Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 28 Jun 2010.
Nintendo sold out and this just a sign of more to come.
This will sell bucket loads whatever the release date is, and yes I would like to get one if I can afford it.
A video game console selling company are preparing to sell video game consoles. I'm not sure that's selling out.
I want a 3DS the moment they appear, it sounds brilliant.
I bet they'd have enough made to launch in October if they'd gone with Tegra2 for the hardware, but you can't really blame Nintendo for wanting to keep business in their own country.
How can a giant multi-national corporation 'sell out'?
Bit late there, they sold out when they released the Wii. I am not sold on the 3D effects but the games sound great!
Lots of mixed reports regarding the 3DS release date. Reggie Fils-Aime appeared on the US talk show 'Late Night with Jimmy Fallon' and said it would be released this year.
Nintendo Japan sources are now saying he was 'mistaken' and they might make a 2010 release date.
I think you nailed it in the article, Nintendo wants to have a lot of these things ready at launch and they're probably still trying to estimate achievable numbers once mass production starts.
Get a grip children.
General, sold is past tense.
I would be calling them sell outs If I thought it just occurred.
I'm pretty sure 'this year' meant 'this financial year', which ends March 2011. So, yeah. Everybody's right.
Erm perhaps you should change this article.. Nintendo have already long come out and said the report was a mistake.
on the contrary, they siezed a niche when they released the Wii.
I'm not sure where I read it originally but I never saw it as a release for Christmas this year. It was always 2011.
As to the Nintendo Sold Out comment. I think you will have to explain that comment and especially the Wii follow up because Nintendo have always put the playing experience ahead of any gaming power.
Even with the SNES they stayed with quality rather than the over blown gimmicks of the Megadrive. (MegaCD anyone!)
Then the N64 with the joypad added which again was for playing experience, you only have to listen to this site about the pleasurable experiences playing Golden Eye for instance.
The GameCube I personally feel was were Nintendo stood back and let Sony, Sega (at that time) and an emerging Microsoft battle it out for power. Their only mistake then was not releasing the version that allowed DVD playback which was built but only sold in Japan.
Then the Wii just hit it right home they are building their foundation on Playability rather than power. Playing games like MarioKart and WiiSports is a great experience but throw in House of the Death, pull the shotgun out and it's better than any shooter available on the 360 or the PS3.
I can say that since I have all.
But, I bought a MegaCD
'Night Trap' and 'Kriss Kross - Make My Video' were quality products!
Just tried the Nvidia discovery thing, its rubbish !!
I'm sure the proper glasses must be a million times better. I'm just not sold on this 3d thing, I think it could be a fad that will pass in time when the novelty wears off.
I'm sure that they said the same thing about colour TV once.
Nope, 3D is here to stay. The only stumbling block left is the need for glasses. If they can get around that, within 10 years 3D is a standard feature.
I do want to get one of these. Not because of the 3D (although that does sound rather nifty) but more for the awesome line-up of games - Mario Kart! Starfox! Pilotwings!
Dear Nintendo, if you made new Wii versions of Pilotwings and Starfox I might use the console for something other than just accessing iPlayer and the very occasional game of Guitar Hero.
That's a LOT easier said than done however. 3D works by presenting different images to each eye. The old rudimentary stuff was red and blue, where the video was two nearlyoverlaid videos, one in red and one in blue, and each eye only saw one of the two videos, thus 3D. AFAIK, the current stuff (I haven't used any recent consumer grade 3D technology, just this gigantic 3D screen at work, but I assume it's the same) seems to be working around polarization. You have two videos, polarized perpendicular to each other, and then polarizers in the glasses in the same orientation so you only see one image with each eye, and it is in color.
To do it without the glasses would be very difficult, due to the nature of our eyes. We have evolved to have the same vision capabilities in both eyes, and to have a significant overlap in the field of view. Our 3D view of real life comes from the fact that when we are looking at something, each eye is at a slightly different angle to the object, so they have slightly different images, and our brian processes it as 3D.
But, because our eyes have overlapping fields of view, anything in front of us can be seen with both eyes. Since the idea between 3D is to get something to appear different to each eye, you need to find a way to get the image to one eye but not to the other eye. It could be possible with advances in LCD technology to focus and calibrate the screen in such a way that rather than emitting across a wide viewing angle, one image was directed just to one eye, and the other image to the other eye, but that would only be effective for one person, and he wouldn't be able to move his head without losing the 3D. Unfourtunately, by far the easiest way is to project both images to both eyes, and then use a different filter on each eye to remove the 'wrong' image for that eye.
I don't really care about 3D, but damn do I want a 3DS anyway. Better graphics, an analog pad plus an f'ing epic game lineup!
Separate names with a comma.