Iwata Defends Nintendo's 3DS Warnings

January 10, 2011 -

Does Nintendo know something we don’t?

Despite a slew of eye specialists stating there’s no evidence that 3D imagery is harmful to young children, Nintendo continues to bang the “no 3D for the kiddies” drum.  In fact, at this weekend’s Nintendo World event, Nintendo only allowed small children to play its 3DS demos in 2D.  It enforced this rule by having parents mark their children with a Toad character sticker.  (AE: Um, okay...)

Nintendo CEO, Satoru Iwata addressed the 3DS warnings in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Sunday.  As many of our readers have speculated, Nintendo’s simply covering its butt against potential lawsuits.

“They're not meant to mean that game systems are dangerous, said Iwata. Rather, Nintendo hopes to give its customers adequate information and protect against lawsuits.  Nintendo very actively attempts to share information with its customers, Iwata said. Outside of this goal, it would never issue a warning that would not lead to a plus in sales.”


Iwata noted that some parents use video games as surrogate babysitters so the 3DS has the potential to be used for longer periods of time then other 3D products.  As such, “some specialists believe that extended viewing of 3D video has the possibility of leading to negative effects on vision in young children.”  Who these specialists are, Iwata didn’t say.

Both the 3DS packaging and instruction manual will carry warnings informing parents of the potential harm of 3D on their young ones’ eyeballs.

Via: Andriasang.com

-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Correspondent Andrew Eisen


 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenAh, okay.07/31/2015 - 2:46pm
benohawkI'm saying that the refrence in the article to the old title would need to be changed well the primary point of the article would be kept the same. Not something that should be an issue if the objective wasn't to be provocative.07/31/2015 - 2:41pm
Andrew EisenYou're saying the article should be altered to fit a different title. I want to know what title you find more appropriate for the copy as is.07/31/2015 - 2:34pm
benohawkIt would take a minor rewrite to the article, but I'd call it 'What is a Gamer' but go for the same point. you don't have to sell to jerks07/31/2015 - 2:33pm
Andrew EisenI still say "clickbait" is thrown around way too casually, to the point where it's completely meaningless. That aside, what alternate title would you suggest?07/31/2015 - 2:22pm
benohawkt was still delibrate clickait, something I would expect from a Gawker outlet, the article would of likely been much better recieved with a nicer title07/31/2015 - 2:18pm
Andrew EisenProvocative title to be sure but I didn't find it inaccurate or not reflective of its text.07/31/2015 - 2:12pm
benohawkGamasutra shouldn't of gotten clicks for the article until they had published under an accurate name instead of some pathetic clickbaiting07/31/2015 - 2:09pm
benohawkThe title of the article meant that the article was worth ignoring, not launching a massive campaign to try and end the site it was on.07/31/2015 - 2:08pm
Andrew EisenI will Ouija him my unceasing indignation!07/31/2015 - 1:59pm
Infophile@AE: The fact that he's dead does a good job of ensuring he won't hear it.07/31/2015 - 1:59pm
InfophileGood to hear. Just wish everyone offended felt that way07/31/2015 - 1:58pm
Andrew EisenRoger Ebert will never hear the end of my disdain for his I Spit On Your Grave review! http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/i-spit-on-your-grave-198007/31/2015 - 1:57pm
Big PermI don't support the email campaigns. I wouldn't support a comics venue getting them because of being offended, so it'd be hipocritical for me to do it to those who offend me07/31/2015 - 1:53pm
Infophile(cont'd) if it could be proven, it wouldn't merit anywhere near what Alexander has gone through.)07/31/2015 - 1:49pm
InfophileYeah, we can't prove or disprove it. My beef is with those who use the assumed intent to justify the actions taken against Gamasutra and Alexander. If it can't be proven, it shouldn't be retaliated against like that. (Hell, with how mild this was, even...07/31/2015 - 1:49pm
Andrew EisenNo problem. We just prefer to keep the front page clean.07/31/2015 - 1:43pm
Big PermAndrew- Alright, didn't know before.07/31/2015 - 1:42pm
Andrew EisenBig Perm - Not that big a deal, but do try to refrain from the heavier expletives in the Shout box.07/31/2015 - 1:40pm
Big Perm@ Info. I disagree, but we're just both speculating on intent. Is it possible you're right? Sure, but I don't see you being able convince me by saying she would have offended differently07/31/2015 - 1:40pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician