I think I finally understand what your saying.  You are saying that because the PS3's price has finally dropped to 299 which was the sweet spot for the PS2, the sony loyalists who have been holding off will finally wake up and buy the PS3? 

I say its WAY TOO LATE for that.  Back then playstation 2 had all the games.  This generation theres no clear winner.  The games are split somewhat evenly between the consoles with the Wii holding all the casual games, the Xbox and PS3 holding the hardcore games.  Most of those end up being made for both consoles. 

The victory of the PS2 has already been thoroughly dissected and PS3 has none of the advantages the PS2 had. 

Reason 1: The main reason PS2 had that unprecedented 120 million pool of gamers last generation was because they tapped the casual market.  Wii has the casual audience this time with a pretty thick ball and chain.  Old grannys and such aren't the type to go out and buy all three consoles. 

Reason 2: PS2 had an early release and thus established an installed base way ahead of the other consoles. 

Reason 3: PS2 had a built in DVD player which was a huge selling point at the time as lots of people couldn't afford them or didn't have them.  PS3 has the blue-ray but it doesn't seem to be much of a selling point. 

actually, I didn't say 299 was ps2 price point, I said 199 was.

You bring up a good point, but there is no clear victor to this discussion. You could be right, I could be right. WE both just have reasons supporting our arguments. That's it.

You took it into account? How can you take something like that into account? Generally when you cut the price you lower the hardware revenue so by lowering the price quicker Sony didn't take as much hardware revenue. If the console sells 100k @ $300 there are still 70k people whom would have paid $400 or more. Every time the PS3 cut the price it was still selling at the higher price so people who would have paid more then suddenly don't have to.

If you don't take into account inflation then how can you compare the two values accurately? You didn't even add the memory cards which every PS2 owner had to buy. I think you erred on the side of being a little bit irrelevant because you didn't even get the basics like inflation or memory cards to make it more of an Apples/Apples comparison.

No.  The sales numbers prove otherwise.  This proves that their remaining customers are prepared to pay more for hardware against the last generation, that is all. 

i agree with the bolded, the underlined though doesn't follow.

the data shows sales increasing as it gets cheaper. once it reached the same, it matched. When it goes to a lower price perhaps it will match again.

You're assertion that demand is actually down and people just had more money to spend, just doesn't follow from the data. It's a recession and sales increased when it got a price of 299. That's the opposite of what you're saying.

You could still be right, eventually, but the data doesn't show that, specifically.

Was going to say some very similar, but you got it.  Granted I don't think it will achieve PS2's lifetime sales, but that's to be expected with it being so expensive for so long after its launch.  I still think it could very well reach 80 mil before the PS4 is released.  And maybe even 100 mil lifetime.