You know in a way, reading between the lines it could mean that they aren't doing a price cut, or as big a price cut as people would expect. 
For a price cut theres quite an involved calculation really so for a $100 price cut:
First you have to work out how many PS3s would have been sold without a pricecut.
So lets say 7M *$100 = $700M.
Then you have to work out how many extra PS3s would have been sold at a $50 cut.
So lets say 1M *$50 = $50M
Then you have to work out how much revenue each extra PS3 is worth in terms of software/accessories so lets say $150 over the lifetime of the machine.
Then you have to work out how many extra PS3s will be sold @ $300 rather than $400, so 7M + 40% = 10M
Finally you have to take the production cost of the PS3 into account, so lets say it costs $350 to make each PS3 in September when they cut the price.
So without a price cut: 7M * 400 - (350* 7M) = $350M
So with a price cut: 10M *300 - (350 * 10M) + (3M *150) = -50M
The difference between a price cut and no price cut over the long term using these numbers is -400M in profit and thats only netted over the long term as the new PS3 owners who would have otherwise not bought a PS3 buy games and accessories over the lifetime of the machine. This is obviously a simplification and you could make a case that more PS3s sold would spread the fixed costs over a wider base and lower the variable costs.
In that case you could argue that the PS3 would cost $310 on average over 40% more units and that changes the equation considerably.
So 10M *300 - (310 * 10M + (3M *150) = $350M then they would be just as well off selling 10M as they would 7M but because of the benefits of greater 3rd party sales, better brand recognition, network effects bla bla bla that the 10M sales would be a better position than the 7M sales even though it nets the same profit so thats the way they would go.
Tease.
