Incredibly flawed argument.

1. Being cheaper doesn't give it a longer life. The GameCube was cheaper than the PS2.
2. True, but again, how does this support it having a longer life?
3. That's true.
4. This is false. As has been stated, if PS3 were to drop by $100, Microsoft would be capable of matching that. On the flipside, if PS3 only drops $50, it's unlikely that Microsoft would cut the system a full $50 to match it. They wouldn't need to.
5. This is true.

O M G

cheaper doesnt last forever, just makes the console look dated...

most ps3 games are of the same quality of 360 or better...

gosh :P

1. The console being cheaper has lot to do with it selling better than its competitor. PS2 had a 100 million units lead over the Gamecube and because of that the PS2 got all the best 3rd party support.

2. Have you noticed the consoles that tend to die off have bad 3rd party support? Microsoft got the support because it managed to move out a lot of 360 consoles. At the rate I wouldn't be surprised if the 360 eventually becomes the 5th best selling video game console ever. Excluding handheld consoles ofcourse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles#Video_game_consoles

4. This is really just an opinion. I just assume they would do something to fire back.

Cheaper has helped move hardware and the PS3 price disparity doesen't show in the games.

I mean comparing the 3DO and SNES visually it was a world of difference. Now compare the 360 and PS3... they're about at par.

In the coming years both consoles will one up each other in visual quality but it'll never be that big of a difference.

yen has droped since last quarter. ps3 manufacturing has droped since last quarter. Ps2 sales, accessories, and SW were way down from last year. ps3 doesnt seem to be losing as much as you think

Yeah because it's obvious the 360 still has a lot of room to maintain sales by decreasing price further...

/sarcasm off

1. Basically doesn't exist in Japan.....360 isn't going to survive forever with only 2 markets effectively helping it.

2. M$s first party. Does it even exist anymore?

3. As PS3 sales continue to grow, tossing money at every 3rd party isn't going to keep them from developing on the PS3, because it's just lost sales

4. Doesn't matter if Sony's games don't put up Halo-like numbers. I'm sure many gamers would like to have a plethora of high quality games that sell just 2-3 million, than have a *couple* games that sell 9 million. Like Sony has always said, they don't invest in one game as their "identity" but put out games for just about everyone. Nintendo = Mario, M$ = Halo, Sony = ? and that's in a good sense

5. PSN has become/is a viable platform for online gaming, and it's free. And if gamers want to buy something, they choose when to buy it, not paying $50 up front.

yup

lol the title of this thread is ironic

all your reasons are the same....