By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

@Spankey

Although each of your examples have merit in their own right, there are 3 major reasons why I think it doesnt hold for the PS3.

Firstly, the Blu-Ray feature adds a significant amount to the overall price whereas the rest of your examples dont.

Secondly, you seem to think Blu-Ray is as standard as pockets, RF tuners and car rear seats? I dont want this to turn into a Blu-Ray is the standard argument, I had enough to last me a lifetime, but ~85% sell through on DVD currently does not lie. And its really not impossible that the standard would be that people digitally rent, stream or download movies/shows in the future.

Thirdly, all your examples add to the core functionality of the actual core product. People use cars to sit in and drive to a destination, people use a hi-fi to listen to music where radio is an avenue and people heat up food in microwaves whether its convection or waves etc. The core functionality of the PS3 as a video game console is to play games. Being able to play digital media film was never a standard feature of a video game console, look at the Wii and every other video game console in history pre-PS2. It was only pioneered by the PS2 and that is only recently.


If you buy a PS3 but never use the Blu-Ray to watch movies, have you wasted your money? I would say yes to this based on my points. You can play the same games for less than half the price.


In regards to the OP, he says that he is impressed with the picture quality of Blu-Ray and anybody would be, its the best picture quality, no one is denying that. But all too often I hear people say that, get a PS3 and end up getting a rental service and buying like 2-3 Blu-Rays a year. I think its hard enough keeping up with the games.