Putting the Switch's price into perspective.

[mountaindewslave]

Nymeria said:

irstupid said:
I always hate "inflation" arguments.

$300 today still feels like a lot of money, just as it did 10 years ago to me. And I made a lot, a lot less money back then. (less expenses sure, but still even accounting that, a lot less free spending money than I do now)

But you know, I suck it up and pay it. I know I will be buying at least 10+ games and it will be worth it. Same reason though, I don't have a PS4 though. Could I afford one? Yes, but I don't see 10+ games out or coming out that I want. Only a few, and a few is not worth the $300+ sticker price to me. Only got a One S for the 4k player.

Inflation arguments tend to rely on two factors.

1. Wages keeping pace with inflation
2. Essential costs also remaining steady with inflation

Consoles are a tricky value proposition because they are a technology and also entertainment.  Technology has consistently decreased in price as advancements occur, but entertainment is ambiguous to define as value.

I think Nintendo did fine by launching at $300 given friend I know has scoured everywhere and expects to have to wait months to get one.  I do expect a pric edrop within first 18 months to least $250 though.

it is important to note that things like wages and bills do NOT consistently keep pace with inflation, in fact they often are extremely far off. But it is safe to say that a $300 console today is a lot cheaper comparatively than a $300 console in the 1990s as a general rule. Obviously we all know economic factors in jobs and living conditions do not keep up with the changing of the inflation of a currency (or the dollar specifically) so you can't concretely always simple use it as a rule though