There is more to this information than the price adjusted for inflation. Inflation has been historically under-reported and the wages of people with lower incomes have stagnated and/or fallen with time so consoles have become relatively more expensive instead of less expensive. You also have to take into consideration the fact that the Wii had a very good pack in game at $249 and realistically the equivalent console to the launch Wii is nominally $100 more expensive with a weaker pack in title.

This refutes the point you are trying to make.  If inflation is actually higher than reported, the inflation adjusted prices of those old consoles would be even higher.

Let's take the NES for example.  In the US, the NES launched at $200.  Since it has been 27 years, they must have used 2.84% as the inflation rate over that time to come up with $426.

If we assume that number is under-reported, we can try a higher number.  Let's say 3.84%.  At that rate over 27 years, it would be $553 of today's dollars.

I am not exactly certain you can call mii sports a "very good pack in game" but regardless, nothing you said disputes my point, the Wii U is launching at a perfectly reasonable price point when looking at historical prices. The fact that the Ubisoft CEO says otherwise really does  not lead credence to his company "fully supporting " the system. 

Wii Sports had a 50% attach rate in Japan where it was sold separately so it was extremely compelling. When the Wii was released you could get 3 games and two controllers for $400 which was fantastic value at the time of release. When you're looking at the Wii U the reasonable entry price is really $349 because Nintendo seems to be doing everything in their power to encourage people to go for the most expensive option they have. The minimum exit price is realistically about $500 if you leave with a couple of games and an extra controller which is an entirely reasonable expectation. So the Wii U is cheap and expensive at the same time depending on what you're comparing it to, I.E. your perspective.

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.

Now we get to the meat of it. Stop thinking of the GamePad as a tablet. It's a controller. It has buttons and analog sticks and triggers. It is directly connected to the console, just like a controller would be, because -- surprise -- it IS a controller, not an accessory, not a distinct product, not something sold separately. It's a part of the console. SmartGlass isn't even comparable. As for Vita, what exactly is it "more capable" of? Bombing? ...Hard?

I'd also like to know what kind of information you're evaluating to come to the conclusion that Nintendo Land is a "weaker" pack-in title than Wii Sports. By what criteria are you judging the comparison?

Its kind of silly to say a 350 dollar system is expensive, especially comparing it to the PS3 in its early years.

everyone said the ps3 was expensive..