I made a typo in my original post, see fix above... my bad :(

@no offense. None taken, we're just talking. I don't think it's a precedent, nor a trend Nintendo wishes to keep. Like I tried to explain, Nintendo only did this in this circumstance. The reason why they were aggressive with the 3DS in my opinion, like you saw above and I'll dive deeper, is that the PSP had managed to snag a good portion of the japanese software support, SW that normally should have been coming out for the market leader like in every other gen. Seeing that easily migrate onto the PSV, Nintendo aggressively cut that short, and secured Monster Hunter (main series) on the portable. Why would they do this, why was japanese software so important? Well for one it's what kept the PSP well alive past a point where the DS had completely dominated it in sales. Second, there was a chance that the Vita could use that momentum to beat the 3DS (which was off to a very shaky start). The 3DS' success was far from guaranteed as your post would suggest, just backtrack a year ago and none of us were certain as to how well the 3DS would do, take a look at some of the older Nintendo forum threads, there was much debate. With the PSP already capturing a much larger portion of the pie than any competitor before it, there was no reason to believe that, on round 2, that Sony could not actually come up on top, at least on the long run,  with a better product (the Vita is much more interesting than the PSP in every way you look at it, bar games atm).

Ultimately that loss of market dominance wouldn't so badly matter, as Nintendo has already survived loss of markets leadership, but I think Nintendo was aggressive here for two reasons. 1) They have never lost market dominance in the handheld market before, and I believe they wanted to fully secure that position beyond doubt. 2) The handheld space has been Nintendo's lifeline for as long as we can remember. 3) I believe Nintendo saw the threat of mobile devices and wanted to be the leader of the alternative (dedicated handhelds) so as to better control and fend off the threat.

I think that should give more depth to my original post.

If CoD and AC do nothing for Vita sales, which upcoming games will people tell us to wait for before a price cut is needed?

I don't know why someone has a fixation about "cutting price only after this or that game if it alone doesn't work to lift sales", IMVHO Sony should just try to resist until more than a year from launch has passed before cutting price, because cutting price after less than a year from launch or the last cut brings a bad image backlash. So, if not really forced, they should cut after next Xmas (and BF, with time limited offers, and Xmas can give decent sales also without a price cut, ouside of Japan it would be PSV's first Xmas).
But how about if they are forced to cut before? If PSV were roughly as strong as 3DS, or even stronger, a cut in the same period of big 3DS moves, like XL launch or Mario games could be a good attack to steal thunder and spotlight from Ninty, but as PSV is weaker, it most probably wouldn't work, so for a early cut Sony should avoid doing it simultaneously with other big events, of its own or of competitors, that is a PSV cut should happen not too close to XL and NSMB2 launch, not too close to Wii U launch or a possible and long-awaited XB360 price cut, and finally not too close to PS3 "True Slim" launch, but this latter unless they want to launch some PS3+PSV bundle, in this case the synergy of the new, and cheaper to build, PS3 version and the PSV cut could allow not only to combine marketing efforts, increasig visibility, but also to price the PS3+PSV bundle competitively with competitor high end bundles and also with Wii U.
So actually, PS3+PSV bundle and marketing synergy could be the strongest reason to cut price after less than a year from launch. And of all these things, the only sure fact is that August must be avoided for PSV price cut, because Ninty staggered XL and Mario launches until 19th August, so it's quite sure that also the last week of this month will be huge for 3DS, too big to compete without taking damages.
This said, games are necessary to make the cut work at its best, and bundling at least a small memory card should become standard.

I think I understand better why I've been so confused now... it appears we've been talking about completely different things (at least in relation to my original post which you quoted).

I have no doubt that all these things you've said about the 3DS are true - I haven't researched it all that much, so I'm sure all those reasons for a price cut due to circumstance are correct.  I have no argument with that.

What I said in the original post, and the point I'm trying to get across is: the effect of that price cut - intentional or not - has set this kind of barrier where people think "Vita will only be able to succeed with a price cut too, because it worked for 3DS".  I'm sure Nintendo weighed up the pro's and con's of a price cut when deciding on the future of the 3DS and decided it was the right move, but just because it worked for them does not automatically mean it's the best solution for the competition.  That's all I was getting at.

I haven't seen anyone suggest we wait any longer than those two before Sony should re-assess. Not quite sure why you'd say this.

Okay that helps clarify.

@bold do their opinions matter?

Let's say they do, the price cut is something they ask for. Why?

1) Is it because they want it cheaper for their own purchase? That wouldn't matter other than give an idea of the price people are looking for.

2) Is it because they believe the Vita is overpriced in general? That wouldn't really make sense sincde the Vita is an expensive tech already cheap enough.

3) If not the two above, do they think it's the only way for Vita to gain marketshare? If so, why?

A) Is it because the market has changed forever now that the 3DS has gone down in price? I wouldn't think so, since the 3DS is a gen8 product an anything can happen gen 9, nothing is set in stone.

B) Is it because the 3DS is cornering the Vita? I would say so.

If the answer is 3B), I would say that the Vita currently has two options: Price cut, or Games.

If Price Cut is the solutions, it will push HW out to the market without requiring games, and will encourage support. However it would cost Sony unaffordably.

If Games are the solution, it will push support much further down the line, but it will at least guarantee a smoother lifetime curve as well as good exposure for 1st party titles, as well as much-needed profit for Sony.

If they could afford it should they do a price-cut regardless to undermine the 3DS? It depends how much it would benefit them in the long run. If I were to answer the question, I'd say they shouldn't do it regardless. Worse comes to worse they can play the market much more aggressively next gen with a cheaper platform if needed.

I say this because those that oppose a price-cut always act like there is some magic bullet in the pipeline that will help sales.

They said this about Gravity Rush and Persona 4. Sure, Persona 4 might have helped for a few weeks in Japan but the Vita is already steady back under 10k.

So then I say there should be a pricecut and people tell me "Just wait till CoD is released!" I don't think that will have any long term effect for the Vita if it's still $250 so I'll call for a price-cut again and then they'll look up the up-coming games on IGN, post them in the thread and say "It doesn't need a price-cut! Look at all these games coming out!"

I guess the cycle will perpetuate.

@ bold, who is they?  I saw some people say Persona 4 would give Vita a short-term boost in Japan, which it did.  I don't think I was around for Gravity Rush release but based on the fact it's a new IP, I'm not sure anyone would have put all their eggs in that being a system saviour.

I assume the reason people are betting on Assassin's Creed + Call of Duty is that they're both 5m+ (10m+ in CoD's case) console sellers that have never really seen any proper portable versions.  No-one really knows if the market is there for them or not, or even if these will be proper versions, but they're hoping they are.

I think a price cut would help a lot, sure.  But solve Vita's issues?  Not without the right software, which I don't think it has at the moment (but would be getting on the right track with CoD & AC).

I don't think I'm deserving of such a thought-out post, I'm really not the best debater on here :P

Regardless, I think I agree with your last paragraph!

I was just home, sick today so I'm just relaxing and having fun :)