Talk:PlayStation Network/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism taken out

I think the 'criticism' heading on the article is not needed. it is very small and is not very important. ---Jagzthebest 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You liberal sony fans think you own the place. I will re-add this section tomorrow with more criticism than ever.

Oooooh...

Censorship?130.156.3.66 (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Centralized Server?

Anyone know if the Playstation Network uses a centralized server like Xbox Live? I have heard rumors that it dosen't.

You have to distinguish between game servers and backend servers. The infrastructure that powers the features of the Playstation Network (account logins, buddy lists, matchmaking) is no doubt centralized, at least with some regional mirrors. Additional backend servers might be provided by third party vendors that provide PS3 middleware like Demonware, GameSpy, Quazal or Xfire. The actual game servers that you play on are almost always hosted by end users and thus highly distributed. It makes no difference whether you're playing Gears of War, Call of Duty or Halo on the Xbox platform, or Resistance, Untold Legends or Marvel: Ultimate Alliance on the PS3. Only in very few exceptions (Some Novalogic games and Battlefield 2: Modern Combat on the PS2 e.g.) are console games hosted on dedicated game servers. Otherwise, no publisher (or console manufacturer) is going to foot the bill to host hundreds or thousands of game servers, not for free or $50 a year. Jschuur 07:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Basic Services

The comparison to XBox Live here isn't verifiable. Based on the E3 press conference presentation (where the list of Basic Services shown did NOT include online gameplay), there's no reason to believe that online play will actually be free. This should probably be modified until there is true verification on the actual pricing structure and services that will be offered as this is currently speculation.131.107.0.77 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Dennis

It's carefully worded ability for gamers to play multiplayer games online for free : it's possible that playing such games will be free, whereas Xbox Live certainly isn't free. Article includes details of where such claims where originally made. As such, I think the article is accurate. --Oscarthecat 18:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a sentenced refering to the disscusion area as regards to free online play. We have to understand we wont really know what services the ps3 online will offer, Untill sony says in solid stone and verifies that the ps3 online service will offer free gaming we cannot be certain. I think it would be best not to delete the sentence but provide a fair warning that this is not certain. If someone preorders a ps3 on the 100% wikipedia assumpition that they will receive free online play and this turns out no to be true or has unlisted rescritions placed upon it we have failed in our job as a information resource.

100 [1] [2] [3] Here are some links suggesting that online play will be free, and searching around finds there are many more. As of the moment, I think it is safe to say that online play will be free on the PS3, but perhaps some citation is needed on the article.

Suggesting but nothing clearcut.

Video uploading/sharing

During Sony's press conference at TGS 2006, Ken Kutaragi said that you will be able to upload and share videos on PlayStation Network Platform, so keep it on there!!! http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3153860 Amish Gramish 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

References

I forgot how to add the references, and wikipedia isn't helping me out with it, because they say to put <.r.e.f.>, (it screws up the page if I put it how they said it) but I couldn't get it to work with http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3153860 So if anyone reads this, please put that link as a reference for the video upload/sharing service. Amish Gramish 03:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're pointing to this quote in that article

Videos too! PS3 clones YouTube! No, not really, but it sounds like petite vids will be available on the network for the PS3 platform. Sounds like users will be able to share them between one another? But like the rest of this conference, there seems to be lots of abstractions thrown around. Gimme something concrete!

This is really not worthy of including here if even the reporter is very vague about it. Removing the video upload stuff from the article unless more / better sources come up. -- Sirius81 | Talk 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Point system VS local currency

I have edited the Xbox Live point system comparison. Calling it a "scheme" is just plain ignorant. It us up to the readers to decide which they prefer. Sorcre 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Live

the section is more than a bit bias can some one fix it

I have removed the Xbox live comparison and renamed it to "Features." 71.163.110.222 00:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides. Comparison with Live? Bah. It would look like this. Live cost $50 a year. No more, no less. PNP cost free until independent studios begin to nickle and dime you for use of their servers. Live is a unified service with a future. PNP is a service, and with Sony leading them, it will explode like a battery.

Ah, I could go on, but until its proven, no complaints right? - 68.228.33.74 06:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Friends list.

I include details about individual friends list. Some games (such as Resistance) will not use the PNP's friends list, instead, they will use a friend list specific to that game.

Quick source : http://www.ps3land.com/article-877.php Sorcre

Resistance was patched to use the actual PNP friend list. They claimed they didn't have time to use it originally.

Feature Icons

Someone who knows what feature corresponds to what icon should list them in the text below the picture at the top of the page. Perhaps after where it says“Icons of the various PSN features”add something like “From left to right” then list them or “The features are _____________ respectively”. Gerren McKnight 01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

PLAYSTATION® Store

I created the page for the PS Store yesterday (surprised no one ever did). I put a link in the commerce part to the page. If anyone would like to simplify it somehow please do so.

DanB91 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

1000 Games at EU launch

Hey all I want to point out that there is a rumor about 1000 Games that will be downloadable from the network at launch. This is not true. Software emulation is going to be available to play these games on the PS3 only, there is no downloading here other than these patches. Just read the interview again here.--WhereAmI 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Playstation Home

Should the paragraph about the PlayStation Home rumor be on the page? At the moment it is still speculation, websites/blogs citing sources apparently within Sony doesn't make it fact. 193.1.36.14 14:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This area is being vandalized. Could someone request semi-protection for this page? I don't know the procedure for that.Camann 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge from PlayStation Store

Please merge relevant content, if any, from PlayStation Store per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayStation Store. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:09Z

• Many people voted it for keep and it was merged. Its too much info for the article, but it will hopefully be merged eventually

DanB91 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Playstation Home Page

I created a seperate article for Playstation Home, the reason being is because eventually this is going to be too large for just one article. Right now the page is merely a duplicate of this article however hopefully we can A) Simplify the Playstation Home section here and B) Expand the Playstation Home Article.

Thier is a problem though, and I'm asking for the comunitys help in fixing it, when I made the Playstation Home article I simply copy and pasted from this section however that means all the reference numbers got transferred to (without the refrences) I need help in restoring the references on the Playstation Home page since I don't really know how to do it, thanks. Deathawk 22:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been reverted, and I redirected Playstation Home to PlayStation Home.

First of, that's the correct spelling. Further, that is an article, or at least the name, I had already made. It was redirect to here from the start, because at that time, and at this moment still, it doesn't warrant it's own article yet.

When you think you can expand PlayStation Home enough, so not with the lower case s, simply copy the references section. {{Reflist}} makes that list of references. JackSparrow Ninja 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that the PS Home article will get out of the PSN page. They denied the PS Store page for some stupid reason. If they did that, i highly doubt they'll let u make a PS Home page. But we shall see. DanB91 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that. But, as stated below, I'm willing to fight that decission. No way that there was a merge consensus... JackSparrow Ninja 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Alot of people at first said merge, but as the discussion went on and the page got bigger, people started to say keep and an admin just decided to merge the pages. Can we start a vote?--DanB91 11:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Merged the PS Store article

I merged it exactly how it was (except for the links and changing catagoies, etc.) With this and PS Home this will get too big. I think we should vote to make both sections their own pages. --DanB91 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The manner in which the store operates has been criticised by Penny Arcade. The store has been criticized to be slow and unable to perform tasks while downloading, unlike the Xbox Live Marketplace (though this will be fixed in a future firmware update).

If we need to keep this section in, (notice Live doesnt have one) I'm at least removing the the "unlike xbox live" because honestly like other places on this page it sounds like an excuse to link to Live. Mr toasty 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I copy and pasted this almost exactly the original article was. So thus we should keep all sections to prove that this and the PS Home sections are too much. How do we do a consensus?--DanB91 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Quit being Wii60 fanboys, the service currently works fine. Unless there is a criticism for the other online services (Xbox Live & Wii's online service) there should be no such section here. FAIRNESS people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.232.35 (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Live's store is slow and counter-intuitive. It is very difficult to find specific items. PSN's store just seems a lot more, organized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.5.172 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Downloading stuffs from the store would be much smoother if PlayStation 3 supported the new 802.11 n. Even if you're connecting to the internet without wire, the maximum speed is up to 100Mbps. younghyun1 (UTC) 2008/2/28 8:38

Playstation Cards

Are they going to release playstation cards anytime soon or are they going to wait for Home to come out?Playstationdude 03:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard fall, but I do not have a sourceMawfive 23:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sony Computer Entertainment Hong Kong Limited is releasing PSN pre-paid cards in Tawian. http://asia.playstation.com/tch_tw/index.php?q=node/1472 - 60.231.107.26 02:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

ED PS Store Interface

Even in 480p on a widescreen EDTV (which I have) it shrinks to the SD store. It's not just a 4:3 ratio that it goes to that store. --Ashitaka96 | E-mail | Talk 13:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

480p is a 4:3 ratio resolution, your widescreen display is merely stretching it, and the PS3 can't detect that. Camann•TALK 18:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems

Should something be included about sign-in problems that are faced when automatically signing in. Sony has not commented on this problem, but it is a fairly large problem. Just look on the internet for forums and questions about this problem.Brett 91091 01:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What problem? theres a problem? -- Vdub49 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it posible to catch a virus

Is it posible to catch a virus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycash316 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Since most viruses are designed for windows software it is virtually impossible (like less than a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance). In short... no -- Vdub49 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycash316 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism removed

Removed "It is guaranteed to be crap" line from features section. --MCRemix 14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Downloadable Content: With the PSN Card, or US Dollar?

When I was playing MotorStorm, I've seen downloaded vehicles appeared from the track? Where did they downloaded with? The PSN card (because it has'nt even been out yet) or with money? Professional Gamer 19:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

PSN Figures

Hi, it states that there is currently 5.5 million registered users on Playstation network, however I can't find this information aywhere else on the web, would it be possible to provide a citation? Chris R 194.75.128.200 14:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where to find numbers for that but I'll look, however you posted that information did you see or hear this? The number of PS3's sold is 5.59 so it's beliveable. -- Vdub49 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

PSN Figures

this is a corporation IP address, and I suspect I know put on the information regarding there being 5.5 Miliions PSN users, Unless anyone can find any proof to the contrary, I'd probably remove .

194.75.128.200 11:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

New logo

I put a more up to date version of the PSN logo up, quite a while ago actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random1448 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Browser by Sony?

Is the web browser, developed internally by Sony different to the NetFront-browser?--92.227.38.223 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is a completely new browser.ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 11:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I though it was a version of opera ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfrewq12 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's Wii and Nintendo DS. See the Opera article. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 08:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Developed internally means that employees of Sony made it (either partially or completely from scratch). I remember when everyone assumed they were both made by NetFront, I am glad that finally got solved. Opps it looks like that has since been removed anyway. --72.64.105.184 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

youtube upload for ps3 games

this new feature should be added in the article. youtube official press release Cliché Online (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

akward sentence

"with users having made 170 million downloads totaling 86 peta bytes of data, which Sony says is equivalent to 17 million single-layer DVDs worth of data." This sounds a bit weird, 86 petabytes is a fixed number of DVDs worth of data, this sentence gives the impression that only Sony knows how big a DVD is or as though there is something complicated behind it. Maybe it should just be removed, it already states 86 petabytes. If someone wants to convert that to some other format (dvds, libraries of something, cds, megabytes, football fields) then they can do so; I think the sentence is probably just better removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.244.26.90 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"EDGE"

Before anyone re-adds any information on "EDGE" I just thought i'd say here that it is not real. The information is based on a fake press release posted on the notorious NeoGaf forums http://www.thesixthaxis.com/playstation_edge_rumours_1234_tsa.aspx ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Availability

Ok, someone keeps adding that PSN is unavailable in Morocco. Now I am pretty sure that this is true, but how noteworthy is it that the PSN is unavailable in Morocco? I could understand if Morocco was the only state in the world that it was unavailable, but I'm pretty sure there are many more countries that have no PSN access, and there are plenty of places where the PS3 hasn't even launched. I see no reason why Morocco should be put ahead of all other countries. If I'm missing something, please tell me, otherwise I will continue to remove it. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason people think it's notable is because it is one of a few countries in the PAL region where it has not launched. Although I'm not convinced that listing the individual countries is necessary. I think it's fine as is. Although, obviously the people who live in these countries will think it's more noteworthy than I do! I don't think it does any harm to have the information there, as long as it's sourced obviously. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 11:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Morocco (and Mexico) are just examples of countries where there is a large gaming community that doesn't have official access to PSN. Maybe someone in Sony will take notice of this article and add official support for these countries.--Snoopdop (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And this is the problem. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to campaign for action from Sony. It is one thing to state that it is unavailable in some countries, but by listing some you are suggesting that it should be available in these countries. That is a personal opinion. If you want to include mention of these then you'll need a cite (and not from a gamer's forum) to establish that it is notable that these countries are not covered. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Until you provide citations to reliable sources to verify your claims, the info cannot be allowed in the article. Thingg^⊕⊗ 00:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the omission of the video service in Canada, despite the "North American" release? A lot of people in North America were left scratching their heads wondering why they didn't have any videos available. Perhaps rather than mention every country where it is not available, simply mention that it is only available in the USA. --72.139.35.150 (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the availability map totally accurate? Maybe i'm wrong now, India is mentioned, but not highlighted on the map. Seany_w

12 million subscribers

According to this link PSN has 12 million subscribers as of September. "Moving on to the PlayStation Network, Bain reports over 12 million registered accounts, as of September of this year."--WhereAmI (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

the trophie pic..

what game did the trophies come from on that pic?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 949paintball (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere. The image was created by SCE, they are placeholder images, not real trophies. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 23:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

ok thank you.. i got confused with 45 trophies and being lvl 5 too.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 949paintball (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Get a real number of users on PSN

24 million users is extremly misleading, Sony assumes any account used in the year is active, if only for a minute. There must be a source that would give the true anser, not the biased misleading information Sony releases. This is why people won't refer to Wikipedia as a good source, you take the information from the actual company, who wants to seem better so they embelish and don't give the true facts. I removed it but it was changed back. I suggest it is either removed or a true number is given, from a NUETRAL source.

72.138.216.89 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Fedarated Sun

If the information comes from a reliable source, we can't pick and choose the information that goes into the article based on our opinions on whether we think it's true or not. The number stated cites SCE as a direct source because no other source able to provide this information. As original research isn't allowed, common sense would suggest that Wikipedia is only ever as reliable as it's sources. This is why citations are provided for things like this, so that if they wish, the reader can check where the information came from for more details. However as far as I'm aware, SCE haven't stated how they came to that figure so I don't know where your calculation came from? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Better question, where did their calculations come from. Its misleading by putting in these sources. This is why you can't trust Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only ever as reliable as it's sources, even if those sources are biased.72.138.216.89 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Fedarated Sun

You do realise that this counts PSP PSN accounts too? Ffgamera (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. It makes the figure even more credible. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sony obviously must own Wikipedia! What an advertisement for the Playstation network! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.36 (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you've hit the nail on the head there. That's the only logical explanation for why you aren't getting your own way. Please grow up. Cheers. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 00:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

38m PS3 consoles sold, with a 80% PSN connect rate ( 30.4m PS3 PSN users actutally connecting and using the service )

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=265144 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Home logo.png

The image File:Home logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Trophy Value

Hey I've been doing some experimentation with the trophies as to how much each contributes to the 'level' system and I think that I got it. A platinum is worth twice as much as a gold, a gold is worth 3 times as much as a silver and a silver is worth twice as much as a bronze. Should this be included? Experiment here if you wish: http://www.playfire.com/a/create_widget. Then again the accuracy of this website could be disputed. Also is it like a point system?, because it appears to me that (say a bronze is one point) an equivalent of 14 points is needed to get to lvl 2, 40 points to lvl 3, 80 points to lvl 4, 160 points to lvl 5, 267 points to lvl 6 and so forth (i.e. it gets harder to level up). I just think that what is written about trophies seems quite vague and that more should be written about how trophies contribute to the 'level' system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.2.28 (talk)

Unfortunately, original research isn't allowed. Also, some might argue that this would be game guide-ish although I think it would be useful. Anyway, like I said, as this is original research, it can't be included. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

History

Why isn't there a history section like Xbox Live? 69.224.216.140 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the PlayStation 3 article already pretty much sums up the history of PSN. Basically, they saw Xbox Live and they decided to compete, and were thinking it was a great idea seeing as though there were many reasons. PlayStation Home was already in its concept stages (see the PS Home article). The history's there, just not on this article. I'll put one up if no one has any objections? ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 08:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've added the History section in and made it more like the Xbox Live article as a sort of "good influence" hahaha. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 10:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

citation not needed

"however if the user account is removed from the console, the content becomes invalid and is locked." Requiring a citation here is equivalent to requiring a citation if one were to say, "a key is required to start a car." It's part of the operation of the console/service that is readily verified in two minutes with a controller in hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.63.2 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Viable to add "What's New" into article?

The headline speaks for itself, but let me explain myself.
I think it is viable to have What's New in this article because it is not mentioned in the main article and it is under the PlayStation Network section. Thoughts? ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 07:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have put it in. Feel free to move it up or down, and/or change the wording. Also, thanks to ChimpanzeeUK for uploading a slightly higher quality picture of the What's New screen, it is much appreciated. Thanks. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

PlayStation Network Warranty?

I've recently got an e-mail from Sony Singapore on late July that they had discontinued their online Playstation warranty service from 1 August and asked me to sign up a PSN member to re-register my PSP-3000 and other PlayStation consoles if I puchase one. Is this true for other regions? Kyrios320 (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not get an email of the sort. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 10:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You sure about that? Kyrios320 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PSN pictures have been deleted

Why were they deleted when the deletion page was in clear favour for them not to be deleted? I mean, the only non-free images that was actually illustrating the PSN article were removed! The PSN logo is compulsory right? The Qore picture is from the Qore article, the Home picture is from the Home article, the What's New picture is from the PS3 article, the Life with PS picture is from the PS3 article, the Room picture is from the Room article, and the World map picture is a free-use image. What's left to illustrate PSN? Nothing. I'm sorry, but the profile screen is an absolute necessity, as it illustrates several points better illustrated with an image. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 05:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

These images should not have been deleted. No conclusion was reached on the FfD discussion. As there was no blatant violation of policy, the discussion should of been finished and a consensus reached. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 09:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a reupload of just the profile screen? Is it ok with everyone? ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 08:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Forum

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the PSN also has its own forums? Mistermom7 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it can be added as an external link at the bottom. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 08:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

PSN Paid Service

There was recently an article about Kaz Hirai talking about a paid service. Should this be included in the article, or should we wait till more information is available? Here's an article in regards to the new service Sony hopes online service will build brand loyalty and here's another one Sony planning paid PSN subscriptions for 2010 JDC808 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

PlayStation Plus. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 10:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

PSOne Classics section Misinformation

• This has been bugging me for a few months now, but I haven't gotten around to writing a satisfactory replacement. The PSOne Classics were not introduced in NA on May 3, 2007, that's just when the PS3 and the games were updated to play on the PS3. If you really read the cited Joystiq post the first line reads "If you've been hankering to play those classic PSone games on something besides your PSP" and also links to an earlier post from December 6, 2006 link that mentions them recently launching. The PSOne Classics actually debuted in NA on December 4, 2006 with five games Crash Bandicoot, Cool Boarders, Hot Shots Golf 2, Syphon Filter, and Tekken 2. Could someone please fix this? --Andrew-LGP -| Talk to me |- 17:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

PSN Ukraine

Many sources including a Ukrainian video game magazine and a reply from sony, confirm that the Playstation Network is coming to Ukraine, so i added it to the list with the word Planned in brackets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ol3s' Dany (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian PSN has launched, so i am adding it to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.104.180.211 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

***PSOne Classics did not launch in May of 2007 in NA***

• This section of the article is completely erroneous. I would like to fix it but, I haven't gotten around to writing a satisfactory correct one. If not me, anyone else working on this article that wants it to be as accurate as possible they should fix it themselves. This Joystiq reference (ref 1 - 12-4-06) is when the service really launched. The one (ref 2 - 5-3-07) being used right now only mentions when the PSOne Classics where made playable on both the PS3 and PSP but, still applicable to the section. --Andrew-LGP -| Talk to me |- 20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Any mention about the network being down since Sunday 28 February 2010?

This is not a forum discussion, this is an information. I believe that it is worth being mentioned as it is doing the headlines and the effect is that all PS3 owners cannot use PSN currently.

The following is an EXAMPLE

Gamepro:

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/214223/playstation-network-plagued-by-problems-on-sunday/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.29.183 (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a news site and I don't think this is really encyclopeadic. Although it's a big deal at the moment as everyone's complaining about it, I don't think an online service being unavailable for (so far) one day for a portion of users is really notable. If it goes on a lot longer and has harsher repercussions, it might be worth mentioning but so far I don't think notability has been established. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out, the Network isn't down, it is in fact a problem with the PS3 models up to the Slim. Something about the internal clock registering 2010 as a leap year, and as such it couldn't handle the 28th February/1st March switch-over. Apparenetly Slim's work fine 86.30.35.190 (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If Chimp had not been censoring contributions which are not to his fanboy liking perhaps we could have a better view regarding the outtages history. An upsetting attitude that adds nothing to Sony's credit really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.67.102 (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico PSN

Even though Puerto Rico does not have PSN availability, it is indeed like the US, Puerto Rico does have PSN availability (same as the US have), even though it's an unincorporated US territory. JMBZ-12 (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

George Hotz and April 2011 Outage

Thus far the two are completely unrelated and should not be mixed. If anything, statements have been floating around the internet that the hacking group Anonymous has had something to do with this. From other reports, it appears that Anonymous has said "for once we didn't do it". All and all, George Hotz should probably be taken off of the PlayStation Network page altogether and referenced onto the page that it is being moved to. Kiddy crackers aren't a threat to a global Corporation, the 1-100 DOES listed are. Mnemnoch (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from ModernWarfareBlackOps, 25 April 2011

Status:Undergoing Maintenance

ModernWarfareBlackOps (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure it will help everyone in the long run to write what is factual about what Sony does and says while they bring it back online. It is interesting how many people did converse about backlash, so it's at least notable too. I witnessed many different networks expressing frustration so, here we are. Mnemnoch (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

While the PlayStation Network remains offline, the page is a target for WP:VANDALISM. That is the entire reason I requested the lock to begin with. As I mentioned, it may be best to leave the article protected until the service is restored. Mnemnoch (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that's asking for a specific edit, so I've changed the answered template to "no" so that this doesn't appear in the category of pages with requested edits. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

SECURITY BREECH

Many people say that playstion network,(PSN)for short is under updates. It isn't, Sony shut down PSN due to a secutiy hack. Sony took down PSN to tighten security features. It has been down since April 20, 2011. The hacker was able to get personal information such as adress,(city, state, zip codde) date of birth, name, and credit card numbers.(Only if you purchase items from playstation store) This information can be found on SONY.com. This information was posted Via Twitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.206.143 (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The link is not highlighted, so we cannot be sure if this is a viable source or not. JMBZ-12 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I cited it the moment it came through. It is verifiable and what the IP editor says is accurate.Mnemnoch (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Straight off of the Sony Blog, it talks about the fact that Credit Card information has been stolen, along with all personal information, and they giving the opportunity for customers to receive a free credit report on their behalf in case the hackers got their information and used it. it says it at http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/04/26/update-on-playstation-network-and-qriocity/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavasthma91 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles to Monitor

Portal:Current events Downtime#Famous_outages

Both of these articles contain information about the 2011 Outage. Keep those articles current with the most recent information! Ajcadoo (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Template to WP:Split - No Talking and it's been up for hours now...

Nevermind. Split. Yes.Mnemnoch (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The main reason for the idea of a split would be the fact that this could be the biggest breach of personal information EVER. I think that in and of itself constitutes an article dedicated for the event. Sure there may not be enough information now, but over the next week, this could definitely change. My vote is a definite YES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajcadoo (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like this is probably going to be a big story in its own right, and worth splitting (if only for size reasons, the page is already quite large). I'd say yes too. Bryan Derksen (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Massive story- I actually half expected it to have it's own article under "In the news". Split it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.181.200 (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 PlayStation Network Outages

I feel a security breach as serious as this warrants it's own article, so I'm going to be bold and create it. If anyone has any objections to the article being written, please raise them here. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 06:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

April 26th - personal data compromise

Article states the security breach "has struck fear into millions worldwide." Not only is this badly written; it's untrue, an exaggeration, and conjecture. Any chance of a correction? Suggest "... raised concern among many" as a replacement, or removing the statement altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.250.74 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2011

Not done: Please add a link to the source where this is at. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 21:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly remove the statement as there is no door-to-door poll being conducted right now to get the feelings on millions of users.WP:VERIFIABLE However, every single tech / news outlet, save maybe the NY Times, as well as a majority of subjects I read on Twitter have made statements throughout the day that they have taken measure to cancel or replace their credit/debit cards as well as place themselves under a fraud alert through one of the three major credit bureaus. Not looking for any debate, but I don't see how it's exaggerating. I've been a victim of ID Theft in the past and I would never want to have to go through that again. It makes me scared/fear for the other people out there with no credit security in place for what could happen to them.Mnemnoch (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link Millions of Sony Playstation users hit by massive data theft - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8475728/Millions-of-Sony-Playstation-users-hit-by-massive-data-theft.html -Abhishikt 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added back in the assertion, as well as the citation needed tag, that "Though the number of users affected still remains unclear, the event may be one of the largest personal information breaches attributed to a single entity in history of the Internet." I believe that we should allow the statement to fall where it may. In my experience, I have not heard of a information leak of this size to ever affect a network of users so bluntly. Please allow the statement to remain as it will be reformed into whatever rank / severity of attack occurred as time tells its story.Mnemnoch (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is quite clear; no speculation and no original research. This is both. Your personal experience and estimation of the size of the issue, based on what you've heard, is not enough. We need an authoritative source that has the hard facts, not speculation, and which can then perform the research to determine if it is "the biggest". If "time tells its story", then there will be time enough for the facts to be determined and added to the article. In the meantime, Wikipedia doesn't anticipate what may, or may not, turn out to be. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

While I see your point of view, I will take your instruction and simply begin citing time telling the story with the link given by Abhishikt and go from there. This is not a harmful edit, nor is it offending and it certainly isn't intended to be either to anyone. The citation needed was not a flag for removal. If it is, then you should have taken down the number of downloads from the PlayStation Network while you were at it and completely challenged the number of PlayStation users as unverifiable. The edit war that you're presenting to me on the other hand is not instructional and is very heavy handed. Please have another administrator or someone from WP:CVU lock the page entirely if this conflicts with your point of view as the entire outline may not, and here I'm speculating, have been there had I not created it. The only way that it's going to get quantified and measured as to the severity of the attack is to allow others to edit it, not by removing it entirely.Mnemnoch (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It is not your, or any other Wikipedia editor's, job to quantify or measure the severity of the attack. This will be done by reliable sources in due course, when the facts are fully known, and at that point they can be cited. As an uncited and challenged addition, it is your job to provide a reliable source to verify what is being claimed. It is your repeated addition of the material without this that is the edit warring. I challenged it because not only it wasn't cited, it was based on your own estimations and was speculation of unknowns. That's three sound policy-based reasons for it not to be in the article. Marking it as uncited, or claiming that the details to back it up may be added in due course, are not excuses for it remaining. While the number of Playstation users should also be cited, it is not anything like as problematic as this.

As it is, what's there and cited is much better now it quotes an authority and is far less speculative. Thanks.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"This will be done by reliable sources in due course" - I will speak in very simple terms then that can explain my thought process on this - Wikipedia:Expert_editors, Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, and Wikipedia:Consensus is where all of this will end up. The links are either authoritative or they come from an expert who is properly WP:VERIFIABLE. This isn't a personal attack by any means, I see your point, as I said, time will tell the story and it has. Mnemnoch (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is determined by our discussions right here. If you look at WP:Expert editors, you'll see that essay was a failed policy/guideline--that is, Wikipedia long ago rejected the idea that we defer to experts in editing articles. The RS point you raise is key, though: we must state what reliable sources say, no more, no less (in our own, non-plagiarizing words, of course). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Correction of widespread count of PlayStation Network members

Starting with this PlayStation Network Overview. It states that there are 42 million members, far less than the 69, 70, 75 and 77 million reported in the media. I am changing the article to reflect Sony's citation as only SONY can give an accurate or factual count of the number of users they actually have.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemnoch (talk • contribs) 08:29, 27 April 2011

I'm afraid I can't agree. Even though a possibly outdated promotional site trivially states otherwise, Sony itself confirmed 60 million accounts at CES. The 69 million figure can be disputed, but the 60 million figure has plenty of articles about it. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so even if it's a blatant lie that they have 60 million users, Wikipedia will state there's 60 million users because that's what most reliable sources say. VDZ (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And I am afraid that I have to say every single one of your links does not have video, or a transcript, or quote directly anything Sony said. And knowing what I know about syndication and networks means that I hold the following to be true and factual:

Unless you have video, it didn't happen. That's very akin to anyone here other than Wikipedia stating how many members it actually has. Only Sony can state how many people are on the PSN. -- Only I can state how many users come on any network that I manage or own. Therefore, you can only rely on authoritative information in a situation that deals with current events. Mnemnoch (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Memnoch: you're wrong to require a video--that standard has never been required for Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, you cannot require that the source come from Sony--if a reliable source reports the number at a certain level, and Sony reports differently, we should include both pieces of information. You can't invent your own criteria for determining the accuracy of something.

That being said, not a single one of the links VDZ posted meets WP:RS--all of them are blog posts, and most appear to be near copies of one another. So, until a reliable source is provided that confirms a number other the 42m, that's the number that should stay.

As a side note, you usually shouldn't use 3O for a page that's as well-watched as this one. I mean, if the discussion had sat around for a few days with no one else here joining in, it would be okay, but its usually better to wait a little to see if any of the regular editors join in. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I will speak in very simple terms then that can explain my thought process on this - Wikipedia:Expert_editors, Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, and Wikipedia:Consensus is where all of this will end up. The links are either authoritative or they come from an expert who is properly WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:NPOV and WP:RS or it doesn't exist at all. This isn't a personal attack by any means, I see your point, as I said, time will tell the story and it has. - Mnemnoch (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And I realize that WP:EXPERT didn't pass WP:Consensus, but I bring it up to illustrate that it leads to WP:INTEGRITY and from even more so WP:CITE -

The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.

Mnemnoch (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sony state here that there are 77m registered accounts. End of discussion? Chimpanzee^{+ Us | Ta | Co} 08:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is no different than me linking to the US PlayStation, according to everyone who has commented on this subject. But, for the purpose of this event, it is exactly what is needed. Thanks. Mnemnoch (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's a very, very recent (and therefore probably accurate) count from Sony itself. End of discussion indeed. VDZ (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Go put Release of Theft PR Up

SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT ANNOUNCES THEFT OF DATA FROM ITS SYSTEMS -- [4] Hope this helps. Don't have time to add it. Mnemnoch (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Status

Recently, several editors have added "online" to the "status" field of the infobox on the Xbox Live article, which got me thinking. I'm not sure what that field is intended for (probably things like "shut down"), but as I see it, info such as current online status is inappropriate for an encyclopædia, at least in the form of an infobox item*. Such info can never be properly sourced (as far as I can tell) as any source is accurate only at the time of writing so cannot possibly reflect the current state. The only exception to this is if, for example, Sony has a part of their website that states what the online status is (which I believe it does). If that is the case, might I suggest adding a link to that page, rather than claiming "online" or "offline" based a source.

* to say "it was shut down at time X" or whatever is fine, but to claim to represent the current status is simply dishonest. In other words to say "it is online/offline" is unencyclopædic, but to say it was put online/offline at time/date X is.

I have started a similar discussion at Talk:Xbox Live#Status, so in order to get a broader consensus on the subject (as it effects both pages) could you please comment there rather than here Please discuss further at Template talk:Infobox video game online service instead of here so as to get a broader consensus on the subject.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Template's discussion page be a better place? - X201 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you mention it, yeah, it probably would. Incidentally, the documentation doesn't mention the "status" field. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. I went looking for it last week. Hence me nudging you towards the Template page. Might be an idea to drag extra members in with an announcement on the WP:VG discussion page. - X201 (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Should Change Category to History

Since the PlayStation Network no longer exists (it has been unusable for weeks, how can it be treated as current technology???), this should be written as a historical document about historical technologies.50.92.151.203 (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but PlayStation Network still exists. If it wasn't, then it would become defunct, but it's not. It's better off to wait for Sony's updates instead of making uneccesary changes to this article, as this would be deemed unconstructive unless there is a source. JMBZ-12 (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur. You can't make unconstructive edits, since PSN still exists, as mentioned by JMB. You might want to consider re-reading the page before making any unecesary requests. 63.245.95.2 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit for accuracy and neutrality

Under the "April/May 2011 Outage and Identity Theft" section, last paragraph.

"On May 1, Sony issued a press release and their sincerest apologies stating that ..."

The article cited at the end of the sentence mentions nothing about an apology. Even if it did, it isn't the place of the encyclopedia to make an assumption about its sincerity. Given these two things, I request that it be changed simply to:

"On May 1, Sony issued a press release stating that ..."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.199.136 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2011

It actually says on the cite given "SCEI head Kazuo Hirai stated: ... We offer our sincerest apologies." This was at a conference on the same date, not in a press release. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It didn't. I added the Gamasutra ref after reading the IPs original post, but forgot to reply here. - X201 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit for ps3 map accuracy and neutrality

the map of the ps network on this page shows with green the areas where ps network is available and although greece is shown with green (available) the part of northern greece, macedonia ( the greek region not the "country") is shown grey) is this implies that that region belongs to F.Y.R.O.M. then you should fix this maps ASAP... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hananiadis (talk • contribs) 10:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The map seems pretty crudely done (some borders missing, not all of the colour within the lines etc). I'll re-do it. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 15:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Incidentally, Pakistan was also missing from the old map, as were some islands that are parts of larger countries. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is also missing from this map, so to me, the map looks the same, so I don't know the difference. JMBZ-12 (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll check later later this evening - I think I did it, but there may well be an issue with the border (covering up the land area) or I may have accidentally deleted or something. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I got a free minute and checked the map - it would seem that the shape representing it was missing (although some of the smaller islands belonging to it existed). I have fixed it now. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, does anyone know if the Crown Dependencies or British Overseas Territories count as part of the UK as far as Sony is concerned, or if French Guiana is considered part of France? Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

While this is true, Puerto Rico does not know much English than the United States itself. JMBZ-12 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What? (Sorry, that doesn't make much sense.) Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 03:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind him. His post was forums-related, in my opinion, although I can't blame him for not knowing the differences of the PSN availability map. 63.245.95.2 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Available countries

According to the article, the PSN is available in all of the following (see below). However, this does not seem to correspond to what is shown on the PSN sign-up page (those that are not shown on there have been striked out). So, where exactly is this data from (or is it just made up)? Interestingly Japan doesn't show up on the list and they definitely have PSN access, so it seems likely that only those areas that are back online since the outage are currently shown (also, English is the only selectable language). As such, if anyone knows of a proper list (that isn't subject to the sign-up process being online) that would be most useful to source the info (and double-check the map).

• Argentina
• Australia
• Austria
• Bahrain
• Belgium
• Brazil
• Bulgaria
• Canada
• Chile
• Colombia
• Croatia
• Cyprus
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Faroe Islands
• Finland

• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Greenland
• Hong Kong
• Hungary
• Iceland
• India
• Indonesia
• Ireland
• Israel
• Italy
• Japan
• Kuwait
• Lebanon
• Luxembourg

• Malaysia
• Malta
• Mexico
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Norway
• Oman
• Pakistan
• Peru
• Poland
• Portugal
• Puerto Rico
• Qatar
• Romania
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia

• Singapore
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Taiwan
• Thailand
• Turkey
• Ukraine
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom
• United States

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Playstation network not part of the Internet?

Hello, a German news magazine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Z1Mz1dgFE) has claimed the PSN is not part of the Internet. Is this correct? I suspect these journalists to be a couple of noobs, but maybe it is me who is wrong. I am not fully aware of what would separate communication via Internet from other means of communication (Gopher_(protocol) is dead, isn't it?). Could somebody clarify how this network is run? --131.220.99.58 (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this may be a result of a common confusion. As I understand it the PSN certainly is part of the internet, but it is not part of the World Wide Web. Unfortunately these terms are often used interchangeably by non-specialist media. The internet is simply the network through which data is sent. To give a comparison, email, instant messaging and VOIP are not part of the World Wide Web, but are most certainly part of the internet. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, since the video is in German it's certainly possible that something has been lost in translation. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Post-hack terms and conditions change

Sony has updated the T&C's of PSN so in order to use the service you have to agree to never be part of a class action lawsuit against them (see [5] & [6]). Should this be added to the article as part of the outage section? I'm not sure the clearest way of putting it. BulbaThor (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's already in the history section (just above the 2011 security breach and outage sub-section), although I don't know if that's the best place. It doesn't belong with the outage though - it is probably incidentally related within Sony ("we've had lots of lawsuits about this so let's stop them from making lawsuits") but it doesn't actually relate to the outage directly AFAIK. If Sony have come out and said explicitly "due to the recent lawsuits relating to the outage, we have changed out ToS to prevent this" (or something to that effect) then fair enough, but otherwise we have no justification for lumping them together. When writing en encyclopædia, one cannot read between the lines (that'd be OR). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

PlayStation Network/Sony Entertainment Network rebranding

Although this article hasn't been affected yet I'd noticed that the Sony Entertainment Network article had been changed to state that the PlayStation Network is being renamed as "Sony Entertainment Network". This is incorrect. The emails sent out to uses state that "PSN accounts" will be renamed "SEN accounts". As far as I know they haven't said that the PlayStation Network service as a whole is being renamed.

The best comparison I can think of is to Xbox Live and Windows Live accounts: Users have a Windows Live account which they can use to access Hotmail, MSN and a host of other Microsoft services including the online gaming service, "Xbox Live". Similarly, PlayStation users will use their SEN account to access a range of Sony services, including the PSN - but the PSN itself will still be branded as such.

The problem is that Sony worded their emails and press release spectacularly badly, resulting in the news being misreported in several places. Just thought I'd bring it up here so we can try and avoid these erroneous reports ending up on WP. Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 11:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the whole lot here. Think it may be an idea to make a WP:DUMMY edit and make a note of the datestamp, its going to get a bit messy when the usual vandalism gets coupled with loads of people chipping in and changing PSN to SEN etc- X201 (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dummy edit created (here). We can use this a good restore point should problems arise. - X201 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for that. It's already come in handy! :) Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 16:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I (for some reason?) completely missed the first part (the now striked part) of your reply until just now. I think EG, like many others, had misinterpretted what was said. Seems to be quite clear now though. Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 18:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, initially I read my email as only account name is changing, then EG chipped in twith their Update, which made me think I was wrong, I posted here, and only spotted their second update today. Back to square one. - X201 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was a bit pointless then, wasn't it? :-/ I've left a not on the Talk page of the editor who renamed the article. - X201 (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify PSN is NOT being renamed SEN. All that is happening is that user's accounts are changing to SEN accounts from PSN accounts. Users will still use their SEN accounts to access the PSN. See the correction Eurogamer made when Sony contacted them. "It's just an account name change and will be called SEN from now on. Should make it clearer and easier for people to associate the service with all Sony products and have one log-in." - X201 (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

PS+ reception

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/117/1179543p1.html Axem Titanium (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Closed Beta

You should probably mention the closed beta for PSN  Zak123456789  (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

PlayStation Plus auto-renews!

I think it may be a good idea if people know that PlayStation Plus is auto-renewal if you have a card linked to your account. I had a 1 year price took out of me recently thanks to it. I'm sure a verifiable source could be made if you could get it out of a PlayStation Employee but for now could this information go into the article? CHCSPrefect (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

PSN Availability

PSN is available in Iceland according to the world map. This is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.139.201 (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Clean up

This article is big on unnecessary detail (e.g. registration/log in procedure; rumors; event chronology). Our article on Xbox Live flows better. Instead of dedicating complete sections to individual services—explaining when they were made available or informing why they were unavailable for so long—each service is simply incorporated to the Features table with a brief description. Concision is key. Any ideas on how to improve this article? — TPX 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Instant Game Collection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge. X201 (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

---

This is a very short article which would be better presented within a longer article. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 17:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel that the lists article fails WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Even if it didn't, it would only be a matter of time before it became too large for this article and had to be forked out again. The lists article is also biased, it only lists North American titles, no mention of Europe, Japan and other regions. - X201 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should be moved to PSN

As of a recent firmware update, the network is no longer called "PlayStation Network" in full. Its official name is simply "PSN" (just like what began its life as the Imagine Games Network is now, and has been for years, known simply as "IGN"). 173.160.130.14 (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

PSN is just initials and the current name is still the most common. When this changes the issue should be looked at again. At the moment i see no reason to move to a less common and descriptive set of initials than keeping the name they stand for.

Can you prove the name has been changed anyway? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it became official as of the most recent PS3 firmware update. This has the text that accompanied that update. 173.160.130.14 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Since PlayStation Network is still the most common name, Sony is using both names, and since PSN stands for PlayStation Network, i'd suggest leaving it as is. If they had changed the name completely like when the Android Market became the Google Play Store, then i'd be pushing for a change too. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

2014 outages

In 2014, there has been more than one PSN outage. The most recent being Christmas. That is now listed.

I propose this information goes in a single article devoted to the central topic of these ongoing attacks. Something like 2014 gaming industry DDoS attacks. This group has targeted numerous services over a period of months. Activision, Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, PlayStation Network, Riot Games, Steam, Twitch and Xbox Live have all suffered downtime. We can then summarise the main article here and elsewhere. But for the moment, because the attacks are ongoing, the History section is the wrong place. — TPX 11:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing it isn't the right thing to do. That's what the talk page is for. For everything that is Sony, this is contextually the most correct place for now. Mnemnoch (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sony is still reporting this as a live issue. Please do not remove the current tag until this issue is over. https://twitter.com/askplaystation/status/548517056178827264 Mnemnoch (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Because this event is still unfolding, I have removed detail of the outage from our section detailing the history of the PlayStaton Network. The information has not been deleted but rather moved elsewhere on the same page (just below the section detailing PSN's availability). In one sense, everything by definition can be regarded as history. The introduction of a new service, once launched, can be regarded as history. I don't see why you are so keen to promote this material to the history section so rapidly, only here on this article, and no place else. — TPX 17:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The History section lists the 2011 Attack and Outage. If you move this section, that section needs to be moved as well. But, as you can see, it's been where it's been for quite some time. Mnemnoch (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to see all internet downtime removed from the history section. Similar incidents have occurred before and are likely to happen again. Are we to document every such occurrence under history as soon as they happen? It would be nice to hear what other editors have to say on this issue. — TPX 17:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to get consensus as the occurrence of an outage is frequent. This outage, however, is the longest outage in 2014 if memory serves correct. Mnemnoch (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Go blog about it, not add it here. The previous attacks leaked information and lasted for a long period. A DDoS attack isn't either of these.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I mean how many DDoS attacks can you think of that made national headlines? This story was all over the news. Anything with that much media attention needs to be here. It's part of PSN's notability. Sarujo (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Will it be important in a couple of months? Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Day 3 begins. Please explain why this isn't a current event. By this time in the 2011 attacks, there was already an entire page. https://twitter.com/askplaystation/status/548703776388182016 Mnemnoch (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I remain curious to know why some editors seem less interested in collaborating to create a central article describing these industry-wide attacks than they are in only adding information about them to a single page (i.e. PlayStation Network). Nobody seems to be in a rush to expand Xbox Live or Steam with the same news. Observe how Xbox Live coverers the disastrous 2007 Xmas disruption, when Microsoft's service was interrupted for over a week [7] consequently facing lawsuits from angry customers. [8] That outage is described in less than 100 words with no special subheadings or separate article. I'm in favour of mentioning the most recent service disruption, because the attacks are notable, but I think our starting point should be a separate article that we can summarise and link to. My view is that matters should be treated contextually and equally for all affected services. We have a new article on Lizard Squad that is in very poor shape at the moment. That could do with more eyes. — TPX 13:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Previous logo

I think it would be a good idea to include this logo in the History section. --JDC808 ♫ 23:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

PlayStation Plus, 2010-2015

Your edit surprised me ViperSnake because, for all the effort you have spent improving our Xbox One article (amending the flow of text through concision) it seems peculiar that you would essentially copy the same sentence twice, in the same paragraph a short space apart, emphasizing that PlayStation 4 requires PlayStation Plus to access multiplayer. Presumably your intent was to underscore this requirement above all else, more than once. After I removed this repetitious line of text, you responded by marking the section with a {{advert|section}} tag, without providing any explanation as to where we might be going wrong. This creates the impression that you are less concerned about the quality of our article than shoehorning paid subscription information to a prominent position in the article. So let's take a step back and examine how we currently describe PlayStation Plus:

{{quotation|PlayStation Plus is a paid PlayStation Network subscription service that provides users with access to premium features. These extras include the ability to have game patches and system software updates download automatically to the console, early or exclusive access to some betas and demos, full game trials, and regular store discounts. As part of the subscription, members are given six games every month—typically two for each platform—and 3 GB of internet storage space for up to 1,000 saved game files. Users may choose a monthly, three-month or annual subscription. In 2013, Sony announced that PlayStation 4 online multiplayer will require a subscription to PlayStation Plus.

It's important to remember that the PlayStation Network caters for multiple systems. Premium features are listed in temporal order, commencing in 2010 with the PlayStation 3 and ending with Sony's latest platform PlayStation 4. Cloud saves, background patches, discounts and complimentary games were announced at inception. The most recent deviation (PS4 online multiplayer) is described thusly: "In 2013, Sony announced that PlayStation 4 online multiplayer will require a subscription to PlayStation Plus." If there is a persuasive reason to tag this section as some kind of advertisement, you have yet to make it. — TPX 18:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Instrument of terror

Moving the favorite console of terrorists discussion over here as suggested at PlayStation 4.

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/619722/ISIS-Terrorist-Attack-Paris-Sony-Playstation-4-PSN

So add a major section with step-by-step instructions showing how to securely plot the slaughter of innocents here? Hcobb (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The above source contains factual errors. Contrary to what Aaron Brown of The Express writes, Belgian interior minister Jan Jambon did not say the PlayStation 4 was used to plot the attacks. Nor does there appear to be any credible evidence linking PS4 to recent events. See here and here — TPX 16:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

From the above linked article; "there is no hard evidence the ISIS terrorists used the Playstation 4 Network". So end of discussion at this point. Unless we're going to add details about speculative terrorist use of every other email, chat and phone service? And let's not stop there; I'm sure there a few articles on armaments that could get a section on this. And cars, footwear, rucksacks, fast food outlet ... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)