Ok I might sue you for quoting me in such a wrong fashion.  There may be 16.71 people that own PS3 but that does not mean all those people are interested in Blu Ray.  I would say if PS3 did not have a blu ray player then there would probably be about 25 to 35 million PS3s sold by now.  Many of those 16.71 people wanted to get the new Playstation but due to Sony's obsession with the format war they were not given a choice of whether they wanted blu ray or not.  Truth of the matter is most people are not interested in spending more on movies for slight improvement in quality.   

Perhaps it wasn't the best choice of words. Let me try again:

The PS3 and 360 will look far better on an HDTV than a Wii.

Pretty much go Xbox 360. If you don't know which one to get, get the cheaper one with the cheaper games and the greater variety of games as its been out longer.

Start with the Arcade and work your way up depending on what you need. Thats pretty much the most level advice I can give.

Also if your friends have either a 360/PS3 and they take them online I would say the decision is made for you.

Read sig below

You're absolutly right : Super Nes is the console to buy !!! Thanks for the picture !

@ Bolded: haha! awesome. I thought it suited my purpose quite nicely, sorry.

those 16.71 million may not directly be interested in the system, but every one of those systems sold is a Blu-Ray player like it not, and have helped the adoption of Blu-Ray as an acceptable format. So even if they're not directly interested, many companies have become intersted in them as potential buyers of their products. Therefore once they do become directly interested, they'll have all thats necessary to enjoy Blu-Ray products. Provided of course that they have HDTV's to enjoy them on.

If neither HD console was HD, the sales would be even more interesting.

That's probably one ofthe Wii's major draw points: it works very well on new and old display systems.

Perhaps PS3 would have sold better without Blu-Ray, but how will we know now? it's impossible to say. The Wii would still probably be kicking its ass all over the planet.

on topic:

Squilliam, the OP wants to get Blu-Ray too.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=49512&page=1

VC

NES/SNES/N64/Mega Drive/Master System/NeoGeo/Turbographix/C64

How can 0.71 of a person own a PS3? Lol.

I suppose all of the Sony divisions have to work together. Without the PS3, Blu-ray may not have won the format war. Without blu-ray, we wouldn't have MGS4. Everyone's happy, except the people who couldn't afford 600 bucks for a console (it's 400 now)

Somehow I seriously doubt Sony is happy... 

I already agreed that if you are a Blu-Ray/movie enthusiast (meaning you are planning to start a collection) and want a console then the PS3 is the choice. My question goes beyond that and I dont mean to be 'touchy' as you say.

You did some math adding the cost of an Arcade with a Blu-Ray player, where I think this is not valid because if they wanted a Blu-Ray collection, they would have obviously buy a PS3, its the only choice anyway. But Im just pointing out that there are a huge section of the consumers that would find no use at all with a Blu-Ray feature and therefore, it would by far be more economical to not pay for it in the first place.

If you were using the word economical in terms of a Blu-Ray collectors perspective then Im not disagreeing with you at all, but I took your post as from a general perspective, which would then be wrong to say PS3 is the more economical choice in general.

'16.71 million people seem to be interested in it to date which should answer your question'

No Im not asking how many people are interested, and Im sure for everyone that is interested there is a much bigger percentage who are not.

'... there are millions of people not interested in anything except trying to stay alive right now.'

Who's touchy now?