Why does the New 3DS cost $200?

Sure, but is it practical to watch movies, or browse the internet on such a small and low quality screen? The experience is so much superior on a tablet.

Just wow, I'm speechless. I'm not even going to attempt to respond because you're just straight up delusional at this point.

@emgesp: Thats cause you cant.

It's more to do with if the demand is high-enough that the price can remain high, and still sell. It's all arbitrary as to what that demand criteria should be.

Still, shipments of 60 million units isn't too bad... Nothing like the DS sales mind you.

Even the Wii U at $299.99 is a better value than the N3DS at $200.

The demand isn't that high though. The 3DS only sells about 70k a week WW on average where as the PS4 sells about 250 - 300K a week on average.

@emgesp: Like I said, it's entirely arbitrary as to what is high enough.

I'm sure there are other factors to take into account as well. I work in the finance field, not in the manufacturing and selling of products WW.

I'd be more concerned about why a dead handheld (lolvita) is still priced so high.

Same reason the Wii U is still priced at $299.99. Not enough people are interested in either device to justify a price cut.

3DS is shit mediocre fucking garbage cheap hardware, fucking crappy low res garbage games. Rather play Kotor, oceanhorn and many more titles from the OS store.

Nintendo has lost their mind on pricing and that's all there is to it. They are convinced that their products are really good and this is what scares me the most in their attitude. They aren't going to turn things around that way.

But... Can you tell us how you really feel?

Why is it so expensive? Because Nintendo wants to turn a tidy profit to stay in business.

Why are people okay with paying for it? Because it has quality software people want to play.

My question to you: why do you care if you claim Vita and tablets have better performance? Just play on those, then.

@emgesp:

General reply to the topic.

I would totally buy a Wii U for $100. How much longer until then? Vitas' should be $50.

That's probably not even a joke. And the sad thing is, many here would immediately defend it.

Why lower the price when it sells? Simple economics.

Because there's no competition.

its called innovation

You pay for the brand, and the access to the 3DS game library. That simple, really. Fair? Yes and no. Yes, because Nintendo's brand is still worth a premium, I believe, and no because, obviously, the hardware is awful by today's standards. (And the no chargers thing is definitely a rip-off.)

First world problems in a nutshell.

I get all the people saying "because it sells", but the 3DS has sold 60 million to the original DS's 160 million (rough numbers).

Tablet hardware far exceeds the current 3DS hardware minus the 3D screen. It's probably safe to assume Nintendo has a humongous profit margin on the 3DS at $200, but they are not selling near the DS levels. I bet their lost market share comes from tablet and smartphone competition.

I would like to know why Nintendo doesn't cut the cost when they are missing out on gaining life long fans by pricing the 3DS out of the market for some parents/kids. They could still make a profit at a lower price, and make up for it with more customers who buy more games and accessories. It just seems odd that Nintendo is okay with selling 100 million less handheld units than the previous generation.

Exactly, premium priced dedicated handhelds are not the future. If Nintendo wants to keep handhelds relevant for the next 5 - 10 yrs then they should be priced much cheaper. For example the NX handheld should be priced at no higher than $99 at launch.

lol, its so funny. $99 would be a great price NX.

Software, no matter how good, never justifies overpriced hardware.

If its a good deal more powerful than the 3DS then yeah $99 is reasonable.

@emgesp: I would buy two of them at that price. I dont even care if it was as strong as the Wii U. Id buy it.

@iandizion713: Anyone who would buy two of the same thing for "reasons" is not someone I personally want to take financial advise from. But I'm really happy that you have the disposable income, thank you for improving our economy.

Really, it just depends on where Nintendo goes from here. If Nintendo were to make a handheld that also served as an alternative to tablets/smartphones in the way of something like a Kindle, where Nintendo ran a locked down Android that was designed for selling Nintendo content, then I'd be okay with Nintendo pricing anywhere from $100-$300.

If Nintendo wants to keep up their current strategy of making hardware that's dedicated to the single task of playing expensive games then I assume they'll keep on seeing decreasing sales if they price at $200+.

it's $200 for the same reason that the Ps3 was over priced late in the console cycle. The company outside of that particular product has been suffering and they need to leverage a successful device for immediate cash. And yes, I'm aware that Nintendo is flush with cash, but it's not in their company philosophy to put up consecutive losses at any point. They didn't even get losses with the GC and N64, despite the reputations of those consoles.

So yeah, it's the WiiU's fault, and also kind of the 3DS's fault for being a slow starting product financially

Failing to include something necessary to the function of the core system is now seen as innovation? Huh, I learn something new evey day. I suppose in Nintendo apologist's eyes, it only could be.

Pretty sure the N3DS would still be profitable at a lower price.

Its called being environmentally friendly. The N3DS uses the same charger cable as the DS and 3DS which there are record setting numbers of adapters widely avaible at a much cheaper cost Nintendo could have provided. When i bought my N3DS i already had 2 cables ready from my previous systems. Nintendo were desperate to get that price down to $199.

Of course, having to watch out for the landfills is of paramount importance. Sure that's the basis of why you apologize for this move. It's not like you had a problem with this when Nintendo included A/C adapters in their previous systems. Something tells me you weren't outside NCL's headquarters with a "save the environment" sign when A/C adapters came with all their past systems.

Give me a break.

@MirkoS77: I dont think they had the same price issues that they had with the older models. Nintendo stated it loud and clear they chose to not include the adapter to get the N3DS down to the $199 price tag.

Lol, I hope not.

Is this mesome? Change your name?

If that's what you choose to believe, even in contrast to precedent, go for it. Including A/C adapters would cost Nintendo at most a $5 per system, if that. Yet why adsorb that cost and include it when they can take it out, charge $10 instead, make a profit, and then have people like you brainlessly jump to their defense? They can get away with anything with such a fan-base.

@MirkoS77: Yeah, this is mesome713, this is my older account that i just recovered. I lost mesome713 , they are checking in on it to help me recover it.

Nintendo wanted the magic price number. They made it clear, they would sell better at $199 then they would at $219. They have been very upfront about it.

You say that as if tablets have reached a level where large scale games or deep games are the norm on tablets. More capable or not I would not buy a tablet for it's games. Candy Crush and all that stuff cannot replace the games I play on my 3ds. Call me when game development on tablets reaches the level of 3ds and I don't mean the pixel count. list me some genres and games tablets have done well with

But that's not an argument, you're simply towing the company line. I also don't have any proof, but I do have the past to point to. Why has Nintendo always been able to sell with adapters included, but not now? It's not a matter of necessity, it's a matter of a changing of policy borne of greed to exploit their diehard fanbase for every nickel they can squeeze out of them in times that they desperately need it. Companies adsorb losses ALL THE TIME in getting their product out there and in making concessions. To sell hardware without the basic essentials to its functions predicated upon the rationale of "we don't want to pollute" or "everyone already owns one" is ridiculously stupid.

@MirkoS77: All i can tell you is what they have stated. I see no reason for them to lie. I actually believe in the "magic price" number too. If they say they couldnt get it under $199, then i dont think they could have. I have never had a problem with the pricing of a Nintendo product. I still think the price of the console is a good value considering the amount of time you spend with it.

Its also important to note no one knows the pricing of the 3DS, its rumored to be above $100 though.

Again i argue nobody has to buy the New 3DS, they can get a 2D, 3DS XL cheaper, 2DS go as cheap as $80 new, $60 used, brand new 3DS XLs w/ adapters go for $160, can probably be had much cheaper used. It's a $40 difference plus a $5 third party charger or $10 official Nintendo charger.

Again, you don't have to get an New 3DS, but for that money you get enhanced 3D that head tracks so you don't have to sit in its sweet spot, Amiibo support, new button layout including double shoulder buttons, C stick, proper start & select buttons, relocated cartridge slot (probably better as mine pop out in back where they are). These aren't essential features, on can probably make due without them, just a $160 normal 3DS XL would suffice for like 99% of the library. It is an entirely optional upgrade, and it probably costs more to make hence the higher price and them not including charger with it.

And if you're gonna penny pinch those extra $5-$10 because of the charger, wait until one of its numerous sales where it's $10-$20 off. Heck it's $175 right now at GameStop, you can get that and a third party charger for $20 off its MSRP w/o a charger. And that's only $15 more than an XL w/o charger, $20 more w/ charger. But hey, if you're still gonna be a penny pinching whiner about it, spend that $200 you're not spending on a couple rounds of therapy.

Because they want to make money. Just like any other company.

No reason to lie? It has nothing to do with lying or telling the truth, it's a business decision. You just are such a parrot to everything they do you can't recognize the truth. The price of a product is not solely determined upon manufacturing costs. Many companies sell products for a loss, some sell it for a profit. You think the 3DS costs Nintendo $200 to make?? I highly, highly doubt it, especially considering the tech it uses. There is ZERO excuse to sell something without something else that's necessary to its use. Sure, let's argue that cars should be sold without tires, because 1) rubber is bad for the environment, and 2) everyone already owns cars, so they can just use the tires they already have.

Right, I'll have to mention that next time I go to the dealership. I swear, Nintendo apologists are the most idiotic people on the face of the planet. I've never seen anything like it.

Nintendo is a video game company, they have to make money from their software and hardware. They don't make movies, tvs, cameras, computers, or hair care products to offset the costs of their gaming division. Hell, Amazon has so many revenue streams, they don't know what to do with all their money. So the sell a tablet at a big loss to undercut their competition and gain market share. They don't give a crap about the hardware, they just want you to sign up for Prime so they can get that monthly fee out of you.

I think this is why Nintendo recently said they will be expanding into non-gaming markets. The modern business climate demands it.

Nintendo doesn't float their gaming segment with their non-gaming segment like Sony and Microsoft do. Sony and MS are in an arms race of sorts, striving toward long term goals market domination, and using their gaming as a means to bolster their name brand value and recognition for their entire company. They're also in ways hedging their bets into various ventures, gaming being one of them. So, because of this, Nintendo can't burn money at the rate Sony and MS do. They can't afford to take losses like Sony and MS do. They can't afford to go toe-to-toe with the Sony and MS hence their need to find their own corner of the market that's unique to them.

Nintendo has $10 billion in the bank. Funny how so many counter and laugh at those who say "Nintendoomed!!!" with this fact and that they could survive for another 50 years taking million of losses annually, yet immediately turn around and then pretend Nintendo's on the verge of bankruptcy in standing ground to Sony and MS, or when they practice anti-consumer behaviors to nickel and dime what they can out of their consumers.

That's not there to squander, and they don't maintain that by losing money to appease a handful of whiny gamers. They need that to buffer against and potential losses, like the money they'll be out on producing millions of new units of the next consoles, production of new games internally and with third parties. And keep in mind they need to do the same for the next handheld too. Nintendo isn't like Sony they can start start auctioning off assets when they're in need of money.

Again, game quality is subjective. The fact is that the $99 Fire HD Tablet is a more bang for your buck device than the N3DS which is only really geared towards playing games.

Because they like to make $$$ ...

You know, like every other company that exists

Just so I'm hearing you right: now people rightfully taking issue with Nintendo failing to include an essential accessory to its product's function now constitutes "whining". This keeps getting better and better.

They sure do need those billions considering how amiibos are such a burden to them, and also to cover the immense expenditure of budget-tier software (amiibo festival, Starfox, Federation Force, Mario Tennis). God knows those AAA games they're pumping out left and right (not to mention the tons of third parties), boy....Nintendo's just burning through cash like crazy. Yes, what would amount to mere fractions of a cent relative to their overall wealth is just too much to ask, isn't it?

So much for losing $250 million a year and lasting until 2052. A/C adapters! The sky's falling!