If a consumer can resist the buying frenzy tied to the release of a new product, particularly one where the value should be directly tied to the software it runs that is immediately available, and instead wait until enough software is available to make the value of that hardware equal to what they're paying for it in their mind/opinion, they shouldn't find themselves upset if the actual price is, as it always will be, reduced in the future.

It is just a bit of a kick in the pants to see that happen earlier than expected.

While that is true, we should immediately jump to the next question. Should we give a shit? The answer is no.

Even more I think pitying them is a condescending and insulting attitude towards them.

Early adopters buy at a price that is acceptable for them. If they think in retrospect that it wasn't worth it that's their own problem to deal with. But it doesn't warrant a thread. Or else we could have threads about people feeling bad for not picking the right lottery numbers.

I say that as an early adopter myself who spent thousands on new tech. The time I spent with the new stuff that others couldn't is not measurable with money. So I actually had the better deal ;)

Lesson being, wait to see the lay of the market when various products are competing for the same consumers and if purchasing a non-market leader product, you have the leverage as a consumer to wait until you see the buyer's incentive you want (whether that's free pack ins or a sale or a permanent price cut) that pushes the sale.

Unfortunately, you don't have the luxury for a market leader's product in most cases as you won't see the same incentives being offered.

I disagree with that notion, because its fairly outdated. From the 5th gen, onwards consoles were selling off their own merits, their software being a major part of the merits of a console but not the only one. 

Fast Forward to this gen and the XB1 and PS4 are selling off of their future libraries and the differences they offered in their systems. Hell even the Wii, sold more for its motion controls then whether or not it had the most popular software.

Agreed. 

@bolded: I was looking for an analogy, but you already had a great one sitting right there.

You disagree because that's how you as a consumer buy, but if everyone thought the same way, how many consoles would SCE or MS or Nintendo sell based upon what games will be available for it in five years? All of them?

Most consumers, the general consumers, will wait until the games they want are available on the platform they were planning on buying. I'm in the small minority among people I know who play video games who bought a PS4 right out of the gate. Most of them say the same thing "I'm just going to wait until XXX is released."

And the Wii sold as well as it did to general consumers because of Wii Sports.

I do.

Microsoft should have done an Ambassador program.

I think it depends on if they wanted Kinect. If not, they would have been better off waiting for some of the deals. Unfortunately Microsoft had indicated that Kinect wasn't going to be removed.so they may feel mislead.

Didn't they do a free game voucher or something? I seem to remember MS doing some sort of thanks program that had a pretty short time window and wasn't heavily promoted, since it boiled down to giving something free to existing customers.