I'm quoting the analyst directly here:

Sony's latest move, slashing the PlayStation3's price by $100 to $299 and offering a thinner version of the ginormous console, has almost no hope of making a difference.

I don't think this is necessarily true and he's incredibly vague in the first place. A difference at what? Sony doesn't need to be in first or second place to make money, it needs to sell systems to increase it's base and more third party games to improve it's attach rate. This guy doesn't seem to understand that.

That's because Sony's technology-packed console will remain more expensive than either the Xbox 360, which starts at less than $200 and the Wii, which sells for $250.

I doubt most people are weighing a PS3 against a Wii so let's take the Wii out of the equation as that's neither here nor there. I'd wager the Wii is reaching near critical mass in it's base size and it's sales figures for the past three months bear me out a bit there. The $299.99 PS3 Slim pricetag puts it squarely up against the 360's core SKU.

Not a good place to be, with price cuts for those consoles almost surely on the way. And while Sony's offering is packed with expensive technology, it's the least mature where it matters most: motion-sensitive controllers and online gaming.

Motion control for this generation is already over, Nintendo won that war long ago so I don't really understand his point. Microsoft and Sony want feature parity for the next-gen and the best way to do that is introducing it early to see if it's going to be feasible for their audience.

Online gaming the PS3 is far ahead of the Wii but again let's take the Wii out of the equation since it doesn't belong there anyways. He's certainly correct that the PSN in general doesn't really compare favorably to Xbox Live but that's assuming people are actually taking this into account when making purchase decisions. People decide based on price first and foremost, gaming library second and features a distant third. Sony's network doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be good enough to help them sell the system to people on the fence on features. The pricetag was their biggest hindrance and that's gone now.

It's pretty sad when your average 18 year old forum goer probably knows more about the industry than the guy paid 60k a year to write about it.

But what they said wasn't nonsense, just poorly phrased. Had they said it's a leader in neither motion control nor online this wouldn't be an issue. The writer in no way meant to say it's behind both Nintendo and Microsoft in both those areas, just that it's behind in both those areas and that those are the two biggest draws for consoles right now.

Most gamers want one of those or the other. Sony offers both, but offers both in a half-assed manner.

Opinion: Forbes Spews Nonsense About PS3 on IndustryGamers.

It's pretty sad when your average 18 year old forum goer probably knows more about the industry than the guy paid 60k a year to write about it.