Patricia Poon's Blog

The 2DS is Nintendo’s entry level iteration of the 3DS  and the 3DS XL – ‘a DS capable of playing 3DS games, but not in 3D’. How useless, you say. What is the point?  Nintendo’s marketing schemes suggest it is a product to introduce younger kids (7 years and under) to their gaming network. I disagree. I think the Nintendo 2DS – considering its release date – is made for consumers like myself.

Let me explain the 2DS’s  actual target demographic. It is oddly specific but will be widely successful. The console is catered towards older students (or even adults) such as myself, who have grown up with the Pokemon series and who are looking to purchase Pokemon X and Y, the new version released on October 12.

The series has a nostalgic replay value, yet the games constantly improve and expand to a point where I will, without a doubt, purchase the next iteration. And I am not alone. In the first 2 days, Pokemon X and Y has sold over 4 million copies. This statistic represents much more than parents buying the game for their children. And Nintendo’s release of the 2DS on the exact same day is no coincidence.

At $129.29, the 2DS is an attractive option for parents to purchase for their young child. However, it is also a great option for those who have grown up playing Pokemon and who are not willing to spend over $250 on a 3DS to only play one game.

Nintendo has been extremely clever. Pokemon X and Y has constantly been marketed as ‘the game to change all Pokemon games’. The iteration features many new ‘firsts’ for Pokemon, encouraging those who have fallen out of interest to pick up a copy and resume playing. It is the first of the series to be rendered completely in 3D – making it only playable on the 3DS, and no other previous console. Trainer customization and various aspects of RPG have been completely redone, resulting in an entire game engine and new levels and tactics of play.

IGN raves: 

Game Freak has really outdone itself this time, and Pokemon X and Y will be remembered as great transition point for the series’ transformation into an even more social, beautiful, and strategic game. Building on five generations of games, a digital menagerie of captivating creatures, and a wide range of diverse regions to explore, Pokemon X and Y proves this formulaic portable role-playing series can still deliver an innovative experience.

I hope I have made my point clear. So who is the 2DS for? Nintendo is not creating anything new. It is not for the serious ‘gamers’ who have a 3DS XL or even the older 3DS. The 2DS is for the entry level-buget gamer. It is catered specifically for the older audience seeking to play one game and one game only –  oddly specific audience, yet I expect this console to be extremely successful. I applaud you Nintendo.

As you probably know by now, I tend to write about technology and cell phone trends – today is no different. This article caught my eye on Forbes, and I just had to add my two cents.

Now, I’m aware that, as a Canadian, my perspective of Verizon is a bit skewed – they definitely do not have a great brand name here, except for the quirky commercials showing their coverage maps. We can establish that Verizon is most definitely one of the top players of the cell phone market in the US. Another significant aspect of the US cell phone market I need to point out to the Canadian layman is that it has significantly less entry barriers; however, certain phones are only available on certain carriers, and carriers have the power to charge up to $100 more or less than their competitors. Keep this in mind. Great, now we can begin the discussion.

Quick facts:

• Verizon has been developing an ‘Innovation Centre’, targeted towards companies looking to invest in new and unique technologies, for over 2 and a half years. The goal: “augmenting Verizon’s role as a connectivity pipe for more machines.”
• Re-opened its San Fran Innovation Centre just today
• Has worked with about 300 companies and accrued costs of over $10 million

The bottom line – and Forbes words this excellently – so I will just quote the article and save us all a bit of trouble:

“Verizon is capitalizing on a trend for large companies to launch projects with the word “Innovation” in the title and end up doing wildly divergent things.”

So, why is Verizon doing this? Recently (in the past 3 years or so), there has been an overwhelming trend seen in ‘green’ corporate culture. Companies, especially publicly traded companies, are quickly realizing how an environmentally friendly AND innovative company culture appeals to consumers – yes, their employer brand DOES matter. A prime example would be Dove’s new marketing campaigns geared towards womens’ self esteem. Google strongly emphasizes the fact that employees are allocated flex hours, solely dedicated to working on their “own projects”.

Many players in the cell phone market are following suit. Earlier this year, Samsung also created an ‘Open Innovation Centre’. Companies are largely and blindly investing in start-ups, planning to buy them outright. This also fulfills their need to constantly fuel growth – how else are companies of their size meant to continue to make money for shareholders?  (I’m finding there are more and more problems with this issue. But, I digress.)

At this point – I should say the title of the article is a bit misleading. Verizon is, in no way, attempting to breach the privacy of households (that would be a whole ‘nother can of worms); its plan is to swallow all start up tech companies in the hopes that their products will eventually connect to Verizon’s expansive network. The bottom line is this: Verizon is wrongly branding their planned acquisitions of start-up companies as ‘supporting innovation’. 

It saddens me to see companies taking hopeful intangibles such as ‘innovation’ and ‘green culture’ and modelling a formula for reaching these goals – when the reason they are so valued by customers is that true innovation does not come out of a corporate toolbox. True innovation cannot be created.