It's funny you choose to start out like that. With Nintendo attempting to scalp their customers. Take a look at the Vita, for example. Sony is literally charging $100 extra for a cheap case, a $40 game, and a $20 4GB memory card to get the Vita a week early. When you want to point to scalping, that's scalping.
But that's beside the point. I'm not talking about the Vita, I'm talking about the 3DS and console price drops in general. I will concede that a drastic price cut isn't ordinary for Nintendo handhelds, yes, but I'm not willing to concede much more than that. At the time of the price drop, sales were stagnating, and publishers were beginning to publicly cancel support for the console. At the same time, the same publishers were having issues getting titles, even ports like Metal Gear Solid 3D, out of the door. Based on handheld console history and the sales numbers at the time, many analysts and members of the media were predicting a potential doom. Even on PixlTalk, you and I debated whether it was possible for a price cut alone to revive lagging 3DS sales. My point here is this: In order to ensure that the device you paid $250 for had an actual value greater than a plastic brick, Nintendo had to make sure it saw lasting sales and received content from 3rd parties. At the rate the 3DS was going before the drop, the 3DS would have probably been considered dead in the water, even by Nintendo at the end of the year.
What makes me say that? Look at the N-Gage, look at the Neo Geo Pocket Color, even look at the Virtual Boy. The Virtual Boy died almost instantly, and started with a retail price of $180. But that really isn't the point either.
The point is, you're not "owed" anything for the console's price being lowered. Yes, you did buy a 3DS for $250. You and I both talked about how it felt a little stiff given the launch line-up and build-quality of the device. The things we noted reflected the market's response: They didn't buy it. And when things don't sell, they drop in price. In the 3DS's case, the price drop was five months after launch for 32%. In the Playstation's case, the price drop was 33% after eight months. Did any early adopters get anything extra there? No. In the GameCube's case, the price drop was 25% six months after launch. Nothing free there. In the N64's case, the price dropped 25% six months later. No freebies there. The PS3's price dropped $100 after eight months. No added bonus there, either. The Xbox cost $100 less after just six months with no special gifts of any sort.
I don't have data beyond that. In all but the PS3's case, the price cut was at least 25% off the initial retail price. In all others, it was 33% lower. Yes, these cuts did happen a little after five months, but six-eight months isn't all that much longer. So what's the difference between the PSX, the GameCube, the N64, the Xbox, the PS3 and the 3DS? For the 3DS, Nintendo actually decided to give something away to say "We're sorry we had to do this so soon." All those other consoles often had something to sweeten the deal for later purchasers, and were "satisfied" to have your money. And you remember as well as I do: For most of those consoles, there were significantly few quality titles available early in the system's life.
Anyway, the root of the argument was that you harshly criticized the 3DS ambassador program because you had all the games it had to offer. You stated you didn't see the value in having these games on the 3DS, as the added convenience wasn't worth it to you. The 20 ambassador games brought a few NES games into the portable realm, and at least save the hassle of dealing with a GBA/DS/DSLite and GBA cartridges if you feel the desire to play any of those games, like Yoshi's Island, again. The other side of the argument was praise for Twisted Metal's announced inclusion of Twisted Metal Black for download on the PS3. This title, like several of the ambassador titles, was one you already owned, and provided convenience for playing the game so you won't have to deal with a PS2 anymore to play it. In the story you commented on, you neglected to notice that the offer was a limited one, which is something right out of our story's headline. You also failed to notice that this was likely included to make up for the game's probable inclusion of an online pass, something the game's director is on-record for being against.
So, what I am trying to assert is this: It is typical for a gaming console to see a price deduction within one half to three quarters of a year, and the price deduction often is around what we saw for the 3DS. Never before, has a game company offered a free gift to early adopters of a console where there was not some kind of hardware defect present. Yes, the 3DS's price was lowered a month earlier than those consoles of recent record, and yes, not all consoles have seen that type of price drop, but it isn't irregular in any way. You received a free gift. One you didn't expect. One greater than done before. Yeah, the 3DS was overpriced. So was a console from the past few generations from every console maker, according to the hasteness of price drops. It's nothing new. I for one, applaud Nintendo's decision to give a free gift for the price drop. Unlike the PSN hacking, where Sony gave away a few things (all of which served as advertisements for newer and upcoming Sony release), none of my data was compromised. Microsoft hasn't really given anything away aside from a few XBL Gold weekends here or there. Nintendo chose to do something no one else has done yet, and I like it. It definitely bodes better than giving a gift because a title comes with a crummy online pass, or even charging an extra $40-$100 to have a Vita a week early.
Edit: Yes I will be reading some of this on PB & Jason next issue, so I don't feel like I wasted my time writing it all up here. =P
