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

Forums - Gaming - Adjusted for inflation, Switch costs the same as launch as Wii (in US)

Egelo on 17 January 2017
Johnw1104 said:

Everyone is expecting cheaper consoles these days, which is why they're generally less a jump than in the past (given the 8 years that passed, the jump between xbox360/ps3 and xbox1/ps4 was rather a joke).

I recall reading that, adjusted for inflation, the PS4 was Sony's least expensive console to manufacture, the xbox1 WOULD have been Microsoft's had they not jumped the price with the kinect initially, and the Wii U only missed the mark because of the Gamepad's cost and how cheap the Wii already was.

In general, ever since 2008 we've seen costs continuing to drop, and the consumers are far less willing to pay a bit extra to allow for stronger hardware (not terribly surprising given what occured in 2008). The old costs of consoles and games would probably shock a lot of people today.

Yet millions spend 1000 on a phone and upgrade yearly, explain that shit to me.  



Around the Network
fleischr on 17 January 2017
Bandorr said:
"You don't get a packed in game with Switch" but you're going to make up with that by adding a second gimmick controller?

Doesn't work like that. Wii sports was a great game. It sold the system. It sold motion control.

And when compared to (a month ago) $200 consoles that come with a game and an actual controller - it is very, very expensive. Specially when you consider that the xb1/and ps4 are powerful. There is no fear of them missing out on games.

 

potato_hamster said:
Irrrrrrrrrrelevant! All consumers care about is whether or not they deem the price of the Switch to be worth it, and much of that inherent value comes from comparing it to the competition. The Wii was much cheaper than its competitors, the Switch is more expensive. That alone can make people feel the switch is too expensive even if Switch fans can mentally justify the cost because of its features.

Sure, the Switch is "portable" and features "HD rumble", but those features are only worth the cost it adds to the system if people value those features. People are saying they don't see those features as being worth the cost to implement them especially considering that they can get other systems without those features they don't care about for cheaper.

Value is relative.

Some people like a bonus controller. Not perfect, but convenient and usable enough for a quick coop session of Tetris, Bomberman or something else. I can tell that's not you or you.

All I'm saying is that price is pretty much the same. Scientific fact.



I predict NX launches in 2017 - not 2016

fleischr on 17 January 2017
spemanig said:
No one had to adjust for inflation when the Wii's price was revealed.

Actually we did anyway.

By comparison to other console launches adjusting for inflation, the Wii was the cheapest entry price point Nintendo ever had.



I predict NX launches in 2017 - not 2016

Augen on 17 January 2017

While you are right about inflation, I'd counter that how much disposable income do people have for entertainment today and in 2006 hasn't changed much.

Any product is worth what people pay for it, so we'll see if Nintendo got it right with $300 over next twelve months.



potato_hamster on 17 January 2017
fleischr said:
Bandorr said:
"You don't get a packed in game with Switch" but you're going to make up with that by adding a second gimmick controller?

Doesn't work like that. Wii sports was a great game. It sold the system. It sold motion control.

And when compared to (a month ago) $200 consoles that come with a game and an actual controller - it is very, very expensive. Specially when you consider that the xb1/and ps4 are powerful. There is no fear of them missing out on games.

 

potato_hamster said:
Irrrrrrrrrrelevant! All consumers care about is whether or not they deem the price of the Switch to be worth it, and much of that inherent value comes from comparing it to the competition. The Wii was much cheaper than its competitors, the Switch is more expensive. That alone can make people feel the switch is too expensive even if Switch fans can mentally justify the cost because of its features.

Sure, the Switch is "portable" and features "HD rumble", but those features are only worth the cost it adds to the system if people value those features. People are saying they don't see those features as being worth the cost to implement them especially considering that they can get other systems without those features they don't care about for cheaper.

Value is relative.

Some people like a bonus controller. Not perfect, but convenient and usable enough for a quick coop session of Tetris, Bomberman or something else. I can tell that's not you or you.

All I'm saying is that price is pretty much the same. Scientific fact.

Yes, value is relative. That's the point. People aren't seeing the value in the Nintendo Switch, and many Nintendo fans can't seem to understand that. Even if it's the same price as the Wii, the Wii can be a good price at the time, and the Switch can be too expensive this time around.



Around the Network
Johnw1104 on 17 January 2017
Egelo said:
Johnw1104 said:

Everyone is expecting cheaper consoles these days, which is why they're generally less a jump than in the past (given the 8 years that passed, the jump between xbox360/ps3 and xbox1/ps4 was rather a joke).

I recall reading that, adjusted for inflation, the PS4 was Sony's least expensive console to manufacture, the xbox1 WOULD have been Microsoft's had they not jumped the price with the kinect initially, and the Wii U only missed the mark because of the Gamepad's cost and how cheap the Wii already was.

In general, ever since 2008 we've seen costs continuing to drop, and the consumers are far less willing to pay a bit extra to allow for stronger hardware (not terribly surprising given what occured in 2008). The old costs of consoles and games would probably shock a lot of people today.

Yet millions spend 1000 on a phone and upgrade yearly, explain that shit to me.  

I donno, I'd much rather pay an extra $100-150 for a console if it meant it was significantly improved, especially given that's the price of about 2-3 games and, in the long run, that seems a worthwhile sacrifice. Not enough people look at it that way though, so consoles have been unusually weak lately.



TheBlackNaruto on 17 January 2017
Egelo said:
Johnw1104 said:

Everyone is expecting cheaper consoles these days, which is why they're generally less a jump than in the past (given the 8 years that passed, the jump between xbox360/ps3 and xbox1/ps4 was rather a joke).

I recall reading that, adjusted for inflation, the PS4 was Sony's least expensive console to manufacture, the xbox1 WOULD have been Microsoft's had they not jumped the price with the kinect initially, and the Wii U only missed the mark because of the Gamepad's cost and how cheap the Wii already was.

In general, ever since 2008 we've seen costs continuing to drop, and the consumers are far less willing to pay a bit extra to allow for stronger hardware (not terribly surprising given what occured in 2008). The old costs of consoles and games would probably shock a lot of people today.

Yet millions spend 1000 on a phone and upgrade yearly, explain that shit to me.  

Well it is a phone and has more functions than a gaming console....and they upgrade yearly in contracts and don't pay full price for these phones. Those are just 2 differences with no thought to be honest.



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

potato_hamster on 17 January 2017
Egelo said:
Johnw1104 said:

Everyone is expecting cheaper consoles these days, which is why they're generally less a jump than in the past (given the 8 years that passed, the jump between xbox360/ps3 and xbox1/ps4 was rather a joke).

I recall reading that, adjusted for inflation, the PS4 was Sony's least expensive console to manufacture, the xbox1 WOULD have been Microsoft's had they not jumped the price with the kinect initially, and the Wii U only missed the mark because of the Gamepad's cost and how cheap the Wii already was.

In general, ever since 2008 we've seen costs continuing to drop, and the consumers are far less willing to pay a bit extra to allow for stronger hardware (not terribly surprising given what occured in 2008). The old costs of consoles and games would probably shock a lot of people today.

Yet millions spend 1000 on a phone and upgrade yearly, explain that shit to me.  

Because those millions actually spend $0 on a phone (or less than $200) and subsidize the rest of it on their phone's contract. If most people had to actually pay the $800-$1000 up front for the cost of an iPhone, I'd reckon 90% of people who own one wouldn't. Far less people would have a problem with the cost of the Switch if you could get it for free and  pay it off by spending $20 a month for the next two years and included in the monthly fee for their online service.



Egelo on 17 January 2017
TheBlackNaruto said:
Egelo said:

Yet millions spend 1000 on a phone and upgrade yearly, explain that shit to me.  

Well it is a phone and has more functions that a gaming console....and they upgrade yearly in contracts and don't pay full price for these phones. Those are just 2 differences with no thought to be honest.

I dont mean contract peopel that sit one phone for 2/3 years.

I mean the types that pay 1000 out of pocket to get the newest shinest phone each year.  

 



TheBlackNaruto on 17 January 2017
Egelo said:
TheBlackNaruto said:

Well it is a phone and has more functions that a gaming console....and they upgrade yearly in contracts and don't pay full price for these phones. Those are just 2 differences with no thought to be honest.

I dont mean contract peopel that sit one phone for 2/3 years.

I mean the types that pay 1000 out of pocket to get the newest shinest phone each year.  

 

You mean the ones who buy the phones then turn around and sell them for a profit on Ebay or Amazon and stuff like that? Because I really don't know the millions who pay 1000 for a new phone every year....and for the ones that do it is no different from teh epople who buy the shinest cars every year, shoes, TVs, newest clothes etc.....just because some pople do that it doesn't justify things that are just too expensive.



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23