Can you prove that the loss is due to the 3DS? You need to show evidence, because I have no reason to just take your word for it.
You also have to prove that 3D games hurt the 3DS sales, because I think it was the lack of first any major games and a pricepoint of 250$USD. You can see a substantial increase in 3DS sales with the release of Ocarina of Time 3D, and then an even bigger jump in sales with the price drop, and yet an even bigger sales boost with the release of Super Mario Land 3D.
Another thing I will note is that when New Super Mario Bros launched, the DS actually sold less than the prior week in 2 out of 3 markets (US, 33K dropped to 32K, in the EU it dropped from 170K to 144K).
Also, you're going to have to prove that the Mario Land 3D didn't do its job, because it looks to me that it did a much better job than the 2D Mario game, and other 2D games did on the original DS. The 3DS grew in all three markets with the release of Super Mario 3D Land (66 to 137K in Japan, 106 to 144K in the US, 101K to 165K in EU).
So yes, he is ignoring evidence. His claim is refuted by bringing evidence in.
One last piece of evidence. In its first year, and at a higher price point, the 3DS with its 3D games sold more than double what the DS did with its 2D games during its first year.
Iwata says that the 3DS hardware is the main culprit for their financial situation.
Since Nintendo was forced to run their business at a loss and based on the fact that software sells hardware, it's logical that the 3DS lineup in 2011 wasn't sufficient to achieve the desired results (good sales and profits).
Nintendo's flagship games are supposed to have good legs and sell for months or even years, so looking at a single week of sales to determine the value of these games is most definitely the wrong way to go about this. Especially when the release of Super Mario 3D Land coincides with the start of the holiday sales.
All your evidence is faulty. The DS didn't have flagship 2D games during its first year which is why its sales weren't good. Super Mario 64 DS was the flagship game along with a Metroid Prime Hunters demo, accompanied by mostly gimmicky touchscreen games like Pokémon Dash and Yoshi Touch & Go that hardly anybody remembers nowadays. Additionally, I have once again to point out that the 3DS business was run at a heavy loss while the DS was profitable during its first year. It's no achievement to have higher sales when you are losing money.
My evidence that Super Mario 3D Land failed to do its job are the poor 3DS sales we see each and every week in America and Europe. Nintendo must have had higher expectations for this game, because if they hadn't, they would be a poor business.
So much fail in 1 post.
"Nintendo's flagship games are supposed to have good legs and sell for months or even years, so looking at a single week of sales to determine the value of these games is most definitely the wrong way to go about this. "
He used it as an indicator for HW push. That's the only way to do it, otherwise enlighten us.
"Since Nintendo was forced to run their business at a loss and based on the fact that software sells hardware, it's logical that the 3DS lineup in 2011 wasn't sufficient to achieve the desired results (good sales and profits)."
Nintendo had Mario Kart, Super Mario 3D Land and Nintendogs. What do you want more?? If it didn't sell well, it's because the pricepoint was just too damn high, period. Once they reduced the price, they met their target, how can it not be more clear than that? Yet you blame 3D Land? Give me a break. It would not have sold any more with a 2D Mario excuse me, as awesome as it would have been.
When NSMB pushed the DS, it came out mid lifecycle, after much buzz about touch controls, and when a remodel came out. Systems don't sell explosively at launch unless they are the Wii (ie. Extremely exceptional). To think 2D Mario would have propelled the 3DS into explosive sales is wishful at best, if not idiotic. (how'd you like it?)
"It's no achievement to have higher sales when you are losing money."
When the market dictates a level of performance and pricepoint that your platform simply cannot afford without counting its losses, then yes, high sales while losing money MAY be a serious indicator of success, at best. At worst, and in all realism, it is a sign that the market is probably not sustainable for much much longer. Quote me on it.
"My evidence that Super Mario 3D Land failed to do its job are the poor 3DS sales we see each and every week in America and Europe.
2D Mario would not have changed that, see my first point on Mario Kart, Mario and Nintendogs. Sorry. And NSMB got its help from the dogs and from the brain games, you constantly forget that. If Nintendogs 3D didn't pull it off, I fail to see how much better of a job 2D Mario could've done.