By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theRepublic said:
Squilliam said:

That wasn't my point. My point was the bolded. The highest earning people have improved their incomes however the level of disposable income as a ratio compared to overall income has dropped for the majority of people over the past 30 years. So whilst the NES is relatively more expensive the income distribution was relatively flatter so it was overall more affordable than the strict inflation adjustment would imply.

I won't dispute any of that.

It just makes it that much more important that console prices have been on a fairly steady decline for the past 35 years.  It would be even more pronounced if inflation is under reported as you say.

The Wii U is still cheaper than both the 360 and PS3 at launch in real dollars.  Even more so if you account for inflation.  It works out the same if you throw in games or controllers for each.  The Wii U is not out of line in terms of pricing

It certainly isn't out of line but at the same time it doesn't make sense. They are investing billions of dollars on a dumb tablet when people can get proper tablets for a very inexpensive price. Why would you want a second tablet which cannot do anything on it's own? How is this considered a major selling point worth jacking the price up by $100 for? Microsoft has already released Smart-Glass and Sony are developing their much more capable Vita tablet as well as leveraging their eco-system of Android devices.



Tease.