not true, the dreamcast was first available and the ps2 had to overcome that console and all the negative critisism from the critics.

As others have pointed out, the glaring problem with your analysis is that the PS2 had an enormous head start on the other two consoles, which the PS3 didn't have.

I'd add, however, that the problems from the PS2 (difficult/costly to develop for, too expensive for the consumer) are only exacerbated in the PS3: it's even costlier to program for, and it's twice as expensive to purchase. If the problems were just as bad as last time, one could claim that the PS3 would overcome them; however, the problems are almost twice as bad as last generation. This complicates things greatly.

Lastly, the most important evidence that you're wrong are the sales. Here's a chart of PS2/GC/Xbox sales:

http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=GC&reg1=All&cons2=PS2&reg2=All&cons3=XB&reg3=All

Of course, none of these have their European numbers included, so this would actually be worse for the Xbox/GC if that were included.

Now, here is a chart of the PS3/Wii/Xbox360:

http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All

Obviously, that chart is shorter and less complete, but you can't remotely claim that the PS3 is off to the same start as the PS2 was, compared to it's competitors. 6 Months after all the consoles were launched last generation, the PS2 had a near 15 million console lead. This generation, the PS3 is 4.5 million behind the Wii (and growing fast) and 6.5 million behind the 360 (and growing slowly). You can't possibly suggest that those are similar circumstances, can you?

The PS3 really reminds me of a PSP where its great on entertainment but light on software

The PS2 costed the same at launch as the PS1: $299. The PS3 now costs twice as much. So yeah, that's too much money.

@ URNotE - If you were new to the boards I'd understand the reasoning in your thread, but haven't you been here a while? We've devoted alot of attention to the "Launch Myths" of Sony and Nintendo over the last few months.

1. The PS3 is a lot more expensive than the PS2.

2. PS2 had a year headstart over the competition (The Dreamcast was in no position to put up a fight), where the PS3 is a year behind the box and on equal footing with the Wii

3. The PS2 was released at a time when the DVD player was already taking over from VHS, and it could capitalize on demand, where as the PS3 is coming out at a time when a format war over the DVD successor is going poorly for both sides, as the new formats only matter to those that have High Def televisions

4. The PS2 didn't have to compete with the Wii. Love it or hate it, it's selling well and getting more dev support

However, even if we ignore all the big differences between the two consoles. The most important evidence is the sales. The PS2 had terrific sales right off the bat. The PS3 having lousy sales. I'm not saying that the PS3 won't improve sales, but there's no way it will mirror the PS2's results in any way shape or form. 

Yeah, it will be the same. Because even Sony Haters say same things as in 2000.

Sony is also under the mistaken impression that including the ability to play DVD movies is a huge selling point. But true technophiles and hardcore gamers probably already have DVD drives. I'm a good case in point. I already own a Sony DVD player, so I could not care less if the $299 PS2 can play movies. I'd rather pay less and get a machine that just plays games instead.

In comparison, the Sega Dreamcast sells for $149 and has a giant library of games already available. Sega also has an online game network, Seganet.

Oct. 27, 2000 © Sony-Hater.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/10/27/playstation_rant/index.html

Oh, please. The Dreamcast sold poorly from the start. It was basically dead in the water when it launched. The two consoles that would give the PS2 any competition at all -- the Xbox and Gamecube -- didn't launch for another year. 

Regardless of whether one believes these silly parallels apply or not, the truth is that the circumstances are completely different now. Just look at my last post. Look at where the PS2 was 6 months after the Xbox/Gamecube launched. Look at 6 months after the Wii/PS3 launched. The PS3 is way behind, the PS2 was way ahead. That's all you really need to know; the PS3 is nowhere close to where the PS2 was at this point in generational cycle. And with every passing day, the disparity between the PS2 and PS3's position grows. The PS2 was pulling farther and farther ahead, while the PS3 falls farther and farther behind.

Just get over it. The PS3 isn't even close to being in the same position as the PS2. End of story.  

I'm just going to repeat this for emphasis, because it absolutely should end this discussion. There is no denying the relentless truth of these charts. First, the Xbox/GC/PS2 chart. Note the console sales 6 months after all the systems had been released:

http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=GC&reg1=All&cons2=PS2&reg2=All&cons3=XB&reg3=All

Now, the 360/Wii/PS3 chart. Note the end of the graph, which is about 7 months into the generational cycles:

http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php

The PS2 was way ahead, and was pulling farther and farther ahead. The PS3 is way behind, and is falling farther and farther behind. These launches just are.not.comparable.

What I don't understand is why everyone freaks out at the idea that their console won't be the most successful this generation, and prefers to make up BS and a million of these ridiculous posts rather than just accept that YOU prefer the choice you made and everyone else doesn't necessarily have to agree with your decision.

the ps2 stayed ahead for a reason, not just that it came out first. you cant tell me that 115+ million units is because they came out first. the other consoles were so far behind because they lacked the components of a well rounded system.