> You claimed the reason why Blu Ray won was mostly because it was bundled with the PS3 And Sony's partnerships with media companies, yes. Both of these are tr

> You claimed the reason why Blu Ray won was mostly because it was bundled with the PS3 And Sony's partnerships with media companies, yes. Both of these are true. > PS3 sold about 87.3 million while xbox 360 sold about 84 million I was referring to sales when xbox been on the market twice as long (2 years) as the PS3 (1 year) at calendar end (2007). If the 360 had an early-to-market advantage, it became irrelevant real quick and never recovered that sales advantage in any meaningful way once a competitor emerged. [1] > a HD DVD accessory was required to play HD DVD content on the xbox 360. Yes. Further cements what I was saying about the PS3 being instrumental in BR taking over HD-DVD as a consumer entertainment format. it also further highlights my original point of how "cheaper" doesn't necessarily mean better value, or better selling, or better adaption. There's more to it than "first" or "cheapest". BR/PS3 were more expensive and later to market than their HD-DVD/360 counterparts, and yet both when on to be as successful if not more so than their cheaper first-to-market rivals. The original question of this thread is how important "cheap" is to a technology attaining success. This is a clear example of "it doesn't". There are plenty of instances however where it absolutely helped. This was just an instance where it did not, or at least, not enough to outweigh other factors against it. 1. https://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php?reg=Global&ending=Yearly https://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php?reg=Global&ending... EDIT: Changed 2017 to 2007 because oops, holy hell it's been 15 years since PS3 launch?! I'm old ffs