what makes you think i'm a sony fanboy?

That reminds me of one of my favorite songs!

Dr. dr. help me please, I know youll understand
Theres a time device inside of me, Im a self-destructin man
Theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little green man in my head
And he said, youre not goin crazy, youre just a bit sad
cause theres a man in ya, knawin ya, tearin ya into two.

Silly boy ya self-destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer

Self-destroyer, wreck your health
Destroy friends, destroy yourself
The time device of self-destruction
Light the fuse and start eruption

Two price cuts @ $100 each implies $200. However:

If you think the important thing is how many price cuts there were, then I disagree with you. I think the total decrease in price is the most important. Would you really consider Sony more "desperate" if they dropped the price by $50, and then later by $50, rather than $100 at once? I wouldn't.

Edit: as for people saying the price cut was $200, simply look at the post above yours. 

Two price cuts does not mean $200 though as they are different SKU's.

It's neither here nor there which you think is most important, the amount of price reductions or how much was reduced overall. As the point was whether or not there were two price cuts or not.

I would actually think there is no difference in the desperation of the two examples. However, demand will be stimulated twice, or once.

^What he said. 

In the end, the price is $100 less than it was.  People who weren't willing to buy in a $500 but were at $400 have now bought in.

If Sony had dropped the price of the ps3 100 times, in increments of $1, would the demand have increased exponentially compared to a single pricecut of $100?  No. 

In the end, the result is the same.  $100 is $100. 

Because owning all three consoles removes all bias?  The only reason you even bought a ps3 was because of the Warner move.

I'm not saying you are biased, but owning all three consoles is hardly conclusve evidence that you're not. 

So you honestly think the amount reduced is the only thing that stimulates demand? >_>

Did you know that supermarkets raise prices gradually on certain products, just so they can have a special offer "price reduction" later on which 'does' stimulate demand? The fact that the price has hardly moved does not effect it.

A price cut will stimulate demand makingmusic. Do you think that PS3 sales would be in the same position if all prices were kept the same until the time of the second price cut? Or if both prices were cut at the earlier time?

No they would not, which is why the price cut issue is brought up.

Haha ... the Warner move? ROTFL ...

I bought a PS3 for the only - the only reason to own a PS3 for me - to play PS2 games. Blu Ray? PS3 games? Not so much. I have two HD DVD players - and I love the Web features. I have just one Blu Ray movie - and thinking about buying a select few. I have had my PS3 for a week - and still think HD DVD is much better overall than Blu Ray as far as features and region-free features. Blu Ray has just one advantage - the library. That is it. If I had a complete, I wouldn't touch Blu Ray with a ten-foot pole. And guess what - the PS3 doesn't upconvert my DVDs over component! Wow!

I have a cool perspective of this next-gen console race. I bought a PS3 because I found one that had full BC and was at a doable price. That's it. Yeah, I got a few games, and I'll likely get more PS3 games for review. Don't get it twisted - I like the PS3, the 360 and the Wii, but I'm not sold on Blu Ray. 

did you select the "up convert dvds on"

Then why not just buy a ps2?

And if it was really about BC, then why did you make a deal for a 40gb ps3 before you ever found a 20gb ps3? And if it had nothing to do with Blu-Ray, then why did you declare yourself to be "red and blue" right when you got the ps3?

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=16003&start=0

I'm cool with slight biases, as everybody has them. I'll readily admit that I have a somewhat anti-MS bias, because of Vista and other things. But what I dislike is people who pretend to be neutral when they are obviously not, in an effort to make their opinion seem more important than somebody elses. That is the reason I quoted you in the first place in this thread.