How can you say that with any amount of confidence though? At launch the system was constantly praised for it's Blu-Ray capabilities. It was the CHEAPEST Blu-Ray player on the market at launch, and for a good time afterward. Not to mention it was the only Blu-Ray player at the time that could also get bonus content from the internet.
Less people purchased the PS1 as a CD player (though it was a great CD player at the time too), but a lot of people did actually purchase the PS2 and PS3 for their multimedia capabilities.
Being on VGC for a long time and looking at all the discussions over it and evidence.
I just gave you a very strong thing to look at. PS2 sold 150M+ consoles and 1.5B+ SW tie ratio of 10:1, PS3 sold 87M consoles and 1B SW tie ratio of 11.5:1 . Those aren't that much different from the average on the gen they were into.
So even though there were people that bought PS2 for DVD and PS3 for BD that isn't on a quantity that would really have changed much the totals. Do you have evidence for this "lot of people"?
Just look at how many bought the HD-DVD for Xbox (not many), or how the BD adoption rate was slow because there was a war format (at the time it ended BD players were already much cheaper than PS3). Considering most outlets claim the war was won because of PS3 having the BD, and at that time PS3 was below 20M or so (go check how much DVD players were sold before the war started, or how many BD players sold after it became the standard) and you'll see that this amount is very little (and sure that most of that 20M were diehard fans of Sony).
Price of the BD players dropped quite fast after the format war finished. So PS3 wasn't the cheapest player for more than some months.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."