The Inquirer-Home

Reaction to 3D warning is over the top says Nintendo

Damage limitation exercise
Thu Jan 20 2011, 18:02

GAMES CONSOLE MAKER Nintendo says punters have overreacted to a health warning that its 3D handheld game set could damage youngster's eyes.

In a litigious world it is sensible for companies to place health and safety warnings on their hardware. But Nintendo went a step further on its Japanese website by saying its upcoming stereoscopic 3DS handheld could damage the eyes of younger gamers. The company even added that children under the age of six shouldn't play in 3D mode and should use it only in 2D.

That warning set off a media scrum that Nintendo has now tried to respond to with a damage limitation exercise that's more likely to backfire.

One problem for Nintendo is that it is in between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, most displays have some kind of health warning for viewers, and punters are advised not to watch them in prolonged use. If Nintendo hadn't posted the 3D warning and someone using a 3DS did damage their eyes, the company potentially could be liable and might get sued.

On the other hand, Nintendo posted the warning to cover its backside, despite the fact there is no medical proof that 3D can damage children's or anyone else's eyes. The media picked up on this fact and cornered Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime, who tried to pass it off as a minor thing.

"It certainly has been a reaction that has been a bit over the top," he told Reuters at a US promotional event. But when he was pushed about children using the handheld, he said that anyone over seven or older "can certainly enjoy the 3D features".

Calling the reaction over the top while still sticking to the company's warning that kids under six can't use Nintendo's handheld in 3D won't be helping Nintendo or Fils-Aime much now. µ

Share this:

Comments
comments

nitwits are, as nitpicking would.

posted by : r-tard, 22 January 2011 Complain about this comment
no keystone

Whatever your age is, it it still included in the set of "over seven", just as eight is. You can't take ONE instance of that set and then conclude that a statement about the set as a whole is valid.

posted by : richard, 21 January 2011 Complain about this comment
older than over 7

Eight is over seven and I happen to be much older than eight. So I guess it is possible.

But, it does sound stupid the way Spencer wrote it.

posted by : Keystone, 21 January 2011 Complain about this comment
Huh?

How can you be older than over seven?

posted by : Roger, 20 January 2011 Complain about this comment
aboutus
Advertisement
Subscribe to INQ newsletters
Advertisement
INQ Poll

Facebook starts selling shares

Will you buy Facebook shares?