If anyone remembers the ps2 launch, when it was released, it was said that it was too much money, there were no games, no online play, and the dvd player was not needed. But in the ending times of the years of PS2 (before PS3), it was said that the price was perfect, it had the best selection of games, there was online play (which was good enough for the era), and the dvd player was well liked by everyone who had one. Now we are in the age of the PS3, where it is again being said. The PS3 is too much money, there is no games, the online play sucks, and the blu-ray player is not needed. I will ask anyone who reads this post to please reply with your answer to the question: Is this not an example of history repeating itself, and do you think that the end result will be the same?

Its all up to the people to determine weather the PS3 is sucessfull. More-so them then Sony.

Think about it.

Well, you left out the part about the PS2 being released one year earlier than its competition. I believe that is one major difference with the PS2-PS3. The rest of the comparisons just show that the PS3 will do well. Only time will tell how well.

Same was said for PS1, PS2 and now PS3.

What made PS and Ps2 succesfull, FF MGS GT. Does the PS3 not have them.

At the end when wii/360/PS3 production ends, PS3 will have the majority of the market.

Hmmm, let me think about it. Well for me, I got PS2 the day it was released. I was more excited about it, and I was able to pay for it. PS3 is going to have to almost cut it's price in half before I'll pay for it, and there are no games coming out on it that makes it a have to have system for me.

I don't even claim to know if PS3 will end up doing well or not, I have no idea. But for me personally, Sony won't have my money this generation.

yea it's just like the PS3 except for that the PS2 sold very well right from the start, it had a head start on the competition so it didn't need to be great right away (same situation for 360 now), it had the support of most of the developers, and it was half the price that the PS3 is now.

the ps2 luanch a year after its compitition (DreamCast) and the slightly later than the Gamecube. The xbox was 2 years late and MS was an unproven console maker.

Calling both too much money is sort of glossing over the details. The ps2 was $300, with inflation as of 2006 it still would only be $350, a far cry from $600. That alone makes a big difference.

The game selection was bad at launch, but the ps2 got very important exclusives, like GTA. GTA will be on the X360 at the same time this generation. In fact alot of factors come down to timing. This year end they are puting out alot of new ips against Microsoft and Nintendo big franchises. Nintendo is alot stronger this generation and so is Microsoft, so Sony really can't get away with what it did last generation. Microsoft had a year lead, instead of being way behind. Nintendo sold way stronger this generation then last. 

 When you add these factors it's a whole different ball game. You can't ignore that. Think about this: In no point during ps2's lifespan has it been in third place, or second place for that matter. Yet the ps3 had been in third place since launch, with no signs of change. You said it's up to the people to decide if Sony is successful. considering it's sales so far in all parts of the globe, I'd say they choose for it to fail.(So far.)

I bought a PS2 back then for the exact reason they are stating, the PS2 had been out longer, all you had to do was look at the store shelves and they were lined with PS2 games. The other two had like 5 different games on them, why would I buy them at that point. The Playstation brand had proven a selling one in the past so they had nothing to prove when it came to selling games. They didn't have trouble rallying the devs because of the success the PS1 had. They were still riding the fire that the PS1 rode in on. So there already large selection of games at that time was made even larger because of its installed base. Then they got all the third party support and they won the generation.

It isn't the same story, not even close; when the playstation 2 launched, it controlled the market. The

playstation 3 has lost the market to microsoft and nintendo.

Honestly, if you think that Sony is exactly where they want to be in terms of sales and marketshare at 

this point in the playstation 3's lifecycle, then you are fooling yourself. 

You might be the King of Fools, or the Fools' King. 

Yes. Exactly right. It IS all up to the people to determine whether the PS3 is successful. The people made the PS2 successful by buying them in droves. The people are making the PS3 a failure by leaving them on the shelves.

In all your post you talked about how the situations were the same for the PS2 and the PS3 (which is completely false, but I'll go with you on this). You then contradict yourself by talking about the one thing that is NOT the same between the two respective launches, that is, the people's reaction to the console. The truth is the PS2 performed well at launch, whereas the PS3 died as soon as Christmas was over.

So what does this show? It shows the people have chosen. They have chosen Wii.