By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 17 January 2017
Edit Thread
maxleresistant said:
sc94597 said:

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".