Talk:PlayStation (console)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Difference between launch EU and launch US bios

I added some information about the launch european (SCPH-1002) bios. It looked drastically different to the US one, you can check this out yourself by running it in an emulator.Villadelfia (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Titles?

Can someone type the actual number of titles released for the console? It says the over 7,000 titles include games released as separate titles in different regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.100.129 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

PlayStation on 1995?

Sorry but I've always thought that the playstation was released on 1996. Well maybe 10 years has make deep holes in my mind


The Japan ps1 came out in 1994, USA 1995. That's why we missed out on a few launch titles from Japan, for instance the true King'sField1 came in Japan in 1994 and the sequal was a launched title here. I played the very first J one too, it's swifter, though actually the others suffered from slowdown without frame skip as can be seen in KF1USA.

KF2USA is in reality at a constant slowdown state almost due to about ps2 resolution or scaled textures and not enough fillrate out of their engine for them at that framerate.BobtheVila

Picture of Playstation Prototype (Nintendo

Please insert this picture. Prototype of Playstation (Nitendo). http://www.bilder-hosting.de/show/WLVZ6.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.146.97.104 (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Last German release

I corrected the last German release which was "7 Shoot Games" by Phoenix/Naps in 2005. "Schnappi" came out months before. TraunStaa 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My PS1 Knowledge

The Playstation was considered more successful than the Nintendo 64. The Playstation was sold from 1995-2006 and Sold over 100,000,000 units. I have a Playstation 1 that is 8 years old. User:CDHgrün 15-9-07 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Price wrong

Playstation scph 1001 going for $50 and sounding like a $6000 audio system. Pezno1 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Early PlayStations used high quality Ashahi Kasei Microsystems (AKM) DACs that are commonly used in high end expensive equipment. It is true that an SCPH-3000, SCPH-1001, and SCPH-1002 make for a very good CD player for the price. The SCPH-5000 series also uses this DAC. The early SCPH-1000 used a slightly older version of the DAC and the SCPH-7000 series used a lesser quality cost reduced version. Eventually the AKM DAC was replaced with low cost alternatives from other manufacturers to further reduce the systems cost. A lot of people are assuming any statements about this are saying the old PlayStations sell for $6000 (especially in regard to a certain video posted on YouTube. I'm not even going to go into the stupidity of showing high quality audio on YouTube in the first place) and this is just insane. They sell for $50 or less in most cases. I know these people know better. Personally I just think it eats many people alive to acknowledge something with the SONY name on it could be high quality. They will of course ignore this when you talk about the high quality SONY designed audio hardware used in the SNES. The irony in this is SONY does not even make the DACs in question. Generalleoff (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Old demo desk

I used to have a demo disk and I was wondering if anyone remembers it. I remember it had parappa the rappa, a Tekken-like game, a game named Cliffhanger or something (you used a grappling hook) and some other games. Anyone remember this?

Yes, I know what your talking about. I remember that it came prepackaged with the system when I bought it. It has a hockey demo,crash bandicoot, WWF and other games. Patrolman89 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a section about the Demo1 disk that shipped with European PlayStations + a picture of sleeve and CD... no idea about S and Japan disks so could someone add info about them if applicable. I think it is a good section to have as the Demo1 was part of the original package. Macco ov ealing (talk) 01:34, 24 Dec 2008

Story

I placed a banner on the article stating that the present article text "is written in an informal style and with a personally invested tone" that is not consistent with a neutral point of view. In addition to the many uses of editorializing phrasings, statements such as "Yamauchi was furious", "a complete shock" "absolutely unthinkable" are not encyclopedic in tone. Dancter 19:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Graphics API

Which graphics was used? OpenGL or some some sort of proprietary API? Or even Assembler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.209.204.207 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Proprietary API. The graphics chip is almost entirely different from a modern GPU. 67.164.72.148 (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Debuggers and Yarozes

  • All green debuggers and Yarozes use the same old lasers as the blue debuggers. Only blue models are listed as having a "low quality laser" in the specialty models section however.
  • Unlike what the special models section states, the green debuggers cannot play discs from "every region". They cannot switch video modes (the video simply blacks out completely if a switch is attempted) so a NTSC green unit will only play NTSC games (both U/C and J) and a PAL green unit will only play PAL games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.56.117 (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to correct the list if you have information. Thats how Wikipedia works :). I compiled it and am the first to admit the notes are probably not entirely accurate. I created the list hoping to draw attention and help cleaning it up. The whole damn PlayStation page itself needs major work. In some ways I think the model list might be causing more harm then good as it is kind of cluttered. Perhaps the whole list should be revised or even scrapped. The bulk of the model number and BIOS information is taken from the MESS emulator "psx.c" (current list updated to MESS 0.121) source code file as well as model numbers and BIOS dumps from my own personal PlayStation console collection. I think this information is accurate and as complete as it can be for now. I was not sure what laser the green systems use so I did not make a note of it. If you know what laser it uses feel free to add it. I would like to add the actuall model numbers for the lasers instead of just stating "low" or "high" quality. KSM-440ACM, KSM-440ADM, KSM-440AEM, and KSM-440BAM are the four models I am aware of. This might be an imposable task though. I would also like to add information about the DSP used (at least 4 exist) but this again might be an imposable task. I believe a blue NTSC system will play PAL games but the image is offset as should be expected. I highly doubt it would work on a PAL TV as the video mode itself is locked to NTSC. This would mean statements that it can play all region games are still accurate despite not being the best idea in the world. If you have knowledge to the contrary then correct the list. Other information that potentially needs addressing is the CPU/GPU silicon revisions and exactly what model relocated the CD-ROM drive. Generalleoff (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • All the debuggers and Yarozes I've bought to date (nine total) have had KSM-440ACM lasers, and most of them had to be replaced (with a KSM-440BAM) before they would read discs reliably in the normal operating position. A couple do work just fine with the stock laser though, in fact one still has the warranty sticker intact. Blue systems do play all games, and there are actually no problems with the video offset when switching between the "native" and "foreign" video modes, much unlike what happens on a PS2 Debugging Station in PS1 mode which can't switch video modes properly. However, you get colour in the S-Video and Composite (and thus RF) signals only in the "native" mode. You must use an RGB connection to get colour in a PAL game on an NTSC blue debugger or vice versa. Green debuggers on the other hand blank out the video completely if the game attempts to switch to the "foreign" video mode, but blues and Yarozes are fine systems for import gaming.

Article cited/mentioned in...

GameTrailers' Bonus Round Episode 17: Part 2 of 4.--Svetovid (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference [7] is incorrect

It's referenced to prove PSOne 100M sales, but the pdf is actually about PS2 hitting 100 million in 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.112.31.162 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

About ps1 geometry

Could it be with Vu0 and Vu1 that it's 1.5-500k T/sec? Maybe the calculater only did it with one. 180k give only 6k a frame at 30fps. I'm pretty sure some games like Apocolypes or other done slightly higher.

Actually I've heard not 500k but 360,000 textured. If so it would be 360,000/sec and 12k at 30fps. Someone should look into it.BobtheVila


I did some calc though with Apocolypes...15 150 poly charas is 2,250 and that leaves around 3,000 polys. Still some other games may produce alittle more, or not. So i'm not changing anything.BobtheVila

What date in November 1995 was the PS1 released in Australasia?

I don't really think that we should have just November 1995 as a date when the PS1 was released in Australasia. We need the exact date when it was released. Anyone in the PlayStation Project should do it; find out the exact date when the PS1 was released.124.181.224.121 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

32-bit

It is 16 to 64 bit. 76.126.29.36 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Black discs? Infrared laser? wrong.

The discs weren't black, they're very dark blue. Also, the laser sensor isn't infrared, it's a normal 780nM laser diode like any CD player. Someone please fix this... I'm no good with corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.172.234 (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

780nm *is* infrared... TriMesh (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC) The Vis-IR cutoff is 750 nm but some people "round" it to 800 nm which is definitely IR. --Dyemat (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Contested statement removed

  • A common, but temporary, fix to the laser problem was to tip the PlayStation on its side. This made the tray "hang" perpendicular to the CD, allowing the PlayStation to read the disc. Unfortunately, friction would continue to wear down the plastic tray and, eventually, the PlayStation would not read the disc. {{Fact|date=December 2006}}

Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a reliable source but I can confirm this. Years ago a friend insisted his PlayStation only worked upside-down, and to this day I didn't believe it, but I guess it wasn't uncommon. Unfortunately I guess that would be "original research." 66.189.65.178 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My friend has this same issue. He propped up the right side of his Playstation with a few books, and it read the discs fine. He had one of the very old first-or-so generation US consoles, right after the price had gone down to $199. It had the three RCA prongs in it, at that time (versus the proprietary single plug introduced later). 66.191.95.62 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Mike

I had the same problem, I'd pop in FFVII and it would get stuck at the movie, then I'd turn my PSX over onto it's side and voila, it worked. My friend was the one who suggested that I put it over on its side, and he'd heard it from his friends. Wouldn't that constitute "a common... fix to the laser problem" ? 173.32.43.120 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Playstation Brand

Shouldn't this article be about the Playstation BRAND. And the article as it stands be PSOne or Playstation(Console). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I think when most people think of "PlayStation", they mean the console. Just like when most people say "Xbox", they're usually referring to the Xbox. Anyway, we do have an article on the series of consoles, located at PlayStation (series). Dreaded Walrus t c 14:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Audio

Does anyone know if the PS One supports MIDI and has a built-in MIDI player, or if it just has a PCM waveform player? This information, if sourced, would be a great addition to the "Sound processing unit" area of the Technical specifications section! — OranL (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It just has PCM waveform playback. There aren't any game consoles which actually use MIDI. Referring to "MIDI music" is one of the more annoying colloquialisms in video game reviews and the like. 67.164.72.148 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be most accurate in terms of music (which I must assume OranL means) to describe it as having three modes - Soundtracker/"Module" mode (ie SNES/Amiga style), which is what games such as FFVII would have used for in-game tunes (hence them sounding "MIDI-like", as the PC version used actual MIDI files but installed a software wavetable that used PSX FF7 sound-a-like samples for the instruments); ADPCM or XA-audio mode with pre-recorded music streamed off the CD at a reduced rate (used with the not-quite-MPG videos, the audio getting about 1/10th of the 2x CD rate (the sample frequency was reduced slightly also, to about 4/5ths, for a slightly scratchy but artefact-free "MP3" sort of quality) and the video stream using the rest - and also as actual music in some games e.g. parts of Xenogears); and plain CD playback. Unusually for the period - the end of the age of synthesized MIDI and chiptunes - it contains no seperate waveform generator, only sample and CD playback. Thus if you get anything MIDI-sounding out of it, it's a soundtracker file using synth samples. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This is all quite confused. MIDI is a standard for transmitting over a serial cable sound information such as note on, note off, velocity, vibrato and other effects to a sound module. No actual audio is transmitted, the audio generation is the job of the sound module! The MIDI data can also be written to a file with time stamps instead of being sent live over a cable. Please read the entry on MIDI if you need more details. The PSX absolutely used MIDI files for audio, not what you call "soundtracker/module" - no idea why you named it like that since it has nothing to do with an Amiga soundtracker module! Basically it's exactly the same as what you say the PC version of FFVII used! The MIDI playback routines were part of the Sony SDK.

Also I bet there IS a console somewhere that used MIDI, even if it was one based on some obsolete PC design. CDi/3DO? Dreamcast? N64? Saturn? ... XBox? :) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As I explain above, the PSX definitely used MIDI, although of course it doesn't have a MIDI interface. The Dreamcast AICA chip has a MIDI interface pins, but no physical interface is mounted. It also uses MIDI files.

PS2 Compatibility

Area 51, doesn't work on my Ps2 yet it plays fine on my ps1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.215.64 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote says it all. The PS2 cannot play every single PS1 game. I suspect that some of the parts needed to run Area 51 were not passed on to the PS2. But I'm no engineer, it's only a guess. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 15:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly the PS2 used the time honoured trick (as seen in the Jaguar, Genesis etc) of including a predecessor machine's CPU doing some menial task, and available for "normal" use with a bit of trickery. In this case, I think it was a PSX chip handling the joypad and memory card (and USB?) I/O? With all it's custom coprocessors integrated into one other accessory chip. So there's an awful lot of backwards compatibility, but as ever in these matters, the simple fact that it's not the exact same ICs in the exact same arrangment is enough to break some games... some probably stopped working just with different generations of the PS1 itself. I remember, for one example, Vagrant Story (which pushed the original console VERY hard and probably used a lot of clever timing tricks) being very finicky about whether it would work on the PS2. Make sure the graphical smoothing and the high speed disk access is turned off, then wave a dead chicken over it and save your game at every single opportunity... 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was only the dark blue disks that work on the PlayStation 2 and beyond, could be wrong.74.233.103.128 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

By non-blue discs I presume you mean all the copied CDRs and poorly programmed magazine coverdiscs? :) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I felt the Successor section of the article was getting off topic. It started talking about the PS3's backwards compatibility for PS2 titles. I snipped out the offending bits and changed the remainder to reflect compatibility for PS1 titles. Lavenderbunny (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Demo disk

This article states -

"The PlayStation shiped with a Demo Disk called "Demo 1" which on the European release (PBPX 95008) included playable demos of:

Bust A Groove Crash Bandicoot 3 - Warped Gran Turismo Medievil Kula World Spyro the Dragon Tekken 3 Tombi Tomb Raider III - The Adventures of Lara Croft And contained video previews of:

Metal Gear Solid Spice World"

Piffle. This is not true. At least, not what the original demo disc was. These games weren't released until three years after the Playstation was released, the original CD had stuff like Loaded, some NBA game and SSX. These was also that demo of a stingray and a T-Rex if you remember. (This refers to the European CD, though I doubt North America and Japan had demos of sequels to games that didn't exist).

Raab, Christmas Day 2008, I should be doing better things like sleeping.

PlayStation and Nintendo Connection???

Why doesn't this article contain the history of the PlayStation and how it started off as a CD-Rom Add-on for the Super Famicom/Super Nintendo Entertainment System????

If nobody knows the history here is how it went...

Nintendo and Sony made a deal where Sony would make a CD-ROM add-on for the Super Famicom and also a stand-alone system which would've been a combination of the CD-ROM system and the Super Famicom. This system was called the PlayStation. One of the stipulations that Sony made was that they would get some of the royalties off all the CD-ROM games. Nintendo wasn't cool with this so they backed out of the deal and signed another deal with Phillips. This is how the Phillips CD-i got licenses to some Nintendo franchises and made crappy games out of this. Sony ended up suing Nintendo for breaching the contract. In the end no CD-Rom add-on was ever released for the Super Famicom and Sony decided to develop their own video game console. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.145.97 (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming

I'm pretty sure that it isn't incorrect to name it PSX. Wasn't PSOne the same console, but with the rounded edges, and PSX the square-looking one that there is an image of on this page? PSOne was released some time after PSX, being a bit smaller and more aesthetic. 173.32.43.120 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 20/03/09

PSX (DVR) is the Digital Video Recorder made by sony which is only released in Japan. It's capable of playing playstation 1 & 2 games. (88.159.82.132 (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

Title

I've put a request to revert the move of this page back to PlayStation. Can be seen here [1] w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures under succesors section

Are these really needed? Can't people interested in what a PS2, PS3, or PSP looks like click the link to their individual articles and see? I just don't see the images adding any value to an article about the original system any more than a picture of a Ford F110 would to an article on the Model T.99.155.223.30 (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Need citations

For the love of The Light, add more citations to this! 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Cid SilverWing

Last game for the Playstation

  • Can anyone tell me which one is the last game for PS1 in what year?
  • Are you sure is this right year 2006 where PS1 was discontinued? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.79.194 (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Video output connections?

Have we any information on what signals come out of that there AV port? I've come hunting because I want to find out if it puts out any kind of component video (YPbPr) that can be accessed with an appropriate cable. There's nothing here about it, even though it would otherwise add to the article and round out it's info slightly.

From what I know so far, it's got at least composite video (duh :), plus stereo sound, and in europe there's RGB SCART. But... SVideo? Component? (Not HD of course, but possibly progressive-scan, and certainly better quality than anything except maybe the RGB). Anything else going down that lead? There's an awful lot of pins in the connector on the PSX itself. Also there was at least one kind of breakout lead that gave a second composite socket for timing with a light gun (as it was from the days of CRT)... again, no mention. Maybe because it'd be covered by NOR, but... yknow. Is that so terrible if I can actually hook up a PSX, take a picture, and prove it?

Ditto the serial and parallel ports, their specs and uses, but I'm not directly interested in that right now. (Oh, and the speed at which you could write to the memory cards... it seems so slow, far worse than a floppy... maybe on the order of 2-4kb/sec)

Cheers... 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The European edition had stereo cinch connectors for the sound, cinch for composite video, and via the AV port the superb RGB signal was available. The Japanese version had all of that, plus an extra S-Video connector. I dunno about the US edition. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of resources on the net that list the output from the AV port. Off the top of my head there was (as already suggested) at least composite, RGB and stereo sound. Can't check now as I'm behind a firewall, but I'll dig some out later on. a_man_alone (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Functions

I've removed this sentence from the article, as it's on the verge of the three edit rule:

"The original Playstation and PSone menus differ: the Playstation menu has a dark blue background and buttons that are designed like rainbow graffiti, the PSone has a blocked gray background with 2 icons, one with 2 memory cards on it, the other with a keyboard and some notes."

At best this is ambiguous, and at worst, just wrong. What is meant by "original"? I have an original European SCPH-1002, and a later model (don't recall which one right now) both of which are PAL, and have the grey blocked music background. If the statement only refers to the SCPH-1000 it needs be clarified. Don't have an SCPH-1000 so can't comment on that factoid though. a_man_alone (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Developed in Somalia?

"The first conceptions of the PlayStation date back to 1982 in Somalia where it was created." Is this correct? Any citation? Adsfadss (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was created in some mud-hut in Somalia. Riiiiight. LOL. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Flashing light of death

I proposed to merge Flashing light of death into this article, if no one objects, or suggests a better target. DES (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, however I think merging is too generous a term. The entire article can be summed up in a sentence. Somewhere near the "With the early units, many gamers experienced..." paragraph, as it's a similarly caused issue. a_man_alone (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
By merge I mean take as much useful info as there is, whether one sentence or 5, and put it in a proper place in this article. Future editing could obviously further adjust this as any other content. Flashing light of death would become a redirect to the relevant section of this articel, and {{copied}} would be used to preserve attributions. DES (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:PlayStation (brand) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 15:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I know this has already happened, but I have started a new section over at WikiProject PlayStation to discuss this, where it is more likely to get attention, so please comment there. I do not think this should have been done and would like to know the opinions of more than the two editors who took part in the discussion (and one anonymous IP who simply commented). AlphathonTM (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Playstation Vs Sega Saturn : 2D Fighting Game Quality

Heres some information thats technical yet I do not find it in this article. Companies like Capcom had to rework their games on the Playstation 1 to fit memory constraints and other performance issues present at the time. This led to less then direct translations of fighting games, dropped frames of animation to fit memory constraint, no partner swapping in Marvel / XMEN Vs. Games.

On the Saturn note, some articles in magazine said that the Saturn was more suitable for these kinds of games from the expanded ram cart available in Japan.

Not trying to turn this into a Saturn Vs PS1 debate, but the info is out there. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Development

In this section, it talks about the development of the "PlayStation" as Nintendo's SNES-CD add-on. At the time of Nintendo and Sony's 1988 agreement, was it supposed to be called the "PlayStation" or the "Play Station"? I ask, because the last paragraph of this section states that Sony removed the SNES port and changed the name from "Play Station" to "PlayStation" to result in the end Nintendo's involvement. My confusion is due to the fact that "PlayStation" is used throughout in this chronological section, then it's mentioned that the name changed to "PlayStation" from "Play Station". - ellusion - (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is Price History?

Where is Price History? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.72.216.156 (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is some specific reason to talk about it (such as it being significantly lower or higher than competitors, or a price drop significantly effecting sales for example) listing prices is against Wikipedia policy. Any article that does list such things either has some specific reason or is in violation of policy (and so the info should be removed). Alphathon™ (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

that this discussion page is completely empty is also very dubious, all other so popular pages have a giant comment page
corrupt wiki censors, go to hell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.72.216.156 (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It's empty because it was recently archived (see Talk:PlayStation (console)/Archive 2). Alphathon™ (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


PlayStation (console) → PlayStation (original) — Like iPhone (original).--Marcus Qwertyus 09:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose, mainly because I don't see any advantage to moving it. The reason it is "console" at the moment is to disambiguate it from the PlayStation series. While this would sort-of work with "PlayStation (original)" it isn't as clear. Alphathon™ (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If you wanted an overview article of the PS1, PS2, PS3 series that would be okay but it should be created separately so the revision history could be saved. Marcus Qwertyus 22:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It already exists (see the link), so I don't quite get what you're saying. Regardless though I still think PlayStation (console) is more descriptive than PlayStation (original). On a side note, I'm not really convinced about the naming of the linked iPhone page either. Alphathon™ (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The PlayStation Series also consists of the PlayStation Portable. This article is a little consistent. in the lead it talks little about the PS1, PS2, PS3 series yet the rest of the page is about the PS1. Marcus Qwertyus 23:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
What? This article (PlayStation (console)) makes little-to-no mention of the PS2 and no mention at all about the PS3 in the lead. The article about the series (PlayStation) deals with all PlayStation consoles (1, 2, 3 and PSP). Alphathon™ (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Honestly I don't see what what you are talking about beyond your first post; maybe I'm just missing something. I said the reason this page is specifically called "console" it to make it clearer that it isn't a page about the PlayStation series which is found at PlayStation and I linked in the first reply. Perhaps the confusion arose because I used a piped link so "PlayStation series" would take you to PlayStation. I am not proposing that this page be moved to "PlayStation series", I am simply pointing out that it is currently called "PlayStation (console)" so it obvious that it is not the article about the PlayStation series.
Alphathon™ (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
PlayStation is also a series of consoles, making the current disambiguation useless. Marcus Qwertyus 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what I'm doing wrong here, but that is not what I meant at all. I'm saying that it is called "PlayStation (console)" so that it is unambiguous as to what page you are on. If you are on a page called "PlayStation (console)", it is pretty clear that it is about the console and not the PlayStation brand/series/whatever. I am not saying anything about a disambiguation page, I am saying that it is called "(console)" to make it obvious that it is talking about the console. While "(original)" isn't all that ambiguous I feel that "(console)" does a better job. Alphathon™ (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying that PlayStation (the article about the series) or PlayStation (console) should be moved anywhere, or that a new article about the PS1, 2 and 3 should be created. I am saying that I don't think there is any reason to move this page (or PlayStation for that matter) since it is slightly less ambiguous than the proposed name and the proposed name doesn't seem to have any advantage other than consistency with the iPhone article. Also, I'm not sure the consistency argument holds much weight on its own, since it isn't quite comparing like-for-like. With the iPhone, the series is essentially a series of iterations on the same thing, with fairly minor differences between the "generations" (incidentally, I think the iPhone page would be better as "iPhone (first generation)" than "iPhone (original)" since that is generally what it's called and it is more precise, but such a minor move wouldn't really be worth any potential disruption). In that way, "original" implies "the original version of…". With the PS1 however, each successor is more of sequel, so "original" can only mean "first in the series", which isn't quite the same thing. While writing this it also occurred to me that there is another issue - there is an original PlayStation i.e. the fat version of the console rather than the slimmed down PS One. Not that "PlayStation (console)" disambiguates this, but "PlayStation (original)" could add a certain amount of ambiguity. Alphathon™ (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose because (1) this is not the original PlayStation, the SNES version was. (2) This is not the first retail version of the PlayStation, that would by the first PSX, this article covers the PS One, and other variants as well. Perhaps it might be called PlayStation 1 (not "One") instead. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be okay with me. Marcus Qwertyus 04:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't be all that bothered about calling it PlayStation 1 either, but there'd have to be a reason for it. I think there might be some policy reason against it as well (seem to remember it being being discussed before and not going any further for that reason - something about that never actually having been it's official name I think) but I might be wrong.
P.S. It's against Wikipedia policy to edit other people's posts, even just to correct spelling/grammar errors.
Alphathon™ (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Some articles have retroactive titles like unguided bomb, First generation jet fighter etc. Since the PS1 wasn't discontinued until 2006 I imagine many people were calling it that. Marcus Qwertyus 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Personally, I think it would make more sense to move PlayStation to PlayStation series, and rename this article to simply PlayStation. Otherwise leave it as it is. "PlayStation (console)" is more in-keeping with Wikipedia naming conventions, and is far more descriptive to the reader than "PlayStation (original)". Someone who has hypothetically never heard of the PlayStation before simply would not understand what "(original)" slapped on the end of the title means. And of course, confusion would be generated simply because the actual original PlayStation was a SNES add-on, and not necessarily the subject matter here. --Dorsal Axe 13:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. It's more or less the way it was before both were moved (this was PlayStation, PlayStation was PlayStation (brand)), but by the time I'd got to the discussion it had already been moved (after one editor agreed and one anon commented). The original move discussion is here. I started up another discussion about it afterwards here, where other editors seemed to agree but it never went any further (partly because I never got a reply to my final question). Alphathon™ (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Then I think we should just change it back, seeing as both pages should never have been renamed in the first place. Your proposed move has more consensus than anything else that has been suggested. I do think Playstation series would be better than "brand" or anything similar to that though. --Dorsal Axe 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be fine with either. Each has its own pluses though - series seems more descriptive but does seem to imply it is about the consoles only, not the accessories etc; this is a problem brand doesn't have. Of course brand implies it is about the branding, so series is probably better. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, we're going to have to get an admin in to do it. I started the move before realising I'm unable to move this article back to its original title. Someone moved the other page back, accusing me of "pointlessly manufacturing" a new name for it. This is getting ridiculous. --Dorsal Axe 16:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Not really - I saw that change and reversion, and I would have reverted it too. The main reason is that, yes, it is a manufactured name. You only changed the page currently called PlayStation, which on its own has no justification - it would have to be done together with changing this page to PlayStation for it to make sense (there is no reason to create the name PlayStation Family when there is no PlayStation to separate it from). Also, just my 2¢, I wouldn't have called it PlayStation Family - I can't really say why, but it seems wrong somehow. Brand and Series aren't great either, but Family just seems wrong (somehow informal and not quite appropriate for a group of products). Also, I don't think there was any accusation in the revert - judging by previous experience, X201 (the editor in question) wouldn't have reverted it unless there was some precedent in the Manual of Style or some policy. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

SNES-CD

Is there an article on the aborted SNES-CD add on.....

as putting it in as a topic redirects here......???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.34.201 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the topic is pretty much covered in PlayStation_(console)#Development. Since it was never brought to market, I doubt there's much more to say about it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As an audiophile CD player/components used

I think it'd be worth mentioning the resurgence of popularity regarding some models (SCPH-100x and SCHP-555x) by audiophiles as these models employ high quality audio DACs (AK4309AVM) for audio output. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.171.168 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide a source that this is a significant occurrence (rather than just one or two people who hold this opinion), then I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Without a source though this would fall squarely into the original research category.
Also, when adding new topics, please put them at the bottom of the page, not the top (or middle for that matter). There is an "add topic" button at the top of the page next to the edit button that does this automatically.
Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A/V direct out

I was going to make an edit, but I want to clarify, does "A/V direct out" refer to the audio and composite video RCA sockets? I have a Japanese SCPH-5000 which has these RCA jacks (but no s-video). The article claims that they were removed from this model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.181.195 (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Copy protection part is wrong

The sectors 12 through 15 thing is wrong. The protection had nothing to do with this. The CD writer that developers used to make the final CD-Rs of their game to send to Sony, the Sony CDW-900E, didn't automatically correct EDC codes that were passed incorrectly by the mastering software. This would imply that the mastering software didn't fill in the EDC for those sectors.

Later on, Sony started allowing developers to use some other models of CD writer for making gold masters. At least one of these writers did correct the EDC automatically. There are, in fact, legitimate retail PlayStation 1 games that have correct EDC values for sectors 12-15.

The real copy protection system was based on encoding the four ASCII characters SCEI/SCEE/SCEA/SCEW as a waveform variance in the width of the spiral track. This is closely related to the wobble groove of CD-Rs; the ASCII characters are encoded as slight wobbles in the spiral track on a pressed disk.

The SCEx string in the copy protection is also how the region lockout worked; consumer PlayStations only recognize one of these strings, thus only accepting disks from its region. SCEI=Japan, SCEE=Europe, SCEA=North America, SCEW=region code used for the Net Yarouze boot disk.

The reason that this is here instead of the main page is because I have no citations to back this up.

--Myria (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The information on copy protection that's currently in the article is also uncited. There are a myriad of ways to proceed; one I could immediately think of would be to add a "dubious" tag to the statements that you think are questionable, and point to this discussion. In the end, a lot of stuff on copy protection will be unciteable and is perhaps also not that notable for a Wikipedia article. Nczempin (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

PAL photo

Hello. If you look closely at the PAL photo, you notice there is tape over the lid so it will stay down. Maybe we should find a new one without tape? 75.57.213.194 (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)IP Address [insert ip here]

If you can find a better one feel free to change it. Bear in mind though that that isn't just a PAL PS1, it's a dev kit (which just so happens to be PAL). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
That tape was on many if not most PS1s (even retail) in their original box. It was probably there to keep them down during shipping. -- Myria (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Midnight Blue model (SCPH-7000W)

I now have a Midnight Blue PS1, model SCPH-7000W. Its bottom label says NTSC J. However, it can boot legitimate games from all regions, but not CD-Rs; in a sense, it's like a Yaroze. I have no way to determine whether it can run the Yaroze boot disk, though.

It has system ROM 4.1, like the rest of the 7x0x series. Despite being the Japanese midnight blue model, it actually has the American version of the ROM.

Screenshots you can find on Google of the American and European versions of the midnight blue PS1 give their model numbers as SCPH-7001 and SCPH-7002 respectively, with no W. I have no idea whether these models can boot imported games. -- Myria (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

When was Playstation 1 stop being sold?

Can someone please tell me when was Playstation 1 stop being sold in Europe?--Tonibarber (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The article itself states that it was discontinued on 23rd March 2006, if it's any help. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Titles contradiction

In the Titles section, it states that "The very last game for the system released in the United States was FIFA Football 2005." However, at the bottom of the paragraph, It also states "The last game for the system was Hugo Black Diamond Fever released in August 2005." Is this an example of self-contradiction? If so, which one is right? AJO191 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think what is meant here is FIFA 2005 was the last game in the US, while Hugo Black Diamond Fever was the last game anywhere in the world (and presumably wasn't released in the US). Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Console Pictures

The two console models at the top of the page show, unless I'm mistaken, DualShock controllers. When the PlayStation was first released, it was released with PlayStation Controllers. Would it be better or more accurate to show the consoles with the DualShock or PlayStation controllers? The latter was the original model but the former was (and still is) more popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.140.78 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

PlayStation One

Who enjoyed this console? :) Nathanhoughton7390 (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Citations

I've added some "citation needed" tags to the article. I'm not going to review and fail it, but these really need to be addressed. It'd probably be fine if the statements were all things like "The PlayStation was manufactured by Sony" or even "The PlayStation used discs", but the more specific, possibly controversial statements like the Saturn being a "distant third" to the PS1 and N64 absolutely need attribution. I would not pass the article with this number of uncited statements, though for what it's worth I think it's well-written and, from a cursory skim-through, reasonably complete overall. Tezero (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adding those tags, Tezero! Yeah I agree that the article could do with more sources - I'll find some and add them in the article while I wait for the article to be reviewed. I knew that it will take some time before somebody reviews it, so it should give me enough time to clean up the article. ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 14:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero: I've (hopefully) addressed all of those citation needed tags and added more refs in, however I'll keep looking and will clean up the article as I go on. Sorry to tag you in this, just seeing what you think? ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 15:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:PlayStation (console)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 01:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As sort of the VG's project's expert on console articles, I'd be more than glad to do a review on this article. I'll give you a little advance warning; I'm going to be a little tough because I'm passionate about game consoles and I'd like to see this article become the best it can be. As such, my feedback is going to be targeted toward making this an excellent article and a quality piece for the Video games project. Red Phoenix let's talk... 01:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Structure

This could really use some refinement to meet criterion 3b and help with 3a:

  • The basic four points behind any good video game console article are its history, technical specifications, game library, and reception and legacy. I can see we've got the basics at least here, but I would recommend some reworking on the following two points:
    • Functionality, models, and tech specs can all go into one section about technical aspects and specifications. I'd lose the Playstation tech specs spinout article; it's mostly unnecessary and tech manual-like detail, see WP:NOTMANUAL.
    • Software library is good for a game library section. I'd recommend putting the copy protection section here and a bit on the CD-ROM hardware, as it defined the kinds of games that the PlayStation could play and what made it different from its competition such as the Nintendo 64.
  • I'd love to see the tech specs expanded into prose; it does more for the layman who's unfamiliar with computer systems. See Sega Genesis for an idea of how this could be done.

Content

I feel as though there's quite a bit missing here to meet WP:WIAGA criterion 3a:

  • I'd also recommend adding a paragraph or so about the peripherals of the PlayStation, such as its controller and memory cards. Surely these were important parts of what made the PlayStation successful.
  • Likewise, I'd like to see the history expanded as well. PlayStation was involved in some outright console competition; I'd like to see more about Sony's competitive strategy to keep the PlayStation on top during its era and lifetime, not just its development and launch. I'd also like to see some information on Sony's marketing, where they targeted the PlayStation in sales and what kind of audience they were going for. The launch and development info is very nice, but there's not enough about how it did after launch, major events impacting its sales, and transitioning to the PlayStation 2.
  • "Successors" really belongs with PlayStation, not the console article. However, a bit on the transition to the PlayStation 2 would certainly be welcome.
  • I'd like to see Legacy get a big expansion, too. What kind of ratings and sales did it get during its time? How is it remembered today in critical reviews? All of this would be very helpful to understanding the console.

I'll keep going in a while, but as the structure changes are quite major that I'm suggesting, I'd like to get the input of the article's primary authors before going forward. Red Phoenix let's talk... 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Red Phoenix! Are you finished the comments? I'll get to re-working the structure of the article shortly. Sega Genesis is a good example, so I'll use that for inspiration. I don't know who the other editors of the article are, this article was just seemingly built from several users and IPs who added to the article over the years. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't mind lending a hand as need be. The comments I have so far are a start; I have a lot of thoughts about specifics involving text and phrasing, but if a restructure is called for, it really doesn't make sense to proceed without that process underway; otherwise we're correcting issues that may not be there in the new form, or new ones may arise. Think of it as starting with the skeleton in having the structure, then fleshing everything out. Red Phoenix let's talk... 20:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Some pointers here into a total article restructure

Here's a suggested layout I would recommend:

  • Lead (obviously). Should summarize the main points; is best written last.
  • History
    • Development - start with Sony's foray into video game consoles, since this is their first. Make mention of the incident with Nintendo involving their peripheral and how they had experience with Sega in developing video games. This event is also worth mentioning.
      • I've added more information about Sony's previous alliances with Nintendo and Sega in the development section.[2] Thanks for the source, it helped a lot! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Launch - A big part of Sony's initial success was its pre-launch hype. Make sure that E3 in 1995 is mentioned; Sega pulled off a stunt releasing the Saturn immediately at $399 as of the show, but Sony stole the show by announcing that the PlayStation would release at $299. The Ultimate History of Video Games by Steven L. Kent can be helpful here; if you can't find it, contact me by email as I have the ebook version.
    • Crash Bandicoot - While the PlayStation was in the last era of the mascot game, it was a defining thing for the PlayStation. Define it and add a little bit about the character's development and success.
    • Any other major events worth a section? I'm not terribly familiar with the PlayStation.
    • Competition against Nintendo's late release of the Nintendo 64? Strategies Sony implemented during the life of the console? Marketing and success?
    • Transition to the PlayStation 2 - A little bit about the PS2 can go in here. Some mention of developing DVD technology, how long the PlayStation lasted after the release of the PS2, etc. Overall sales figures can also go in here, as well as comparisons to its competitors, the Nintendo 64 and Sega Saturn, also even the Dreamcast if there's enough to support that.
  • Technical specifications
    • Tech specs - in a prose format
    • Peripherals - What made the PlayStation so unique? Surely there's material about the DualShock controller or the memory cards, and there were some unique peripherals.
    • Network services - I'm not familiar with what Sony did, but I do know video game console network services were around at this time. Did Sony support any for the PlayStation? If so, what did they support?
  • Models - I'm noting this as its own full section, not just a subsection of the tech specs. The reason I say this is because not only are there various models of the PlayStation (which may or may not need too much description, depending on the coverage), but also...
    • Regional Variants - section can go here.
    • PSone - a subsection about the PSone really ought to go here. It can still include a "main article" link.
      • (Parenthetical note: on a side note of recent discovery, I'd really try to get rid of this article and work it into the main one. This would be a good core for the new "Models" section; removing any unnecessary technical detail and OR while keeping the useful bits can make it reworkable into a good section, and then the models article can simply be redirected to this section or to PlayStation.)
      • Done what you suggested and added a separate 'PSone' section (which now includes more detail). ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Game library - Sony's game library was quite unique at the time. All sorts of different titles from what was "the norm" were introduced on the PlayStation. What made the PlayStation so unique? Was it the titles, the graphics, the sound, all of it? How was the library as a whole evaluated in reviews (can be retrospective), and what particular titles stood out? A screenshot from a copyrighted PlayStation game would be completely appropriate here as well, as a demonstration of what the PlayStation was capable of graphically.
    • CD format - can go here, as it was a standout feature of the PlayStation and what its games were capable of.
  • Reception and legacy - Section should both include reception from the past and present. In terms of past reception, old issues of Next Generation and Electronic Gaming Monthly can help you here; a lot of images from these are available on the web and Next Generation is available by the Wayback Machine's archive. How the console is viewed nowadays retrospectively can be found through modern sources, like IGN, GamesRadar, etc.

That's a lot, I know, but I hope it's helpful. Given as much as I'm thinking, I'm not going to hold this article to just a week of review hold time unless there isn't any movement. I'd be more than glad to be patient to see the great things that can happen here. Red Phoenix let's talk... 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As an aid: I'm going to start a full view of the structural suggestion in my sandbox. Red Phoenix let's talk... 18:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, Red Phoenix. Don't worry I'm not abandoning the review, I just finished two reviews and currently have five GANs open! But this one is my top priority, so I'll get addressing most of your concerns now shortly. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. My one concern is that this won't necessarily be one that can be done "shortly". As I'm reviewing the detail of the prose, I'm finding holes everywhere and lots of citations to questionable sources. This may be a longer process than I first feared since that will have to be wormed out. I'll do a comprehensive reference review in a bit. Red Phoenix let's talk... 18:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe you are putting too much emphasis on Crash Bandicoot in your proposed rewrite here. While there is no doubt that the game was successful commercially, it was hardly a "defining" game for the PlayStation brand or for the success of the system and, one highly amusing advertising campaign aside, was not a mascot or symbol of the PlayStation, in part because Ken Kutaragi did not want to acknowledge a game from a non-Sony Western developer in that way. The defining characteristic of the PlayStation was the way the system broadened the demographic of video game players into the college and twenty-something crowd by leveraging the strength of the Sony brand name, tapping into the underground club scene in its early advertising, and offering more "mature" and "realistic" video game experiences. Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy VII, Wipeout, Resident Evil, and Gran Turismo defined these aesthetics, and three of those games outsold the original Crash Bandicoot. You point out that the PlayStation came at the end of the "mascot era." This is certainly true, and it was the PlayStation itself that brought an end to that era. Games like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil would have guaranteed the success of the system whether Crash Bandicoot existed or not. Contrast this with Sonic the Hedgehog on the Genesis or Super Mario 64 on the N64, mascot games that functioned as true killer apps that highlighted the technical strengths of their respective platforms and drove sales. Indrian (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I did specify I'm not a PlayStation historian. That defining experience is part of what goes into the marketing to me if that's the way Sony targeted the PlayStation and is exactly what sold it. In any regard, the article as it is is missing that in all aspects; there's no definition of how Sony did market the PlayStation or why it was so successful. And holy cow, Indrian, good to hear from you again. It's been a little while. Red Phoenix let's talk... 22:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Full reference review

  • 1-8 are all okay, but they are all primary sources, so I'll have to check and see what they're being used to cite.
  • Ref 10 "Pocket-lint.com" seems a little shady; any way to confirm it's reliable?
  • Ref 15: Game Over needs a full reference. I'm somewhat familiar with Sheff's book, but it'll need a full citation here with page number for proper credit.
  • Ref 24: What makes maru-chang.org a reliable source?
  • Ref 28: Per WP:VG/S, GameFAQs is not a reliable source, due to heavy user-contributed information.
  • What is reference 29 a citation to? A book, a newspaper, a website? It's unclear.
  • Ref 30: "The Official PlayStation Museum" is a WordPress site. In other words, it's a fan vanity site, and is highly unlikely to be reliable unless it's written by a recognized industry expert such as a known video game journalist. As I don't believe that's the case here, it should be considered unreliable.
  • Ref 31: What makes Stereophile a reliable source?
  • Ref 32: What makes Cyberiapc a reliable source?
  • Ref 37: Same as Ref 28, cannot be used because it's GameFAQs and user-contributed.
  • Refs 43 and 44: What makes ConsoleCopyWorld a reliable source?
  • Ref 52: What makes TechRadar a reliable source?
  • Ref 61: I don't see DigitalSpy listed at WP:VG/S. Something tells me I've seen this one as being okay before, but I'm not sure.
  • Ref 62 is a GameSpot forum post and therefore isn't reliable.

I'm worried about this. Compounding the many missing holes in the story with this many questionable references concerns me about this article's credibility. I would still like to see it make GA status, and would be more than glad to help, but this may turn out to be a project. These references need to be weeded out and reworked, with replacements with reliable sources made. Now, to keep you from getting too discouraged, I do have a HighBeam Research account which can help us out, and I've asked someone at the reference library for the Video games project to help dig up some sources. Given the circumstances, I am considering temporarily failing this article to allow for time to fully rework the article, of which I certainly wouldn't mind being a part of that process and lending as much help as possible. There is just so much to be done here with the restructure and reference weed-out that this may take more than what can be done in even two or three weeks. There certainly is potential and I want to see it reach that, but there's a lot of work ahead. Red Phoenix let's talk... 19:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

With little movement this past week, I'm going to go ahead and temp-fail this article. Unfortunate as it may be, it's been a week since this review began, but there's quite a bit to be done here. The references need to be redone and a lot of material needs to be added to meet criteria 2 and 3 of the GA criteria. I'll be glad to contribute myself as much as I can, but there's a lot that has to happen here for this article to be a GA, and I don't feel as though we're reasonably close to it yet. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Paranthesis in title is awkward for linking

Title should read "PlayStation"

On disambiguation page title would be "PlayStation (console)" but actual title of wiki page should read "PlayStation" or "PlayStation Console"

Proper name of device is actually "PlayStation"

Suggest removal of "(console)" completely.

Ending title with parenthesis (as well as actual webpage URL) breaks linking on certain webpages when using markdown or html code.

EDIT - Disambiguation page links to "PlayStation" which is title of "PlayStation Brand"

Suggest renaming pages to:

"PlayStation Brand" and "PlayStation" (for the 1st console)

respectively.

2601:603:4200:48EF:3D93:2057:19C0:F24D (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

The following edit is requested.

In the section Playstation (console)#Copy protection (first para), the fragment 

"However, the increased availability of cheap CD burners at this time led Sony to introduce a special wobble pressed into PlayStation formatted discs. As a result, any discs that did not contain the wobble such as CD-R copies or standard pirated discs could not boot on the console.<ref name="protection">{{cite web|title=PSX Copy Protection|url=http://consolecopyworld.com/psx/psx_cd_info.shtml#PSX|website=ConsoleCopyWorld |publisher=Console Copy World|accessdate=August 18, 2014}}</ref>"

to be changed to 

"However, the increased availability of cheap CD burners at this time led Sony to introduce a special wobble pressed into PlayStation formatted discs. As a result, any discs that did not contain the wobble such as CD-R copies or standard pirated discs could not boot on the console.<ref name="protection">{{cite web|title=PSX Copy Protection|url=http://consolecopyworld.com/psx/psx_cd_info.shtml#PSX|website=ConsoleCopyWorld |publisher=Console Copy World|accessdate=August 18, 2014}}</ref>{{not in reference|date=January 2016}}{{citation needed|date=January 2016}}"

Alternatively the paragraph should be deleted as it is unreferenced.

Reason: The provided reference does not mention anything about track wobble. I have failed to verify that this scheme actually exists. I have looked at several sources and they all mention the various schemes mentioned in the provided reference, but none mention any track wobble. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears this is the set of Diffs where the Wobble was added. It was originally sourced to a patent of Sony's, but that patent makes no mention of PlayStation. The current sources were added in this diff. @Jaguar: Could you take a look at this edit request? -- ferret (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't remember what I was doing a year and a half ago, but it appears to me that the IP is correct; I've changed it to their suggestion. JAGUAR  15:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar: Thanks for that Jaguar. One small point: you should have removed the '<nowiki>' markers as the templates have gone into the article verbatim rather than as the flags intended. You will probably need to revert the bot's attempt the resurect the reference body. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Looks like this is all done and set, so, closing. Thanks IP editor. --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I have reopened rather than raise a new edit request. As I have noted above, the edit has not quite been done properly. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Done --allthefoxes (Talk) 20:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on PlayStation (console). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Joystick touchscreen"?

Is there Joystick touchscreen? Thanks, --93.38.65.148 (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

PlayStation (console) → PlayStation (first console) – Title is ambiguous, there are four PlayStation consoles. This is about the first one. RightGot (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: There is only one console that is called "PlayStation". AdrianGamer (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Only one console is called "PlayStation", however PS2, PS3 and PS4 are also PlayStation consoles, though PlayStation is not their name. This article should be titled PlayStation (first console) to make it clear that it's not about all of them. RightGot (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
      • That logic is just wrong. It's (console), not (consoles), and the reason its (console) is because PlayStation covers the brand itself. No one is confused, they will end up at the brand page first 9 times out of 100. If it did require further disambiguation, it would be PlayStation (1994 console), as others have noted. Not "(first console)" -- ferret (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Adrian. The other consoles have clear numbered names that differentiate. -- ferret (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Even if there existed a different console called "PlayStation", which doesn't, this article would be renamed to PlayStation (1994 console). However, such disambiguation isn't needed at all. ~Mable (chat) 12:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE. Adding the word "first" is unnecessarily making the title longer, while there is only one console called "PlayStation" that was the first. Even if there would be any confusion about the title, WP:NCVGDAB would mean we would start out by adding a year, not the order in which consoles were released. I also think this is a pretty clear WP:SNOW case. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Soetermans. JAGUAR  15:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. – Rhain ☔ 21:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AdrianGamer. —MRD2014 T C 23:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PlayStation_(console)/Archive_2&oldid=1146021752"