Chubear,
You're correct in saying that some people who used that type of argument against the PS2 are also using the exact same argument against the PS3; what you fail to realize is that (although it wasn't a a valid argument against the PS2) the argument seems valid against the PS3.
The PS2 was not an uncharacteristically highly priced console when compared to other consoles that had been released, it was the same price as the Playstation and (when you factored in inflation) was only a bit more expensive than consoles like the NES, SNES, and Genesis. The PS3 on the other hand is drastically higher in both absolute and relative prices as compared to most successful consoles:
Next people did question the value of DVD Playback being that (at the time) people didn't see much value in the format. When the PS2 was released DVD was a pretty mature format (3 years old), every major movie was released for it and every blockbuster was carying a wide selection of movies, people didn't need a new TV to take advantage of the format, the PS2 was an inexpensive player (you could buy a $150 VHS player, $300 PS2 with DVD or $350 to $500 DVD player) and Hollywood was producing good movies that looked amazing on DVD (Fifth Element, The Matrix, etc.). Blu-Ray is a brand new format that requires a new TV to take advantage of, will be a few years before Blockbuster caries a wide selection of movies, the PS3 is an expensive player being released in a time where people are used to paying $15 for a DVD player.
The last thing is sales ... The PS2 never had a slow period, it was one of the fastest selling consoles and it never gave up any ground to its competition. The PS3 isn't even in the same league of sales as its competition; its sales would have to double and the Wii's sales would need to be cut in half before this competition even gets close.
