While admitting that the 3DS was the "largest draw at E3" and is a product that "will resonate well with consumers" and further Nintendo's handheld market leadership, he had some notable thoughts on the system's release and price.
His research note states that, "We expect a late 2010 launch of the 3DS in Japan, followed by March 2011 in North America, with a price point in the $249-$299 range."
Nintendo has yet to announce the pricing or launch plans for the device.
This is just an incremental upgrade of the DS
I do think it will appear to be an incremental upgrade to the DS, unless they do something drastic with packaging. You're average Mom will go into a Wal-Mart that Uncle Bob doesn't work at and inquire about the difference between the 200-250 dollar 3DS and the 150 dollar DSi. The Wal-Mart clerk will then say "Well that one has 3D." The mom could then very well say "That aint worth 100 dollars."
Considering people lapping up the IPhone 4 and the IPad, I think Nintendo will price this higher.Nintendo is not apple and that's why I love them.
I almost fell for their "early termination" of the contract to upgrade to the iPhone 4. But there is no point as long as the 3GS is still supported. I may upgrade in 2 years, but not now just to get the new shiny flatter one.
I totally see it being worth $300 but I really hope they don't charge that much... before really thinking about it much I was thinking that $200 would really fit the product all things considered and that really is the area that I hope they can keep it at... that's about what I'd wanna pay. but then again Apple is showing us time and time again that the average person who wants a new shiny handheld device is willing to pay multiple hundreds to get it!!
Considering people lapping up the IPhone 4 and the IPad, I think Nintendo will price this higher.Nintendo is not apple and that's why I love them.
This is just an incremental upgrade of the DS
Bullshit
If you throw out the 3D and the extra camera, it is only an incremental upgrade. A screen is a screen. There is no reason why that screen is so special as to jack up the price to such a degree. Even if the 3D screen was literaly two complete LCDs sandwiched together, that still wouldn't account for a $100+ price hike.Yes throw out the two main things that make this more than just an incremental upgrade. That'll fix your argument. Don't forget to throw out the analog "stick" and bigger top screen while you're at it.
So why don't you love Microsoft and Sony? I'm not following your logic.Considering people lapping up the IPhone 4 and the IPad, I think Nintendo will price this higher.Nintendo is not apple and that's why I love them.
If you throw out the 3D and the extra camera, it is only an incremental upgrade. A screen is a screen. There is no reason why that screen is so special as to jack up the price to such a degree. Even if the 3D screen was literaly two complete LCDs sandwiched together, that still wouldn't account for a $100+ price hike.Yes throw out the two main things that make this more than just an incremental upgrade. That'll fix your argument. Don't forget to throw out the analog "stick" and bigger top screen while you're at it.
Well to be fair, a significant graphical increase is all part of an incremental update to some people.
I'm reserving judgement on the 3D, but I am still expecting to be underwhelmed by it.But it technically changes the way games are viewed visually now. I'd say that's pretty innovative, especially without glasses.
this being the same Nintendo that slashed the price of N64 before it launched so go them
They really had no choice, Sony had cut the price of the PS1 from $300 to $200 at E3 (despite the fact that it was still a huge seller), so it would have been stupid to release the N64 at $250.Do you have sales numbers for that? The only thing I could ever find is a blurb in Nintendo Power which states it took the PlayStation 15 months to sell its first million systems. I wouldn't call that a huge seller.
I used the word incremental as meaning a sustaining innovation but either way to me it means the new device doesn't enable many games that the old one didn't already.
They really had no choice, Sony had cut the price of the PS1 from $300 to $200 at E3 (despite the fact that it was still a huge seller), so it would have been stupid to release the N64 at $250.Do you have sales numbers for that? The only thing I could ever find is a blurb in Nintendo Power which states it took the PlayStation 15 months to sell its first million systems. I wouldn't call that a huge seller.
Even if the DS had no touchscreen or dual screens or microphone it was clearly a successor to the GBA due to the jump up in hardware specs.Um, no it wasn't. The DS was supposed to be the third pillar to sell alongside the GC and GBA. Nintendo go really lucky in that it took the place completely of the GBA, especially in Japan. The next Gameboy was actually scrapped because the DS sold so well. The GBNext was going to be around as powerful as the PSP but because the DS did so well, they scrapped it and the GB name completely.
With the DS, the tapping of new markets was evident: mature adults, female gamers, etc. But I would argue that the games that appealed to these customers could have been possible without the touchscreen. Brain Age, Nintendogs - these games could have been made for PSP, and wouldn't be much different. Sure the touchscreen made them more accessible, but it wasn't the reason they sold.
Source?
UncleBob, I don't recall Nintendo discontinuing the DS Lite anywhere. It's still being sold in Japan.
The point is that they did and they understood why. That's at least a $50 profit Nintendo essentially gave back to consumers in order to stay competitive. I'm merely suggesting that Nintendo break even on setting the MSRP on 3DS. Keep the price of the hardware as low as possible without taking a loss.this being the same Nintendo that slashed the price of N64 before it launched so go themThey really had no choice, Sony had cut the price of the PS1 from $300 to $200 at E3 (despite the fact that it was still a huge seller), so it would have been stupid to release the N64 at $250.
Adrock, we don't know what any of the launch games will be, so why are you so cynical that you think it will be filled with remakes? Besides, remakes can be great (depending on the game they are a remake of).I won't presume that you keep track of my other posts, but I mentioned in another topic that there are only 2 games that would entice me to buy a 3DS at launch without question: New Super Mario Bros. 3 (preferably based on Super Mario Bros. 3) and a new 2D Metroid. Since neither of those games were unveiled at E3, I can only assume they aren't in development let alone coming out at launch. I just don't have the time to play videogames like I used to. I'm willing to wait and see what the future holds for the platform.
It really depends on what it costs Nintendo to make the thing. They'd charge $150 if they could make a profit on it at that price; I'm just not sure that they could. Unfortunately, we're not going to know what it costs Nintendo until after it launches and someone tears it down and figures it out, so we can't factor that into the prediction.
Even if the DS had no touchscreen or dual screens or microphone it was clearly a successor to the GBA due to the jump up in hardware specs.Um, no it wasn't. The DS was supposed to be the third pillar to sell alongside the GC and GBA. Nintendo go really lucky in that it took the place completely of the GBA, especially in Japan. The next Gameboy was actually scrapped because the DS sold so well. The GBNext was going to be around as powerful as the PSP but because the DS did so well, they scrapped it and the GB name completely.
I'm enjoying this. Let's study Nintendo's home consoles and whether or not they are incremental (IN MY OPINION)
NES -> Super NES
Definitely incremental. Only possible innovation is the addition of two more face buttons and the shoulder buttons. I personally don't think either of those count.
I'm enjoying this. Let's study Nintendo's home consoles and whether or not they are incremental (IN MY OPINION)
NES -> Super NES
Definitely incremental. Only possible innovation is the addition of two more face buttons and the shoulder buttons. I personally don't think either of those count.
No way was the NES -> SNES an incremental evolution. It's true that the biggest addition to the SNES was increased horsepower, but the gap between the two systems was so large that it doesn't classify as incremental.
MODE 7 GRAFIX
Super Mario World would have been so different on the NES: It wouldn't have had Yoshi! Miyamoto expressed that he wanted to have Mario ride a dinosaur in SMB3, but it wasn't possible due to the limitations of the NES.He was also wrong, considering that the Chinese made an NES port of SMW including rideable Yoshi.
Which came out years later (so they had time to fiddle around with it) and not even the full game (the pirate game is only 19 stages, compared to 76 from the real one). At the time I think it wasn't possible to do it.The pirate game actually has most, if not all of the stages, but they got lazy and didn't clean up the other stages and make them accessible from the map. It was possible using the SMB3 chip; Miyamoto or whoever was programming just hadn't figured out how to do it. For instance, Adventure Island II (1990) also had rideable dinos.
I'm enjoying this. Let's study Nintendo's home consoles and whether or not they are incremental (IN MY OPINION)
NES -> Super NES
Definitely incremental. Only possible innovation is the addition of two more face buttons and the shoulder buttons. I personally don't think either of those count.
No way was the NES -> SNES an incremental evolution. It's true that the biggest addition to the SNES was increased horsepower, but the gap between the two systems was so large that it doesn't classify as incremental.