So the Xbox is going to offer a significant price cut and the PS3 is well…not. Sony’s excuse/defense is that they’re “Confident that consumers are making choices driven by value.” and thus will not be competitive in response to 360’s price drop to the $200 arena. I’ve been reading reports on the gamer blogosphere of this statement and no one seems to be calling them out on this very elusive and diplomatic response to the very basic question:
“Why isn’t the PS3 going to make the price cut?”

Well in my opinion, they can’t afford to. Sony should have just said that.

I think Sony still has to make a lot of their money back. It’s no secret that the PS3 had a rough start selling units due to the whopping $600 introductory cost. Because of their blu-ray player, their monster machine came with a monster price tag. They may have won the blu-ray battle but hopefully not at the cost of the console war. If I didn’t have a current-gen system by this holiday season, despite its hardware issues, a $200 Xbox 360 would look mighty attractive.

I’m not even arguing that the PS3 isn’t worth the 4 to 500 dollar price tag. I just find it a bit insulting that the reason they’re not making a competitive move is because “the PS3 offers the value…” I far prefer the PS3 over any competitor but by that logic, the 360 actually offers more value, especially considering that the 360 price cut would actually better correlate the very nature of the word “value”. But to be fair, $200 is what they should be charging for defective hardware anyway.