Who is the most money grubbing console maker in the industry?

[maxleresistant]

sc94597 said:

maxleresistant said:

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".

Yeah right, salaries went up 20 %.  So for the general consumer, spending 300 bucks in 2017 is the same as spending 250 in 2006.

Whatever the justification you come up with, that won't make the price tag cheaper for people. There is a good reason if so many people and media outlets think the price tag is too steep, it's because it is.

As for the PS3 port, I suggest you look at DQ heroes, I also suggest that you look at all the PS4 games that are being ported to the Switch. Have you seen them? Me neither. Could it be because the Switch is a handheld and PS4 games needs to be downgraded a lot to run on it?

I wonder? Maybe that's why we are getting Skyrim and Steep 6-8 months after the launch? 

All the clues are here, you just have to look at them. Yes the Switch is more powerful than a PS3, but its still nearer a WiiU (which was already 5 years behind) than a PS4.

 

So again, it's 2017, the next generation is approaching, with PS4 and Scorpio.  And like I said, the Switch is amazing handheld, but as a home console, it's behind a Xbox One or A PS4.

Right now, it's barely ok, but in a year or 2, it will be laughable.