Console Prices Over the Years $$$

[alec006]

Everyones herd it,Sony needs to lower there price of the PS3,thats too much,360 is outrageous at $400. I found these interesting charts on the web showing pricing from the Channel F back in 1977 to todays PS3. Ironicly PS3 isnt the most expensive console in history,the Panasonic 3DO is at $700 when it first came out and this is for the console itself. The SNK Neogeo comes in second at $650.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m137/darkknux_2006/Console1.jpg

Now,why not add inflation,amazingly,the Neo-Geo Today would be a whooping $993.00.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m137/darkknux_2006/Console2.jpg

Amazing isnt it,so discuss i want to hear everyones opinion on this,should the consoles of today be cheaper,or are they perfectly priced?

[KingCobra]

$200-$300'ish is the key pricing in home gaming consoles, doesen't really matter all that much about inflation, economy is more the factor. Every console that's been $400'ish and up has gone bye-bye. MS was smart in the way they did the Xbox360 pricing, start at $299 and then move'em up to the higher end 360 console, knew a few people that started with the cheapy and up-graded later.

[FantasiaWHT]

There was a good thread about this inflation issue before... I said it there and I'll say it again- core inflation is not a useful tool for measuring relative prices for electronics, because electronics actually get CHEAPER as time goes on. More specifically, video games get cheaper and cheaper over a 5-year period, at which point they jump up again, but then slowly decline.

Wonder why that chart doesn't have the Wii?

[BydoEmpire]

I also think that the relatively high prices of the first batch of consoles was more palatable because the form of entertainment was so new. Yeah, the Atari 2600 and Inty were expensive at the time - but being able to play video games at home on your TV? Wow, THAT was amazing in and of itself. And for what it's worth, many people thought the 5200's relatively high price was a turn off.

[7th lutz]

Inflation wouldn't work for game consoles. I am saying that because the Memory, and processors, and the format used that was in a game console 15 to 30 years ago would be cheaper to make now.

Electronic products are known to go down in price every year. Take look a Blu-ray player. It is now down to $500.00. The reason is the parts don't cost as much to make.

Video game systems is the same thing like any other Electronic product out there.

[MachineGex]

That is a really cool chart, thanks. I always thought the 3DO would have had a chance if it woulda been priced "right". I know that myself & my friends all wanted one but no one was going to pay that kinda price. As the price of the 3DO fell, I was always tempted to buy it. Thank god I never had an extra $300-400 to waste on it. I wonder how much longer SONY is gonna wait to make these adjustments in pricing?

[otaku]

What I see is Cds bringing prices down not just for the hardware but the games as well (not only was a neo geo expensive but the games were nearly half the cost of the machine!)

Never paid more than 400 for a system (360) and up until then never paid more than 300 (xbox) I do intend to get a PS3 though but I don't wanna pay more than 400-500 and am waiting for games!

[Icarus Moonsight]

There is no Wii listed because those who draw upon the inflation comparison are not trying to show the Wii in possitive light but rather, the PS3. When you show that the Channel F would sell for $600 in 2007 dollars and the Wii is selling for $250 in 2007 it sort of derails their desired conclusion.

If tech sector goods were affected by inflation we'd be paying 15k for a high-end computer, the PS3 would cost between $1500 to 1800 and the Wii would cost $750. Imagine the DS launching for $400 or the PSP at $600! It just don't relate... apples, oranges and all that. I've seen some inflation comparisons that used the price of a hamburger or beer but, that is usually for something comparable like gasoline or electricity bills.

[gepeto]

600 is till 600 The problem with comparing is that when I was growing up the lure and love of the earlier systems was something special. It was an experiance that was never before had in the home. That is what made the haves special and the have nots want it so bad.

The systems now have no wow factor so the lure isn't as enticeing. Looking at the charts don't do it justice. You had to live in the time to really understand and appreciate what was happening. 279.00 was alot to pay for an atari but there weren't any widespread household computer related items then not even a calculator.

[monkeychemist]

you can't quite compare with inflation because our wonderful President has completely crashed our economy. This created a much larger inflation as compared to other times. Since the most common console price throughout the time line was around $200, I would expect that a reasonable console price these days to be about $300. Beyond that it is ridiculous and making it very hard to justify. The difference too is that back in the day all consoles were strictly that. Ever since the Playstation introduced a console that plays music CDs now, they are no longer consoles but media centers. I think if they just cut consoles down to just playing games they could bring the prices down to $300, or $250 like the Wii. But since we stupidly want extra features that we already have (DVD player, Stereo, etc...) we are stuck with those stupid prices. Hey I bet the next gen will be $900 - $1200 for the PS4 and the Xbox 1280.

[hbkprm]

the american economy is on the fritz because 9/11

[7th lutz]

the american economy is on the fritz because 9/11

There were problems with the american economy prior to 9/11. All 9/11 did was to make those problems worse.

I am saying that because there was an internet stockmarket crash in the late 90's. After that internet stock crash, a lot of people didn't have the money had before the internet stock boom crashed due to the amount of money they invested in that type of stock. It effected some of those people's spending habbits.

After that crash, the economy was a bit on the shaky side. Airlines some problems before sept.11th. The problems with the airline were nowhere as bad as they would be after 9/11.

I have other proof there was problems before 9/11 with the economy. Disney was sending flyers through the mail in 2001 Disney's Yatcht and Beach club prices being part of a special Disney had. The special was very cheap for the hotel to say for one day when it cost more then $170.00 a day rest of the time. I thought the price was around a $70.00 a day.

Despite Disney having that deal, Walt Disney World didn't have a lot tourist at their theme parks during the summertime when my brother and I were down there compared to past years at the time of the year. There was a lot of tourists in August in the past at Disney prior 2001. There were also no hurricane warnings at the time I went there in 2001.

I brought up Walt Disney world having problems with people staying on grounds in 2001 before 9/11 because it is one of the most popular tourists place to go to in the United States. The fairest thing to do is someone finding a way to get a chart of Walt Disney World's attendence at their hotels and the theme parks from 1992 to 2006 month by month.

[98PaceCar]

Inflation wouldn't work for game consoles. I am saying that because the Memory, and processors, and the format used that was in a game console 15 to 30 years ago would be cheaper to make now.

Electronic products are known to go down in price every year. Take look a Blu-ray player. It is now down to $500.00. The reason is the parts don't cost as much to make.

Video game systems is the same thing like any other Electronic product out there.

This chart works perfectly well with inflation. All adding inflation does is show the difference in dollars, not in technology. Just because the price on the secondary market is less now that it was then doesn't mean that adding inflation is invalid. We're not comparing the cost of the technology, rather the price of the product.

[monkeychemist]

the american economy is on the fritz because 9/11

9/11 didn't cause a crash in the economy...it was poor leadership and a completely useless war. Now CEOs are much richer and the rest of us are dirt poor and can't afford a $500 console.

[jcalder8]

Those charts are pretty cool. I didn't think the PS3 was the most expensive console of all time but I do think anything over 500(Canadian) is too much.
But now that I am older and I have a job I can afford more so the sting of consoles isn't as bad as it used to be.

[YoshiM]

While it's neat to compare the prices with inflation from then to now, you really can't. The perception on how much a game system (and the PS3 *is* a game system-that's how it's seen and that's how it's advertised. You can't walk into Gamestop and buy any old Blue Ray player) should cost has been etched in people's collective consciousness over the last thirty odd years. Looking back at old ads at or close to system launch dates going back to the VCS the ballpark price looks to be around $199 to $249 (with some exceptions, of course). A lot of systems over the years fall into that range so it's easy to see how a lot of people can balk at a $400 360 or a $500+ PS3.

[98PaceCar]

While it's neat to compare the prices with inflation from then to now, you really can't. The perception on how much a game system (and the PS3 *is* a game system-that's how it's seen and that's how it's advertised. You can't walk into Gamestop and buy any old Blue Ray player) should cost has been etched in people's collective consciousness over the last thirty odd years. Looking back at old ads at or close to system launch dates going back to the VCS the ballpark price looks to be around $199 to $249 (with some exceptions, of course). A lot of systems over the years fall into that range so it's easy to see how a lot of people can balk at a $400 360 or a $500+ PS3.

How can you not compare the prices with inflation? It's more valid than comparing without.

$200 when the 2600 came out was a much larger investment (percentage wise of the average person's salary) than the $250 to get a Wii is today. By factoring in inflation, you get a more valid picture of what that same 2600 would have cost in today's market, which is much more than $200 (as the graph shows). It's not nearly the same investment as it used to be though.

The key here is the emotional tie to money and why a lot of people agree that the $250 price point is the sweet spot for console sales. It doesn't have as much to do with the economy as it does the emotional/psychological barrier for the average person to part with their money.

[FantasiaWHT]

How can you not compare the prices with inflation? It's more valid than comparing without.


You can't compare the prices with inflation unless you know what inflation is and how it works and what effect it has. You obviously don't, so don't bother trying.

[cyberfluxor]

It's not that difficult an answer, the 360 and PS3 is on the high end.

The original game systems cost a ton of money because it was very new and a high premium to have one. TVs weren't cheap when they first came out and although most HD-TVs are dropping below $1000 many people still don't own one.

The 3DO and Neo-Geo were expensive because they wanted to bring the current arcade home, not current arcade home on a cheap home console. It was for the gamer with more money and wanted the best experience possible. It wasn't cheap either and is seen with either graph. They used state of the art hardware and 300+ MB cartridges aren't cheap (How much were 100/250 MB ZIP Disks?). 3DO failed because it was just bad and investing so much into interactive movies/games.

Another thing is it's rough to judge pricing because Sony and Microsoft are losing money on each unit sold. What were other companies losses? Did they attempt to keep lower cost systems or just hit a good profit from the start on each sale. Methods of selling in the gaming industry has changed a lot in the past 30 years.

Then you have the cost of electronics and the computer market. It's easier than ever today for a company to get components for a game system and things are so abundant that production costs are also low. It's cheap to use the latest hardware specs of yesteryear today and build a nice machine.

Well, I've got quite a few other explainations but I guess that last one I'll give at the moment is just look at the 360 and PS3. Their lower end models are alright but looking at the premiums they are quite high, actually comparable to the "expensive" 70's and 80's releases. The reason it doesn't look too close is due to the aspects of the graph from the 3DO and Neo-Geo being so expensive.

monkeychemist:
I have no problem affording a $500 console and I just have a part-time job, I only decided to dump $900 into upgrading my 3yr old computer as it was a wiser investment. I have friends with high school educations, living on their own making decent money and have no problem paying a premium to have an all-in-one entertainment center.

[98PaceCar]

You can't compare the prices with inflation unless you know what inflation is and how it works and what effect it has. You obviously don't, so don't bother trying.

Oh please enlighten me then...

[YoshiM]

How can you not compare the prices with inflation? It's more valid than comparing without.

$200 when the 2600 came out was a much larger investment (percentage wise of the average person's salary) than the $250 to get a Wii is today. By factoring in inflation, you get a more valid picture of what that same 2600 would have cost in today's market, which is much more than $200 (as the graph shows). It's not nearly the same investment as it used to be though.

The key here is the emotional tie to money and why a lot of people agree that the $250 price point is the sweet spot for console sales. It doesn't have as much to do with the economy as it does the emotional/psychological barrier for the average person to part with their money.

Didn't we both kinda say the same thing?

To most people it doesn't really matter about the inflation price difference, ESPECIALLY if you go back 30 years to when the VCS rolled off the assembly line. For the typical younger crowd you're going to encounter a sort of generation gap where they're going to look at the VCS at face value (blocks for graphics and beeps and bonks for sounds) rather than what it was at its time. That can sway the balance of the outlook.

Besides, does anyone REALLY think about value of then compared to now? Unless you're comparing a VCR from 1983 ($439 for a Sears brand VHS VCR in the '83 Wish Book Catalog) to today ($59 Emerson from Wal-Mart) to get some laughs and wide-eyes from kids, it doesn't really come into play. I don't compare my Wrangler jeans prices from today back to '83 because the price really hasn't changed ($17.99 now and $17.99 then according the Wish Book. Quality of materials then and now is debatable :D ). It boils down to what the items has to offer and if the person can afford it.

[Diatribal Deity]

Oh please enlighten me then...

((B - A)/A)*100

Simple...yet so complex...

[98PaceCar]

Didn't we both kinda say the same thing?

To most people it doesn't really matter about the inflation price difference, ESPECIALLY if you go back 30 years to when the VCS rolled off the assembly line. For the typical younger crowd you're going to encounter a sort of generation gap where they're going to look at the VCS at face value (blocks for graphics and beeps and bonks for sounds) rather than what it was at its time. That can sway the balance of the outlook.

Besides, does anyone REALLY think about value of then compared to now? Unless you're comparing a VCR from 1983 ($439 for a Sears brand VHS VCR in the '83 Wish Book Catalog) to today ($59 Emerson from Wal-Mart) to get some laughs and wide-eyes from kids, it doesn't really come into play. I don't compare my Wrangler jeans prices from today back to '83 because the price really hasn't changed ($17.99 now and $17.99 then according the Wish Book. Quality of materials then and now is debatable :D ). It boils down to what the items has to offer and if the person can afford it.

I think we did say the same thing, maybe not in the same way. I guess my main point is that the charts given are being used to make the price of the PS3 seem more palatable and I feel that they do a good job of justifying the price. It's close to the same level of investment as a 2600 was when it was new. Yes, there's a huge disparity in the actual cost, but that's where the inflation charts come in to play. $200 in 1979 money is a much larger investment than $200 in 2007 money.

I agree with you that the main thing people here are having a hard time with is they are comparing the technology and not the product <shakes rake and tells those damn kids to turn it down>. The bottom line is that both the PS3 and the 2600 are gaming consoles and for the sake of this argument, should be treated as equals. Yes, I know that you can buy a 2600 for next to nothing now, but that's not the point of the charts. The point is that new, the 2600 cost $200, but factoring in inflation, the same product would cost $660, which is very close to the cost of the PS3.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Remember when VHS movies sold for $100 up to $200 for double cassette releases when they were relatively a new format? I guess that means Blu-Ray / HD DVD movies should sell for $300 to $600 now huh? Inflation makes it more paletable! :rolleyes:

Sounds pretty silly dunit?

[98PaceCar]

Remember when VHS movies sold for $100 up to $200 for double cassette releases when they were relatively a new format? I guess that means Blu-Ray / HD DVD movies should sell for $300 to $600 now huh? Inflation makes it more paletable! :rolleyes:

Sounds pretty silly dunit?

All this comparison says in 1979 dollars, $200 was xx% of a normal person's salary. In 2007 dollars, $200 is yy% percent of a persons salary. Any rational person will understand that xx is going to be a much larger percentage than yy which is what this discussion is all about.

For a working example, use this site. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Put in $200 for the amount of money, 1979 for the initial year, 2006 for the final year, hit the submit button, then read what it tells you.

[FantasiaWHT]

All this comparison says in 1979 dollars, $200 was xx% of a normal person's salary. In 2007 dollars, $200 is yy% percent of a persons salary. Any rational person will understand that xx is going to be a much larger percentage than yy which is what this discussion is all about.

For a working example, use this site. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Put in $200 for the amount of money, 1979 for the initial year, 2006 for the final year, hit the submit button, then read what it tells you.

Inflation is NOT based upon income, for a starting point. Income can rise and fall completely independently from inflation. While it is certainly correct to say that $200 then was a greater investment when expressed as a percentage of income than $250 now, that is a calculation that has nothing to do with inflation.

Second, inflation is only an average of prices across many different consumer industries. Some things increase faster than others, and some decrease in price, so you cannot accurately pick a single product and say that the core inflation rate "proves" that that product would cost so much in today's dollars.

Cyberfluxor's comment about systems being sold at a loss is also a very good point. When a manufacturer of a product sets its price point as a loss-leader (and not a retailer making that decision), inflation becomes even less useful of a measure.

[98PaceCar]

Inflation is NOT based upon income, for a starting point. Income can rise and fall completely independently from inflation. While it is certainly correct to say that $200 then was a greater investment when expressed as a percentage of income than $250 now, that is a calculation that has nothing to do with inflation.

Second, inflation is only an average of prices across many different consumer industries. Some things increase faster than others, and some decrease in price, so you cannot accurately pick a single product and say that the core inflation rate "proves" that that product would cost so much in today's dollars.

Cyberfluxor's comment about systems being sold at a loss is also a very good point. When a manufacturer of a product sets its price point as a loss-leader (and not a retailer making that decision), inflation becomes even less useful of a measure.

I will agree with what you have said for the most part. However, for this discussion, using inflation as a base comparison is more valid than comparing based on actual costs. These charts were put together to make the price of the PS3 (which is a much higher actual cost than almost all other consoles in hitory), seem more in line with where it should be. This is clearly comparing console costs over the years and given the amount of time that has passed since the first consoles have become somewhat mainstream, it seems like you have to factor in some manner of price adjustment to have a fair comparison. Applying inflation is a commonly used technique for that.

Truthfully, any data can be skewed to give any result that is desired. But at least here it's using a consistent method for generating what the current prices could have been, giving us a much fairer picture of where the PS3 price falls in line with other consoles of the past. No, there's no way to truly compare the prices on technology items, but for a basic comparison, this does an excellent job.

[KingCobra]

It all depends on what your buying, that's why the Inflation factor dosen't work in electronics.

A toyota cost what in 1980? cost what now? I doubt a Inflation factor of 2.5-1 is gonna work here, then theres the housing market. While food has stayed pretty level untill as of late.

I'm not saying that product X or Y isen't worth said price, some things are only worth what someone will pay and thats it.

Edit: Also the cost of living compared to 1980 as to now? Sheeeeeeeeiiitttt...


Nice topic, very hard to analyze current to old in the entertainment world.