Think about the total sex that the PS3 would have been with a 4x (18MB sec streaming) or a 6x (27MB sec streaming) BR drive? Yes, I think you can! Now put that console between your legs and just imagine it was a 'little bigger'.

Instead of looking at it as did PS3 need Blu-ray, look at PS3 today and try to imagine it without it. Every time I think about PS3 without the Blu-ray drive I feel extreamly happy Sony put it in there. I look at my games shelf and see Uncharted, Resistance 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Little Big Planet, Motorstorm Pacific Rift, Killzone 2, Lair, Heavanly Sword, and Ratchet and Clank, and I think just how much I would be missing out on if they had been starring at that 6.8GB barrier. Sure they could have used multiple discs, but that is not something that publishers are willing to let run wild.

I made a post here a long while back, and I said Blu-ray was the most important tech of this generation, and I stand by that statement today. Blu-ray is the number one reason PS3 is capable of going further than 360, and Wii. Blu-ray is the reason that even in the next generation of consoles PS3 will hold up better than any console in history. As developers gain access to more space with the next Xbox, and Nintendo unit, PS3 will only benefit. In fact, I can not wait to see how EA, and others will explain why their yearly franchises make a dramatic leap on PS3 when the next gen consoles come around, and they port that code, and art to PS3. Perhapps they will just go ahead and start developing first on PS3, and using Blu-ray, then porting down and out to the lesser systems.

If businesses are based on that train of thought, then it's bound for failure.

Blu-Ray (you spelled it wrong), was simply not ready for mass market consumsion due to price point.

Remember how Sony had to pay through the nose for those dye thingamajig?

CD and DVD were already industry standard when they put them on PS1/2.

UMD, well, we saw how successful it has been.

You could think about all the games missing from your shelf because the PS3 didn't sell as well as it could have...

When the next generation comes around and they start porting their code to the PS3 it will choke and die trying to run it.. wait what? Yep it will choke and die on next generation code just as much as the lesser consoles. What you see is limited by what the PS3 can hold in memory and process not by how much is stored on the disc.

I think most, if not all, would like it smaller.

So one game justifies the cost and loss in market share? This is more PR BS, nothing more. Most developers won't utilize that much space. And most exclusives went to the 360, PS3 having to share most franchises they had a lock on last gen. Sony can continue to shovel us crap, and pretend they're happy with taking these hits to their bottom line because they had 'no choice' but to use Blu-Ray, for without it gaming would not be possible! Truth is, they're playing damage control. And they'll have to for the rest of this gen. Just like Nintendo had to with N64 and their decision to stick with carts, and to a lesser extent GC, with the mini-DVD's.

Most are intimidated by its size! But not me!!! I want MOAR!

Isn't it bad if it's too big? You can't feel a thing...

An analogy of PS3 would be like diamond... a piece of stone worth more than other piece of stone because of its "actual value"...?

Perceived value is what the consumer got out of the product.
Actual value is the cost to make, including research cost.

If you only game on your PS3, the perceived value for the system is the same whether it came with a DVD drive or a Blu-ray drive.

When you use your PS3 as your Blu-ray movie player, then you suddenly got higher perceived value.

How many PS3 owners are using it to play movies often enough to justify the additional cost?

Had they come separately, those that only want gaming out of the PS3 could buy the system at much lower price.

Meanwhile, it really doesn't interfere with those that want a Blu-ray player, since they could easily buy a standalone.