By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Bad news for Sony, good News for Nintendo

LordTheNightKnight on 05 July 2010
Nomad Blue said:
axt113 said:


ROFL, everyone will know the 3DS, if not through kids and grandkids, then through the people they meet on a daily basis.

 

Never said people are dull, I said thy aren;t tech savvy, what they will see is 3DS able to pull it off for a few hundred dollars, they will then go into a store and see the glasses one for thousands and ask why can't the big TV's do what Nitnendo does for a fraction of the cost


I think you are massively mistaken.  Maybe in certain age groups(a lot of school age children, some college age teens, some people at uni), but in the general population?

I think people are savvy enough to know that because one device can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that another can.  Even if it costs more.  Especially when they are completely different types of device.


Have you seriously not seen the sales of the DS? You think Nintendo is going to just not let those people know about what the next one can do?



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Solid_Snake4RD on 05 July 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Nomad Blue said:
axt113 said:


ROFL, everyone will know the 3DS, if not through kids and grandkids, then through the people they meet on a daily basis.

 

Never said people are dull, I said thy aren;t tech savvy, what they will see is 3DS able to pull it off for a few hundred dollars, they will then go into a store and see the glasses one for thousands and ask why can't the big TV's do what Nitnendo does for a fraction of the cost


I think you are massively mistaken.  Maybe in certain age groups(a lot of school age children, some college age teens, some people at uni), but in the general population?

I think people are savvy enough to know that because one device can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that another can.  Even if it costs more.  Especially when they are completely different types of device.


Have you seriously not seen the sales of the DS? You think Nintendo is going to just not let those people know about what the next one can do?

they are gonna let them know but not all.as alot of people just hop on as everybody else has it and its popular.so they don't really need to make all people aware



Nomad Blue on 05 July 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:

Have you seriously not seen the sales of the DS? You think Nintendo is going to just not let those people know about what the next one can do?


Yes, 131mn.  Even if they all find out about the 3DS, and they tell 10 people each, that doesn't equate to "everyone" knowing about the 3DS and that it can do 3D on a tiny screen.  The type of person who goes out to buy a new TV for the lounge will either be oblivious to the existence of the 3DS, will be aware of the 3DS but will not know what it does, will know about the 3DS but are not stupid enough to think that functionality of one device can always be replicated in another.



greenmedic88 on 06 July 2010

I think naming the device the "3DS" is a bit of a hint as to what the console is about. I seriously doubt there will be the slightest bit of confusion in that department, even among those who aren't familiar with the product.

However, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of consumer confusion over the difference between shopping for a 3D capable big screen HDTV and a little handheld console that plays 3D games on a 3.5" screen. Apples and oranges.

Anyone who actually uses a 3DS and sees how the 3D effect is limited to a narrow viewing angle, won't have to be terribly savvy to realize that a large version of the display used by the 3DS simply wouldn't be viewable in 3D by anyone without a near perpendicular viewing angle.



LordTheNightKnight on 06 July 2010
greenmedic88 said:

I think naming the device the "3DS" is a bit of a hint as to what the console is about. I seriously doubt there will be the slightest bit of confusion in that department, even among those who aren't familiar with the product.

However, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of consumer confusion over the difference between shopping for a 3D capable big screen HDTV and a little handheld console that plays 3D games on a 3.5" screen. Apples and oranges.

Anyone who actually uses a 3DS and sees how the 3D effect is limited to a narrow viewing angle, won't have to be terribly savvy to realize that a large version of the display used by the 3DS simply wouldn't be viewable in 3D by anyone without a near perpendicular viewing angle.


Alhtough buying a 3DS for everyone in a typical family would still be less than a 3DHDTV and glasses for everyone in that family, even when the prices go down.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Solid_Snake4RD on 06 July 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
greenmedic88 said:

I think naming the device the "3DS" is a bit of a hint as to what the console is about. I seriously doubt there will be the slightest bit of confusion in that department, even among those who aren't familiar with the product.

However, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of consumer confusion over the difference between shopping for a 3D capable big screen HDTV and a little handheld console that plays 3D games on a 3.5" screen. Apples and oranges.

Anyone who actually uses a 3DS and sees how the 3D effect is limited to a narrow viewing angle, won't have to be terribly savvy to realize that a large version of the display used by the 3DS simply wouldn't be viewable in 3D by anyone without a near perpendicular viewing angle.


Alhtough buying a 3DS for everyone in a typical family would still be less than a 3DHDTV and glasses for everyone in that family, even when the prices go down.

yes but glasses prices will also go down



LordTheNightKnight on 06 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
greenmedic88 said:

I think naming the device the "3DS" is a bit of a hint as to what the console is about. I seriously doubt there will be the slightest bit of confusion in that department, even among those who aren't familiar with the product.

However, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of consumer confusion over the difference between shopping for a 3D capable big screen HDTV and a little handheld console that plays 3D games on a 3.5" screen. Apples and oranges.

Anyone who actually uses a 3DS and sees how the 3D effect is limited to a narrow viewing angle, won't have to be terribly savvy to realize that a large version of the display used by the 3DS simply wouldn't be viewable in 3D by anyone without a near perpendicular viewing angle.


Alhtough buying a 3DS for everyone in a typical family would still be less than a 3DHDTV and glasses for everyone in that family, even when the prices go down.

yes but glasses prices will also go down


How does that counter my statment? I didn't imply only the 3DS and 3DHTVs would go down in price.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Solid_Snake4RD on 06 July 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
greenmedic88 said:

I think naming the device the "3DS" is a bit of a hint as to what the console is about. I seriously doubt there will be the slightest bit of confusion in that department, even among those who aren't familiar with the product.

However, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of consumer confusion over the difference between shopping for a 3D capable big screen HDTV and a little handheld console that plays 3D games on a 3.5" screen. Apples and oranges.

Anyone who actually uses a 3DS and sees how the 3D effect is limited to a narrow viewing angle, won't have to be terribly savvy to realize that a large version of the display used by the 3DS simply wouldn't be viewable in 3D by anyone without a near perpendicular viewing angle.


Alhtough buying a 3DS for everyone in a typical family would still be less than a 3DHDTV and glasses for everyone in that family, even when the prices go down.

yes but glasses prices will also go down


How does that counter my statment? I didn't imply only the 3DS and 3DHTVs would go down in price.


i wasn't countering

 

just saying that buying for each member of the family wouldn't cost $150 a piece so it will be much easier and anyways you have pay more for the bigger experience



LordTheNightKnight on 06 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
greenmedic88 said:

I think naming the device the "3DS" is a bit of a hint as to what the console is about. I seriously doubt there will be the slightest bit of confusion in that department, even among those who aren't familiar with the product.

However, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of consumer confusion over the difference between shopping for a 3D capable big screen HDTV and a little handheld console that plays 3D games on a 3.5" screen. Apples and oranges.

Anyone who actually uses a 3DS and sees how the 3D effect is limited to a narrow viewing angle, won't have to be terribly savvy to realize that a large version of the display used by the 3DS simply wouldn't be viewable in 3D by anyone without a near perpendicular viewing angle.


Alhtough buying a 3DS for everyone in a typical family would still be less than a 3DHDTV and glasses for everyone in that family, even when the prices go down.

yes but glasses prices will also go down


How does that counter my statment? I didn't imply only the 3DS and 3DHTVs would go down in price.


i wasn't countering

 

just saying that buying for each member of the family wouldn't cost $150 a piece so it will be much easier and anyways you have pay more for the bigger experience


I was counting both the glasses and the TV. See the bolded part.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Solid_Snake4RD on 06 July 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
greenmedic88 said:

I think naming the device the "3DS" is a bit of a hint as to what the console is about. I seriously doubt there will be the slightest bit of confusion in that department, even among those who aren't familiar with the product.

However, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of consumer confusion over the difference between shopping for a 3D capable big screen HDTV and a little handheld console that plays 3D games on a 3.5" screen. Apples and oranges.

Anyone who actually uses a 3DS and sees how the 3D effect is limited to a narrow viewing angle, won't have to be terribly savvy to realize that a large version of the display used by the 3DS simply wouldn't be viewable in 3D by anyone without a near perpendicular viewing angle.


Alhtough buying a 3DS for everyone in a typical family would still be less than a 3DHDTV and glasses for everyone in that family, even when the prices go down.

yes but glasses prices will also go down


How does that counter my statment? I didn't imply only the 3DS and 3DHTVs would go down in price.


i wasn't countering

 

just saying that buying for each member of the family wouldn't cost $150 a piece so it will be much easier and anyways you have pay more for the bigger experience


I was counting both the glasses and the TV. See the bolded part.

i am counting it too,who woudn't?

but i am talking if the family wants a bigger experience so they will have to pay