the New 3DS. How to not market a video game system.

So if you follow video game systems, especially hand held's. you probably know there's a new dog in town....Nintendo's New 3DS.

Now if your not a hardcore gamer, just a casual gamer, you might be a little confused because the 3DS was the new handheld Nintendo released in 2011, so how can it be the hot new thing now?

Well you see thats because the New 3DS isnt the same as a 3DS, it just sounds like it is.

Which is only one of a ton of mistakes(?) Nintendo seems intent on making to kill their newest product. (cause you know, the Wii U launch failure didnt hurt enough)

Alright so for the non gamers out there, you currently have multiple Nintendo hand helds available to you.

You have the 3ds, this is the basic/generic version of the console, plays all 3ds games (duh) and in keeping with Nintendo tradition all DS (its predecessor) games. You also have the 3ds XL......which is exactly what it sounds like....its an extra large version of your 3ds, so it has larger screens and is larger (and therefore according to some, myself included, easier to hold) than a regular 3DS, but is otherwise identical. And then you have the 2ds. Which sounds a little confusing, as it sounds like it should be the predecessor to the 3ds, but the name actually makes sense when you look at it.

So the big gimmick from the 3DS, and the thing that separates it from the DS, is the ability to play games in "3D" as opposed to the 2D of other systems. The basic 3DS has a slider allowing you to turn the 3D on and off at will, and none of the games require the 3D to be on to play them (although it can make many of them look better)The 2DS is a cheaper low budget of the 3DS, that allows you to play all the 3DS games, but doesnt have to option to use the 3D feature.

So that brings us to the New 3DS, which sounds like it would replace the 3DS....but it doesnt. In fact the New 3DS will be sold concurrently with new 3DS models in stores, however in addition to playing all 3DS and DS software, the New 3DS will also have its own exclusive games called "New 3DS games" that will be released alongside newly developed games for the 3DS.

Which raises a question, is your new game a New 3DS game or just a new 3DS game? Given that the games tend to cost $40-$50 this is a point you definitely want to be sure of before you buy the game. Or prehaps more to the point, before a non gamer buys it for you as a gift.

I mean how awkward is it going to be when your girlfriend goes and buys you the soon to be released and massively hyped Xenoblade Chronicles for your birthday, only for you to have to explain that its a New 3DS game, and the new 3DS you got yourself for Christmas is actually the original model?

Or, maybe your girlfriend goes and gets you the [currently available] New 3DS package deal that comes with Monster Hunter 4....because your a huge Monster Hunter fan and she wants you to be able to play it since it clearly wouldnt work on your current 3DS.

Except it turns out it would, because despite being packaged with the New 3DS, Monster Hunter 4 is simply just a new 3DS game....it runs jut fine on every version of the 3DS.  And it can be bought separately from the New 3DS for about 1/4th of the price.

 You see how people might get confused?

And just wait, it gets worse.

See the reason Monster Hunter 4 is sold with the New 3DS is that, despite being a simple 3DS game, it benefits from the some of the New 3DS features. (well that and presumably to make people THINK its (and the other games you can buy packaged with the system) a New 3DS game when its not, so people think they have to buy the new system to play it)

For example, the New 3DS has an extra circle control pad that the original 3DS does not. In the case of Monster Hunter (and a lot of just released or soon to be released 3DS games), this extra circle pad will control the games "camera" making it easier to see the world around you. (the New 3DS also has 2 extra buttons on the back that will work the same kind of "make slightly easier" functions)

On the original 3DS systems you'll have to settle for using the slightly less accurate and less accessible touch screen controls.......unless of course your willing to shell out $20 for a device Nintendo released 2 years ago, called a Circle Pad pro, which adds that extra circle pad and 2 extra rear buttons to your existing 3DS at 1/5 the price of the New 3DS.

So you COULD buy a New 3DS for more functionality of your 3DS games....or you could save 80% and buy a piece of hardware that does the same thing.

Now the New 3DS  has 2 other innovations over the original 3DS systems;

first it also has something called Amiibo support.   Amiibo's are basically action figures that can interact with your video games....basically they unlock bonus features in the game. Which might sound cool if you really want EVERY feature in your game.  So that sounds like a reason to buy a New 3DS right?

Well except that, later this year, Nintendo plans to release another cheaply priced extra piece of equipment for the 3DS allowing it to do the same thing.

So yea, just wait a few months and your 3DS can do most everything a New 3DS can do.....unless not having to carry around 2 extra things with you (the Circle Pad Pro and the Amiibo support) is worth an extra $100+ to you.

Now the other innovation is, to be fair a New 3DS exclusive and will stay that way. That innovation is a better processor and graphics card. In English that means the games on the New 3DS will look nicer and run smoother than they will on the 3DS.

Except that, those features wont apply to any basic 3DS game being played on the New 3DS....it only applied to New 3DS exclusive games that cant be played on basic 3DS.

Which still sounds like a selling point, until you look at the [current] list of New 3DS exclusive games:

Xenoblade Chronicles.

Thats it. Thats the whole list. And given the time it takes to develop video games (at least a year) and the fact that Nintendo tends to release games in Japan months prior to the US (so all the upcoming american releases are already out in Japan), thats likely to remain the whole list for at least a year.

And the thing is, Xenoblade Chronicles itself was actually released 3 years ago for the Nintendo Wii....so if you really want to play it, you can go buy the Wii version for $55, and play on your Wii or Wii U system.....and if you dont own one you can buy a Wii for another $60, which is still much cheaper than the $200 you would have to spend on the New 3DS and additional $50+ for the game.

Now, for anyone who doesnt live in America, they may be another reason to buy a New 3DS. The "faceplates" (read casing) of the system can be changed and swapped out. In otherwords you can customize your system to give it an exterior apperance to match you. Maybe you love Mario and you want to show everyone....well you can buy the Mario faceplates for the New 3DS.....or maybe your on team Frokie.....well buy the Frokie ones. Or you want your work friends to think your "mature" so you get the Fire Emblem plates.....only to remove them and put on your Zelda plates, when you hang out with your old college friends who know your a nerd.

Its not the best reason in the world to buy a new system....but hey to the right person (admittedly not me) it probibly sounds pretty cool.

But note I said this doesn't apply in America (where I live, and I assume most of my readers do too)

You see, in every other country in the world Nintendo released two new systems, the New 3DS, which was the size of the original 3DS and the New 3DS XL, which was the size of the 3DS XL. However the New 3DS XL does not have the ability to change faceplates for some odd yet unexplained reason.

In this country however Nintendo only released the "New 3DS"....except that the american "New 3DS" is actually the New 3DS XL model in the rest of the world, so we got shafted on the changeable face-plates thing.

Also, if you buy a New 3DS and you read a game review and they make any comment (positive or negative) about the game's visual appearance or resolution, and thats going to impact your purchasing decision, you better make sure you know if its a foreign website/which version of the "New 3DS" they are taking about, the American or International version.

Because it would suck ass to buy a game that was touted as having amazing visuals on the [international] New 3DS screen, only to find out they look slightly distorted on the larger screen your american New 3DS has.

(further adding to the confusion, some websites/stores are using the New 3DS XL name for the american New 3DS, so it may seem like a different item despite being the same thing)

Now you may have noticed that up till now I've been writing this assuming you already own a 3DS and are considering upgrading. Well it turns out theirs a reason for that......that appears to be the same assumption Nintendo is making.

Alright, so given that its a portable system, the New 3DS runs on a battery that needs to be recharged....just like your cell phone, tablet, ect.

Without a recharge, the thing is going to stop working in about 5 hours.

Now in typical Nintendo fashion, the New 3DS uses the same charger as the original 3DS, the 2DS and the DS. So if you happen to already own one of those systems, your golden.

If you dont.....well honestly your fucked.

See unlike those other systems, the New 3DS doesnt come packaged with a charger. You have to buy it separately.

And its almost impossible to find. Amazon doesnt sell them. Neither does Walmart, or Best Buy, or Game Stop (these being the 4 largest video game retailers in the country).

Now Nintendo's on line website DOES sell them.....for an extra 10 dollars (this in addition to the $200 you spend on the system.....more if you want a game). Thing is, based on what I can find online, the fastest Nintendo's on line store ships things seems to be about 3 days.....but seeing claims of 1-2 WEEKS is much more common.

So yea, if you go to the store and buy a New 3DS without already owning one of its predecessors, your going to be able to play it for a whole 5 hours (give or take) over the next 3-14 days.......

So yea, to sum up, Nintendo's new console seems to be entirely directionless.

Its clearly aimed at people looking to upgrade (since it cant be used out of the box), while giving
them absolutely no reason to (1 semi exclusive game, thats actually cheaper to buy for another system, and features that can be added to the existing system for less) Also its name is sure to confuse the living shit out of the casual gamer and make figuring out what you want to/can buy much harder, for no good reason.

In other-words, this system SHOULD be a massive PR disaster and colossal failure.

But this is America, the land of upgrading your smartphone every 6 months for the same fucking phone with different number at the end of the name.  So I fully expect Nintendo to make a record profit and break sales records of all kinds with the New 3DS.

Because Americans are stupid and will buy anything with "New" in the name.....even without a reason.

Then again, as noted at the beginning the Wii U pretty much flopped out of the gate, so maybe Im too cynical and Nintendo just really sucks at this whole "thinking out decisions" thing....

My favorite contradiction in conservative thought

Alright, I'll be honest, this was supposed to be part of my Top 10 political justifications/beliefs that are total bullshit blog, but I kinda forgot to include it. However I actually think this one is so ironically funny, it is somewhat deserving of its own blog. So I'm gonna call this one a "win win" by forgotting :P.

Anyways the entire point of this blog is, as the title suggests, to mock my favorite problem in conservative thought, that being that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy.

Now the reason this is my favorite, is that, from a conservative point of view......they are 100% correct. However they are also 100% against the conservative point of view.

Alright let me explain. You often see Conservatives asking questions like this:

That was asked just a couple of days ago in fact, during the still ongoing confirmation hearings of Obama's attorney general.

Now liberals like to laugh at that question and just dismiss graham by calling him an idiot.....But here's the thing, Graham is 100% right.

If the Constitution allows the government to redefine marriage to allow gays to get married, why cant they rewrite it to allow multiple people to get married?

Now Loretta Lynch ducked the question, but the real answer is: the government totally could.

And this by and large is the basis of the Conservative objection to gay marriage, that if we allow the government to redefine marriage this way, their is nothing stopping them from redefining it any damn way they please.  Until one day we all wake up and we are all able to marry sheep.

Now of course, the sheep thing is taking this to the high extreme (although republicans like using it or another animal as the "end result), and a difference does eventually come into play with the idea of consent. (another area where conservatives tend to have some confusion, just see their comments on rape)

But in all fairness to Senator Graham, he only took it as far as polygamy, presumably among consenting adults. And he's got a point, when you keep it at that level. It is hard to justify gay marriage without justifying polygamist marriage.

The problem that leads to the contradiction here faced by him, and the rest of the conservative movement, is that they have never considered the opposite question.

By which I mean, they have never asked "hey how come polygamy ISNT legal?' I mean hell ask anybody to name the first thing that comes to mind when they hear the word "Mormon"  and the likely answer is going to be polygamy.

Which is weird because Mormon's are an entirely american religion, they were created HERE, unlike most other religion in this country.

So you'd think there would be a shit ton of polygamist Mormons. Which is weird because all the famous living Mormons only have one wife.  Glenn Beck, Andy Reid, Rep Jason Chaffetz, Sen Harry Reid,  Mitt Romney, Jon Heder, Orson Scott Card, Stephanie Meyers (her husbands only wife in this case), Wilford Brimley, Jon Huntsman, Sen Orrin Hatch, ect.

So what the fuck happened there? why arnt they all marrying multiple women?

well see way back in 1862 President Lincoln signed into law something called the "Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act" which basically made it illegal to marry more than one person as the Mormons had been doing.

Now this (and its successors laws further restricting marriage) was challenged in court in 1878 in a Supreme Court case called Reynolds vs United States.  Which the polygamists lost after the court ruled that marriage was not a religious right and therefore the government was totally fine declaring who could or couldnt get married.

Which means, as of 1878 the Government has had the right to legally redefine marriage whenever it wishes, and in whatever way they wish.

They did the same thing in 1967 with the court case Loving v Virginia, which ruled that it was illegal to prohibit consenting adults of different races from marrying. Now its worth noting that Loving reversed an earlier Supreme Court case (Pace v Arizona from 1883) that said prohibiting interracial marriage was fine and good.  

Actually to be honest, the Government has a long history of redefining marriage. I can find almost 2 dozen cases legalizing or illegalizing various forms of polygamist relationships alone (the most recent being 2013), And then there are the ones about interracial marriage and homosexual marriage which adds another dozen or so. And then you have cases like 1987's Turner v. Safley, which declared marriage a basic undeniable right (even to the incarcerated) adding to that count as well.

So, I've been long winded about it, but the real answer to the fear of the right wing, about what stops polygamist marriage if we legalize gay marriage is "because we say so". Thats it. There really isnt a better defense, or one that couldn't be reversed to allow polygamist marriage "because we say so" as well.

Of course the irony is that, if, we did as conservatives suggest, and got the government totally out of marriage, polygamist marriage would become de facto legal anyways.....as would gay marriage. Because we could no longer restrict it.

oops.

So to sum up, Conservatives want the government out of marriage to stop gay and polygamist marriages from being legal. However doing so would legalize gay and polygamist marriages because the only thing making them illegal is the government. Which means, conservatives would not want us to do what conservatives believe we should do to stop gay/polygamist marriage.

Which is probably why conservatives are so obsessed with the "slippery slope" on this one. Its real, there is no way out....and they were the ones who started us down it in 1862.  

The other problem for conservatives is they really dont want to push back too hard to try to stop [what they assume is] the eventual legalization of gay and polygamist marriage.

Now most religions in this country are incorporated. Its this incorporation that allows them buy and hold property, trademarks (on some of their symbols), distribute assets, set up charities ect.

Now I say most because the Mormon church is NOT incorporated. They used to be, until 1887, when they were disincorporated by the US government for failure to follow the laws on marriage. (read, they were still attempting to practice polygamy). And following the disincorperation, the US government seized the assets of the church for their own.

This disincorporation was held totally constitutional in 1890's Supreme Court case The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States. Furthermore that case stated that the Government could have taken over the "real property" of the church (read the Mormon temples) even though they had not.

Now while most of the seized assets were returned to the churches followers in 1893, after the Mormons altered their teachings to ban polygamy, the government was under no legal obligation to do so. And to this day the Mormon church still hasnt been able to reincorporate, instead its holdings are managed in a hodge-podge fashion being held in a bunch of small private subgroups of the church that the church officially cant control.  

And doing that same thing to any religion that say, refuses to marry gays or allow multiple marriages, is still legal at the governments discretion.

So now maybe you understand both the conservative paranoia about legal polygamist marriages being the next step, and why they cant stop obsession about it....their own ideology on the issue would still lead to that.

So next time you hear a conservative ask that question (or one similar), recognize it for what it is....a desperate plea for help in getting out of the corner they put themselves into in their 150+ year crusade to redefine marriage to match only their religions definitions.