HappySquirrel,

Wow! angst much? I didn't say the games were weak I said the library was weak. Meaning that titles like Resistance and motorstorm can only do so much to sway people considering almost every other title is multi. And what if you don't like FPS's or offroading? Whats the incentive? Would you buy an item just because it has a name stamped on it? If not, where are your expectations coming from.

And as far as expecting titles to move consoles, you can do that without any opinion about the quality of a game. I imagined that musou would move PS3 titles because gundam titles sell very well in japan. I do not care that much about gundam because the last one I played was on the dreamcast and it was just ok (imo).

Sony made 1 billion in profit in 2006 while "losing millions". Saying the lost millions in comparison to last year earnings really do not mean much.  Not to mentioned they meant 6 million sold to retailers it is rare when MS and Sony mention amounts sold to consumers ( funny how people get that right only when it supports their arguement huh).

So a company that changes their mind on a subject is always a lair. Because companies are not supposed to adopt to trends, markets or their own fluctuating situations? Similar to MS saying 1080p was impossible (Scott Henson's interview with kikizo), didn't they say hdmi wasn't needed as well? how about their BC. Y'now since Sony "lied" with thier 80% bc rate (overe 1,100) what does that make microsoft with their BC? On launch were all of the top selling XBOX titles will be playable like they said at E3 05 http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/rbach/05-16-05E3.mspx ?  From target renders (such as raven for the xbox,  to madden which even had penny arcade coin the term bullshot)  to  games looking like toy story  http://news.com.com/2100-1040-250632.html , to not admitting problems with their 360's then recanting. Then about their customer service then playing nice by sending checks out. The list can go on and on.

It is a stupid thing. 

You won't ever hear me defend the veracity of Microsoft's statements .  Yes Sony does have a greater tendency to lie right up until they refute it.  Like the $600 thing they were claiming just days before they announced $600 that it wouldn't be $600.  Wasn't it just a week or so ago that Sony was saying they were not considering a larger hard drive?  Now Sony is or isn't considering a price cut?  My point was that until it's official nothing Sony says can be trusted. That goes for all companies by much more so with Sony. 

Companies can change business plans of course, but generally they go quiet so that people can forget that they had been saying something else.  Although Nintendo lies the least of the three it seems they still do, like SPM being a GameCube game.  But they didn't claim that days before announcing it for the Wii, they claimed that over 9 months before announcing the change.

It's already been debated before about how Sony is not in the great financial shape its fanboys seem to think it is so I'm not going into it again.  Even were the company in great finanical shape losses of that magnitude will still cause major problems.  MS is dealing with growing shareholder concerns over its Xbox losses.  The fact that Microsoft as a whole makes over 6 times as much profit as Sony and Nintendo combined isn't a major factor.  Replace $15+ billion in profit with $1 billion in profit and the situation can only be worse.

As for angst, what angst?  Sony made its own bed and is now having to sleep in it, nothing for me to worry about. Again I don't own Sony stock or work for them .

That would be a very desperate, costly, and probably not very effective move.

If Sony is going to pour more money into saving the PS3, the better option would be to 'buy' hot exclusives... although that's something they probably would have had to go a long time ago (e.g. I can't see something like Assassin's Creed going PS3-only, although that would have been something smart to do about a year ago.

In my comparison, I forgot about the I/O Bridge controller, which is $59 for both versions, but given that's just the bus controller for the motherboard, and not the motherboard itself, why does it cost so much? Basically the PS3 is at a reasonable price, save for a $200 motherboard.

Now normally I don't approve of newegg when comparing retail prices, but since manufacturing costs are close to wholesale, it's appropriate in this case.

Intel compatible motherboards at $200-$300.

Same, but for AMD.

Sony has been very, very aggressive on hardware cost savings -- the Emotion Engine chip was removed for the Euro launch, Cell is moving to a 65-nm process, assembly is handled in China, etc. Much faster than I expected, actually. Spreadsheet it out, and even assuming that components fall a meager 25% to 35% a year, Sony could reduce the 60GB to $499 in November 2007 and lose only $60 on every console. If they reduce costs faster, they could break even.  Of course, we're talking only manufacturing - they'll still lose money on marketing and customer service. 

Well, may be this is official

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0211e938-ee13-11db-8584-000b5df10621,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0211e938-ee13-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html&_i_referer=

The rest of this article is for FT.com subscribers only

And here's from kotaku:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/sony/sony-reconsidering-its-pricing-strategy-for-ps3-253539.php

Sony "Reconsidering Its Pricing Strategy for PS3" 4,040 views

From a Financial Times report (sadly, subscribers-only) comes word that Sony are looking long and hard at their pricing strategy for the PS3. As in, they're looking for ways to change how much the thing costs, and how they can fix "sluggish sales in Japan and the crucial US market". Sony President Ryoji Chubachi:

We are re-examining our [PS3] budgeting process in terms of pricing and volume. Sales assumptions change and the market is competitive. We are in the midst of revisiting our strategy for the PS3.

So it costs too much, you shipped too many, not enough people are buying them and a lot of people are buying your competitor's consoles? I'd revisit my strategy if I were you too, Mr. Chubachi, because you're not painting a rosy picture there.

Were I a betting man (and I have been known to take a punt or three), I'd say a PS3 price cut isn't too far away at all. Any takers? Luke Plunkett

Sony considers slashing price of PS3 console [Financial Times,

They won't cut the price anytime soon. They'll live off the PS2 for the rest of the year, then drop the price early next year.

Besides, if they drop the price MS and Nintendo will do the same. PS3 might get a boost, but so would the others.

Well, this is not so easy as it sounds. In the devcelopment of a PS-3 game is a certain stage, when everything has to run on the PPE. If you then have to search the main processing threads and try to somehow vectorize them, or if you try to find bigger groups, that belong together is not so different.

The first would be the way to optimize it for the Cell, the second the correct method for the Xbox 360 and MultiCore PCs. To say it in another way: Youz have to pay them their possible earnings for the Xbox 360 and PC markets.  Microsoft doesn't have such a big problem. Development for Xbox 360 and the PC is no big problem for them. They can offer you special Libraries for the PC and the Xbox 360, distribution and advertisement. Compared to the rather difficult and tedious optimization for the PS-3 not really a big deal and you have an easy way to two of the three HD plattforms. Microsoft can use its unique position in the PC market for their advantage. 

 why would they drop their price and cut profits ? their consoles would still cost less.