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

(+) Yeah! (+)

lucariopikmin posted...

Still wrong, again it's just two simple sentences you need to read and then connect them to another few simple sentences. This isn't hard at all unless you really don't get that I'm not talking about anything sales related.

I don't know what you are talking about. I addressed you already about everything. Continuing this is pointless, I don't know why you can't see that.

darkstar4221 posted...

Casual gamers is different for us millennials. Us millennials know about every game out there, and that's being casual. And besides it would be millennials and gen x that would be buying a Vita and 3DS, they just didn't buy it in droves like it's predecessors.

What are you basing this on?

---

https://i.imgur.com/sZgClVP.gif

---

Darmik posted...

What are you basing this on?

Well the 3DS/Vita was released in 2011/2012. It would be us millenialis and gen x who would have a job to buy one. I remember one of my newphews saying that their parents wouldn't buy them a 3DS because it was too expensive.

Conflict posted...

Darkstar, at some point you're going to have to realize you don't know what you're talking about and just stop posting.

Oh yeah because the simple narrarive is that smartphone gaming is too dominant for handhelds, and there is not a demand for it. Even though smartphones gaming wise is not as enjoyable as handhelds.

I was on point on the flaws of the 3DS and the Vita. I don't have a link that shows a chart where it shows millions of people who don't want to buy a 3DS becuase it was under-powered and expensive. Or who didn't buy a Vita because of the memory cards. But that is certainly a reason why consumers didn't want to buy one, and probably switched to mobile gaming.

Conflict posted...

This has been explained to you a million times already. Nobody cares if "they're not as enjoyable as handhelds". That's not why they're doing better

The success of the mobile gaming doesn't correlate to lost market-share for handhelds. There is no proof of that, there were some obvious serious flaws with the 3DS and Vita, and it was Nintendo and Sony that shot themselves in the foot.

Had Sony used sd cards instead of their own proprietary memory cards, would it have been more successful? Oh definitely. As for Nintendo, the New 3DS should have been the original hardware at launch with a higher resolution at least 480p, it would have saved consumers lots of headaches.

Damn, I went into this topic expecting to talk about the 3DS as a console and the good/bad games released for it.

---

Conflict posted...

You have to be a troll or the biggest dumbass on the face of the earth, nobody can still be this clueless after having everything explained to them a million times over six pages

You are the dumb ass here because you are not comprehending what I am saying. Yes mobile gaming has gained in popularity a lot, it may or may have not cut into the market-share of handhelds.

There is still a demand for handhelds DESPITE the popularity of mobile gaming. There is no graph that shows if the anti-consumer practices of 3DS and Vita turned consumers off, but I believe Nintendo inflating the cost of the 3DS (which they badly did) and Sony's control freak/paranoia of piracy did them in.

I mean the PSP sold 80 million units and the Vita only sold in between 12-18 million units. That is a huge drop in units sold, and no one still can't pinpoint the reason why. To blame all that on mobile gaming that would be ignorant, and given that the biggest reason why people bought a PSP was because of CFW and piracy, you have to take that into account.

You are so dumb and ignorant, you have to use someone else's argument. There was no financial risk making games for the Vita, because if that was the case there would be no games for the Vita at all. CRON pretending like he's some industry insider and the reason why it didn't have that much support is because it was a financial risk and it was not possible to develop AAA titles on a handheld, none of that is true. There there were plenty of AAA titles on the Vita.

One thing to consider and taken into account is market-share, developers will cater to a platform that has a large install base. If a platform has a large install base then no matter how difficult it is to develop on that system they will still make games for it. The reason why there were no EA games on the Wii-U is because it's market-share wasn't large enough. Same with the PC, why do you think Windows continues to have gaming support despite being a flawed operating system? Because almost every PC in the world has Windows installed. Given that the Vita's install base was only around 12-18 million units, of course there weren't that many games.

https://mynintendonews.com/2015/11/20/ea-explains-why-it-still-isnt-planning-to-make-anymore-wii-u-games/

We dont make games anymore for the Wii or the Wii U because the market is not big enough, the PS Vita the Sony product we dont make games for that anymore because the market is too small, so its all about the size of the market, said Jorgensen

this dude actually thinks screen resolution and memory card prices are more important as a value proposition for the average consumer than the convenience of playing a game easily and intuitively on their mobile device

---

Conflict posted...

...There wasn't.

Lmao.

That was precisely the issue with Vita. It had very limited support because of how costly it was to develop games.

Seriously, how old are you man? You gotta be like 16 at a maximum.

You must be like 13 years old. I just gave you a link where the EA chief financial officer said that EA doesn't make video games for the Vita because it's market-share was too small. They didn't say anything about development costs. Developments costs are rising for all gaming platforms, and given that's a handheld it's significantly cheaper compared to making games on a console.

There is always a risk for companies when they make a video game. Whether the game sells or not, that happens all the time in any gaming platform..

Delirious_Beard posted...

this dude actually thinks screen resolution and memory card prices are more important as a value proposition for the average consumer than the convenience of playing a game easily and intuitively on their mobile device

I've said it many times it wasn't just the screen resolution. The hardware was weak overall, it was an abomination. What made things worse was that Nintendo kept 3DS video games artificially high for years. Games stayed at $40 for quite a while, they refuse to allow prices to drop. Pilot Wings was $40 for like 2 years in the E-Shop. I remember waiting forever for Etrian Odyssey IV to drop from $40, it never did. I ended up pirating the game when I installed CFW on my 3DS.

So you had a weak hardware (that was overpriced) and expensive software. That's not a good combination. Since the 3DS is 240p, they should have never released an XL model, it only made the games look worse and pixelated. They released a New 3DS which vastly improves the systems hardware, but you had to spend another $200.

Regarding the Vita. Sony was marketing the system as a multimedia device, if you are going to use it for multimedia purposes you will need a memory card. Given that you can only use Sonys proprietary memory cards that was a problem for consumers. Piracy and CFW played a huge role in the PSPs popularity. There was no exploit on the Vita, you couldn't pirate games or use it for emulation, and you can only use Sonys garbage memory cards, you can see why it didn't sell as many units as the PSP.

Maybe these issues turned consumers to mobile phone where they didnt have to deal with being banned from an online serve or told how to use their devices, but Nintendo and Sony cant blame mobile phones for the 3DS and Vita not selling as well as they liked. They shot themselves in the foot with terrible anti-consumer practices.

darkstar4221 posted...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You must be like 13 years old. I just gave you a link where the EA chief financial officer said that EA doesn't make video games for the Vita because it's market-share was too small. They didn't say anything about development costs. Developments costs are rising for all gaming platforms, and given that's a handheld it's significantly cheaper compared to making games on a console.

There is always a risk for companies when they make a video game. Whether the game sells or not, that happens all the time in any gaming platform..

The market share being small is exactly part of what makes it a risk financially.
---

I still play my original 3ds and have a back up original 2ds. Never got the xls cause these still work fine...

---

Conflict posted...

This guy is one of the dumbest posters I've ever come across.

Good luck.

I've now got him tagged as 3DS hate boner.
---

Conflict posted...

This guy is one of the dumbest posters I've ever come across.

Good luck.

I am dumb poster? You side with others to try and prove your point, even though you and others were proven to be wrong. You have to use insults to prove your point. The dumb *** here is you. Why don't you go **** off, it's the simple.

harley2280 posted...

The market share being small is exactly part of what makes it a risk financially.

Oh really? Oh no **** Sherlock.

harley2280 posted...

I've now got him tagged as 3DS hate boner.

I am not a fan of the 3DS, but my first response was just criticizing the 3DS from my own experience using it, and everybody got their panties wet. Everybody is getting a boner lashing at me.

darkstar4221 posted...

harley2280 posted...

The market share being small is exactly part of what makes it a risk financially.

Oh really? Oh no **** Sherlock.

harley2280 posted...

I've now got him tagged as 3DS hate boner.

I am not a fan of the 3DS, but my first response was just criticizing the 3DS from my own experience using it, and everybody got their panties wet. Everybody is getting a boner lashing at me.

Because you're literally making claims with no evidence and ignoring actual evidence.
---

harley2280 posted...

Because you're literally making claims with no evidence and ignoring actual evidence.

I just provided a link to where EA admitted that they didn't support the Vita because of it's small market-share, which I've been saying all along that market-share has almost everything to do with support..not completely. The 3DS was under-powered and turned off lots of 3rd party developers.

Showing a graph of smartphone sales is not evidence that there is no demand for handhelds. As a matter fact the evidence is in front of your face. The 3DS sold 76 million units despite it's terrible hardware, and shoddy business practices from Nintendo.

Conflict posted...

He just keeps coming back lol

Oh great the dumb **** is back, you can't come up with arguments on your own?

Conflict posted...

And he still thinks the 3DS's sales were negatively affected by 240p resolution

A brick wall is better at adapting to newly gained knowledge than this little guy.

Little boy shut up, you have no arguments.

Conflict posted...

I did, but like everything else in the topic, you already forgot about it because you have the memory of a goldfish

You have no arugments. You used someone else's argument and I simply proven you wrong.

Conflict posted...

You've proven absolutely nothing wrong lol

Not one thing.

Over 300 posts.

You used CRON's argument that the Vita was not widely supported because of development costs, even though you have no evidence to prove that.

I said it had nothing to with development costs, it had to do with it's small install-base which I did prove.

An argument 5 days long. The 3DS shouldn't invoke _this_ much banter. All you're doing is flaming and trolling each other. I'm going to just close this topic.

---