I've never seen an inflation model used on cars, and houses are still just walls - no significant advances besides the amount of time they take to put up. Plus, housing includes land, which doesn't change.

You never compare opportunity costs between different times in history. It takes way to much work to make them close enough to compare. Its much more in depth than just comparing opportunity costs.

Well, I guess I'll be getting the $399 model. It just doesn't make sense not to when the HDD is $100 on its own, and if you get the $299 model you would have to buy a $40 memory card that you aren't likely to use much, if at all, once you do spring for the HDD. Having the controller wireless isn't that big of a deal to me, but still a nice bonus.

Having the HD pack is irrelevant to me, since I want (no, need ) the VGA pack. If you need S-video you have to buy that pack, even with the $399 model. What I wish they would have done with the $399 model is include a coupon that is instantly redeemable (no mail-in deal) for your choice of component, S-video, or VGA video connections. That way, everybody can get just the connections they need and nothing they don't need. I imagine most people won't be using VGA, but there's got to be a lot of people who use S-video and will have an HD pack they won't use, at least until they get an HDTV. Oh well, at least the VGA pack is cheaper than the Neoya x2vga+ I got for my Xbox, which was $69.95 plus shipping.

Josh Hinkle
DVD Talk Legend

Join Date: 05-20-99
Total Posts: 18,420 (8.07 posts per day)

Somebody clearly doesn't understand the purpose of keeping track of annual inflation rates. You can try to figure out roughly the equivalent dent to your bank account of today, given the timing and the amount of the purchase.

It doesn't matter if that thing is even being produced/experienced today. If the methodology has been the same, you can look at society's best estimate of what a barrel of 1860 whale oil, World War 2, the Apollo space program, or yes, acreages of land would set you back in today's terms.

The idea that there's no inflation dealing with land purchases alone is stunning.

That would be you.

What? That's horribly worded. But any person who has done any statistical analysis knows that in order to get any meaningful results, you have to only have one variable. That would be time in this situation.

An acre of land in 1805 is the same (ignoring certain environmental factors) as an acre of land in 2005. Whale oil does not equal crude oil. I would love for you to find a graph which combines two different products over time. Find me these crude oil prices as a continuation of whale oil prices.

And I never said there was no inflation on land - you need to reread what I wrote.

And all that time here and I've never memorized what other people post here and spout it back randomly.

Or taken the time to pull up another members stats to make a lame point.

Nice try.

Here. Go argue with the US Department of Labor...

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm Click on Inflation Calculator.

Find that $370 in 1980 has the same buying power as $877.40 in 2005. Thus, something that costs $399 today hits the average consumer far less.

It doesn't matter whether today's 'something' is the exact same thing, or a second thing, which you seem to be obsessed with.

Most people here could probably use that site not only to compare the price of a dozen eggs now versus 50 years ago, but, amazingly, to also use that site to figure out, for example, whether the pedigreed dachshund at today's local pet store is cheaper than their 1983 VCR, adjusted for inflation.

Apparently not all can, though.

A 1935 Mercedes-Benz 500K Spezial Roadster costs $10,780 in 1935 ($153,752.2 in 2005 dollars) and a 2005 Kia Rio is $10,735. Meaning a car in 1935 costs a lot more than a car in 2005.

A 1935 Ford Model T costs $300 in 1935 ($3349.71 in 2005 dollars) and a 2005 Kia Rio is $10,735. Meaning a car in 1935 costs a lot less than a car in 2005.

If you can't see the problem that is created when you don't keep the actual product you are comparing fixed, then I'm just wasting my time.

They are all cars, just like all the things you want to compare are all videogame systems.

Guys, dismissing inflation is insane. The SNES cost $300 to own compared to today's currency. I would fairly give it an actual cost of $250 since it did include Mario ($50 value). I'm guessing Josh Hinkle waited until it dropped below $200 ($134) to buy it though. I KEED I KEED.

That's why employees of the US government try to look at the exact same 80,000 goods and services each month to come up with the inflation numbers. I've already stated twice that the inflation numbers are imperfect since there are changes in quality (although they do try to account for that).

However, if you still can't answer the simple question, "Which cost more... an Intellivision in 1980/81 versus an Xbox 360 in 2005?", because there are differences between them, then indeed you are wasting your time.

You can either dismiss it or use it as part of a greater affect on pricing. Because technological items have too many factors to account for, its much easier to dismiss (especially when when there are people whose life work is to solve these issues, and people here are trying to do it in 5 minutes).

And as I showed above, unless you keep the product you are comparing fixed, you get worthless results.

I guess theres probably a point that the casual gamer's preferred price point should not be compared using inflation because these casual gamers probably never purchased a Atari or Saturn and don't necessarily have the same concept of a consoles value.

I do find it entirely hypocritical that hardcore gamers on this forum would apparently scream blue murder if Square charged $60 for Final Fantasy XII, and yet they probably shelled out $60 ($80-90 in todays money) without even blinking for the SNES versions. $60 is a lot more money when you're a kid too. Of course I'm excusing anyone whos still studying full time and is really on an extremeley tight budget (sounds like there are a few of you), but for anyone on a normal salary, I really don't get it.

Did it ever drop that low? I had already bought a Megadrive and was never able to afford the SNES as well. Of course these days I own every console and it seems normal somehow .

The "consumer basket" changes with the times. In the 80's, you will not see many of the things that make up the current consumer basket of today.


Yes, an Intellivision in 1980 costed more than a Xbox360 in 2005 - but that is because they are different products! 90% of people interested in the Xbox360 in 2005 would have had no interest in an Intellivision in 1980. It was a different product serving a different purpose. Just as the Mercedes in my example serves a different purpose than the Model T, the Intellivision served a different purpose than the Xbox 360. Yes, they both play games, but don't the Mercedes and Model T both transport people?

I can easily answer the question, but the answer has no meaning.

my brain hurts. This is like Econ 101.

For this statement to be true, wouldn't you have to assume that income and expenditures are equal to the inflation rate that you are using? 25 years ago people didn't blow their income like they do today(witness credit cards, child care since all mommies work now, etc.). Therefore $370 in 1980 actually hit the average consumer far less. No?

To Vandelay Inds... I picked the Intellivision of 1980/81 because I wanted to. I know exactly what I paid for it, and I know exactly when I paid for it.

And it's one of the few that IGN (I believe) didn't include in their recent article which was all about console prices, after inflation. (They got the initial Genesis price wrong, by the way.)

Obviously, adjusting for inflation, prices have gone up and down, with Xbox 360 being an up. So? It's not like I'm advocating the wisdom of MS. Announcing a $399 price after all the talk of 'one sku', 'standard hard drive', and 'the importance of $300' was incredibly stupid. Peter Moore, J Allard, and Steve Ballmer shouldn't have given any answers other than "No comment" in their interviews in recent months.

The only logical way to compare prices through time is to adjust for inflation. Some said you can't do that, which drew me in, to point out one specific example. IGN can handle the rest.

Good lord, Josh does spend a boatload of time on DVDTalk. It's a wonder he has any time to actually play video games.

They did:

Now why can't you accept that?

He doesn't. Why play when you can criticize all day long, everyday for free?

OK OK that's enough

You're introducing anectdotal evidence "nowadays everyone blows their money" in this. You can't dismiss inflation because of that. If mommies all work there's more income than expenditures. Not sure why credit cards would effect anything but the very few who are deeply in debt, that's a small number.

I am also incredibly mad at Allard for feeding what I now consider to be absolute misinformation for several months now across DIFFERENT interviews in a number of publications. While I think many here are actually happy to get the chance to sink the boot into MS some more, as a huge fan of what they did with xbox1, I feel absolutely betrayed. Anyone feel the same?

Can someone explain the difference to me between the $300 Xbox 360 and the original Playstation in terms of value? Oh, other than what cost $300 in 1995 would cost $373.25 in 2005.

A member named Trigger here stated at the time of E3 that no one would want the $300 360, and everyone would be getting the $400 version. He was in the know at the time and very accurate. He also mentioned the PS3 would be very expensive. I'm expecting a $400 base price, maybe $500. I didn't pay attention to anything said by the talking heads, I figured Trigger was probably right.

Oddly enough I could very much live with the $300 version if I didn't have HDTV. When I add in the cost of that plus the cost of a memory card, I got the "ah shit, might as well get the $400 one" feeling.