I think this argument only works if you assume that people would choose to buy a PS3 that had very few games available for it in place of a similarly price Blu-Ray player; that may be the case but I am doubtful that in Q4 2008 you will see that many people look at a $200 to $300 Blu-Ray player and decide to buy the $300 to $400 PS3 in its place. It could get even worse if Advent or Apex-Digital get into the production of HD-DVD or Blu-Ray players because they could produce a $100 to $150 player which would be dramatically less expensive than a PS3

BluRay won't be the only selling factor for PS3...look at it like a value added feature.  People never bought PS2 primarily to have a DVD player, they bought them maybe because they had one with the games machine as a bonus....

If you were wanting a BluRay player and could get one for $300, but were in the market for a games machine and could get both for $400 what would you do. 

Actuly my friend did just because it was a cheap DVD. Then he got into gaiming also.

Good for Sony, bad for the PS3.

 Games don't really make them that much money, but the movie industry is HUGE.  They would gladly sell only 20M PS3's ever if it meant that Blu-Ray was the guaranteed successor to DVD, even if the transition didn't actually take place for another 5-10 years (which it won't).  They will probably have HD-DVD licked and have the optical HD media market cornered, they just need to watch out that downloadable content doesn't take off before HD movies can beat DVD.

 It wasn't exactly cheap when the PS2 came out here...it was £299 when you could pick up a DVD standalone for around £150-£180

HappySqurriel said: DKII said: Good for Sony, bad for the PS3.  Games don't really make them that much money, but the movie industry is HUGE.  They would gladly sell only 20M PS3's ever if it meant that Blu-Ray was the guaranteed successor to DVD, even if the transition didn't actually take place for another 5-10 years (which it won't).  They will probably have HD-DVD licked and have the optical HD media market cornered, they just need to watch out that downloadable content doesn't take off before HD movies can beat DVD.     If it wasn't for the losses associated with the PSP and PS3 Sony Games would wipe the floor with Sony Pictures

Always thought that it was PS2 that kept Sony going when they had their tough period for the elctronic side.

HappySqurriel said: DKII said: Good for Sony, bad for the PS3.  Games don't really make them that much money, but the movie industry is HUGE.  They would gladly sell only 20M PS3's ever if it meant that Blu-Ray was the guaranteed successor to DVD, even if the transition didn't actually take place for another 5-10 years (which it won't).  They will probably have HD-DVD licked and have the optical HD media market cornered, they just need to watch out that downloadable content doesn't take off before HD movies can beat DVD.     If it wasn't for the losses associated with the PSP and PS3 Sony Games would wipe the floor with Sony Pictures

Also, on a slightly off topic note: I think people are underestimating the length of this generation of consoles. I really don't think we're going to see a new a generation of consoles as quickly as previous generations because the industry cannot survive another new console cycle. Every time we see a new set of consoles, we see all the gaming companies take a bigger and bigger hit on their bottom-line. That model is no longer viable. The 360 and PS3 are gonna be around and be strong for at least 7 years. This is why Sony investing in Blu-ray now ought to pay dividends down the line.

If it takes 5 years for Blu Ray to win out, wouldn't that cancel out PS3's advantage? Because by say, 2011 or so, won't PS3 graphics be "outdated" and won't we be talking about PS4, Xbox361, and Wiii (with three "i's")?

Or worse, blu-ray could be a transition format like laser disc.