If it is disabled for bystanders, what's the problem? Then they can view the game just fine. The slider shows that the 3DS is perfectly playable and watchable without 3D turned on.

You don't get how such stereoscopy works for bystanders - onlookers will already get 2D image usually (seeing only image meant for one eye), no need to play with any sliders, on which you base your...what, exactly?

Did you even read the announcment? Every single story on the 3DS mentions the slider that increases or decreases the 3D effect (including turning it off).

But that's not the issue; suddenly two DS experiences are becoming less reconcillable with each other a very short time after touting the first announced one (and when games will actually use 3D effect for inherent mechanics of gameplay...); which while itself not a big deal of course (different kinds of gameplay for different games, et al; in many games not that big of a difference between "2D" and "3D"), is somewhat at odds with what you said in so very definitve terms / makes it not such strong of a point, that's all.

They said nothing that's at odds with anything. Again, the 3D can be disabled.

You are changing the subject. If XL is sold as that, what makes you think the 3DS is, and why did you ignore the fact that you can disable the 3D?

Seems I pay much better attention that you do...

If you did, you would have known that the 3D effect on the 3DS can be easily disabled.

Also, even if the XL is for watching, that doesn't mean the 3DS is. But as I said, this doesn't matter because the 3D can be disabled. Which you would have known if you paid attention to the actual announcement we are discussing here.

I don't know how many people know about this guy, Sean Malstrom, but his blog is really something else. He really hates the "hardcore", and always exposed video game "analysts" in various ways. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he has an amazingly fresh perspective on the gaming market. And he has been spot-on a lot of the time! In addition to predicting that the Wii would become the dominant console, he also predicted that New Super Mario Bros. Wii would sell like hotcaces, and push Wii console sales, which it did. And those are just two examples.

After reading his blog, I now find myself being pissed off at the mainstream gaming press, gaming fanboys and analysts most of the time. They say such stupid things.

You are probably a kid, since your view of adults seems to be extremely narrow-minded, and based on ignorance and stereotypes. Why would an adult not be able to enjoy awesome gameplay combined with colorful, cheery looks? "Adult" doesn't mean that your life has to be dark and sinister! If that is the life of the adults around you, I feel sorry for both you and them.

What do you mean by "actual substance"? Are you saying that pretty looking graphics is "actual substance"? Graphics is about as superficial as you can get!

Nintendo doesn't only care about 30 year old moms. They are aiming at reaching the mass-market. And they did.

I'm guessing you are, what, 15 years old?

Where did you get the idea that the XL is for "onlookers? I thought the bigger screen was to reach more people (such as older people with poor eye sight).

But that's basically irrelevant. There's a slider to disable the 3D on the 3DS, so you can easily do that if you want to "share". Did you even pay attention to what the 3DS is and what it can do?

It's a scam if you pretend to do good, but are in fact inflating the prices and getting yourself a monopoly to make even more money.

Give away nearly everything, eh? Giving away other people's money is always easy. You know, the money people were forced to pay for Windows because of the illegal monopoly and lock-in?

So, did he give away 95% of it yet? He's half way through his 50s now, isn't he?

As dakameleon said, things change. The market is different now compared to a decade ago. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

If I am not mistaken, Acid3 was created by an Opera employee at the time (who now works for Google), and was meant to be extremely tough to pass for all browsers.

The advertisement doesn't claim anything about compliance with anything.

The page clearly gives the impression that IE is more compliant than other browsers in general. There are multiple articles and comments all over the web that clearly show that this is the impression most people get when they see the page. Microsoft, however, chose not to fix their page, so it is still as misleading as it used to be.

Be sure to misrepresent the science to push your political agenda... Why do denialists always do that? I don't get it.

Maybe my brain is a bit tired today, but what are you saying? Surely not that the Adobe guy's statement wasn't amazingly hypocritical?