I seriously doubt it. While good for gamers, it devalues your platform when you make hasty price cuts. Lowballing is a strategy for newcomers, and industry disruptors. Our company came in at a super-low price for the market, something like 10-20% of the competition. However, ours is/was a fledgling market, and one where the early market leaders had set incredibly high prices aimed at the enterprise-level customers. We wanted to target the everyman, and our CEO crunched the numbers and found a pricepoint where we could sustain internal growth and development, while appealing to single-owner operations.
It worked. We scooped up a ton of users, and became a major player in the market. We then increased our pricepoint, once we'd built up the feature set of our base product, and focused our revenue growth on a premium addon strategy, where we broke out certain functionality into separate apps, and charged them at competitive prices, but only 80-90% of the competition, instead of huge cash we did with the base app. Users have complained about the pricing of certain products, but we maintain the stance that going too low devalues the product. We're offering every bit the value of our competition, and more in many cases, so why should we cut into our revenue stream? If we lag behind, it's because we're not innovating enough.
Microsoft is not a newcomer, and going into their 4th iteration, can hardly consider themselves a disruptor. They're pretty much part of the establishment. Cutting a price they announced only weeks ago suggests that they don't think they can compete on games. They need a price advantage in order to bring the fight to Sony. True or not, there's questionable long-term gain in being the budget option in a tech market. Given development cycles, and Sony's ability to secure big exclusives early in the generation, they'd be banking heavily on just that, price, as the means of swaying gamers over to their side. But should that fail to fulfill the mission, you're now bleeding money on razors that are considered the cheaper product, while still lacking fancy blades to help recoup that loss.
I feel like Sega tried this in the past, and it blew up in their face, and hastened their demise. I'm not certain this would be the wise decision, but I fortunately don't have to make such strategic calls. IMO, it only makes sense if the Xbox Series is a do or die effort at the market by the parent company. If MS basically said, make it work, or we cut off the cash. That's the only way I can understand what on the surface would be an act of desperation. I don't believe this rumor.