It seems as if people are missing the point. Anyone saying "they would keep prices at $500" isn't making any sense. For example, the reason Nintendo cut the price on the Wii is because Wii sales were falling, not because the HD consoles were taking over. That has nothing to do with marketshare, Nintendo could probably care less about it. They hardly receive any third party support as it is.

I voted yes.

MS has done little to respond to the PS3 slim / price cut of late, though it's still hard to know if they place more value in extra profits, or second place. It should become clear to us later in the year...

Thanks to the 2009 holiday season, Sony has secured enough momentum and marketshare that it no longer matters. 3rd parties are forced to support it along with the 360. Cutting the PS3's $300 price tag any further seems like overkill, they've lost enough money on the system as it is, it's time to make the climb back up.

If figures like this are accurate, it takes 4-5 game sales per console to break even when taking a $50 loss on hardware. That's kind of a lot...

IMO I think they should collaborate for next gen. Sony does the hardware and Microsoft does the software. It would be an unstoppable force.

That ship has sailed... Microsoft wanted to do that in 1999/2000, Sony responded by saying PS2 could replace your PC.

who, me?

I skimmed through it breifly but mostly based it off the title.

Well I said they should be focussing on turning themselves into competitors for Nintendo in the opening post.

The fight for market share is mostly about undercutting eachother, the degree to which they can compete with Nintendo is limited as long as they are not seen as substitute products by the market.

Wii has won generation 7!!

Why does this discussion even exist? All companies compete for marketshare and profit, simultaneously. More marketshare equals more profits in the long run, even at the expense of profits short term. If Sony had sold the PS3 at a profit at launch, ~$800-900, no one would have bought it. Then no one would have bought their accessories/games, so no profit at all there.

Not only this but it gives companies a better chance at the success of their next product. A popular previous product that devivers usually gives that company a loyal fanbase who are there waiting for their next product. Given the same scenerio as above, if Sony released the PS3 at profit and no one bought it, then they would likely have to withdraw from this gen after a year or so. If they tried to come back after this gen, many would have a lower opinion of them and therefore would be less likely to buy their system.

The real question is why does the OP feel this now. Especially after Sony has made a real push and it is paying off for them. They are gaining marketshare and are very close to making the PS3 hardware profitable. So who's marketshare is he worried is going to be going down? Are does he just not someone's to go up?

We may own their systems but it's between Sony and MS, plus you did care enough to come here and post in a thread called,''MS and Sony should give up the fight for marketshare'' so the evidence is not sacked in your favor I'm afraid...

Gaining marketshare does not necessarily lead to more profit. Just look how much Sony has lost in the fight for marketshare. And they are going to have to start the fight from the beginning again next gen. Paying billions for customer loyalty? That might work in other industries but it doesn't seem to in the games industry. Nintendo supposedly had customer loyalty with NES but that didn't stop them from losing a fair chunk to Sega in the next gen, and continue to lose customers until Wii. Surely PS2 had a HUGE amount of loyal customers, but they don't seem to be sticking around to support the PS3. The idea that marketshare this gen automatically translates to marketshare next gen is false, and the cost involved is immense.