[sh33mp]

Just a gamer here, but there's something to be said about the success and failure of the 3DS and PS Vita.

The 3DS, based on hardware/system alone, should have failed. It was tremendously underpowered, and it forced a terrible 3D technology on all its users, which never really took off or became anything other than a novelty while raising the cost of manufacturing.

The Vita was a truly next-generation portable gaming device, with a beautiful screen, incredible graphics, properly analog sticks, an extremely modern interface, and great connectivity and human-interface (camera, capacitative touch) features. Even incorporating the cost of a proprietary Sony memory card, for the amount of power you got, I think it was very reasonably priced. Comparing the 3DS and Vita was like night and day in terms of a modern gaming device. Even today, I think it can stand head-to-head with the Switch in terms of portable gaming.

But Nintendo continued to pour resources into developing top-tier games for the 3DS, slashing its price to bolster adoption, and sticking to its still unorthodox 3D screen/touch screen combo. Whereas for the Vita, Sony quickly got spooked that the Vita didn't perform as well as the PSP, pulled first-party support and general marketing support, and major 3rd party developers (particularly outside Japan) fled the device.

The 3DS is now seen as a major success for Nintendo, while the Vita died (or is still dying) a slow and unceremonious death.

Sometimes sticking to your crazy guns works.

[tboyd47]

Another thing is Nintendo's focus on intellectual property over technological superiority. Nintendo has at least 8 different game franchises that consistently deliver (Mario, Mario Party, Mario Kart, Smash, Zelda, Kirby, Metroid, Pokemon...), while I can't think of any time in Nintendo's history where they were ahead of the competition in hardware. They use their dated hardware only as a platform to sell games. This might be changing, though, as online play takes off.

It makes good business sense when you think about it; if you try to out-engineer the competition on hardware, well, any company can hire good engineers. And they're only going to be able give you the same or slightly better. But no other company can produce Mario and Zelda games, at least, as long as they defend their IP to the extent that they do, and make decent hardware and decent Mario/Zelda games at the standards they themselves set, they will make money.

That and the fact that they're sitting on a massive pile of cash means they be creative when other companies can't because their shareholders are terrified of negative numbers. Something American companies really need to learn. Lean isn't always good.

[Mindless2112]

> it forced a terrible 3D technology on all its users

That's a little strong, considering there's a switch to turn it off or even the option to get a 2DS.

I usually turned it off (except for Bravely Default which has gorgeous 3D art in the towns).

[sh33mp]

I guess I was a little unclear in what I meant. I meant that everyone (prior to the much later 2DS) had to pay for the 3D tech that most people didn't really want. I absolutely turned my 3D off about a week in and never really used it again.

[voltagex_]

It's frustrating - Sony (to some extent) "gets" online functionality where Nintendo is still stumbling all the way.

I own a 3DS and a Switch and you have to be on each of those platforms to buy games online. I've got a PayPal account linked to the Switch but it's unavailable on the 3DS. In Australia they never opened up ec.nintendo.com so you can't buy games in a web browser.

I'd say the 3DS is in the "dead, but doesn't know it yet" stage - killed not by a competitor, but by the Switch itself.

PS: The price of Vita memory cards is still a travesty.

[djhworld]

> Two other examples that didn't stick at all, off the top of my head: Virtual Boy and the Power Glove.

...and the Wii U