Some data on gross (say, USD) spent on PS3s vs gross (USD) spent on the X360 would be fascinating, and go a long way toward resolving this "perceived value" thing.

Do we have SKU-specific data?

Also, as a related issue, no SKU of the PS3 is selling at a loss, but I believe the X360 Arcade may be.  The price to manufacture a PS3 has come down dramatically -- for the same reasons Blu-Ray players have.  Although Sony is not leading in marketshare (yet), I would bet that their monthly income from hardware is on par, or better than MS's lately -- a bold statement without a source to back me up, I know, but an awful lot of related market information leads me to believe that this is probably the case.

Sorry guys but I thought this was limited?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha

Pain is like crack. I don't enjoy it (haven't tried to, really), but I can't stop spending money on the damned thing. Sony keeps releasing downloadable content for it. Since June, I estimate that I've spent $712 on Pain add ons. Sony is wise to toss it in for free.

sony are a business and they want to make money and thats what they are trying to do! thats there main goal. microsoft really dont give a shit about profits but their main goal is to beat the ps3 and make a name for the xbox and it looks like they are busting their balls to make that happen.

I think the Bluray feature of PS3 is something consumers are willing to shell out a little more money for but not $200-$300 bucks more.

source please this is the first time i hear this

whats killing sony it's the dollar.

In January:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/12/sony-cuts-playstation-3-production-cost-in-half/

...since this was BEFORE the latest 80GB SKU (which has 65nm CPU and GPU... the earlier SKUs did not), it wouldn't take much of an improvement to make a PS3 cost decently less than the $400 pricetag mentioned in this article.

In the 10 months time since this article:

(1) Sony has made a new SKU with 65nm CPU and GPU, which was not the case at the time of this article's printing (80 GB model -- http://forums.highdefdigest.com/game-consoles-smackdown/70402-ps3-gets-65nm-gpu-before-xbox-360-a.html),

(2) We've seen Blu-Ray players drop drastically in price, strongly suggesting that the technology has become far cheaper.

...Sony isn't going to hand out this information in black and white... but it doesn't take much to figure out that Sony is making money on hardware these days.  I sincerely doubt that the nearly-as-capable X360 costs less than $200 to manufacture, however...  Close maybe, but less than $200 USD? ...I doubt it.  Feel free to show us some source info, if you believe otherwise.  

Last we heard here, it was way more than $200.  No one has ever seen a 65nm X360 GPU, yet (Jaspers are NOT out yet, despite rumors)... for all we know MS skipped 65nm and won't cut their costs until they hit 55nm next year sometime.

It comes down to values, as always. What are your primary values when looking at the product? That the product is designed to appeal to other values besides your own is insignificant; the only part normal consumers consider is how well the values they care about that the device DOES cater to match up to their expectations.

Adding a game in with a console adds value to the package only to people who look at the game as part of the values they're looking for in buying the system. If it's not a game they want, then it has zero impact on their decision for purchase. This is why many pack-ins fail and are discontinued: they don't appeal to a significantly large audience, and the adding of the game into the package does not increase sales meaningfully.