3 ms·
I remember arguing with my friends about this as a kid. A lot of the target audience was naïve enough to believe it, even when it was clear first-party games ha
by gs17 4y ago
I remember arguing with my friends about this as a kid. A lot of the target audience was naïve enough to believe it, even when it was clear first-party games had moved to DS.
- MBCook 4y agoIt’s clear that’s what they wanted to do, but I think they really weren’t sure it would work and had a backup “it was GBA all along” plan.
- monocasa 4y agoI don't blame them either with the scars of the VirtualBoy still fresh in their minds.
- MBCook 4y agoExactly. The late time they “strayed from their lane” they got slapped hard. Easy to see why they were gun shy.
- Wowfunhappy 4y agoI disagree! I think Nintendo wanted both consoles to coexist in order to provide an additional revenue stream. When you want to play traditional games, you grab your Gameboy Micro or the still-highly-pocketable GBA SP. When you want a stylus and dual screens to play Nintendogs, you grab your bulkier Nintendo DS. It didn’t really work and Nintendo pivoted—possibly also to compete with the PSP—but I see the Gameboy Micro as evidence of their strategy. Compare an original model DS and the Gameboy Micro side-by-side—the size difference isn’t entirely unlike that of an iPhone versus an iPad Mini. It’s not the first time Nintendo tried to create a third category between console and handheld—see also the Virtual Boy.