As of today there is NO game that demonstrates a technological advantage that would equate to a $200 price difference...

Answer me this; How many games do you see utilising the maximum potential? And what number will deem the extra $200 worthy?

You shouldn't be able to get a game like Gears of War 2, which looks better than (i'll be generous) all but 5 PS3 games on a machine that's $200 cheaper...and no we're not waiting for next year - you told us that last year.

An even better question is... Why the heck are we discussing technical aspects when those have little or nothing to do with price cuts and boosting sales?

Sorry to burst your bubble. But Kingdom Under Fire 2 is the best graphics in development. Although the platform hasnt been confirmed, we all know its an Xbox exclusive. It would make sense to be on PS3 if it were leading but well it's not. So if it was exclusive last gen to Xbox with losing the war, then it will be exclusive this gen. Even the spin offs were exclusive to 360. So we can very much assume this is 360 footage. (I'll be proved right). So looking at this video (and you'll notice watching it in HD it says Gameplay footage) that this kills games like KZ2 and the like for graphics. Look at the number of charatcers on screen. 1000?

And sales arguement.

LOOK AT MY SIG!

Gears of War 2 looks better than all  but one PS3 game: MGS 4, which is equal to Gears of War 2 in terms of graphics. But some people even say Gears of War 2 looks better than MGS 4.

My IQ has ben severly damadged by thes threade

Seriously MikeB.. The Cell processor is only one component of the PS3. You're giving information on how much of the Cell is being used in various games but you're talking as if it means percentage power of the entire console as a whole.

You've got to think about: CPU, GPU and RAM.. Not just the CPU.. Developers say their game is using a certain percentage but not why they're not using more. The reasons are mostly to do with bottlenecks.. Limitations in the hardware that don't allow the full use of a particular component.

So while the Cell may be much more powerful than the 360's CPU, the fact that the hardware isn't optimised as much as it could be in the PS3 means that we're never going to see what the Cell would be capable of in the PS3.

So stop talking about the cell as if it IS the Playstation 3

I wonder if this is a temporary reaction to Home relesing today?
you know - to shave off the hype?

Then it's still unnecessary and redundant as Sony already took care of that from the start with the pricing and design of the PS3.

I've always been wondering what's up with the low memory numbers on the PS3. Alright, upping the video memory might be expensive, but I can probably buy another stick of 256 RAM with the change that's sitting on my desktop right now. Would it really hurt Sony to add more ram to the PS3? I actually have no idea as to how all the individual pieces of the PS3 actually connect with each other so maybe there's more to the problem than just adding more ram.

To a degree, you're right. But for every person who chooses a 360 instead of a PS3, the Playstation brandname loses more value. MS is clearly trying to push the Playstation brand down as much as possible.

They started with heavy price cuts and moneyhatting in Japan, and are now moving on to Europe which is the next place where the Playstation brand was really strong. America was easier.