Underachieving? It basically put an end to any PS3 comeback in America. The 360 is destroying the PS3 in the UK and it's on the rise everywhere else. The last time I looked it was third-parties begging PS3 for a price drop and that system is down the most YOY so in my book the 360 price cut has done amazing things.

Doesn't the NPD or someone like that have an estimate on the percentages for each SKU?  I think I remember seeing something like that a while ago.  Using that as a source would greatly improve the validity of your analysis.

Now, it's just hard to have such a thread when the Wii is selling half of what it did last year and the PS3 has developers begging for Sony to drop its price.

The 360 has achieve way more than most expected even with rrod, I am actually proud of MS.

So it has underachieved because they may or may not be making much money because they cut the price.

But, more importantly what we do know is that more Xbox consoles entered the market place which meant more Live accounts, more games sales and more peripherals.

Not sure how this points to underachieving, of course that would really depend on what Microsoft hoped to achieve. If that was increased units sold they achieved it.

Sorry but this analysis is little pointless. I understand the point you are trying to make but for what purpose I am at a loss. I strongly suspect the whole point of the cut was to increase sales so in that respect I am pretty sure it achieved its aim. I am also pretty sure Microsoft will use this tactic again this holiday season because it achieved so much last time and like last time they will use it alongside other improvements.

"PS3 (without a price-cut since October 2007 and has sold 3,394,075* this year versus 3,727,433 for the 360)"

Is that all? That gap is almost nothing. Very poor, but when you're leading by 8 million I guess it's not relevant. Looking at the bigger picture it's not really underachieving at all.

The 360 sold roughly 10 million units WW in 2008, it has sold around 3.5 million this year, what's not correct about that? We all know how much a 360 is priced, however we don't know the sales for each particular SKU. The money part is only part of my analysis and I have assigned fair figures to it. Would you say 60% for all pro model sales is so far from the truth? Would you say it's 40% then , and that would certainly show even more horrible numbers for Microsoft? Would you say the Pro sells 70% of all 360 sales? and the arcade sales 25 and the Elite only 5%? really? I don't think my HYPOTHESIS is so hard to believe, and my analysis is NOT ONLY that. But of course, fanboys were expected to object. I won't defend against * this* anymore, and that is that.

I was under the impression the price cut was a major success for the 360. It stalled the PS3's advancement late last year and the gap between the 360 and PS3 has never been larger. The cut has also put the ball in Sony's court, and I would highly doubt the rumors of a "slim PS3" or major price cut would be around if the 360 were still at its earlier price point.

On a side note, your bullying of other users who rightly discern that your analysis rests on a large assumption about SKU representation, among other things, is not very classy. Instead of running to the moderators to silence other opinions, how about participating in rational dialogue?

Exactly, that's the whole point. The sales are there, mass-market price, and I tell you they shouldn't/won't cut the price further this year unless they are throwing the towel.

You need to get your terms straight. A hypothesis is useless if you cannot prove it. Your SKU numbers are educated guesses that are unproveable. Big difference.

Even the numbers they are based on may be in question. Take the UK for example, if GfK's numbers are correct it may mean that things are significantly different in Europe than what we think they are.