Okay....So?

If they can't do it in 2009 with their price cut MS will more than likely have a price drop in 2010 so...

My answer is an emphatic 'NO'.

I don't agree, the PS3 is wel specced to last much longer than the 360. For the long run the PS3 has far more headroom for price cuts and bestseller console sellers will hit the market.

And the PS3 is doing much better than the 360 did taking equal timeframes worldwide, this at a much higher entry pricing and sequels to hit PS2 games being released onto the market at a slower pace (more experitmental stuff early on).

Sony has 3 option

1. Cut PS3 price by $100. They will lose much money but it will double PS3 sales and Xbox360 sales will drop sharply. At he end the gap will be 4.5 milllon

2. Cut price by $50. They will lose some money but PS3 sales will up 50% and they will win or draw in Europe (with Xbox360) but stilll lose in NA (with smaller margin). At he end the gap will be 6 milllon

3. Keep the price. They only lose a few money (maybe some profit) but they will completely lose in NA and Europe region. At he end the gap will be 7.5 milllon

I think 2nd option is the best.

I do not think we can even agree that this rumored price cut can even accomplish that. Even if it is a hundred dollar price cut. That still does not address the price point of the Arcade. Nor does it address the disparity of the lineup which actually looks stronger for the 360. Nor does it address the issue of momentum. Nor does it alter the dynamic brought upon by a global recession.

This rumored price cut is not the Messiah descending from the mountain. In fact it is probably hurting the consoles current sales. This is why it is so stupid to play it up. With all the talk going around you only ensure you spread the news further, and it is more likely to find its way between the ears of potential purchasers who now take a seat on the fence waiting for a price cut.

This rumored price cut does not equate to some kind of guaranteed reversal of the wheel of fortune. We should not be discussing it in any hypothetical sense either.

Prove to us that a system with more 'future proof' hardware sells more or lasts longer.

The Atari ST had a small headstart and sold better initially at a cheaper entry pricing, many ST users claimed the ST to be more powerful than an Amiga for games, this until games developers really started to show off thiis technology's potential 3 years later.

What was the highest selling console that wasn't a Sony product? (or handheld)

I think it's a bit early to be counting out Sony, but I would agree that if the PS3 does overtake the 360 it won't be at a meaningful time or by a significant number

I believe the NES (over 40 million), this despite it was far less popular in Europe where consumers were far more into home computers compared to the United States.