Consumers also dont think "PS4 is overpriced because 15 years ago I could get a PS2 for $100 less". Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, inflation is a real thing and needs to be factored in.

And the time a console releases argument is valid, console manufacturers will make sure a holiday launch has more stock available than a spring launch hence why Nintendo only planned on shipping 2 million at launch for Switch vs Sony shipping 4.5 million at launch for PS4.

They may not think it is overpriced because they remember the price of PS2 at the time. But mental barriers still exist and you could see how much the sales of PS4 accelerated and kept high with a 100 USD price cut. And most people expect the sweet spot for PS4 sales and final stretch to mass market price will be 199 regular plus occasional discounts.

Yes sure, and Nintendo that couldn't ramp production for a full 6 months after release would have over the double the inventory and also would hold the launch for another 6-8 months.

So inflation is irrelevant and console manufacturers do not take seasonal sales trends into account when deciding the number of consoles to produce? Got it.

Perhaps you should reconnect your cognition to your eyes instead of making strawmen.

Inflation obviously make money value less, still that doesn't overwright people mental barriers on prices and the trend of electronics becoming cheaper in pricetag even if more advanced and inflation making money value less. That is one of the reasons for X1 not being as well received at 500 USD (which with inflation would be quite cheaper than PS3 that still sold much better than X1). People see the 299 pricetag against 399 even with 15 years separating them and they fix on the number instead of making any type of price parity.

If Nintendo couldn't resolve their production capacity for over 6 months AFTER release what make you think they would have made double the inventory prior to launch and higher production for that month and others.

Believe it or not, but people are at least subconsciously cognizant of the effects of inflation. They know a dollar doesn't go as far today as it did back in 2001. $400 was prohibitively expensive 25 years ago, and that exact price point is what made the Neo-Geo a niche product and was obviously a major factor that hurt the Saturn. It may have been a factor behind the 360 having a slow start, but it didn't cripple it because $400 wasn't worth as much in 2005-06 as it was a decade earlier. And $400 in 2013-present is downright reasonable now.

This PS2 vs PS4 mental barrier you speak of doesnt exist, consumers are making zero comparisons to PS2 price when they pick up a PS4. The point stands that $299 in 2000/2001 had the same value as $399 in 2013/2014.

Nintendo couldn't resolve them because it sold better than expected and it takes time to ramp up production. If they planned to release during a holiday season than they would have planned things differently in the months leading up to launch.

Thank you for not only proving my point on the mental barrier but to also show that PS4 at this time in its life is the most expensive PS console and still tracking ahead.

I never said they make comparison to PS2 pricing, where did you took that from? What I said is that mental barrier on prices exist if they didn't they would price consoles at 300 or 400 instead of 299 or 399. The biggest number on the first digit makes a cognitive difference to people believe it or not.

Sure they would plan different. But you perhaps have missed all the threads on their bad position for ramp production, RAM scarcity and all. How many units had they available for WiiU launch (that they expected to be a success as far as I know) during Holidays? Where they able to produce 4.5M consoles ahead of time?

What Shadow posted goes against your point, not for it. Hes saying that inflation is something that needs to be considered. $400 was considered too expensive for a new console in the 90s while it is a fair price in the 2010s.

Because that is within the context of our conversation. You said PS4 launched at $100 more than PS2, I responded that adjusted for inflation they had the same launch price, you then responded about mental barriers. Your $299/399 vs $300/400 example is true but does not relate to our discussion because we are talking about devices that released 13 years apart, not devices that were on the market side by side.

Yes, they weren't able to ramp production because at that time it was already too late, Switch sales were far stronger than they anticipated for a Spring launch. Wii U shipped 3.06m in its first month which was below expectations and caused them to drop their fiscal year forcast from 5.5m to 4.0m.

Launch is but one point, and we are at year 5 and talking about the tracking being still ahead for PS4 after 5 years. So the curve showing that PS2 never costed more than PS4 even adjusted for inflation, but still had a lower pricetag.

If you think inflation is always on people mind you'll say no one ever have a mind bug when they see old movie representation and a coke at 25 cent?

Will you dispute that technology even with inflation have pricetags lower for better performance after every year?

So mind barrier for 299/300 is true but 299/399 isn't? Now you lost me. You want to make strawman and then can't match the points. Yes PS4 and PS2 are over a decade apart but still pricetag impression will be relevant.

So WiiU at launch had 3.06m on first month but Switch would have been over 4.5M, ok. And 6 months is short time for them, but they would have planned totally different for holiday because they have crystal ball. If they could sell more launching at holiday and even hit market earlier, why did they choose the odd period almost no one ever launched before?

Except it's not tracking ahead in LTD sales when you break things down on a region-by-region basis. For example, in the U.S. (being this is an NPD-focused thread) it isn't even close, with the PS4 running a massive deficit against the PS2:

The PS4 simply doesn't have the market dominance the PS2 did in the U.S. And as for Japan, well, we all know the market for traditional home consoles has shrunk tremendously there. The PS4 is tracking ahead of the PS3, but not by much, and it never had a prayer of matching the PS2. So, while the PS4 may be ahead of the PS2 on a global LTD basis (86.1M vs. 81.4M shipped after 20 fiscal quarters), that's only a technicality arising from launch timing and how the regions were staggered. Such a comparison is not an honest one. You have to break it down by region.

And the pricing data was meant to demonstrate that the $400 launch price is the same as the PS2's $300 launch price when you take inflation into account, and is therefore not an outrageous launch price. Yes, the PS4 has spent most of its life having a higher inflation-adjusted launch price than the PS2 in the U.S. So has the XBO, and so did the 360 and PS3. PlayStation and Xbox systems having smaller price cuts spread out further apart and being fewer in number over the system's life for these past two generation explains why we don't see the pronounced early peaks we used to see (the old norm was a noticeable peak anywhere from Year 1 to Year 3). Last generation we saw greatly delayed peaks in the U.S., and this generation we're not seeing pronounced peaks at all, making this the "flattest" generation ever.

Furthermore, this generation has seen sales migrate more towards Q4 thanks to official temporary BF and Christmas price cuts. While both the PS4 & XBO have both spent most of their lives costing less than the 360 & PS3, their combined Q1-Q3 sales haven't been better than combined PS3+360 sales outside the first year (after five years, Q1-Q3 sales have totaled 21M for the PS4+XBO vs. 22.1M for the PS3+360), even though combined aligned LTD PS4+XBO sales still far outpace that of the PS3+360. That's because combined aligned Q4 sales for the PS4+XBO have been on average far better so far than those of both the PS3+360 and PS2+Xbox.