The 3DS is not going to disrupt 3DTV's, though and I'm gonna stay by this no matter what people say. The 3DS is a gaming device. Nintendo doesn't give a damn about Sony's 3DTV business they just care about Sony's Playstation business because Sony is their biggest competitor. There is no value for Nintendo trying to disrupt 3DTV in general. They are not in the 3DTV business so why should they try to disrupt it? Disrupting 3D gaming makes sense to Nintendo because they are in the gaming business. But Nintendo doesn't care whether people are watching their soaps in 3D or 2D.

The thought of the 3DS disrupting 3DTV in general is just hillarious to be honest... neither is the 3DS going to have a huge movie library (as I said they are trying to get distant customers with it, this is mainly a blue ocean product!) nor will Nintendo put any more effort than neccessary into their 3D movie library. There are also mobile phones with 3D displays already and I'm sure there will be dedicated movie players that can display movies in 3D but not even those will not disrupt 3DTV because a TV does the job of displaying movies at home, often together with your friends. Portable 3D movie players are only an alternative for a very limited amount of people (watching alone, watching on the go, etc).

Just to remember, the gaming business universe is a small fraction inside the entertainment business. If Nintendo is fighting disinterst, their battle is not only against Sony, but TV, Music and other things as well.

They are fighting disinterest in gaming. There is absolutely no reason why Nintendo should fight TV, music or books - they could just as well take a horse and a lance and try to fight a wind mill.

I don't even know what to say it's that ridiculous...

I mean... maybe they're also fighting the Blackberry, pancakes and global warming?

No, its very important, consoles have sold a lot more now than in the past thanls to population growth, but Zelda has only grown by a little, proportionately, its less popular

Lol, that's not my point, and I don't think is ridiculous, I remember Malstrom even Reggie speaking of that. If people are not interested in gaming is cause something else is entertaining them, be it tv, radio, cinema or whatever. Nintendo has to fight for consumers time, not making tv or other product, but making gaming interesting. My point is that they don't have only to make games more interesting than Sony or Microsoft, but as entertainment in general, because at the end of the day games are just entertainment (remember NES meaning?)

I don't know how you got from "fighting disinterest" to "fighting entertainment". They clearly try to fight disinterest in gaming and whenever they said this they added "by making games which entertain customers".

There is a huge difference between "making games that are more interesting than listening to music" and actively trying to battle (or disrupt) other entertainment forms.

And LMAO @ Malstrom saying Modern Warfare 2 in the top 10 indicates disinterest in the market while 4 year old Mario game is teh mystical phenomenom.

No, more people are buying it so it's more popular. End of. The proportion thing is bullshit. I could say Mario Kart Wii has a lower attach rate than Double Dash (if it doesn't, it will sometime in the future). Does that make Mario Kart less popular than it was last gen?