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

Basically a 2DS price with a 3DS design. Would've flew off shelves


RIP Iwata 12/6/1959-7/11/2015

Thanks for all the great memories!

Around the Network
siavm said:
You write this like the 2ds does not exist. I am sure there is data to show how the 2ds is selling versus the 3ds and 3ds xl.

The 2DS release the same day as Pokémon X & Y on October 12, 2013.

From October 12 to December 31st, 2013; the 2DS made up 30%% of 3DS family sales. (@ $129 to $99)

From January 1st to May 31st of 2014, the 2DS made up 20% of 3DS family sales at a price tag of $99.

The 3DS is currently most commonly being sold at $109 and is expected to sell 10% of 3DS family sales from June 1st to September 31st of 2014 with a price tag of $99 later during this timeline.

The DS use to always be constantly at $129, and people seem to be waiting for that kind of price drop like as far as $99 for over 3 years of no price cut, for the 3DS. A $149 price tag should be more then good enough for the 3DS XL to sale a lot.

The 2DS has sold 2 million out of 7 million of the 3DS family since the 2DS release back in October 12, 2013.

painmaster212 said:
They should have added more power to the system in place of the 3D and lowered the price. Did anyone actually buy the 3DS because of the 3D effect on here?

Yeah, a number of us on this thread did.

The 3DS only does 120 million polygons with a 1 GHz GPU underclock at 400 MHz with a 2-core 1 GHz CPU & 60 fps per video image with an 800 resolution with Native 800 graphics with more then 50 shader cores (more then 360) with an 5:3 aspect ratio screen, with a pixel density higher then 220, with way more better textures & shader abilities then the Wii.

If the 3DS didnt do 3D, they would have settle with 25 million polygons with the Nintendo ARM 9 CPU, which is a 2-core 268 MHz CPU with a 200 MHz max clock GPU clocked at 200 MHz, & 30 fps per video image with an 400 resolution with native 400 graphics with fewer shader cores (because of weaker older GPU) with an 4:3 aspect ratio screen, with a pixel density of something like 199, with textures & shader abilities below the Wii.

The only thing good from not doing the 3D would be the battery because of weaker CPU & GPU & lower frame rate.

The 3D effect force them to do soo much more pixel density with higher resolution and better native graphics and more polygons (because both polygons & lack of polygons become way more obvious when viewed in 3-D), and it force 60 fps per video image on a Nintendo Handheld just so they won't have strobe effects, and it's the standard for 3D since the 1930's. And we got way more better textures & shader abilities then the Wii because those things become way more obvious when viewed in 3D. This is why the GameCube went so high with its graphics, and then right before they release the GameCube they cancel the 3D effect, but the rest of the specs for its functions where already there from their earlier vision, and they where to close to manufacturing time, and needed to release it for Holiday.

Kaizar is so funny. Do you really believe in everything you post?


OP: More, for sure

Click HERE and be happy 

EricFabian said:

Kaizar is so funny. Do you really believe in everything you post?


OP: More, for sure

The 2DS has been out since October 12 2013 with Pokémon X & Y on the same day, and the 2DS has only sold 2 million out of 7 million 3DS family sales. And the 2DS has been sold at $99 more often then not. And the 2DS doesn't have the 3D feature.

We know for a fact the 3DS would have sold much more less.

Would the Wii sold more without the Motion Control of WiiMote? NO.

Around the Network
Kaizar said:

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.

@ HD has its use on the big Screen. But there are a lot of games where graphics are not that important. I still play some old classics because they are simply great games.

@ Stylus. Using your fingers still is a bad form of input. Why can't I just use buttons. Touch controls should be optional. Most video game genres are older than mass market touch controls and traditonal controls worked since the good old NES. Touch controls are new, but they are inferior to the established controller. Aside from a few genre games they are simply bad because you don't have the control quality of a standard control scheme.

@ 3D Even It is still useless for me even if I use only a fraction of it. And I still have to pay for a feature that I never wanted. Why is it so hard to understand that a lot of people do not want 3D technology? It failed in the past and even if they can advance the technology and make it cheaper... just because it is possible to use it it still can be useless for most of the gamer. Sony also tried to sell games via 3D technology... most gamer did not care and Sony stopped that approach eventually. 

@Sound. Yep. I don't care much about sound in handheld devices. The only genre where music/sound is somewhat important for me = JRPGs like Final Fantasy.

I tell you one thing. I buy a console not just for the console because it is a hightech device... I buy a console for playing games. The console is the entry barrier... the price is the thing I have to waste because I want to play a single game. The console itself has 0 use... The use of the console/handheld comes solely from the games I want to play with. The technology can make my experience more comfortable... but Nintendo comes in the way to make my gaming experience more uncomfortable because they insist on selling me things that I do not want (simple as that) and they force me to use certain new ways of playing games that I find inferior to established ones. 

I find the question if things like new control schemes or a forced upon 3D screen are having a negative impact on sales very interesting. Just because something is "new and innovative" it does not automatically mean that is in an improvement. Sony and Microsoft tried to implement new features like Move and kinect, but ultimately for most of the gamer these new control schemes did not offer significant improvements. Certain hardware parts sold well because they introduced new genres like Singstar and the microphones or the WiiMote and fitness and dancing games... but for the already introduced genres you simply do not need these new control schemes.

Lets take KH3D. It was the game I bought with my 3DS. I bought KH because I want to see how the story continues... as KH is one of the few franchises where story is important and every game in the Series is an important part of it. Story and gameplay makes out 95% of my expectations of this games. Graphics, sound, control schemes are only a small bonus... they can't fix a broken game, but they can take away from a good game.



Ok, seriously, how many times can a person copy and paste the same information? Reading through this thread actually gave me a headache. There IS such a thing as posting too much. It also doesn't help when people ask for sources and you provide nothing but the same copy-paste response.

Anyway, as for the thread question, I don't think there would have been a huge difference. The 3d effect both helped and hurt sales at first, especially since parents were afraid to get one for their children. The reason the 3ds is not doing as well as nds did is mobile phones that have made handhelds "not cool" anymore. For a while now the masses care about iphones and Galaxy's, so there's no peer pressure to buy a gaming handheld anymore.

As for me, I bought the 3ds for the exclusive Naruto games on it as well as Pokemon X/Y. I was disappointed by the latter, but still don't exactly regret my decision. The 3d effect sounded kinda cool. It's not comfortable to use, though, especially when you're in bed (where I do most of my gaming), as you have to play from a certain angle for it to wok. It's understandable, but inconvenient, so I don't use it much at all. I was quite excited about 3d recording and when I actually used it, I realized just how bad the camera was.

Around the same! I honestly don't believe the 3D effects meant jackshit for the 3DS! People bought it for games like Mario Kart 7 and Pokemon, not for the 3D capabilities!

       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

I think the 3D effect is great. Don't always use it though. If it didn't have it the only thing that would be new, is the graphics (and I'm not sure they would put Vita graphics on it so we'd be stuck with PSP graphics for all we know). Consoles needs some gimmicks.


I'd say about the same.

The 3D isn't as fundamentally important to the 3DS as the Wiimote was to the Wii, not by a long shot. I'd say without the 3D, it wouldn't have stumbled as much out of the gate due a (probable) lower price point, but on the other hand the 3D effect did turn heads at first like it or not. So I'd say, the same give or take.