if ps3 doesnt match ps2 with sales will it be called a failure

[Sullla]

I'd like to preface this by making it clear that all definitions of "failure" are subjective. (Aside from products like the Virtual Boy and Gizmondo, naturally.) What I'm writing here is my opinion, and should not be taken as a definitive statement of fact.

This won't please Sony fans, but I personally regard the PS3 as one of the biggest failures in gaming history. And even if it goes on to outsell the 360 sometime in 2009 or 2010, it won't change that one bit. Why? One word: expectations. It's impossible to define failure or success without mentioning the expectations associated with them. For example, the Gamecube is often considered a failure, while the XBox is usually referred to as a success. This despite the fact that the XBox outsold the Gamecube in very marginal terms (fewer than 2m units, which was less than 10%), while losing over $4 billion in the process. Yet there's some truth to these terms: Nintendo had 20 years of experience in the console gaming industry, while Microsoft was a newcomer with no prior history. Everyone expected Nintendo to do better than Microsoft, and factors into how we view their respective consoles.

What few people realize is just how dramatically the terms of debate have shifted over the past two years. If you were to tell gamers in Feb. 2006 that the PS3 would be struggling to catch the 360 in sales, and miles behind the Wii, they would have laughed at you and called you an idiot. Remember, EVERYONE expected the PS3 to crush all its competition this generation. They had the ultimate slam-dunk situation: all the brand-name recognition, 100% of the third-party support, and an unlimited amount of hype surrounding their product. Sony fans spent the whole year of 2006 laughing about how feeble the 360 was selling, and how when the PS3 arrived it would destroy all challengers. (Remember that?) But the more we found out about the PS3, the more we realized that Sony had made a lot of mistakes; first, the lengthy delays that gave the 360 its year-long headstart, then the $600 pricetag announced at E3 2006, then the sluggish launch largely lacking high-power software titles, followed by a year of delays of the major titles. Weren't the big games supposed to be out by now?

You can spin things all you like. But the fact remains, Sony seriously farked things up this time around. They should have won this generation in a walk. Instead, they remain in a distant third place, slowly making up tidbits of ground to the 360 each week. This wasn't the result of a natural disaster or something; Sony's design decisions directly resulted in the poor sales we've seen. I give them credit for rallying and recovering somewhat, but the PS3 never should have been in that position in the first place! Sony fans, would you ever in a million years have thought you would be in this situation two years ago? Or even one year ago?

Because the expectations for the PS3 were so high, that's exactly why the current situation should be considered a failure, IMO. If the Wii were sitting at 10m units sold to the PS3's 21m, everything would be just as we expected. Since it's the opposite... well, I think some criticism is justified.