What kinda logic is this?

Now we are adjusting for inflation?

There's nothing 'backdoor' about it. $250 in 2006 is the same as $300 today.

Of course in 2006 you could spend on $200 or probably less on a PS2 which had a more conventional controller and easily better library than Wii at the time - not unlike the PS4 today. At that time, with PS3 at $600 -- getting a PS3 seemed like a really far off proposition.

The PS2 still sold great in 2006 by the way. Success was not mutually exclusive between the two platforms.

No one bought the Wii because it was more powerful than the PS2. And they didn't even buy it because it was cheaper than PS3/360. They bought it for its own value proposition.

To a lot of people at the time it was worth more than that. Between scalpers, lines, and waiting lists you technically had to pay more than just $250.

Again, refer to the fact that there are people who upgrade their phones every year for 600-1000 dollars. I know two people who plopped down full price (with no contract) for the new phone (though one of their phones had the screen cracked).

Cause those people aren't actually buying the phone. They don't actually goa nd pay $500-$1000 for the phone. And that in of itself is the funny thing about consoles.

You buying a console is in a lot of ways like you starting a service plan when you buy a new phone. Their business with you starts when you pick up the console/phone. In a perfect system, we shouldn't pay a dime for the console and opt topay $15 extra for every game we buy till that $15 extra adds up to around $3-$600 or whatever the console is supposed to cost. But obviously that can't happen with consoles.

So, the value of the Dollar have been stuck since 2012 at least?

Wii had a good pack-in title while Switch offers a similar title for demonstrating for 50$, had immense mass appeal due to its concept and inflation proceeds without peoples sense of perceived value following. The Switch also comes without an IP port, apparently has no proper functionality as a tablet besides games and still offers poor online in an era where this is a lot more important than it was in 2006. In addition, the Switch, with its tablet form factor, will inevitably be compared to devices that multitask a lot better and serve as portals into multimedia and social media and no such devices existed that mimicked the Wii, or rather that the Wii mimicked, it was quite unique.
One example of perception of cost and price; in my home nation, gas has never been cheaper relative to median income than it has been in the past decade, but the price has risen annually and the whining and protests have risen with them, same goes for prices for groceries.

People don't adjust for inflation with perceived value, simple as that. Products of their time will be judged on the premises of contemporary products and affiliation and overall market movements. Heck; my first friend with a DVD player paid about 1500$ for it in the 90's, which was acceptable for an enthusiast at the time but not mainstream consumers.

If the mainstream market fails to see the perceived value, or rather Nintendo fails to impress it upon them, the price will be regarded as too high.
I bought a phone during christmas, a Huawei Mate 9 Pro, it costs a little less than an iPhone 7 or similar Samsung Galaxy, yet many insist I paid way too much for it due to its lower perceived value since it wasn't made by a hip manufacturer.

Short version; OP's argument is completely invalid, perceived value doesn't fit into your frame of argument.

PS: My new phone kicks the ass of both iPhone 7 and Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge...

3DS by a country mile. Easily 25 or more excellent games on that system. 

Right you are. Weaker tech, not outdated. But weaker because it is portable. Nintendo should work on getting a better battery for the Switch ASAP. Anything under four hours is a terrible battery life. If the Switch could play BoTW, or Skyrim for six hours without needing a recharge, then they could market that portable aspect like crazy.