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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - How much would the 3DS have sold if it didn't have 3D?

 

Kemsus said:
I never use the 3D, so if they had used money on either a better battery or a little more power instead, it would have been better for me.
I am not sure if it would have had an impact on the sales though.


The 3D & wireless take up the same amount of CPU & battery as each other. Up to 1 hour is all you get without these 2 things, and you can still turn them both off, so there's no wondering.



Around the Network
ExplodingBlock said:
I think a handheld with no gimmicks , PS Vita graphics, DS games compatible, and with the same library of games would have sold better


This. As long as it wasn't over 200$.



Alphachris said:
I certainly lost interest in the 3DS as soon as I heard about its 3D Focus. I bought it despite (!) 3D after KH3D came out and after some tryouts I always play without 3D. For me it is as useless as the stylus controls because both do not offer anything valuable for my personal gaming tastes (well, the stylus controls work with games like Phoenix Wright and Professor Layton... but it ruined "normal" games for me. I had a hard time with TWEWY for example.)

By the that logic, HD is as useless.

And you can use your fingers instead of stylus. That what I do in most DS & 3DS games that use touch screen controls.

You do know that you can adjust the volume of 3D right?

A lot of people seem to forget that the 3DS does more then 3D ON & OFF, you can adjust the 3D volume at 10% & 90% & 20% & 80% & 70% & 30% & 40% & 60% & 50% & etc.

I guess its safe to say you never used the Surround Sound audio of 3DS games like Kingdom Hearts 3D, since you never try 3D visual, it's safe to say you never use Surround Sound (3D Audio) in any & all games.



A 3DS without 3D but Circle Pad Pro-like design built into it, with a stronger battery life, and more robust graphics/features/online/eshop/ect?

Well, I wonder what the price would be. Maybe $199 or the same as when the 3DS launched. But I think it would've sold better.



Roar_Of_War said:

A 3DS without 3D but Circle Pad Pro-like design built into it, with a stronger battery life, and more robust graphics/features/online/eshop/ect?

Well, I wonder what the price would be. Maybe $199 or the same as when the 3DS launched. But I think it would've sold better.


With the Circle Pad built into the 3DS, it would need to have a battery half the size to make room on the right side. See 3DS taken apart video.

So the battery would be much shorter.

Plus you would also have the 2 extra buttons. So the price really would be the same. The GameBoy Advance SP still has its parallax barrier in it, even though they never used any 3D in it. So the 3D screen clearly doesn't cost much.

Plus without 3D, the pixel count would be 400 x 240. And the pixel density would be like 199 instead of over 220. And 3rd party 3DS graphics would be 400 instead of 800 native resolution graphics.

If it wasn't for 3D, the top screen would also have a resistance touch screen, and the top screen aspect ratio would be 4:3 like the bottom screen.

Without 3-D Nintendo would have settle with 2-core 268 MHz Nintendo ARM 9 CPU and a GPU max clock at 200 MHz that only does 25 million polygons. But because of 3D Nintendo uses a 2-core 1 GHz CPU and a 1 GHz GPU underclock at 400 MHz that does 120 million polygons, because the 3D effect really shows off how polygons you do & don't have. Plus the 3DS wouldn't have more then 50 shader cores (more then 360) and way more better textures & shader abilities then the Wii if the 3D effect wasn't there to show off the details of graphics soo much.

The 3DS resolution VS. PS Vita = 800 vs. 960 (thanks to 3D, otherwise 400 vs. 960)

The 3DS pixel density VS. PS Vita = between 220 & 230 for each handheld. (otherwise it would be like 199 vs. between 220 & 230, without 3-D)

What you're asking for is for Nintendo to just have native 400 graphics with half the room for the physical battery with a crappy display with with just 25 million polygons and really everyone about the graphics below the Wii, instead of the other way around. The Wii resolution is only 640 with native 640 graphics VS. the 3DS Native 800 graphics.

The 3DS only does 60 fps because that's the standard for 3D since the 1930's and it gets rid of the strobe effect. But without 3D Nintendo would have just done 30 fps, because 2D images don't need 60 fps.

The GameCube only did 60 fps because of 3D, and scared the competition to copycat with the 360 & PS3. But the 360 & PS3 can only do 24 fps and Native standard-definition graphics when they play in 3D, while the 3DS stays at 60 fps with native standard-definition graphics when they play in 3D.



Around the Network

Probably about the same, but Nintendo would have made more money.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Kaizar said:

Fact: 3-D gives way more clearity & anti-aliasing in image quality, then the crappy HD gimmick could ever accomplish at 4K HD 2D.

No, that's not a fact. How many times do we have to go over that again? You are really learning resistent, aren't you?

It is physical impossible to deliver more clarity on an display with 0.2 Mpixel (1x 800x240 or 2x 400x240) than on a display with 2 MPixel (1x 1920x1080 or 2x 960x1080) or with 8 MPixel (4K, 3840x2160). You should really get your eyes checked!

I'm probably the second biggest 3D fan on this forum. I always have the 3d slider of the 3DS XL to the max (all three Layton games on 3DS are stereoscopic masterpieces), I love to play PC games with my Nvidia 3D vision shutter glasses, I watch every good Blu-ray 3D I can get on my 3D TV and I really really hope that after the glorious Trine2-version more PS4-games will get a stereoscopic option.

Why do you have to give vicarious embarrassment to every 3d enthusiast with your delusional 3D propaganda posts? 



famousringo said:
Probably about the same, but Nintendo would have made more money.


The PS Vita & 2DS ($109) would like to have a word with you.

Plus the 3DS would have never gotten a lot of important key titles from 1st Party to 3rd Parties. And no 3D Video & Photo taking would also affect sales. No world premiere music videos from big time American music artist would have also affected another 1 million or so less sells.

The specs would be far less greater, and further affect the 3DS sells, becuase most Bita owners would have never got a 3DS, without certain titles & specs.

The 3D actually prevented the 3DS from becoming a GameCube/PS Vita situation.



The same!!!



Conina said:
Kaizar said:

 

No, that's not a fact. How many times do we have to go over that again? You are really learning resistent, aren't you?

It is physical impossible to deliver more clarity on an display with 0.2 Mpixel (1x 800x240 or 2x 400x240) than on a display with 2 MPixel (1x 1920x1080 or 2x 960x1080) or with 8 MPixel (4K, 3840x2160). You should really get your eyes checked!

I'm probably the second biggest 3D fan on this forum. I always have the 3d slider of the 3DS XL to the max (all three Layton games on 3DS are stereoscopic masterpieces), I love to play PC games with my Nvidia 3D vision shutter glasses and I watch every good Blu-ray 3D I can get on my 3D TV.

Why do you have to give vicarious embarrassment to every 3d enthusiast with your delusional 3D propaganda posts? 

You believe in the resolution myth. That's the same as believing in the MHz myth.

And if you are such a 3D enthusiast, then why do I never see you on any of these things:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=173039

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/to-convert-kingsman-the-secret-serive-movie

 

Why is it, that you have never known about the resolution myth, and MHz myth?