From January 2006 to February 2006 the Xbox 360 sales trailed off 36% (250K units down to 161k units). At the same point in its lifespan, Sony's PlayStation 3 experienced a drop-off of 48% (244K units down to 127K units)... Yet, despite trailing off by 25% more than its supply-constrained predecessor, the system does still cost $200 more."
Wow, talk about using statistics to mislead. What the article's saying (or rather, trying to hide) is that microsoft couldn't make 360s fast enough and that the ps3 can't even match its sales with units sitting on every shelf.
As far as it costing $200 more, Sony loses
more money on each sale, so absolute price means nothing. These companies are just trying to get the console into people's homes so that they can earn licensing fees off the games.
Correct Summary: PS3 sales are below 360's in the same timespan AND are dropping at a faster rate than 360's were. Even more importantly, 360 was supply limited while PS3 is demand limited.