1. That they were made by same studio, doesn't mean the cost to develop them is the same, that is also a silly assumption to make. I never gave marketing costs as a development cost. I gave it because like you yourself pointed out, the development costs of GOW 3 alone does not justify its price, development conts is not the only factor that goes into pricing, hence the need to adopt a model that factors in the total costs of which marketing cost is included. 

2.That is precisely the mistake you are making, that the cost of making a game is only increased by it having high Graphical assests (hence my reference to eye candy). Labo, while it might not be a demonstration of Graphical prowess can do other things your typical graphics heavy AAA game cannot do. It provides interfaces that allow the dumbest person on earth manipulate the internals of the switch itself, that also costs money to develop even if your heavy graphic emphasized view does not factor this as anything meaningful or valuable. The fact that what it does is not readily available on other platforms also naturally confers a premium on it. 

3.You are beginning to understand....because you are yet to apply what you wrote so brilliantly about the various factors that go into pricing asides from development costs to the issue of Labo pricing. 

4. If you say so, I'll accept your word for it.

5. That should tell you that being considered overpriced and being actually overpriced are two different things. The Wii U's failure had nothing to do with it being overpriced, it had to do with the fact that people weren't largely interested in what it had to offer in terms of both Hardware and Software. It remains to be seen if that is the case with Labo. If you say the 3DS was overpriced initially, I would agree with you.

1 - I asked for the cost to develop Labo, and you said you would gave after I gave you GoW. I gave you GoW 3 and why GoW PS4 would be on that ballpark. You gave Pokemon marketing cost as estimation for cost of Labo, don't try to dig your way out of it. Give the estimate cost for Labo in a way that at least makes sense. Because surely I didn't say that just being made by the same studio means same cost, I gave you much more than that.

2 - No I didn't say only graphics increase cost, I said they are the main source. You are still needing to show how the craftness of Labo had big cost involved. Because unless you think RPG Maker had a very big budget  because it allows you to create you would be plenty wrong. And having a premium on the price doesn't change the cost at all.

3 - You are the one that have to defend your Labo pricing and cost (which you really didn't at all), not I am supposed to explain to you how Labo development cost work and estimate it for you.

5 - WiiU was considered overpriced as general here in VGC with the culprit being the Tablet. Overpriced no in a way of the retail price being much higher than the manufacturing cost (at first) but more on undervalue for the price, but then as tech should make pieces cheaper and Nintendo held the price (with justification in VGC being that they didn't expect sales to increase with price drop, which they can't really prove since it didn't happen) then it became overpriced in the way that the manufacturing cost was considerably lower than retail price (and for this a lot of Nintendo fans justify with Nintendo not selling HW at break even point because poor Nintendo is only gaming company and can't afford it, at the same time slinging dirty at sony being broken and profiting at total company less than Nintendo with only gaming... still Sony do sell HW at loss or break even).

Please make points that stand and you can source or explain, instead of just spinning around waiting me to prove everything to you.

1. That they were made by same studio, doesn't mean the cost to develop them is the same, that is also a silly assumption to make. I never gave marketing costs as a development cost. I gave it because like you yourself pointed out, the development costs of GOW 3 alone does not justify its price, development conts is not the only factor that goes into pricing, hence the need to adopt a model that factors in the total costs of which marketing cost is included. 

2.That is precisely the mistake you are making, that the cost of making a game is only increased by it having high Graphical assests (hence my reference to eye candy). Labo, while it might not be a demonstration of Graphical prowess can do other things your typical graphics heavy AAA game cannot do. It provides interfaces that allow the dumbest person on earth manipulate the internals of the switch itself, that also costs money to develop even if your heavy graphic emphasized view does not factor this as anything meaningful or valuable. The fact that what it does is not readily available on other platforms also naturally confers a premium on it. 

3.You are beginning to understand....because you are yet to apply what you wrote so brilliantly about the various factors that go into pricing asides from development costs to the issue of Labo pricing. 

4. If you say so, I'll accept your word for it.

5. That should tell you that being considered overpriced and being actually overpriced are two different things. The Wii U's failure had nothing to do with it being overpriced, it had to do with the fact that people weren't largely interested in what it had to offer in terms of both Hardware and Software. It remains to be seen if that is the case with Labo. If you say the 3DS was overpriced initially, I would agree with you.

1 - I asked for the cost to develop Labo, and you said you would gave after I gave you GoW. I gave you GoW 3 and why GoW PS4 would be on that ballpark. You gave Pokemon marketing cost as estimation for cost of Labo, don't try to dig your way out of it. Give the estimate cost for Labo in a way that at least makes sense. Because surely I didn't say that just being made by the same studio means same cost, I gave you much more than that.

2 - No I didn't say only graphics increase cost, I said they are the main source. You are still needing to show how the craftness of Labo had big cost involved. Because unless you think RPG Maker had a very big budget  because it allows you to create you would be plenty wrong. And having a premium on the price doesn't change the cost at all.

3 - You are the one that have to defend your Labo pricing and cost (which you really didn't at all), not I am supposed to explain to you how Labo development cost work and estimate it for you.

5 - WiiU was considered overpriced as general here in VGC with the culprit being the Tablet. Overpriced no in a way of the retail price being much higher than the manufacturing cost (at first) but more on undervalue for the price, but then as tech should make pieces cheaper and Nintendo held the price (with justification in VGC being that they didn't expect sales to increase with price drop, which they can't really prove since it didn't happen) then it became overpriced in the way that the manufacturing cost was considerably lower than retail price (and for this a lot of Nintendo fans justify with Nintendo not selling HW at break even point because poor Nintendo is only gaming company and can't afford it, at the same time slinging dirty at sony being broken and profiting at total company less than Nintendo with only gaming... still Sony do sell HW at loss or break even).

Please make points that stand and you can source or explain, instead of just spinning around waiting me to prove everything to you.

1. You did not give me the cost for GOW,  you gave me that for GOW 3 and then extrapolated from that. I think it only fair that I should also give you an estimation in return. If it doesn't suit you that is fine, your GOW3 to GOW extrapolation also didn't particularly suit me anyway.

2. The only thing I need to show you actually is that you have currently shown me no alternative to Labo, if you did you would have a price to compare and justify your opinion that Labo is overpriced. Right now you are just making a lot of biased assumptions.

3. On the contrary, I don't have to. You are the one making an accusation of overpricing so the burden of proving that lies with you. Nintendo is 'so to say' innocent until proven guilty by you.

5. Again a lot of this is your personal opinion doled up as 'general opinion'. As far as I am concerned Nintendo gave up on the Wii U a long time ago and decided to make the Switch, by the time components were becoming cheaper enough to drop prices, there was nothing to be gained by dropping prices because the fate of the Wii U was long determined by then.

1 - that is as reaching as it comes... To pretend GoW extrapolation of GoW3 (with explanation) is the same as putting a link of pokemon marketing cost and call that development cost of Labo is ridiculous.

Until you are able to reasonably estimate the cost of development of Labo, give a source or explain how a comparison between budgets you are making is reasonable I'm done discussing with someone without basic knowledge that just keep expecting others to explain why he is wrong just to ignore it.

1.GoW4 no way cost the same as GoW3, but yeah, GTA5 cost the same as GTA4 oh wait...

2.Since when Labo have AAA graphics?

3.Yeah, Labo is expensive as much as PS VR, agree with you.

4.Sony sell HW at loss or break even, that must explain why Vita cost $250 only with power of ps3, oh wait, i mean 1/6 ps3 power and another $40 - $50 for a memory card requirement, yeah only ~ $300, not much, still cheaper than 3DS oh wait. Many Vita games are digital only since 2014 but $64GB card is still super cheap compared to 3DS, oh dear, Nin is too greedy, they should learn Sony to sell Labo like Vita price.

1 - I think you are answering to the wrong person. Or do you think Labo cost over 50M to make because Pokemon marketing was 50M?

2 - It doesn't, where did you got that from?

3 - PSVR is considered expensive, but since it is cheaper than main competitors I wouldn't say it is overpriced.

4 - Go look at all Sony releases and philosophy, they have always released below cost. PSViita could be explained by economy of scale not being reached and this didn't allow for many price reductions, although it dropped with time. And have you seem anyone defending PSVita pricing?

1. My estimation and yours might not be the same, but we are both extrapolating using parameters of our choosing  lacking any standard approach to estimations so I would call that even, however you have a right to disagree on that point.

2. Until you are able to estimate the 'Total cost' went into getting Labo into the hands of customers before jumping the gun and calling it overpriced, expect to be challenged when making such unfounded conclusions and to be enlightened as to where your tunnel vision lies in your analysis.