Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Xfire

I added a small snippet of info on the Xfire client integration.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3153547

new tflop link

the ref for the tflops should be changed because it is 2.18 now, and sony says two. google search shows the number was circulated and is probably correct. a reputible source would be nice. google. --gatoatigrado 01:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire "zomfg terrofloppies" thing is hype anyway. FLOPS with respect to a CPU are not comparable to FLOPS with respect to a graphics ASIC.

resolutions

I don't want to put in anything stupid, but doesn't HDMI support all of the resolutions in the table? --70.230.233.91 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Core version doesn't have HDMI -74.33.11.34 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

obviously. should we add a * hdmi (60gb model) supports all above resolutions? --75.11.195.231 23:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest adding a "20GB - 60GB/"Yes - No" section the the graph instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jigahurtz (talk • contribs) 03:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

um, your quotes don't match up. we already have a system comparisons at the top. what are you saying? --gatoatigrado 13:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Assassain's Creed

Well, on 9/01/06 Ubisoft confirmed it's going to be released on Xbox 360. Kenimaru 11:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? The games' table no longer indicates exclusivity. --Kamasutra 12:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I put anything INTO the main article? I'm simply here to provide some latest information so this "unconfirmed" "debate" is done for. Chill. Kenimaru

This is not an information repository. It is a place to discuss ways in which to improve the article. The "debate" is no longer revelant for the aforementioned reason. Anyway, as you can see this particular debate was closed. --Kamasutra 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you'd just read the first sentence then you know why I put further information here. Kenimaru 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

please watch this page

There are a lot of bad edits going around. [3]. They are not being caught. --gatoatigrado 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

some of this "vandalism" is particularly hard to catch because this is a future product. I think it should be a policy that any changes to the "current games" section will be immediately reverted if changes are not stated in the edit summary or discussed on the talk page. --gatoatigrado 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe such a policy would be violating the assume good faith policy. It's a little akin to the modern controversy of racial profiling, in that we would be denying the contributions of editors based solely on a statistical correlation between the lack of an edit summary and vandalism. — Wisq (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike racial profiling, this is actually a fault, not an intrinsic characteristic. If a user turns a majority of the "exclusives" to "no" [4], I think it's safe to assume it is vandalism and the article should be protected. The edit summary is not a statistic, it is an explaination. I didn't mean simply putting one in means the information is correct, or discussing it on the talk page. It shows that the user is editing in good faith. From the "assume good faith" link you sent me, I hope you read - "Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions". On the other hand, I think you're right and my previous statement is too extreme, that we should leave requests for discussion on users' talk pages. It is difficult with ip addresses. I don't think semiprotection is a bad idea for this page if this gets out of hand. It's hard "not to bite the newbies" if only addresses are seen, as they often change. I would happily leave comments with some that the game they added is not a major game yet, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball, if they had user accounts. --gatoatigrado 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Release date and pricing" section has some quite blatant NPOV breaching statements: "Let's face it; who would pay $600 for a PS3 when they can get the Wii for well under half that. The PS3 is just a stupid knock off anyway." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.5.170.18 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Those statements had already been removed. Can you see any other such statements that may have been missed? Dancter 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

new template?

anyone like the new template I made? --gatoatigrado 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

{{future product small}}

you can say no, it's okay...people were just complaining the current one is too big. --gatoatigrado 02:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually like to see both notices combined into a single one with a single message. I'd make it say something like "This arictle references a future product. Some information might be unconfirmed and other confirmed details may not be present in the final product". LighthouseJ 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

They should call the Playstation3 the Crapstation3. They are worth only $300 dollars and are selling it for twice as much, which is a total ripoff! The Playstation3 sucks!--Mario Bros. Fan 102 16:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You could have at least said GayStation 3. At least that rhymes. As for the price, you've got it completely wrong. First of all, selling a product for more than it cost to make is called "making a profit," a rather common and arguably desirable business practice. Secondly, Sony isn't making a profit on the PS3 at all. Each PS3 costs over $1000 to make. Now, let's stop. I'm no Sony fan either, but this isn't GameFAQs. CrossEyed7 20:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Some things here may be truth, but to the Layman, this is what we call opinion. Opinion is not something allowed on wikipedia. Somethings about neutrality, or whatever... So find a forum elsewhere to vent about the high price of the PLAYSTATION 3 (yes, thats the copyrighted name...) or buy something cheaper, and with better, more original simular features, at a lower price, such as the Xbox 360, or the Nintendo Wii. (My apologies for the "opinions" and I have taken the liberty to strike them out. - 68.228.33.74 04:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you all have your varied ideas on the PS3, but what you need to remember is that the PS3 costs a lot of money to make, and no real company sells their hardware for a really low price just because that's what people want. If Sony did not charge such an amount of money, they would become bankrupt, and this would only please Nintendo and Microsoft. Sure the X-Box and Wii are cheaper, but consider this; to be cheaper, they obviously have lower manafacturing costs. The PS3 does not suck, regardless of what everyone else seems to think. The thing you should be worrying about is the shortage delays, not the price. And if you don't want to buy it straight away, you can always wait for some time until the price drops. Keep in mind that what with new and improved features and graphics, all new games are going to take longer, and cost more, to develop. Sure you might think that this makes the PS3 the 'worst console ever', but really, Sony are just trying to make theirs the best, and just so you know, they are succeeding, as always. - VampireX13 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Delay possible

EB games employees just got news that PS3 may not be out until march 07. Can someone investigate this? Normally EB/Gamestop is not trustworthy with release dates, but a 5 month delay for a system launch is something big and worth looking into. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neozero497 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this recent? Do you have a link? I found some old news saying the same thing [5], [6]. I don't know if it's a bad thing; they're taking such a loss per unit at this time with the cell and blu ray manufacturing, and their launch games aren't exactly spectacular (though neither were the xbox 360's). --70.238.107.127 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A friend of mine who works at a Gamestop heard the same thing. Probably has to do with Sony not being able to get production underway. But it could just be speculation, Sony will probably announce if its delayed in late September/October —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.155.207.174 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact or fiction? Yesterday I would have said this is BS, but today, it comes true!! Kenimaru 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Tis true, tis true... If you don't live in the U.S. or Japan at least. Not that you can get your hands on the 400k in the U.S. or the 100k in Japan anyways... Hmm... They even said something about it being less then the amount for the PS2 (which was shorted too), but I can't be bothered to pull up a URL. Sorry... too lazy right now. - 68.228.33.74 04:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Full Auto 2

Full Auto 2 is only a timed exclusive game for the Playstation 2. Although Sega has only announced the game for the Playstation 3, they have not denied that an Xbox 360 game is in development. You can read about this regarding Full Auto 2 at http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13120 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike mgoblue (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant PlayStation 3, and nothing in that article supports your "timed exclusive" claim. If anything it may be considered unknown instead of exclusive, but he did say the word "exclusive" when referring to the PS3 version so I'd lean more toward that. --Kamasutra 07:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Naughty Dog Project

This game was shown off at E3 during Sonys press conference, it should be added. http://ps3.ign.com/objects/812/812550.html Baardhimself 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You should add it to the List of PlayStation 3 games, make SURE you include that link.-74.33.11.34 06:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

im not very good at wikipedia editing lol, so can someone else do it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.7.241 (talk • contribs) .

Launch title confirmations

Aren't all launch titles suppose to give confirmation/referance links?

in wp:not it is stated that Wikipedia is not a list of links. As before, it is much more appealing if the links are in the game pages. If citations are used, the template:cite should be used, not simply external links. If there is controversy about what is a launch title, please discuss it and perhaps notes can be added. Simply adding a reference does not indicate there is controversy about the title being a launch title. Adding references next to the title makes it seem like there is supporting evidence for the title being a launch title, and that this is some sort of confirmed fact. It's simply a planned deadline; we won't know until the games are out. That's why it says "subject to change". The wii article doesn't include references for each of their launch titles. Even Nintendo's "confirmation" that they have launch titles doesn't make it a fact or permanent. What would you like to see changed? --gatoatigrado 14:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

gpu

removed vertices / second, it depends on the amount of floating point operations, right? is this for one matrix multiply? the statistic isn't used very much. --gatoatigrado 15:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

also condensed other information. the rsx article has a shorter feature list than the playstation 3. --gatoatigrado 15:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why have a link to the RSX page when that page contains all the information on this page?-74.33.11.34 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

rsx should have more information. perhaps the link here will make someone edit it? i don't know, maybe we could remove some of the technical details in this article. the 1080p thing is stated too many times over, and HDR images is nothing new. --gatoatigrado 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Game Names and Fanboy Status

I would simply like to voice my opinion that games with "Untitled" or "Unspecified" status should not be listed in an List of Games. Regardless of whether or not a game was displayed at a trade show, there needs to be at least a Working Title for the game in order to appear on a List of Games.

I would also like to apologize for appearing to be a "fanboy." However, the way that there were dozens of "Untitled" games on the Playstation 3 List of Games clearly reveals that there was a Playstation fanboy who saw the huge list of games for the Xbox 360 and was very concerned that the Playstation 3 list of games was significantly smaller. I do apologize for taking up your time making sarcastic adjustments to the Playstation 3 List of Games by creating a list of "Untitled" games for several genres from 2007-2011; but, the developer of that page was very arrogont to list that many "unspecified" games--especially when you consider that the developer of the page didn't even bother to place an asterisk next to the games in order to show that the games were also appearing on either the PC or the Xbox 360. Once I updated the page to show that the games were appearing on other sytems, the developer of the page arrogantly changed the page so that the acknowledgment of appearance on other sytems was no longer a mandatory requirement. The reason why this occurred is pretty obvious. The coverage of the Wii has been done very nicely; I have not needed to contribute in many ways at all.

I realize that the Wii is significantly less powerful than the Playstation 3 or the Xbox 360. However, in Famitusu magazine, Devil May Cry 4 Producer Hiroshi Kobayashi was not referring to the Wii version of the game when he said that the Playstation 3 trailor quality from the 2005 E3 would be maintained; he was referring to the Xbox 360 version of the game. A good example of this is the way that Call of Duty 3 is going to appear on all three systems. The Wii version looks far less impressive than the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions, but it includes a unique style of gameplay that the developers wanted to experiment with.

Anyways, I thank you very much for all of your time.

Mike, please sign. There's no need to apologize; this is a talk page and you can say whatever you want. I agree completely that the same standards should be maintained for the List of PlayStation 3 games, the List of Xbox 360 games, and the List of Wii games. I'm not going to make any shots at whether "untitled" qualifies, but in my opinion, there should be some media, news, or interview. However the list of games is not a list of major games like on this article, so if there's significant work in progress, it should be fine. I don't see what you're complaining about though - there is one "untitled" game in the List of PlayStation 3 games, five in the List of Xbox 360 games, and 28 in the List of Wii games. Did they allow you to change it? I think it looks nice now. --gatoatigrado 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think the purpose of these articles is to provide a competitive comparison of products. Rather, it is to provide the complete truth for any purpose. I initially came to it because I was interested in finding some popular development tools for OpenGL. There's a lot of crud floating around about the PlayStation 3; your comments about the PlayStation 3 having less developer support can be contradicted by [10] and [11]. If anyone decides to add this information, I (and others) will try to make sure it remains factual and concise. There's no need to rant, rave, or even mention about Sony getting more dev kits out and on time. --gatoatigrado 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Noticing that both other lists designate multiplatform games, it's only fair to do so for the PlayStation 3 list of games. I am far too lazy to add all of this information, but if anyone reverts your work call an admin or leave a warning. "He was referring to the Xbox 360 version" - there is no xbox 360 version confirmed. Maybe the same story as Sony referring (or reporters thought they were) to the Killzone trailer and saying it was realtime? You should leave the Devil May Cry thing until you find better evidence. --gatoatigrado 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out something, I removed all the untitled games from the list because non of them had sources, which are required for that page. Before removal there were 56 untitled games on the PS3 page.[12]. User was probobly refering to a version prior that my edits. The reason there is only one on the page right now is because only one had a referance. I beleive that the PS3 game page should look something more like the Wii game page, everything referanced. 74.33.11.34 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are editing the Devil May Cry section again you're close to violating the 3 revert rule; I don't see any new discussion. I don't think pages that already have a Wikipedia entry need to be referenced. You're right; the list of ps3 games was awful; thanks 74.33.11.34. That was a bunch of crud. I'm glad it's changed. --gatoatigrado 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"he was referring to the Xbox 360 version of the game" - you said this before Mike. If you have any reliable sources that he was indeed talking about an Xbox 360 version of the game, Devil May Cry can be changed. At the time however, I think Wisq's tracing all of your articles back to the PixelGamers article, which was "updated" to deny the claim completely debunks the argument. That's what people said about the Killzone trailer being realtime though. --gatoatigrado 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

maybe we should give it a rest and wait for more information. I'm sorry for "second guessing" your motive as Wisq mentioned. It's okay if you're a fan of the Xbox 360; I have one and I like it. It's a nice console. You don't have to deny having POV influences. Hopefully all of the people looking at this article will be able to keep it NPOV. --gatoatigrado 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

2.8 ghz rumor

I didn't remove this, and I'm not opposed to including it, but whoever removed it might have known about Sony's denial. [13]. It's okay if we want to include it, but let's include both sides. Or we can just wait and see when it's released in a few months. --gatoatigrado 14:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

PS3 - iPod Compability?

I saw in a magazine of my country (Colombia) a photo of a PlayStation 3 with an Apple logo. This pic was on the official PS3 page and was remove a few hours later. This, and the Zune-XBOX 360 full compability leads me to ask, there could be made in the iPod-PS3 articles a new feature about this?

no, it's an "easter egg" in the flash fading thing for their main site, which was removed. if you have a link, it would be nice. it could be virial marketing, and apple could possibly want to harm microsoft, but all i could find are rumors. [14]. --70.229.32.178 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A trial version of Apple's Shake was used to create a video on the PS3 website. IT's a trial version that adds a apple logo watermark to frames until you buy the complete version.70.101.201.248 03:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

oh lol. --70.229.32.178 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

just to clear this up, it was not a trial version of an apple product, apple were paid to create a smoke effect coming down onto a box for Sonys website and they left in literally 1 frame of the apple logo on the animation which causes this hysteria, it was just an error in editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.7.241 (talk • contribs) .

No it's not, dummy. Stop spreading stupid lies or stop voluntarily being ignorant. A trial version is the only reasonable solution. The watermark is shown in the very center of the area and if I was Apple trying to produce a watermark on trial software, I'd put it in the center too. Sony doesn't want or need Apples' overpriced elitism and diva culture. LighthouseJ 00:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"A trial version is the only reasonable solution" - doesn't sound like you truly know. No one is providing links for "smoke effect" or "trial version". In fact, Joystiq says that the trial version is probably not true update 4, because the save function is turned off in the trial version. Besides, Sony Corporation having to use a trial version to make a splash page? --gatoatigrado 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As what one comment on a web page that mentioned the issue at hand, someone mentioned Occams Razor. What do you think is more possible: Sony is striking up some big partnership with Apple to provide some sort of magnificent interoperability and decide to produce hype by a one-frame watermark. Or... Some guy working on the Sony website heard about a new Apple product to make Flash animation and downloaded a trial of the software to do the work? If that Apple software doesn't make the watermark, someone else mentioned that some pro-Apple idiot working at Sony wanted to be hilarious and make his/her mark. There's too many reasons to think it's a fluke and not some magically amazing partnership. LighthouseJ 11:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It was contained in the July issue of Enter magazine (i don't remember what page). If someone in Colombia had this magazine, scanned the section and put a link to access. However, all the arguments about this subject are very reasonable and leads me to think that a PS3-iPod full compatibily (also with access from the console via Internet to the iTunes Music Store, supposing that you'll access to Sony Connect also) is impossible in a short term. That's a shame because that would give an extra argument to buy the PS3, and make a deadly weapon for Apple and Sony to battle against the attack of Microsoft and the XBox 360-Zune team, and winning the console/digital player war. And under this association, why not, the creation of a Sony Ericsson iPhone. And finally, as a personal though, the last hope I have is an association based in the fact that Apple and Sony are in the Blu-Ray Association. Well that's all for now.

final fantasy

this is a major title, no? --70.229.32.178 01:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The removal was obvious vandalism. --Edgelord 03:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Layout Problem

The Launch games table has swallowed the rest of the article. Sadly I don't know enough wiki to be able to fix it. But someone ought to. --Paul

you may be having problems with older browsers not loading the full article, or you need to wait for it to reload. Download firefox and if it doesn't display right the first time, shift-click the "reload" button. --69.214.10.49 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the table was genuinely broken and subsequently fixed -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-31 20:18Z

NVIDIA

What is the significance of the two NVIDIA tables at the end of the article? Such tables would be great in a NVIDIA article, though. MadIce 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The system uses a nVidia GPU, nVidia template seems fitting. For easier navigation of nVidia products for users who wish to get more information on the sister products of the PS3 GPU70.101.201.248 05:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know it has a nVidia GPU. The thing is that the first tabel is mainly about DirectX. That's not about the PS3 at all. In the second one, you can see which type of products nVidia is involved in. Again... This is information which is relevant to nVidia and it is not specific to the PS3. MadIce 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it's meaningless. --70.237.120.130 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I found it useful and think it should stay.Jigahurtz 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Finding something usefull is something different than relevance. ;) MadIce 16:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mercenaries 2: World in Flames

I made a revert based upon this link- [15]. It appears that the game is in development for both PS3 and XBox 360. Ex-Nintendo Employee 04:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what I've read http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/717/717150p1.html

""Right now, we have PS3 development kits and it's on PS3, and there is no announcement, but we're definitely condsidering Xbox 360. There is still a lot of time and we haven't ruled the Xbox 360 out. We'll have some news to announce in the next couple of months." What will we hear in a few months? News on a publisher? On a system? We don't know, but we suspect, and hope, the news will answer both of those topics in our favor. Stay tuned." (July 7, 2006)

Sounds like its fair enough to say that, until any other announcement is made, this is a PS3 exclusive. New*allusion 09:19, 1 August 2006 (GMT)

I completely disagree. Just because a developer might have waffled on an answer way back on the seventh of July doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious fact that the game IS under development for the XBox 360. Even "The Official Xbox Magazine" in the UK says "they have it 'on very good authority' that Mercenaries 2 is 360-bound". The game is NOT an exclusive, and to portray it as such is dishonest. Ex-Nintendo Employee 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well lets see what other people think. As far as I understand there is a good chance that a 360 version will be on the way, but to say that it is definitely is equally dishonest (an official magazine is hardly an ace source either. Just a month ago the official UK Playstation 2 magazine was raving on about how brilliant Smackdown PS3 would be. Now it transpires its not coming out at all).New*allusion 10:26, 1 August 2006 (GMT)

Is it that obvious? I'm not seeing it as anything more than speculation at this point. If TeamXbox is to be considered a reliable source then fine, but I'm just apprehensive that the two largest online publications -- IGN and GameSpot -- don't definitively list it as such. I'd tentatively list it as unknown. --Kamasutra 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Unknown" seems fine, especially given what happened with Assassin's Creed regarding the same sly behavior of the company. Ex-Nintendo Employee 10:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

what happened with assassin's creed that wasn't discussed? --70.237.120.130 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It was somewhat discussed and is the third topic on this page. Unfortunately it seems to have been closed/locked, so someone with any follow-up news or comments would have to start another topic. --Kamasutra 10:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I locked it. That is Ubisoft's (one of their reps') official word and until there's more information, I see no reason to change it. --gatoatigrado 15:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links Capitalisation

I capitalized all of the extra External links text in the links uniformly. Perhaps they should be uniformly uncapitalised? Discuss. -- Masamunecyrus^(talk)_(contribs) 13:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

uncapitalized except for proper nouns. it was better before, no offense. --70.237.120.130 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

blu ray transfer

it is 9 mb/s. that's equal to 72 megaBITS / second. duh. --gatoatigrado 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

oh, the Blu Ray article was wrong. I corrected it. [16], [17]. --gatoatigrado 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

region coding

move this to "operating system" also? --gatoatigrado 23:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Relates to the disk drive, not the OS.70.101.201.248 05:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

oh, it's hardware coded? Okay, maybe it can be moved around, but look at how much better the outline is now than it was before0 or before1. --gatoatigrado 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Change the picture

the picture of the PS3 on the sony website and across the web are sporting a black color for both the 60GB and 20GB versions. Sony's Q&A during the E3(2006) made it's way across the web stating. "This model comes in one color (clear black) only. There may be color variations in the future." [http://www.ps3insiders.com/ps3/155253130.php. I would like to request a picture change. --Ali 786 02:53, 01 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want a new picture, then you must find a free one to replace the current one. Free means not "fair use". Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The (already determined) result of this needs to be pinned to the top of this page. No one's fault; I'm sure I wouldn't look through 9 talk archives for it, but the links are here, here, here (this one's good; very emotionalized lol), here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. --gatoatigrado 03:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

sublicensed

"Once more, article doesn't even mention programming languages, nor licensing."

"Programming-wise, it's based on OpenGL and NVIDIA's CG language." What's wrong with that? You are right though, a reference showing that Cg is free needs to be provided. --gatoatigrado 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Article isn't even about the engine, it's about Unreal Tournament 2007. Nothing close to a licensing statement here."

yeah, that was bad, sorry. How about this? [18] --gatoatigrado 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't have an actual confirmation, and the press release that would probobly contain the confirmation gives me a page not found. Actual confirmation here. [19] 70.101.201.248 22:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's Sony Online Entertainment licensing the engine for their uses. For most of these, Sony doesn't license anything, the companies do. Is "sublicensed" a bad word? From the definitions I found it says nothing about companies such as Sony giving the license; just that it gives rights to use but not share the tools. --71.155.201.140 00:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A differant word may be a better idea.Jigahurtz 01:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Product information page, doesn't state anything about Sony (sub)licensing the software." [20]

Are we talking about Sony sublicensing these things? In that case, they should all be removed. I think this one is fine. --gatoatigrado 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

pixel and autdesk - autodesk is only an art tool, no cite needed here. pixel does need something and I can't find it. --gatoatigrado 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a wonderful press release that confirms a few of these [21]70.101.201.248 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's a nice link. Feel free to put it in. --71.155.201.140 00:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the best at the referances attributes, would someone more skilled at that please add the referance to where it applys?Jigahurtz 01:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Include Game Manufacturers

In the tables in the article about upcoming games, can we include a column (left side I guess) to show who is manufacturing (and maybe publishing) each game? That will give a more complete presentation of facts. LighthouseJ 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the launch games; maybe others can contribute to the other games. --gatoatigrado 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NBA Live 07

This is mainly for Jigahurtz, but also anyone else who questions its authenticity. Please read the last sentence in this press release. It is also verified by EA staff in the official forum I mentioned. In the future, try to ask before removing something you don't know is incorrect instead of assuming. --Kamasutra 08:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You linked to a NBA06 simulated game, link to a launch confirmation and it can be added. Web forums are not reliable resources70.101.201.248 09:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to the article below that. Which states.

Developed in Vancouver, B.C., by EA Canada, the studio which is also home to the popular NBA STREET and NCAA® March Madness® franchises, NBA LIVE 07 will be available on the Xbox 360™ and Xbox® video game systems from Microsoft, the PlayStation®2 computer entertainment system, PSP™ (PlayStation®Portable) system, and PC.

I don't know about you but I don't see the words PS3 is there anywhere.70.101.201.248 09:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I did link the correct article. The sentence you posted was the one before the last sentence, but I said to look at the last sentence, which says "It will also be one of the EA SPORTS titles available at launch of the PS3® entertainment system." Honestly, I can only link and quote articles, I can't help you read them. Also, official forums ARE a reliable source when the one who posted is a representative of the company. --Kamasutra 09:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this [22] would be a better link? It's not a forum, it's a big article that shouts out "NBA Live 2007 to be PS3 Launch Title". Ex-Nintendo Employee 10:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the link I had originally (look at the history), but I decided that the press release it was based on would be better. --Kamasutra 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, now both links are out there, and it's completely confirmed as a PS3 launch title. Now there's no chance of another argument popping up. :) Ex-Nintendo Employee 10:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

game removals

why were these games removed? --gatoatigrado 16:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam || TBA || Mecha || Yes

Time Crisis 4 || TBA || Arcade Shooter || Unknown

As far as I know, Time Crisis 4 hasn't even been announced for PS3. I'm not sure why Gundam: Mobile Suit would be removed, though it is still mentioned in the second paragraph of the introduction. --Kamasutra 20:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon a search through history, it seems that Jigahurtz removed it because the link was to the anime page [23]. I don't see how that is any justification for removal unless a game needs its own article to be considered "major". Anyone agree or disagree with that assessment? --Kamasutra 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah I think gundam should be put back in, and time crisis is definitely a no. They have some neat screens, but some earlier ones are obviously prerendered. [24]. --69.221.238.103 21:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Gamespot[25] shows Gundam as the 38th most visited game in the PS3 section. That far down makes it seem like it isn't a major title. 70.101.201.248 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is to be based on GameSpot's ranks then several more will have to be removed as they are even further down. To name a few, Coded Arms is 71, Lair is 74, and The Getaway is 69. --Kamasutra 06:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lair isn't a major game(IMO) but is a launch game. Quite a few of games aren't "major", most of them were added by various people. "oh I remember hearing about this game at E3, better add it to the list". Most(minor ones) have been removed through past edits. I realy don't see how Coded Arm is a major title, not sure why that one is here.70.101.201.248 21:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Launch and major title section

This section takes up a lot of space and isn't as informative as the rest of the article. Exclusivity has been discussed on the Wii page, and removed, and it isn't on the 360 page either. I see no reason why it needs to be here. Developers and publishers belongs on the game page, not the console page. And many of the release dates are TBA(no reason to show in this article) or non final. I suggest reformatting this entire section to something like this.

Launch Resistance: Fall of Man Warhawk MotorStorm Ridge Racer 7 Fatal Inertia Full Auto 2: Battlelines Blade Storm: Hundred Years War flOw Sonic the Hedgehog Marvel: Ultimate Alliance Call of Duty 3 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas Need for Speed: Carbon NBA Live 07

Other major titles Metal Gear Solid 4 Tekken 6 Heavenly Sword Coded Arms Assault Gran Turismo HD Devil May Cry 4 Final Fantasy XIII Final Fantasy Versus XIII Eight Days Lair The Getaway 3 Killzone PS3 Virtua Fighter 5 Unreal Tournament 2007 Grand Theft Auto IV Half-Life 2 John Woo Presents Stranglehold Heavy Rain Armored Core 4 Resident Evil 5 Assassin's Creed Mercenaries 2: World in Flames

70.101.201.248 03:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A more concise list is definitely preferable in my opinion. Removing the status of exclusivity alone will at least lessen seemingly trivial debates here. --Kamasutra 06:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current way is hideous, the above contains all the info people would need and as Kamasutra said, would cut down on debates. I'm for using the above list instead of the current.DeathSeeker 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice job. --69.221.238.103 14:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that only the launch titles should be displayed since some of those games will not come out for up to a year after PS3 (GTA4 for example) --72.155.207.174 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

All major games are coming out post launch. Wouldn't be helpful to list all the launch(minor) titles and exclude all the major ones.70.101.201.248 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

your opinion of what is "major" is not relevant. in my opinion, the xbox 360 had bad launch titles, with graw and obliv delayed. does it matter - obviously not. resistance is getting a lot better from their first graphic showing, and motorstorm is a lot worse than their first showing but might attract a few. --69.221.241.8 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

official website

the official playstation website is up, and there's some information that was removed as rumors before but turns out to be true. The playstation portable can apparently be used as a controller for the ps3, although there's nothing about being "video-enabled". They also confirmed the memory card adapter allowing saved games to be transferred to the ps3 hard drive. --69.221.238.103 15:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Although references are good, are so many necessary? Perhaps when the system is released some of the obvious ones can be erased. --69.221.238.103 15:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

each countries prices in dollars

do we really need a dollar translation for each price set across the globe? Seems like a typical jumped up american viewpoint of how important their country is, it doesnt affect anyone except americans and economies, taxes and wage structures are very different so direct translations do not work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.7.253 (talk • contribs) .

There is nothing wrong with that. As long as conversions should be in parentheses after original currency, with year given as rough reference per conversion guidelines, it is fine. -- ReyBrujo 14:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, since the price isnt the same everywhere you need one uniform rate to tell the differences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.155.207.174 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Le petit poussin"

What is "Le petit poussin" in the first paragraph for? In French this means 'the little chick'. I was wonderring if this is meant to be there or if it's just something some vandal has added in. ItIsMe 06:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's obviously inserted vandalism. A vandal named user:Wikirocks666 used babelfish and thought they could pass it off. I've removed it. Thanks for pointing it out- sneaky vandalism is often the hardest to spot. By the way, that vandal has been indef blocked for the other vandalism he was responsible for. Ex-Nintendo Employee 07:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PLAYSTATION 3

Sony want PLAYSTATION 3 in all capitals now. So, who thinks this should be moved? [26] --Thorpe | talk 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sony allways writes it like that, it's the logo, not the name.70.101.201.248 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:MOS-TM. Wikipedia ignores special trademark treatment. Hbdragon88 21:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. See Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive9#Requested move. --Kamasutra 03:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I tried to add a mention of the special trademark treatment to the lead, complete with a source. This had been a recurring debate, and I felt one instance of all caps was an appropriate compromise between capitalizing all instances of the name and disavowing any mention that it is indeed Sony's preference. I mean, this trademarks style guideline is not an absolute that supercedes Wikipedia's aim to inform, is it? (For the record, I voted against moving the article.) I read the special characters clause in MoS:TM ("It is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears.") to mean that it was acceptable to use special formatting once for informational purposes when referencing the trademark itself, which is what I had done. This is not without precedent. Other articles do something similar. Opinions? Dancter 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the issue should be mentioned in the article. In articles like "IPod" where the title of the article is not the same as the name of the product, and I think the situation with PS3 is the same, so the solution could very well be the same, too. Why can't we just mention why the name of the product isn't spelled like it should be? - Eiskis 12:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

IPod falls under the technical limitations, which is why that it must be mentioned. Trademark capitalizatino is not always enforced, but there is a precedent for naming the product once, with its trademarks, and then using the non-trademarked name for the rest of the article. Hbdragon88 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

links removed

all of the links to other wikipedias have been removed. i'd fix it, but i don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.244.222 (talk • contribs)

Readded70.101.201.248 04:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

price

I completely agree that the "criticism" thing was fanboy crud. However, analysts seem to agree that the system will be selling at a rather large loss, from 150-300 USD for the premium version, and that with the new Cell technology, the manufacturing costs may not fall off quickly. --gatoatigrado 14:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

People are already saying that the PS3 will sell like hotcakes not only because of the superior PS3 gameplay but also because the PS3+Blu-Ray combination for $500 is half the price of the current Blu-Ray players (that of course don't have PS3 guts too) at $1000. The Xbox 360 didn't have that because Microsofts' short-sightedness shortchanged the customer with only a standard def DVD drive.

Further, selling items at a loss isn't new because it takes advantage of Economies of Scale which is a very old concept. You learn about that in your average macroeconomics college course. When you do that, you are risking taking a big hit if the item doesn't sell well. Then again, Sony has already invested itself in the PS3 when they started research and development for it. When you're that far along, have a very real (and proven?) superior product, it might be cheaper to go ahead and produce the product than to throw away the investment. LighthouseJ 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... You are... Whatever.. You sound like a fanboy. Short sightedness is stupid. There is no reason to need the space of the BR disks right now... We have lots of RAM, so only idiots who can't compress textures will need it. Look at Oblivion. The next thing is selling consoles at a loss. They do it because they get lisencing fees from game makers. But saying that Sony had already invested it is a flaw in ecomonics. In economics its known as a spent cost. They teach you to IGNORE this, for you risk sinking further in debt. What is real about the PS3 right now? What is proven? NOTHING! The specs went from 2x the competitor to within 10% and that doesn't help the cell being difficult to program for. The next gen is here. The next gen is nearly half the price of the PS3. And don't give me this gimped $500 crap. It can't play HD. Just like the gimped Xbox isn't worth my money. I have a 360. I will get the HD add on, because Sony never wins format wars. I will get the Wii. And together, they will be cheaper then a PS3... Hmm... I think MS thought right... Not that they need to care about spending money on an HD-DVD drive (the RIGHT format). They have pockets to do it. They sold the Xbox at a loss all its life. The 360 didn't have to be diffrent bacause Microsoft invest wisely. They bought support. They bought publishers. They have EXCLUSIVE-FIRST PARTY TITLES. What does Sony have? Nothing worth playing. I am not anything but anti-Sony. Why? They were a good company... But that was when the founder was still there. HE was a good man. But he died in the mid-ninties. Hmm... I think that was when Sony started sucking. The PSX was good... But they went downhill... Endpoint. - 68.228.33.74 06:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

criticism section

I really think that there should be a section in the artical that is about all the mockery the PS3 has recived paticularly since E3 '06. It can be done in a way that won't mock the PS3 but it should at least get its own section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.197.223.70 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is already sufficient remarks about crit. and uncert. in the beginning i think. a lot of it is rumors, and things like wii60 are rather biased and don't provide any additional content. As this is a content-based encyclopedia, empty arguments such as wii60 - that the wii and xbox are the price of the playstation 3 (not counting the xbox's wireless adapter, the price of xbox live, the price of the external hd dvd drive, etc.) - aren't very significant unless they gain significant popular support, such as the alternate reality games that microsoft used to market halo. just an opinion, and any meaningful controversy can be concisely put in the beginning. --69.221.232.135 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about putting it in its own section and metioning that the PS3 is at the butt of many stupid jokes. The fact that there is a lot of dumb jokes going around I think warrents a specific metion rather than just a one sentence thing on the price. Unless I missed something 68.197.223.70 5:22 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Leave that crap to the jerk fanboy sites and let's try to limit the article to actual facts about the PS3 itself. If we start including that, then we have to include more things and it becomes a slippery slope. LighthouseJ 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm for it, but all those "jerk fanboy sites" got all their material from Sony.70.101.201.248 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Attack it's weak point for massive damage
• Sony Chief Executive Sir Howard Stringer "You're Paying for 'Potential'"[27]
• Based on real historical battles, now here's the giant enemy crab
• RRIIIDDDGGEEE RACEER!
• Real time weapon changing
• "I think it's probobly to cheap"[28] Kutaragi
• "The first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even it didn't have games" Sony's Euro CEO David Reeves[29]

I wondered how long it would take for a criticism section to appear. With vandals constantly adding things like "P$3 r teh $uxx", it almost seems like adding a criticism section would be giving in. However, at least once a week I see a new article under the Sci/Tech section of Google News criticising the PS3's marketing strategies... So what's considered noteable enough? Roffler 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, in response to LighthouseJ: if simply including information leads to a slippery slope, then perhaps you should go around petitioning to remove every legit "criticism" subsection from every article that already has one (there are easily thousands). Or at least argue that a criticism section for PS3 isn't notable, not that adding it will result in a logical fallacy. Roffler 21:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read what I said, I didn't saying including information is a slippery slope, I was saying that including rampant anti-fanboyistic rhetoric leads to a slippery slope because if we have to include one persons random rhetoric, then we have to include everyones. My point was that an encyclopedia is supposed to be completely factual source of information purely for reference, not a dictation of who said what. LighthouseJ 12:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

About PLAYSTATION 3/PlayStation 3

The site Kotaku has interesting recent story about this: http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/playstation-3-no-dummy-its-playstation-3-193273.php

Anyway, Sony definitevely changes the PlayStation -> PLAYSTATION with all upcase letters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.78.245.113 (talk • contribs) .

Indeed. However, we have our own naming guidelines. -- ReyBrujo 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Then acording to Wikipedia guidelines the correct is Playstation 3 without S in uppercase.

No, it specifically says CamelCase is okay. Ace of Sevens 22:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that article sheds any more light on the matter than has been in previous discussions. It claims that "PLAYSTATION 3" is the official capitalization, but cites no source to back it up. Sony still seems to inconsistantly refer to it both in all caps and camel-case. In any case, see above comments about WP naming guidelines. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-14 22:46Z

Inputs and Outputs

Look at this video [30] Can sombody find any other inputs and/or outputs 141.151.89.36 14:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

um, no. What's the point of simply scrolling through the pr pictures? Just use the pr press photo link on wikipedia instead of this "movie". --69.221.247.252 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

ps3 games

i noticed in the list of ps3 gmaes page, that thesis is still there. i thought it dident end up coming to ps3. should it be removed? Matjet 07:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just noting that it's gone. 172.129.79.43 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Price

The suggested retail price of PS3 is not the same in every eurozone country. For example in Finland the price is €550/€650 (source: The official PLAYSTATION®3 (PS3) Website from Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (site in Finnish)). I have not added this information to the article because I am unsure if Finland is the only country with a special retail price and I believe that presenting only this information would only cause further confusion if there were other exceptions as well. --Eiskis 16:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it (if it hasn't been already). The confusion is already there, as there have been several territories added with special prices, but using less reliable sources such as retailer listings. Because English users may not be able to navigate the Finnish website, it's probably best to link to the PDF, as I don't think there is a way to directly link to the information otherwise. Dancter 17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the information. I checked all the different regional PS3 sites, and it looks like Switzerland and Finland are the only ones that differed from the generic European stuff. Dancter 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Games

I haven't made any changes yet.

1. Should flOw really be listed as a launch title? Not that it isn't one, but the Live Arcade titles available at the launch of Xbox 360 aren't listed as 360 launch titles, and the situation here with flOw is extremely similiar.

2. Isn't Heavenly Sword a launch title? It has been set to launch in Europe the 17th of November, the day that PS3 launches in Europe as well. US release date has apparently not been announced, but, again, with Xbox 360 only a handful of launch titles were released in Japan, Europe and USA at the same time. --Eiskis

Any downloadable game realy shouldn't be listed as a launch title IMO, as for regional launchs. This article doesn't differentiate regions, we could do something similar to the Xbox 360 article for this.70.101.201.248 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes. I think there should be a separate section for downloadable games like flOw. Are there actually any?

I also removed Coded Arms Assault from the list of Major titles. Coded Arms Assault article should in my opinion state a reason why the game can be considered a "major" one, but the article is a stub and only has one paragraph, and there is no reason given why this spesific title should be on the list. --Eiskis 10:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Heavenly Sword is not going to make launch. [31] --HQ 13:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not only is it not going to make launch, it's also not just a EU published title like the article says it is. It's available on the Canadian FutureShop Website as a Pre-Order.

PS3 hasnt begun production

ok i just heard that the ps3 hasnt even begun production yet, so how are they going to make enough systems in 3 months, should this be mentioned in any way, here is the soarce http://www.gamespot.com/news/6156046.html?tag=latestnews;title;0 its the 8th question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.205.142 (talk • contribs) .

He clearly states that they don't plan on delaying the launch. In other words, there's going to be a shortage, which was pretty much known for a while so no I don't think this needs to be mentioned in the article. Dionyseus 13:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are any notes as to production, they'd need to be updated. And if it gets too close to launch with no confirmation of production, major news sites would carry the news, so it would need to be reported anyway. No need to write it in quite yet. 172.129.79.43 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Refs removed (accidently)

I'm so sorry that I accidently took off all the refs, I was tring to add this in "http://www.gametrailers.com/viewnews.php?id=3531". And I don't know what I was doing... I was trying to add this in too for the controller section and have the link (above as my ref) "The L2 and R2 triggers are now oversized and "squishy," making them feel more like analog triggers. We actually preferred these redesigned L2 and R2 triggers to the slightly stiffer Xbox 360 triggers, but that will ultimately be a matter of personal preference."

stupidass 64.40.52.122 06:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks and assume good faith, please. The ref system isn't exactly easy for new users to understand. BryanG^(talk) 06:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the "silver" trim really silver?

I was looking through the article and noticed how parts referred to the premium bundle will have silver trim, and in 2007, the entire console will be silver. The problem I see is that will the metal pieces being discussed actually _be_ polished silver, or be plated with silver with aluminum underneath or what exactly? I don't think a section in the article should be added to discuss the particular alloy but the mentions of "silver" should be changed to the actual metal that will be on the surface (like aluminum) if it's not going to be silver. LighthouseJ 19:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would expect that it will be chrome plating, using real sizer would be a pointless expense and it would tarnish. Anyhow chromium is much more "silver" then silver is ;)vortex 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather sure it's referring to the color silver, and not the metal silver. --Kamasutra 03:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But silver isn't a real color, it's merely used as a quick description of it's reflective capability. For evidence of this, look at the PS3 article. I've not seen any evidence that the chemical element silver will be used on the premium trim pieces but because it's shiny, people call it "silver". That's my point. If it's going to be chrome like vortex mentioned, say chrome or whatever third element, don't use silver if it's not silver. LighthouseJ 15:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the articles to which I linked seems to conflict with your claim. --Kamasutra 12:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

of course silver is a real color. I own a silver car that is neither made of the metal silver, nor reflective like the metal.

This is pointless. Why split hairs over this? Is it really more understandable if it says "reflective gray surface with metallic appearance BUT, WAIT, is actually plastic". I think "silver" sums up the colour silver quite concisely. Seegoon 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you can't mount a plausible debuttal to me by the speed at which you are grasping straws. All I'm saying is report the actual metal, don't let the article slack off like you and just say "well, it's shiny so let's just call it silver". An encyclopedia is a compendium of facts, and if these trim pieces aren't actually silver (or silver-plated), then we aren't providing facts. It's as simple as that. LighthouseJ 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your average reader (i.e. one not OCD-bound to splitting hairs), is going to assume that "silver" refers to a colour, not a metal. If it were made from real silver, that's what I'd expect to read. "Real" silver, or "solid" silver. It's unnecessarily anal to disambiguate in my opinion. It would actually make the article harder to read. Is "silver" not just piped to [[Silver (color)]] anyway? Oh, and props to Ace of Sevens. Seegoon 14:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You think I'm OCD? I'm just trying to provide as much truth as can we can possibly provide. Anything less, I consider the article equivalent to the merit of a comic book. You should re-evaluate your own personal values if you think I'm being anal because if you think we should be taking shortcuts on the truth then you should retire from Wikipedia and change hobbies. Props indeed, he made what you thought was a valid point against me which you weren't sharp enough to think of, then I proved him/her wrong in the end. That's just sad. LighthouseJ 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, we shouldn't refer to an "orange" GameCube. Unless it is made of actual orange peel, it isn't orange. Ace of Sevens

02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Orange is a special case because it is a name of a color and a fruit. Try and replace orange with any other fruit like an apple and your point falls to pieces. Good try though, I'll give you a silver star for effort. LighthouseJ 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe those details are available. --Kamasutra 12:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we call it "metallic" then instead of silver? "metallic" does denote metal-looking but it's general enough to provide only the information we have. "polished metallic trim" sounds as precise as we can be. LighthouseJ 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Metallic" is even more ambiguous, and less descriptive because it provides no indication of color. By the way, silver is just as much a "special case" as orange. If ambiguity is your concern then what about using "silver-colored" instead? It would not be appropriate to make assumptions about the properties of whatever substance may be used. --Kamasutra 07:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the word you folks are looking for is "chrome." Dionyseus 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably not chrome either; chrome is an expensive metal. probably plastic. who cares? --gatoatigrado 22:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh... maybe I'm missing something, but instead of calling it simply "silver" or "chrome"... why not just use "silver colored" or "chrome colored"? Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's plastic that's silver coloured then it's probably aluminium coated.. - and this pointless discussion is a great reason not to have anything to do with wikipedia or the internet.87.102.37.175 12:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Derrr. Explain this, why is there a wikipedia article on silver (color)? How about HTML recognizing silver as a color? < body bgcolor="silver" >

Better yet, why is there a silver crayon? Mr toasty 20:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Change of photo?

Perhaps we should change the main photo of the PS3 article, because that was the concept, and is in a misleading colour. If there is one with the 60GB premium version, that would be good. I know the current photo has a decent, high resolution, it is not very good for people who think they are going to be getting a fully-silver PS3 at launch. --Mambo Jambo 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

please read this. This has been discussed many times. I pinned it to the top so newcomers don't have to look through all of the discussions. --gatoatigrado 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I did a Find for "photo" on the page, but forgot about "picture". And, no, I don't have a good enough image. Mambo Jambo 00:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for posting here first. The ps3 should be coming in silver in the future. --67.164.87.42 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RSX?

Why is a rumour from the inquirer without any source being posted into the Wiki?

The inquirer is notorious for posting unfound rumours that only lead to flame wars.

Please take off the "(Speculated to be downgraded to 500 Mhz)" and keep it off until official claims.kura 22:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

new exclusive game

my summer vacation (no release date announced) has been announced as a new ps3 game http://www.siliconera.com/2006/08/25/summer-time-adventure-in-playstation-3-land/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.7.162 (talk • contribs) .

Don't post things like this unless the game has some significance. --Kamasutra 10:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of VGA/RGBHV

Please can you clarify the PS3's video outputs in your piece. You seem to be saying that there is a VGA output for the device (yes there is on the development units, but nothing has been said about the retail unit) and that it can handle 480i (SCART yes, RGBHV no chance), 480p and 720p.

Can you 100% confirm that there will be a VGA solution for the retail unit?

Secondly, you are also saying that the HDMI output cannot handle 720p, which must surely be wrong? ~~ Grandmaster

Criticisms

Added a Criticisms section, because, let's face it, it has had a lot of criticisms from not only internet people, but professionals. Please don't remove it, but improve it. PureLegend 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. Absolutely NO CRITICISMS SECTION FOR ANY CONSOLE.

Why not??? This is the Wikipedia, we tell the truth! We can have critisisms for other consoles, why not? In fact, I'm pretty sure we have somewhere...it's basically like a review, that section had professional opinions, not some fanboy stuff. Oh, and please sign your comments in future. Doesn't removing it count as vandalism? PureLegend 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless you add a criticisms section for all next-gen consoles, I will continue to delete any criticism section made for the PS3, or the Wii, or the 360 for that matter. Besides, all the stuff you put was already mentioned else where in the article so it was becoming redundent. evangelion883 8:03 1 September 2006

That seems incredibly arrogant. --Foofy 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a criticisms section if it was well-sourced and conformed to NPOV. Whether other articles have criticisms sections is completely irrelevant; we're editing this article. Nandesuka 01:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted part of the second paragraph and moved the redt to the criticisms section so now it wount be redundent, plz tell me what you think. --Evangelion883

The criticisms section should be streamlined into the rest of the document. Much of it is over-reaction to the large amount of negative media going on right now, for example I don't think knowing what the Sony stock price is especially informative to the average reader. Most of these items could be incorporated into a Console Launch section like the x360 section, with the manufacturing difficulties and configuration changes noted.--Thax 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

False Claims Section

I'm changing the name from False Claims to Cut Features, because I believe that Sony did plan to include these features, but were cut partly because people didn't WANT them, and to reduce the cost. Not to mention I've heard a lot less criticism over missing features than i do over pricing. Mr toasty 20:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Dual HDMI/3 Ethernet ports
  • "What happened to the dual-HDMI ports and three gigabit Ethernet connections that Sony hyped at E3 2005? Scratched! Dual-HDMI would be cool, but very, very few people would likely ever be able to use it, and most people never understood the triple-set of gigabit Ethernet ports to begin with, so as these were likely to be the least-used features, Sony cut them for cost reasons."[32]
• Wifi
  • Already cited in article

• Spring 2006 release
  • "If the report is accurate, Sony will cite problems with the Blu-ray drive as the cause for the delay. "[33]

Those 3 were very easy to cite, if anyone readds them, there are some citations right there.74.33.0.16 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First off- in the space of a YEAR, companies change a lot of things. Citing a change of hardware that occurred between 2005 and 2006 isn't a "false claim", it's a company deciding that certain features just aren't feasible in the final product. It happens all the time- some things just aren't economical enough in the final product, or would appeal to a lesser number than the company decides is economically sound. It's not a "false claim". If Sony had changed it just recently and not told anyone about it and then attempted to push the system out while sticking to its original intent, that would be a "false claim".

Secondly, the arstechnica you've cited has the author talking about "a gut feeling"- not a sound reference, especially considering that if there IS a delay, it's already got a source, which is the AACS (Advanced Access Content System) delay, not a technical problem with the drive itself. Insinuating that "drive problems" are to blame is misleading and false.

And thirdly, where is a "false claim" about WiFi listed in the article? Ex-Nintendo Employee 05:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

False claims are things like saying "PS3 can milk your cows" AFTER they're released.

Until release, everything is subject to change.kura 02:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that would only be an example of a false claim if after the PS3 came out it could be proven that it could not in fact milk your cows :)CPitt76 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Importance and Appearance

A couple of points I thought worth mentioning...

1. Why is this marked as low importance?. According to wikipedia low importance means that "[the] Subject is mainly of specialist interest". Surely the PS3 cant be considered specialist interest, especially in the gaming section?
2. Is it just me or is the page quite ugly? There are tables and pictures all over the place (right, left and center) and not tying up correctly with the sections. Can it look better?

Pjcard 20:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of all those useless price conversions would make the table small enough to float right it. That table is the worst thing about this article.DeathSeeker 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point but it's kinda useful to have each country with a common currency so we can see whos getting shafted the worst (us brits paying extra for nothing, again! They dont even have to bl**dy translate it!) Pjcard 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, realised that the uglyness was mainly due to my viewing the page on a high-res widescreen laptop. In 4:3 it doesn't look quite as bad but still a bit jumbled. Pjcard 11:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I centered that conversion table because when it was floated right the text column was about two words wide and looked as ugly as hell. Hbdragon88 06:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone be against the removal of release dates from the suggested retail price section? The dates are already stated in the inforbox, and it sure would save a lot of space. Should be able to make the table float right if they are removed. With everything being readable even at low resolutions.

I'm not sure what was changed, but the first table in the article isn't positioned to well. Would be lovely if someone who knew how to could fix that so it drops right below the infobox74.33.12.116 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken date links

This article has many date links that are broken. They look weird with preferences set. bobblewik 15:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

cleanup as per GA

As the Xbox 360 page is undergoing editing to remove messy lists as per GA,i have done likewise with the PS3 article.I welcome further editions by people to make the article cleaner Ceecookie 07:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Do not "dumb-down" the article in order to make it more accessible. Accessibility is intended to be an improvement to the article for the benefit of the less-knowledgeable readers (who may be the largest audience), without reducing the value to more technical readers. " You've removed all technical information from the article for those who wish to see it. How does this improve the article?DeathSeeker 06:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But then right now the data is *too* much isent it?Being compared to other pages undergoing edition as per GA...eg xbox 360 page

The idea that reproducing a spec sheet is somehow not dumb is incorrect. Please remember that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a technical manual. Anything which negatively impacts the readability of articles — as that horrendous list does — is of questionable value. Feel free to correct and re-add material as necessary, but do so in a way which is readable. If you are re-adding bullet points, you are messing up. Nandesuka 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done Nandesuka..but the PS3 processor part(2nd paragraph from Hardware summary) seems a little bit dry and complex..care to summarise a bit more? Ceecookie 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can rerwite the article without your terribly uninformative sentences("supports a wide array", "a number of advanced audio formats" " wide variety of DVD and ") and without removing information, do so. All your edits are doing is changing bulletins to commas, removing half the information and replacing it with "Wide variety of", or entirely removing sections(E.g. bandwith). DeathSeeker gave reasons why he readded every single section. Stop removing technical information because you don't like the format it's in.74.33.0.16 21:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion that the article should contain a ridiculous amount of unhelpful detail is duly noted. What do other editors think should happen? Nandesuka 23:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite it containing every single bit of information that is in it. Until your revision contains actual information, not "The PS3 is powerful! It can play a various amount of things. The CPU is called cell, and it has Blu-Ray!", the previous version is more informative and stays.Jigahurtz 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to write the paragraphs you would like to include in this space, so we can review them for readability and quality. My personal opinion is that only relevant and notable information should be included, since Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia, and not a collection of indiscriminate facts. Nandesuka 04:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I missed a revert war? *pouts* Next time tell me so I can also participate! :-) Yeah, that nonsense comment was to break the bad mood everyone is having due the reverts. From what I see, we have a big list which should change into an encyclopedic section; however an IP and Jigahurtz are reverting to the previous version because the modifications "give less information" than the new one. Hopefully we have agreed that bullet lists should be avoided when possible, "prosing" them if possible.

Jigahurtz, instead of just reverting, why don't you cooperate into transforming the lists to prose? Please, assume good faith. Nandesuka is trying to do that. I would do it, but I am already in the middle three polls, a recently founded WikiProject, updating a template used in over 29,000 articles.

Lastly, the discussion focus. We (according to my point of view) don't need the full specifications in the article. The car engine article doesn't list every single piece. We name the most important information, the one that is most useful for the reader, and link to the full specifications below. -- ReyBrujo 04:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why prose is so much more preferable to lists, as it forces us to contextualize the information. As we refine the prose, the chaff will likely be exposed, as it will be the information that is more difficult to "fit". Though I do think that we shouldn't have to completely remove the lists before we have developed the paragraphs that are to replace them. An incremental approach to transition seems like a reasonable compromise. It would address Jigahurtz and DeathSeeker's immediate demands for completeness of information, while allowing Nandesuka and others to continue working on the prose. Dancter 05:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They have made it clear that they would not be accepting a stripped down version of the specification. Hopefully they will discuss changes and admit very few can understand what 7 outbound and 5 inbound 1Byte wide channels operating at 5 GHz means. -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sry Jiga for the "you suck" phrase Ceecookie 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

NZ Release Date

What is the source for the New Zealand release date? The source cited for the price gives the 17th, not 23rd. —Deadman1848 13:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It was the same source, but it used to say November 23. I'm actually not too keen on unofficial listings such as the prices for Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, and Mexico. They clutter up the page, use unreliable sources such as preliminary retailer information, and are usually are just based on announced prices, anyway, when you account for things such as exchange rates and taxes. I say trim all unofficial information from the table. Dancter 13:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Trimming List of Games

I'd like to eliminate the list of launch/other titles and replace it with a single well-written paragraph which mentions a small number of the most notable titles for PS3 (preserving, of course, the link to the comprehensive list of games). Any suggestions here for, say, the top 3 titles from the launch list? Nandesuka 14:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

the list is fine, cut it down after the console is released, but until then there is really no need to alter it

Everyone here is invited to participate in Talk:Xbox 360#Straw poll - Games list, where the amount of games to be inserted into the console article is being discussed. This could be used as precedent for other consoles as well. -- ReyBrujo 18:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is Living.

• http://eu.playstation.com/ps3/

PS3 release date changed in PAL territories?

• http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6644

• http://uk.playstation.com/pdcf/index.jhtml?locale=en_GB

It's official. McDonaldsGuy 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Two months before launch to announce a four month delay. Classy! 59.154.26.66 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay I fixed the page up to report this new information. McDonaldsGuy 08:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is really bad news for Sony. Also, here is another link, *http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/06/north-american-japanese-ps3-launch-limited-to-500-000-units/

I am glad I am getting a Wii instead.Dexter111344 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

8494 people for that poll is hardly the total amount of gamers in Europe and Australia. It's really not to be taken seriously. MJ @ Wed Sep 06 23:11:10 2006 EST

No High-Definition cable of any kind will be included with either PS3

Recently it has become common knowledge on the Internet that neither version of the Playstation 3 will include an HDMI Cable. I believe that this should be added to the "System Features" table that tells what is included or not included in the two versions. Today, it was also revealed that Component cables capable of high-definition output will also not be included with either version of the Playstation 3. I believe that this should be added to the "System Features" table that tells what is included or not included in the two versions. The only type of cable that will be included with either version of the Playstation 3 are the same sort of standard-definition Composite cables that the Playstation and Playstation 2 used. I believe that this should be added to the "System Features" table that tells what is included or not included in the two versions.

This is information based on truth that would be valuable information to people studying the Playstation 3 and what will be included with it. You can read about these confirmed facts at this Reference: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6157113.html

Please make these additions to the Playstation 3 "System Features" Overview comparison as soon as possible. I tried to make these additions myself, but I was not allowed to because it is Protected in some way. I thank you for making these adjustments. -- mike_mgoblue —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.61.44.215 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Most are uninformed about this whole issue. They complain that an HDMI cable isn't included with the PS3, but fail to realize that the same is true for any HDTV. MJ @ Wed Sep 06 23:14:17 2006 EST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.164.119.119 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That fact was in the article before, but there is currently a heated debate concerning the presentation format for technical information in the article, and that information was probably removed at some point during all the edit-warring. Dancter 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See,i told ya all Three-Sixty is better than the PS3,lol.HD vids are found in the HDD and more can be downloaded via Xbox Live,HD component cable is standard wif Pro set and HD DVD drive is launching soon.Look, im not criticising Sony fans but the Coporation really need to buckle up if it wants to compete with Microsoft.Microsoft have perhap more funds than the latter,with its annual profit reaching 12 billion(Sony's 1 billion) Ceecookie 09:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please restrict talk page discussion to issues relating to editing the article. Simply debating which console is better than which is not an appropriate discussion. Dancter 13:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Systems Features" Table needs to be updated with three new rows. Playstation 3 does NOT include Component Cables or HDMI; it only includes Composite

Consumers need to be aware of the fact that neither version of the Playstation 3 will include ANY form of cable capable of carrying a high-definition signal. Component cables also carry a high-definition video signal, just like HDMI. However, the Playstation 3 surprisingly does not come with EITHER form of cable. The Playstation 3 only will include a SDTV Composite cable.

The Premium Xbox 360 comes with a custom cable that is actually two cables in one; it allows the consumer to choose whether or not the cable displays high-definition signals through a Component cable, or standard-definition signals through a Composite cable. Consumers need to be aware of the fact that Sony does not include similar high-definition cables, even in the Premium version of the Playstation 3. After all, the Xbox 360 is their primary competitor of the Playstation 3, and it is priced lower. This implies that the Playstation 3 would at least have similar cables, but it does not.

Although many people were surprised to hear that Sony was not going to include an HDMI cable in their Premium version of the Playstation 3, EVERYONE had a FULL expectation that Sony would be packing Component cables in with both of their systems, especially the Premium version that sells for $599. Consumers and readers of the Wikipedia Encylopedia need to be made aware of the truth; the fact is that the Playstation 3 will not be shipping with Component Cables or HDMI cables. Consumers need to be aware of the truth; the fact is that the only cables included with the Playstation 3 are standard-definition Composite cables.

The best place to include this information is in the "System Features" table comparison. You should include three new rows. The first will be called: "HDMI cable included." The answer of "No" will be listed in the columns for both versions of the Playstation 3. The second row will be called: "HDTV Component cable included." The answer of "No" will be listed in the columns for both versions of the Playstation 3. The third row will be called: "SDTV Composite cable included." The answer of "Yes" will be listed in the columns of both versions of the Playstation 3.

This is information based on truth that would be valuable information to people studying the Playstation 3 and what will be included with it. You can read about these confirmed facts at this Reference: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6157113.html

This is something that desperately needs to be added to the "System Features" table for the Playstation 3. Please make this adjustment as soon as possible. I would make this adjustment myself, but it has a feature that does not allow it. -- mike_mgoblue

Why don't you just sign in? The page is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit the page yourself through your registered account. And please stop formatting your headers for emphasis. It turns people off more than it actually draws attention. And I'm surprised noone's told you about signing talk page comments. To sign talk page comments, just append four tildes to the end of your post, like this: ~~~~. The tildes will then be converted into a timestamped signature. Dancter 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a FEATURE. This is a packaging. Feature is something like "360 does not have HDMI output".kura 02:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a configuration thing, as valid as wifi or anything else. True, cheap cables come for $10, but often rip-off accessories are more. It's a valid point and there's no reason not to include it. --gatoatigrado 15:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

PS3 release date

I heard on TVGuide.com that the PS3 will be released in Spring 2007 (in Europe). --myselfalso 01:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And I just noticed it was updated. Silly computer issue. --myselfalso 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations and sources

Everyone needs to become better at citing sources when adding stuff to this article. Havok (T/C/c) 08:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah, obviously. --gatoatigrado 15:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK but that kind of "citation needed" links completely ruin the article. Why people engaged in Xbox 360 do not engage this article now? Everybody needs hate Sony and the PS3? This is worldwide gamer meme? --Ciao 90 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad PR hurting Sony and PS3

In the creaticism section, I'm curious if statements made by Sony executives that have really hurt Sony's PR concerning PS3 should be added. Other than the high price tag and most recently the announcement that most of the world will have to wait until March 2007 for PS3s to be released in other countries, I feel the following comments might be suitable to be added in the criticism section. I'd like your opinions.

• Kazuo Harai said "Microsoft is copying Sony."[34]
• Phil Harrison defends Harai's comment (above) as being taken out of context, though how I can't figure. Also he handles himself with the arrogance Sony has become known for while saying they're not arrogant.[35]
• Sony's Euro CEO David Reeves said 5 million people would buy PS3 on Launch Day "even if it didn't have games."[36]

Also at E3 2006 when Sony announced they would have a motion sensor controller, they were accused of stealing Nintendo's idea for their console called the Wii Remote, which resulted in backlash by many people, mostly Nintendo fans but members of the gaming community in general were taken aback by Sony's shamelessness as producing that has a new idea.

All these PR nightmares (plus others related to Playstation Portable and UMD) have hurt Sony greatly and has really cast a cloud on PS3 and the company in general. Is this appropriate for PS3's criticism section you think? 69.230.182.103 05:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

--81.96.34.85 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)ken kutaragi has publically given negative PR about sony and the PS3: http://www.betanews.com/article/Kutaragi_Sony_Hardware_In_Decline/1157731126

There's always bias in Wikipedia articles. There's criticisms in the Windows Vista article (a product not yet released, mind you) which are biased and not based on fact yet the Mac OS X article is spotless even though Apple is guilty of some the same things Microsoft has been publicly chastised for. I personally think a criticism section is very inappropriate in any article. An encyclopedia should be based on fact, not he-said, she-said and criticisms on here and on other articles should be removed as soon as possible. They provide no factual information, only heresay and conjecture. LighthouseJ 01:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is you're looking at the criticisms section as a possible forum for people to complain about the system. If that were the case, I would agree with you that it has no place in the article. But in actuality, the section is meant to document public criticisms by people in the industry, the media and the general public. In that sense it is encyclopedic and based on fact, as long as the critique can be cited. There is nothing wrong with including this info.CPitt76 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand what I'm saying but there's a big difference from people complaining about price, and having a serious grievance against something. Are you saying it's okay for me to go around to every page about each exotic car I can't afford and add a criticism section saying how it costs too much? Where does it stop? I don't even know why I'm still the only voice on this point... To put it plainly, any criticism section should only mention problems the item has, not everybodies' little minor gripes. Am I taking crazy pills or do people see the enormous slippery slope this issue leaves open? LighthouseJ 22:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you that this section could lead to trivial inclusions, but that's why as responsible editors, we'll have to keep an eye on it and remove those types of entries. Just because adding something to an article might require us to work a little harder, doesn't mean we should overlook it completely. The price point does not fall under the "everybody's little minor gripes" category, it's something that has gotten significant attention from media and the gaming community since it was announced. That is very different than the car example you provided. It's also different than me going into this article and saying "the PS3 costs too much." What I'm saying is criticisms that have been fairly commonplace, and have been discussed in other media (like complaints about the PS3 price) warrant inclusion. CPitt76 00:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost every high profile product gets commonplace criticism. This doesn't make it a vital piece of information about the product itself. Should you go through all American cars' pages and add a note to the bottom: "criticisms: as an american car, many people and experts question the reliability and manufacturing quality of this vehicle" or something like that? It's a widespread belief (at least hear in the USA) that American cars are inferior to Japanese and European cars. I'm sure there have been numerous articles and news stories that cover this kind of thing. I think more appropriate is to take the important criticisms, boil them down to anything notable and include it in a more appropriate way. For example the high price, instead of adding a section in criticisms you could add a note to the place where you announce the price of the PS3 and follow that up with "This price places it as the most expensive 7th generation console and one of the most expensive consoles of all time leaving many people questioning whether or not the console will be embraced by the public for its perceived value or avoided for its high price tag". I'm terrible at writing stuff, but you get the idea. This still presents information about the PS3 without opening a can of worms on what amount of criticism becomes noteworthy. Esper256 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Best

The Ps3 does not deserve the amount of criticism it recieved. It will be the greatest videogame console ever, topping Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii.Taros 14:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? This isn't a discussion board.

That's funny because a tab for this page is called "discussion". Anyway, Taros, I don't think there should be any criticism sections for any article except for major problems like the Xbox 360 technical problems at the launch because that's a major event. But these jerks whining about it costs too much or it being delayed (like manufacturers haven't had delays before) is a waste of time. I think people are desperate enough to chink the armor of Sony/Playstation 3 any way they can. LighthouseJ 18:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The tab for this page is "Talk:Playstation 3". It is not meant for general discussion, it is designated for posts dedicated to The Article That Is PlayStation 3. That is, users are supposed to use this page to talk about the article itself, not engage in general topics like "The Playstation 3 is the best". Furthermore, please refrain from calling people "jerks" here; Wikipedia has specific policies against using personal attacks. Ex-Nintendo Employee 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The noteworthy aspect of the PS3 price is that it is higher than its competitors, and fairly high when considering all consoles in recent history. The complaints about the price aren't noteworthy. A noteworthy complaint would be if some kids around the world commited suicide because they couldn't afford the PS3. But so far, the complaints have been not noteworthy, a bunch of forum people whining, and a bunch of analysts thinking they are so smart by pointing out that the PS3 is expensive. The other aspect is that there are MANY articles, and MANY forum posts. The volume of the "criticisms" isn't an indication of how important it is more than an indication of how high profile the PS3 is. The console market is dominated by console fans that promote their console and talk trash about the other consoles. The only thing that would be noteworthy about a console would be if it received absolutely no criticism. Esper256 22:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Taros... I pity that comment. You cannot say that now without owning an Xbox 360. Additionally, It does. The cost is high, and whatnot, and they lied about the specs. But I think it does not belong on this page. So please take it elsewhere. And argue in an orderly, and sensible fashion, so you don't sound like a fanboy. - 68.228.33.74 06:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering if it were possible to keep the personal insults down to a minimum? They are immature and only add to the irresponsible view many people have of Wikipedia.Manofthespoon 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

System Features table is now displayed properly

I have made three minor additions to the “System Features” table, all of which “gatoatigrado” has approved. Previously, I was not able to make that adjustment to the table; I then followed the instructions of “Dancter” and “gatoatigrado,” in order to make these adjustments properly. This is information based on truth that would be valuable information to people studying the Playstation 3 and what will be included with it. You can read about these confirmed facts at this Reference: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6157113.html Please continue to allow this information to be displayed in the way I have taken time to show it in the Systems Features table. Mike mgoblue 17:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

uh, instructions? sorry mike, it's just signing in. Your version is wordy compared to before. --24.7.86.143 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

System Features Table Update

In the website reference [37] we do find out three things: 1. The headline makes it clear that the Playstation 3 will not include any kind of high-definition cable. 2. The article makes it clear that no HDMI cable will be included with the Playstation 3. (3). The article make it clear that high-definition Component cables will not be included with the Playstation 3. People automatically assumed that this meand SDTV Composite cables would be included, but this may not necessarily be true. Until an announcement has been made, I have removed that row from the System Features Table. I also wanted to make sure that the words "high-definition" were included before the words "Component cable." The main point of the announcement that the article is referring to is the fact that no high-definition cables will be included with the Playstation 3. I thank you for allowing this information to remain as it is, now that it has been 100% corrected. 21:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)mike_mgoblue

there is absolutely no need for ANYTHING about cables to be included in the table if it does not come with either package. There is no airbag, there is no free set of long johns, there is no orange flavored soft drink in the both either, by the logic of adding the cable information then this should be added too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.12.108 (talk • contribs) .

They are valid. You need cables to operate the ps3. You don't need an airbag or any of your other stupid examples. Cables sometimes fetch a premium as valuable accessories, particularly gold plated high definition cables. --24.7.86.143 05:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Did gamespot write an article about the lack of airbag? I don't think so. There's a reason this is in the news. --24.7.86.143 05:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both your points of view. It isn't right to say that they both don't include component, HDMI, etc.; the same way it would not be right to put a wireless adapter line on the x360 page. However I think that when the AV Cables are known it should be included, meaning it will likely say Composite for both consoles. This way the information of what is included with each console is presented, it is easy to deduce what cables are missing, and it is also consistant with the x360 page. --Thax 17:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)