3. Prove it, perhaps currently on PS3 titles but not past PS2 titles (And you have to take into consideration install bases)
4. If anything thats a negative towards the 360, they will reduce its lifespan by continue to keep the price so slow in comparison to the PS3 (for instance PS3 is $99, what would the 360 be? $1?)
5. How does this effect they console really? So XBL has made more, but PSN still makes money. (Also, I believe that 1 billion was a revenue figure, not profit, for all you know its cost twice that to run the thing)

3. I have never understood why people relate sales to quality. So MGS4 sold 4 million instead of 7 million like Halo (estimates) does that make it any less of a game? It still made money.
4. Not really provable, and it simply means the PS3 is more valuable, and there's nothing wrong with that, simply means it has a greater potential for a long lifespan.
5. Again, that doesnt necessarily hurt the lifespan of the console, just the profitability.

When the ps3 is able to drop to $99, we'll be half way finished with the next generation. And the Xbox 360 can go lower. The main sku the premium is still $300. If that drops to $199, it will spur huge sales. The Arcade at $150 will be unstoppable.

u know at a higher price point the same would happen to a ps3 right?

the ps3 outsold 360 for 8 months WW and similar price cut the 360 had last year would have similar impact on the ps3.

no, a similar price cut wont have the same effect if Microsoft matches it. like i said, microsoft can go lower by offering a $199 premium console. Thats the sku that people want. because the Xbox 360 has no blue ray player, they will always have a price point advantage.

there is a limit for price cutting taco even at a lower price at a 100$ difference was outselling the 360.

at that rate 360 will be cheaper than the ps2 next year.

i don't why people are getting upset about the comments of one person or many people that don't matter one bit on what they say or what they like. i have a 60gig PS3 with all the bells and whistles. i saved my money, paid top coin for it, and is very happy. i don't care what little fanboys say, to me i made the right choice on getting the system i wanted. the bottom line is stick to what you like, play the games you enjoy and say "screw u" to the next fan boy that steps up to you and say that you r stupid for system that you play the most. and one more thing, if something is to much and you really want it, get a freaking job.

The PS3 may seem just as expensive at $300 if the closest competitor the Xbox 360 Premium is $200 (For people who cross shop them both).

If Microsoft can afford to sell the Arcade for $150 in the U.S, they could certainly afford to cut the price of the Premium to $200-225.

why do people forget that 70% of the pS2 SALES WERE BELOW $199. IT WAS AT $179 FOR THE LONGEST TIME.

wow. ayways this is a dumb thread. all im gonna say is that killzone didnt seell a million day one because it doesnt have an 18 million install base. it has about 10 million less in the us. if it did 320,000 on 2 days for ps3 if just if it was on the 360 it would had done about 600,000+. would that had been impressive? yes but thats because double the hardware. so killzone did really good.

anyways one of the reasons why i love my ps3 VARIETY! THERE ARE GAMES FOR EVERYONE! LBP, FLOWER, MGS, UNCHARTED, KILLZONE! all for a different audience or those who like a great game. and ms meanwhile has the same type of games shooters shooters and shooters. and while i love shooters u get sick of them. so no to ur question. SONY DOES INDEED KNOW ITS AUDIENCE AND THEY KNOW ITS A MELTING POT OF ALL PEOPLE AND THEY GIVE THEM ALL SOMETHING TO PLAY. while ms keeps making shooters and 360 players keep buying them and selling millions of copies cause thats what the 360 has become.

Did Sony know its audience do not want to pay $400 ($600 launch) for the PS3? If it wasn't for that little problem they could have won this war.