It depends.

If PS3 cuts 50, I dont think it will have much effect.

If PS3 cuts 100, I think MS will wait around and see how things go for a while before deciding what to do.

I also think theres a decent chance Sony will cut 50 twice, spring and fall.

I dont believe MS will cut more than 50, and probably even less on the Arcade.

You have to look at ASP (average selling price) with MS because they have 3 SKU's. Last data NPD gave us the 360 ASP was $270.

If they cut Pro and Elite 50, but Arcade only 20 or 30, it will shift sales to the new 249 pro, which will become relatively more attractive. (249 pro will garner more sales against 179 Arcade, than 299 pro does against 199 Arcade) In the end the ASP might only fall to 230 or even 240, meaning only a 30-40 cut really. Which MS likes.

Anyways I'm not sure MS will cut at all. ODST will be popular and they havent even unveiled most of their 2009 lineup yet which will be at E3. If they have some big guns there, they may not need a cut to keep parity or better with a reduced price PS3.

Personally I dont agree with all these fanboys who might sa a 299 PS3 will sell like crazy. PS3 and 360 have been nearly the same price before, and they sold almost a tie in the US. 299 is still too much. If Arcade cut to 149, tell me how a 299 PS3 is any more attractive against a 149 Arcade than before? It isn't.

If I have to guess I say Sony will cut 50 in fall and thats it. The economy is awful and Sony must be scared of that.

This gen will be very close for both M$ & $ony. M$ has the cheaper console and $ony had the Brand name now its only up them to play their cards right.

Yes. 360's already pretty damn affordable...

That's not the same question applied at all....What are you talking about?    And yes,  the last time Sony slashed it's prices it outsold a cheaper 360 for 9 straight months.  (Until the 360 cut it's price).   With each passing price cut the margin that the 360 has over the PS3 diminishes.

Adding onto the fact that the PS3 hasn't even reached the historic rapid sales price and it's easy to see.  The PS3's biggest limiting factor is it's current cost is what the original cost was for the Xbox 360.....Several years ago.  

Sony tried to win both battles this generation.  Firstly,  pushing their new Blu-Ray format was  smart business sense for them.  In terms of High Definition....Sony is a big name in Televisions, Players, etc.  Additionally,  Sony is heavily involved with several movie production studios as well.  The adoption of Blu-Ray was/is in Sony's best interest.   Secondly,  they tried to rely on brand name to carry them over with an expensive console pushing technology that was  relatively new to the market.  

The first part worked to perfection.  The second part hasn't gone how they would have liked I'm sure but the fact that they've remained close to their competitors and held a high amount of sales shows that there is certainly a market out there and they certainly can obtain quite a large amount of sales over time.  Especially as the only real 'problem' to a vast majority of consumers with the PS3 is it's price.

I see the 360 slashing price as low as 150 this year.

If sony drops the price of the ps3 to 299, I think 360 will still outsell ps3 at a 150 entry point.

And if sony drops to 299 this year, I don't expect them to drop the price next year, and since 360 will still be outselling the ps3, I dont expect microsoft to slash the price of the 360 next year either.

A 299 ps3 cannot touch a 149 dollar xbox 360, it just can't.

Brand name is only as effective as momentum and feeling of you being the top dog.  Outside of that, branding helps you be known.  In the case of the Playstation brand, it has known competitors and isn't a top dog.  End result is that the Playstation brand, while more safe then say a company like Phantom (or OnLive) releasing a system, isn't all that compared to Microsoft.

richard

you have done no research at all on the subject. Neither has bullet though.

Brand name accounts for a lot more than you think however.

Stop, Hammer Time!

It counted less than Sony expected for one thing.  Another, you have to know the history of videogames (it was even in the movie Bladerunner).  If you want to know one of the most powerful brands in the history of videogames, you can see the logo in my avatar spot.   You can look at the graveyard of videogame history for what I am referring to here.  Brands come and brands go. 

CERTAINLY, the Playstation brand isn't more powerful than price.  Sony has proven this on the console and the hand-held front.  And what was Nintendo before this generation?  Leader in handheld game systems.  They were smashed by Sony.  Now, with the worst specs (and waggle) they are on top of the home console business.  Nintendo was also able to get away from the Gameboy brand name (retired) in the handheld arena, replacing it with "DS".

No, it didn't do less than sony imagined.
Sony could never have taken ~20% market share with a 400-600$ console without brand name.

Nintendo was simply able to shift the market away (once again) from specs. The sony brand is about as strong as the nintendo brand.

What you fail to realize is that Nintendo has huge brand name recognition in the video games department.