If you inherit a system from a relative, wouldn't it more likely be from a sibling than a parent? I think the number of people into games among my generation's parents is pretty small (I'm 28), and even it's even less likely for the parents of gamers older than myself. I mean, my mom and dad were already parents and well into adulthood when gaming first started to take off, and it seems very rare for someone to get into gaming if they weren't exposed to it prior to around 30. Granted, this point is null and void looking at today's kids since they have parents that grew up with video games.

But anyway, I wasn't lucky enough to inherit a system from anybody, and my first wasn't given to me either. While my brother got an NES as a birthday present and sold it off a few years later, I had to save the money I got for my birthday, Christmas, and such (my parents didn't do allowance) for awhile until at 11 I had the $100 or $125 or whatever it was to buy a SNES. That was the stand-alone model with no game and only one controller. I would've had to save much longer to get a game if not for the promotion Nintendo had going to get a free copy of Super Mario All-Stars with a SNES proof of purchase.

With my parents, consoles were usually too extravagant of a present since they didn't want to spend that much on me for a single birthday or holiday. Handhelds I could get away with since they were usually $100 tops. The only exception was the N64, and I'm sure it took my mom some convincing to spend the $200. Even then, we agreed that I would have to buy a game myself (since the N64 had no pack-in, of course). If I had kids, I think I'd be the same. Even if you're well off, I don't think kids should be getting all sorts of expensive gadgets. Kids that never learn that money doesn't grow on trees are the reason why we as collectors have deal with games and systems that were treated like crap because the kids never understood how expensive they were and that it was a real treat that they were given them.