A Nintendo community
for the fans, by the fans!
 Go to forum index
New 3DS Model: The 2DS (No 3D, Slate Design, $130, Oct 12)
News reported by 
August 28, 2013, 18:25:21

IGN said:
Nintendo announced the 2DS today, a new entry-level handheld system. The 2DS will be available for $129.99 on October 12th (the same day as Pokemon X and Y) and features a slate-like design rather than the clamshell seen on DS and 3DS models.

The 2DS is fully compatible with all 3DS and DS games but does not include the ability to display games in 3D. It still features all the functionality of 3DS (WiFi, local multiplayer, etc.) and can be put to sleep using a slider that replicates closing the clamshell on a standard 3DS. WiFi can still be turned off, though it’s done via controls in the software rather than with a physical switch.

“Imagine a standard 3DS laid all the way flat, and with the depth slider all the way down,” Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime explained to IGN. “Everything else is there in the system.”

The 2DS will launch in red and blue models to start and will be sold alongside the standard 3DS (still available for $169.99) and 3DS XL ($199.99). It will include a 4GB SD card and uses the same power source as 3DS and DSi. It also includes two cameras on the back side, so AR games still function and players can still take 3D photos -- they simply can’t be displayed on the 2DS, but are still viewable in full 3D if transferred to 3DS. The 2DS only includes one speaker, which plays mono sound, but features full stereo via its headphone jack.

According to Fils-Aime, the idea for the 2DS came from wanting to appeal to younger consumers, as the standard 3DS is aimed at players age seven and up.

“Imagine a standard 3DS laid all the way flat, and with the depth slider all the way down. Everything else is there in the system.

“We’re always thinking about what we can do that’s new, unique, different, and brings more people into this category that we love,” Fils-Aime said. “And so with the Nintendo 3DS, we were clear to parents that, ‘hey, we recommend that your children be seven and older to utilize this device.’ So clearly that creates an opportunity for five-year-olds, six-year-olds, that first-time handheld gaming consumer."

"We’ve always been thinking about, 'how do we approach that as one target?'" he continued. "And that certainly helped spur the idea of the Nintendo 2DS. Let’s have the consumer have access to all of these great games – Mario Kart 7, Animal Crossing – but do it in a 2D capability with a device that has a dramatically lower price point. That’s just an example of how we’re always thinking about, ‘how do we get more people playing games? How do we get more people playing Nintendo games?’”

Keep checking back to IGN for more on the 2DS as we approach its October launch.

URL to share this content (right click and copy link)
Posted: 08/28/13, 18:25:21  - Edited by 
 on: 08/28/13, 20:41:29    
Why not sign up for a (free) account and create your own content?
For me, there are certain games that I want to be alone when I play. I'm that way for movies and books too. Most of the time, I just want to lose myself in this other world and be 100% involved with it. Maybe I get distracted too easily; I'm not kidding, if there's a loud clock ticking in the same room as me when I'm playing a really quiet, atmospheric game, I'll go take the battery out! The Oculus Rift can be an evolution of those sorts of experiences. Of course, some people might ALWAYS want that social aspect, but personally I couldn't fathom playing something like Limbo while chatting with a buddy of mine.

On the flipside, I watched my friend play through the first part of Saints Row IV the other day and had a blast with him. That's a single player game that I'll totally enjoy more as a social experience. But the Rift isn't here to replace TVs.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 08:01:11
Yes. The difference between introverts and extroverts.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 08:02:13
Mop it up said:
@Stephen I can't speak for anyone else, but Internet interactions are not "social" to me in any way, nor do they satiate any desire I would have for social activity.

Yeah, I agree with this. I see them as totally separate things. Same with online gaming. Online gaming isn't "local on-the-couch-multiplayer, just online." It's its own thing. I could never replace local multiplayer with online gaming myself. Getting a room full of friends is just too much fun. Online is a poor substitute. Some people, myself included in the past, have MADE that substitute, when a friend has moved away or something, but there's just no comparison to having the person there with a pizza and no 1000 mile barrier to a good time. Add three more people to play with, and you've got a party the online world just can't match.

Heck, we have the yearly NW meet-up right? Why do that if online was enough to sate our social need?

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 16:53:44

The only reason people care about a NW meetup is because of the bonds forged here in the first place. Obviously there is something about face to face communication that can never be replicated.But to say that online communication is a poor substitute is ridiculous. It is a different experience that is absolutely valuable in creating and maintaining friendships that otherwise wouldn't exist. This isn't just about online gaming, it goes for any instance of technology as a means of communication. Facebook, IM, text messages. E-mails, the telephone what's the difference? It is all technology facilitating socializing with one another.

This is the type of argument I expect from someone who is out of touch with technology. Not a person who is a gamer and posts about it on messageboard. If the communication is meaningless why post on NW?

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 17:31:17
Stephen said:

But to say that online communication is a poor substitute is ridiculous.

How is that at all ridiculous? Have you ever had a long distance girlfriend or been away from your family for months/years? Would you possibly say that it's no problem because you've got Skype?

No one's saying that online communication isn't a good development and I agree that it helps form real bonds even without face to face communication, but it is absolutely a poor substitute for face to face interaction.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 17:33:59

I don't mean that it is false but rather that it is writing off technology assisted communication far too much. As I said. People have fallen in love and eventually gotten married online. Are you going to say those experiences are not genuine? Obviously if it is possible then it is better to be with someone. When that is not possible though people regularly depend on communication methods to fill that void. If it was such a poor replacement why even bother?

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 18:04:48

Because it's better than nothing. Spam is a poor substitute for Jamón ibérico, but it's better than starving.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 18:13:01

Ah okay. So spam is to technological communication as Jamón ibérico is to face to face communication. Why eat spam at all then? There's nothing stopping you from doing all your communication face to face. Go for it. I am sure you will manage just fine in modern society.

I could just picture you guys with Alexander Bell. Why wouldn't I just go to Jim's house though? No vision.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 18:36:30

Because we are constrained by the realities of life. Given those constraints, online communication is a wonderful thing. Your final comment makes no sense whatsoever because I am clearly embracing online communication, just as I would the telephone in its early years.

Again, the point is that it's a poor substitute. If you want face to face communication, then online won't cut it. That's not at all to say that you always want or need face to face communication. In fact, in some instances, face to face communication is a poor substitute for online. But that doesn't change the fact that the inverse is also true.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 18:42:34

Alright, we seem to be on the same page. You need to realize that the person I was responding to when I said that tried to tell me on the last page that eye contact was essential for communication. With that type of context them then telling me online communication is a poor substitute has an entirely different meaning than just 'not as good'.

All forms of communication are valuable but I do agree there is nothing like a night out with friends in person or a local MP game.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 18:50:22

This and another thread have made me think of an interesting question that I will pose in a poll.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 18:51:37
Shirley has been away for over a year now and Skype is a very, very weak alternative to being together in person. We're grateful for it, of course, but man... not even close to the same. At least I got to go visit her, and it's only a few more months until she is back again.

As far as gaming, there is also a lot of stuff that online gaming just can't do. For instance, I love playing local co-op games with my young nieces and nephews. Theoretically we could play together online, but I just don't see how that could ever work out in practice. Heck, without me in the room, they tend to start hitting each other every time they lose...

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 19:32:13
The more laughable is when people say they want games like Mario Party or Wii Party online... Riiiiight.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 19:40:52
Mario Party on console, I understand, but Mario Party 3DS should be online though... wait, wasn't Fortune Street online? It can be done.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 20:05:27
@Simbabbad It could work for sure, with people you trust. Playing with strangers... not so much.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 20:12:52
Stephen said:
@-JKR-If the communication is meaningless why post on NW?
Entertainment, mostly.

I think Jargon already said anything else I had to add.

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 22:22:22

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 22:38:02
Are you single mop it up? If yes how long?

Posted by 
 on: 08/31/13, 23:03:02
@RenjakuUm, no. Why in the world would you ask me that...?

Posted by 
 on: 09/01/13, 00:41:54
Because I noticed everyone choosing to argue that the internet is a poor substitute happens to be not single. Not that I think that discredits the argument itself, it's just interesting.

Posted by 
 on: 09/01/13, 00:51:01  - Edited by 
 on: 09/01/13, 00:51:21
Browse    7  8  9  10  11  12