Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9

partial lock

could an admin lock down this page please? spam is really getting annoying. --Gatoatigrado 18:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Truly speaking, I fail to see a "massive" amount of vandalism. -- ReyBrujo 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I guess looking at it 10+ bad edits a day aren't too bad. I'm sorry I put the request up before asking anyone else. If people get annoyed, I suppose a revert is okay with me. Nevertheless, it makes the history messy and there's a small chance ( most 1/50) that a user will get a bad page. --Gatoatigrado 19:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem, if an admin locks the page he must have reviewed the situation and considered the lock was in place. However, you will find worse situations (like when Revolution was renamed Wii, the Natalie Merchant article, or some article like Gay, George W. Bush and the like). -- ReyBrujo 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Just attack the vandals' weak point for massive damage. Roffler 22:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay I guess they removed it; sorry to complain. I guess I'm not used to such a massive system where bots and many users have time to revert things quickly. --Gatoatigrado 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Icon just removed lol...still not opposed to a revert if anyone wants. --Gatoatigrado 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, this is what inspired most of the phantom insider **** I believe. [1]. sony denied it of course, saying that it would be unfair to developers who have been working with the real hardware for several months now. --Gatoatigrado 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The partial lock makes a big difference to vandalism and pointless edits. And it shouldn't affect anyone who really has a reason to be editing.HappyVR 20:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Kutaragi speculation

I put this up because of an article (link in previous sentence) but I think that it might be corporate speculation anyway. Please feel free to delete it.

"He also stated that it could run Darwin or Windows, but there is no evidence either companies would release a licensed version."

--Gatoatigrado 20:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
How is that possible? Microsoft and Apple's apps are (now) based on the x86 core by intel. Unless the cell is x86 based, I'm not seeing how Windows could run on it. I mean, yeah, possibly through emulation, but that is incredibly slow. --Tinyducksig.jpg Daniel Davis 02:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I know...the Darwin kernel can probably be recompiled and same with Windows, but it would take major participation from those corporations; quite unlikely. Perhaps darwin could be recompiled like it was for the Xbox 1, but the use of that isn't much. He said it, but it's probably wrong. I took it off. -- 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

ICT Flag

May i know what an ICT flag is? Its for Blue ray discs so what exactly is this thing?

If someone puts a brief description here it would greatly be appreciated


Article says PSGL would be based on modified version of OpenGL ES 1.0 which is totaly absurd. Truth lies within OpenGL ES 2.0. Please fix this inconvience.

In the PDF which that is taken from, they said 2.0 came to late, could you give us a new source for your alligation? Havok (T/C/c) 10:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
it looks like they actually wanted to use it from the slides; please provide your source. if anyone wants to post page 6 from the only external link from the psgl article, with the image of collada, collada fx, and everything it might make the software development section more clear. --Gatoatigrado 00:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"In response to Microsoft's successful Xbox Live network"

How was micrsosfts box live succesfull? last time i hecked, only 10% of xbox users actually used xbox live. Again, microofst were not the first to create a unified online service, and sony has shown no evidence that the move to create an online service, was motivated by xbox live. so unless thier is some proof, that sony would not have created this service without xbox live. I suggest it be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Please show me the link to the source of the 10% point. Havok (T/C/c) 11:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That was in their 2005 annual document, they had reached 2m users for a userbase of 22m. Xbox Live is successful because it is the most widely used online console service ever existed. However, I agree that the sentence seems an opinion (original research) if it has no references backing it up. In all, I believe the sentence must stay, but be correctly referenced to prevent discussions. -- ReyBrujo 11:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not just change it to "In response to Microsoft's Xbox Live network..", less POV as well. Havok (T/C/c) 12:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It may bring the same discussion in the future ("Response? Sony has been planning that since 199x!"). -- ReyBrujo 12:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
source? And we all know Xbox wasnt the first to have online, but it was the first to have it used. Also 360 and live is more popular than Xbox, and Sony has stated that they will include a marketplace similar to Xbox to download/buy content such as trailors and dmeos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it the way it is. If you added the "for consoles", then I think it's not a bad point. --Gatoatigrado 00:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was in a news article, the Sony head thanked Microsoft


Note the thank you part in the first sentence —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elven6 (talkcontribs) .

Cell spe used for OS

the article states "Additionally, one of the seven active SPEs is reserved for use by the system's OS, leaving six SPEs directly available to applications." - and from a link in the article .This seems interesting - any more info. on what happened to the 7th spe - I thought the systems OS was to be on the PPE. Is there anymore info on this? (I've read the translation of the japanese article and couldn't find any more info. except the statement that '7th spe is used for OS something something?)HappyVR 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at the cell article. I think it's good if we keep most of the technical details in that article there, although a few could be brought to the playstation 3 article. someone should add this image (or recreate it) [3] or [4]. from [5] it seems that the online chat / video, (i would guess compression), crypt. functions, and network functions would use some of the cell's power. good quote but not appropriate for the article -
"Let's say you're right-handed, and I tie your right hand behind your back.
Are you now missing "50 percent of your manual dexterity"?
Are you missing "25% of the use of your appendages (= fingers + toes)"?
How about if I tie up your left hand instead?"
I think the power processor is needed for games, probably ai, basic engine features, and io. the instruction set is larger, and it would seem that it would be good for essential os code, but maybe not. does the power processor have multiple threads? --Gatoatigrado 00:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not exactly clear on the terminology but I think if the XBOX 360 CPU is considered to comprise 3 double threaded processors then the cell PPE is single threaded - If I'm wrong I'm sure I will be corrected rapidly.HappyVR 14:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The cell article doesn't really give much more info.
It would be nice to have a citation to confirm this - the arstechnica article comes closest - but is this definate and not speculation?HappyVR 13:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is wrong about the spe not being fully reserved. yes it may be a bit of speculation, but the justification is probably correct. If you can find another source, let's add it to the article. --Gatoatigrado 09:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Cell PPE is double-threaded and each SPE is single-threaded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

link i'm not related; i think it's a decent news site. --Gatoatigrado 00:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ps 1

User:cyberskull added and asked if the PS3 is backwards compatable with PS1 - anyone know?HappyVR 12:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

According to nearly all the information out there, yes. I put a link right in the infobox for clarification, but it seems there is no "backwards" parameter for the infobox, so I can't see it. Dancter 17:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Already answered, see the "TRC" thing. pretty much a backwards compatibility list, but hopefully longer than Microsoft's. --Gatoatigrado 09:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Sony stated that, if they were unable to acieve 100% backwards compatibility thru emulation, they would just bundle[6] the ps2 hardware inside the ps3.--Xymor 14:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


If the "banana" or "boomerang" shaped controller was officially abandoned, you must give a reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

they said due to public response they decided to keep it similar to their already popular design —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

HDD standard

PS3 to have HDD in all units, how would this change console game development? Will the presence of a HDD and probably virtual memory in every console open new possibilities for console games? Does the existence of virtual memory affect games positively or negatively in anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

(contributions at bottom please) Bigger more persistent worlds (like on a PC) is my guess for the benfits of a HDD. Basically PC like games.HappyVR 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
it means you don't have to buy rip-off memory cards. games usually don't need that much memory; open up the task manager and look next time you are playing a well designed game. but i agree that hd caching would probably help with level loading, seeing that the ps3's greatest transfer rate is 11mb/sec on dvd, blu ray is even slower, and the xbox can transfer at 22mb theoretically. hopefully developers will utilize it well. i doubt anything other than caching will happen though; they will have to be careful to prevent games from being copied to the hard drive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 17:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
"Blu-ray drives currently in production can transfer approximately 36 Mbit/s (54 Mbit/s for BD-ROM), but 2x speed prototypes with a 108 Mbit/s transfer rate are in development. Rates of 8x or more are planned for the future." They should be using Sata or Sata2 2.5" HDDs so transfer rates should be around 1.5GB/s and 3GB/S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Using a SATA interface as your data bus isn't going to make the physical disc reading speed faster. It's still a new format, and the transfer speeds still aren't anywhere near standard ATA limits. Remember, these are megabits, not megabytes. — Wisq 03:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

some controller details

I'd like to have changed/added.

1) This conflicts with other reports from Sony, saying that they have been continually working on the controller since the first one for the PlayStation, implying they had been working on motion sensing before, but suspiciously not outright stating it. - I remember this from a video interview on

2) It should also be noted that the Wii-mote reportedly does have a rumble feature. - something I remember from E3 2006 hands-on reports.

I'm kind of busy with studying for tests currently, but I'll search for exact quotes in a couple of days/weeks unless someone else does it before me.

ok, I've made some changes. What I've done is remove all the comment from the controller section (which is in the hardware section) - Now all we have in there is the facts. No suggestions of copying or whatever. Hopefully this will make sense to other people.
As per the Wii comment - try on the talk:Wii pageHappyVR 21:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Good job! It looks terrific, HappyVR. Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Another bit of controller news is Immersion stating that they can make rumble work with motion sensing. For many, this is further evidence that Sony's loss in the court as being the reason there is no rumble. In fact, I heard on a podcast of an old PS controller that had rumble and some form of motion sensing. You can find the Immersion articles at --Orion Minor 23:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
In your cleaning you removed comments about Immersion and the lack of vibration in the controller that were created after a lengthy discussion and debate between many editors which for reference you can view here [7]
As you can see it we agreed that for the article to be balanced that the possible lose of the vibration in the PS3 controller was because of Immersion's law suit against Sony and this statment was refined til everyone was happy. Not as you put it to that makes the controller lighter. Please read previous comments about something which is clearly important before just removing it. TheEnlightened 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a possible reason but still part speculation - not verifiable. The article is about the PS3, and its features.HappyVR 20:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is speculation but it doesn't hide the fact that it is and it is ""FACT"" that many believe the reason for the lack of vibration is because of Sony's lose of the lawsuit and if you followed the link i provided you'd of noticed that many editors debated if this commment could/should be placed in the article and we decided it could but in the format that we worked out so you would appear to be in the minority.
However i have better things to do that to be part of a stupid edit war so i propose that we hold an poll on the subject that if the phrase that was worked out before(or something along these lines) "According to Sony, because of inclusion of the motion-sensing function, the rumble capability of the previous controllers was omitted, so as not to interfere with motion sensing. Some have speculated that the removal of the rumble capability was influenced by Sony's loss of the latest round of the lawsuit with Immersion Corporation related to Immersion's haptic feedback technology patents."[8]." TheEnlightened 12:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As you haven't replied to my question if we should have a poll i shall place the phrase into the article and should you decide that for some reason you have to remove it remember that an encyclopedia isin't just a product fact and feature shet but a place where users can get a unbiased information about all aspects about the subject and not just the press release repackaged. TheEnlightened 11:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

PS2 memory card

I didn't read the article (although I MIGHT have gotten my answer if I did), but can you use the PS2 memory card with the PS3? -- Sasuke-kun27 16:30, 26 June 2006

NoHappyVR 20:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Partial lock

Here's a statistic for you:

15th June - 27th June (12 days) approx. 60-70 edits (partial lock)
3rd June - 15 June (12 days) approx 440 edits (no partial lock)

Over both periods some minor improvements/no real change.. 6 to 7 times less hassle.HappyVR 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How many of those edits are vandalism? If you tell me that 75% are vandalism, the article should remain locked (most times people call vandalism to minor changes that are not really vandalism, but good faith attempts to improve the article). If fewer than 25% are vandalism, then it is not that bad, especially having so many users paying attention to the page. Otherwise, with that kind of thought maybe someone else would suggest to allow users with over 2,000 contributions to edit. That way you would get only 10 or 20 edits, much less hassle. -- ReyBrujo 21:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't bother to count actual vandalism - but it's a small percentage that can definately be called vandalism. I wouldn't even try to suggest a change to policy (re 2000+ edits only allowed) at the moment - under a partial lock it's not that bad, without it's ridiculous. Most edits could be describable as good faith edits. The problem is that a lot seem to just want to bang in any odd piece of info. they've got somewhere in the article - paying little or no attention to whether it's in the right place, relevant, in the right article, verifyable etc. I can only suggest a psychological effect whereby having to actually identify oneself (even through a stupid username like the one I've got) makes editors pay a little more attention to what they are adding and the quality of the content they are adding. I think there were a lot less reverts under semi-protection.

This is typical - is this vandalism ? If it's not what is it?HappyVR 22:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal, but I sure would like to be able to edit this article. :( Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, Ex-NE (hope you don't mind the shortening), articles can't be locked to a determined edit count. My point was to state that putting restrictions is good because there is "less hassle", but it affects Wikipedia as semiprotection is a "last measure", used only in severe cases. HappyVR, you showed me a diff, where apparently (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) modified the article. Now, the user has made only three edits ever, and has no block background. Thus, it is better to assume good faith and consider the changes as something he heard or read somewhere. Note that he is a casual user, so he most likely does not know how to interact with Wikipedia, he only sees an "Edit" link and a "Save page" button. You can't expect a casual user to take his time reading all the Talk page, the archives, and the embeeded comments inside the article to know the change he is going to make is just a rumour.
The most important failure I notice in that diff: the user has not been warned in the talk page. I have noticed that, in at least 75% of the cases, using a {{test1}} or {{test1-n}} template in the user's talk page is enough to make the user stop and read a bit more about the guidelines. If a user posts something, you revert the change and add a {{test1-n}} warning in his talk page. If he edits again, you revert again and add a {{test2-n}} template to his page. If he continues, and you add a {{test3-n}} template. If you check the test templates, you will notice how each changes the tone from assuming good faith to blatant vandalism. This way, you will be differentiating someone who is making good faith edits than those who are trying to make a point or just vandalizing the article. Since November 2005, I guess I have reached {{test4-n}} in less than 5 cases. Until two or three months ago, I have never used a {{test2-n}} one. As I said, if you take a second to warn a user, you will be doing something much better than protecting the article: you will be teaching a user how to use Wikipedia. Without those templates, the user may stop editing this article, but he may continue (in good faith) editing other articles.
Most times, however, I decide to talk directly with the user in the user's talk page when I notice the user is continously modifying the article. In example, (talk · contribs) changed the PS2 best selling game from Gran Turismo to Kingdom Hearts 2. [9] Note that in his talk page I first used a {{test1-n}} template and then, after noticing he continued changing the information, I decided to personally talk with him. The result? He (apparently) created an account, stopped editing the article shortly after, and instead discussed the changes in Talk:PlayStation 2#the real top-selling game. Even though I consider his argument has some faults, more important than stopping modifications (and reverts) in the article, is the fact that he is learning to discuss before editing, he is (hopefully) learning about the guidelines.
Note that, in order to report a user as vandal, the Administrator intervention against vandalism board requires you to have reached a final warning, something that will never happen unless editors do use those templates.
It takes some time to get used to that, but please do take a second to use those templates in user talk pages. I didn't though they would make a difference, but they really are. -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that some of the edits are malicious. I can relate to the editing without discussion though. Also, the antivandal bot does some reverts, and anyone unlucky enough (1.3%) to get a bad page shouldn't be stupid enough to fall for it. After looking at it for a while, the at most 20 minutes, usually around 10 that a page is slightly "bad" is rather insignificant, and the number of day to day revisions isn't that much. Rey's convinced me that with a lot of people looking for vandalism, and especially compared to other articles, not having a partial lock isn't that bad. --Gatoatigrado 23:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm requesting a partial lock again on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as the unsigned in vandals have started again.HappyVR 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with HappyVR, and the points he has made concerning this issue. I feel alot of the minor edits seem to be people tryin to get their little say in a highly-anticipated and big product. A patial-lock lets edits go to people who have been Wikipedians, and have been exposed to what is a good/bad edit, and policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. Besides, if there is a really good piece of information that an unregistered user has, I'm sure they will register if it is that important, and they want to contribute that badly. That is the drive of a true Wikipedian. --Reaper X 23:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

blu ray transfer rate

does anyone know the difference between the blu ray transfer at the center of the disk and the outer edges? it's often quite a lot different. obviously at a fixed rpm more data goes by at the edges. --Gatoatigrado 00:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am very sure that the data transfer rate is consistant no matter what edge the data might be in proximity to. Blu-ray is recorded in a CLV format like the compact disc and DVDs.--Kenn Caesius 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh okay; that's neat. It doesn't always happen with dvds though; I know my drive is faster near the edges. -- 16:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Apparently, on or something, Sony registered the controller name PooS, the oo is supposed to be the infinity symbol. Someone should look into this, 'cause I'm kind of busy. Ashton Brood 19:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh joy, let the "Wii" style jokes begin. Is this the "running gag" console generation, or what? ;) — Wisq 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Gamefront indeed posted that information. It's just a trademark, and as far as I can gather, the connection to PS3 is pure speculation. In any case, without any other information, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Can anyone even verify it on the Japanese trademark database? Dancter 22:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I know further information is needed, but whatever. This could be true. Infinitys 7th 22:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Immersion Suit

Although it was old news(ya..ya..ya..March 12, 2006 ), but nobody talk that at E3 2006, Sony announced they have removed the vibration feature from the PlayStation 3.


what is wrong with these edits? -- 16:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Supporting this claim is the fact that controllers exhibiting both tilt sensing and rumble have been developed for the original Playstation by third party companies. [citation needed]
Well, it would help to have the names of the third parties or more info. on these controllers.HappyVR 16:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"Immersion puts this idea to rest with the new TouchSense" [10] -- 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Is that an answer to your original question?HappyVR 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That does not verify "that controllers exhibiting both tilt sensing and rumble have been developed for the original Playstation by third party companies." Dancter 18:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The controller was made by pelican (not sure if that is the correct the spelling), and here is the Playstation Magazine video blog where they show it in use and give information about it.[11]TheEnlightened 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine, take out the "original playstation" if you want, but Enlightened seemed to cover that part as well. Please put it back in. -- 21:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the only way that you could put in the Pelican controller comment was if at the end of "Some have speculated.... This opinion has been further bolstered by the discovery that Pelican, a 3rd party peripheral manufacturer, made a tilt sensing controller for the PlayStation in 1999 that has haptic feedback. What do others think? TheEnlightened 21:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the info is for the wrong page - that should be obvious - try the PS or PS2 page? HappyVR 22:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The point was obviously that Sony's claim they had to take the rumble out becuase of the motion sensing is false. There's nothing wrong with it. Failing to put it in is biased. There's nothing fictional about the controller from immersion unless this article is a complete lie (the one I posted from gamespot above). --Gatoatigrado 04:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't know that. The only people that know the truth for certain are likely either working at Sony or under NDA, and nobody's talking. Approaching the issue with the intent to prove them liars isn't in proper Wikipedia spirit, IMO. (Also, try to avoid weasel words like "some have speculated".) — Wisq (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
right...sorry I didn't hear this argument before I edited. In response to "The paragraph was good as it was- given that none of us have access to the specific tilt technology Sony is using, and that they have explicitly denied that the Immersion suit was a reason", this isn't true; Immersion uses software filters just as Sony would; the type of rumble or motion sensor doesn't matter. I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't "prove them [Sony] liars", but they have serverely distorted the truth before. If you don't believe me, read "Kutaragi speculation" above. Nevertheless, it was a bad implication; sorry. Nice edits by Dancter, and good job with all of the references. I like it how it is, everyone okay now? I don't think any of us are disputing the fact that Immersion's Touch Sense exists. --Gatoatigrado 06:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what User:Wisq said above. The article contains quite enough info on immersion/vibration etc in the controller section - anymore is irrelevant to this article. I definately think this is not the right article to explore the sordid details even if it has affected the controller. I should point out that the old dual shock was quite 'packed' inside - it is possible that there simply wasn't enough space to include the extra parts - the electronics and a bulky battery. I'm still not 100% satifised with the section as it stands.HappyVR 12:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems that many of those who argue for the Immersion info (and don't want just want to cast aspersions at Sony) want to place Sony's explanation for the removal of vibration in the proper light. Sony's explanation has always been included by default, and it is apparent that there are a significant many who don't buy that explanation, and don't want the reader to come away thinking that it is the final word. I think the important question is whether any explanation is necessary. Why not just say that the controller will not have vibration and leave it at that? Dancter 14:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This is also my viewpoint.HappyVR 14:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed reference to Immersion's (<sarcasm> alledged) ability to produce a controller. This isn't relevant.HappyVR 13:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
In case there was any misconception, Immersion does not manufacture products. It develops technologies which it sells to other companies. TouchSense is not in itself a controller. Dancter 14:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Mmmmh.HappyVR 14:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Dancter is correct Immersion create technology that a company can then license to use in their product but do not actually create the end user product themselves more imformation at [12]. Dancter is also correct that some of us feel that it should be mentioned that many in the Gaming Community feel that Sony's explanation that vibration interfers with motion is BS and that the real reason for it's absence is their lose of the law suit with Immersion.
The now billionth time revised comment is now even more ill-suited than the the comment that was created before as the new one is poorly written, confusing and has no real point. The older one simply and purley stated what many believe, what is wrong with that?
Many of you go round and quote wikipedia rule this or wikipedia guidline that but many of you forget than an Encyclopedia is defined as (by A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.[} Not just a copy of a product fact sheet, so just leaving the comment out is incorrect and will make this article more worst than it already is (from an encyclopedia point of view). A thank you and a good nightTheEnlightened 16:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to find a solution that meets the needs of users as well as the parameters of the project. If you can tell me what the problems were, maybe something can be worked out. Dancter 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

uk 20 gb PS3

  • Amazon's UK website lists the Playstation 3 20 GB version for release on January 26th, 2007, however this is not officially confirmed

by Sony.

The current statements from sony sugggest that only the 60GB version will be released in the uk - maybe amazon haven't checked their facts? if sony have changed their minds I'm sure we will hear about it before long.HappyVR 16:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Therefore the "not officially confirmed". If you're not going to post it immediately, then make sure you don't miss it, if it is confirmed. -- 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Retailers are not known for being very reliable when it comes to release dates for video game merchandise. The statement was probably removed because someone did not consider Amazon a reliable source. Dancter 18:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
okay, I guess it's not that reliable, but it's still up. Anyone know why the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 cost $125 and $170 more in the UK than the US? -- 21:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

really (Gatoatigrado 18:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)) here...sorry too lazy to sign in

I believe the they cost more in the UK as Sony and MS have to pay higher import taxes than in the US and i also believe that US prices are also shown exclusive of sales tax or what is called in the UK: VAT (Value Added Tax). Correct me here if i'm really off the mark. --TheEnlightened 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That's neat; thanks for the information. Definitely not necessary to explain in the article, but thanks. 30 percent is a much bigger markup than US taxes; personally I'm not a supporter of regressive taxes. --Gatoatigrado 06:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
At the moment VAT in the UK is 17.5% and i have no idea what the import tax is or how it works. or if there is a European Union tax aswell. It should also be noted that most companies then boost up their prices even more (thus the name "Rip off Britain". I didn't think it should go in the article just thought you wanted to know. TheEnlightened 16:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


I hope my current revision of the controller section will satisfy everyone.HappyVR 16:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hate to be annoying but for the sake of my keyboard here is a paste of what i said above "many of you forget than an Encyclopedia is defined as (by A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.[13] Not just a copy of a product fact sheet, so just leaving the comment out is incorrect and will make this article more worst than it already is (from an encyclopedia point of view)." And to add to that, just leaving it out is pointless as an Encyclopedia should be a comprehensive reference otherwise we are just left with a fleshed out product sales sheet.TheEnlightened 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Enlightened. It is biased not to include it. Although I am reluctant to share my opinion, I like the playstation 3 (a lot, that's why I've been trying to edit/discuss things here). However it needs to be kept npov, and part of npov in my opinion is completeness. Immersion's legal victory for the rumble technology is potentially a factor. Believing Sony PR over Immersion PR is not anything that we should introduce. Dancter's wording with Immersion expressing their doubts does not translate into the users of Wikipedia expressing their doubts, and is accurate. Perhaps you are worried that we are making too big of a deal about the rumble? As a reader / gamer, I honestly don't care about rumble technology, but a paragraph isn't too bad considering how complete the other parts of the article are. --Gatoatigrado 18:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

before we start an edit war like "fanboys", lets come to an agreement here. thanks. --Gatoatigrado 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, while I agree that saying Immersion is skeptical is not the same as saying the gaming community is skeptical, it was easier to find an appropriate reference for Immersion, which is why I changed it. My main concern at that point was making the segment balanced and verified. If someone can find an appropriate source for the gamers suspicions, then that's fine. But I don't think the users of Wikipedia are an appropriate reference for a statement, due to the fact that they don't really count as an external source, and vague weasel wording does not excuse the statement from needing an attribution. Dancter 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Gatoatigrado, I just misinterpreted your comment, didn't I? Perhaps my comments are more appropriate in response to the TheEnlightened? I don't know. Dancter 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
yeah lol i started losing you when you started about users of wikipedia being a reference.... I thought the way you had it was good. happy and nintendo don't like it though ... I'm trying to see their point and otherwise convince them that it's valid information. -- 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok Re: "happy please read and discuss your opinions. Dancter, Enlightened, and I (gatoatigrado) want to change it back. please read the discussion and reconsider. I don't want to have an edit war. Thanks.

Retrieved from ""]

What do you want to change it to?HappyVR 21:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Specifically, I mean what info. not already in the section are you saying should be added?HappyVR 22:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would need some more information (including diffs comparing the previous and the current versions). If what you are discussing is whether to include Immersion statements that Sony could have rumble but decided to go against it so that they would not pay them, if correctly referenced is fine enough. I haven't followed the discussion here, just came for a user's petition. However, at first glance I believe this is quite similar to the real top-selling game discussion at the PlayStation 2 talk page, where an user wants to set Kingdom Hearts 2 as best selling game because it figures first in a "Top 10" ranking appearing at Sony page, not recognizing the statements made by another company informing they have sold over twice what KH2 sold. It could be added in a Controversy section, if most believe the statements made by Immersion aren't notable enough. -- ReyBrujo 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I never really thought of using the Wikipedia editors opinions but i have done a quick google search, and there are probs more from lots of different blogs and what not but here are 4 quotes where the PS3 controller is talked about and then the Immersion suit is brought up for a possible reason for the lack of vibration/haptic feedback.[14],[15],[16],[17]
As for how it should be worded, well i think that it should be kept as simple as possible with no possible way for a misunderstanding and that is why i've always prefered what some other editers and i came up with last month and that is after tilt sensor bit that it simply says, Some in the Gaming Community have speculated that the removal of the rumble capability was influenced by Sony's loss of the latest round of a lawsuit with Immersion Corporation related to Immersion's haptic feedback technology patents.(and then place loads of links to different sites supporting this) This sentence is not perfect but its not confusing with all the links to a interview with Immersion but is actually what some gamers think non of that confusing Immersion said this and sony said that crap. TheEnlightened 22:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Hehehehe, I remember being the one adding those references somewhere to get this information included here :-) Dismiss Kotaku, but the other three references are fine enough. I would rewrite the sentence as The rumble capability of the previous controllers has been lost, speculated due a lawsuit with Immersion Corporation.[1][2][3] That should be enough. -- ReyBrujo 22:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
::::ReyBrujo I'm not sure if you remember but last month we had a repeat of this whole debate where we came up with a sentence that everyone was fine with as it purely stated what people/gamers/side line commenters thought (it's in last month's archive and i have linked to it many times recently) and this is why i've found this whole debate/argument/uber flame war/disagreement so annoying but anyway, I did mention the implementation of a Controversy section last time but the other editors where against this but i feel i have been misunderstood, i don't care what Sony or Immersion have said about this subject (as both comments are the such fabled POV) purely that when a user can read the page and understand that Sony's offical reason is what ever and that some people do not believe their reason and quote why. This gives a user a nice clear and full understanding on the situation. TheEnlightened 22:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as you remember the past debate i will strike this comment from the record but would it not be better if Sony's offical comment in stated first and then what people think is said after? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheEnlightened (talkcontribs) .
Yes, I was just pointing out that the lawsuit should be referenced in a very small note. In example, The rumble capability of the previous controllers has been lost, as it interfered with the new motion sensoring capabilities,[Sony] although it is speculated it was due a lawsuit with Immersion Corporation.[GameSpot][Gamasutra][Kikizo] More than a small sentence referring to the lawsuit is not necessary in the Controls section, although it could be expanded in the Controversy section. -- ReyBrujo 23:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think someting like that would work fine. Dancter 03:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted citations for whatever what was included. They weren't there when I checked. If they were there before, when things were kosher, they had since gotten lost. I tried to address that. I'm sorry about any problems that my edits have caused. Dancter 03:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
So basically you want to include a reason why the vibration function was lost. Could you give an explanation of why the vibration function was not included?HappyVR 23:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I want to add one if the reason is public and backed up by reliable sources. The lawsuit has been regarded as the reason by notable gaming sites, and worth adding. We do not care about the truth, we only care about what we can verify. And we can verify this with the references. It is just the same reason I believe we should include a Criticism section in Wii to talk about the lack of power and the name reaction. This is not original research, this is verifiable information. -- ReyBrujo 00:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
You want to include possible reasons for the non-inclusion of the vibration function, only if they have a citeable source, and no others - that's right isn't it?HappyVR 00:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Basically yes. To put it plainly, if IGN, Gamespot and Gamasutra say PlayStation 3 does not have rumble because Mr. Kuratagi had toothache and decided the feature may make painful to test the hardware, and then forgot to remove that restriction before starting the mass production, we can include it. I repeat that we don't care about truth, only about verifiable information. -- ReyBrujo 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
And the reason given in Sony's press release is relevant as well or should we ignore it?HappyVR 01:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so that is where you were going? That is a quite limited view, isn't it? I suggest you reading WP:V. Also, I don't see you removing the speculation that appears in the Retail configurations and pricing and the Backward compatibility sections. -- ReyBrujo 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I suggest reading this and this article to see the other side of the coin, unless you will only trust Sony. -- ReyBrujo 01:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Every version edited has included Sony's official statement (!!!). We cannot know the complete truth, and Sony's PR is not supposed to be believed any more or any less than Immersion's PR. However (Rey), we shouldn't use "speculated" if possible. Dancter's version [18] says it just "as it is" in my opinion; no speculation, and it has plenty of references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gatoatigrado (talkcontribs) 01:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't sony's rationale for not including vibration function open a can of worms though!HappyVR 01:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I just asked whether ot not Sony's press release should be used or not. I don't understand your answer.HappyVR 01:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
We should use as many sources as possible, being them from Sony, Immersion or notable gaming sites. Your questions (which are not being threaded, which gives the impression of going back to the same point again and again) give the impression you do not want to accept sources other than Sony itself. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you have that impression - I'd prefer to remove all speculation - I don't see any value in it whatsoever. Why don't you just read what has been written rather than reading between the lines. Just how straightforwardly do my questions need to be stated for you. Question: Do you think we should include sony's explanation?HappyVR 02:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
As I have replied previously, yes, we need Sony and Immersion explanations, and notable gaming sites speculations. Now, do you think we should include Immersion's statements about being possible to add rumble to the PS3 control? -- ReyBrujo 02:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally no, I don't think their comments are sufficiently relevant. I don't think Sony's or Immersions explanations improve the article. I'd prefer to simply state that the controller does not have vibration like the Dualshock 2 controller did.HappyVR 04:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
We are finally advancing some steps. Now, following the reliable source guideline and verifiability policy, can that information be included in the article? Regardless of what you or I personally think, we need to follow established Wikipedia guidelines. According to that guideline and that policy, is there any reason about why the information can't be used? -- ReyBrujo 04:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
That immersion said vibration could be included seems to be verifyable and reliable (as they are their own source). The same goes for sony's statement that including vibration was not an option for the reasons they gave. No reason not to include based on those two policies.
::::::But should it be included - two viewpoints that contradict one another?HappyVR 04:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
By not including one we are ommiting valid information. Including two points of view that contradict each other by the same source is named a contradiction; two points of view from two different sources is usually a controversy. As we have previously stated, the sentence can put the focus on Sony statement while adding the Immersion information as an afterthought. Or we can directly add the information in a Controversy section, in case we want to keep the article with only Sony information and the controversy one with information that contradicts Sony. Per Undue weight, NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. That is why I believe a simple sentence describing Immersion. -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with ReyBrujo that a simple sentence would be the best which clearly states what has been said, however it must be said HappyVR you appear to be behaving like this article is yours and yours alone but no one owns an article (as i'm sure you know) and that instead of everyone asking your Permission (as we don't need to, however i think uptil now your view has been asked for out of politness other than anything else) we should have a poll, i offered this before but you never replied. A poll would show what others think and not just us, the more vocal few. TheEnlightened 12:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
If you think you can write an article and not a newpaper - go ahead.HappyVR 14:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what kind of newpapers you read but most here in Britain (at least most) newspapers state all the information around a certain subject(albeit offten skewed) not just information sent out by a company's PR department. TheEnlightened 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The controller section (my edit) doesn't include the information sent out by a Sony's PR department.HappyVR 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Nor does it give the full picture about the situation. If you look at the definition of a Encyclopedia (at least from it is described as: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.Your current revision is not comprehensive on this particular field (the PlayStation 3) and so cheats a new reader of the full view about the subject and also creates a poor encyclopedic article. If you did an article about the Iraq war you could say the conalition invaded it, as Saddam had WMDs. However this doesn't mention all about how it was proved there were no WMDs (and the US Government later admitted there wasn't) and that some believe that it was really for the oil. Now if you look at the Iraq war article that there is a controversy section but i'm not sure that a whole section need be added about this however it is a possibility, it all depends how other editors want the information protrayed.TheEnlightened 16:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought that comment on the reasons for not including vibration function was not sufficiently relevant to the article. Clearly the harware specs, release date and price etc are. There are other issues that could be considered borderline relevance (such as Wii60, quotes from various people, comment on the price etc), If you're certain of its relevance then put it in - its your choice. (Could I draw your attention to the Wii60 issue while you are here - as I would appreciate to know if you think removing that was the right thing to do.) I definately don't think this needs to be turned into a controversy section. Thanks.HappyVR 16:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel the need to stick up for HappyVR a little bit. Comprehensiveness is one thing, but I also feel that the principle on undue weight applies not only to the various viewpoints on a particular controversy, but the viewpoint of controversy, if that makes any sense. I noticed that there is a tendency for controversies to develop an increasing prominence in certain types of articles, nearly overwhelming the rest of the content. While I am just as guilty of this as anyone, debates over content such as this usually result in the compromise of, "As long as it's balanced," when often I don't think that is enough. A article in a paper encyclopedia is supposed to be a "timeless" text, and issues of an ephemeral nature are not considered appropriate for such articles. While Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, I still feel that we need to be careful about which issues are truly appropriate. Will this issue be relevant years, or even months from now? Wikipedia articles are not news reports, and I think we need to keep that in mind. While HappyVR may be a bit overzealous about removing all "speculation", the article was starting to get bogged down in controversies, which, as hard as it may be to believe for us enthusiasts, are not that important to everyone. Dancter 04:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being flexible, Happy, even if you still don't completely agree with us. I'm going to go to Dancter's version. As with the npov undue weight, if anyone wants to shorten it because it's a minority opinion, go ahead. On the other hand, I completely agree we should avoid weasel words ("speculated"), so any shortening shouldn't distort. Thanks again, and a controversy section might be a good idea. --Gatoatigrado 21:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to once again disagree with you, Gatoatigrado. Regardless of whether or not Immersion's had a controller built with both tilt and rumble, that controller isn't SONY'S controller. Neither still has the controller's actual inside technology been revealed to the general public- the only thing we know about it, really, is that it has a tilt sensor of some kind and no rumble, and that Sony says that the rumble would interfere with it. In a situation like this, I do not think that the statement that "some have speculated" is a weasel word, mainly because it IS speculation. Unless someone who's actually gotten a glimpse of the innards of this thing can step forward and boldly state the technology its based on, we just DON'T KNOW- thus, we are speculating on what is in the controller, and basing upon that speculation a reasoning that differs with the statements of the people who have actually designed the controller. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, "some have speculated" is frequently used for weasel wording, but it is perfectly fine to have statements using the words, provided references are cited that properly match the assertions (emphasis on properly). In these cases, I don't think they qualify as weasel words, as they are not weaseling out of the need for verification. One should always be careful when using words like those, as it is very tempting to get lazy, and make inferences that are not directly expressed by cited sources. But phrases such as "some have speculated" are sometimes necessary to keep things simple and concise. I think ReyBrujo's version is good example of this. Without the generalized wording, the information would probably take up more space, which may not be wholly appropriate for a relatively unimportant piece of information. Dancter 04:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

sony defending 2 sku

From retail price section:

"Sony has also defended their 2 SKU scheme, as the $500 version includes a hard drive, whereas the Xbox 360 Core version does not.[1]"

Why is this needed?HappyVR 18:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

well, you can get rid of it, but we have the other defending quote...old news anyway. keep the format fix i did though. --Gatoatigrado 19:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
yeah i guess we need to let users decide for themselves...delete other sony fluff talk? I actually think it would be a lot more clean if we didn't have all of the "important people" crud. such as the quote with "If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem." We aren't trying to sell the PS3 or provide people's opinions on the price. --Gatoatigrado 19:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think some of those quotes are of debateable importance yes. We don't have to remove every single one. Some external feedback might be good. Maybe we could get someone from a non-console background to have a look at it and see what they think?HappyVR 15:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)



While the power of the Playstation brand name will likely generate a substantial amount of fan loyalty, there has also been a significant amount of consumer backlash over the price, with a online community called "Wii60" which focuses on the fact that the price of one PS3 is equivalent to the cost of both competing consoles (Nintendo has publically stated that their console will retail for under $250).

Does anyone (except User:Legend78) think this is relevant enough for this article; the part about the Wii60 movement. Part of the article about sony selling x million consoles just because of the playstation name also has been lost on edits.HappyVR 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the "Wii60" is FOS like the Haunted Apiary, although much more blatant. The "Wii60" article was deleted, and has no place in Wikipedia. Microsoft and Nintendo are just collecting all of the negative comments about the PS3, because they don't want it to be as successful as the PS2. Their points are somewhat flawed; the price(Xbox360premium + WirelessAdapter + HdDvdExtension + Wii + 2yearsXboxLive) is nearly $1000 (assuming they can get the price of the HD-DVD extension below 100, as they said they will try to make the whole cost less than the ps3), compared to the PS3 at $600. Obviously, once the rip off accessories (the wireless adapter costs $5 manufacturing, sold for $100) necessary to make these things equal to the PS3 are added, their point (that Xbox360 + Wii = 600) is much less compelling. I guess the PS3 is appealing to me from a technological standpoint as well. By the way, I own an Xbox 360, and I'm happy with it. I don't know why owning one system makes people hate the other. -- 16:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bergen, Greg (2006-06-216). "Hirai defends 20GB PS3 model". ps3land. Retrieved 2006-07-01.  Check date values in: |date= (help)