It's only illogical if 3D becomes a hit, which is not the scenario I'm discussing. This is if 3D starts to drive people away in the future instead of becomming an attraction.

And for all the talk about the "technology" of the 3DS, it still boils down to one key component: the Sharp parallax barrier display, which is estimated to be a $20-30 part.

With the production yield of the 3DS, it won't stay that high as it will end up being the most produced 3D display to date. Later in production, the additional cost to manufacture will be practically negligible.

So knocking $25 off the price of a 3DS for a 2DS is not going to be a great value that general consumers flock to. 

And a $20-30 difference in price under current estimated parts pricing simply isn't enough to justify a second SKU and a split in the software market as there will be games and apps that require the 3D efffect, even if it is in small doses.

From a game design standpoint, the 3D effect doesn't have to be "on" all the time. Only for certain key sections if a game is so designed.

Okay, a reason that doesn't try to pretend 3D is infallible. The cost isn't as high as I thought it was, therefore any money saving down the line wouldn't help. It doesn't preclude a bubble busting, but it does show it's not the best solution for that.

If the 3DS drives people away, Nintendo will never say "the 3D is what is doing it" and cut the 3D out. They'll release new software to make people want the 3DS for the games rather than the 3DS itself (such as 2D Mario).

It's even less than I thought. The price difference between the DSi LCD panel and the Sharp 3DS panel is about $10. The DSi panels have an estimated $10-20 price.

There is zero reason to offer a "2DS" for Nintendo, which would actually cost them more by having to support two product lines this early in the 3DS product cycle.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20001013-260.html

You had me until there. This is a future scenario I'm discussing. Why do all of you think I'm stating Nintendo should do this "now", when the word "later" is in the thread title?

I'll give that the price difference is negligable, but that second reason doesn't count, since this would be after the 3DS production is established, which they showed in the past they could afford to split.

Now I think you're just carrying on an argument for the sake of arguing.

The Sharp display in the future will also be a $10-20 part in your future scenario.

As of now, it probably costs Nintendo about an extra $10 per unit. If you really think they should produce a second SKU without the 3D features for $10 less, I'll leave you with your hypothetical argument.

No, I was agreeing with the price making that action not worth it. I was just calling on you assuming I meant Nintendo doing it now, along with a bunch of other people, when the thread title showed I didn't mean doing it now.