@RolStoppable & @padib

This is my point : Same graphical leap (minimal) plus gymic = same strategy

as you can see there is an improvement but what do we get anyway?

becuase i started saying that  ds and 3ds have the same strategy as gamecube and wii, and you said am wrong becuase games on the 3ds can never be done on ds and am saying that the graphical leap is the same but most games will end up looking like cooking mama even on the 3ds so , the strategy is the same.

I dont have to show 3ds vs ds comparation because i just proved (and you) that the graphical leap is the same and they want to ride on the gymic for success, and according to recent history it should have worked.

i posted pictures to complement your videos that show that the graphical leap is the same, that is small.

More like a $200 3DS would outsell a $250 3DS. This falls into one of those "so obvious it doesn't even merit pointing out" statement categories.

It's already been established that the Sharp parallax barrier display only adds about $11 to the BOM of the 3DS compared to a regular LCD panel.

That number may well be less currently, making it pointless for Nintendo to contradict the relevance of the key distinguishing feature in the eyes of consumers, based upon Nintendo's entire marketing strategy for he 3DS, and offer a second SKU ("3DS Minus 3D") for a BOM savings of about $10. It would actually cost them more to split the product line this early in production between sourcing a replacement vanilla/no 3D LCD upper panel (different resolution than DS line) different upper case, new packaging, separate product to ship, etc.

It would be cheaper for them to simply drop the price of the existing 3DS to $199 and put a piece of tape over the 3D slider marked "Magical No 3D Barrier" or something similarly ridiculous. 

The problem within the consumer mindset (not really a problem) is that they perceive they're paying about $100 for the 3D feature and so the response that if you don't like the 3D effect, it gives you headaches, it makes you break into epileptic seizures/makes you blind, etc. "you can just turn it off" doesn't really wash. 

and a ps3 came with better graphics, six axis motion controls, internal memory, the psn online service, wireless capability, apps (like the photo album ap) available at purchase ..... and blu ray.  doesn't change the fact that sony advertised the ps3 as "a blu ray player that also plays games!".  

... when nintendo stops advertising the 3DS as a "Glassesless 3D player that also plays games!" you'll have  point.  until then the 3DS will still carry the same hate the ps3 used to (to people not interested in 3D) ... too costly for a feature not wanted.

extra post

extra post.

i agree, my problem is that the 3DS isn't significantly stronger than the PSP (6 years older).

Nintendo has always stuck with cost effective chips/etc for their handheld products.  Did you want Nintendo to make it x2 PSP and have the final price tag be at 300-350?  That would please a few "hardcore" followers that only care about graphics and angry way more of their fanbase due to price (hell even most people now still think it is a little too expensive at 250).  Nintendo is more focused on profit.  They will not stuff all the latest graphic chips/etc just to please a few minority of the gaming population.  You only have to look at Nintendo's past with handhelds to understand their strategy.  Having Nintendo try and copy Sony's handheld strategy makes little sense. 

I didn't realize eye strain would be so high up. Understandable though I guess.