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.

Source

URL to share (right click and copy)

I can see JKR's point about not having gaming be a shared experience, but couldn't that approach also apply to playing handhelds at home? Due to the nature of the 3DS, for instance, others can't really watch you play.

Posted by

TriforceBun

on: 08/30/13, 16:49

@TriforceBun

Absolutely. I think where it differs is, again, that "look up and see you."

Even if you're totally engrossed in your 3DS (or in my wife's case, her iPad and PvZ2) you can look away any time and hold a conversation no problem. The Rift creates (wait for it...) A RIFT between you and anyone around you. Now that might not always be the case. Eventually they might just be clear glasses that anytime you "look" somewhere else it recognizes you are trying to go back to the real world and adjusts accordingly. With this helmet thing, though, you literally have to remove it to come back to "the real world." Even if it's just for a moment when your wife asks if you called the home insurance company like you said you would and you have to sweet talk your way out of it. (Almost impossible to do that if you've got a helmet on your head and are off in some virtual reality.)

On top of that the 3DS is (mostly) a system where you can start and stop play quickly. A large first person shooter, not as much.

EDIT: And if as a parent, I would never let my kids sit in a helmet on the couch like this. Ever ever. It might be "the bees knees" to the rest of the world, but personally I couldn't fathom taking the virtual world experience FURTHER and having my kids leave behind the real world even more. The real world is too interesting, and I think we have enough distractions as it is. But then, that's just a personal opinion. I know many people would disagree.

Posted by

-JKR-

on: 08/30/13, 17:11

Edited:

08/30/13, 17:14

-JKR- said:

It's the exact OPPOSITE of the Wii Remote. The Wii Remote was the monster success it was because it brought people together. It was where you grabbed some friends and stood around your living room pretending to bowl, laughing and building relationships and being together. Where when you hit some winning shot in tennis you can shake your fist in a mocking way at your buddy and grin like an idiot. This is anti-together, which is why I don't think for a second it can have the same appeal.

Will it be a huge hit with, again, the fringe gamer who plays all alone? You bet! Seems amazing. Yet it lacks what is required for mass market appeal. Namely human interaction in a personal space. It is a niche device. A great one, and I'm sure a successful one.

Go check the numbers on sales of board games, that you play with other human beings, vs. single player video games. It's not even close. Humans are social creatures, we're not built to live inside helmets. Heck, the single player games we're talking about are mostly multiplayer ones, just online! But you aren't locking yourself in a room and playing all alone most of the time. (And if you are, that's fine, but know that you're in the minority. Most people have families, especially older gamers who could afford this. Younger ones who can't afford it probably have parents who would be aghast at their kids sitting in the living room with a visor on ignoring the real world.)

Good post. I agree with all of it.

I do think the 3DS is amazing though (in answer to your earlier post).

Posted by

Simbabbad

on: 08/30/13, 17:17

@-JKR-

This is absurd though. Take something like a movie theatre right? It is dark, the screen takes up pretty much your entire viewpoint. How far removed is that from just wearing a headset with the movie playing? What about reading a book which is even further removed from the real world since it is all just information your brain pieces together and the only real world stimuli are the words on a page? How about music when if you listen to it through headphones and cannot hear anything else?

Posted by

Stephen

on: 08/30/13, 17:24

Edited:

08/30/13, 17:24

deathly_hallows said:

@Jargon
All those games sold great like 5 years ago

And since, those people have died? Or suddenly became anti-social? If you honestly think that only a niche audience plays local multiplayer games, then I don't know what to tell you.

Posted by

Jargon

on: 08/30/13, 17:36

Considering pretty much every best selling Wii game was a local multiplayer focused game, I think it'd be a tough argument to say that it's a niche thing.

Posted by

Zero

on: 08/30/13, 17:54

@Stephen

It's totally different. In fact going to the theater is a decidedly social experience. If you disagree, that's fine, it's up to you. This is one of those cases where I'm struggling to see the alternative perspective that "sitting in a theater with dozens of people = sitting in the living room with a helmet on." But it seems to make sense to you, and that's fine.

I would agree with you about the headphones thing. So either I am part of a small minority of people who do not sit in the living room with other people and wear headphones, or that isn't a thing that happens in normal life. Headphones are a solo experience, much like this helmet thing. (Though I'd argue at least those cut you off less from reality, as you can pull one earbud out and easily hold a conversation with eye contact.)

Really, it's the eye contact thing. It's so vitally important to the human condition. Seeing someone elses' face and eyes is HOW we communicate, and also how we're social. If you don't believe me, try staring down at your shirt the entire time you're talking with someone later. Try to be social while doing that. It just doesn't work. And even in a mostly dark theater, you can glance at someone else very easily and see their reaction. Heck, when my wife and I go to see a movie I'm constantly glancing at her during a particularly funny scene or something really stupid. Just a subtle look, no words even, and we can communicate (and thereby combine in a JOINT experience) well.

Posted by

-JKR-

on: 08/30/13, 17:56

I wear headphones often when I play my 3DS and my boyfriend is around, and it doesn't cut myself from my environment at all. It's really more a way to make people not hear the sound of the 3DS and me having better sound quality rather than not hearing/interacting with what's around me: I still talk with my boyfriend while I play, hear what he's doing, hear my cat playing around, etc.

Also, when I read a book I sometime talk about it to my boyfriend and read him passages of said book and I still hear and interact with what's around me. And at the movies, the person I'm with plays a HUGE deal even though we don't talk during the movie, not to mention we of course talk about it when it's over.

So yeah, I don't see it being like a VR helmet at all.

Posted by

Simbabbad

on: 08/30/13, 18:19

@-JKR-

I don't need to run that experiment, I have evidence right here. At this instant we are communicating. We cannot see each other nor make eye contact and yet still the exchange of thoughts and ideas are happening. A blind person cannot make eye contact but they absolutely socialize with other people. Playing a board game is a social event right? What about playing an online board game with friends chatting? Does the social element disappear? If you are playing a single player game in VR then yeah you are more cut off but again not much more than when wearing headphones such that you cannot hear people in the room or if you are deeply lost in a book.

Posted by

Stephen

on: 08/30/13, 19:18

This forum is so entertaining. I mean that.

Posted by

carlosrox

on: 08/30/13, 20:23

@Shadowlink
You continue to slip, my friend.

Posted by

carlosrox

on: 08/30/13, 20:30

-JKR- said:

Good point. So then I guess my qualm was with the idea of this sort of VR taking OVER the space that currently exists. And while I still don't see it as the next step in gaming (A step, maybe, but not THE) I get what you mean much better now.

Agreed, I didn't mean to suggest that it's going to take over everything (saying that in the future we will only be playing games using the Rift is just as dumb as saying that will will only be playing games on smartphones!), I just think it's going to be a thing that becomes pretty common. I think social gaming will also remain to be a thing that is common.

Jargon said:

deathly_hallows said:

@Jargon
All those games sold great like 5 years ago

And since, those people have died? Or suddenly became anti-social? If you honestly think that only a niche audience plays local multiplayer games, then I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe niche is too strong of a word, it's just not the only way people play games, and maybe not even the most common. Hardcore gamers who consume the most content buy a lot of games that are meant to be played solo or online, that's a pretty undeniable fact. If you look at my argument in the context of what JKR and I were talking about I was just pushing back on this notion that the Rift wouldn't be a success because it wasn't a social experience. (although I do think JKR is right that there are many inherent limitations to having all of your sight and much of your hearing cut off from other people)

Also, you need new arguments, playing the Wii Sports card has reached it's statute of limitations, we're in the Wii U era now so if anything Nintendo Land should be the watermark for how popular local multiplayer currently is.

Posted by

deathly_hallows

on: 08/30/13, 22:58

Edited:

08/30/13, 23:03

@deathly_hallows

Man, your post was so close to being level headed and not at all asshole-ish and you went and ruined it with that last paragraph.

Wii Sports is just one of many examples. You don't even have to go to Nintendo, Kinect Adventures, Rock Band, Just Dance are very big as well. And the world does not drastically change because a few years have passed. Sorry to call you on yet another bullshit statement that judges the world as if everyone were exactly like you, buddy.

Posted by

Jargon

on: 08/30/13, 23:51

@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.

Posted by

Mop it up

on: 08/31/13, 00:26

@Jargon
Haha! Sorry, maybe if I can keep the trend up I can get a little asshole-ish every time?

Also I def agree with Rock Band as a prime example of a super popular social game, in fact I think I brought it up a few posts back, it's still kind of an old game though and I'm not sure many people still play it as much as they used to. Which makes me wonder, what will this generation's social multiplayer phenomena be? More dancing games? 3D Land? Some crazy new idea from Nintendo? Kinect 2 madness? Will be interesting to see what happens in that space.

Posted by

deathly_hallows

on: 08/31/13, 00:42

@deathly_hallows

It doesn't have to be one game, you know. It could be a multitude of couch-multi games. They could be old, they could be new. It doesn't matter.

Posted by

Guillaume

on: 08/31/13, 01:00

@Guillaume
True, was just wondering if we'll see any other massive trends like Wii Sports or the Guitar-Hero/RB thing. Smash Bros. and Mario Kart will certainly be as popular as ever I'd imagine.

Posted by

deathly_hallows

on: 08/31/13, 01:26

Edited:

08/31/13, 01:27

@Mop it up

ITT people make up their own definitions for social and run with it.

Wikipedia said:

The term social refers to a characteristic of living organisms as applied to populations of humans and other animals. It always refers to the interaction of organisms with other organisms and to their collective co-existence, irrespective of whether they are aware of it or not, and irrespective of whether the interaction is voluntary or involuntary.

But again, the proof is already here. You like the social aspect of NW. Otherwise why post? Why bother with that interaction with a community if it is meaningless? People here are friends. They link up on channels outside of NW and strengthen these bonds. This can be as serious as people paying several hundred dollars and days of their lives to meetup with fellow members or as simple as you playing Goldeneye with Shadowlink in chat. Going outside of NW, people date online. They fall in love before meeting one another. How do the means of communication matter in these cases?

I think the heart of the argument here that is not being outright stated is the same as it has always been. If it is on the internet, or through the internet then it somehow becomes less real than in person communication. This is a pretty slippery slope as people use indirect means of communication to stay in touch and become more social than they ever were before. More human connections are made now and made more easily due to technology. It doesn't supplant real life. It is all the same.

Posted by

Stephen

on: 08/31/13, 01:49

Edited:

08/31/13, 01:52

@Stephen Well, I, specifically, don't do any of that stuff, but there are some here who do yes. But I also don't believe I stated what the definition of "social" was... I believe I stated what the Internet feels like to me, and it doesn't feel social. I know it is by (a loose) definition, but it doesn't feel like it. For all I know I could be talking to a bunch of complex AI and I wouldn't tell the difference, and in fact I often have to remind myself that there are real people behind all these silly colourful usernames before I say something unintentionally rude/stupid/private/etc. I guess I need to find some other term to express what I'm trying to say, such as "human-like interactions," but in any case, the Internet does nothing for me.

Coincidentally, I think if I went blind then I would feel a lot less connected to anyone around me since I couldn't see them and see their expressions and reactions to what I say and do.

Posted by

Mop it up

on: 08/31/13, 02:07

The more I see of the 2DS, the more I like it. It just looks, fun. I even kind of want one. Or wanted one. I just watched GameExplain's hands-on video and realized it only outputs mono sound. Mono!? Sure, plug-in some headphones and stereo sound is yours, but mono without?

Posted by

NoName

on: 08/31/13, 04:57

Edited:

08/31/13, 06:19