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.

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

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? 

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!!!

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?

Less.

The first time I saw it on a §DS, I didnt like the 3D. The second time I saw it on a 3DSXL, I liked it a lot.

I think it would be around the same. And a bit more power wouldnt really have added much either.

I think the Glasses Free 3D defintely brought interest, but software drives hardware as Reggie always says which is very true. Clearly people like it much more and graphics don't stop people from buying it or else I think the sales would of been the other way round and people having a Vita.

I don't think it's over the top gimmicky, but it's optional and not forced on which is what I liked. I think if it did affect sales then it would only be a small percentage because I think people brought it for the games. I don't consider the 3D a waste of money much either because it's still the cheapest portable around, but I won't miss the 3D if it doesn't happen in their next portable system. I would like to see their next to sort of see Vita visualls, but on both screens so they are both same resolution and same graphics so your not using top screen for all the graphics capabilities all the time and using the bottom as a menu or something. I don't know, but I trust their next portable will be a good one just like they have always been.

To be honest, the 3D gimmick is what got me to buy the 3DS at launch. Today, I don't give a crap about the 3D anymore, and I almost never us it. Personally, I think the 3DS would've had less sales if it weren't for the 3D.