It's a better price if you are viewing it mainly as a portable with some home functionality sadly I only rarely need a portable and when I do it has to be small enough to fit in a pocket so its just a home console to me which means its simply not a product for me and I suspect people will be divided that way.

If Nintendo release a set top box with a pro controller later on that would do for me.

They have set such a low spec for the hardware that it could be emulated before the end of the year. The wii u spec was awful in 2012 and now in 2017 we are pretty much still at the same performance level with a bit more gpu power in docked mode and cpu performance now a match for 360/ps3 rather than being significantly less.

I still don't want Nintendo to leave hardware and still hoping maybe there is one more last chance for hardware beyond Switch with Nintendo. I strongly suspect though the wii u may be my last Nintendo gaming console.

true, a ps3 was a good option if you wanted a blu ray.

yea that's part of my op, I'm talking about the price here cause in other places the situation is different.

it's too expensive.
there isn't much to it beyond that.

Should have been $250 for the current bundle, $199 for one without dock and grip controller.

Sony actually throught people wanted a ~$800 machine, but didn't think anyone would pay ~$800 for it. Sony initially sold the PS3 at a loss, and not just a small loss, a big loss (rumored to be around $200 per unit). So if people were to take your stance at a time, Sony was doing people a huge favor by selling a device valued at $800 for *only* $600, and we're not even counting the cost of the R&D and development of the PS3, which was probably the most expensive console to develop ever at that point.

But people looked at all of those features, that blu-ray drive, that 8-core CELL processor, that whopping 256 MB of RAM, and decided en-masse, that the Xbox 360, with its cheaper price tag, with its better graphics, and with its much larger game library that ran better (it came out a year earlier remember) was a better deal. They decided that those features weren't worth $600 to them when they could get a better experience (for them) for cheaper. So they didn't buy the PS3 at $600 and complained about its price, even though Sony was selling it at a loss, and bought the Xbox 360 inteasd.

Now of course, you must think those people were being totally unreasonable, right?

No it's not. The cost of the product is irrelevant to the consumer. That's why good console manufacturers take a loss on their hardware.

The Switch costs $300 because Nintendo said so and not because it needs to be that price. And people complain because they think that is above their value estimation. It's easy to understand, really.

Nothing is expensive when you're used to paying much more for Nintendo stuff :P
(3DS XL for 530$ D: )

no, you seem to offensive. The whole thread, right there you can read the original post. I have been saying that people who wants the value of the ps4 or xbox one are not wrong because if that's what they want then that's the best offer for them, that's the value that they are looking for, but switch offers a differen value and is a different product than the ps4 and xbox one, so you can't say that it should be cheaper because the ps4 and xbox one are $299.99 when the switch is giving you other characteristics that cost money to manufacture.

Also your little example... the xbox 360 and ps3 were the same product and same form factor, if I can buy a cheaper console with better games and better performance for third party game I'm not going to buy a $600 machine. If sony had a hybrid console for $250 or $200 with more power/performance then guess what? Nintendo would be in trouble. 

The major issue here is that Nintendo doesn't offer a product that's NOT portable. So, for people who want a home console, the product is expensive, because they get a fraction of the "standard" console power for the full price.

lol good luck running a bussines, you want profit. "good console" manufacturer like sony sell consoles at lost because they earn profits from third party games and online services, something that Nintendo doesn't have. Nintendo needs to make a profit from consoles and sell the first party games, because that's the core of their business, unlike sony and microsoft. You can't say the value is irrelevant to to consumer because that is not how it works, it's a simple thing and in one basic business class they teach you just that. And thank good that Nintendo doesn't overprice their consoles like other business overprice their products (NIKE) They sell you a device that cost what is worth and enough for them to make profit.