Talk:PlayStation 3

MGS4 is best selling game

4.5 million copies. http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/4569.html68.186.148.135 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm tired of this BS. (This has been discussed far too many times on this talk page.) Can we just remove the old best selling game note on the info box until someone can find a legitimate, non-misleading source for another game? KhalfaniKhaldun 22:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There, there, don't be harsh on the anonymous. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, sorry, it wasn't directed specifically towards this one, but more toward the hundred people in total that have brought this up. =P But seriously, can't we just get rid of the minor - but for some reason frequently disputed - item? KhalfaniKhaldun 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean remove the "Best-selling game"/topgame parameter from Template:Infobox Information appliance? Because that's what I think should be done, since a majority of the console articles that use that infobox parameter don't have a source that specifically states that the title listed is the console's best-selling game, just a source that says it sold X number of copies. --Silver Edge (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. KhalfaniKhaldun 05:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the "best-selling" game is getting really irritating. Thing is, if we do it for this article, we'll need to remove the "best-selling" game from the articles for the other systems. I think that it is humanly impossible to keep track of such popular titles considering that we have no definitive way of confirming such sales. (Psychoneko (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

I've brought up the issue on the template's talk page and proposed that the infobox be changed. --Silver Edge (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

While Silver Edge is leading the charge on the template itself, can we take a quick vote here to remove it from the PS3 article, at least? My vote is for, since its clearly a topic of frequent contention and doesn't isn't possible to keep track of reliably. KhalfaniKhaldun 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, this is interesting info to have in the infobox, it should on the other hand be changed to whats right, if its Mgs4, thats what it should say. There will always be info out there of what is correct, don't hide it just because it changes what is the bestselling game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.193.221 (talk)

I think the issue is that we can't say that MGS4 is the best-selling game because we don't have a source that states that it is. But we also can't really say Motorstorm is because the source we have is out-dated. Therefore, we essentially don't know what the best-selling game is so it shoudn't be stated in the article at all... Unless I've completely missed the point?! :) ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 01:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the issue. The statement, "there will always be info out there of what is correct," while accurate, is not necessarily helpful. Yes, the information does exist in some form, but whether it's been brought together to actually say "this is the best-selling game," or if it's even available to the public are completely different stories. I'm sure Sony knows exactly what the best-selling game is, but as far as any regular contributors here know it's not been released since the Motorstorm statement two years ago. KhalfaniKhaldun 01:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that we should remove it (the statement about the best-selling game) from the infobox. My only gripe is that we do the same for the other articles such as the PS2, Xbox360, and Nintendo Wii. (Psychoneko (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

I disagree. If the information is available for the other platforms I see no reason to remove valid, useful information? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem is keeping it updated. I don't see a reliable news outlet that actually keeps track of these sales reports aside from sources that don't fall under Wiki's guidelines. (Psychoneko (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't follow the other consoles (or their articles) so I don't really know if the information is valid or not. If those articles have the same problem as this one, then yes, maybe the information should be removed from those too, but if they are correct, up to date and souced then I don't think the information should be removed. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 23:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem. I've just tabbed over to the Xbox 360 article and the information listed on the infobox is over a year old. Hence my statement that there isn't a reliable source that keeps track of sales numbers on a consistent basis. (Psychoneko (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

The Wii article actually uses the parameter correctly, and even lists two games. Since one was bundled with all the Wiis, I think they thought it appropriate to list that and the one that sold the most on its own. The problem with the 360 source is that it doesn't even say anything about the "best-selling" game, it just list the number of copies that Halo 3 has sold, so it's not a legitimate source either. We can't even just find a source that just tells us the number of copies a game has sold and compare it to other numbers, as that (somewhat justifiably) counts as original research since it is a combination of multiple sources. Unless we find a source that says "x game is the best-selling game on this console," the parameter is virtually useless. KhalfaniKhaldun 18:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that it's useless or anything but it feels more like it hasn't been researched properly. There's no systematic method to check on this particular parameter and none of the available sources have put in the effort and resources to keep track of such numbers. I'd say that the only ones who do have access to all the hard numbers are the game publishers or console makers (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) but it's hard to get a decent white paper out of them for various reasons. What we need is a database that can keep track of this but no one seems to be interested in making it. (Psychoneko (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

For all we know, during this discussion, Killzone 2 could have reached bestseller. Ffgamera (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the dispute here? If you can cite Reliable Source A which states that Game X has sold 4.5 million units and is the top selling game on the platform, then put the data (sales number and the date of the reference) in with an inline citation, and update it when the information changes. If an editor later finds at Reliable Source B that Game Y has sold 5 million units, but Reliable Source B does not state that Game Y is the highest selling game on the platform, then he's not allowed to replace the data from Reliable Source A, and should be reverted if he does. Tempshill (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sales figures from Konami, http://www.konami.co.jp/en/ir/ir-data/meeting/2009/0514.pdf MGS4 @ 4.75M Magasin (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto 4 hits 13 million (50/50)

Take-Two: GTAIV Sales Split Almost 50/50 Between PS3/360. This means that GTA4 has sold at least 6 million for the PS3. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Can we use this as a source for best-selling game? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't explicitly state that it's the best-seller, and comparing it to all the other sources we have to determine that it is the best-seller constitutes a violation of Wikipedia OR/synthesis rules. I really wish Sony would just release their top-sellers list every quarter so we wouldn't have this problem. =( KhalfaniKhaldun 16:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, cant we just at least delete the Motorstorm figure? It's really agitating seeing that there. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 12:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PS3/360 Gap

Just as a side comment, I think the most interesting piece of information in this article that we actually can use is that the PS3/360 gap is down to 7mil and still shrinking. =D KhalfaniKhaldun 16:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be its own section but yeah, that's pretty impressive considering the PS3's price point, something that a lot of analysts have neglected/ignored/forgotten. (Psychoneko (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

I don't know what mags you read but there's few people that have neglected or forgotten the PS3's price point. It's the only real argument against the thing. Every aspect of it screams "Buy Me". Streaming audio/video, Blu-Ray player, Next Gen game console...price point is the only thing I hear from the nay-sayers. Padillah (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Where are my edits goin? mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

@Padillah - I'm saying that a lot of newsgroups track the number of consoles sold without mentioning the price tag of the respective systems. Had they tracked the type of SKU sold as well, then we might have a better idea of the relative positions each console with respect to their weight in price. This means that we can normalize the numbers to better understand consumer demand and purchasing habits. It may seem like a lame thing to do, but normalizing different sets of data is a fairly routine procedure for various users. (143.89.190.40 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

God damn it, I wish Wikipedia would let me stay logged on forever. (Psychoneko (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Still no joy? If anyone's got any, give us a bell asap. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I hear, naysayers say more than just about the price.
1. There are apparently no games for the console.
2. The hardware is either too good to be true, false, or exaggerated.
3. Blu-ray Disc is not a revolution in technology.
4. The Cell Broadband Engine is not as powerful as the Xenos.
5. PlayStation Network is nowhere near as good as Xbox Live.

I could go on forever. The point is, people just find more reasons to try and cover up PS3's technology, power and quality. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 12:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The conversation above doesnt sound POV neutral. Wikipedia is not a forum for advocates to present a "sales pitch". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.141.166 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages don't have to be POV neutral, but you're right, they do have to stay on the topic of improving the article. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. But this basically reads as collusion by these editors to crate a Posivite-POV article. The discussion page's POV is not really relevant, but these people are literally plotting to make the *article* an advocacy piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.46.67 (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. From a statistics point of view, this would be an interesting exercise, especially for market analysts. I mean, we have things like GDP, power purchasing parity and various other statistics that the CIA compiles and publishes (for its World Factbook) and other statistical values that are used in other industries and more recently in major sports teams so it stands to reason that adding price points to the data would add an invaluable insight that currently doesn't exist for the console market. Bottom line is, number-crunching is an invaluable tool for analysts and scientists and I doubt it it will ever go away. (Psychoneko (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

Technical Specs - Internal I/O architecture/technology used

Does anyone have info the internal I/O architecture used by the PS3? Is it HyperTranport, PCIe, or Sony proprietary? I believe that the table summarizing the tech specs (at the start of the article) should include the bus transport technology used. If I find it, I'll add it in myself, in the meantime if a PS3 HW 'expert' can fill in that that info, that would be good too. 66.130.154.212 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I used to have a PDF with all the details somewhere... I'll see if I can find it. I'd ask my friend's dad who works for IBM and actually drew up the original designs for the PS3 system hardware on his own laptop, but that would be original research. =/ KhalfaniKhaldun 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

playing video content through the PS3 web browser from your local web server

I wrote a small article about how to make your vista PC and IIS7 deliver video content of upto HD quality to the PS3 web browser. This negates the need to use the media player to view video and therefore DLNA and UPnP are not needed. This helps with playing to PS3 as there will be no more DLNA errors when using this solution.

I want to add this to the main page, but worry that it will be gone before I blink.

Anyhow, the need for this to be added to the main article is that you can use all of the media player HDD play capibilities from the playstation controls when launching a movie file from the web server using the playstation netfront web browser. This posibility is not listed on the wiki page and is not known about by most PS3 users.

http://phat-reaction.com/how-to-play-all-types-of-video-through-your-playstation-3-using-windows-vista-and-iis7/

There is video on youtube also on how to do this process and video playing through the web browser. So you can see it in action working. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxP93C7Olpk

It does not need IIS7, any HTTP (web) server will do.

Can someone help me in the placement of this information in the main page of the playstation 3 on wikipedia or suggest where to put this information. 85.144.194.211 (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 85.144.194.211 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason it would be "gone before [you] blink," is because as you also said, "[it] is not known about by most PS3 users." Since it isn't functionality that the PS3 was originally meant to use or developed by Sony, it needs to achieve notability and be covered in a few reliable secondary sources before it would be considered for appropriate inclusion in the article. In less wiki-fied speak, we want to make sure that it becomes popular and mainstream before adding it to the article - Wikipedia isn't a route to advertise this functionality. KhalfaniKhaldun 01:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks loads, I'll have a look around to see whats going on in the field before reporting back here. I have see a few blog items and things in this direction, but not too much. Anyhow, before I go any further I'll get some more opinion from this talk forum. Thanks again.

85.144.194.211 (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found some additional information that is notable and reliable and not me :)

quote from text

"Using the Internet browser, you can now play a linked video file* as it is being downloaded.

• Some types of video files cannot be viewed in this manner and must be downloaded completely before playback. "

See the Network section of PS3™ System Software Update 2.20 on this page

http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/SystemUpdates/PS3/history.html

2. source from Sony Quote "# Depending on the data type, some files may not be playable or some control panel options may not function during playback." "# Some video files distributed over the Internet have playback restrictions. For details, contact the content provider."

From hints section http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/current/video/filetypes.html

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intranet running your own server in your home network makes it an intranet, but you are the content provider.

4. Personal choice here, I believe that the playstation is not only a games computer and sony marketed for ages to Video watching people, who might like to game also. See blu-ray. http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Sony-PlayStation3-80GB/ . And I believe we will see in future much more use of the brower as a play device for sony content of all descriptions, not just games.

So for me given these sources, it should be in there. You can use the browser to access video on websites, not just flash, all supported content types. what do you think? 85.144.194.211 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

85.144.194.211 (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC) not had any feedback in months on this item, so I shall be adding it to the main page. Will be dissapointed if it is removed by anyone as there has been more than adquate time to respond and say their piece.

As there is no challangers now. It is safe to say that this information is true and does represent the capibilties/features of PS3

Special Edition Final Fantasy VII playstation 3

theres a playstation 3 special editon for the remake of the final fantasy VII movie, "final fantasy VII advent children Complete". Is this the right place to mention it? i believe so, the Xbox article showed a special edition Simpsons Xbox so why not here for final fantasy VII. discussDeathBerry talk 16:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the console is "Cloud Black" so it is unique. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

SDHC?

There seems to be some confusion as to whether the flash-card carrying models, or at least the 40GB & 80GB versions, sport SDHC compatibility. What's the current status of these devices vis a vis SDHC? MrZaius^talk 07:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The PS3 web browser is not based on NetFront.

The PlayStation 3 (PS3) web browser is mistakenly being described as a NetFront-based browser, whereas it is an internally developed browser. This NetFront rumor likely came about because the PlayStation Portable (PSP) browser is in fact a NetFront-based browser. Sony's Izumi Kawanishi has stated that the PS3 browser was developed internally based on software from their web device group. Reference: http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1219/mobile360.htm. Also, you can tell it's not NetFront because it simply acts differently with non-trivial pages. Lastly, a Sony rep personally told me this today as part of a tech support response.

Can we get this mistake rectified? It's been propagated quite a bit around the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutlawSipper (talk • contribs) 07:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is a Netfront browser but we don't have a reliable source either way. The link you provided isn't from a well-known/respected source and isn't in English. I'll just remove "Netfront" as we can't cite "in-house" or "Netfront". ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 08:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Europe sales

I can't find anywhere in the source that says the PS3 has 8.5 million units sold in Europe. The number itself seems a little high. Can someone double-check the figure? Mahanga^Talk 03:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article from about a year ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7386879.stm . That said, I don't think it's unusual for the PS3 to have sold 8.5 million units by now. (Psychoneko (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Actually, ignore the BBC article, I was drunk when I posted that. http://kotaku.com/5222722/lifetime-pal-console-sales-figures-get . (Psychoneko (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

vgcharts.org puts European sales at 10.7 million, though I don't know when that was last updated.

Side Bar

Unfortunately, the ps3 has a number of processors. Is their a seperate article which details the hardware architecture, or even one for the xbox. Its a PowerPC processor is also part of the processor architecture. scope_creep (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the above. Found the hardware page. scope_creep (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

PS3's Main article has wrong selling information

Playstation 3's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps3) main article is giving a wrong information with a missleading reference.

At the main summary box it says that "Motorstorm game" is the best selling video game of the system as of December 31 of 2008; the problem is that the reference used for such statement is linking an "Edge Magazine's" article made in December 30 of 2007. How can an article from 2007 afirm sells made in 2008, that doesn't make sense.

Such statement should be fixed. pirulee (talk) 14:44, 08 May 2009 (UTC)

Sales update?

Any idea when there will be a sales update for the ps3, as there has not been one since December 31st, 2008. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Next week. Dancter (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. That info has been helpful. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Another source says MGS 4.7m

from Gamasutra: "PS3 exclusive Metal Gear Solid 4 has now reached 4.75 million units worldwide, says Konami, touting MGS's strength as a "brand" on the same day a teaser website for the next Kojima Productions title is unveiled -- with more details promised to reveal at the site tomorrow." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.81.47 (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Apparently, Konami says so too. http://www.konami.co.jp/en/ir/ir-data/meeting/2009/0514.pdf Magasin (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So, once again people are failing to recognize that Konami is only reporting the total sales of the whole genre/series, not MGS4. Read that report again and tell me exactly where it says that MGS4 sold 4.75 million copies. Because I found the chart that listed the series as selling that amount, but not that specific game. That only supports the "Gamasutra misinterpreted their statement" view.

As an aside, it still really doesn't matter how much they have sold. In order to list a game as the highest-selling, there has to be a source that says it is so, otherwise it qualifies as original research. KhalfaniKhaldun 06:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, Motorstorm should also be removed, as the source does not specifically state that it is the best-selling title on the system. Also, the latest numbers from Plyphony Digital says that Gran Turismo 5 Prologue has sold 3.67 million copies. http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html Lars Holm (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical Problems

There is no mention in the article about the Yellow Light of Death (YLOD) which indicates a general hardware failure on the PS3.

There is ample discussion of this matter and a wide body of citations available;

Currently 9M returns for "yellow light of death"

http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=yellow+light+of+death&form=QBLH&filt=all

and 1.9M returns for "yellow light of death"

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=yellow+light+of+death&meta=&aq=f&oq=

There is also zero mention the bricking problems Sony has while updating PS3 firmware. There is ample discussion of this matter and a wide body of citations available, this is but one;

http://gizmodo.com/5021399/playstation-3-firmware-24-bricking-some-ps3s

Something should be mentioned in a new section, titled "Technical Problems". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.141.16 (talk • contribs)

Addition of "YLOD" has been discussed here in the past and the main reason it hasn't been included is that there weren't any reliable, notable sources discussing it. It's mainly talk on forums and on fansites which is original research and therefore cannot be used. I don't know if this is still the case but as far as I know, the problem hasn't been widely reports by the likes of Gamespot, 1UP, Gamasutra, etc. People have suggested that it should be included because RROD is mentioned on the Xbox articles and the response to that has been that while YLOD is known among PS3 users, it isn't nearly on the scale of RROD which was very widely reported on in both the gaming and mainstream media and it's notability has therefore not been so strongly established. Regarding the firmware update that "bricked" some consoles. This is covered in the PlayStation 3 system software article. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A huge problem with the video game industry is fanboyism. Criticizing a product is basically a declaration of war. Anyway, the problem is at least known and suggested. I found this briefly searching for a reliable source. Maybe add a little blurb about it being suggested? --Phil1988 (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, let me get this straight: you think we should include a blurb about how high hardware fault rates have been suggested, but proven wrong? That sounds kinda like a little bit of undue weight to me. Every piece of hardware that is ever mass produced has a certain failure rate, and unless that failure rate is oddly high (like the 360) it's not going to be notable enough to mention at all. =/ KhalfaniKhaldun 02:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To the anonymous, here are a few links that you might want to read more seriously so that you can better understand why the YLOD isn't a significant enough of a problem to be included in the article:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36070/98/

http://blog.squaretrade.com/2008/02/xbox-360-issues.html

full report: http://squaretradebuyerblog.typepad.com/squaretrade/2008/02/xbox-fail-rates.html

Most consumer electronics industries expect a failure rate of 1 to 5 percent, which is perfectly acceptable. The PS3 has a failure rate of roughly 3% whereas the 360 has a rather disturbing failure rate of over 10% (the established 16.4% from the 2008 research and the rumored 33% often announced by retailers and service centers). Comparatively speaking, which of the two carries more weight in a class-action lawsuit: the PS3's 3% or the Xbox360's 16.4%? Also, we have public records of class-action lawsuits brought against Microsoft that specifically questioned the Xbox360's build quality. We don't have any such records for Sony's PS3 nor do we have any such records for Nintendo's Wii. Since the media isn't interested in a 3% fail rate, it's no wonder why the YLOD isn't mentioned in this article. (Psychoneko (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Consistency with MGS4 sales

The MGS4 page 4.75 million sales...but the best selling PS3 game is MotorStorm with 3.31 million..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.13.103 (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not say that. It says "The game has been a driving force behind sales of the Metal Gear franchise, helping it to sales of over 4.75 million units since April 2008". The franchise sold 4.75m. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 12:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

ChimpanzeeUK, your not even a gamer so do not talk back. MGS 3 alone sold 5 million copies, and your telling me that the Whole MGS franchise sold 4.75 million copies? Please note, the signature button is not working, probably a bug.

Sources stating MGS 4 selling around 4 - 4.5 million copies. http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/metal-gear-solid-4-sells-45-million-as-konamis-profits-rise-17/?biz=1 http://www.gamespot.com/news/6204195.html http://www.aol.com.au/games/story/Metal-Gear-Solid-4-Sells-45-Million-as-Konamis-Profits-Rise-17/1646661/index.html

There you have it, MGS 4 is the best selling ps3 game.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs)

So, about those articles: Gamespot's article echos the fact that all the report gave was data about the whole series; the Game Daily article says its source is the Konami end of year financial report, but I've read the report and it never once mentions just MGS4 so it's clearly yet another misinterpretation; and the AOL article is just a copy of the Game Daily article report. On top of all this, as long as no source actually states that MGS4 is the top-selling game, saying that it is in the article based on analyzing numbers from various sources is a violation of WP:SYNTH.

As a side note, please watch your tone when addressing other users. Being a bit friendlier helps keep everybody happier, and it's really not that hard. KhalfaniKhaldun 07:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Whatever you say buddy. Like Khalfani said, all of the articles you cited either refernece the finiacial report directly or if they don't it's safe to assume that that was their source given the dates and numbers meaning that they have all misinterpreted the report. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 13:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ChimpanzeeUK and Khalfani have already refuted Rafichamp's "argument", but I want my turn, dammit. Even if we make the assumption that MGS4 did indeed sell 4.75 million copies, how would you know that some other game hasn't sold more? I mean, there's anecdotal "evidence" and hearsay that GTA4 sold over 5 million copies, but why is no one championing that game as the most sold? Or, what if some unknown game has actually sold more than this supposed 4.75 million figure, but no one has mad a song and dance about it, thus, no one knows it's sold more? Unless a reliable source explicitly states MGS4 is the best-selling PS3 game, it shouldn't be listed as such (even if the 4.75 million figure is true; which it isn't). 123.211.141.151 (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is Motorstorm then even allowed to be there in the first place? The source used only claims that Motorstorm was a "chart topper", which does absolutely not in any way confirm it as the best-selling game of all time, because that's not even what chart topper means. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chart_topper Lars Holm (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then, it should indeed be rightfully removed. I think it was removed one or more times for that very reason, but someone added it back, and no one has bothered to remove it again. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How does it work in general?

For those of us who grew up on the Atari 2600 and haven't much upgraded the gaming machine since, it's not clear how games are delivered to the system (probably by Blu Ray/DVD/internet) and what would be stored on the hard drive, so one might select an appropriate size drive. -- User | Talk | Contribs 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.99.50 (talk)

Responding to the anonymous, what do you mean? Current generation of video game content are delivered through the following methods: traditional retail and online distribution. It would depend entirely on what game you're looking at and which "store" you bought the game from in order to determine the size of the installation, if any. The only company (remaining) that limits the allowed installation sizes is Nintendo. Microsoft used to limit the file sizes of game demos and whatnot on Xbox Live back in the 360's earlier life cycle and has since removed that limit due to developer pressure. I personally don't know how anyone can replace the harddrive on an Xbox 360 without taking the console apart but the PlayStation 3 allows the end-user to replace the harddrive through a specific hatch on the side of the PS3. (Psychoneko (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Fixstars Solutions

Fixstars Solutions should be added to the manufacturers. Fixstars Solutions made the Yellow Dog Linux, which is web browser in Playstation 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyyhkyBoy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Dog Linux is a distibution of the Linux operating system. Not a web browser. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 00:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Dog Linux is an installable operating system, optional to the PlayStation 3. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Activision wants to call it quits on the Playstation 3 if console price is not lowered.

There is certainly enough bad press on the Playstation 3, but this one caught my eye, enough to actually add this to the talk page.

Read it here: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6531367.ece?print=yes&randnum=1245400825888

To sum it up, Activision is saying that Sony should reduce the Playstation 3's price point. This is a major blow, because Activision is one of their largest developers, whether or not their games are good. The Legacy (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is a major blow, as it is just talk at this point. It may just be a negotiation ploy to convince Sony to lower prices. See the Ars Technica article. 140.172.225.35 (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it as a negotiation ploy from Activision. There's a large enough user-base for the PlayStation 3 that simply cannot be ignored, especially not in this global slump. (Psychoneko (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

It's not just price, data should be presented on how the removal of PS2 backward compatibility is affecting sales of PS3s. Activision should be asking to add back features to the PS3, not just cutting prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.33.226 (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it as Activison testing to see how far they can stick their hand in the trap before it springs. Really, they have no right to tell Sony to lower costs of the PS3. In that case, they should tell Microsoft to quit charging their users for Xbox Live. 166.102.225.41 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thing about Live is that the ads are covered by the membership fee so it sort of makes perverse business sense to advertise to consumers who foot the advertising bill. PSN's advertisements are more in line with traditional advertising protocol where the advertiser foots the bill to have an ad placed on the network. (Psychoneko (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

VidZone release countries

VidZone

This was not released in New Zealand as was expected. The final release countries were UK, Ireland, Australia, Italy, France, Spain and Germany. The quote from the EU blog “The reasons we’re only launching in those countries for the time being,” added Russo, “are largely to do with sourcing local advertising that is relevant and appropriate. We can’t wait to roll out in the remaining territories though; we’ll bring you more information when we have it.”

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2009/06/04/e3-interview-vidzone/#more-1267

Tig3rfang (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make an edit to PS3 succeeding the PS2

As the new PlayStation3 systems no longer have any PlayStation 2 compatibilities so instead of leaving it as "and the successor to the Playstation 2" in the PS3 article should it be edited as "and it is currently supplemented with the PlayStation 2"? Any admin on Project PlayStation agree with that? Kyrios320 (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that the lack of PS2 compatibility in the newer PS3 models makes it any less of a successor. It will ultimately replace the PS2 when it's lifecycle ends but there's a period of overlap where both are supported. Either way, "successor" doesn't dictate that both can't exist at the same time, or that they have to be compatible. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The GameCube is considered the successor of the Nintendo 64, despite its complete non-support, albeit remakes. And the Dreamcast is the successor of the Mega Drive. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Its called Playstation 3, in what universe is 3 not the successor of 2 ? The fact that its not backwards compatible hasnt got anything to do with whether or not the PS3 is the successor of the PS2 Leprecon (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

PS3 Slim

Beware but some sites are suggesting that a slim lined version will be released in the next 1-2 months. I'm not adding this info to the article unless it is true, but beware. [1][2][3] -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just a rumor, until something is officially announced by Sony it shouldn't be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.188.126 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, we're considering it to be a rumour but considering that Ars Technica's mole has an impressive record of predicting the behaviors and actions of the console makers (Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony), it's a rumour that many people have taken fairly seriously. Problem is, without hard evidence, it'll just be a rumour. I think Joystiq or Kotaku had an article about FoxConn and another company recently signing another contract with Sony for production runs of the PlayStation 3 console. The thing we don't know at the moment is _which_ PlayStation 3 console was just signed into production. (Psychoneko (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

at this point there's about half a dozen photographs of the slim models floating around the net. imho there's enough reliable info to just add it to the article, but i really don't feel like adding the info and then arguing with editors about whether or not the guy who leaked the info about the PSP GO is a reliable/valid source.99.153.29.112 (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Should an interesting read... http://www.wmorefresher.com/2009/07/you-lookin-good-baby-oh-yeah-im-on-that.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.34.68 (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

slim version was recently added to the german amazon.com, however the pics have been removed. kinda silly that slim version still isn't mentioned in the article anywhere due to the mountains of evidence that it will most likely be released within the next couple of months.99.153.29.112 (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"german amazon.com" eh? its called amazon germany, or even amazon.de ;p Suggestednickname (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

it's because we haven't had an official source saying it's true. ESTEMSHORN^talk_Sign 18:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

amazon germany has listed playstation 3 slim as a new upcoming article now, was in the news everywhere online, no dates or prices or much details yet though. http://www.amazon.de/dp/B002JM1GPU Suggestednickname (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

PS3 Slim Non-Standard Power Connection?

"The internal power supply was removed in favor of an external brick, as noted in the use of a non-standard male connection in the rear of the unit."

Looking at some of the pictures online, the power connection on the back of the PS3 Slim seems to be a common one used by many laptop AC adapters and the PS2. --questionlp (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please put new comments at the bottom so everyone can see them easily. I'm not sure what your point is with this question/statement. Putting a transformer block power supply on is a pretty standard method of cutting costs, size & weight, heat and therefore power consumption. Its not yet relevant. chocobogamer mine 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he's trying to say that the statement in the article about the "power brick" (correct name is a power adapter) is incorrect and that it uses the standard plug with no adapter. I think that is true. The IGN unboxing didn't show the power plug with the adapter. But just to be safe, we'll have to wait for other people to unbox it. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

PS3 Units Sold. As of March 31, 2008 the PlayStation 3 Sold 22.73 Million

As of March 31, 2008 the PlayStation 3 Sold 22.73 Million Units.
Shown on the official Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Website
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisishot12 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be actually a little less than noted on the sidebar of the article. http://kotaku.com/5340392/sony-talk-playstation-lifetime-sales-psn-revenue or anyother set of people who covered the 18th of August Gamescon Sony Press conference. (Not sure of the Formalities here should I edit the Title of this Paragraph?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.29.168 (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing PlayStation 3

I would like to edit the image of the Playstation 3 by either replacing the main picture or adding a second one. I would like to do so because it would help show the PS3 more and the picture shows much more detail.

Picture: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryticate (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. That image is no-doubt copyrighted. As there is a suitable, free (non-copyrighted) image available the use of the copyrighted one couldn't be justified under fair use. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC) i would like to look over any mistakes in this article so it appears better

Backward Compatibility

Could someone please put more info on this into the article?; I still do not understand exactly how the PS One compatibility works. PalkiaX50 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It says at the bottom of the comparison table that all models have PlayStaiton One compatibility. I don't know how it would be made clearer? Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 11:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is adequately covered, but Palkia is right - It could certainly be made to jump out at the reader more effectively. I didn't see the line in question at all on my first couple of read-throughs while weighing my own purchasing decision. Listing the "no" ones as "PSOne only" would fix the confusing undue weight issue described above, making both answers clear from the chart proper, not solely available in the buried sub-footnotes prose section: See this edit. If my edit isn't allowed to stand, we might consider adding a footnote in the grey box clarifying PSOne compatibility and attempting to fix the weight issues by moving the prose above the chart. MrZaius^talk 11:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is the PSone backward compatability only for certain games? For some reason I cant get FF8 to work yet 6, 7 and 9 do. The PSone screen doesn't come up, i just get a black screen. It could just be my disk but I am curious to know if the PS2 backwards compatability is only for certain games the PSone might be too. Dark verdant (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's more likely to be a limitation of the software emulator, but it's odd that you don't even get the menu. From the Compatibility tool:

"Throughout gameplay, when the user's party encounters a random enemy in the "world map", and the “pre-battle” transition screen appears, approximately 40 - 60% of the “pre-battle” transition screen appears black, and the remaining portion of the screen appears corrupted."

That said, this isn't a forum and we probably ought to just let this go after linking to press coverage of the tool. MrZaius^talk 12:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All PS3s have PS1 compatibility (with their respective region-lock). Not all PS3s have PS2 compatibility. I seriously wish that people would use the friggin' model number (i.e. CECHExx or CECHAxx) when talking about compatibility because it gets repetitive and annoying really quickly. (Psychoneko (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Correct, Psy. Note that PS3 games aren't region locked, the PS1 games are e.g Japanese FF = Japanese PS3. Bahahs 01:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

Hmm, I've just downloaded Wild Arms 2 and FF7 from the Japanese PSN and it works on my American PS3 (CECHE01). So yeah... the region-lock mechanism is now something that has my interest. (Psychoneko (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

Energy Consumption

I think it is also important to mention that the PS3 consumes about 5 times as much energy as a refrigerator, thats 10 times that amount of a Wii! [5] --LOctopus (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's totally untrue...

PS3 is about 100w (the 80GB units at least). A refrigerator used approx half that. However your refrigerator is on 24x7 and your PS3 is not... You should stop listening to fanboy FUD. FYI the XBox consumes double the power of the latest PS3, due to Microsofts inability to improve the Xbox production process

So possibly the fridge part may have been false, but the test is found here: [6] LOctopus (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The test on your link did not specify which models of the Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3 were used for the test, so current models are to likely have different figures. The test also did not elaborate on how they came to get such numbers, so those statistics are not safe to use. 166.102.225.41 (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

News links suggest otherwise. Sony says that the PS3 is "greener" than competition. http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/4889.html Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Best selling-game

Added Gran Turismo 5: Prologue with a reliable source by Polyphony Digital. --Ciao 90 (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The source provided does not actually state that GT5p is the best selling PS3 game, so it should be removed. 123.211.141.151 (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mgs4 has sold about 5 million copies, so thats the most selling ps3 game. 83.108.193.157 (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

IPv6

Does it support IPv6? Maybe it should be said if it does or not. 92.206.50.120 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it does, though the IPv6 support is much more important when dealing with ISPs and infrastructure than from end-users. (Psychoneko (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Compatibility with PS1 games from the Japanese PSN?

Has anyone tried downloading PS1 games from the Japanese PSN to their American PS3s and played it yet? I know that the discs are region-locked but I'm not sure if the downloadable PS1 titles are region-locked or not. (Psychoneko (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

It is not possible to make credit card transactions for overseas PlayStation Stores, as the credit card must originate from the country that is stated. Obviously, if the country stated is different, therefore the address will not match and the credit card transaction will be denied. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See, that's weird because I have a friend in Korea who is about to purchase a 60 GB Japanese PS3 from another Korean who has been able to purchase a whole range of games from the Japanese PSN store. (Psychoneko (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Then their credit card or their source of PSN credit is most likely from Japan. See the above or look up reliable sources for the same. There's plenty out there. MrZaius^talk 13:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, so I've noticed. Thanks for the response! (Psychoneko (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Model Chart Clarity

Rather than organize by HDD size, I think it makes more sense to organize the model chart by introduction date. This allows the generations to be clearly identified.

Something like the following...

Generation	Model	Model number(s)[a]	Available colors	USB 2.0 ports	Flash card readers	SACD support	PlayStation 2 compatibility type	First available	In production
1st	20 GB (NTSC)	CECHBxx	Piano Black (no chrome)	4	No	Yes	Emotion Engine	2006-11-01November 2006	No
	60 GB (NTSC)	CECHAxx	Piano Black	4	Yes	Yes	Emotion Engine	2006-11-01November 2006	No
2nd PS2 Emotion Engine removed	60 GB (PAL)	CECHCxx	Piano Black	4	Yes	Yes	Software emulation	2007-03-01March 2007	No
	80 GB (NTSC)	CECHExx	Piano Black	4	Yes	Yes	Software emulation	2007-08-01August 2007	No
3rd PS2 emulation removed entirely SACD support removed 2 USB ports	40 GB (PAL, NTSC)	CECHGxx CECHHxx	Piano Black Ceramic White[b] Satin Silver[c] Gun-Metal Gray[d]	2	No	No	N/A	2007-10-01EU AU October 2007 NA JP November 2007	No
	80 GB (PAL, NTSC)	CECHKxx CECHLxx	Piano Black Ceramic White Satin Silver[c]	2	No	No	N/A	2008-08-01NA EU AU August 2008 JP October 2008	No Still sold in stores
	160 GB (PAL, NTSC)	CECHPxx	Piano Black	2	No	No	N/A	2008-10-01NA October 2008 EU November 2008 JPN September 2008	No Still sold in stores
4th Slim	120 GB "Slim" (PAL, NTSC)	CECH2000	Charcoal Black	2	No	No	N/A	2008-08-01JPN AUGUST 28th 2009 <br 1 September NA / SEP 4TH/EU/AUS/NZ 2009	Yes

Thingythingy (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely needs reorganising, its practically unreadable, however I think a lot more of it needs rewriting - all consoles have ps1 compatibility - that should be in the bottom bit not ps1 and ps2 listed on every console - it should just say as the column title - ps2 compatibility - yes via software, yes via hardware, no. a few other things as well. chocobogamer mine 23:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree and looks good! Pardthemonster (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. It is an excellent idea. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 07:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat agree. Something should be done but I think this layout makes it feel more cramped than it does at the moment. Is there any reason to include things like "PS2 emulation removed entirely" in the Generation column as these are already in the table, in an easier-to-compare way. The table didn't used to include "PlayStation" in the Backward compatibility column but it was added a few months ago (possibly by me, I don't remember) because people were commenting on here that it wasn't clear. The statement below the table wasn't obvious enough. I think it should stay as it's an obvious source of confusion for a lot of people. It doesn't add any width to the column or use any more space. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism welcome, I have included all your suggestions in my recent edit. Feedback is also appreciated. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That was me, actually. I still feel that listing the Playstation2 compatibility so prominently in the chart and failing to list PSX compatibility may lead to confusion, but it would be a bit of a trick to merge it neatly into the new model without cluttering it up with new columns containing nothing but "yes" or "software emulation." Far more important, however, the new edits dump the chart into a section on the PS3 Slim rather than a separate section. Seems like a bit of a no-no, dumping the specs for all previous models under a section header about just one. Fixed that and noted feature removals in the Slim builds. MrZaius^talk 13:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I really like the narrative in column one. It flows well, IMHO. I changed one thing, though - The "Slim" entry in the narrative column seemed to ignore that the name actually was the title of its generation. Adjusted the layout accordingly. MrZaius^talk 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone moved the number of USB ports and a number of other things out of columns and into the prose with little to no explanation or real gain. That one area in particular was a much simpler thing to deal with in a separate column and flowed more nicely when paired with the memory card reader column. Not sure how I feel about the other changes, but they might work. No time to fix the USB thing, though - Off to work: MrZaius^talk 02:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about this formatting, i'm fairly new to this. I just wanted so say, I have used this table a lot, purely for interest. I just had to say that i really preferred the old version where more differences were listed, rather than just saying all models in this gen have 2 USB ports etc. I also liked having the 4 USB ports box colored green, while he 2 USB ports was in yellow. It made it really easy to compare the systems. For whoever decides to make the next changes, I thought I would give my thoughts (an my other peoples.) 21 August 2009

Alright, this is just getting ridiculous, please keep it at the one which was edited after me (the one with specific features between and not on the tables). Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

to the user prior to FF, the only problem with using colours etc are that using amber using the "partial" function means we're saying its not fully supported. 2 USB's are now clearly the norm and using the "partial"'s colouring is wrong. I originally cut a couple of bits out that were essentially pointless, came back further was cut and the table had a column with 'generations' - this isn't a correct term. I'll admit I was the main person who started the editing. However the original table was far too cluttered- I'm using my netbook (1024W pixels with about 25 of them going on vertical tabs) and its near impossible to use on here so I cut a couple out. IMO the current table (even if it is my own work) is the clearest and most useful its ever been, and its restored sortability that went AWOL when the slim was announced and opened space up for more useful info. chocobogamer mine 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)'

Hmm, then again, I quite like it actually. Good job. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mind the model from yesterday or the one shown above (preferred), but the one on now is terrible? Any reason for the change? Pardthemonster (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The above chart is inaccurate regarding the "PlayStation 2 compatibility type". The 1st generation has the "EE+GS" Slim PS2 chip inside. The 2nd one has the GS non-slim PS2 chip inside, and only the "EE" has been emulated in software -- so there isn't a fully software emulation here, either. (It's important, as the GS is much harder to emulate in software.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.184.126 (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

source for this?? chocobogamer mine 12:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Original_model -- you can see it on the photos of the motherboards of the given models, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.184.126 (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

PS3 Slim unveiled, official

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/godofwariii/news.html?sid=6215547 http://gamescom.gamespot.com/story/6215296/299-ps3-slim-unveiled-existing-console-prices-drop-aug-19

PEOPLE, EDIT THE WIKI NAOOOOOO>... Bahahs 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

Quite right, a more official source would be the PlayStation Blog. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 07:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but still, everyone knows Gamespot and IGN. Thanks for the blog link. When is everyone going to add this to the article? Bahahs 16:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

Here is the official press release:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/news/8ido180000026ml6-att/0819E.pdf (English)
http://www.sony.co.jp/SonyInfo/IR/news/8ido180000026mno-att/0819J.pdf (Japanese)
--Krtek2125 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Great work. Bahahs 21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not registered so I can't make the change, but there is NOT PS2 compatibility in the new Slim unit. PS1 emulation is provided. Verify here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10313110-1.html Please somebody make the change, thx. 128.147.248.126 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It has already been added. Thanks anyway for your contribution. Bahahs 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

Should we revamp the table with the prices and eliminate the precious it's taking up? Bahahs 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

It's not called the Slim, just the PlayStation 3.

As with previous PlayStations, the newer, slimmer model is slimmer and smaller, yes, but none of them are actually called Slim. This is not the PlayStation 3 Slim, it is not the PS3 Slim, it is just called the PlayStation 3. The slimmer PlayStation 2 was just called the PlayStation. The slimmer PlayStation Portable was just called the PlayStation Portable. So on, and so forth. Unless Sony themselves say it's called any different, such as with the PSP Go!, it is just the PlayStation 3.

The boxes just say PlayStation 3, and it was revealed at Gamecon as just being a slimmer PlayStation 3. Fans/conumers may call it whatever they want, that is not what I'm trying to correct and have no desire to do so, but it is not officially nor advertised as "PlayStation 3 Slim". I just wanted to point this out, to make it more official —Preceding unsigned comment added by Th8214 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's called the "PS3" - that's how it's written on the box. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 08:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the FCC filing for the 250 GB PS3 Slim under the "Models" section, the 250 GB Slim hasn't been announced nor has it been listed for sale yet. Since the product doesn't exist yet, should it be mentioned at all or should it be removed? I was under the impression that wiki guidelines prefers to list tangible products. (Psychoneko (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Who added the Activision and Valve dispute to the article (under Reception)?

I don't believe that the talk page had come to a consensus regarding Activision and Valve's dispute with Sony so I'd like to know whether it should stay there or be removed completely because there are quite a lot of weasel words involved with those statements. (Psychoneko (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Those are notable criticisms, so they should stay, otherwise there would be undue weight. Just remove the "weasel words" as you see fit. 124.179.173.61 (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's just a collection of statements, I support remove completely. --Ciao 90 (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms certainly have established notability as they were widely covered by the gaming press at the time. It could do with rewording but I think they should have some sort of mention. And also, a consensus doesn't need to be reached on every piece of information added to the article. Only if a disagreement arises, as it has now. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 10:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The criteria seems pretty vague to me because developers have also criticized the 360 and the Wii and those criticisms have been reported across the gaming presses as well. It'd really help to have a set guideline on when to include such criticisms and when not to. (Psychoneko (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Regarding Sales and Production Costs section

While the section did mention the move from 90nm Cell processors to 65nm Cell processors, it probably needs to be updated to reflect the issue that the Slim currently uses 45nm Cell processors. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/08/sony-answers-our-questions-about-the-new-playstation-3.ars

This isn't the first time the 45nm process has been mentioned because about half a year ago, the head of SCEE mentioned the move from 65nm processes to 45nm processes in this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/05/david-reeves-sony-europe-losses

Just my two cents. (Psychoneko (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Regarding new pic for PS3 in info box

Although it is the newest version of the PlayStation 3, I believe the original version should be used in the info box, and the slimmer versions picture should be in the 2.1 Slim section. That's how the PlayStation 2 page does it, that's how the PlayStation page does it. Same thing with the logo, except with the logo for the slimmer version, you could put that in another section section. With all this in mind, I believe it should be changed. Also I believe the "Slim" section should be titled "Slim version" simply because PS3 Slim is not the official name of the model, it's just a name given by many gaming sites and fans. JDC808 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I'm going to revert it back until this gets agreed upon. I've added the new logo down in the slim section as well. Pardthemonster (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Slim" also isn't the official name of the current PS2 (yes, that's right, the PlayStation 2) but most people refer to it as the PS2 Slim because of the convenience in differentiating the larger older models from the smaller newer models. (Psychoneko (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

It really doesn't make sense to not have the current model in there. All the ipod articles have the current version not the first version. This is no different. The picture in the infobox should be the current model. Macbook article shows the old one while the Macbook Pro shows the newest model. So saying that another article has the oldest picture in the infobox isn't a good argument because I can point to many articles that show the current modals. So the my argument is the PS3 is now going to me most recognizable as the new version. When someone goes to the store and looks at the PS3 they see the new PS3 not the old one. So why not show in the infobox what the majority of people are picturing the PS3 looks like. Within a mouth no one is going to picture the old version of the PS3 when someone says PS3 to them they are going to picture the new version. Just like when I say ipod nano you picture the newest version not the square fat ugly old one (sorry I just hate how the ipod nano 3rd gen looks). Plus the logo as officially changed. So you must change the logo of the PS3 in the infobox. Then you look at the picture of the PS3 and get a different logo. Again you HAVE to change the logo. --Fire 55 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes total sense. Take a look at the PS2 and PS1 articles. Why are you comparing Apple's pages to the Playstation 3 page? Pardthemonster (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Who cares what the PS2 article does. The PS2 is 6th generation system which makes it a past system. I was making the point that some articles about apple products use the current generation and some the first one that came out. No it doesn't make sense. What are sony advertising on the TV a system that looks different from the this articles. Also the PS2 is never advertised. You can make a case about using the first model when the system is obsolete (like the PS2) because IT'S HISTORY not present. Please tell what do you see when you click to a version of the PS2 article page before the PS3 was release. Here's a link and click on any date you like that is before the realease of the PS3.[7] No please do it. FYI the PS3 came out on November 11, 2006. This is why your argument isn't valid. You are comparing an obsolete system article with one which isn't. The funny thing about this is your argument about the ps2 article supported me not you and I was the one saying who cares what other articles do. Anyway I think this won't need anymore explaining.--Fire 55 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The PS2 is a past system that is still the number one selling console in the world so saying it's history and obsolete is a bit too much since it is still selling and remains to be the number one selling console in the world and games are still being made for it. You don't see Nintendo and Microsoft still supporting the Gamecube or Xbox. You're saying just because this is the newer mode, that pic should be used, yet the older models are still being sold, until they sell out of course. Then you say that when people are going to think of the PS3, they're going to think of the slim version, yet that's probably not going to happen, especially since 23 million or so people in the world own an original. When you say PS3 Slim, then that's going to happen to those people. The article is called "PlayStation 3", not "Slim version of PS3". The slim version is still being shown in the page, just not in the info box. Putting the slim versions pic in the Slim section of the article makes more sense than to put it in the info box. JDC808 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that this is HOW the PS2 page did it. just look at the previous link I gave and tell me what the ps2 page did. They had the slim being the pic all the until the the PS3 came out. COINCIDENCE??? I THINK NOT. Your ONLY argument was the fact that the ps2 page does it. Now that that has rebutted you have to rebuke that and not rebuke my points since you have no points anymore.--Fire 55 (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Support for using Slim logo and photo in the info box as is done with any other electronics line in Wikipedia. The fat model also it's is phase out process use it's logo and photo gives the article outdated impression. --Ciao 90 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If we don't get a reply from either of the 'ONLY' two people that disagree with the new pics in the the next 24 hours I'll revert it back to the new pic. Since I look at Pardthemonsters activity and he's still making edits and JDC is almost one here everyday and hasn't made an edit (it could be coincidence that JDC is taking a break), but still I feel they are both realizing they're wrong. Especially on the fact that the PS2 didn't use the slim version. For anyone else who disagrees speak now or forever hold your peace--Fire 55 (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I will agree ONLY if everyone agrees on the change of the PS2, PS1, and PSP images matching this format. That was the only reason I agreed that it should stay the same. Pardthemonster (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I will add to this. Since it is a norm for all original versions of consoles to be displayed in the infobox, the PlayStation 3 article should follow that norm, rather than changing the guidelines. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please say where is the guideline that says use the original picture, ALSO IT IS NOT THE NORM IF YOU READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS. Everyone here is ignoring the fact that the PS2 changed to the new one as well and ONLY changed when the PS3 came out because it was no longer a a curent system HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS THE PS2 SYSTEM CHAGED THEIR PIC TOO JUST LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE ARTICLE. I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS FOR THE FORTH TIME. LEARN TO READ PEOPLE. LASTLY, THE PSP HAS A SEPARATE PAGE FOR EVERY MODEL. Again the facts do not support you. All you say is change the PS2 page too, but you still don't get that the PS2 ALWAYS USED A PIC OF THE SLIM MODEL AND ONLY CHANGED IT WHEN THE PS3 CAME OUT. I don't know how many times I have to say this until it gets in your head. Of I have to repeat myself one more time I might not be able to be civil anymore and just go out on an all out rant on you guys.--Fire 55 (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

learn to talk without 'shouting' and people may listen. why doesn't someone just make a combined picture? if not the original is fine.. it wouldn't surprise me if the article ends up split like the psp slim and 3000 anyway... chocobogamer mine 17:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

lets look at other articles in the history of video games

• master system - uses ms1 pic
• mega drive - uses md1 pic
• game boy, ds, psp - articles split
• playstation - uses playstation pic not psone
• ps2 - uses big ps2

what other convincing do you need?

chocobogamer mine 17:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To think someone won't get pissed when someone is just ignoring what you have to repeat yourself over and over again is naive. That was the only comment that I typed in all caps to get my message across and all you are doing right now is adding the fuel to the fire and pissing me off more. To act like people have no emotions and don't get pissed is stupid.--Fire 55 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just copying and pasting your stupid comment on how the ps2 does because you obviously haven't read my previous comment like everyone else here. Here's the quote"Please tell what do you see when you click to a version of the PS2 article page before the PS3 was release. Here's a link and click on any date you like that is before the realease of the PS3.[8] No please do it. FYI the PS3 came out on November 11, 2006. This is why your argument isn't valid. You are comparing an obsolete system article with one which isn't. The funny thing about this is your argument about the ps2 article supported me not you and I was the one saying who cares what other articles do. Anyway I think this won't need anymore explaining". --Fire 55 (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

how can a console that is still on sale and still as far as i can see, in production, with new games still coming out for it (FIFA10 and Guitar Hero 5 for example), be remotely obsolete? i did read it, but its your argument that is the one that is wrong. Wikipedia is open source and they even say if you don't like it TS. chocobogamer mine 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you like pissing people off?? I think you are trying to provoke me. Answer me this why did the PS2 page have the slim pic for well over a year then had changed it the orginal the same time the PS3 came out. I know you can't see that because you and everyone else here is ignoring it which is pissing me off. --Fire 55 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

without a reason descriptor we can't explain my it was only then the pic was switched, at the end of the day the majority of people are saying original, concensus has therefore been reached. no-one is trying to provoke you we are just pointing out facts here. i mean, why is the '3rd' revision of the ps2 not used as the header pic? (rhetorical) this one came out after the ps3's release. it avoids any confusion using the original's pic. avoids potential EW'ing if a 3rd iteration comes out etc. chocobogamer mine 17:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

at the end of the day concencus and ignorance overrule ideas and opinions - i created a combined psp slim and psp3000 article, nobody commented on it at all, despite it flowing better and not taking up anywhere near as much space as the 2 seperate articles. they still stay split chocobogamer mine 18:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no guideline for this at WP:CVG as I can remember. The fat model is phasing out and replaced entirely by Slim, so use fat image in the infobox gives the article an outdated aspect, IMHO. Older consoles articles use first version images for historical reasons, I guess. --Ciao 90 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as there is only one tiny section regarding the PS3 slim in the article, using its picture would be very wrong. Theres even a section on the design of the "PLAYSTATION3" (capitalised to refer to the original) including talking about the font. Besides, judging by the fact that there are articles for the 2 slim PSPs (2000 and 3000) as well as the original PSP, despite the fact that you can merge them and only use one paragraph like on here (which I still think is a complete waste and the 2 articles need merging), as well as the DS lite which is just another redesign, I'm certain the PS3 slim will end up with its own article anyway. Its also continuity - all the other articles, regardless of the fact they're in production (which as I said the PS2 is so its not dead), I still say leave as is. chocobogamer mine 16:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the infobox has a subtitle under the image which says "Original PS3 Model". To appease both sides, why not show BOTH images with the current model at the top followed by the original model under it. I mean, we already have a prototype PS3 image in the article so we might as well set it up that way until a real consensus can be reached. (Psychoneko (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Great that you want an updated article, but can you find a free version of the console picture? And to solve it all, use Chocobogamer's suggestion to have a co-joined picture. Easy as that. I don't see what the fuss is. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've put a combined pic of the original and new model designs of the PS3 in the infobox as well as putting both logos. JDC808 (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Much appreciated. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning of Life With PlayStation

I eventually found the information (though light and a but outdated) on the PlayStation Network page. I saw in older talk pages that it was moved there but can I ask why it was decided that no mention of it or Folding@Home was done on the main PS3 software entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.29.168 (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned under the Hardware section. (Psychoneko (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Model Comparison

The model comparison chart is inaccurate. The second generation 80GB that came out in Aug 2007 has 4 USB ports, not only 2 as it says under the heading. Tut74749 (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tut74749 is right. All PS3s that have 4 USB ports generally have PS2 backwards compatibility. They should read this list instead: http://playstation.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/playstation.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=232&p_sid=ZLfVwVFj (Psychoneko (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

I forgot to mention this but the current model chart in the article is horrendous. I personally prefer the model chart that's currently on the Talk page. (Psychoneko (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

There is a misleading bit in the comparison chart. It mentions "Software-based PS2 emulation" for the CECHCxx and CECHExx, so it suggests all parts of the PS2 is emulated in software. This is of course not the case, as these machines still had the PS2 GS chip (instead of the "EE+GS" chip in the earlier models), and only the PS2 EE chip has been emulated in software here. (Look Models/Original model.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.184.126 (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

PS3 being 70% cheaper to manufacture?

Under the "Sales and Production Costs" section, someone quoted the current PS3s being 70% cheaper to manufacture. Thing is, I don't recall ever hearing about a Sony conference where the CEO mentioned the PS3's cost reduction being 70%. The problem I have with this information is that every other article that mentioned the PS3's cost reduction mentioned it as a "rumor". Since we don't have a newspaper or financial article regarding that aforementioned conference, I don't know if it should be included at all because we don't have the hard evidence for it. (Psychoneko (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

There are now three sources for the statement and this Kotaku article includes a link to the Sony conference call where Sony executive vice president and chief financial officer Nobuyuki Oneda made that statement. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing that article when it was first posted on Kotaku. The problem back then was that it had a "rumor" tag on it. Obviously, it has been weeks since I last read that article so if the rumor tag has been removed, then this issue is closed. (Psychoneko (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Also down gradable

The article says that the slime model features an upgradeable 120 GB hard drive, but it is also down gradable. I suggest replacing upgradable to removable, changeable or replaceable. --Regular Mario o}8|3) (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

all the console are upgradable - the option to change it is for upgrading. the term upgrading is correct because theres no reason to downgrade chocobogamer mine 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think upgradeable is the best term since it clearly indicates that a larger hard drive can be installed while any other term would require an explanation. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out that downgrades are an option seems a touch unnecessary, but using words like "user-serviceable" et al might be warranted, if not already present. That said, even that should be shunted off to the Hardware article. MrZaius^talk 13:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturing process

What do you think about specifying the manufacturing process of the CELL and RSX processors?

• 20/60/80: Cell 90nm, RSX 90nm
• 40 Core: Cell 65nm, RSX 90nm
• 80 Core: Cell 65nm, RSX 65nm
• Slim: Cell 45nm, RSX 65nm

--Ciao 90 (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
source?? chocobogamer mine 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this. There is enough subtle information as present, without processor speed, energy efficiency and disc spinning speed etc. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

- 65nm Cell in 40GB model is officially confirmed (Nov. 2007): http://www.neoseeker.com/news/7313-sce-president-40gb-ps3-does-use-65nm-cell/

- 65nm RSX in later 80GB models (CECHK/CECHL) is officially confirmed (Oct. 2008): http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=50450

- 45nm Cell in 120GB model officially confirmed at launch (and by IBM): http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/20090820/tc_pcworld/sonysps3slimcarriesupdatedcellchip

(Clock speeds are obviously the same.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.184.126 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting material. But why is RSX still 65nm and not 45 nm like the Cell? 83.108.193.157 (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RSX is handled by NVidia and is therefore not in Sony's control. (Psychoneko (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Now that I think of it, that is a good question. Who manufactures the RSX? Sony or NVidia? My guess is that Sony licensed the RSX so that it could do the manufacturing in-house. (Psychoneko (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

The RSX 'Reality Synthesizer' was co-developed by Sony and NVIDIA. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 04:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so who manufactures the RSX then? Sony? or NVidia? (Psychoneko (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

I think its a Thailand company that does the manufacturing, while Nvidia does the main design. 83.108.193.157 (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Best selling game

Isn't there one what happened to it The Movie Master 1 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

=Financial loss

This report from one of the senior editors at yahoo gaming mentions that Sony's 2008 annual report shows a loss of $3.3 billion on the PS3 since release. It also says the investment may not be recovered. I wanted to see if there was any objection to including. [9]Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Yahoo is owned by M$... 83.108.198.236 (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)