhelds. Even if those dedicated products do it better than a smartphone.

darkstar4221 posted...

I mean are you seriously going to compare Candy Crush to an AAA title like Resident Evil and Final Fantasy?

No?

darkstar4221 posted...

So people casually play some shovel ware game while their waiting for an appointment at their doctors office. So now dedicated handhleds are suddely phased out?

It wasn't sudden. It took several years.

Not only that even if you care about the hardcore experience you can also stream Playstation, Xbox and PC games to phones and android handhelds.

---

sick library, shit screen

lucariopikmin posted...

Also post 28.
And now you are lying about them not providing links too. Would also love a source from you where you quote me saying I love the 3ds as much as you are claiming that I do. But I can already guarantee everyone here that you aren't man enough to do that.

This is part of post 3, the first one in the entire topic with a claim that still hasn't, and won't be proven.
No need to lie about others making arguments against you first.

And why don't you have the balls to address the rest of my arguments again?

I mean a link that is factually correct, concrete evidence, not some mouthpiece for a company who will blame another entity for their own shortcomings. If your argument is I am wrong and they are right, then the onious is on you too to provide evidence that I am wrong.

Your buddies haven't provided a link that states consumers prefer mobile gaming over dedicated handhelds for their gaming needs. They just show that mobile games are selling, but it doesn't state that is the reason why consumers prefer mobile phones over handhelds. It doesn't state that why the 3DS and Vita hasn't sold as well as their predecessors, especially given how successful the DS and PSP were.

It did? Well, I'm happy for it.

---

darkstar4221 posted...

I mean a link that is factually correct, concrete evidence, not some mouthpiece for a company who will blame another entity for their own shortcomings. If your argument is I am wrong and they are right, then the onious is on you too to provide evidence that I am wrong.

Your buddies haven't provided a link that states consumers prefer mobile gaming over dedicated handhelds for their gaming needs. They just show that mobile games are selling, but it doesn't state that is the reason why consumers prefer mobile phones over handhelds. It doesn't state that why the 3DS and Vita hasn't sold as well as their predecessors. Especially given how successful the DS and PSP were.

You haven't given a single good reason as to why they would be wrong besides "they are lying because I say so and I am never wrong" and ass pull reasons, already told you this but reading is clearly too hard for you. I've also said that your link with a 2.3 3ds attach rate is incredibly outdated (or maybe it was just wrong even at that time), but you were once again not man enough to address that either because basic research is too hard for you.
And no, you are the first one who made a claim so it's on you to prove it's true. Because it's you who's argument is "I am the only one with common sense and 100% correct and everyone else in the entire world is wrong but I don't have the balls to prove it and will link something completely irrelevant when called out on it, also ignore the fact that the 3ds has an attach rate of 5 when I link an article that says it has one of 2.3". Tho it doesn't surprise me at all that you don't care about your own values and twist them, and fail at it, to your own "advantage".

Did you also notice how you once again didn't provide the quote I asked for, which I said wouldn't happen? Ignore arguments all you want, the only thing you're doing is showing that you don't have actual counterpoints for the shit you keep pulling out of your ass.
---