UPDATE:
Apparently, Nintendo has seen fit to prove my assertions correct: They have done it to cut down on the price, under the assumption that people would keep the charger from their old system, which shows their ignorance of trade-in policies.
http://attackofthefanboy.co...
So, yeah, original post follows, but I now feel fully qualified in saying: I FREAKING CALLED IT.
...
Before I start, I'm just going to let you all know, that this blog post is mostly going to be a slightly re-worked version of a post I've recently made elsewhere.
I'm putting it up in my blog, however, as a point of discussion on its own, so that others can [hopefully POLITELY] point out this theory's merits and issues.
Now that that's out of the way, let me start by saying one thing, as a multiconsole gamer who has been with both Sony and Nintendo since their respective starts in the home console market:
It's a stupid idea to omit the power cord.
Point blank.
That said, stupid as it is, I think I have figured out two reasons behind why they did it this way, which both lead into the one big misconception that Nintendo has, which is behind this mistake in the first place.
Bear with me for a moment as I explain my reasoning, and their main screw-up.
First, the two small reasons:
#1 Taking out the cord ensures that they can price it at the same level as the current units.
This desire to cut costs was likely spawned by all the people whining that the Wii U was overpriced, which, like it or not, means the consumers are partly responsible for how this turned out, because Nintendo probably didn't want a repeat of people not buying it because it costs more than people think it's worth.
In fact, I can practically guarantee you that if they had kept the charger in the pack, and raised the price by an extra $20-$40 or so as a result, the complaint then would be that Nintendo is overcharging for what is essentially a 3DS with a second stick, a couple of extra buttons, face-tracking for its 3D and better innards.
And if Nintendo had just included the charger but not raised the price to compensate, they'd have been taking a bigger loss per console sold.
As a company that is currently in third place in home console sales [despite making more in profits than others], this is a non-option.
To continue preventing a fall into a financial debt pit, they NEED to keep selling stuff at a profit.
In either case, there would have been complaints, so Nintendo really couldn't win no matter what they tried.
So why take this "lesser evil" way, instead?
Well...
#2 Because so many people already own a DS in some form, thus meaning that most will already have a charger.
They're selling it this way as a way of reducing the cost for people who own an older DS or 3DS model, that would just go straight into buying the N3DS.
What Nintendo is MISSING, however, is that a lot of these people would likely trade in their older system for the new one.
And with the majority of places that accept trade-ins, the charger has to be a part of the package.
For those of us that WILL just go straight into buying one, and keep our old 3DS as a back-up in case of something bad happening, this poses no issues.
But for the rest...
Yeah.
Not a good thing. At all.
So basically, my end theory, and what I believe their main screw-up is, is this:
This whole screwed-up mess is a result of NINTENDO MISREADING HOW SHIT WORKS OVERSEAS AGAIN.
Despite Reggie being around, it's OBVIOUS that they aren't accounting for the people that will trade in their 3DS, let alone how this trade-in process works.
They obviously don't know, or appreciate, how the trade-in process works over here, and thus have made the decision to cut out the charging cable in an effort to cut costs on the system, to avoid the complaints that were raised by the Wii U's price.
....
Well, that's my theory, in a nut-shell; Nintendo's ignorant of overseas trade-in policies, making this move a bad idea despite their reasoning/desire to keep the price down.
What do the rest of you think?
The friendly folks over at Razer recently sent us their full size Kishi Ultra mobile gaming controller, and this thing didn't disappoint.
VGChartz's Mark Nielsen: "Upon finally finishing Devil May Cry 5 recently - after it spent several years on my “I’ll play that soon” list - I considered giving it a fittingly-named Late Look article. However, considering that this was indeed the final piece I was missing in the DMC puzzle, I decided to instead take this opportunity to take a look back at the entirety of this genre-defining series and rank the entries. What also made this a particularly tempting notion was that while most high-profile series have developed fairly evenly over time, with a few bumps on the road, the history of Devil May Cry has, at least in my eyes, been an absolute roller coaster, with everything from total disasters to action game gold."
Me leaving it out should be telling of my thoughts on it. Better than 2 as a DMC game.
Still a good game though.
3,1,4,5 to me, never played 2. 5 gameplay is amazing but level design was really disappointing to me, just a bunch of plain arenas, the story felt like a worse written rehash of the 3rd and the charater models looked weird ( specially the ladies ). Another problem with 5 was that there was not enough content for 3 charaters so I could never really familiarize with any of them
2.
Dmc.
4.
5.
1.
3.
God DMC2 was an awful game.
And in case this isn't obvious it goes worst to best
Order changes depending on your focus. I tend to focus on gameplay/fun factor, so...
5, 3, 1, 4, 2.
I really didn't like 4 but commend Dante's weapon diversity. The retreading of old ground was pretty unacceptable to me.
But even then... Still more enjoyable than 2 for me
TSA go hands on with the beta for Inazuma Eleven: Victory Road, but how is the game transitioning to the post-stylus era?
I think the name of it is just as dumb as the charger's ommission. "New" 3ds is confusing to most since people associated the xl and other previous models as being "new". They will be confused due to it's usage of exclusive games and the barely visible 2nd analog stick (which should have been included since the first system).
Iwata should change the name of it and advertise heavily about what makes it worth buying. Also add the charger already lol.
Edit: Also I think it's sad that author of post had to mention he was a multi-console gamer before getting to his point (and I don't blame him): likely due to the fact that SOME Nintendo fans get so defensive when you criticize any decisions made by Iwata (who has made many stupid decisions without seeking council--like not looking into western trade-in policies before choosing to omit charger, or the confusion that the name "Wii U" would have with casual customers, omitting ethernet port on wii u, ignoring 3rd parties, etc)
What a bunch of penny pinching bean counters.
So if they just overlooked trade-in policies, surely they can throw in a charger? The release is still a month off.
This sounds like them being greedy and stupid, then damage controlling.
I get why they did it but I'm still not sure I agree with it. It's clear they are selling it as an upgrade, but I feel like it should be cheaper than $200 to reflect the lack of a charger. I think cutting it by ten dollars would have been less angering for the people who are upset.
I plan on getting a New 3DS but haven't owned a Nintendo handheld since GBA. Not bundling the charger is going to be an inconvenience to me. If I ordered one off Amazon, being in Alaksa, my N3DS would be dead way before the charger shows up in the mail. I just have to hope Gamestop has some used ones. Might go get one soon, before they sell all of them to people in my position.