View Post
Wyrdness said:
DonFerrari said:

PS4 also haven't reached mass market price like PS2 on 199 and 99 price points when slim model and PS3 launched. This can be an endless argument if we try to say one should be considered different than the other.

Magazines here as far as I know didn't complain about SNES.

Going by inflation (link below) 199 in 2000 is 329 today which in the UK is 79 quid more expensive while at the PS3's launch it's 32 quid more expensive than the PS4 now which effectively kills that argument dead as under this it is at mass market price going by your argument so it's not an endless argument PS2 launched at 300 quid over here in the UK for reference, ultimately PS4 is at a reduced price now compared to launch while NS is at launch price yet to reach portable price range.


We're not talking about where you are we're talking about everywhere this article in the guardian even references it in that Japan was the only place it launched well while it took time to get going everywhere else.


Man I didn't say it wasn't criticized, I said I wasn't aware of it because lack of internet, friends liking it and magazines not criticizing.

199 USD not Pounds, but anyway yes price corrected it changes. Still we didn't see any real acceleration due to price cut. PS4 basically had a single 100 USD pricecut and is already on its 6th year in the market. No other Playstation have done it for so long.

Also if you want to say Switch is a hybrid as a lot of people does you can't just resort to "but it didn't reach HH price". Let's also remember 3DS launched at 250, which adjusted by inflation would be more than 299 Switch launched at.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"


Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"