Brilliant! I was hoping someone would compile this, and here it is!

Nice work!

Would be interesting to color-code based on which platforms were successes/failures (economically). Is there a magic pricepoint when looking at it historically & relatively?

By  kim, at 15 May, 2006 14:40  

Right, you should drop all the shit platforms no one played.

NES, SMS, SNES, Genesis, TG-16, Saturn, PS1, N64, DC, PS2, GC, 360, PS3, Wii.

Separate lists for handhels, too, please.

m.

By  Michael, at 15 May, 2006 14:56  

Michael:

I think it's actually informative to have the platforms that failed on the list. For instance, look at the two outliers, the NeoGeo and the 3DO. They were graphically/technically fantastic at the time they were released, but they failed compared to their modestly performing (but modestly priced) competitors.

By  Darius Kazemi, at 15 May, 2006 16:04  

Next are you going to make a graph of how we shouldn't be upset at a $5000 computer because they used to cost more?

How about a graph showing sales of units, one with sales of games, and one with game prices.

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 17:14  

Good work. Why are people telling you what to do next? Why don't you guys take it from here and create the lists that you want? The nerve of people these days.

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 19:09  

You made a good point, anything around the price of PS3 was a failure, 3d0 CDi, neo geo. thery were all graphically amazing for there time but they failed.

By  Splitt3r, at 15 May, 2006 19:12  

So, what this graph is saying is that a $600 console is going back to the days before the video game crash of '83. You know, the prices that caused the crash.

What this graph does show that ain't so bad is that most consoles post-83 have sold for $300-$400 relative to the value of today's dollar, which means the price of the 360 is actually reasonable.

If the Wii comes in under $225, it will be relatively the cheapest console of all time.

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 19:20  

draw a line of best fit through the nintendo consoles - each generation is more affordable than the last based on inflation. interesting.

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 19:23  

I thought this was an excellent way to present the facts for everyone to judge. But the bottom line is that the PS3 is still a bit pricey compared to the other consoles and I believe it will hurt Sony. I wouldn't be surprised if the other consoles even drop their prices slightly just to make Sony seem even more rediculous.

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 19:50  

Interesting indeed...but it seems that all the higher priced consoles...have failed.

Cheaper ones have also but I think the $300 mark seems to work fine.

By  Jason Stanley, at 15 May, 2006 20:32  

Well, the PS3 has been officially announced to cost 600$ now, if that makes any difference.

By  Tristamus, at 15 May, 2006 20:36  

Forgot to put the Turbo Grafx 16 console on there with te $400 CD player version!

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 20:37  

In response to the "shit platforms no one played" comment. Those were all pretyt mainstream platforms. It's not like he included things like Laseractive (which was 1,200.00), Amiga CD32 and a whole bunch of other overpriced failures. All of the systems he listed did reasonably well in North America.

By  Dan, at 15 May, 2006 20:38  

Dude, come on.

I mean, you don't count the PS3's $600 cousin?

Considering the cheaper one has horrible features, the graph is biased

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 21:01  

Whenever I see charts of absolute/relative pricing, I wonder just -how- the relative price is calculated. For example, all things being fair, the price of housing and the percentage of one's budget expected to go to housing have both gone up in the last 30 years. Is this comparison taking into account the number of discretionary dollars the average person has? How has the amount of discretionary income per person changed during the time of the earliest consoles to the present? Has the cost of producing high-tech components actually decreased over time, as some would assert? Are we looking at pure game systems or -- in the case of the PS3 -- something more akin to a home entertainment unit? I know. I know. I'm looking for more clarity than a pretty chart can deliver. We all seem to get so caught up in oversimplifications.

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 21:34  

"Considering the cheaper one has horrible features, the graph is biased"

And how so? Sure I'd agree if he had put the $400 xbox against the $500 ps3 but he did not. Anyway if you really want to be fair you have to add the cost of a hd-dvd player to the xbox as it currently ships with a dvd drive. From that point of view only the ps3 is next gen.

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 21:41  

You guys are out of line. If I did the work what would Matt have to obsess over all night while waiting for his free time to vanish in one momentous cry of life.

Darius, yeah I think it's informative too, I just want to see additional graphs. And then a bunch more that are per manufacturer, which would have pointed out the Nintendo trend some sharp-eyed lad saw.

m.

By  Michael, at 15 May, 2006 22:05  

Bro - right on.

Amazing how the Sony forces can't some up with something this obvious and simple to explain the cost basis.

Unfortunately, there's way too many LOUD, short-term memory, instant gratification, McDonald's laden-ass Americans that tend not to see the potential and value in a machine that will certainly change the home media entertainment experience.

Sony's been betting the future of the company on this machine since Samsung's spanked their ass like a "bad little pony" in some of the HT arena. Technology is great but it does become cheaper over time - i.e. harder to make a profit. CONTENT is where the all mighty $ is at.

People can bitch and moan all they want - enough already - the PS3 will sell out faster WORLDWIDE then M$ best wet dream. M$ will be playing follow the leader in 2007.

Sony will come up with some type of copy of the Wii controller. A sword. A gun. Crazy double-dong - whatever. The key is the hardware, peripherals, and Blu-Ray. Yes, Blu-Ray will win over time.

Add a quasi-Linux platform - please - it's a machine that you should sell your grandmother to the dog food factory - just kidding - Happy Mother's Day!!!!

By  Urf, at 15 May, 2006 22:08  

I've gotta echo some of the earlier posts...there have been alot of systems that cost more, especialy at today's value...but most of them were major flops...NeoGeo and CD-i i don't think many people owned, same for 3DO...i have one, but i got it at a going out of business sale for 20 bucks...so it doesn't really count. Saturn was about on par with PS3 at today's pricing...anyone care to weigh in on how that system fared? Hell, even in today's money TurboGrafix was cheaper, as was DreamCast...and those didn't even make it. I'll agree that price doesn't mean everything, but to me the graph just shows the PS3's going to have an uphill battle that it will probly loose, as has historicaly been the case with similarly priced units.

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 22:39  

Urf... I don't know what you are on but please pass some my way so I can see what you see...

PS3 will sell out faster than MS's wetdream? Why do you insist in using "M$" instead of "MS" when PS3 is the one that should be P$3 or $ony even... Are you so jaded with MS hate that you don't see the irony in your use of "M$"?

Bluray... sure it's great... but it is very expensive and it will not be mainstream for a long time to come. So you are correct in saying bluray will win over time (well MAYBE win... kind of up in the air over standards right now).

I think Nintendo will come out on top once again (after being the underdog for a long time), developers will come in droves to the platform for its ease of development, gamers will love it for the unique gameplay, new gamers will be attracted to its ease of play and the natural method of input. Price for the average person will be just right and the wii will be a common household name.

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 22:50  

Um, the Neo-Geo is one of the most successful platforms of all time. They still made games for it all the way up until 2003.

By  Anonymous, at 15 May, 2006 23:52  

Yeah me and my friends were playing Neo Geo all the time when we were growing up... oh wait, no, that's the otaku fanbois I know in their late-20s now, nevermind.

m.

By  Michael, at 16 May, 2006 01:31  

Anon: I don't think Neo Geo did well as a console. I wasn't able to find accurate figures online, but I recall it not doing well.

It *did* however, find a home as a standard for arcade hardware, thus the wide variety of games available for it.

If anyone has Neo Geo home system figures, please post!

Curmudgeon: Would also be interesting to post a mid-range to high-end gaming PC on the chart, as I think the price has stayed somewhat fixed, IIRC, but would ramp downward relatively speaking, due to inflation.

By  kim, at 16 May, 2006 01:37  

JVM:

I like the chart. Shows a lot about the consoles that have been on the market and the couple that are to come in the near future.

I agree that the price will hit Sony pretty hard. The feature-war with Microsoft is going to hurt them, even with being a linux-based system.

In addition, with the recent bad press at Sony over DRM and root-kits, I think Sony has an uphill battle for the next 4 to 5 years, regardless of how nice the concolse is.

I, personally, am betting money on Wii. Nintendo has a great platform coming out. Especially for those of us who don't need or want Sony or Microsoft's added features.

Blu-ray technology is still in its infancy. It will be at least 3 years before blu-ray makes it mainstream, as it does for most new technologies. So, if Sony can hold out at 600 dollars per for 2-3 years, they will get back some of the market share that they will lose because of the pricetag. However, if Microsoft and Nintendo manage to come out with the next generation of consoles prior to that mark, Sony will be on its way out.

Anyways, said my peace. Love the graphs.

By  Jim, at 16 May, 2006 02:12  

everyone talking out their asses should stop. this guy made a very well detailed graph with accurate info, if you dont like it you can go look up the facts for yourselves. you all complain way too much.

600 is not that much and besides in about or less than a years time the price will drop just like the 360 is and any other console from before has done. if you hate the price soo much DONT BUY it, honestly it might save you time just to wait till the price goes down a little .as most any/all consoles past and more than likely future will all have bugs at first, like the 360's now or the ps2's back in 2001 with the bad optical drives.

get over it and just buy all 3.. like most of you will. but if not buy what you can afford its not that hard

By  jgh, at 16 May, 2006 04:39  

70% of PS2 sales happened after the big price drop. This is a common pattern.

By  smeeee, at 16 May, 2006 05:56  

how'd you make those graphs. they look nice. better than excel lol

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 06:05  

As for Neo Geo being successful, it's important to note that SNK did not market to the mainstream and simply don't manufacture the machines to the level that Nintendo and others did. Thus, they knew knew their niche auidence would put out more money and could sell at a price would they could make profits.

It depends how you define success. For Market share, it was not that much is certain and SNK has since been bought out by another company.

Currently, Sony and Microsoft have bigger marketshare than Nintendo, but are losing money. Nintendo is actually posting profits. So who is really winning?

By  Andrew, at 16 May, 2006 06:06  

I am not sure on this, but I think Nintendo has profited on it console sales while everyone else sells for a loss and hopes to make it up on the sale of games. Just a little food for thought.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 06:25  

Seems a good chance that Wii will be $200 on release too, looking at the graphs...

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 06:31  

For those who point out that all the outliers were very poor sellers, please look at the first outlier that was not a poor seller. The PS2 was signifigantly higher-priced than any other console that didn't flop horribly. And yet, the PS2 is probably the most-sold unit on the entire chart.

An interesting tidbit also illustrated by the very nice images above.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 06:32  

Haha look at the NEO GEO!

By  web design uk, at 16 May, 2006 06:34  

Bah, I click on the graphs and get "Host your own images.".

By  Nige, at 16 May, 2006 07:03  

People forget with PS3 you get 2 things, a game console and a Blu-ray player, whatever you want it or not

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 09:21  

Where's the Nintendo VirtualBoy (aka THE GREATEST CONSOLE SYSTEM EVER)?????

By  VirtualBoy, at 16 May, 2006 10:18  

This is oversimplified and it just doesn't show the reality of the situation.

I mean, for one, explain why games are cheaper now than they were -- even when no counting inflation.

This shit don't smell right. Just counting inflation doesn't really show the full picture. What you need to take into consideration is, also, how much of a loss the console makers are taking per system (this business practice wasn't as prevalent a decade ago as it is now, the big multinationals contributed to that when they entered the game), what comes with the consoles (with the NES, I got three games, a lightgun, and a fucking robot -- new consoles? Zilch. There's value added there that isn't being counted.), and the general rise of efficiency in tech manufacturing, which would work against inflation (just a guess, but I think we're better at making chips now than we were in the early 80s. Even if we are building top of the line shit, the sheer volume would likely lower the price).

So really, it's an interesting chart, but not actually all that useful.

By  n0wak, at 16 May, 2006 10:57  

You should all just take the information that he's posted and digest it, and not complain about the data that's not there.

First, yes it's cheaper to produce things now than in the 80's, if you were producing something with the same power. You can buy a system now that has 30 Atari 2600 games on it with 2 controllers for $20. That's how that's reflected. Throw in the new technology, and, for all intents an purposes, the price remains flat for production.

If we're going down that road, though, you have to take into account the other ancilliary costs and societal changes in the US, Europe, and Japan since 1978. How many TVs did a household usually have in 1978? How much did a 19" color TV cost compared to now, with and without inflation? How many gamers now are going to insist on having the 36" widescreen LCD HDTV instead of a CRT 19" to play their games, and the costs that go with that? What kind of competition did consoles face with home computers like the Apples, the Commodores, and the Ataris (400 & 800)--which also needed a TV? Think about the fact that a floppy drive for one of those home computers back then cost more than what you can buy a PC for now. Take into consideration that if you wanted to play your Atari 2600, which basically started the console idea, you had to fight with your parents who wanted to watch "All in the Family".

But, we won't do those things because we're looking at price. It's a simple blog post. If you want more than that, someone will need to write a book on society, economics, and video game consoles. Then you can buy that and complain to the author about missing data.

After all of that, the PS3 seems to me like more of a gouge to me than the PS2 was, but a lot of people will still buy it. I'm interested in seeing how the Wii fares through all of this, with its lower level of technology, its new controller, its predicted lower price, and its focus on content.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 11:39  

I agree with Novak. The information about inflation is certainly interesting, but it doesn't take into account that tech keeps getting cheaper and cheaper to produce which is COUNTER to inflation. If you want to use inflation as part of your reasoning to see if the PS3 price is good or not, then that reasoing can only be complete if you consider above factor as well. Otherwise it will be a flawed reasoning, no matter how you look at it.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 12:16  

somethings you DONT say.
1. Prices in manufactouring havent gone up in over 20 years. With improvements in computerization, Cad/cam. Prices are about the same(HERE in US) even with fewer personel.
2. Even China and Japan, have products BUILT in other countries, Unlike in the PAST, built in own nations, to have a better cost.
3. MANY companies are learning, that MARKUP prices in the US, are GREAT, and the COST of making the PS3, UNDER the SONY LOGO, is probably $125.
4. your CHART dont take in 2 other things. TIME and AMOUNT sold. the C64 sold MORe when it hit $100 then at the $200 price point.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 12:45  

it should be noted that this uses CPI, which is probably an over estimate of inflation

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 12:45  

To bring up a trifling point. :-)

1977 RCA Studio II (I only know about them since I just acquired one by chance) $149.

By  MIPS, at 16 May, 2006 12:50  

"Unfortunately, there's way too many LOUD, short-term memory, instant gratification, McDonald's laden-ass Americans that tend not to see the potential and value in a machine that will certainly change the home media entertainment experience."

Translation: You're too fat, lazy, stupid and cheap to see that Sony knows the best way for you to spend your money.

By  Crap Filter, at 16 May, 2006 13:13  

I owned a PS2, an Xbox, and a GC. I felt that of the three the Xbox was the best platform as far as graphics/controller/live were concerned. PS2 had differentiation with a few platform specific, outstanding games (God of War, SoCOM). GC was the best priced, but its lineup of games was lacking and very kid focused.

In that round of the console war, PS2 won. Personally, I believe the only reason they won was because 1. They beat Xbox to the market (most people usually only buy 1 console and Xbox was not a superior enough system to justify another purchase if you already bought a PS2). 2. The PS2 price drop came before the Xbox price drop (the market share of the bargain buyers was captured).

I think you will see more of the same with this round of the console wars. 360 will win due to making it to the market first, and they will drop their price first.

While there are hardcore fans of each system that will only buy Sony or MS products, I believe most people will purchase the first next gen console available...ie 360.

Nintendo will once again be 3rd unless they can escape the kiddie image.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 13:17  

"Nintendo will once again be 3rd unless they can escape the kiddie image."

Man, i guess you didn't watch E3 did you? 2nd place is ASSURED. As far as i'm concerned the wii can even get 1st this time around.

Only the loser is yet to be determined. Will it be Sony? Or MS?

Anyways, regarding the reason Sony won, i agree, but you left an important thing out. BRAND RECOGNITION. Sony simply has more brand recognition than MS (for consoles that is). It's the most important reason.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 13:23  

Cool! I did a similar analysis a while ago when the Xbox360 price was first announced (although not as thorough as yours). I think another interesting graph would be price point (with or without inflation) vs. units sold. Obviously the price drops for various systems spurred sales, but it'd be interesting to quantify that effect.

Also, very pretty graphs!

By  Ted Mielczarek, at 16 May, 2006 13:25  

To be honest, I don't know that Brand Recognition was that much of a factor in round 1 of the console wars. Sure everyone knew of Sony due to the PS one and MS had not previously released a console, but MS is every bit as much of a household name as Sony (if not more!), and people knew MS would not enter into the console business without making a competetive product.

Regardless, I don't feel brand recognition will play into round 2. It's coke vs pepsi now. They are both equally well known.

And yes... I did watch e3 and see the huge crowds going to Nintendo and skipping past Sony and MS, but I don't feel that is indicative of a win for the Wii. The Wii is the new gimmick that people wanted to see is all. When I go to the Circus, I line up to see the bearded lady, but I don't want to bring her home to my bed!

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 13:37  

"To be honest, I don't know that Brand Recognition was that much of a factor in round 1 of the console wars. Sure everyone knew of Sony due to the PS one and MS had not previously released a console, but MS is every bit as much of a household name as Sony (if not more!), and people knew MS would not enter into the console business without making a competetive product."

Believe me, brand recognition was a HUGE factor. You only have to walk on the street and ask about their opinions of Nintendo, Sony, etc.

To not realize how huge the hype was for Sony is to not understand the market at all. That hype already killed Sega. And it would have killed MS were it not that MS has a sh#tload of money.

The xbox was superior to the PS2 in every way possible. And yet it performed badly compared to the PS2. No headstart can explain the gap between xbox and PS2.

"Regardless, I don't feel brand recognition will play into round 2. It's coke vs pepsi now. They are both equally well known."

I somewhat agree on this. I think the hype for PS3 will give Sony a good launch. After that, consider them dead meat unless they come with a massive price drop.

"And yes... I did watch e3 and see the huge crowds going to Nintendo and skipping past Sony and MS, but I don't feel that is indicative of a win for the Wii. The Wii is the new gimmick that people wanted to see is all. When I go to the Circus, I line up to see the bearded lady, but I don't want to bring her home to my bed!"

Well, press has been incredibly positive about the wii. I don't think we can call it a gimmick any longer. Especially if you consider what happened with the DS.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 13:47  

If history is to be any guide, based SOLELY on price, this graph shows that the PS3 is doomed for failure. Any console to be released in the last 20 years costing as much as it will has died a lonely death.

However, it is important to note that all of those consoles were the "new kid on the block" when they launched. Sony has an extremely loyal (to put it almost too politely) following. That will certainly play an unpredictable factor in this console's success.

So, in short, as others have said, the data is definitely interesting, but price alone will not sink their ship.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 14:03  

It won't sink them, but i doubt they will be able to retain first place this time around. Compare the situation around the N64 with the PS3. The similarities are alarming.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 14:13  

I'm glad someone took the time to do this. I mentioned this over at the gamepolitics message board and more or less got ignored.
Regarding the fact that no one bought the higher cost consoles so they shouldn't be on there. Well, no one's bought a PS3 yet either...
I think all this moaning about the price is boring. If it is too high, then don't buy it. I'm not going to. (But then again I don't have a PS2 either...)

By  Bryan-Mitchell, at 16 May, 2006 14:13  

Having read through all the comments above I'd like to echo the comments about being good charts.

All the rest of the commenters saying "oh they are way to simplified blah blah...." are trying to look to much into the item. All this is meant to be is a basic comparison of the relative and absolute costs of the consoles. It doesn't deal with how many units each sold, or wheather the console was sold at a profit or loss. For information like that you'd need a whole article on it not just 2 charts and a heck of a lot more research!
I can safely say that all the people who have looked at this page know which systems flopped and can draw their own conclusions from that point. I do agree that $600 is expensive for a console but I do remember a comment sometime ago from a sony guy (I can't remember who, someone high up) commenting that the PS3 would be priced at a point where people would need to save up for it indicating then they intended to price it high then!

By  Mark, at 16 May, 2006 14:22  

http://www.ralphbaer.com/odyssey_ad.htm#page%201

Would be cool to start this with the Odyssey 1 which sold for $99 in 1972. It was after all the first ever home console.

By  Artoo, at 16 May, 2006 14:23  

I think $ony is still going to sell, but for people looking at price vs capabilities, Nintendo may be up there. I haven't owned a Nintendo since SNES, but I may have to get the Wii when it comes out. The archived game option would be cool, but I have all those on emulators on my xbox. The size and controller does it for me. Maybe they'll keep the $200 price tag that they've had on all of their other systems? That would also keep with the trend of the relative price going down.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 15:07  

"Maybe they'll keep the $200 price tag that they've had on all of their other systems? That would also keep with the trend of the relative price going down."

If they do, I'll mark Nintendo down for the win. The Wii looks really damn fun, and it would be very hard to resist at that price point.

By  Topher, at 16 May, 2006 15:44  

It's not inflation, though... it's relative prices.

When the NES came out, no computers on the planet were of a comparable price. In fact, it was a 10X difference!

Now, though, $600 could buy a completely capable computer! I'm not talking about the nerds, I'm talking about the everyday household that wants a couple of games and broadband internet. Then again, $600 could buy a car. A CAR!

I know that's not a great argument, but inflation isn't justification for such a huge price jump! Parents won't buy it and neither will teenagers. The majority of the sales will go to male college graduates (who have jobs) under 30 (or who perceive they are under 30).

A good deal of people have made their PS3 case with the idea that everyone who currently owns a PS2 will *have* to upgrade to the next-gen console. Just because there is something new, it doesn't mean that everything else is dead...

Let's have a similar chart examining the purchasing trends of different ages over the same amount of time. New is good, but lately new hasn't been great. I don't remember seeing computer sales going through the roof every time a new bell or whistle comes out...

but then again, i own a PC.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 15:51  

Also interesting would be a graph with inflation-adjusted price on one axis and units sold (or market share if doable) on the other.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 15:51  

I thank the author for taking the time out to show us the prices of past systems.

I appreciate your work.

Thank you.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 16:16  

Interesting...Can't help but notice even the great systems for their time (3DO and NeoGeo) paled in units sold to the lesser and more reasonably priced systems.

I think back to those days and I remember knowing 2 people that had either one of those (1 neogeo and 1 3DO). While I can't think of a person who didn't have the Sega Genisis or Nintendo of that era.

You would think Sony would have paid attention.

The pricetags on console are way out of line when you factor in things like automation and cheaper components of todays market. They are at or near the range of lowend laptops without all the funcionality or one of the main high dollar components a laptop posses (the display).

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 16:26  

Thank you very much for going to the trouble of compiling this graph, I've being wanting to see how everything stacks up.

As someone else said, it would be nice if you were to add in the prices of the other TG-16 systems. The CD add on for the base TG-16 was around and extra $200, and the al-in-one console, the Turbo Duo was in the $400 range, I think.

I love the Neo Geo, but I managed to save money by buying an arcade unit. MVS arcade carts cost much less than the home console counterparts.

And as far as Blu-ray is concerned. Am I the only one here who remembers Beta Max? Sony's attempt to fight against VHS, which ultimately failed. I have a feeling we're going to see a similar fight between HD dvd and Blu-ray.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 16:35  

$400 Adjusted, the magic mark

It seems that nothing over $400 USD has ever been successful in North America. If we had sales figures for all of this, we could complile a statistical probability of the PS3 being successful based on price alone.

Added to the fact that the developers are screaming about not having dev kits and having no idea how to program for cell and I'd say Sony's got an uphill battle. Better graphics and a better storage format doesn't always win. (Case in point, PSP vs. DS, the DS is smoking the PSP in sales).

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 16:41  

November 1st you'll see Sony announce the "real" price after they kept the 360 price high by having their price where it is currently. I'm guessing $350/450. Le Shock!!

By  Jamie, at 16 May, 2006 16:45  

I don't give a shit if the Neo Geo is 900 dollars, 600 dollars for a console is _also_ ridiculous.

I'm sticking to the Wii, because I'm a 14 year old who doesn't have 600 dollars for a console that I probably won't play much anything.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 16:54  

Genesis launched at $249 in 1989, not $190...

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 16:56  

Jamie, that assumes Microsoft won't just lower the price of the X-box 360 at that time. Pricing reductions probably make a bigger impact relative to another console that's on sale than when they're unprompted.

artoo, the list is actually fairly selective. It only covers the "default" systems sold in the U.S. that are programmable and not portable. JVM knows enough about consoles to probably have made these choices on purpose to keep it relative brief and comprehensible to Joe Average Gamer.

One of the anonys: do you FIND that people PAY more ATTENTION to you when you CAPITALIZE random WORDS?

To the room: One thing that's interesting to note is that, in general, consoles prices have remained more-or-less constant. The Atari 2600 *and* the Gamecube both debuted at $200. Further, most systems become popular when their pricing hits $200. This seems to indicate that a magic number is more important to console pricing than inflation.

By  JohnH, at 16 May, 2006 17:03  

Great post. Really interesting.
Thanks a lot.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 17:16  

You know what you people remind me of? That Comic Book guy on the Simpsons who just can't leave well enough alone. So he drones on over something completely and utterly inconsequential until you're just sick of hearing it. But that's the thing. He's a stereotype. He's comic relief. You people are the real deal, and it's just not funny. Yes, graphs are nice. Graphs are vague. When I see them, I don't mention the specifics of the consoles that aren't on the list, or the lack of economic data needed to make an accurate rendering of the information in that computer model I'm working on. Rather, I think to myself, "wow, that's interesting." Then I read a couple comments, generally assume the commenters are complete morons, and leave it at that. But you. All of you... Jesus Christ guys, when was the last time any of you actually left your computers or gaming systems and saw some sun light, talked to a girl maybe? These responses are the reason people make fun of gamer geeks. This exact thing. It's also a big reason why it's getting harder to find interesting and well thought out content on the Internet these days. Sheesh, with an audience like this, would you blame this guy if he never wanted to post again? I certainly wouldn't.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 17:23  

3do and neo geo didn't sell much as home consoles... anyone making comparisons already? i am

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 17:43  

I completely love people's argument on the ps2 price and its sales. does anyone realize only 30 million sold at $299? 73 million sold when they dropped the price to $199 TWO years later. TWO years. After two years they decided to drop as they realized it wasn't selling all that well. Going expensive isn't always the best answer. Personally the 360 is more of a Xbox 1.5. I don't see the big improvement in gameplay except a little on graphics and unless you got an HDTV you can't see it.
Think Realistically. How many people have HDTV nowadays in the US, I would overestimate at somewhere between 15 and 20%. That's ridiculous. I don't mind them being out. I am indifferent about the Xbox although I don't think it'sa good system I don't mind it. I just hate when the xbox fans are all over it like fucking sucking microsoft's dick and preaching to everybody about xbox... I think everyone here knows the industry would be swell with just sony and nintendo.

As for the PS. TOTAL disaster. First of all they went the microsoft way by making 2 systems, the poor ass one and the regular, and let me just point out that microsoft made it ok at least, Poor ass one at 300 and reg at 400. No, sony made poor ass one at 500 and reg at 500. Let me tell you it doesn't even come with wifi installed. Not even a wireless controller. What kind of competition is that at 500 dollars sony. And rumble-less? what the hell are they thinking?

Truthfully none of the so called "next gen" systems are next gen. We have 3 candidates, PS2.5, Xbox 1.5 and Wii. And quite frankly anyone can agree the only real improvements in the xbox and playstation are the graphics. what is next gen about that? sounds liek a video card upgrade and nothing else. Wii is undoubtedly the only true nextgen. The other companies are too scared to throw out a controller like that afraid they'll be laughed at. Well guess what, that's why nintendo has always been and always will be the only one of the 3 that profits from selling the consoles.


Point made

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 18:32  

Great graphs, thanks! Ignore the nay-sayers!

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 19:14  

Like i said before, the graphs are interesting. Just don't think you can use them to argue that the PS3 price isn't that high.

By posting thses graphs, i can only assume someone wanted to make a point. I don't know what that point exactly was, but the bottomline is that those graphs simply aren't enough to make a judgement call on the PS3 price. If the poster didn't have any purpose towards that direction, fine. If the people that respond don't pursue that line of reasoning, that's also fine. Just as long as you are all aware that this data is interesting , but of no conequence.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 19:25  

You might consider making it a scatter plot graph with time on the x-axis and price on the y-axis. That would allow you to plot the multiple prices of the various consoles as they drop in price over time.

It is interesting that few consoles over the adjusted $300 have been successful in the last couple of generations...

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 19:42  

Interesting graph. Well presented!

On another note, one of the possible reasons for the PS3's high price is the cost of developing and initial manufacteuring startup cost for the blu-ray drive. This is hi-level technology, and until they get into the required rythem, cost will be high. But once they do, manufacturing cost will plummet.

Also, what about the Sega Master System? I know it came to North America (and was too late to get 3rd party support) but it had superior graphics to the NES. What was its debut price, and what would that be compared to the others on the chart?

By  Jimir, at 16 May, 2006 19:45  

Although the graph may adjust for CPI - the standard tool for measuring inflation - I do not believe it adjusts for real wages, which have been static since the nineties.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 19:45  

Very interesting. Seems that, when adjusted for inflation, the PS3 sits at about the same price point as every pre-'86 console release, and well below the cash-mongers that were the Neo-Geo and CD-i.

Guess this isn't such a huge price when you take history into account, no does it echo console sales, Atari platforms sold very well in those days.

And to echo an ealier post - console prices did not cause the videogame crash, overproduction and lack of quality software did. As long as Sony invests its time into the development of quality software (Final Fantasy XIII and MGS4 are givens), the company has nothing to fear.

Polls already place the interest in PS3 alongside that of Nintendo Wii despite the price.

By  Yoshino Kurokawa, at 16 May, 2006 19:59  

"Very interesting. Seems that, when adjusted for inflation, the PS3 sits at about the same price point as every pre-'86 console release, and well below the cash-mongers that were the Neo-Geo and CD-i.

Guess this isn't such a huge price when you take history into account, no does it echo console sales, Atari platforms sold very well in those days."

This is why people are so against on using inflation as a factor. To prevent these kinds of replies. You CANNOT use inflation as an argument for the PS3 price. The reasons why have already been discussed.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 20:02  

This is cool, but doesn't take into account, that the systems dropped in price over time. So this only takes into account the early adopter market. I think when video game consoles were in their infancy, not many people knew or cared about them, there was less of an early adopter market. Now a days we have pre-orders when a console has not even been priced yet! And the real cost of the console is subsidized in software sales and accessories.

Of course it would always be nice if the graph took into account the price of the consoles over time, and the number of units sold over time.

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 20:27  

The reason people complain about the PS3 price, is that there hasn't been a high cost console in the last 11 years (Saturn).

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 20:31  

Here's a quick graph I made of console price (adjusted for inflation) versus how many units sold. Notes: Price is in tens of dollars to make it scale well with the units sold, which is in millions of units. I did not include several of the consoles mentioned in this articles graphs, because I could not find unit sales data for them. Most of the unit sales data was gleaned from wikipedia. Price adjusted for inflation was gleened from this article.

Also, ignore Row 11, Row 14, Row 19, and Row 25 - they're spacers so I could space out the generations a little bit. I couldn't figure out how to keep only those labels hidden in OpenOffice - apologies! it's still fairly readable, though.

http://drwilco.net/~pookie/temp/console_graph.gif

So, a few observations:

In every generation, the most expensive console sold the worst - except in the latest generation, where the PS2 sold the best. Of course, this is an aggregate units sold - I'm sure a lot of those sales of the PS2 were after its initial price drop.

It seems that -generally- the middle-priced or the cheapest console sells the best: the Atari 2600 in the second generation (I didn't map out the first generation), the NES in the third generation, the SNES in the fourth, the Playstation in the fifth, and the statistical outlier is the PS2 in the sixth. I'm not a statistician, so I can't really predict how well the seventh generation (Wii, Xbox 360, PS3) will perform based soley on price. I did not include the 360 in this graph, as it is for historical value - and as of yet it has no competition in the home console area.

If I had to make an educated guess, due to the fact that every console that's sold over 500 dollars (not including the second generation outlier, the 2600) has sold VERY poorly, the highest sales of which in each generation being the Atari 2600, the NeoGeo, and the Sega Saturn. The NeoGeo can still be considered a success, however, as it's been included in many many arcade cabinets around the world.

Also of note, is that the Sony consoles have historically sold VERY well, often doubling or tripling the sales of their competitors. Very interesting indeed...

By  Pookie, at 16 May, 2006 23:16  

To let everyone know, as of 2005 *% of the US has HDTVs, can't have gone about 10% since then....

By  Anonymous, at 16 May, 2006 23:38  

But this isn't totally fair.

Lets say you had your $200 dollars in 1977. But you decided to not buy an Atari, and wait 29 years to do it.

And, for the sake of this exercise, lets say that today you can still buy the same 1977 Atari, but at the inflation adjusted price of 1977, that is, $659.41.

The logical thing to do with your $200 dollars it to put them in the bank. I can get a 3.0% interest rate easily on a local bank. If you go here

http://www.civila.com/comun/calculadoras/interescompuesto.asp

You can calculate how much money you get. I did it, and, $200 dollars in 29 years at an rate of 3.0%, gives us a grand total of

$471.31

Which is still not enough to buy the Atari, but if you do the math inflation has made the console only

$659.41 / $471.31 = 1.399 times more expensive.

then 1.399 * $200 = $279.82 which is the real price in 1977 dollars.

So the PS3 is still too expensive.

By  El Fly, at 17 May, 2006 00:04  

You should use the inflation and cost of living calculators at How Much Is That?. A better measure is the cost in relation to minimum wage. You know the cost for teenage boys which still a major market for consols.

By  Baron von Feldspar, at 17 May, 2006 00:35  

"The logical thing to do with your $200 dollars it to put them in the bank. I can get a 3.0% interest rate easily on a local bank."

Of course, that doesn't make any sense: you have to use the relevant interest rate from 1977. Even treasury bonds were paying 6% back then--in fact, that's why inflation was so high. Point is, you wouldn't invest at 3%. The inflation calculation in the graph is fine.

By  Anonymous, at 17 May, 2006 01:43  

Fan boys are in the minority when it comes to spending power. People for whom the price of the PS3 is not an issue, will no doubt either have a decent PC and/or will buy all 3 consoles (yay for me :) )so they don't really effect much. Lets face it, the majority of consoles are bought by parents/relatives for their kids and which console they will buy is going to be the deciding factor. For the Xbox/GC/PS2 round, brand name, price and image was the defining factor that guaranteed the PS victory. Most parents/reltives had not heard of or were unaware of the xbox until late in the cycle, with the GC still sadly retaining the kiddy console image ( the lack of dvd drive was a defining factor as well for the GC as a lot of parents on tight budgets would get the PS2/Xbox for DVD playback). Now however, for the next round the xbox is every bit as much a household name the playstation and is much more attractively priced. Add that to the kids wanting the same as thier friends, if after the first year thier friends have 360's, thats what they will be asking for. With the near year headstart of the 360 (that is in both marketing presence, games and sales) and the inevitable price drop upon the PS3's launch and you can guarantee that Sony will have their work cut out for them. You could also argue that alot of parents this time round will be more tech savy, in which case are more likley to be aware that in terms of performnance the 360 and PS3 are the same, which does makes things initially more damning for sony, a lower priced, well known equal performing 360 is going to be tuff to beat.

Personally I'll get all 3 as I tend to buy for the games and each console will have some cracking platform specific titles.

By  DED DOA, at 17 May, 2006 02:19