xenophon13 said: I am sorry Lorofthenightknight, there is no way that the PS3 was a small factor. Every article i have read has stated the importance of the ps3, every analyst has stated the importance of the ps3. We don't have to agree, I know your reasons on why the blu ray were also important factors but there is no way the ps3 was a minor factor.

Not the ones I've read. They say the Ps3 was a factor, but there were others.

And those aren't "my reasons". What the hell? You think I'm making those up? Look up Engadget, which owned by Warner, who certainly supports Blu-Ray now. The PS3 is NOT one of the major factors credited.

Try stop just telling me I'm wrong, and PROVE I'm wrong. And PS3 unit sales don't count, if anyone tries them, since those only prove the PS3 is selling not Blu-Ray movies.

BTW, The articles I've seen are linked on other threads here (including the official Blu-Ray fan thread).

Why don't you link to articles which claim the PS3 was a major factor?

Final-Fan said: Grey Acumen said: first off, if the PS3 launched without BluRay, it might have been cheaper, but what would it have had to set itself apart from the 360 at all? Instead of it being "360 is cheaper and has more games and xbox LIVE" it would have been "360 is the same price and has more games and xbox LIVE" I'm sympathetic to your position, but when you try to claim (apparently) that being at a higher price HELPED the PS3, I just have to laugh.

He didn't write that it was the higher price SOLELY. You're twisting his words. 

Grey Acumen said: first off, if the PS3 launched without BluRay, it might have been cheaper, but what would it have had to set itself apart from the 360 at all? Instead of it being "360 is cheaper and has more games and xbox LIVE" it would have been "360 is the same price and has more games and xbox LIVE" When it came to lack of games, this was more related to the Cell Processor, and the fact that 360 was paying for 3rd parties and had already established itself over the past year, than it had anything to do with the Blu Ray format. It STILL would have had PS2 offering the ability to play the whole PS2 library for only $100 as a major hurdle, and it still would have had the Wii with better looking motion controls stealing that thunder. Any sales that having Blu Ray might have held back are pretty much guaranteed to be gone now that the format war has been decided. so really, I just don't see how Blu Ray has cost PS3 the VG war. It's really 360's early launch, the Wii's popularity and the PS2's continued popularity that have done the most damage to the PS3.

Well, if the ps3 didn't have Blu-Ray, it probably would've launched 6 months earlier, and many of the360's defacto exclusives (Lost Planet, Dead Rising, Saints Row, etc.) would've been multiplat. Third parties also wouldn't have been so quick to abandon the ps3 for the 360's larger install base. Because of this, the 360 wouldn't have had near as many more games than the ps3, so it would've been the failure prone Xbox (and at the time the Xbox name in general still was frowned upon by most gamers) versus the reliable PlayStation.  The ps3 would've stomped the 360 in this scenario.

ok lord obviously they are not your reasons, they are your stated reasons. here i go, i am going to list a few articles that i can find just so you dont think i am making this up:

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/extraedge/consultants/succeeding_today/2008/02/25/column505.html?market=phoenix
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7252506.stm
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9874808-7.html?tag=nefd.lede
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120343622985476997.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hfFVgshT7PqGp1otzd4w1kJ_MecQD8UTM37G0
http://www.smh.com.au/news/articles/bluray-the-victor-in-nextgen-dvd-war/2008/02/18/1203190700636.html

Ok i could go on but i wont. You think it was minor, me and the rest of the world think that that the role the ps3 played was major. We can disagree, i am ok with that.

oh and that doesnt include the stuff i have seen on cnn and other news shows proclaiming the ps3 as a major factor (not the only factor, i am not saying that, just a major factor)

04/18/2007
HD DVD - 100k in USA
Blu-ray - 1050k PS3s, 25k stand-alone players in USA
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070418-dedicated-hd-dvd-players-outsell-blu-ray-counterparts.html

07/26/2007
HD DVD - 300k in USA (half of which are 360 add-ons)
Blu-ray - 1400k PS3s, 100k stand-alone players in USA
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9750763-7.html
http://www.news.com/2300-1041_3-6199134-1.html

(Note: apparently HD DVD was more popular on the other side of the pond, but then again so was the PS3.)

Say all you like about the studios LtNK, but there is no denying that the PS3 having Blu-ray was a MASSIVE boost to the install base, and a lot of the people who suddenly found themselves with a Blu-ray player probably went out and got one just for the hell of it, even if they had SDTVs. 93% of the Blu-ray player install base as of July was PS3s. Sure, most of those people didn't use it as such; sure, some of those who did would have bought a standalone player if the PS3 wasn't available. But there were enough who became Blu-ray buyers because of the PS3 they bought to make a big difference.

That's not to say that it was SUCH a big difference that it dwarfs all the things you mention. (For instance, I notice that (in the US) HD DVD only managed to sell 50 thousand non-360 players in the time that Blu-ray sold 75 thousand stand-alone players.) But the PS3's contribution is also not dwarfed BY those other things.

great analysis final fan

xenophon13 said: ok lord obviously they are not your reasons, they are your stated reasons. here i go, i am going to list a few articles that i can find just so you dont think i am making this up: http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/extraedge/consultants/succeeding_today/2008/02/25/column505.html?market=phoenix http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7252506.stm http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9874808-7.html?tag=nefd.lede http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120343622985476997.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hfFVgshT7PqGp1otzd4w1kJ_MecQD8UTM37G0 http://www.smh.com.au/news/articles/bluray-the-victor-in-nextgen-dvd-war/2008/02/18/1203190700636.html Ok i could go on but i wont. You think it was minor, me and the rest of the world think that that the role the ps3 played was major. We can disagree, i am ok with that.

Bullshit. Those articles may make a case for the PS3*, but they do NOT prove the "rest of the world" disagrees with me. Enough of that "I think so, therefore (without any surveys), most people think so," tripe. 

*And honestly, we may not know the full facts. Plus I should make it clear that minor does not mean the same as slight in this context (unless the definition actually does, in which case, I'll look for a better term).

LordTheNightKnight said: Final-Fan said: Grey Acumen said: first off, if the PS3 launched without BluRay, it might have been cheaper, but what would it have had to set itself apart from the 360 at all? Instead of it being "360 is cheaper and has more games and xbox LIVE" it would have been "360 is the same price and has more games and xbox LIVE" I'm sympathetic to your position, but when you try to claim (apparently) that being at a higher price HELPED the PS3, I just have to laugh. He didn't write that it was the higher price SOLELY. You're twisting his words.

Maybe. He said that the higher price (and Blu-ray) were what differentiated the PS3 from the 360. I strongly disagree with the allegation that if not for the (expensive) Blu-ray the PS3 it would not have been able to offer unique and appealing alternative features to those of the 360, but in any case that was what he said.

The higher price (and Blu-ray) are the only things different in the "before" and "after" picture he paints in which the hypothetical Blu-ray-less PS3 has nothing to offer that the 360 doesn't do better. If I did twist his words it was unintentional and (IMO) a very understandable error. [edit: of course, I suppose I did make it sound like having the price high for the sake of having it high was what he said, and that of course is wrong. But it is generally accepted that Blu-ray did not benefit most PS3 owners but only a certain percentage of them, making the Blu-ray-playing PS3 less of a value to most than the non-Blu-ray-playing PS3. I believe GreyAcumen agrees with this, and the rest is implied.]

GreyAcumen: care to set me straight?