I don't completely disagree with either side of the argument because neither is wrong. 

And the point I made about the PS4 selling at $400. What do you disagree with? The point I made is that PS4 selling so well at $400 puts Sony at a much better advantage because they have more room for price drops to stimulate sales than Nintendo. 

I don't think I was downplaying Sony in any way. 

I don't think you are downplaying sony, or trying to.

What I don't get is the notion that launching at a higher price puts sony (or anyone for that matter) in a better position to drop prices and in turn stimulate sales.

While that is technically correct, its also incorrect. It would be all round correct if sony launched at a higher price by imposing a price premium; basically say it was selling the PS4 for about 30%-50% more than its actual market value. In a case like that, it then has the wiggle room to drop prices and still be making a profit.

But if the console is sold at break even prices, as it was with teh PS4 and as it is with the NS (I would like to believe the latter) then it means both platforms are in the exact same position and both have the exact same hurdles to overcome to get prices lower. It may be harder to do for one than the other, but thats not out business.

Basically, its a moot point; sony launched at $400. Dropped its price by 25% to spur sales as you said, nothing stopping nintendo from droping its own price by 25% too when its good and ready.

Still doesn't change the fact that the PS4, NS and even the XB1 would have all sold more than whatever they sold if they were all launched at prices lower than whatever they launched it. How long those sales can be sustained is a another matter.

The thing i think needs to be taken into account is if those consoles were $100 cheaper at launch than they would have either been sold at big losses or the hardware would be different.

A $300 PS4 in 2013 or $200 Switch in 2017 would not be the same thing as we got so its hard to say that sales would be significantly higher because we dont know exactly how well these theoretical consoles would be recieved.

Many people would likely jump on board for a $300 PS4 but how do we know alot of people wouldnt either pick XBO based on multiplats performing better or just keep playing on PS3/360 because PS4 was a lackluster next-gen upgrade?

Same goes for a $200 Switch, instead of being roughly mid-way between last-gen & current-gen consoles and able to get alot of updated previous gen ports and a handful of current gen downports, it would basically be a Vita+ and  just get a handful of previous gen downports.

For all we know, these cheaper versions would have sold even less than in reality.

I don't think you are downplaying sony, or trying to.

What I don't get is the notion that launching at a higher price puts sony (or anyone for that matter) in a better position to drop prices and in turn stimulate sales.

While that is technically correct, its also incorrect. It would be all round correct if sony launched at a higher price by imposing a price premium; basically say it was selling the PS4 for about 30%-50% more than its actual market value. In a case like that, it then has the wiggle room to drop prices and still be making a profit.

But if the console is sold at break even prices, as it was with teh PS4 and as it is with the NS (I would like to believe the latter) then it means both platforms are in the exact same position and both have the exact same hurdles to overcome to get prices lower. It may be harder to do for one than the other, but thats not out business.

Basically, its a moot point; sony launched at $400. Dropped its price by 25% to spur sales as you said, nothing stopping nintendo from droping its own price by 25% too when its good and ready.

Still doesn't change the fact that the PS4, NS and even the XB1 would have all sold more than whatever they sold if they were all launched at prices lower than whatever they launched it. How long those sales can be sustained is a another matter.

Thats taking this in a totally different direction. But what you are saying feeds into what I am saying too, so I am going to play along.

Yes, a $300 box in 2013 would have been less powerful than a $400 box. As would a $300 NS be less powerful than a $200 one. Which brings us right back to what I was saying when I said that sony or nintendo or MS are selling these consoles at market value with very little to no mark up. That means there is zero advantage for selling at whatever price they are selling for as long as theer isn't any markup.

Which means that its ridiculous to suggest that sony (or any one else) selling a console at $400 (with no mark up) is somehow in a better position than someone else (in this case nintendo) that sold their own console at $300 (also with no markup). They all have the exact same issue. They are selling their consoles with no mark up. 

How is it somehow better for sony cause they could get their own price down to $300 when in theory nintendo could also get their won price down to $199 or whatever.

I agree with you. I think you misunderstanding what I'm saying or I am not explaining myself properly. I don't think launching at a high price puts Sony at an advantage. I'm saying that Sony is at a better advantage than Nintendo at this moment in time. Switch is matching PS4 with launches aligned but PS4 was $100 more at that moment. Switch is at a disadvantage because they have less room to drop the price. 

Again, I'm not saying releasing a console for higher price puts Sony at an advantage, I'm weighting up the situation that they're both in now. 

Ok, understood now. And I agree with you, I do think that the swithch will have a harder time dropping the price of their hardware. I mean its Nvidia we are talking about here. But that depends on if nintendo is really selling their console with a new zero mark up. It could be costing nintendo $200 to make the NS for all we know.