wow only $50 between the PSP:Go and a PS3...difficult call for a consumer. I suppose the intended target market is different though.
Personally, I'll believe it when I see actual confirmation from Sony.
$100 dollars is far too much imo.
I would think it better to drop it $50 then drop PSP:Go and PS3 by another $50 in April 2010.

""Industry sources indicate Sony is planning a $100 price cut on the PS3 in mid-August, just prior the launch of Madden (8/18) and the start of the back to school shopping season. This will naturally be a positive for the industry," said Bhatia. "

I call Troll on Bhatia. I know he may not like Sony, but to suggest that Sony dropping out of the console business would 'naturally be a positive for the industry' is shameful.

Rumors or not, I am not affected with that for I already have a PS3...

and don't trust rumors... they can be false but we will never know!

Its cheaper and more efficent to have fewer consoles than more consoles. Think about other forms of media which only really have one main standard at a time.

It is certainly cheaper and more efficient to have fewer, but it stifles creativity. There is no need to really push any boundaries with next generation console, because there is effectively no competition

Well on the game side it improves creativity, whilst on the console side the makers have pretty much been content up until now to foist pretty much the same system with a different brand and exclusives. Many people praise the systems like the PS1/PS2/SNES/NES for their games and they were close to being effectively monopolies at the time with a large number of 3rd party exclusives.

Yes, but it is in the transition between generations that the innovation happened. If there was only 1 console in this generation you can bet your ass it would have been controlled by a non motion controlled gamepad. WM+, Natal and PSmote all would not have existed. How can you claim that is good for gaming?

Aside from the addition of analogue sticks and a few buttons, what hardware innovations exactly? The PS2 for example was a stronger PS1, The Xbox was a better PS2 and the GC was a different PS2. The only real innovation and paradigm shift was the Wii. So whilst competition may be good for in between console generations. once it starts its probably better to just have one console which fits the needs of everyone.

The generations in which the 'winner' has changed have been
Nes gen
PS1 gen
Wii gen

The Nes brough in two important things (at least amongst console games). Effort put into character design, and the D pad. Both of these are very important

the PS1 generation is slightly odd, because of the three leaps forward, one was made by the losing console. The N64 introduced the analogue stick. The PS1 introduced the dual analogue stick, and the idea that the console maker should be subservient to the 3rd party. Maybe subservient isn't quite the right word, but they should aim to please 3rd parties. These were all very important, and likely the latter wouldn't have happened if Nintendo and Sega were left alone

The Wii generation we all know one of ninty's innovations. Motion Control. Perhaps more significant is the idea that hardwrae does not have to be bleeding edge, if you use slightly less powerful hardware you can not only increase hardware and thus software sales, but also cut the development costs for 3rd parties. There would be a lot more 3rd parties that went out of business if there were a single console similar to the PS360.

^^You forgot the generation where Genesis beat Super Nintendo. Genesis does what Nintendon't!