Definitive proof that PS3 MUST be including in any discussion of BD and BD player sales.

Oh cmon. Thats not proof of anything. There are about 100 other explanations I could derive from this person's "evidence" Right off the top:

1.) People don't buy a lot of games right off the bat because they just dropped $400 for a PS3
2.) People just aren't buying the PS3 games out there. And just because they don't buy games doesn't mean they are buying Blu Ray movies either.

FWIW I bought 6 games the day I got my PS3 last October. I bought 6 more within the next 2 months.

These are some good points, and although I wish this wasn't the case, it's kind of true.

I think I've mentioned this before, but my friend's Uncle got a 60GB PS3 back in the spring of 2007. I think he has 3 or 4 games and 1 Blu-ray disc. Over an entire year he's bought 3-4 games and 1 BD. The reason he's got few PS3 games and only one BD is because he rents most of his games and movies. He is a little cheap, but he'll buy something if he really wants it. He does have a respectable sized DVD collection, so he'll buy a movie if he wants to see it more than once. It isn't the fact that these BD discs and PS3 games aren't being used, it's just that a lot of people just rent over by these days.

Although I've never rented a BD or DVD, because I just prefer buying, I can see why people don't have game collections like they do BD or DVD collections. They cost the price of 2 BDs or 3 or 4 DVDs. Despite the fact games like NHL 08 has more replay than movies (because you can play it every day and it's different than different types of games), they still cost $50-$60 and people are just turned off by that price tag.

Only thing that really matters is the media sales from what I can tell. I don't see Bluray catching on at mass as a standalone device for a while yet.

I bought my PS3 in Jan 2007. I own 0 PS3 games and now over 100 BDs.

If there is a new release and J6P can buy the dvd for $15 because it is a loss leader at the store and the BD is $39.95, he will likely by the SD or not buy it at all. The stand alone player cost is nor nearly as important as the software cost. The player is a one time fixed cost, but the entertainment price is ongoing.

So you look at what prices the HD-DVDs sold for, you look at the minimal improvement (not most, certainly not to me), and you have people saying there are bigger priorities than spending $25 more on the same movie, often with less features, and slightly better PQ if they have the display to see the difference.

Even though it is a new technology, they need to compete with DVD to make their the new format, and they seem to refuse to do it.

Price it correctly, and they will come.

I believe that about correctly sums it up.

I admittedly bought my PS3 for gaming, not BD.

Does anyone else find this statement ridiculous? What else can they use it for? To heat their house?

Well, they can use it to play rented games and movies, so it's not that ridiculous.

They can use it for a dedicated Folding@Home box.

Well, my understanding is that they do get pretty warm . . .

What is ridiculous about stating that the selection of PS3 games isn't that hot? I mean if there are no good games to buy, you don't buy games. And just because you don't buy games, doesn't automatically mean you will go out and by Blu-Rays to keep yourself entertained.

I think sentiment was, even if it was put forth a little harshly, why would someone have a PS3 if they don't use it for games or Blu-Ray they bought.

The obvious answer is rental. Still, I can't believe someone who walks into a store and drops $400-$500 on a PS3 doesn't walk out with at least 1 game or 1 movie. If people are buying these to simply feed them rentals, I'd wager they are a minority of the PS3 owner population.

I think there are plenty of people who have bought the system for one or two games and they then rent.

Aside from the diehard fanboys, the general impression of PS3, in gaming circles, is that it has been a disappointment. They have done better recently, but their mindshare still trails MS by a mile.

The PS3 has just overtaken the Xbox 360 in Europe in total consoles sold. So MS only leads in North America.

I assume by disappointment you mean available content?

Because the hardware kicks the ever loving shit out of the 360 IMO, and I own both.