Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Removed Bad Label from Pricing chart

Someone named it Green Ray? Changing. EDIT Or not. Someone did it for me. Thanks. EDIT- Someone decided to name it green again. Edit - Fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.6.13.211 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

archived

Talk page archived - if I missed an unfinished discussion - sorry.HappyVR 06:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

removed region coding

I removed region coding again (see talk section 'Blu ray' archive 6) - the table is wrong - doesn't say if it's for dvd or blu ray and in my opinion - unecessary.?HappyVR 07:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

card slots and video output on 20GB version

Made some edits - but wanted to check - the 20GB version has no memory card functionality at all? the 20GB version has no digital video ouput at all (not DVI either) - has anyone heard mention of VGA or similar output - I assume that 20GB buyers will not be limited to 480p?HappyVR 07:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

20GB version has the same AV Multi-Out you find on a PS2, as a result I don't think it can output DVI. HOWEVER, it can still output 1080p, through High Definition component AV cables. new*allusion 15:58, 13 May 2006 (GMT) --

Power supply

There's been a suggestion that the three pin plug socket on ps3 does not necessarily mean the power supply is inside the console itself - can anyone confirm the plug socket is for mains electricity?HappyVR 12:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should just leave it out all together since we don't know either way yet. The 360 has the same power connector as the PS3 appears to have, and as I pointed out- that has an enormous external power supply unit. new*allusion 15:58, 13 May 2006 (GMT)--

However looking closely at the new picture of the rear of the ps3 the socket does say ac in (ie not dc) plus the switch above it says something like 'main(s) power'. Not proof I know but also the weight of the thing (5kg) suggests that the console contains a heavy transformer? In this case I think it's safe to assume that the power supply is internal? (how much do xbox 360 parts weigh - could be useful in deciding.)HappyVR 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now read something implying that this is true:

[1] Sony had a real PS3 up and running at E3 and there was no sign of an external PSU. Suggests there is no external power supply unit at all afterall, and on closer inspection the PS3 and 360 do not have the same power input ports either. My mistake. Sorry! new*allusion 20:49, 13 May 2006 (GMT)

And now here too:

[2] new*allusion 21:21, 13 May 2006 (GMT)

It would be better if it is just left out as you cannot tell if its external or internal from a preproduction model. If you look at the pictures Microsoft released at E3 05 the 360 had the same pin socket as is shown on the PS3 now and we all no that the 360 is far from having an internal power supply. Until someone has their hands on a production PS3 we cannot know anything else is guess work. TheEnlightened 15:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The power plug looks like the same one on my kettle and boomb box JayKeaton 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The rumor mill has been churning and game developers say that the E306 consoles were only dev kits and they will most likely use an external power brick due to heating problems. Source from Kotaku (who are reliable) and a source they say is reliable, http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/sony/more-ps3-downgrades-on-the-way-179863.php. The source has proven before he knows things as he had revealed things in the past 65.4.245.20 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really a place to air out rumors, regardless of whether they turn out true, but for now all I've done is added your sources for the information that is already in the article. I'm against it, but we'll see what the other editors think. Dancter 21:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

PS3 Controller- Number of simultaneous controllers via Bluetooth

The four LEDs imply that the machine will now only support four controllers via. Bluetooth at any one time. Should we make this explicitly clear in the article. I would also assume that the 3 other Bluetooth frequencies are open for other pieces of hardware, for example- cellphone communication, Bluetooth mice and Bluetooth keyboards. new*allusion 15:58, 13 May 2006 (GMT)

This is probably true but an extra 3 controllers can easily be identified by - say - using led 1 lit plus one of leds 2-4 lit to indicate controller number 5-7. So only having 4 leds doesn't necessarily imply that 4 is the absolute maximum. ? HappyVR 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Could be true, nice idea! I've also realised the PS3 has no IR port for a remote, so another frequency could be just reserved for that. new*allusion 20:48, 13 May 2006 (GMT)

I'm assuming the eight devices are: PS3, Controller 1, Controller 2, Controller 3, Controller 4, and then any combination of: Headsets, Remotes, etc. Shaun Eccles-Smith 02:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC).

Pic Change

.

The PS3 is coming out in Black only to start with, so I propose the image be changed to a black PS3 - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.108.204 (talk • contribs)

I agree and according to the consensus [3] [4] the black and final retail PS3 should be used instead the old silver TGS and outdated image. --Ragnarok Addict 14:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Then get an image of the final product that can be used under the appropriate license. If you find a nice photo, consider asking the copyright holder for permission to use it. There are a lot of people who would have had a chance to take such a picture, so it shouldn't be too difficult. What you shouldn't do is start another edit war. --James 01:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

.

:: Not only that, but this actually isn't an accurate picture, because it is of the prototype from last year -- the new one is much larger, fatter, and has vents all over. Anyways, you can find some clean, hi-res images of the console here, from Sony's press center:

http://www.scee.presscentre.com/imagelibrary/default.asp?SubjectID=1530

.

::(btw, I've probably formatted my comment wrong, and I apologize, I just have no idea how to use wikipedia's markup language... ;)) --209.221.98.5 14:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed: I uploaded a picture of the new model of the ps3, it shows the new controller. Jrg dnn 19:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the good PS3 black picture changed?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skullcap (talk • contribs) 06:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC).

It seems the first image used in this entry is from E5 2005, which shows dual HDMI ports. The current top-of-the-line PS3 introduced at E3 2006 has one such port (as well as other case modifications). Could this image please be updated?

UK Price

Do we have a reference for the UK price? It seems higher than I would expect and I didn't think that the UK price had been announced yet. As far as I can tell, £425 is just an estimated price that some retailers are putting their pre-orders at. TimTim 13:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's way too high for me (along with just about every other working person in the UK.) I think i'll just stick with my PSP. After all, it's the PSP that gets all the fresh GTAs now. -Msc44 21:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the good old black Ps3 picture changed? huh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skullcap (talk • contribs) 06:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC).

Wired Controller?

Someone added information stating that the 20GB version will have wired controllers:
"In addition, this version will ship with a wired controller, whereas the 60GB version will ship with a wireless controller, in videos available for free on the web sony spokes people say that the wireless controller is available with both the 20GB and 60GB versions."
I've seen nothing about the PS3 even having wired controllers, other than the USB connection on the wireless ones. Can anyone clarify or show a source? -th1rt3en 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove that paragraph. The PS3 controller is totally wireless with the exception of a USB port on the top- this port allows for both wired play and for charging. There will be no "wired" version. Daniel Davis 02:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I know where the contributor got the misleading info. It is only coming from one website that is claiming it. [5] Many websites are debunking the rumor. [6] --Who What Where Nguyen Why 03:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The controller section contains false info about the controller, and the vandal is actively keeping the false info up there, please take necessary action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.137.60 (talk • contribs) .

Component 1080p?

Is this confirmed? I don't know if 1080p can be output through the component cable. Jack Zhang 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't really know but since sony's site says 1080p is a spec for both 20GB and 60GB versions I would assume that component video will do it. Also wikipedia:component video says component video can go up to 1080p.HappyVR 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

'Criticism' Section

"Parents would first handedly choose to give their child the 'Wii' mainly because it is cheaper and would have mainly child games. Hardcore gamers would majorily choose either the '360' and/or the 'PS3' because of the games that are expected to be released onto it. Right now, it seems as if those gamers will go with '360.'"

This seems ridiculously POV to me. first off, most of the wii games that have been shown off so far are made for teens and adults. bringing up the 'kiddie' game issue is blatant speculation. second, saying that hardcore gamers would mostly be interested in the 360 and PS3 is biased. I'm a hardcore gamer, and I plan on purchasing a Wii. I know plenty of Xbox or PS2 owners who feel the same way as well. if this is a quote, it needs to be marked as such, and if it's just speculation it needs to be fixed. I apologize for sounding so abrupt, it's just that this kind of thing is popping up everywhere... (Last Man Standing 19:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

It's been removed twice. :) If it reappears, feel fry to kill it again. Henry^Flower 19:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the section - named 'criticism' - just to clarify - without referening to its content straight away - is there any place for a 'criticism' section in this or any other article under Wikpedia guidlines - and if so what parts need keeping/deleting/editing.HappyVR 20:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is fine to have in an article, as long as it keeps NPOV and is written in a formal article style. This section does neither of these things. It either needs to be reworded, or deleted. CNash 23:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all of the above is about, but I just checked this article to see if there was a criticism section, and am surprised there isn't. During E3 and since, gaming sites have been flooded with criticisms of the PS3, its high price tag and the abysmal attitude of the Sony execs behind it. See here, here, here, and so on. -VJ 03:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(User:Infernix). Yes, but it has been all over Gamespot forums. This 360Wii boycott has become apparent in thousands of users and people at E3. If you don't believe me, I suggest you head there and see for yourself. Whatever, the person who wrote this is saying, it is most definitely true. At best, it needs to be reworded. But isn't opinions what criticism is all about? :S

Not your opinions. Opinions published in reputable sources. Henry^Flower 10:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Opinionated" remarks removed. So the article stays Yes?

No. A criticism section needs to provided sources. "fans felt let down"- which fans? How do you know? "The lack of titles has already been a concern"- who is concerned? How do you know? Henry^Flower 11:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The entire section is POV and extremly biased. It adds nothing to the article, and only fuels flame wars. As stated by Flower, it needs to be re-written with much less bias, and reputable sources and research if it is to be used. Havok (T/C/c) 12:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(User: Infernix) If that's your opinion on it, so be it. Just don't delete facts because you dislike what they say. We are providing people with information here, if any encyclopedia doesn't contain TRUE information then what's the point in having one? Here's the link to the criticism anyways. The E3 Forum. This is where I knew of the 360Wii revolution happen. http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_topics.php?board_id=909178334 So now you make the 'Criticism' section.

Wikipedia is about information yes, but not at whatever cost. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Havok (T/C/c) 12:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't restrict information just because we don't like it. If it's a fact it should be for the world to know at their own will. We are not the tools of the government or anything else. Information is the only thing Wikipedia is good at. Let it be there for people to see.

Per WP:WEASEL and WP:RS, we can include some editorial statements and opinion, as long as they're NPOV and published by reputable sources. I've written a section which is a decent start to that (though I think it's a touch too conservative... the Ars Technica article is a fair bit more pessemistic about the ICT flag than I put it, though it's a bit difficult to prognosticate about what will happen in a very NPOV way. On the other hand, it would take almost no effort for movie studios to turn on ICT for a given movie since the technical bits are already designed and implemented. Also, even if it's POV, the movie industry has never been terribly responsive to customer's needs or desires) --Interiot 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for inserting what seems to me at least to be a neutral and well written criticism section. I don't think Ken Kutaragi (and friends) 'attitude/bullshit problems' nor 'stealing from nintendo' accusation is relevant here but there may be other things that people may want to addHappyVR 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wondering if the possible uselessness of the cheaper version could be a possibility for inclusion in criticism - though not proven in this case yet there are numerous examples in the past of manufacturers producing a cheaper model which in many cases needed upgrading/was eventually discontinued - non neutral/cynical point of view would be to say the cheap version is there to make the console appear cheaper when in fact once the neccessary upgrades have been bought (larger hdd, tv with hi-def component input (vs. relatively cheap computer monitor with HDMI compatable DVI)) the version ends up costing more...Just wondering.HappyVR 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

A criticism should be available, because PS3 is one of the most critized system this new gen by competitors, fans, media, etc. The subject of criticism ranges from Sony's attitude,lack of concern regarding fans, the lack of rumble feature in the controller, the notion that the PS3 is verinflated in price because Sony is using this media as a way to bolster it's Blu-Ray format over HD-DVD.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3150935 http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3150878&did=1 http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3150928&did=1 http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151103 http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151062

Really, one just has to visits few boards/forums/game communities such as IGN to see the outburst of critisiscm that PS3 price, and attitude of Sony representatives have created. Or even take not of Sony's stocks declinig because of the announced price.

http://www.nikkeibp.co.jp/wcs/leaf/CID/onair/nbe/features/426679

So if in eight days if someone more fluent in the English language than I doesn't remedy the fact that a Criticism section is missing (where there should be one), I myself will create one.

Other examples of criticism can be seen in Bill Gate's statement that Motion Sensing is not yet mainstream. This statement does not only limit itself to the Wii, but to the PS3's controller.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/710/710384p1.html

The Controller

I notice that there was a minor edit scuffle between 65.2.82.173 and Larsinio about the inclusion of a sentence about the controller in the criticism section. I have re-written that part in a way that I hope will be ameanable to both parties. TimTim 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this section, it is extremly POV. The fact that Atari created this concept back in the 70s isn't talked about, or that Microsoft created a controller with the same properties with Logitech in the 90s. Sony didn't copy Nintendo, the controllers arn't even remotly the same deal; the PS3 controller is more reminiscent the nunchaku addon for the Wii remote. Havok (T/C/c) 23:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I did try to keep it as NPOV as possible (while still acknowledging the point of that section of criticism), but I'm quite happy for it not to be there. To be honest I'm not convinced of the value of any of the criticism section. TimTim 10:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page vandalism

I've just reverted due to someone deleting almost all of the talk page, including archives. Sorry if your more recent edits got deleted - I will try and add them back in. TimTim 11:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost comments re-instated! TimTim 11:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

PS3 image

I'm not sure how to change image but there is a much better image of the black PS3 with the real controller next to it (the non-boomerang one). The one currently displayed is terrible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.85.204 (talk • contribs) .

It is a problem with the Wikipedia Fair use guidelines. We can't use a Fair use image (like the black with the controller) if there is a free one (like the current) which has only little modifications when compared with the Fair use one. Please don't use the black image, we had had this article locked for around 10 days due an edit war because of the image. -- ReyBrujo 02:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

FIXED:I Uploaded a picture of the black PS3 with new controller. Jrg dnn 21:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

NOT fixed! All you did was put that same stupid copyrighted image back! -- Daniel Davis 23:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Retail and Pricing POV

There is a load of blatant POV added by an Anon in this section, which I would normally revert, only it would seem that an editor has since then made some sincere additions to the section, and I don't want to delete those - this is why I've done an edit rather than a straight revert. Could 70.181.29.153 please keep their 'price comparison' and opinion pieces to their blog or forum posts! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomisaac (talk • contribs) 11:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

Online services (PNP)

The wording in this section is somewhat deceiving. It gives the impression that the basic online service will include online gameplay. During Sony's E3 press conference, the list of Basic Services that they displayed in their presentation did *NOT* include online play. Because of the contradictory evidence, any comments as to whether or not online play will be free should be considered speculation and omitted from the article until a formal statement of the pricing and service structure is released. 131.107.0.77 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Dennis

Why things were left out

The Blog by QJ.net has more details on Linux on the PS3 (the link is already in ps3 article). But is also gives a link to the actual interview with Kawanishi. (It's in Japanese so use BabelFish to translate). In the interview it tells why things like HDMIx2, GigabitEthernetx3, etc. were left out, and alot of other usefull information. I'm not sure if any of this can/should be added to the PS3 article? What do you think? Jdm64 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to note that also in the article it stated that the PS3 might still be able to output to 2 screens: one using and an anoaog connector and one using the HDMI. It would be kind of like a graphic card with a VGA and DVI connector that can run to screens. This should be noted in the article. Jdm64 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Backward compatibility

The current article contains the line "Most of the games that stood out from the pack as exceptional Playstation and Playstation 2 games obviously did not adhere to a performance restraining checklist based on Sony's Technical Requirements Criteria." The word "obviously" really doesn't belong in there. Aside from that, a citation is needed for the strong "most of." I'd suggest changing it to "Several popular games for the Playstation and Playstation 2, including [examples], did not adhere to Sony's Technical Requirements Criteria, which included constraints on performance such as [examples]." --LostLeviathan 19:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I note from http://www.ps3freaks.com/news/ps3-not-really-100%25-backward-compatible.php that "TRC (Technical Requirements Criteria), also known as TCRs by Microsoft and Nintendo, are a significant portion of the certification requirements needed to get approval to release a title on a given console system." This is from the page quoted in the article - however taking this as read this means/suggests that for a title to be released (ie with the sony hologram etc) it must pass the TRC - this is one of the reasons I have removed the section half of the section 'backwards compatability'. The other being that it states unproved info. as factHappyVR 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of games out there with Sony's seal that don't meet the TRCs. I am putting the stuff back, with (hopefully) a little more balance. If it still doesn't work, feel free to take it out again. I just feel that it's important. Dancter 21:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

With that said, I am not too keen on the intimations that Sony was willfully misleading people about PS3 compatibility. I looked it up, and it seems that Sony was always very insistent about the importance of TRC observance, even at the GDC keynote, which keeps getting cited as the source of this "deception". The fact that IGN didn't mention it in their article is more of an oversight on IGN's part than Sony's. I am also not in favor of the information derived from the PS3freaks article. I feel it is a little too biased and speculative for the article. But it seems people want it in there. What can you do... Dancter 07:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well as I see it, "fully backwards compatible" and "all games that adhered to Sony's Technical Requirements Checklist should be playable" are contradictory! I would say that fully means Everything, so it actually isn't total backwards compatible. It should read somthing like: The PS3 will be backwards compatible with every PS1 and PS2 game that met Sony's Technical Requirements Checklist, which is almost all games that can be bought at a retail store. Or somthing to that effect. Jdm64 20:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The article reads 'Sony has claimed' and 'according to sony' which are good enough disclaimers for me - No doubt it would be simple for sony to publish a list of games produced which did not conform to their TRC - I have assumed that sony has some control over what games were published. Assuming Sony's backwards compatability mechanism works then I think the section is correct as it stands. However it does seem that the article bsically says the same thing twice.HappyVR 20:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "full backwards compatiblity" and changed it to just backwards compatiblity. I thought it was kind of redundunt and awkward with full. Jdm64 04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just cut this section 'down to size' substantially - seeing as we don't know yet it seems pointless and unproductive to have a long section - amounts to speculation in the end.HappyVR 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This section is going all over the place - there doesn't seem to be total consensus on it at all. However one thing concerns me at present - from the current section -"It is alleged that between 50% and 85% of PS1 and PS2 games are fully TRC-compliant" - why alleged? shouldn't that be 'estimated' - 'alleged' (in my opinion) suggests that we don't entirely trust what is being said - in which case - why is it being cited?HappyVR 21:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

'Alleged' does seem harsh. I changed the wording to 'estimated'. Dancter 02:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at guidlines for WP:EL and sites that should not normally be linked to includes 'Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research..'. This includes (as I see it) ps3portal's 50-85% trc compliance statement - therefore it should be removed (due to 'unverified original research')? HappyVR 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

criticism

I removed paragraph from 'criticism' section concerning hi def tv take up - it just didn't seem relevant enough - however perhaps a section pointing out the additional costs of buting a suitable monitor might be relevant.. If people want this I can add it.

Also I was wondering if adding criticism of the external design is suitable (or fair) - that being that sony seems to have re-used the PS2 'chassis' and added a curved top to it - rather than generating something new - doubt anyone will agree to any comments regarding the aesthetic quality of the design - either positive or negative??HappyVR 17:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Should informatoin regarding criticism for using a similar(but obvoiusly differernt) controller to Wii be mentioned? 12.220.94.199 22:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I do believe so, it is one of the heaviest criticims I have seen so far JayKeaton 01:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure such criticism is fair for doing the obvious thing - and the ps3 controller is obviously not a copy of the Wii controller. Most consoles are similar - and I can't criticise for having similar features.HappyVR 11:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Some notes have been unnecessarily removed from this article, including the popular feeling that the motion-sensing was ripped from Nintendo. While it is true that Sony has held a motion-sensing patent for some time (and other bits), it is true that the reason rumble really isn't in the PS3 is due to their lost lawsuit (no matter what Sony's said about interference they honestly can't legally implement the dual-shock's rumble technology into the PS3), and the including of motion-sensing is due in part to a reaction to Nintendo's device (intentional or not, Nintendo announced their device first, and Sony clearly waited a long time before they showed a public revision to the boomerang). These notes need to be included in either the controller or criticism sections, preferrably just integrated with the controller. They are popular, now generally factual, and can be made unbiased. And of course, if you're totally against the idea of the controller having copied the Wii, you still have to grant that its guidelike button copied 360, and if it dod copy one competitior, questioning another possible copy is entirely reasonable. gspawn 14:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried my hand, and my head's spinning from the effort to Wikify the addition, so it's break time. Citations abound, and the addition is as NPOV as I can make it at the moment. Also tried not to interfere with existing text, and added to the controller section so the criticism section itself remains small. gspawn 15:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Main picture

Still no picture of the new black PS3 - just a reminder - please help if you can.HappyVR 11:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone did this, thanks.HappyVR 14:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The image is tagged as possible copyright violation. We should roll back to the previous PS3 image. The file is licensed under a wrong tag, as according to the terms of service of SCEI[7], All rights (including, but not limited to, copyright) pertaining to all the materials and information that are displayed and/or made available from this Web Site (e.g., contents made available for download) are managed, owned, or used with permission by, SCEI. Thus, they have not given up copyright as they have stated. I still cannot believe there isn't a free image around. -- ReyBrujo 15:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems we need their written permission to use it.HappyVR 15:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just thinking but isn't using a single image of the current version in the infobox ok under fair use conditions - similar to using a rear image to show the ports - the reason for inclusion being that we need to show what it looks like. I'm no expert on copyright though.HappyVR 09:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not if its under such strict copyright- add to that Wiki's guidelines that state we have to use a free version (which exists). Pretty much what we need is for someone to have gone to e3, or someone who knows someone who went to e3 and took a picture of the console. That's what the current free version is at the moment. -- Daniel Davis 09:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this ok to use these pics for the ps3 article? It says they're photos from e3... Plough | talk to me 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you took the photos, then by all means, use them! They're some top-notch images. If you didn't take the pictures, try and locate the guy that did, and ask him to release them into public domain. -- Daniel Davis 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

i didnt take them, sorry. I'll email the guy who did if you want. Plough | talk to me 13:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

ooh, what should i say in the email? Plough | talk to me 13:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

the image Image:Ps3 sony usa.jpg is a copy-vio. Rcandelori, please stop reverting it. Plough | talk to me 14:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

the side-on image of the black PS3 must also be removed because it violates copyright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcandelori (talk • contribs) .

The 1st Fair use guideline explains that, if you have a free and a fair use image, you always need to use the free image. Now, we have a Image:PS3 E32006.jpg (black console with the controller) and a Image:PeaceThree.JPG (metal console without the controller). The model is basically the same, but one has the controller and the other hasn't got it. Note that below there is a updated controller image. Thus, these two images should only need to be used to show the front of the console. Between a fair and a free image, we need to choose the free one. The side-on image can stay because we don't have a free image that shows the same angle. Some may consider it is not needed, but that depends on how strict the editor is. However, most experienced editors, especially those who frequent the Wikipedia:Fair use talk page, would agree that the free image is the one that must be used here (and was the option we chose to stop the edit war we had less than a month ago). I hope this clarifies the matter. -- ReyBrujo 05:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but it doesn't make sense that we use hi-res images of the console elsewhere, yet we are unable to put an accurate and clear picture at the beginning of the article. In any event, the copyright restrictions are stated and I would argue that for the sake of consistency and appearance, the black PS3 image or any other official sony promotional image should be used. Otherwise, all controler and side-on images should be removed and the spurious "fair-use" versions found.User:Rcandelori 15:40, 22 May 2006 (Australian Eastern Standard Time)

Most expensive console on Earth?

Just looking at my local (Australia) predicted price point, 1000 dollars for the real version! As far as I can remember that makes it the most expensive gaming console in the universe! JayKeaton 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• We've been through this (Most expensive console ever) already. Tani unit 12:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh wow, I thought it was just me that made the most expensive console connection :-O JayKeaton 22:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

From : Greg <greg@psp-hacks.com> Sent : Monday, 22 May 2006 10:10:42 a.m. To : "Thomas Williams" <superplough@hotmail.com> Subject : Re: Real PS3 Pics from E3!

Nope - we didn't take these ourselves. but go ahead, post them on wikipedia if you desire. :)

- greg

On 5/21/06, Thomas Williams <superplough@hotmail.com> wrote: http://www.ps3-hacks.com/2005/05/25/real-ps3-pics-from-e3/

These are some brilliant quality pictures, and i was just wondering if you took these yourself? If you did, I was hoping you could release them into the public domain so we can use them on the Wikipedia PS3 article, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3

Thanks in advance Plough

So does this mean we can use them? Plough | talk to me 02:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well... if that guy didn't take the pictures... who did? -- Daniel Davis 03:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

His site doesn't say, methinks. Probably a copy-vio. :( Plough | talk to me 03:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well... if we can find out who took those, then write to THEM and get permission, I would say that we have a prime free main article picture here. :) -- Daniel Davis 03:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• He doesn't know anything about them other than "They were from E3 last year." Plough | talk to me 03:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No huge loss... The pictures' resolution and composition are pretty terrible, and the compression artifacts make things even worse. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-05-22 03:40Z

controller section

Controller section seems to have grown a bit recently, could anyone actually justify its length at present - or is it ok to prune it specifically parts that are speculation on the 'mindset' of the sony corporation (ie why they have done things) - and attempts to deal with 'copy from nintendo' and 'sony lost vibration' case. I'm not suggesting these two issues shouldn't be delt with on the page or in this section - but it seems too long - too many words, sorry.HappyVR 17:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to user:codemonkey for sorting this out a bit.HappyVR 18:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed some stuff myself from section - comparing nintendo and sony's efforts. I'd like to point out my shortened version of sony's statements - 'me too titly thing' - I think honesty(from sony) here hopefully should put a stop to accusations of theft.

Still think section dealing with rumble and immersion could be shortened. If someone hasn;t done this already.HappyVR 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gone through with a bit of a hedge trimmer approach. :) I don't think I removed anything too essential, and the section seems to be a lot more pointed and concise now. --Codemonkey 19:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks better than I ever imagined, considering the additions. I still think it feels unnecessarily light on the rumble debate, specifically about Sony's "interference" statement... I think it could be handled by adding the note that people are confused since the Wii controller implements both features and more (boiling the whole debate down to its most central point). Other than this small gripe, the section seems near-perfect at the moment. gspawn 13:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't sure where to put this, but here is the link that specifies that the controller provides posture information and not angular speed. http://www.e3insider.com/news/?articleID=P2OHHFJPJ4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.111.77 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC).

I followed the link... "In addition to the '3-posture-axis' of roll, pitch and yaw, "3-dimension acceleration information (X, Y, and Z)" can be detected in high-precision and in real-time. "

I'm not quite sure what to make of that statement. -- Daniel Davis 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a subtle but significant distinction. While the original text wasn't incorrect (it does sense rotational acceleration), because of gravitational acceleration, it also senses tilt posture (roll and pitch and yaw) at rest. The text should probably be modified to clear that up. Never mind, it's been done. Dancter 16:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC) edit: While ambiguous, the press release does seem to indicate that yaw can be sensed at rest as well. Dancter 16:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just made an edit - I've assumed the above info. is correct. Also detected rotational orientation seems to make more sense than rotational acceleration - even if one can be infered from another it seems safe to assume that most games would need rotational orientation not rotational acceleration as input? - I've made edits to reflect this.HappyVR 16:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think yours is the best possible phrasing at the moment. Dancter 16:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

(it gets crowded in here doesn't it)HappyVR 16:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Dancter 16:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not neutral

The article has a 'not neutral' tag - is this due to the criticism section - could it be pointed out - the offending part....(I assume it's not 'Retail and Pricing POV' anymore as per talk page above. HappyVR 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

just an anon posting, but I'd say that the crit section is indeed not neutral. Anyone who states otherwise please explain why there is not a crit section for either the wii, or the 360, even though any forum user certainly will explain to you their "faults". /anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.175.45.26 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

Actually a quick check brought up that the only other seemingly popular console to have a crit section is the original playstation, for it's vatican ad. Although I will agree there are crits about the pricing of the console, I believe that should be placed on a more of a gaming related site like IGN rather than a collection of knowledge. As a side argument(playing devil's advocate slightly here) there could be a crit section in the wii for the worries that developers have (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3014&Itemid=2). Sorry for the piss poor links. I am not accustom to editing wikis. The xbox 360 article addressed it's crits appropriatly(power supply and disc scratching) in a very NPOV, I would mark from it's example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.175.45.26 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

The 'Criticism' section doesn't seem too bad. Not that long, and all properly cited. Although it probably could be shorter even.

And the Wii article atleast does have some critism mentioned, where apropriate. But it does so without externalizing the critism (e.g. the name section section mentions shortly the critism about it, but there isn't a seperate section for it). Having critism in line prevents an article from giving undue weight to something. I feel we can probably scrap the critism section, and move any points that need to be made to the relevant sections in shortened form. I will do so. --Codemonkey 19:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Done so. I'll leave it someone else to remove the NPOV tag, if they think it's an improvement. --Codemonkey 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hard Drive Consumer Upgradable

I just read in an interview with Phil Harrison of Sony at Eurogamer, in which he states that if PS3 consumers desire a larger hard drive than the 20gb or 60gb models included in their system that the PS3 hard drive is "ATA, bog standard" and can be swapped out with a normal PC hard drive, of a different capacity. (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=64667)

Quote:

Phil Harrison: "We want every consumer to be able to download and install content on their hard disc drive. If you want to put all your music on your hard disc drive, you'll probably go for the 60GB version. If you're a complete music fan and video fan, and you want to have huge amounts of digital content, then you can upgrade to whatever size of drive you like. You can put any in that you like - it is a computer, after all."

Eurogamer: So that hard drive is a standard PC drive?

Phil Harrison: ATA, bog standard, yeah.

This may be relavent to concerns about the price differential between the 20gb and 60gb versions of the PS3, because, if accurate, the only concerns left would be questions over the inclusion of Wi-fi and HDMI output in the 20gb model, since a 20gb model could be upgraded by the consumer perhaps to a 100gb or great sized drive at a later date.

At least one concern of being forever stuck with an inferior, but still expensive machine would be quelled. 80.132.25.3 08:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)CaptEnos

Pricing criticism

I belive that Sony's stance on the pricing is relevant to the article and should be either in a criticism section, or in pricing section. Kutaragi is quoted as saying that "ps3 is probably too cheap" in numerous online sources, such as ign, gamedaily, arstechnica, eurogamer and engadget. Considering the criticism directed at Sony's comparatively high pricing point, this deserves to be mentioned. Tani unit 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because much of the stuff about the price criticism was taken out. Without it, it was a little unclear what Kutaragi's price defense had to do with anything. I reverted a few edits further back, so some of that criticism should be back in. The quotation should make sense now if you add it to what's currently in the article. But it seems there is some disagreement over whether this stuff should be in the article at all, which is why I called for the discussion. Dancter 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Which is why I started this discussion page :) I think we should get other's opinions and then after reaching proper concensus implement whatever changes we will decide upon. Tani unit 19:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the current format. Pricing is in the intro section, where it should be. In my experience, talking to most people about the price of the console nets something like "how can they do that" or something of the sort, so why not tell people in the article? gspawn 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Kutaragi price quote

Sorry I had inferred from other articles that the kutaragi quote 'it's too cheap' was in fact a summary of an interview or speech where he had 'defended' the price. However the article http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/706/706133p1.html quotes him as saying 'It's probably too cheap'. As this was translated from japanese I have no idea what he said.HappyVR 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

removed console price history paragraph

I removed this paragraph:

It should be noted, however, that both the 1990 NeoGeo and the 1993 3DO initially retailed at a higher price than the 60 GB Playstation 3 (at $US650 and $US700, respectively) [8]. Furthermore, it is now standard practice to offer consoles at a reduced price with trade-in, which may make the PlayStation 3 significantly cheaper than the first round of Blu-Ray drives. (citation needed)

First sentence: When you chop 'it should be noted' it basicly leaves you with a statement of the NeoGeo and 3DO launch pricepoints. While it is nice for context, I'm not sure its needed. I think comparing it to its contemporaries should be enough for now, with the "its high price in comparison to its console competition" sentence.

Second sentence 'furthermore, it's standard practice to do trade ins', is unsourced, and even if it is, I'm not sure why it would deserve a specific mention. The 'significantly cheaper than average blu-ray player launch price' part maybe does deserve a mention. It needs a proper source reference though. I believe it linked to some press release previously, but you'd want a more general statement about average blu-ray player launch prices. It could fit in after "Blu-ray drive as representing real value for money.[5]" as "The average price of Blu-ray players at launch will be X. [src]". For now, also removed it. --Codemonkey 21:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The edit was originally mine. The fact is that there is a lot of 'counter-coverage' emphasising that the PS3 is excellent value; and a lot of people I talk to agree. Probably the key point is the comparison to other Blu-Ray players - I looked for a better reference before even doing the original edit, but alas. As you can see, I avoided comparisons to the 360 - its just too emotional. I gues this is just an inherent problem of trying to write an encyclopedia about something in development, and at the end of the day "value" is in the wallet of the beholder. --DreamsReign 22:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Playstation 4

I put the PS4 back in. Cheesor keeps deleting it in his "crusade" against 8th generation systems.--Orion Minor 04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-noteable item. The PS3 isn't even released yet, and the only "info" about the PS4 is the same statement that Sony always has about their consoles- current gen gets 10 years, then they want to move onto the next gen. There isn't any reason to keep this in the article. -- Daniel Davis 15:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The information available on the PlayStation 4 amounts to "Sony intends to continue producing videogame consoles after the PlayStation 3." What a revelation that is... -- uberpenguin @ 2006-05-25 15:47Z

Another agreement - 'PS4' as a title is very catchy and interesting, but even if we knew anything about it (which we don't), it shouldn't be on the PS3 page now should it. Make a stub by all means, but keep this article focused on the topic at hand. --DreamsReign 22:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Arrogance relating to Sony's comments

Codemonkey changed the sentence from "Criticism has recently shifted from the price itself to acusations of arrogance after an interview with CEO of SCE Europe, David Reeves, claimed that due to their brand strength "the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even it didn't have games".[12]" at the end of the pricing section to "Sony has also claimed that due to their brand strength, the first five million will sell to early adopters anyway, even without games.[12]" claiming that it is NPOV due to mentioning it is reported as arrogant. To me it seems relevent to include that this is an accusation that the gaming press is making at Sony, "are accused of being arrogant" and "are arrogant" are saying different things, with the former being NPOV. Leaving it here for discussion and consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaoaretasty (talk • contribs) .

When such statements aren't supported by the source, I feel that wording it in a general 'are accused of being arrogant' is just weasel wording. See WP:AWW. The way it is now is much better, I feel, and just as clear. --Codemonkey 09:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I 50% agree with 'codemonkey' and 50% with 'chaoaretasy' - however I think it should be considered that if a significant proportion of sony quotes on the page are focused only on the contentious things their execs say we can only expect a 'neutrality debated' tag. You can imagine that 99% of the interview will be ignored if a spokesperson says something honest like that - it's probably true and does make them seem arrogant - however I don't think anyone would consider it fair if they were quoted like that.HappyVR 17:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you've been following the 1up and IGN podcasts and articles, you can see a large amount of criticism directed towards their arrogance. The afformentioned "buy it, whatever it is" quote, the entire PSP "deal with it" press release, and a number of others are what have given Sony its current reputation. The conference at E3 was seen as another example, as many writers saw it as lacking effort, due to overconfidence. Keep in mind I'm not an Xbox fan, but take a look at the sites I mentioned, especially the E3 1up podcasts. The real question is if this temporary bad rap is going to be notable in a few months. Every system gets its share of criticism when it launches, it might warrent one or two lines among other (technical or otherwise) concerns that arise during a console launch.--Orion Minor 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite like the way it has been reworded now (not by me): "Sony has also claimed that due to their brand strength, the first five million will most likely sell to early adopters regardless of games availability or price concerns." It's clear, seems to speak in a tone that the Sony CEO intended, and is still relevant to the section.

The issue of Sony being arrogant is a different one, and should only be mentioned if someone notable is making it. While I have seen plenty of rumblings about their attitude, a lot of it is on messageboards, podcasts, blogs and such. I say, leave it as such for now, and let the reader make up his own mind on how arrogant they are by acting the way they choose to. --Codemonkey 19:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let the reader decide what is best. I do think the actual quote might be better, but the current revision is fine anyway. --Orion Minor 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree here that including the quote itself would be a better option if we want to let the readers make up their own mind rather than interpreting the tone originally intended by the CEO.--Chaoaretasty

Exactly, thank you. We shouldn't be interpreting tones or using a single sentence quoted to prove arrogance - lets leave this to the gutter press.HappyVR 06:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to prefer paraphrasing, purely as a stylistical choice. It makes an article flow a bit better, and can improve readibility, because it gives you a bit more freedom to incorparate a sentence nicely into a bigger piece of text. But, like I said, it's only a stylistical preference, nothing more.

There is always going to be some tonal interpretation, however. In how you choose to contextualize, in exactly what you choose to quote, how long you make your quote, how many quotes you use. This is true for both direct quoting, and paraphrasing. And in both cases we should take care to try and match tone to what was originaly said in a larger context, since we almost never can quote an interview or article in its entirety.

How would this do for a direct quotes version? Sony has also claimed that due to "a certain brand equity", the first five million will sell to hardcore gamers, "whatever it is, even it didn't have games". They have stated that "the rubber will hit the road" six months after launch, when this market segment has stopped buying. --Codemonkey 10:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I still think the curent (paraphrased) version is better. It's more concise, still precise, and manages to capture the tone of the entire interview. Beware of out of context quoting when one directly quotes. But maybe it's just that I'm not that handy with properly direct quoting. ;) --Codemonkey 11:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I still think taking a single sentence from an interview or lecture or conference and quoting it to show arrogance is not what we should be doing (in an encyclopedia etc). Doing this is all very well to get a headline for a page on 'internet-gaming.com' or whatever - however this wikipedia - also the interview from which the quote comes - has anyone actually heard/read it in its entirity? I too get an annoying feeling that sony is being arrogant/over confident/bullish/lazy but that's just a feeling - I don't extend that into the article.HappyVR 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you mention it. The full interview recently became available. ;) Dancter 18:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I probably would never have found it. Doesn't seem an arrogant statement in context (in my opinion). This is one of the problems I think 'we' have is that a lot of the edits are 'generated' by ign and all the others producing attention grabbing headlines - it seems that in some cases our editors don't read beyond the first line. HappyVR 18:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC) has stopped grumbling.

Couldn't agree more. It's something we Wikipedia editors should be extremely careful and wary about. The amount filtering, and selective quoting that can be done by a secondary source, and (unintentially) by a quoting editor is something one should be mindful about. Including myself, I admit. I'm still not quite sure what to do with the offending sentence. Whether to remove it, and if not, how to rewrite it. After reading the full interview, I'm edging towards just removing it for now though. --Codemonkey 20:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed 'Sony has also claimed that due to their brand strength, the first five million will most likely sell to early adopters regardless of games availability or price concerns.' for now - giving the reasons above - mostly that the quote is used out of context.HappyVR 09:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that the edit is used out of context, but I'd rather argue for the actual quote than what was removed. Ah well, what do I care, I'm not paying 600 dollars for a game system, no matter what cames are available at launch.--Orion Minor

One thing that comes to my mind is the Amiga computer (about/more than $1000 when released) and was still a success (and a lot of fun as well) - but didn't sell anyway near as many as the (100$?) Commodore 64. Not really relevent but I just wanted to take a trip down memory lane.HappyVR 07:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

POV Comments in main article: Are we in grade school?

"Blu-ray drive(which is not going to make it)"? "Memory Stick reader(who cares)"? Is there any way to stop eight-year-olds from editing WP? "60 GB version(matters)"? Maybe before you can commit edits, you should be forced to check a "I understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a chat board. I will not behave like I have ADD or try to impress my sk8z0r friends." box. Who wants to create WP: immaturity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.51.73.129 (talk • contribs) .

No, there is no way. Just revert the changes. If you think this is bad, imagine how Wii was when the name was announced ;-) -- ReyBrujo 16:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a way, lock down the article if extreme vandalism or the complaints that the user mentioned above ReyBrujo gets out of hand, that way things may cool down for some time until the locker decides to unlock the page, although hectic things will come back once the seal is broken or unlocked, sure but you can also warn those users to stop, or you can keep reverting the page. Either way the choices are yours and the editing war might cool down tomorrow. Also there is still a possibility of the Blu-ray drive coming, how? don't ask me. And as for the Wii, yeah quite hectic reybrujo although I think Nintendo is sticking with that name, because that's what they wanted though they could attempt to change the name at the last minute or right before its release. 24.188.203.181 16:58, 26 May 2006

The only way we can stop childish vandalism is to lobby Wikipedia to implement a registered-user-only edit system. Only then will the problem be reduced. --Rcandelori 05:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Reduce, it might. But, then there would be a upspring of new users that only make one edit! Which would totally distroy any "community" that Wikipedia has. So, reverts are the only way. Jdm64 23:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Name Game

Why are we still calling this system the PlayStation 3 when it should be in all caps (PLAYSTATION 3)? It makes no sense to me whatsoever. Sony is putting it in all caps. Why can't we? MastrCake 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that the official Sony documents spell the name PLAYSTATION®3, there is a Wikipedia guideline that applies here which makes the current spelling preferable. Dancter 19:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right. However, the current spelling is incorrect as well. According to the guidlelines, we shouldn't even be capitalizing the S in PlayStation. Or did I just read the guidelines wrong? MastrCake 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

because it doesn't sound right, even if Sony is doing it like that it just sounds more calm when it's written without full caps especially in the Wikipedia article about it, written in mostly lower case and some caps lock lettters. Just look at the recent major game sites, and you'll see it's written in lower case except for the first letter and the s letter. 24.188.203.181 19:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines say it's a judgment call. General usage and readability should be taken into consideration. I think most people (such as the above commentor) would probably say that means the 'S' should stay capitalized. Dancter 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would probably be about as readable if we were to caps all the letters. Although it may sound different, that is something that the whole world may need to get used to, as Sony is changing it. MastrCake 19:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I think the time to make your case is now. Just remember that there will be people who disagree with you. If you can manage to keep a cool head, no matter what happens, I think you'll be fine. Good luck! Dancter 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? MastrCake 19:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're asking which spelling I think should be used, then I'm not of any strong opinion one way or another. If you're asking what I think you should do about your proposal, I really don't know. I think it's possible that you can successfully make your case, but I'm also concerned that it could be an uphill battle, considering some of the petty conflicts that have occurred over this article in the past. That's all I meant. Dancter 20:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So what do you guys think? Should I change it to PLAYSTATION 3? Or shall we keep it as PlayStation 3? MastrCake 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it PlayStation 3. That's the official name. Logos are all in capitals most of the time, but are not the actual casing. --69.204.179.124 20:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sony actually refers to it as PLAYSTATION® 3 in all of their press releases. MastrCake 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sony official SonyStyle site- [[9]]has it as PlayStation 3.

Sony hasn't seemed to settle on an official capitalization scheme yet since they've used both PlayStation and PLAYSTATION in official releases. For the time being, I'd say keep PlayStation to stay consistant with other PlayStation articles and to avoid having the text seem to yell at the reader. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-05-27 03:35Z

Well, official Sony press and publicity material indicates that PSP is the preferred, official name of their portable system, but Sony often refers to it as PlayStation Portable. I imagine it's the same sort of thing with PLAYSTATION 3. Dancter 15:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Fine. We can keep it the way it is until I can dig up some proof. MastrCake 03:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ps3 Picture

Someone just replaced the black ps3 picture for a ungly, outdated, picture of a gray ps3; why? I cited the website where i got it from and i gave it the right tag,and it qualifies as fair; what else do I have to do, why hasn't anyone deleted the pics from the wii article, they are copyrighted too! can anyone please give me permission to put the pic of the black ps3. Thanks. Jrg dnn 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We've already gone over this. That image isn't free by any means- it's a cropped version of an image that Sony has gone so far as to even place a copyright notice on (2006 Sony Corporation, All Rights Reserved). Sony has NOT given away the rights to use it- thus, if we were to use it, it would certainly not be a free image, and it would be questionable as fair use. Adding to that, even if it were fair use, Wiki guidelines state that we have to use a free (not fair use) alternative if one exists. The pictures on the Wii page are there because there is no individual who went to e3, took a picture of the Wii and uploaded it to the page. If they had, we would use the free images on that page, as well. -- Daniel Davis 02:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I just asked sony for permission to use the picture, hopefully they will consider my offer. And someone put the updated pic back, it wasn't me, don't blame me. --Jrg dnn 17:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not whether Sony allows us to use it or not, it is about following Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest you to take a minute and read the Wikipedia Fair use policy, especially point 1, to understand what is happening. Images are likely to be replaced with the old image unless they are free. So, to prevent edit wars, read about the one and three revert rules. -- ReyBrujo 19:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

nintendo comment

I've removed this ' Nintendo has also described Sony's actions as copying, rather than innovating.'

My reason being that this comment actually was refering to the rumble capabilty of the dualshock controller - not the motion detection capabilty as the sentence seemed to suggest in it's context in the article. There still is a accurate nintendo response to the tilt etc features. So I would suggest the article does not need this quote anyway?HappyVR 09:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For reference, this was added as a result of a discussion I had with SeizureDog. He felt very strongly that the article should mention that 'many people' feel that the new controller 'to have ripped of Nintendo' and 'being a cheap move'. I didn't agree with him, and his initial use of a GameFAQs poll as a source, but when he later suggested an actual interview, I agreed that this was much better. But I guess the way I ended up quoting the article he suggested does get close to selective quoting. --Codemonkey 11:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we still have nintendo response to the controller - along the lines of imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Just to clarify for other people the quote was "Historically we're always developing new things. We know Sony have had a lot of issues with their rumble feature and they've had to withdraw it - because they didn't innovate, they copied" http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=140270 - so unfortunately it's not about motion sensing.HappyVR 11:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be quite a misleading sentence from Nintendo, considering that Sony had both analog controllers (Sony Dual Analog Flightstick) and rumble (the first Japanese versions of the Dual Analog) before Nintendo's controllers did. Yeah, they scrapped their version of rumble for Immersions when the Dual Shock came about, but it seems like that wouldn't involve Nintendo persay since it wasn't their technology... -- Daniel Davis 22:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote could be removed if it's misleading or based on false info. I supposed - I'm no expert on the timeline of who invented/marketted what first - so I'll leave it up to you.HappyVR 07:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Immersion suit does seem to void the validity of Nintendo's comment on copying rumble from them. Likewise, Nintendo did not invent the gyroscopic controller. As far as I know, Microsoft and Logitech both released a gyroscopic controller back in 1999 -- the Microsoft Sidewinder Freestyle and Logitech Gamepad Extreme respectively. They didn't invented it either, but those are the most notable controllers first utilizing the concept. If you want to specify consoles, then there was also the rather obscure Le Stick for the Atari 2600 and Atari 800 over 20 years ago. --Kamasutra 16:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

overall floating point performance section

Any thoughts as to what is wanted in this section (or whether it's needed at all) - does it need more info - eg a breakdown of total floating point performance into cell and rsx contributions or another change perhaps. Or is it ok as it is - no response means I do nothing to it by the way.HappyVR 16:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pointless, really. The floating point statistic was used to show how the PS3 was better than the 360, but the numbers are manipulated to create or exaggerate a difference in performance. Microsoft did the same thing in response, releasing a 10 page document showing how the 360 was better than the PS3, which I'm sure contains its own number tricks. Whichever system is better can be decided after release by tech junkies and fanboys who've already made up their minds. Anyway, what I'm saying is: it's a useless statistic used to help Sony at E3 2k5, you may as well get rid of it. --Orion Minor 06:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's a pointless statistic then you really don't know what floating point operations are and why they are important. The truth of the matter is the design of the Cell processor is much more efficient than the 3-core CPU's in the Xbox 360. It allows for a much more flexible design and can more efficiently handle instructions. The truth of the matter is Microsoft was shortsighted when they designed the Xbox 360 because afterall, their only experience is with software and we all know how dismal their software is (i.e. endless list of problems with Windows). Cell is a better implementation to handle future computing and it's definitely the right direction. I'm not a Sony fanboy even if you might paint me as such, I just know more of what I'm talking about regarding the technical differences than most other casual Wikipedia browsers do.

Whether it's important is up to you, I think just about everyone these days won't be able to tell the difference between the graphics of the 360 and PS3 because they've exceeded most perception. I say any more power than what I can perceive is power that's wasted. LighthouseJ 18:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about this? Rather than bash Microsoft, which you just did, explain why floating point statistics are important and why the PS3 article needs the section. I've read about floating point operations as well as the power of the different cores. I'm not going to argue the stats between two different pieces of machinery (one of which isn't even out). The point of this discussion is the section at hand. It throws out data, from a company that owns the product mind you, and does not explain it. We do not have the Microsoft capacity info on thier page as you cannot trust a company to properly compare itself to its competitors. I am sure you are confident in your ability to evaluate the two systems, so is Tomonobu Itagaki, but that is not what we are talking about. I say remove it. I welcome input from other editors, though. --Orion Minor 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I presume you're replying to me even though you used too few colons to indent your response.

I bashed Microsoft's decisions which is quite apt, I'd bash Sony if they made some in regards to decisions on their console architecture but they haven't made any bad decisions yet. Realistically, trying to compare flops, even using the same game still doesn't conclusively determine which console is better, which is the only purpose comparing flops is for. While I don't disagree that Sony and/or Microsoft have agendas and might have "padded" the figures, I think the section should remain for the simple purpose of reporting what Sony said. It's properly disclaimed as to where the numbers come from so you should let the reader make their own decision as to what to trust. LighthouseJ 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no set system for indents, I was going to use three (as I am now) but I've seen overindenting before. Given the original size of my response, I did not want the indent to make the response uneccessarily long. I think we can agree that our views on what is notable and should therefore be in the article varies, which is why we need more input from other editors.--Orion Minor

Umm... I think the article should probably mention the read/write rates of the Cell Processor too. This Link here from a reputable source seems to indicate the memory write rate for the main cell is abysmal (16Mbps). I don't entirely know where I'd put this in though —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.117.41.1 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider The Inquirer a reputable source, as they are primarily a rumor site, and their scoops are wrong at least as often as they're right. Heck, even Joystiq pointed out a good refutation of those claims. Dancter 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That Joystiq article itself highlights how misleading statistics can be. The article itself focuses on a different measurment, but it's easy to sea the parallel to the floating point argument.--Orion Minor 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the floating point right after the alterations of the clock speeds of the proccesors from 3.2-2.8 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.4.245.20 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost certainly not, which is what makes the addition of those rumors even more misleading. The specs are from different sources, probably referring to different revisions, and the average reader isn't going to be able to tell them apart. I'm heavily in favor of restoring the old info. Sony has stated 3.2Ghz, and even if it turns out not to be the case, readers will at least know where it came from. Dancter 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Official European Website

The official European website for the PS3 has been launched, and I think it may contain some new info about the PS3. It has a full page for all the specifications, and also reveals how loud the PS3 will be. The address is- http://eu.playstation.com/ps3/ Vibriante 14:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

xbox 360 has more info then the playstation 3...

Which is a problem....When the XBOX 360 has about as much info as The Beatles themselves then you know it's a problem..SO I say we need to add as much, useless info as we can. Starting now..I'll start in about 2 min. - Dragong4

The 360 has been released, the PS3 has not. Information on the PS3 is rapidly changing, as Sony revises stats and some things just are not known. Also, longer is not always better. The 360 may be too long, actually. Adding useless information is vandalism, by the way, and declaring an intent to add such info can get people in trouble.--Orion Minor 05:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Orion Minor is right, do not start adding "useless" information, the article is fluffed enough as it is. And your edits, if not good, will be reverted and you will be warned for vandalisme. Havok (T/C/c) 09:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Having a bigger article does not make it superior in any way. I'm not putting the 360 article down at all, but if you're one of them anti-Xbox guys or a PlayStation fanboy, coming here to make the article longer and 'appear' more important is not going to fly.Tigermave 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A PlayStation fanboy who wants to vandalize the PS3 article with fake information? Well, stranger things have happened, I guess. Optichan 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

very funny, no more jokes please.HappyVR 17:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI 360 HAS BEEN RELEASED and umm ps3 hasnt. So we have more info about it.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 12:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Launch Titles

I have noticed that on the other next gen console pages there is a chart or a link that takes you to a chart of the launch titles for the system. I believe it is pertinent to at least start making a list so as to easily compare between the other two consoles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.184.31.158 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Is there a list of launching titles? There was a "temporary" page saying that some titles were going to be released, and lately Sony stated many of their titles will be launchind directly on 2007. I would guess most games we could put in this section are speculation. -- ReyBrujo 06:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well did a little bit on google and found: http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3LaunchGames.htm http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005May/bga20050527030673.htm some other people might want to do some research but I think this enough to start making a chart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.184.31.158 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

(edit conflict) This will be interesting. While in other articles we add titles as we get confirmations, in this one we will have to remove titles as companies deny they are going to be finished by launch time :-) I personally think About.com is as respectable as a blog, but hey, that does not mean the section can't be created. -- ReyBrujo 14:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Both of those lists are very out-of-date. There are several that definitely aren't going to make launch and I'm not even sure why they'd ever assume some of them would have been a launch title. As I recall, Kaz claimed the number of launch titles is about 15. Resistance: Fall of Man and Madden 2007 are about the only titles that come to mind that are firmly confirmed for now. --Kamasutra 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok good I just provided somewhere to get starting point for this list. I don't have the NPOV engrained in me. I can just provide inspiration to get things done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.184.31.158 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Just one thing: make sure to sign your posts. Dancter 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Order Sites

Okay, so somebody added a section at the very bottom with links to pre-order sites. I removed any links that looked questionable and adjusted the others to ensure that noone is getting referral credit, but does anyone think we really need a section on this? I'm thinking it should be cut. What does everyone think? Dancter 00:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like advertising to my eye :I --84.248.57.66 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm cutting it. Dancter 21:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Request New PlayStation 3 Article Image

the console as pictured on the top right is out of date and shows several ports on the back which no longer exist on the actual model. I'd switch it if I knew how to. Someone else please. Deusfaux 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I switched it to a promo image but was told that free photos are better because you don't have legal issues. If I find a good user photo, I'll put it up. X360 06:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest somebody should change the PlayStation 3 Article image here. It is not very clear or distinctive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisW (talk • contribs) .

I don't know why the images we had where removed, they clearly fall under fair use seeing as they are taken from the Sony press release. Havok (T/C/c) 08:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the image of the console itself at the top of the page, this has already been discussed, oh, about a thousand times. Someone really ought to put a little note or something in the article itself, really. Basically, it's this- Wiki's Fair Use guidelines say that if we have a "Free" image of something in an article that can be used and we have a "Fair Use" image of the same thing, we use the "Free" one. The Playstation 3 image we've got right now was actually taken by a guy who visited E3 and took several photos of the console, then uploaded them as "Free" images to Wikipedia. Thus, unless you have a better "Free" (not "Fair Use") image, the "Free" one takes precedence. And no, copying the copyrighted PS3 image from Sony's website and just cropping out the trademark (like one person did) doesn't make it a "Free" image. -- Daniel Davis 10:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So even though Fair Use is allowed, we can't use a picture because there is a Free one. Ok, I get that. But when the quality of the article goes down when using the "Free" one, I think using the fair use image should be allowed. But I guess this should be taken up with the policy, and not here in the talk page. Havok (T/C/c) 10:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not a free image is available or we have to use one of sony's publicity images through fair use - one thing is certain - we need an image that is up to date - ie a black (20gb) or black with silver stripe (60gb) ps3 image - one that includes the new vents, the new reduced number of outputs at the back etc - I don't think not using an image that is fundamentally misleading (ie pre e3 2006) can be justified. (By the way as I write this the current image is labelled e3 2006 but does not seem to be - eg it's the 'old prototype' - can anyone enlighten?)HappyVR 18:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that we should use free photos if they are available. I have, myself, wanted to use the promo pictures, but when there are free ones, we must use them. Havok (T/C/c) 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should just use a promo image of the PS3. If I worked for Sony and looked at this article I'd be annoyed that the out of date image is being used. It doesn't represent any quality of the product. I have never owned a PlayStation product of any kind, I have also said many bad things about them, but I think it's only fair that all the consoles get a decent picture. -- X360 09:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the picture is infact out of date. I thought someone updated it. Havok (T/C/c) 10:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do. This has already been discussed in the Fair use talk page. Based on that discussion, I am reverting the image. If you have further comments, please do them there. -- ReyBrujo 11:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that, but the fact of the matter is that the image which is now in use is WRONG, it's the OLD version of the PS3. So the entire discussion which you refer to is void. This picture is what it looks like now. Reverted image back. Havok (T/C/c) 11:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

From the current black image and the previous grey one, which differences are notable to state the product changed so much? The control is already shown below, so the only difference is the color? -- ReyBrujo 11:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that Image:Ps3 2.jpg already shows the updated ports, and between the black and the grey, it is not possible to guess if the ports have changed. -- ReyBrujo 11:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The free image shows the system with many more ports which have been removed from the new version, as well as no air holes. As I have said, it's wrong and missleading to have the image up. Either we remove the image of the system all together, or we use the promo image until a new free image can be obtained. Havok (T/C/c) 12:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to Sony asking for permission to use the promotional images of the PS3 on Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/c) 12:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(I have also posted this reply to the user's talk page) Unluckily, Wikipedia forbids original research. The only way the black image could be used is a) the PS3 console had changed so much the previous free image is completely obsolete; or b) they release the image with a free license (Creative Commons or GFDL). Since neither is likely to happen, I suggest reverting to Image:PS3 at CES 2006.jpg. If you don't wnat the image because it has removed ports, we can roll back even further and use Image:PeaceThree.JPG, as visually there are no differences between the new Fair use and that one. -- ReyBrujo 12:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but does asking for permission to use an image count as original research - I don't think so. Apologies if I have misunderstood.HappyVR 13:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Havok (T/C/c) 12:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I expect again to see an edit war, as it already happened three times. I just hope it doesn't become too serious to lock the article again. -- ReyBrujo 14:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the most accurate/up to date image be used. The old one can be used to illustrate the development history. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The current image is fine. But I can't believe that image licensing trumps accuracy in an encyclopedia. - Hahnchen 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the titlebar of the browser. It should say Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. We are trying to make a free encyclopedia with verifiable information, not an accurate one. -- ReyBrujo 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you're saying that Wikipedia should use a PD image of a flat square earth over a fair use image of a round one to illustrate the Earth article. Which incidentally is totally against the spirit of the NOR-like link you quote, it's not like this is unpublished information. In fact, the link that you've cited there bares almost no relevence to this scenario. An accurate Fair use image trumps an inaccurate free image anyday. - Hahnchen 03:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That was as a reply to the comment that we are sacrificing accuracy for freedom. We don't target accuracy, we go for verifiability. As I said, this has already been discussed in the relevant place.

I had a previous discussion with Daniel Davis where we agreed that a Fair use image can be used instead of a free one if the variations between one and the other are extreme. However, which differences exist between Image:PS3 - Front Side (60GB HDD).jpg and Image:PeaceThree.JPG besides the color and the controller (which has its own image below)? I can't see how putting the black one would improve the article quality than the grey one. If the new console were round, then yes, it is justified. But both versions are similar, and if there are differences (like less ports or more memory) it can't be noticed in the black picture. Fair use images are exception in Wikipedia to improve the overall quality of the article. The black one does not improve the quality. Note that other versions of Wikipedia don't use Fair use images at all, like the German one. -- ReyBrujo 03:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the current image, I never did. But it was looking at the reverts to the CES version which I didn't agree with. - Hahnchen 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify that, I thought (and still think) that the white, Image:PS3 at CES 2006.jpg, is useable, even if it is a prototype, because the images are used to describe how the unit looks like, not whether they have the final specs inside. It was reverted because it was showing ports that had been removed. My argument against the revert was that in the relevant section (Graphics processing unit (GPU)) there is a updated image of the ports. The casual user won't make conclusions by checking the image in the infobox, but instead go to the next sections to confirm the visual information. Weren't this updated image of the rear in the article, I may have agreed on removing it. According to the Fair use guys, if you can solve an outdated image with a caption (like The latest version of the unit features a unique HDMI output (or whatever)), you can use it in place of a fair use image. As you can see, everything is too subjetive in this area, and is likely to give more headaches than just removing spam links from external sections :-) -- ReyBrujo 03:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the current image (the grey one) and I'm looking at the black one, and honestly, all this talk about "accuracy" seems overwashed- besides one being black and one being grey, I'm not seeing any reason why the grey one is "less accurate"- from what I can see, there doesn't seem to be any noticeable difference between the two. -- Daniel Davis 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing I don't understand is why can we use the official promo images of the controller and the back of the 20GB model but we can't have a decent promo image up the top. The PS3 is most likely only coming in black at launch and people are going to get their hopes up for a different colour only to find out that colour doesn't exist. -- X360 06:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Because we use free images when available. Apparently there are not free images showing the rear of the unit, although I may suggest using the white one, since there are minor differences between both. The controller is used to demonstrate the new controller, as there are no free images (at least, uploaded in Wikipedia). -- ReyBrujo 06:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The image we have now is better then the old one at least. By the way, has Sony given any statements as what colors they intend to release from day one? If white isn't one of them, then I do think the current image constitutes a change to the Fair use one, seeing as it's white. Havok (T/C/c) 08:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sony said the 'clear black' colour is available at launch. I don't think any other colours are available for a while. -- X360 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is the old image still there - arguments about fair use don't hold water here as the image is no longer an accurate representation of the console?HappyVR 11:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC) The new version of the console is 'fatter' - that is the radius of curvature of the top and bottom surfaces is less - if we must use the free image I would like to label this older picture "PS3 (prototype)" or similar.HappyVR 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

For me it seems people still don't understand it. The picture of the white one is wrong, very wrong. Why does everyone insist on using it? Its even been stated that the fair use picture takes presidence over a false free image. So why do you guys keep arguing that the picture "isn't that bad" the picture is wrong for crying out loud. Even though you might not see that, there are people who do see that. Havok (T/C/c) 12:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

HappyVR, do you have a citation for the statement "The new version of the console is 'fatter' - that is the radius of curvature of the top and bottom surfaces is less"? I've looked at the two consoles and I don't see the kind of difference you're mentioning. -- Daniel Davis 12:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Compare http://uk.media.ps3.ign.com/articles/614/614619/img_2786114.html and http://www.scee.presscentre.com/imagelibrary/detail.asp?MediaDetailsID=29082 - it looks fatter to me, though the perspective on the two images is different?HappyVR 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Less 'tall' as well - in other words squatter.HappyVR 13:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)A google search on "ps3 fatter" turns up a few similar comments.HappyVR 13:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The two are shot using the same perspective- the Power button, if you'll notice, is the same size on both. The white console is slightly taller than the black one, and there is an extra "hump" on the back of the black PS3. However, the differences seem extremely slight when the two are put side by side. -- Daniel Davis 13:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And the color? Not important? Havok (T/C/c) 13:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is all black. How hard is to imagine the same pic in full black? If it were yellow-white spotted, brown-red stripped, gray-blue washed with some new Sony logo, then maybe I would think the Fair use is needed. -- ReyBrujo 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Being sarcastic isn't being civil.HappyVR 14:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt I was being sarcastic, it was not my intention. I wanted to clarify that images are justified when the modifications are extreme. If the only obvious modification is the color, a caption in the image is enough. If the color is extremely changed (as in my previous example), an image is justified because it helps the casual reader to understand the written description. When the console is full black, by mentioning in the caption that "The final model is completely black." should be enough. -- ReyBrujo 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I would love to take this to mediation, because I don't see the problem with using the fair use when people here agree that the image is totally off. Havok (T/C/c) 16:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't forget that not only the colour has changed but also the dimensions - I've no doubt that some people are more sensitive to relative proportions than others - to me it seemed like a major change - yet other people see very little change between the two.HappyVR 20:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Console image removed

I removed it until a consensus can be met on the above discussion. Preferable trough mediation. There is no need to have an image which miss represents PS3. Havok (T/C/c) 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with removal. (In my opinion) getting rid of the old image is an improvement even if we have no suitable replacement at present.HappyVR 20:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:FUC, if "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information", fair use can be asserted. If the only free image is of an outdated model which is not accurately reflective of the article subject, the accurate image should be fine, provided the image page properly asserts FU rationale and that it is replaced with a free image as soon as is possible. RadioKirk talk to me 22:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not add the fair use image, so if someone else could do so, it would be great. Thank you. Havok (T/C/c) 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as a temporary solution. I do not agree with the given points (color and dimensions) to justify the Fair use image in this context. As I stated, the black console is plain black mate, just like the PlayStation Portable. There are no visual differences between the black and the grey one. As for dimensions, there are no references to compare the size of the consoles against each other. -- ReyBrujo 23:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not grey, it's white. And the console is going to be black, and Sony has said nothing about the colors except for what they showed at last years E3. It's about the visual presentation of the console, and it's wrong. Havok (T/C/c) 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Was just clarifying, as it seemly was a reason besides color. A quick Google search on Flickr site reveals. [10] I am sure there are others with around the same or better quality. Some search is needed for sure, but I think it is necessary. -- ReyBrujo 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we just use this (Image:PS3 - Front Side (60GB HDD - Cropped).JPG) promo image until a decent free image is available? -- X360 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if you upload a much smaller-res version and include rationale for its fair use on the image page. To see examples of how to do that, try Lindsay Lohan or any featured article with fair-use images. RadioKirk talk to me 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, you can't modify a Fair use image. So, don't crop it. -- ReyBrujo 00:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well here is the normal, non-edited version: Image:PS3 - Front Side (60GB HDD).jpg -- X360 04:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the size should be reduced in size. -- ReyBrujo 04:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't a 'corner' view be preferable - http://www.scee.presscentre.com/imagelibrary/detail.asp?MediaDetailsID=29084 or something similar - it gives a better impression of what the thing looks like.HappyVR 10:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added the image Image:PS3 - Front Side (60GB HDD).jpg to the article, I have also updated the image with a link back to the original image over at Sony's press website. I have also asked Sony to send me their policy for what is allowed to do with the images found on the press website. It is not original research seeing as I am only asking them for their policy on the matter. Havok (T/C/c) 12:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't just ask them for permission - you have to ask them to release it under the GFDL or a similar license. Non-commerical or "by permission" licenses were banned over a year ago. Hbdragon88 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have asked Sony to post it's policy on their press website. I asked a rep what their policy on this was, and got this reply "If it is one of the approved images from the online press office then this is fine to use in a magazine or on the internet for an article about PlayStation." Hopefully they will post this on their site, so that we are able to use the images. Havok (T/C/c) 06:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They're not going to freely license their pictures - I can guarantee that. The free picture is good enough for now - be we definitely can't use the copyright one. ed g2s • talk 09:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It has allready been established that the free image is wrong, and hence that policy you are referring to is void. Read all comments made above this one. Havok (T/C/c) 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is not "wrong". It is an accurate photo of the console Sony put on display at that exhibition. If it is significantly different from what is expected to be released then that can be explained in the caption. Either way we must not use the copyrighted pic per WP:FUC #1. ed g2s • talk 09:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This debate has been going for weeks now, and consensus is that it missrepresents the console, hence it is "wrong" and should not be used. As per RadioKirk "fair use can be asserted. If the only free image is of an outdated model which is not accurately reflective of the article subject, the accurate image should be fine."Havok (T/C/c) 10:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Ed tries to fuck up the hard work of other users. Modulus86 12:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with him, do so in a civil matter please. Havok (T/C/c) 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please don't bring your problems with him here. -- ReyBrujo 12:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no visible difference between this model and the promo shot. If you want a black one, there are pics of the black console on Commons and Flickr. I also fail to see a consensus above regarding the image misrepresenting the console. ed g2s • talk 15:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: the debate is between fair use images that accurately represent the current design; and free use images that are largely similar, but have differences that may be misleading, as they are not of the current design seen at E3 2006. Is everyone telling me that there isn't a good-enough free image of the current design? It was at E3; there should be at least one usable image out there. Has anyone tried looking at any of these? [11] [12] Dancter 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dancter! That should hopefully end all this crap that's been flying around about the image. -- Daniel Davis 01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The license for the current picture is wrong, it should be cc, not gnu. And I found a couple of white ones, but people want a black one. -- ReyBrujo 01:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Then change it from GNU to CC, if you feel that it should be CC. And that picture is good- it's accurate (it came from THIS YEAR'S E3), and it actually shows the controller, and it's free as well. -- Daniel Davis 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Now if only this was settled two weeks ago. :P Good picture, I like it. Sorry if I stepped on the feet of people in here, my intent was not to be a jackass, but to get the most accurate picture. Havok (T/C/c) 07:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd been avoiding this debate for a quite a while, 'cause I didn't understand the fuss. After Daniel changed the image to the current one, I decided to check on some things. For all the disagreement that was going on, not only had many of those images been available on Flickr since E3 (over a month), but copies of the better ones had been on Commons for a while, as well. Ed posted a cropped version of the same image we're currently using two weeks ago. The free image I prefer has been on Commons for a few days, and is what was used to create the free image of the controller. Given this fact, the debates seem a little silly now, don't they? Dancter 08:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The dark color makes it hard to get a good-looking photo of the black casing, making it especially hard to find one for the current revision. Silver is just generally more photogenic. Dancter 08:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Silly as it might be, we have all come to an agreement atleast. Havok (T/C/c) 09:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the following image (flickr, cc-by-2.0) [13]? ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I already mentioned that I prefer that image. But please don't upload another copy, as it's already been uploaded here. Dancter 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh good, I'm glad I hesitated in uploading. This image is of a higher quality (focus, framing) than the one used currently. If there's some survey of consensus, consider this my vote for Image:PS3s_and_controllers_at_E3_2006.jpg ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 05:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that picture is better. Havok (T/C/c) 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

GOOD GOD. Would you start focusing on the ARTICLE TEXT and not on the freaking console image? First you people started arguing about having a "free" image. So a free image got put up, which you didn't like because it was slightly different from the "new" version. So now there's a new image up there that accurately depicts the console AND it's free. Leave the stupid article image alone and start actually working on the article itself, for the love of Pete! -- Daniel Davis 07:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

*cough* Havok (T/C/c) 07:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between incivility and exasperation. You would do well to learn the difference between the two. -- Daniel Davis 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

*cough* No ill will intended. Havok (T/C/c) 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever got the new image - I honestly had no idea where to look (not just lazy). However as User:Havok has suggested could we use the other of the two images Image:PS3s_and_controllers_at_E3_2006.jpg as it's in focus (the current one is a bit blurred), if no one objects or does it themselves I'll change it over - I've assumed this image is ok to use since it's been downloaded to wikipedia.HappyVR 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry couldn't be bother to wait so decided to "be bold" and change over anyway - two users said they prefered this one so I guess this edit will pass off without any problems...Thanks.HappyVR 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Kutaragi - PS3 a computer

I notice that numerous websites have been running a 'PS3 is a computer' news item based on an interview with Ken Kutaragi - does anyone have a link to the actual interview to see what he actually said - the suggestion seems to be that other variants may be released and the PS3 will be upgradeable etc?HappyVR 10:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the PS3 has no upgrades other than harddrive and USB based devices. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=141205&skip=yes. Quote

"Speaking about the PS3, we never said we will release a game console," Kutaragi said, In an Interview with Japan's PC Watch. "It is radically different from the previous PlayStation. It is clearly a computer. Indeed, with a game console, you need to take out any unnecessary elements inside the console in order to decrease its cost. ... This will of course apply to the PS3 as well ...The PS3 is a computer," said Kutaragi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.4.226.44 (talk • contribs) .

Game list

On the Wii (and most Nintendo consoles) page, there is a list of Third Party, Second and First Party games expected to be on the Wii, plus a launch title list. Do you think we should organize the "Games in Development/Expect Software Library" list that way? By the way here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#Expected_software_library McDonaldsGuy 08:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is huge enough as it is. Besides, we have List of PlayStation 3 games which should do nicely for now. Havok (T/C/c) 12:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the idea would make the article shorter and far more organized. McDonaldsGuy 09:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, why do people support this organization (also proposed on Xbox 360 pages)? It hit the Nintendo page first because if you read up on console history, Nintendo made some big waves with their treatment of third- and first- party titles in console history. So maybe it should be important there as a legacy- but really, do people care if most games are first-party on any other consoles?. And secondly, how would breaking up the titles, then having to add headers whitespace and boxes to seperate them, shorten the article? Organization I can see, but it wouldn't be shorter. 69.176.41.195 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets get this sucker to be a featured article

What is stopping YOU from doing it? -Dragong4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.99.161 (talk • contribs) .

The console hasn't been released. I don't think "future events" articles can become featured. -- ReyBrujo 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

They could theoretically, but this article's subject suffers from so much information overload, rumour, speculation, and downright false fact, that there's no way this article can be very sane at this point in time. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-06-15 07:20Z

yeah i agree --69.214.12.27 18:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wh have there been so many attempts to make this article a feature? Basically from the moment it grew beyond a stub, people were shooting down feature attempts. As it will be for some time: The answer is NO. No upcoming release should ever be a feature, especially one such as this, where there are basically just as many (if not more) rumors than hard facts (especially ones that we can be absolutely certain won't change before shipping). 69.176.41.195 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)