A report in today's Guardian suggests that the answer is a resounding 'yes'. For why? Take your pick from these: games demos of dubious provenance, the gaming suitability (or lack of) of the much-vaunted Cell processor, and the Blu-ray tie-in.
What's wrong with being associated with Blu-ray? Nothing, but when dry company announcements are immediately dissected online by a huge army of bloggers, the perceived poor performance of early Blu-ray drives has come back to bite the PS3 on the ass. And in some quarters, HD-DVD is seen as the underdog, which is infinitely cooler. [Incidentally, it is entirely uncool to favour one flavour of DVD-burning technology over another.]
There's also the problem of price. With Sony using more expensive components than its rivals, the PS3 is almost certainly going to enter at the top of the market.
According to the Guardian report, the PS3 runs the risk of slipping from top of the leaderboard in the games-console market. Indeed, the author suggests that the release may enter at the bottom of the scoreboard, like your Dad trying to play Doom3.
I think the PS3 does run the risk of being an over-priced Jack of all trades. But I suspect that the biggest problem is that the console is not on the market yet, whereas the Xbox 360 is. No-one will really know how the buying public will react until after its November launch. And there are a lot of twenty-somethings and kids with pester power who are tied in to the PlayStation brand. More importantly, they own peripherals and games that they will wish to keep using – and they may even have a PSP, which will be interoperable with its putative big brother.
As with all such products, the PS3 will live and die by the games titles available, and Sony's track record in this department is pretty good.
Update: more here