A lot of analysts and commentators back then thought that Nintendo ruling the gaming world was the "natural order" of things. PS1 won merely because Nintendo blew it, and now that they'd fixed their mistakes, they'd return to the top.
This gen, you have analysts and commentators arguing that PlayStation is the "natural order" and others arguing that Nintendo is. Both are wrong of course. Though its interesting and gives us perspective on history, posting articles like this to suggest a correlation between PS2 and PS3 is just as wrong. The strongest correlation is that both times you have developers whining about developing for a Kutaragi system, and commentators claiming that the year-old systems with a superior online setup, but which honestly haven't sold very well yet have an advantage. Beyond that, you have a $300 system with hype and a $600 system without it.
"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."
Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.
