This infographic reads to me as: Stop all your bitchin’ about prices!
Reads to me as, “I don’t know how to make a graph sorted by date”
Here is an actual historical graph.
You do understand it’s not sorted by date on purpose right? It’s sorted on price. and this actually really tells me why Nintendo Wii really was considered one of the cheapest consoles to date.
It’s not sorted by price, which makes it hard to read. Games have largely existed outside of inflation, with some possible exceptions (hell, look at Nintendo on that graph and it proves it) so sorting by inflation, which is an inexact science anyway, just makes it harder to read.
In what world is this not sorted by price. Agree or disagree with the relevancy of using inflation as a metric for comparing consoles, but the simple fact (fact, not opinion) is that this is sorted by inflation-adjusted price. That is not up for debate in any way at all.
It’s incredibly easy to read. The consoles at the top are the most expensive adjusted for inflation (i.e. relative cost) and the ones at the bottom are the cheapest adjusted for inflation (i.e. relatively easiest on the wallet). Doesn’t take a lot of effort to read.
Now… this would be better in a table that is sortable by any metric, as is often found in, for example, well-written wikipedia articles. That way you could sort by initial price, inflated price, year, alphabetical order, manufacturer, country of origin, or whatever… but those don’t play nicely with simple graphics.
Again… not difficult to comprehend dude.
And yet the Dreamcast still bombed…
That was because the PS2 was around the corner, which was promised amongst other things to be the cheapest DVD player on the market at the time. (and it did deliver on that one promise)
If the Dreamcast launched with the ability to play DVDs, it might have established a killer market dominance before PS2 launched.
On second thought, maybe not. Sega didn’t have DVD player tech in-house like Sony did and that probably would’ve upped the cost of the Dreamcast significantly.
Such a shame. The dreamcast was what forced everyone else to get off their complacent asses and develop their entries in that console generation. For that, Sega deserved better than what they got.
On the bright side, this forced Sega into the third-party software business. And that gave us Mario and Sonic at the Olympics! … Hey, wait a minute…!
You really can’t do such a comparison, as “inflation” would mean, that the prices remain the same on launch – but the profit margin is just smaller.
So the only interesting “info” in that graphic, are the launch prices in blue. Not the crazy “guess-timation” in black.
By “guesstimation” are you saying that it’s impossible to accurately calculate inflation? If so you are just plain wrong, or you don’t actually know what inflation is. To simplify inflation: our currency today does not have as much buying power as it did x years ago, so essentially a dollar in 1984 was worth more than a dollar is today. The adjusted prices in the graph simply take that into account. It’s like remember when you were a kid and you could get a candy bar and a coke for $1.00? Now you can’t even get a coke for $1.00, and forget about that candy bar.
Also, I could have sworn the PS3 only had the 599 price point at launch.
The price point on the 2600, intellevision and colecovision blow my mind. I’m amazed my parents coughed up the cash for these systems, Looking back, I’m pretty sure they weren’t early adopters, so maybe they were cheaper. Hell, my PS3 was only 350$ in 2011 money.
I know this would be hella hard to make, but I think something for each console that shows the average price it was bought at would be more informative (it would need either individualized or grouped inflation…ouch).
Something like…PS3 sold Z units in X year at Y price point -> convert to Z units of inflation adjusted dollars W. Repeat for other years and price points. At the end, take [ sum(W) / Z ] to get the average inflation-adjusted purchase price. Hella, hella, hella painful to do (mostly getting the data…).
The reason I bring this up is because some popular consoles didn’t sell much before a price drop (ex. 3DS).
I’m surprised by the dislike of using inflation-adjusted prices. In what world is “games have largely existed outside of inflation” true?? Games are made by people/companies who have to rent facilities and buy parts and pay wages at the then-current prices, and sold to people who have to also buy milk and gas and houses at then-current prices. So absolutely video games, just like anything else, are affected by inflation.
I enjoyed the chart, and appreciated the obvious message contained, which is: “Nintendo has historically had the cheapest consoles”. Nakomaru’s nice re-sorting of the same data chronologically leads to another, also interesting, message: “video game consoles have not, as a rule, been getting more expensive over time”.