Online "polls" rely on people to be honest, but anonymity allows you to lie with no consequences.

Anonymity in polling often allows people to be honest about things they would otherwise not own up to, like shoplifting, or beating one's kids. But when it comes to popularity contests with consumer products that people have an emotional investment in then anonymity really facilitates dishonesty. Therefore this "poll's" results are pretty much worthless as any kind of indicator of price cut effect between consoles.

Logic however would indicate that a Wii price cut would have the least impact because it is already selling very well. A cut of the Elite to the price of the Pro (with the Pro disappearing) and no movement on the Arcade price may have a bit more impact, but with the Arcade staying the same price moving the Elite to the Pro price point is not a high visibility move (unlike last year's 360 price drop). A cut in the PS3 price will have the greatest impact because it currently has the lowest sales and the brand new, significantly lower than ever seen price point will be highly visible to consumers.

360 used to have a console with an HDD at a much lower price than the PS3. Now (assuming the PS3 pricecut) the 360 sku with an HDD is the same price as the PS3. Though that's in America, because here the Elite is cheaper than the PS3 by quite a bit, so if the Elite gets the Pro price then it will still be cheaper than PS3 with a price cut (but the price difference won't be quite as big).

And yet, here on our English speaking, apparently predominantly American, 360 biased site the PS3 somehow manages to win every front page poll.  Strange don't you think?  Sony must be really popular with 360 fans...  Something in your logic just does not compute.

Also, the only way you would say there is nothing new in Halo 3 is if you haven't played it, or its predecessors.

the ps3 isnt ust some over hyped blue ray player though the actual component that is makeing the thing so expensive though is the processor, with a peak performance of 420GFLOPS compared to the processor in the 360 which is 115.5 GFLOPS, also the ram in it runs a hell of a lot faster than the ram of the 360, ur not really paying for the bluray in it (wich in a movie makes a shitload of difference espacially runing on a tv that is bigger than 40" and 1080P) but the other technology in it, funny though that when bluray was first announced micrsoft said it was overkill and at the time one of the cinematics for the game was a 2gb by itself. on and for HDMI cables new egg sells em for like 10$ a pop, and a wireless head set doesnt cost 60$ fuckin dollers also u can use just any blue tooth headset for as little as 20$

and after my 360 red ringed i felt a little cheated as well......

Oh boy here we go again. Basically it seems that in general both systems are similarly equipted with the 360 having a better GPU and the PS3 having a better CPU, but one that is near impossible to optimize for. Both of these get absolutely raped by a modern PC mind you, so the whole argument is borderline retarded. Arguing over whose circa 2005/6 tech is (ever so slightly) faster is a joke.

As for the other points I think it is pretty hard to argue that PS3 owners always seem to dominate the polls on this, an English NA heavy site. I've seen that at pretty much any gaming site. So much for the pro-360 bias.

well it's kinda true if ps3 would hit 300$ i would buy it - especially if sony would make Valkyria Chronicles + Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm/Yakuza 3/Resistance 2 bundle cause those are the games i really liked when i was playing on my friend's ps3 and they made before many ps3+2games bundles.

Yeah, sure. Until the 360 and Wii drop their price in response to Sony's price drop and things go back to normal.

since the 360 is cheaper than the wii , its not really surprising.