Inflation doesn't factor in a lot of important things. I could argue that at the same time, the price of tablets went down a lot, and so did components and manufacturing.

And that while the dollar went up 20%, the average salary clearly didn't, meaning that for the average consumer, 250 in 2006 was still cheaper than 299 in 2016.

So please, stop using that biased argument of the  inflation. It's just a cold and dry number, reality is more complexe, and if for many people, they feel that 300 bucks and 70/80 for a controller is too expensive, it's probably because it is. 

The equilibrium prices of  a particular good have nothing to do with inflation. Inflation is caused by the expansion of the money-supply (the value of the dollar and its purchasing power decreases.) That any set of similar goods might decrease in nominal price over time doesn't discount that the real value of the dollar is less than it was, because there are more of them in supply. When you spend dollars you are inducing an opportunity cost from not being able to spend that money on a composite good. So yes, inflation does  matter, even if the prices of electronics are decreasing. Money doesn't have a different value just because you are buying electronics.

Also real median income (meaning it is inflation adjusted) is almost back to 2007 levels (where it peaked) and is well above 2008 levels  (when the Wii was still being sold for $250 AND the great recession started.)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Ok then, thank you for these arguments that are proving my point.

I am interested in how you think that. You stated that the real median income is not equivalent to that in 2006 (by implying that median income hasn't kept up with inflation), but the data I linked from the St Louis Federal Reserve says otherwise. I didn't make any claim about the supply and demand curves of the Switch (none of us can really predict it), but the argument that the high price (which really isn't that high) necessarily means it will fail is ridiculous. The WIi was a much weaker console with respect to its competitors, and its price was comparable when all other factors are adjusted. It isn't power (alone) which determine the collection of individual values (which we call a demand curve) and therefore the ideal price of a console does not solely correlate with its power.

No I said that the dollar went up 20% but average income didn't, never said it went down.

And you came up with proof that it didn't increase at all, provng my point that for the average customer a product that cost 299 today, is more expensive than a product that was 250 10 years ago.

And that your inflation argument is useless.

As for the Wii being weak, the wii was 5 years behind in terms of graphics, Switch is likely ten, that's why the switch gets PS3 ports that don't run better instead of PS4. The Wii also caught the attention of casual players, but this market is long gone, and they are not buying dedicated consoles anymore, they buy tablets and phones. Cheap ones too, people keep bringing the 700$ buck iphone argument, but well, that's only part of the market, people buy a lot of tablets and phones at 100/200$.

I could go on, but frankly I don't see the point.

The Switch is a high tech expensive handheld, and a home console that lacks power for its price. And I don't see any of both proposition getting tracktion with the casual market.

If it really is the only console Nintendo releases for this gen, then it will sell around 50 millions (which is less than the 3DS and WiiU combined), however, if another handheld is coming (and I think it is), it will barely sell 30 millions.

It's just too expensive.

You need to distinguish between nominal median income and real median income. Real income is adjusted for inflation, and the Federal Reserve states that in 2015 it was equal to what it was in 2006. That means nominal income DID catch up with inflation.

Again, Switch is not ten years behind. Ten years ago the best GPU's had only 1 Gb of VRAM for an example of an easy specification that you might understand. Other specifications follow a similar pattern. Please provide a source for the "PS3 port" claim. The only port we currently have footage of is Skyrim, and it looks to be the enhanced version, not a PS3 port.

You are in an ocean of misfacts. Please educate yourself. Learn what the difference is between nominal and real median income, understand that the Switch is not equivalent to ten year old consoles in graphical performance, recognize that inflation does matter in these comparisons, and stop making false claims like "that's why the switch gets PS3 ports".

Yeah right, salaries went up 20 %.  So for the general consumer, spending 300 bucks in 2017 is the same as spending 250 in 2006.

Whatever the justification you come up with, that won't make the price tag cheaper for people. There is a good reason if so many people and media outlets think the price tag is too steep, it's because it is.

As for the PS3 port, I suggest you look at DQ heroes, I also suggest that you look at all the PS4 games that are being ported to the Switch. Have you seen them? Me neither. Could it be because the Switch is a handheld and PS4 games needs to be downgraded a lot to run on it?

I wonder? Maybe that's why we are getting Skyrim and Steep 6-8 months after the launch? 

All the clues are here, you just have to look at them. Yes the Switch is more powerful than a PS3, but its still nearer a WiiU (which was already 5 years behind) than a PS4.

So again, it's 2017, the next generation is approaching, with PS4 and Scorpio.  And like I said, the Switch is amazing handheld, but as a home console, it's behind a Xbox One or A PS4.

Right now, it's barely ok, but in a year or 2, it will be laughable.

I LOL at the poll result, in the end all of them are money grabbing company the question should be who have the best bank for buck and worth the price for all the payment and price , of course it's also will be subjective but it seems SONY is much favorable.

Whether or not it is pricey is for the market to decide. For as many people that you've read complaining about the price, I've read/heard many say that the price of the console itself is okay, but the accessories are exhorbiant. 

The port of DQ Heroes is actually the Vita version. Why would they port the Vita version? The Vita's chipset is ARM like the Switch's. That makes it more compatible bug-wise during the porting process. 

"I wonder? Maybe that's why we are getting Skyrim and Steep 6-8 months after the launch?" Maybe, maybe not. There are a plethora of reasons why developers choose to release games when they do. For example, GTA V released on PC a year after it did on PS4/XBO. Was it because PC's are too weak and can't handle it? Or was it rather to make the port fit the system. But even if this were true, it was not as if the Wii was getting third-party ports left and right. In fact, the gap was more insurmountable between the Wii and PS360 than the Switch and its competitors.

My point stands, the relative difference betwen the XBO and Switch will likely not be anywhere near the difference between the Wii and XB360/PS3. The successors to the PS4/XBO likely won't be here until 2020, which is plenty of time for a new Switch formfactor.

Haha bringing up last gen Japanese games. On Playstation we get to enjoy all the current Gen Japanese titles.  case closed! Sony gave us what we wanted,  new and exciting Japanese titles.  They win and we win.  

If you want in buy a playstation and enjoy the onslaught this spring!