Topic: Would the 3DS Have Taken Off Without 3D?

Reading the thread about how often users use the 3D led me to start thinking: if the 3DS had not had 3D, would it have been able to take off like it did? What if the 2DS had been released first (It would have been called something else, though, because it wouldn't have been distinguishing itself from the 3DS)? Would the early games still have had the same impact? Would Star Fox 64 3D or OoT 3D have had the same impact without the 3D? Would Super Mario 3D Land been quite as captivating, or even exist at all? I'm sure a Mario game would've come around, but it might've been different from what SM3DL ended up being.
As much as some people seem to dislike the 3D, and as much as some games seem to be making less use of it, I think it was extremely important for the 3DS's early success - especially because it shaped many of the games that started selling the system early on and set it apart from the Vita.

What do you guys think?

I don't think it would have made much of a difference but I'm glad it's there. I used it all of the time before Pokemon and Animal Crossing and I still use it for other titles that are more about the visuals. However without it I would have still gotten it.

I like your thesis.

My opinion is similar to the above.

Of course, it's the only mobile platform worth actually gaming on. Nothing against the Vita, but there's just no gaems. And phone games are just distractions for pooping or waiting in line, and they don't have real controls.

I think so. As much as I love the 3D, it isn't the primary reason I love the system. And the 3DS was a whipping boy until it started getting good games. Games, not 3D, made the system take off.

You're right. No gaems. There are, however, plenty of games to be played on it.

This "Vita has no games!" meme is simply untrue. While it may not receive very many big retail releases every year, it has a very well-stocked digital library. ESPECIALLY if, like me, you never owned a PSP.

When they showed it at E3 2010(I think it was), I was VERY interested in the 3D screen. I couldn't even comprehend how they got it to work without glasses, being that I had played some PS3 games on a 3DTV.

That was when 3D was trying SOOOO hard to get into people's houses, and I personally thought it was and is awesome.

The system has done a very good job of making 3D a standard option for the platform. If 2DS had come first, we wouldn't have games in 3D right now, and that's what makes the difference for people who really like 3D, like myself.

If you don't like it, that's fine, but people that do like it, like it alot. There's no other platform that has as much 3D content as the 3DS, right now. No one will support a 3D option if 1% of consumers in that specific market have a 3D device. That's why smart phones with 3D bombed pretty fast. In the 3DS/2DS case, (probably) over 85% of that platform have a 3DS, so supporting 3D content is guaranteed not to be a waste of time or resources.

This is also why it's not a gimmick, it's standard. Wii did the same thing by "forcing" users to have a motion controller, and it's the same idea that applied to basically anything that isn't standard in other parts of the market. Kinect and the GamePad being required for their respective systems will make sure devs take advantage of such hardware.

EDIT: I also don't think Kinect or GamePad will be made optional, though, because software and the OS still rely on it. 3D screens aren't necessary to play video games, but it does make it all the more appealing across the board, whether you prefer it or not.

yes and no. it served for a good while to differentiate it from the DS. most people don't use it often but when a non gamer looked at a DS' screen and then the 3DS' screen(both playing a game) they instantly knew that the 3DS was special, now that its been a while, not so much. in fact they made a 2DS now that people aren't confused if the 3DS is a new handheld far better than the original DS line or not(hardware wise, the DS is still the winner when it comes to software)

I really enjoy using the 3D for certain games, so I personally consider it to be an important feature of the system. Is it a selling point in and of itself? I think that's harder to answer. I didn't want one because it's 3D, I wanted it because it would be host to some great games, which it has mors than delivered on. For me it's the icing on the cake, but other people dont care either way. Would the system be worse without 3D? Not now, given how robust the library is, but in those early days I would have said yes. It was an important diferentiator from the technically superior Vita. Nintendo has since distanced itself from the 3D owing to general consumer apathy to the technology, and I don't think it has made much difference to its success in the long term.

Yes it would have. The system has sold because of the games, of which at least 90% don't really rely on the 3D effect.

Indeed, it might have even done better given that those tabloids wouldn't have anything to moan about.

I don't think I've used the 3D effect in awhile. At least not for me. I've shown a couple of friends the 3D effect, but it's more of a novelty.

Getting real tired of hearing the Vita has no games. It was funny the first time about a year ago, but now it's getting annoying and redundant. It surely has games.

I think the 3D was a huge selling point, IMO. I'm sure many stopped using it like I did, but I know some that enjoy it more than I do. Even without the 3D, however, I would've bought it. It's the newest generation of Nintendo handhelds!

I think initially people were excited over the 3D effect it could produce, but it didn't translate into sales and in the end people buy and play 3DS for the games, which there are many great titles to choose from.

Given that the format is going downhill (movie theaters are posting lower 3D shares than ever and 3D television sets have been phased out in favor of Smart TVs) I would honestly be surprised if Nintendo's next portable system has 3D, at least as a selling point.

actually I think it would have taken sooner if it wasn't for 3D, there were 2 big problems, Nintendo trusted that the 3D gimmick was enough to sale the console which was the reason they release the console without games, 3D also made the console more expensive.... if it had release without 3D at $199.99 with a decent launch lineup it would have taken sooner than it did...... I still think if Nintendo released a 2DS that looked like a 3DS XL at $150 the thing would reach even higher highs

It definitely would not have had that initial "WOW!" factor that makes you wanna show it off to everyone who hasn't seen glasses-free 3D before.

If 2DS came first, 3DS wouldn't have ever existed. They aren't going to release 2DS games without 3D, then try to push a 3D option later. It literally makes no sense, because then 3D wouldn't be as widely supported as it is.

It wouldn't have even been called 2DS if it would have happened first. They announced the 3DS when a few Xbox 360 and PS3 games started supporting them.

It makes complete sense to me how Nintendo did things, here. By having the 3DS be the "core" system, developers have instant access to a feature for their software. Going 2DS to 3DS doesn't work, but going 3DS to 2DS does when it comes to 3D support, and Nintendo wanted that to happen.

Nintendo fully intended 3D to be a draw of the system.

The 3DS definitely benefited from having 3D, but to be honest anything that distinguised it from the DS would have benefited it in the same way. If they had released a straight-up upgrade to the DS without anything apparently new, it wouldn't have been successful at all, because casual gamers, the people who do not check videogame or tech sites often who are the main selling-point of Nintendo products, simply wouldn't know the difference, maybe in a similar way people are confused what the Wii U actually is.

3D was just a good thing to go for because at the time the 3DS was being developed it was a big thing, with 3D televisions and movies being in the public eye. 3D was probably the best thing to go for at the time, but if the 3DS was in development now it could of been anything that was seen as the most marketable.

Like @Ralizah said the 3DS was getting all kinds of trash talk before it got some games people were actually interested in. I think the 3D is just a cool feature. I could go without it (and for the most part I do).

It wouldn't have had as successful of a launch, probably, but in terms of general life-time sales, those are more a by-product of the games. And the 3DS has the games.

Well, without the 3D, what would it be called? Why would the top screen be larger than the bottom screen? I dunno!

I think that the 3D certainly adds something to the system (strange coming from me. i didn't want to buy the system until i heard about the depth slider!).
Without it, it may not have taken off as quickly, but with the games that came out, we'd probably be sitting in the same 28+ million systems worldwide boat.