I'm terrible at explaining this kind of thing or articulating it properly, not to mention not very educated about it, so I'll try to reply but I think we fundamentally are on the same page even if I'm explaining it poorly.
1) Dollars are worth less. Ok. I don't know why I was thinking they are worth more. I guess I thought because stuff costs more due to inflation, that we now have more money...that is worth...ok, I think I understand. We now may have more money that is worth less.
2) Consoles are 300-350 right now. That's true. But Nintendo consoles prior to HD were significantly less than that, in those days' dollars. And if our...bear with me here...if our dollars are worth less now, and we have more of them, aren't current consoles effectively even more expensive to us than they appear to be? Or, at the least, no cheaper than they were then. I'm confusing myself here.
3) Games are $90 with DLC? I don't really follow non-Nintendo games much. I don't think that's true of most Nintendo games, certainly most don't have paid DLC. I think they have been $50ish on average this gen on the Wii U, and same on the Wii also IIRC. So I'm just comparing Nintendo to Nintendo here.
4) I see what you're saying about consumer tech and deflation. But while the PS4 offers tech for a similar price as the SNES (current dollar now compared to inflation of worth of dollar back then), all Nintendo systems prior to the Wii U cost less than that. Basically, this was the biggest flop gen Nintendo has had in a lot of ways...ever?...and as such, given prior recent comments they've made, I'm not convinced they will go for a system of power level & price commensurate with what Wii U offered in 2012. If they do go for a price nearing $350 or $400, I imagine it will be much more in line with current power levels.
5) You said "our $300 or $60 is worth less than it used to be." Not at all meaning to be dense, but does that hold true for dollars spent on handheld and console gaming as well? Given the inching climb of actual game and console prices vs. inflation, it seems that is not the case. I admittedly might be completely misunderstanding any or all of this, though.
Thanks in advance for helping better my understanding of all this.
No problem, I'll go line by line.
1) That's right. We have "more" dollars, and each dollar is worth less. A dollar buys you less today than it did before. That's why items on the "dollar" menu are getting smaller, and the "dollar" menu is now the "value" menu, with items costing $2 or $3.
2) Consoles prior to HD were cheaper than $300 - $350 in dollars at their respective times. But those dollars were worth more than dollars are worth today. So the $200 N64 in 1996, is actually worth about $300 in 2016 dollars.
The $200 SNES in 1991 is worth $350 in 2016 dollars.
The real shocker, the $200 in 1986 is worth $430 in 2016 dollars.
So, when you ask:
"aren't current consoles effectively even more expensive to us than they appear to be? Or, at the least, no cheaper than they were then. I'm confusing myself here."
You're more correct that current consoles are no cheaper than they were then. They're around the same cost. The $400 is a little more than the avg nintendo console, but it's not so far off.
3) Fair point about comparing nintendo games. Current AAA games on other platforms will be $60, plus anywhere from $20 to $30 for a season pass of DLC. Nintendo I think is trying to make up other revenue in Amiibo, mobile, and the like. They're doing DLC as well, but they've never done a season pass.
4) I don't think the Wii U was that far off from what they've sold consoles for in the past. I think Wii and Gamecube were cheaper, but the rest were very close or the same (more in the case of NES, though NES was really first of its kind and could charge that premium for that type of exclusive experience at the time). The problem, as you said, is that the value didn't match the cost, in consumer's minds. I agree that their next system will try to offer better value, likely by offering power commensurate with what consumers expect out of a box of that price.
5) This is where it gets tricky. Our $300 buys less, in general, than it did in 1996. In 1991 you could get a N64 for $200. But what was a N64 compared to other tech at the time? I think at the time, up until the 360/PS3, consoles were still very low power toys that played video games. Now, they are expected to be higher end media boxes that play video games. They draw power comparable to PCs (though still pretty low). The older consoles didn't even have active cooling.
So what i'm saying is that even though the price of consoles has roughly stayed the same throughout time, you are getting way more for your money. This is due to the advancement in tech which makes things smaller, faster, and cheaper.
Not to disparage the older tech. PCs at the time also drew less power than PCs today. I'm just trying to get the point across that there is a deflationary trend in consumer tech that sort of counters the general price inflation. Which results in consumers getting way better stuff for comparable prices of yesterday, even when adjusted for inflation.
But to the original point, it is important to consider inflation when you compare consoles today to consoles of yesteryear. But value is subjective, and specific to the market which exists at the time. Wii U was bad value for its time (as judged by consumers). SNES was good value for its time.
