I agree. 100k - 110k per week isn't bad at all for a $400 machine during a huge recession.

Even when they release the slim PS3 they should keep it at $400 for a few months. Just the fact its a redesigned system should increase sales for a while, then they can drop the price later after making some money.

ps3 is doing admirably compared to a cheaper 360.

earlier in the year i said sony should keep the price if they stay about 50k less per week than 360, now its 20k...............so they should keep it and concentrate on bringing the best games on thier platform.

price cut should only come in effect when manufacture of a toned down ps3 is availiable. NOT as the ps3 is currently as its a waste of money.

don't tell sony's plan was to be in last place come on, the target was to sell as the wii is selling and now we are happy selling 100k and falling behind MS? come on...psst

This is what I get for not checking VGChartz frequently enough, I miss the opportunity to defend my statements.  So my somewhat late response is:

By "luxury" I meant a product whose price offers a barrier to entry to the masses, thus assissting in establishing the value of the brand.  For example, why doesn't everyone own a Cartier watch?  They are for the most part very attractive watches and well they do tell time. But they cost a good chunk of change; having the money to own one is what gives the product some of it's status (specifically because Cartier is NOT a watchmaker as opposed to say Tag, Panerai or Rolex).  The PS3, should not be a status symbol because of it's price, that is my point.

As far as the fiduciary responsibility of Sony, do you sit on the board?  Do you stand to gain if they make or lose money?  As a consumer, a lower priced PS3 is bought more often, equals more people playing, which equals more friends on PSN, mores software supprot, etc...so how does you AS A CONSUMER, advocating a higher price benefit anyone except SONY?

Finally I have no problem with Darth, and I don't expect he cares that I said he was part of a cult particularly as there was no mal-intent.  I also will not begrudge you your myopia, as many people assume a dissenting comment can only be derived from hate.  You could not be further off base though; I don't hate the PS3 or Sony.  I don't love them, but I don't love Microsoft or Nintendo either.  They are just video game consoles/corporations...really.

@radha

targets change

I can't suddenly "imagine" the target is to Sell more than wii

we know that aint gonna happen now, in this situation, we need to keep expectations relative.

Not to some target set 4 years ago

I imagine the only people at Sony that are "happy" at how well the PS3 is selling are the ones that still have their jobs.

@Nabraham

nice try

try harder next time as most job cuts at SONY aren't even from the Games Division

rofl lol lol rofl

If Sony loses $40 per console then thyere doing decent.

I wouldn't say the sales are great or anything, but it is performing admirably for the economy and pricetag.  Heck, it's only about 15,000 a week behind the 360 and it had a price drop.  When you compare the 360's cheapest console at $199 vs. the cheapest ps3 at $399, it's really doing pretty darn good.

I would personally like a pricecut though so I can pick up a second ps3 for the lake :)

You can look at it from 2 perspectives:

1)Being third in sales for a Playstation console is terrible (though, as time goes by, the "but it´s a Playstation it should be doing much better" mentality becomes less and less valid).

2)Given a $400 system is almost selling "as well as" a $200/$300 system, and in the midst of a nasty recession to boot, then sales "aren´t bad at all".

Lots of people tend to focus only on one or the other, especially "the usual suspects".