Do you think a lot of anylsyt would have shut up if it started at 169.99 and sold as well as it is doing now? Because that seems to be thier only argument against it nowadays. Everytime  someone mentions the huge current success of the 3DS with them, all they ever say is "Well it took a huge price drop to do it" Well werent you the same people that said "why buy a 3ds at 250 when I can get a ipod touch at 200?"? So when nintendo agrees with them and reacts to it, all the sudden it shows desperation? It was a smart move and a neccasary move. And plus, if handhelds were truely dead like you say, a price drop wouldn't matter. THere would be no demand for it. So when they say, "well it was just a price drop" they are saying that there is a huge demand for handhelds as well. So I'm not really seeing an argument here.

But I digress. THe point of this thread is how much of a diffference would it have made to analyst if it started off at this price point instead of a price cut?

I think it would have been smarter to have started the 3ds off at $200 instead. Reasonable price and no need for a price cut so early on. Also, they would get an extra $30(or lose less on each unit sold. I don't know or care which it would be)

Didn't analyst also whined about the price of the Wii? Too cheap and N could made waaaaay more money? So it wouldn't matter, they'll always find something to whine about...

Yeah I remember Pachter saying something like that - I guess market share is a pretty big deal for hardware companies

I do wonder how it would have sold, DS and Wii launched at reasonable prices and their first years wernt steller.

At the launch 3DS suffer for lack of essential games (imo), Mario Kart 7 and 3D Land boost 3DS era. The price drop helped before the games release.

Nintendo should have just waited a few more months till more software was ready for launch like Zelda and Starfox 3D, and then launched it at $199.99. That would have been the sweet spot for the portable, and with a steady stream of software it would have sold well leading up to the holidays. Nintendo would probably have lost a little money on each system at first, but by the time the holidays rolled around the blow would have been softened by all the software sales.

Of course, Nintendo decided to paint themselves in a corner by releasing it earlier with no compelling software, and at a higher price point. They then tried to justify it by refusing to drop the prices of the original DS units, especially the DSi and DSiXL which were still selling for $169.99 and $189.99. It was only after the launch of the 3DS and sales started to slow down to a trickle that Nintendo slashed original DS prices in preparation of a 3DS price slash in August.

They put Sony in a box they can't get out of.

I think that was their plan all along.

Most analysts don't have a clue. These are the same "analysts" who claim that traditional video gaming is on the way out, yet look at this Christmas's sales. I don't see any decline, do you? I'm probably being a little unfair though, they are a broad range of people with a broad range of marketing and sales ideologies, for every analyst who says dedicated handheld gaming is dead there'll be another who says the PS Vita will be a smash hit a $250 (although it would appear the latter would be wrong, but you get the picture).

The key thing is Nintendo may as well have taken $250 off consumers at launch anyway. With no good games in the early months they were unlikely to sell in great numbers anyway, so you may as well take 250 big ones off the guys who do buy the unit. It's immaterial at this stage. They're selling buckets of the things now and, most importantly, I guarantee they're selling them at a, albeit insignificant, profit. Most reports from the price cut time suggested Nintendo were likely to make somewhere between a $5 and $10 loss on every unit sold at the lower price. That, however, was nigh on six months ago, and as anyone who watches the price of hardware will know, hardware drops in cost by a reasonable amount over a period like that.

you know, launches are almost always rough,

lets look at hell the ds original 3ds actually did faster then it , , it is just fine , i dont even think it was ever in trouble,
all it really needed was games, ! and zelda or starfox wasnt enough,
they need more then 2 games appearently because last time it didnt work hell look at ps3,


that shit took a yr to get its 2nd good game, took even longer -id say 3 years to sustain life , before then it was a rock in a water ,
it was in worst shape then nintendos 3ds was lets put it at that and look at psp ,and vita hell psp ---is dead now i cant even find games for it any more -aside from used or gamestop, walmart by me has maybe 3 on the shelve or a dozen at most, last time i was in the one closest to me they only had a few

even when it was fresh and new, walmart nor gamestop gave it big shelf space, compared to everything else at the time psps selection was low!

so yes it wo u ld have sold better but not by much , if ds was an indication , -that system started slow at 149.99


so i dont believe price had any thing to do with it,
its more of people wanting a bunch of games to just slap in their collections,

not patient , to wait for the games, - is the main problem with most people, they always assume it has to be perfect

in rare cases it is perfect for them --see ps1 snes nes ps2 wii but in most cases---- systems start slow- even good ones
such as -ds 3ds vita right now psp-the later didnt even get off the ground in the us as i already indicated, its just a matter of taste , which games people like the most - and psp did not even have that in the west , its home territory was its market for the most part , sure it did have for me at least 20 great games , and that is enough but for some they want the whole truck load,
by that i mean a big vast library and nintendo has always offered that . so of course sells would pick up , its natural , look at how vita is doing this week is 106 not good but what do you expect--- its got no games people wanna play, only die hards will pick somthing like that up

its plain fact

me as a multi console /handheld owner ill be picking up a vita that dont mean i like it , i cant describe somthing i dont own , itll come down to if it offers a better library then psp , cause honestly i hated psp most of the time,

gta and driver and twisted metal were its hits, not counting the 2 wrestling and 3 nfs games i have and 2 wipeouts dexter and gow , of course there was 2 syphon filters but the control sucked so much ass it wasnt because of lack of 2nd analog, they could have left some functions out like --- jumping , look at n64, how that made fpses work
psp could have done the same exact thing dpad to strife left and right or look up or down but like goldeneye had an auto assist , they didnt do that so the controls sucked, plain and simple 3ds will sell well because its got the games now and we all know thats exactly what it needed price was nothing it chump change compared to psvs 279.99 -manditory memory cards -- - but then again ,, if it has games then so be it but if not , it will suffer