A long way of saying, "No."

DVD would have become cheaper without Sony. Bluray would have become cheaper without Sony.

I assure you the world will still spin without Sony.

Think man...think. A console that sells over 160 + million has no effect on  the market price of a format? With Xbox sales afterward when Microsoft followed suit that increased it by like 24 million extra. You have got to be kidding me. So you're telling me you cannot find a Blu Ray player for $99 American after 2009 (three years after the PS3 launched)? I guess it is spin...somewhere in your mind. Sony has an advantage between both markets of influencing formats. Hardware and formats are their forte, just like Microsoft influenced OS on consoles post millenia.

No, I don't need to think about your irrelevant points.

Bluray would have become cheaper regardless if it was in PS3 and it still wasn't essential for PS3. Those are my points.

This seems to be getting ignored. ps3 was virtually the same system as the 360 and the 360and a dvd drive. so I really don't see how a blue ray drive was essential. 

If it makes the game play its essential. You just dont value Blu Ray. Theres nothing concrete about subjectivity. DVD is just as essential as Blu Ray. Blu Ray is the essential format today. People need to deal with it.

It needed a disk drive yes. but it didn't need the most expensive disc drive on the market to achieve what it has. just like there are more powerfull options that could have been opted into the current gen builds. It was not worth the cost of the edition. 

When Sony brought DVD's to gaming it was the most expensive disc drive on the market. Same difference. For the last two gens the format Sony had debuted have become the primary formats. Regardless of what you think or feel Blu Ray is selling like hotcakes in non-gaming homes across the world. Again even Nintendo and Microsoft have realized the value in its potential.

You can say that retropsectively.

But again, trying to base their discussion on the "actual" utility of BluRay and Kinect to "gamers" is pointless since the "actual" utility is subjective.

I keep saying this over and over. The difference between BluRay and Kinect were how gamers PERCEIVED AND RECEIVED them, which is also influenced by how the companies MARKETED them.

Sony marketed BluRay with the Cell Processor as something that would enhance the power of the PS3, and if I had to take a wild guess I think the number and proportion of people who thought that were greater than the number and proportion of people who thought that Kinect was something that would enhance their gaming experience.

And a lot of this has to do with Microsoft's marketing. Instead of showing Skype being used to video chat with other gamers during online gameplay, they showed it being used to watch football with other people.

Mr Puggsly, you have clearly not been paying much attention to the format wars have you? There was another optical medium called HD DVD which was backed by the DVD forum. Companies like Toshiba, Intel and Microsoft had a big stake on this format. Early on, HD DVD was winning the format war, until PS3 was released and the rest is history. If it wasn't for PS3, HD DVD would have been the successor to DVD, and blu-ray would be a dead format today.

But you are certainly right that blu-ray wasn't essential for PS3. PS3 was essential for blu-ray :P

I wouldn't be so quick to give sony any credit for the sucess of dvd's or blu-rays. Video games are far from the center of what those things are used for. 

What was promised with the blu ray on the ps3 was never achived. they never maxed out the disc to make those ultimate content games they promised. 

And when a sizable game was finally made, a mandatory install was required. so the game stil ran off the hard drive. even now blu-ray disc only save the companies monry on extra dvd's they would need to store content because everything is a mandatory install. The diference beween now and then is the cost of the tech has become cheaper to use.