Talk:PlayStation Portable/Archive 4

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


Limited clipping

PSP graphic unit has a very limited hardware clipping capability (only the near plane), software clipping is used in most games, that is something very technical but it could be added, as the article cites the hardware clipping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a usefull link? and yes it's mine because nobody else seems to have translated it :( if this isn't useful please delete it qwaxys (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Brain disorder?

shouldnt there be a little notice that gives a link to the simulerly acronymed braindisorder found here Atomic1fire (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really if you are searching PlayStation Portable you most most likely looking for PlayStation Portable instead of Progressive supranuclear palsy. Joeking16 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Model Numbers

Hi, I added a model numbers section, as I couldn't find this info easily, and it seems to fit here ? Also I'm not 100% sure it's exhaustive? Jaruzel 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, On the japan version of the web site there is more infos I gues it's related to the japanese version of the psp. also a translation would help.

Internet via playsation portable

Hi i thought Playstation portable only played games , a bit like a gameboy. But now im discovered it does internet,videos,pictures etc as well! i really want one Lol, is internet cheap, do you have to pay extra for it?? Im confused how it works. --Rebeccarulz123 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll read this, but as far as I know the internet works only if you have wireless internet or at least access to wireless internet. It works like a laptop with wirelss internet does. Hope it helps. = ) Thegr8thinker 23:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Flash Player

Anyone know when the Adobe flash player feature will be updated to 8.0 or higher in the System Software? I'm sure only sony knows this but I'm just checking to see. Last time I checked, it still only supports flash player 6 or lower. Hopefully an update to the flash player will be a priority for the next system software update. Hopefully that will be in the next couple months.

266 MHz Clock speed in R&C:Size Matters

I saw this:

"However, recently released games such as Ratchet and Clank: Size Matters use a 266 MHz clock speed.[citation needed]"

But have never seen anything backing up this factoid. I've removed it, as I believe it's inaccurate. If you can provide a citation for it, feel free to re-add it. 01:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


This is necessary. The ease of piracy with the PSP through custom firmwares is an extremely significant facet of its design. The sources to be used will be first party sources issued from such users as Dark_Alex in his release notes for his OE firmware. If such information is going to be prohibited on wikipedia due to the lack of an "official" "in the system" source. then there is a flaw in the system that is detrimental to the accuracy and completeness of the encycopedia. For the sake of letting this simmer for a bit. I will make no edits now. but I will within the next couple of days. There might be a homebrew article already. but the issue deserves more presence on the main console article.Colberton 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Colour" vandalism

According to the Manual of Style, an article should use the same dialect throughout. This article consistently uses Britsh or International English rather than American English. The same manual then goes on to say:

Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes.

And furthermore,

Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor

While I doubt most of the random IPs who tend to be changing any use of the word "colour" in this article to "color" would actually read this, it should be kept to such a consistent style. - ZakuSage 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC) My God, what a douchebag. How could you take someone like that seriously?

I don't really see the argument for this article being "mostly British English". It uses "ize" rather than "ise" and uses "color" in another place. In fact, "colour" seems to be the only non-American spelling used in this article. Granted, there is nothing about this article that dictates which dialect it should be written in, but from what I can tell it's currently "mostly" American English, albeit by a small margin. I really don't care which dialect the article uses as long as its consistant, but I think your argument is a little weak. -- mattb @ 2007-01-19T18:42Z
The article uses "-ize" in 3 places (one of which even Oxford, which International English stems from, now uses -ize), while using "-ise" in 5. License makes use of the American form... "analog" is labelled in the American form, though I've never really seen even SCEE make use of the term "analogue" when referring to the stick. After running through American and British English spelling differences really quickly, that's about all I could find in use in the American form. As you said though, it doesn't matter much which way the article reads as long as it is consistent, and in that same sense I'd still say it significantly makes use of British or International more often; moving from the current scheme minus the color/colour to American English would require more changes than moving entirely to British/International English. - ZakuSage 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The "-ize" suffix is english according to this reputable link. I have no preference for which version is used in this (or any article) so long as it's consitant per article. Dan Beale 19:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I personally think that english wikpedia should use a similar system like zh wikipedia's traditional/simplified chinese converter, which would solve some of these problems. Ericlaw02 16:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Whenever and wherever you can, use English English, as American English is plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Idiot. --GSK (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial features

Things such as homebrew software have been traditionally kept to a separate article, and which is then briefly summarized in a small section in this article. I notice that a couple of editors are consistently trying to incorporate this into the general prose. This generally shouldn't be done because such things are largely unofficial. For instance, I could use the PSP as a paper-weight, but it isn't mentioned in the article, nor should it be. I could also use a toaster to burn books, but that's not mentioned in its article either. Hacks and homebrew software should be kept to the homebrew specific article; leave this one to official features. - ZakuSage 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I realize that most of the people editing an article on PSP are going to be those who are quite savvy with the device and would likely use homebrew programs and have a large focus on firmwares when doing anything with the device, including myself, however it really harms the readability of the average reader to incorporate such a focus into the article. Most people who will read this article will be confused if the focus leans to much on people who already know a lot about the device. I'm not saying we should write for the lowest common denominator, but we should try to work towards an article that is interesting and informative for all who read it. - ZakuSage 16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that we should omit highly relevant and significant information for the sake of avoiding "confusing" the masses? Of course not! Homebrew needs to be discussed as the PSP is the single most hacked console that has ever been on the market. Colberton 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Compared to the Zune article...

this article is cr*ap...the zune article list all its features and everything it can do, bt when i try to add things about the pictures formats psp can view, it gets deleted.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deananoby2 (talkcontribs).

Maybe if you'd sign your comments properly people would respond to your inquiries faster. Use the four tilde signs to sign your username to comments. Mattygabe 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Justifying your edits to one article based on how another article is (poorly) written is seldom a relevant argument. It was explained above that it is not the purpose of this article to list every feature of the product and that attempting to do so only clutters up the text. I might also add that all of these features are enumerated in great detail in externally linked resources. Encyclopedia articles summarize; they do not seek to be product manuals or try to provide the basis for a side-by-side comparison of consumer electronics. There's no need to get so excited just because we do not wish to add a laundry list of features to this article. -- mattb @ 2007-01-03T23:43Z

well it seems the purpose of the zune article is to list all its features, both article r on the same site so they should be close to the same, and if the zune article list all its features than the psp one should...

Nope, that isn't how things work here. -- mattb @ 2007-01-05T14:44Z

And aside from everything above, the Zune is a DAP and the PSP is a handheld gaming device, that happens to play music and videos. The two aren't related. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to the DS.... --Cmsjustin 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) One of my friends wants a zune it can play mp3 files and I heard a rumour it might play games.

The PSP Demo stand alone article

If you find any download able demos for the PSP or find out that your local EBGAMES/Gamestop is giving them out please post this info in the article. It will help everyone looking to get a taste of free stuff. --Shamo0 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


I've noticed that, including the picture of the console itself in the infobox, this entire article only has two photographs. For an article of this length, it might be beneficial to brighten things up a bit. If anyone can think of some items to add, I can do the leg-work and either locate an appropriate picture or take one myself. - ZakuSage 02:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

add a pic of the new psp camera or the psp with the Umd slot open with a UMD sticking out..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deananoby2 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC).


Someone told me the other day that you can't use headphones not especially made for the PSP. I came here, thinking i'd find something on the matter, but could not. Can anyone give me any insight? Thank you. 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Thayer

Talk page is not the place for discussion on the article's subject, but yes you can as it uses standard headphone jacks (just as I'd assume most people would expect). - ZakuSage 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure you can buy headphones compatible with PSP.

Poor game sales compared to DS

I think this needs to be mentioned. Even if you are a PSP fanboy, you can't ignore these kind of facts.

In Japan:

  • 18 DS games have sold better than the top selling PSP game.
  • Only one PSP game has sold more than 500K, and no games have sold more than 1M.
  • The top selling DS game has sold 3,508,819 more games than the top selling PSP game. That's 625% more.
  • Over twice as many DS games have sold 100K units than PSP games.

No matter how you look at that, the PSP is getting slaughtered in Japan. Of course, these aren't worldwide sales mind you, but I don' think the PSP is winning anywhere. I think this is important to mention somewhere. System sales aren't as big of a gap (DS sold 17% more worldwide, not including Lite), but a gap of 625% in terms of best selling game is big deal and needs mentioning.

PSP game sales in Japan DS game sales in Japan--SeizureDog 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For neutrality's sake, as well as not creating a troll magnet, I'd say it's not a good idea. Note that in it's current state, the article makes no mention of the DS for one very good reason: this article is about PSP, not DS, nor the competition between them. Also note that in the article for Nintendo DS there is only one careful mention of PSP, which itself is contained in a very poorly constructed section that needs a clean-up anyway. Perhaps such information would be best left to comparison articles or the "History of video games" article on this subject? - ZakuSage 01:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, personally I think every console article should have some information on how it fared against its competitors. I actually came to this article a while back specifically to see how it compared to the DS in sales and was surprised to find no comparisions. I'll admit to being a Nintendo fanboy, but I just as equally want information of how the PS1 beat out the N64 as shown in the Nintendo 64 article. I find avoiding the subject actually less neutral than mentioning it as it conveys a sense of "let's not mention any bad things about it". Plus, I'm sure critical opinion can be found speculating on why the DS won in the handheld market (probably something along the lines of the PSP spreading itself out too thin with all of the multimedia stuff).--SeizureDog 16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think if anything we should just let the facts speak for themselves; state the beleaguered software sales and leave it at that. If possible, I think we should try to find numbers for the entire world as well, rather than just for Japan, as this is an international encyclopedia. Focusing too much on the competition really only will end with a poorly constructed article and inevitably non-neutral article, as has happened with the one for N64. Additionally, I think the best thing to do would be to avoid speculation as it could well be any number of things causing a lack of software sales. - ZakuSage 05:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should gloss over the relatively poor sales of the PSP. We're not saying "PSP sucks, DS rules," we're saying "The PSP hasn't been as successful as its main competition in terms of sales." It's not a neutrality issue; it's a factual and informative statement. Sir 0rion 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thing is, this article is about the PSP, not how the PSP compares to the DS. Given that they're not aimed at the same markets (Nintendo are aiming squarely at casual gamers, Sony are... well... shooting blind, essentially) a comparison is slightly unfair, plus adding anything like that to an article is going to draw out the rabid fanboys and the whole thing would get very messy. - Davidjk RC Patrol 07:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point, Davidjk, but the fact that they are shooting blind and are a lot less focused than their competition is immediately pertinant to the progression of the system, as well as its past, present and potential future. If Sony decides to drop the PSP next month (hypothetically), it will be because the PSP did poorly on the marketplace. Now, as a reference to that fact, we would use the DS as an example of a system that did not do poorly, indicating that it was the system itself that failed to earn money, and not an unreceptive marketplace. Again, it's not a "DS is greater than PSP" statement, it's an "At this point in history, this system sold well, while this system didn't," statement. It will provide a future reference point for the decisions that both companies make with regards to their systems, so it is therefore a reasonable thing to discuss objectively, the way I see it. Sir 0rion 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
There was something about this on the BBC News website. The PSP has suffered from having few games written for it - mostly ports of games written either for other systems, or written as a multi-system release. The DS has had games mostly written specially for it, so making better use of the hardware, and meaning that if you want the game you need a DS - whereas with the PSP if you want the game you can then decide do you want the PS2, PSP, PC, etc., variant. Its anecdotal, but within my extended family all the original DS owners (2) have stayed DS owners; anyone buying since has bought DS Lite (4); and of the three PSP owners, two have since bought DS Lite, and one buys DS games to use on his sister's console - and hasn't bought any new PSP games, or, as far as I can tell, play much on his PSP. I don't think it is a sign of the relative merit of the systems, but it is a sign of the relative merit of the games available for the two systems. The brain-training games seem to have done a lot to boost the DS, and the touch screen (laughed at by the PSP owners, initially, along the lines of what kind of game would want split screens) has made it a preferred platform for the animal-care stuff (Nintendogs, Petz, Sims4Pets, etc.). Nintendo do seem to have worked wonders by aiming at the large mass of people who didn't usually consider gaming as 'their thing', and it looks as if the Wii is about to do the same in the console category. Bendel boy 10:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice that you guys take so much time to write about the advantages of one over another, but remember, there is no place for it in this article. The aforementioned N64 article, however, is excused in having such information (just as past SEGA consoles' articles) for one reason: these are products no longer for sale. There's objectivity in reasoning the marketing accomplishments and failures of these products because of the very fact that this article cannot hurt their sales more, as they are not the focus of marketing efforts no longer. Stating comparisons between the sales of current products, on the other side, no matter how true those may seem, will have an impact on the choice of potential consumers. Remember that facts too can serve to advance one's point of view. This is something not so obvious if one's an admitted "fanboy", but as a neutral party, I see no reason to change the current article.

Yup. But this is the role of the talk pages - stuff of interest, but not relevant to the encyclopaedic entry.Bendel boy 09:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As long as this talk is kept here I see no problem with that. What I don't want to see is this being dragged into the main article, as was suggested above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm getting a PSP and a lot of my friends already own one ,one of my friends does not like his PSP but he never sold it.I have a DS and a few of my friends have it id say the PSP was more of a commercial sucess

Which one was more of a commercial success is not a matter of opinion. It's a proven fact that so far, the DS is more of a commercial success because it has netted more profit for Nintendo than the PSP has for Sony. That doesn't mean everyone has to prefer the DS, but this particular aspect of the competition is undebatable. As such, your argument isn't really valid. - 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit to not owning either, but i personally think the PSP is loads better. Gotta love almost PS2 quailty graphics, and the internet and television and music. I also like the more mature games. Blood and gore like Doom and Duke Nukem 3D and Manhunt all the way!! Uber555 03:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately all those features eat up battery life and prolong load times-very important for a handheld.Tehw1k1 07:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless they've changed since I last saw them, the PS3, Wii, and Xbox 360 articles all include mentions of the competition. - 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been a few games that have sold over 1 million for the PSP before this discussion started.--Yomoska 06:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The sales mean absolutely nothing. It's the content within the software itself. And that's it. A lot of top selling games are mere shovelware. Compare what's best selling and considered great on the DS to the GBA and SNES. You'll be surprised.


A common trend that has begun cropping up is, instead of using flag icons for the release dates, people have been using superscript shortened titles for the regions. I bring this forward because the PSP was released in North America, not the US, on the release date mentioned on the site. If no one objects I'll change the flag icons to things like NA and EU. --Thaddius 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It would eba good idea to actually protect this page. Too much vandalism. Toajaller3146 06:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ZakuSage has ownership issues.

Despite wikipedia having policy to the contrary, ZakuSage seems to think he owns PSP-related articles.

He defaced my user page yesterday as well as removing someone else's comments regarding his behavior from this page.

I think this is wrong behavior and am serving him formal warning to stop it here. I will CC this to the administrators' noticeboard in a moment. RunedChozo 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Give your grudges a break. This article has seen way too many references to firmware releases in the past, and has been cleaned up of them time and time again because the sheer number of them makes mentioning every little thing irrelevent. Also, take your sockpuppet elsewhere. - ZakuSage 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Zakusage, you seem obsessed with removing any notice that the PSP has had different firmware editions, as well as with misspelling the word "color." Also, I do not appreciate your lying about me, nor your making false accusations at other people. I have reported your behavior to the admins noticeboard and am working with them now. RunedChozo 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:OWN? By the information on there, you're the one taking ownership of some of the text on the page. Not only have you taken offense for the removal of your addition, you completely went against what to do when you're going to post something like this on the talk page. From the policy page:

[...]Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of editors.[...]

[...]Stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil: Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect.[...]

You need to stop this behavior. - ZakuSage 01:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A point I think I should make... As per Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English), pages should use the form of English that the page first used when in non-stub form. Since the article used American english (color) all the way back in July 2004, that is the appropriate form for the article. However, it is not recommended that you change the spelling of other editors' contributions when their writing is understandable, and it is never acceptable to change the spelling in an editor's comment on a talk page (User: Since the article currently uses British English consistently (as far as I can see, anyway), that is the form that should be used, and editors are justified in reverting changes to existing spelling.
Now let's play nice and focus on contributing to the article rather than arguing about spelling :) - Davidjk (msg+edits) 09:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't beleive this has any place here. Stop restoring this section. This is merely some users attempt to harass another, whos name should be removed to stop embarassing him Techni 19:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you on principal, I don't agree with your execution. You do not have the sole discretion to remove sections because you don't like them. That is vandalism, regardless of your intentions or what you feel. Please do not remove it again. 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing this section, Techni. As the poster above mentioned, it is vandalism. You singlehandedly cannot remove history just because you don't like it. That goes against what Wikipedia stands for. If you delete it again you will be in violation of the 3RR, and will be reported. Let it die naturally. Mechakucha 19:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


I think that when a feature in this page is mentioned, it should be mentioned at what version of the firmware it was added if it was not originally available in the 1.00 or 1.50 releases.

This is not inconsequential information, as the PSP has evolved over time when Sony released new features for whatever reason.

At the moment even the firmware section itself doesn't mention what changes were made to the firmware over time. This is good information for us to have. RunedChozo 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

They were removed months ago because it was a tedious list of information with little value. - ZakuSage 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a RFC on this matter, I note ZakuSage is the only one who finds them "tedious" and suspect him to be a Sony employee. RunedChozo 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest. I'm not a Sony employee, and I don't live anywhere near any Sony headquarters (Nova Scoita). Stop with the grudge matches, RunedChozo. - ZakuSage
It's also worth noting that I have a hacked PSP that I constantly run homebrew on. I, for one, do dwell over firmware in pretty much everything I do with the console (or at least I used to pre-3.0x OE), but it is a severe hinderence to readability, especially to users not technically savvy or familiar with the device. I mentioned this in a previous edit to this talkpage:

Just as an aside, I realize that most of the people editing an article on PSP are going to be those who are quite savvy with the device and would likely use homebrew programs and have a large focus on firmwares when doing anything with the device, including myself, however it really harms the readability of the average reader to incorporate such a focus into the article. Most people who will read this article will be confused if the focus leans to much on people who already know a lot about the device. I'm not saying we should write for the lowest common denominator, but we should try to work towards an article that is interesting and informative for all who read it. - ZakuSage 16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, your request for comment is not only in entirely the wrong project (it should be under Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games), it shouldn't be placed in the top of the requests but rather on the bottom. - ZakuSage 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Get some help for your page ownership issues and stop trying to stonewall improvements to the article, then we'll get along fine. RunedChozo 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no ownership problems, remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I'm not trying to stonewall improvements to the article; cluttering it with firmware features and mentions of firmware for every feature just makes it a mess, as can be seen in a previous version from a few months ago. - ZakuSage 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to make a clean article while mentioning the firmware at which a feature was changed or introduced, yes you ARE just trying to stonewall any improvements to the article, and you're probably a Sony plant or fanboy. RunedChozo 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't get your way so you're continuing to make personal attacks? Cries of "FANBOY!"? Please stop this childish behaviour, it has no place here. I enjoy my GameCube and Xbox just as much as I do my PSP. - ZakuSage 23:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I support ZakuSage's edits, not only on substance and reason but on the grounds that every time RunedChozo comes around one of these articles he picks a fight. -- mattb @ 2007-01-24T23:36Z

I'm not "picking a fight", ZakuSage's the one trying to own the article. If you have a real reason that we shouldn't mention when a feature was introduced I'm all ears, but I doubt you'll bother to act in good faith, Zaku certainly doesn't. RunedChozo 23:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an instruction guide or marketing material. That said, except for the last two sentences of the Firmware section, I think it's ok as it stands in the current version. To that, I'll add that I think the article as a whole is bloated and needs alot of trimming. Lastly, it does seem to me that RunedChozo is out of line. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like he's just going out of his way to try and get me banned for no good reason. I'd imagine it has something to do with his previous grudge against me as seen here. - ZakuSage 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with runedchozo about an an expansion of the firmware portion of the article. It struck me as rather odd that it goes into absolutely no detail. While ZukaSage maintains that RunedChozo is merely here to attack and berate people, ZukaSage does merely dismiss RCs comments rather than discuss and come to consensus. Besides ZukaSage, didn't you just scold runechozo on Wikipedia:Assume good faith? --Thaddius 14:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I want ZakuSage to explain - even though I know he can't because it's completely indefensible - how it is that, when mentioning a feature on the PSP that wasn't in the original 1.0 firmware, a simple "This feature was added in Version X.XX of the firmware" sentence is "unacceptable" or "bloats" the article. RunedChozo 14:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the previous version I supplied, when the article was a mess of firmware versions? Hell, the word "firmware" is used 33 times in it! - ZakuSage 16:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to recreate that version, but I think that mentioning when a feature was added in Firmware is a good thing. This can be done in an encyclopedic way that does not detract from the readability of the article. Your insane opposition to an old version of the article and to even mentioning that the PSP firmware did not always have the features it has now is quite scary, as is your refusal to put forth any remotely plausible reasoning why these edits do not improve the article.

Screw it. I'm going to create a side version and fix it myself and just upload it when I'm done. You're obviously not interested in actually improving Wikipedia since you refuse to answer a simple question. RunedChozo 16:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I've created the page and started on it. If anyone has helpful suggestions feel free to edit it, it's at User:RunedChozo/PSP Temp Workspace. ZakuSage, you're invited too, but if you start being unhelpful I'll report you. RunedChozo 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you'd stop being such a dick we might actually be able to work together. Unforunitely, you seem to hate the very idea of a wiki and just want to have everything your way. - ZakuSage 19:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"You're a [[dick]], [[dick]. Feel better now? I just welcomed you to work on my own workspace version where I'm trying to create a better version of this page, and this is how you respond? You still haven't answered a simple question, and you're spending your time attacking me personally and making lying accusations against me, so I have to conclude you aren't here to make wikipedia any better at all. RunedChozo 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE, people. Nifboy 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

User:RunedChozo/PSP Temp Workspace has been improved and edited and I've tried putting the list of Firmware changes into a table to see how that looks. Comments from anybody but ZakuSage are welcome and requested, he's already proven he can't behave himself, all he does is leave harassing messages on the talk page that have no helpful suggestions at all. I want to make this article as good as it can be. RunedChozo 20:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More lies, more lies. Wait until your little trail of vandalism on your sockpuppet page catches up with you. Justice will be served against your harassment of ME. - ZakuSage 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You can stop hiding from me any time now Zaku. I love you. RunedChozo 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Zaku Sage was a HUGE crush of mine, but he's gone now so lets forget him as quickly as possible.

Stop it, both of you

Because, quite clearly, no civility is going on here. Nifboy 23:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point, as far as I'm concerned, the matter is now settled. I'll no longer be taking part in any more discussion on whether not to include firmware versions in this page, and it'll be left for the rest of the community to decide. I'll continue to avoid this user in the future. - ZakuSage 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ruined Chozo did nothing but unprovoked flaming from his first reponse and got worse from there. Zaku tried to conduct a civilized discussion and was called a fanboy/employee for his trouble. As a result, an otherwise fine editor has now left Wikipedia indefinitly, but at least Chozo has been banned for a fortnight. The Kinslayer 10:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
agreed Juggaleaux 10:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Why was he only blocked for such a short period of time? His talk page is a massive mishmash of evidence of his misdeeds from the very beginning of his account creation. It's obvious that this RuinedChozo guy has been doing this sort of thing with impunity for a long time now- he picks fights with other users, ignores the rules, sends spam emails to users when he gets blocked, AND abuses the "unblockme" userpage tag after he gets blocked. Seems, given the extent of his behavior, that his damage to the project far outweighs his contributions to it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 12:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No idea. It certainly seems to be a given that after his 2 week 'slap on the wrist' he's just gonna come back and continue. The Kinslayer 12:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You can file an RFC on his behavior if you wish to get the attention of more users and admins. Depending on the outcome of the RFC and the next logical steps in that process, more permanent restrictions could be imposed. Note that it's actually better for someone not directly involved in a conflict to file the RFC. If ZakuSage were to file one, there would probably be accusations (perhaps valid ones) that the RFC is nothing but revenge. -- mattb @ 2007-02-02T13:17Z
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RunedChozo Please come and leave any information you think is relevent. I've set it up as best I can, but I'd appreciate it if someone with a bit more experience of them could go through it and give it a tweak and tidy, thanks. The Kinslayer 13:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article locked down?

Why is this article locked down? That's not right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PSPMario (talkcontribs) 01:26, 28 January 2007.

It's to prevent vandalism from IPs and new users. What's "not right" about that? // PoeticDecay 03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the point was so that new people could fix things. What an elitist behavior.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PSPMario (talkcontribs)

Yes, preventing vandalism is elitism. Makes perfect sense. Don't worry, it'll be editable again soon. Then you can fix whatever is wrong with the article. --Thaddius 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, you're a signed up user so you can edit it anyway, what are you worried about? --Thaddius 04:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It still won't let me edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PSPMario (talkcontribs) 15:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
That's because your only edits thus far have been to this talk page. If you have a burning item that needs to be changed, feel free to mention it here and one of us will change it for you. -- mattb @ 2007-01-28T16:29Z

And it still won't let me edit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PSPMario (talkcontribs)

As has been said, if you have a change that desperately needs making, you can post it on this talk page and someone else will be happy to make the edit for you. Also, please sign your comments in future using four tildes (~~~~). - Davidjk (msg+edits) 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible PSP 2?

I heard that Sony is in the works for a PSP 2 with a hard drive. To try and compete with the Ipod. If this is true we should definetly mention it in the article

I don't think it should be added since it's only a rumor. Until it's confirmed, it should stay out. Juggaleaux 05:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
okay i will wait until sony has a press conferance or something confirming it Tenio 17:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

These rumors are always floating around and so far none have been true. There was an article on maxconsole about Sony denying a hardware revision. It's safe to say they won't be doing this any time soon. --Thaddius 13:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thus far, the only thing even close to a PSP 2 making the rounds is the Sony Mylo (which doesn't play PSP games and is more of a media device). Until something is confirmed, we should hold off on indulging rumors. Sir 0rion 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
but would heart our gameing ecnomy becuase the (sony computer entertainment amriaca) the compny we work
with the playstion and others from the compny would be the more dominit spices of consul make sease???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some details that the next version will be similar in function by slimmer have been provided (not in print, but reported) by Ray Mguire by the head of Sony Computer Entertainment ref: So can we please at least mention it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that depends on what is to be mentioned. What exactly are you proposing to add? Dancter 15:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I would propose "According to Ray Mguire, head of Sony Computer Entertainment, a new version of the PSP will be launched with similar capabilities and the same screen size but in a smaller form factor. Sony have not confirmed or denied anything regarding a PSP2 with features such a built in Eye-Toy camera - as speculated on several web sites". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The article wouldn't be enough to support everything in that statement, as it says nothing about the "similar capabilities" or "same screen size". I think I remember other articles saying something about that, but I don't have the time to track them down right now. The sources don't have to be in print, but they do have to be published, so if it was reported on something like a TV segment or a streaming webcast, if you can remember enough of the details, that is also okay to cite. Dancter 14:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have tracked down another article ( which mentions "smaller, lighter" and "screen size will remain fixed". Can we include just those for the time being ? i.e. "According to Ray Mguire, head of Sony Computer Entertainment, a new version of the PSP will be launched with the same screen size but in a smaller form factor. Sony have not confirmed or denied anything regarding other new PSP features or the date of release of the new version, simply describing the current PSP as a "first iteration". "

WILL SOMEONE please look at the above re: next release of PSP, the article is locked, so there is reliance on the people who've locked it to read these pages and make suitable amendments... thanks.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

It in only locked to anonymous edits. Just create an account and you can edit these kind of blocked articles yourself. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 21:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry to butt in, but a hard drive? wtf?. even if sony amps up the battery for a new PSP, the addition of a Hard drive will waste a lot of power, due to spin-up times. firmware updates are allowing for larger-sized MemoryStick Duo cards, so i see no need for a Hard Drive. (sry if i jumped the gun here) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)I doubt that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that article from kotaku seems to have something about a "PSP Lite,". And they're pretty good at what they do. Also, someone put this up on the PSP article already. 08:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

List of launch titles

Probably, some reference to the List of PlayStation Portable launch titles should be added in the article. I created that article but can't edit this one due to the date of my registration. --Rtut 15:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Shipped vs. Sold?

The summary bar at the top says Units Sold, but the source [1] only provides units shipped. The same goes for source [2], which quotes the same 24.70 million number with a breakdown of shipments, not units sold. There is a huge distinction between these two ideas, and Sony rarely, if ever, announces how many units they actually sold.

I realize that the actual data in the right column says shipped, but the bold letters on the left column are misleading. While it might be standard practice to mention Units Sold for a video game system, if such data is never available, then there's no point using that phrase IMO.Eliwood914 09:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to "Discussions About The PSP Shipments" Eliwood914. You are topic creator number 1064, please take a number. There's nothing "misleading" about anything- it's clearly stated MULTIPLE times in the article that the numbers are shipped numbers, not sold numbers. Ex-Nintendo Employee 16:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it would improve the article if there was some info about how well PSP has actually sold, has it been a success, what the reception has been etc. That information, which would be expected to be there, is missing. 09:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Firmware Revisions

Updated the firmware revision information, can someone just double check it though as I'm unsure about half the stuff I wrote (it's all off the top of my head!)and I don't have access to from college to check it all. Thanks Huds601 13:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All the firmware versions are available at too. Why is not listed in the external links? alias420

Thanks so much for putting up a firmware revision list, I can ask for my temp-page that I was working on to be deleted now. This makes the article much better. I've put up a list of the SE/OE firmware revisions as well.RunedChozo 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at trying to improve the layout. Perhaps put it into a table, as only the main features of the updates have been listed. Also I'll look at improvng the custom firmware information. Huds601 09:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I proposed that List of PlayStation Portable launch titles should be put into this article. If not: the list of launch titles needs to go. I see it being notable, but all consoles and handhelds have launch titles. It's an article better suited for a gaming site/game wiki. If someone really wants to know, they can read a gaming site or game wiki. RobJ1981 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Article is long enough, and a list of 23 games would be way too much. I'm fine with just something like "was launched on <date> with 23 launch titles." Juggaleaux 01:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge. I couldn't agree with you more Rob, a merging of the list of launch titles would be nice, seeing as all of the other portable and non-portable consoles all have a list of launch titles...and I don't think it would make the article that much bigger! §†SupaSoldier†§ 17:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. It was my understanding that lists are discouraged on wikipedia, unless they are standalone articles named as such. It is not needed on the page and a quick link to a seperate page is completely reasonable. --Thaddius 16:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see where it does anything for this article to have that moved in. RunedChozo 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Though I agree an article of a list isn't very encyclopedic, it wouldn't benefit the PSP article if the list was just merged to it. To be fair something like the Wii launch article would be far more appropriate, not just for PSP but for every gaming console. - Throw 09:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - I think the article is quite long to be merged. Lugiadoom 12:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Propose to Add section with PSP Model Numbers?

I think there is value to adding model numbers to the article, primarily due to the UMD region restriction. If someone wants to buy a color not available in their region, the model numbers can help identify if a different color is available that is still compatible with UMD movies of their region. Thoughts? Wikipedia XP 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I came up with this yes indeed

I agree with the people removing the list. It isn't necessary or informative. Obviously if I buy a PSP from Japan it's going to have the same restrictions as a DVD player, and every DVD player article doesn't have a list of serial numbers for each region. It just takes up space and makes a good article look ugly. - Throw 05:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with you at all. There are only one player of UMD-movies, the PSP, but there are tons of DVD-players in the market. Look at the Swedish PSP article [1], it's just so much better than the English version, and it has got information about model numbers. 11:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

PSP Motherboard Information

I'd like to add a section regarding motherboard revisions. We have the TA-079 and TA-082 pages at the moment, (TA-086 hasn't been created yet) as nothing really links to them. Perhaps a merge could be done? Huds601 09:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any substantive information other than the home-brew specifics (which are covered on the homebrew page)? Both TA-079 and TA-082 just redirect to this article at present. If you do have some non-home-brew information, however, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it included. Jshiell 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
How come both TA-082 and TA-079 redirect here when this article has no content whatsoever about them? THat is rather pointless. Someone vandalized the articles into crappy redirects. It could atlwast redirect to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realg187 (talkcontribs) 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest firmware

"9.00 - 10/03/2007 - New Feature TV Channels. Channels available only in Japan, US and UK. Security update."

I've heard absolutly nothing about this. Putting up a fact tag. --Thaddius 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's just vandalism (suspected as much). Can someone else revert it? --Thaddius 20:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In need of translation

Could someone please translate something from the Swedish article since it is better than this, the English, article. 16:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Custom Firmware and Edits

Can we please leave the custom firmware section there and stop deleting it. It is highly important to the history of the PSP, as well as it's current and future development.

Also, I think the article needs to be locked again. There seems to be alot fo edits going on, and I don't think mnay of them have been beneficial. 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I had it locked out and have attempted to piece everything back. I think the article is currently in a good state. --Auto(talk / contribs) 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


To me, the sections in this article seem to be in the wrong place.

Why do "Demos" and "Controls" have their own section under features? Also, there is a section for "Internet Access" and as well as a section for "Wireless Networking." I propose a bit of a re-arranging of all the sections from this:

   * 1 Variations and accessories
         o 1.1 Colors
   * 2 Features
         o 2.1 Games
         o 2.2 Controls
         o 2.3 Demos
         o 2.4 Greatest Hits titles
         o 2.5 Internet Access
   * 3 Multimedia and codecs
         o 3.1 Camera and GPS
   * 4 Wireless networking
         o 4.1 Ad-hoc networks
               + 4.1.1 Gamesharing
         o 4.2 Infrastructure networks
         o 4.3 Infrared
         o 4.4 RSS feeds
   * 5 Design and specifications
         o 5.1 Technical specifications
         o 5.2 Optical Drive
         o 5.3 Battery life
         o 5.4 Interface
         o 5.5 Firmware
         o 5.6 Firmware update history
               + 5.6.1 Sony firmware Editions
   * 6 Homebrew development
   * 7 Controversial advertising campaigns
   * 8 References
   * 9 External links

To something like this:

   * 1 Variations and accessories
         o 1.1 Colors
         o 1.2 Camera and GPS
   * 2 Games
         o 2.1 Demos
         o 2.2 Greatest Hits titles
   * 3 Multimedia Playback          
   * 4 Wireless networking
         o 4.1 Internet Access
         o 4.2 Ad-hoc networks
         o 4.3 Infrastructure networks
         o 4.4 Gamesharing
         o 4.5 Infrared
         o 4.6 RSS feeds
   * 5 Design and specifications
         o 5.1 Technical specifications
         o 2.2 Controls
         o 5.2 Optical Drive
         o 5.3 Battery life
         o 5.4 Interface
         o 5.5 Firmware
         o 5.6 Firmware update history
               + 5.6.1 Sony firmware Editions
   * 6 Homebrew development
   * 7 Controversial advertising campaigns
   * 8 References
   * 9 External links

How about it? Mr toasty 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We could probably lose a lot of these trivial sections, like the firmware update history, but it's a good start. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

SOuth Park PSP

Should it be mentioned that a PSP appears in South Park.Themasterofwiki 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

only under a trivia section. however, the South Park page probably mentions the PSP anyway. 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

DAX Custom Firmware

It is in plenty widespread use. Due to the fact PSX ISO's made specifically for DAX Custom firmware's are popping up like wildfire on many BT trackers, P2P networks, and even release groupd just for that, I'd say it's in widespread use. QJ alone has had 15,000 people upgrade to 3.10 OE-A alone, that doesn't include mirrors, other PSP websites, and even the official one. It's a widespread firmware, or at least in the publics interest. For now, it should stay. Huds601 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Where are the citations to reliable sources to back up these claims? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If that's your reasons for deletion, then you should have marked the section in question to say it needs citations, not removed it. How can anyone citate a section that doesn't exist?Huds601 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm fairly sure non-fansite citations don't exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, A Man In Black, i think that you should do a google search with the key word 3.10 oe, i got 1.3 million results. 07:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is reason enough to have DAX Firmware there:
Google search: Results 1 - 10 of about 467,000 for Dark_aleX. (0.13 seconds)
Google search: Results 1 - 10 of about 300,000 for dark_alex custom firmware. (0.13 seconds)
Google search: Results 1 - 10 of about 284,000 for dark_alex OE. (0.05 seconds) Huds601 19:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I also state, that the citation banner is reason enough for it tto stay there, and not be deleted. You're completely missing your own point. If you want citations, then that needs to be there for people to citate it. Huds601 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it can't be cited, and it's been there a long time with no effort to cite it. Additionally, I think it's essentially an advertisement. We need reliable publications which have reported on this subject, not a count of Google hits or the creator's own website. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There, Citated from a RELIABLE SOURCE which mentions DAX CF. Now leave it alone. Huds601 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You need a citation that makes the claims you're wanting to add to the article. You don't simply find something that mentions the subject in passing and use it as a lever to cram claims not made in the source into the Wikipedia article. Who's saying the DAX firmware is in widespread use? Why are we mentioning the firmware revisions, if the BBC didn't? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For the time being I have requested (which has been granted) for the page to be fully protected while we sort this out, becasue we cant go on having a revert war. My point is that the BBC article is reason itself for the section about custom firmware. It's not the fact it doesn't mention specific firmwares or versions, it's the fact it names DAX CF as another option. There are loads of CF out there, but DAX Cf is special. It allows the community to do so much more witht he PSP than before. If the BBC regocnises it as an alternative to the official firmwares, that gives it credit enough to be in the public interest, which, at the end of the day, is what the articles on wikipedia are about. Providing information to the public that is in the public's interest.
Google has hundreds of thousands of hits to do with it. There's thousands of videos on youtube just showing of DAX CF. Every community forum, blog, notice board knows about and keeps up to date with DAX CF. DAX's site has over 1 million hits. How much more needs ot be said to prove itself as a popular optional firmware?
This needs to be resolved soon so we can continue to edit this article for the better, not having silly arguements about edits reverts and god knows what. It's obvious though that it is widespread. Huds601 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion to resolve this. How about we go half way with each oither so to say. Give the PSP firmware it's own page including official and DAX fw's with notes on update sincluded, and have it linked to the PSP page as a main article style link? Huds601 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't use Google hitcounting or random videos someone uploaded or forums. They're not useful sources. I'm not ignorant of the DAX firmware and I don't even disagree that it's chief among the homebrew firmwares; I just think that it's an unverifiable claim. I also feel that a revision history for firmware, official or otherwise, is not the business of an encyclopedia.
Now, I don't think we should expunge mention of the DAX firmware from Wikipedia; that's why I sent the BBC link down into the external links section to later be used as a reference. The Homebrew development section of this article sucks, and PlayStation Portable homebrew also sucks. I think probably what would be best would not to split off yet another article that will doubtless be poorly sourced, and instead use the stories like the BBC one to rewrite these sections, with an emphasis on encyclopedic overview instead of recapping QJ's news feed. There's untapped potential in what we already have, so let's rewrite before splitting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Put that way I entirely agree with you. The homebrew section does suck entirely. I've got DAX FW on my PSP atm (3.10 OE-A to be precise) so I';m able to take screenshots of homebrew and anything else. How about this then. Why not work hard on rewriting the homebrew article from scratch? Not literally delete it, but copy it into word or something and reorganise it, break it down into sections, really make it a worthwhole and readable article. If it was like that, I'd be happy to have DAX firmware there, rather than this page.
I'd be more than happy to provide images of CF, homebrew etc for the homebrew page for reference.
Just for note, pages and sections that need to be updated, added or rewritten, chotto shot (PSP camera), Maplus (PSP GPS), PSP internet browser (Feel free to edit this bit and add to it).
Check your talk page A Man In Black :) Huds601 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
darn, got here a little late, but I'd just like to say that i think the homebrew section should stay, but all the little references to it throughout the article ( Ie: "Unofficially, almost any PlayStation game can be played without requiring a PlayStation 3 by using a custom firmware.") should be gotten rid of or moved. Mr toasty 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Technical Specifications

Hey, do you guys think it would be worthwhile to edit the technical specifications sections to a form more like the PS2's?

I think it's in paragraph form because the PS3 article is like that. As much as I prefer the way that it is in the ps2 article I'm too lazy to change it and it would only get someone started on changing it back. Mr toasty 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have renewed the issue at the top of the talk page and fully intend to fully develop a more detailed homebrew section in the main article. If Wikipedia policies of requiring a verifiable source get in the way of posting something that is obviously true. then there is something flawed with those policies and they should be ignored under the guideline that dictates "If wikipedia guidelines get in the way of improving the quality of the encyclopedia. ignore them" which, when I last checked, actually is a part of sanctioned Wiki-Lore. Colberton 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Psp is still outdown by hardware such as dreamcast and ps2. Here is why. Psp uses a certain amount of power, u can make this really fast, yet it wont go fast. It wont have a high polygon count because it cant hold the amount of memory needed with effects. The effects and power of the system, plus the lower res, and polygon count, plus the amount of effects drawn, plus the amount of anti aliasing features makes this into a portable n64/psone system. 333 mhz? No its fast but its 3d card suks. In no way is the propaganda spewed into my brain say this is as power as a ps2 or even a dreamcast. If it is capable of rendering 33 million polys prove it. Prove that it is as good if not better then the ps3. Cus thats wat it sounds like. I think it needs 333 mhz to run its alpha blending. I think it will never use 33 million polys. I saw not one game like shenmue, and sonic rivals is 2-d?!?-- 12:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think you've got the wrong forum for discussing the pros/cons of psp/ps2/dreamcast. --Oscarthecat 13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


The article got hit pretty hard by vandals for the past 2 hours. I cleared it up but none of those idiots have been warned. I might need to request this article be semi-protected. Anybody know how to do that? - Throw 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For help with dealing with vandalism check Wikipedia:Vandalism and to request protection Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ~~ AVTN T CVPS 12:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Firmware update history

What happened to the Firmware update history? I found that section quite useful. - Akadewboy 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Because some idiot had a cry about it, so now its gone.-- 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I found it useful also, it should be reinstated. Atirage 05:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that Uber555 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree also. I'll put it back in.--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 10:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The new table looks good. - Throw 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's 'A man in black' who keeps removing it. He's started many an argument with another user over this. He'll just remove it again, but I think it should stay. It certainly was helpful and relevant. --Thaddius 05:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If 'A man in black' removes it again we'll just have to reach a consensus. More than likely more people will want it there, so it'd stay by getting the most support. - Throw 05:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. If/when he removes again (last time was here), let's revert and invite him over here to discuss the pros/cons of the table. There are other articles which make use of a software version history, such as iTunes version history, Mac OS history, History of Microsoft Windows. --Oscarthecat 07:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Whoever did make that table gets a kudos from me. It looks great. --Thaddius 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks fella! --Oscarthecat 05:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Squidoo site

The web site being listed and relisted as an unofficial website by User:Carlblackburn is probably made by him, so it's spam, is promoting PSP Blender, which is a scam site offering downloads of PSP games, which is illegal, so it shouldn't be listed here. Sites such as PSP Fanboy and PSP Updates have more merit of being listed and they're not here, and neither should the piracy site. - Throw 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Not spam 2) Site not made by me, and not even known by me until I saw it here. I just noticed it was being deleted after I clicked and wondered why 3) Please provide authority or evidence about your assertion of illegal conduct, I think you're wrong but in any event it's still useful site for many users. I know there is an issue about the legality of firmware changes so perhaps all that could be deleted too in an orgy of deletion that will render the content useless. It's a wikipedia article which should be useful not a boring replay of Sony's manual and press releases. 4) Don't know the other sites you mention but will add them if you think they are good 5) I will be adding the site back until you can provide some proof of your claims that they are illegal or spam or piracy or whatever rotating, varying and wrong excuses you are coming up with. 6) You don't own this page so stop acting like you do. Carlblackburn 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's your proof: [2]. Your argument that third-party firmware may be illegal is wrong since modifying a PSP is legal. Why? Because anyone can modify their PSP in any way they choose. I would appreciate you actually take a look at the stuff you add to Wikipedia. You're right, I don't own this article but I'm concerned at the well being of Wikipedia because I see and appreciate the importance of this project.I've removed the site. Do not readd it. - Throw 15:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Proof of a scam or piracy or any other crime would be in the form of some prosecution or something like that. Just because someone says Wikipedia is a scam on a bulletin board doesn't make it so. But anyway, it's talking about PSP Blender, which is not the same thing, it's got a lot of other useful links and information. Do not remove this link without providing evidence of your claims. Also applying your logic would lead to deletion of any reference to firmware which I see includes a whole article (and it is noted is only ever modified to facilitate piracy), so do not remove the link or other useful data.

Firstly you say it's my spam link. Now you say I didn't look at the link. Please make up your mind. I did look at it and thought it was useful and then wondered why it was gone. And you are still yet to explain what you're doing about it. I agree piracy is not cool but I see no evidence that the link you've deleted has anything to do with piracy other than a few people complaining about a site as "a scam". Presumably the authorities would shut down an illegal enterprise like this without needing you and me to evaluate the legalities. So again, treat other users with respect and reinstate useful information. Do not remove it. Carlblackburn 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you for real? Do you honestly think just because a site is illegal it wouldn't exist? Dude, I could download child porn and the entire second season of Lost right now if I wanted to. Fact is different countries have different laws and only so many resources to fight crime and illegal content is freely available on the Web. This Squidoo page is one of them. Unless you're too dense to realize that downloading commercial video games for free or "for a low monthly payment" is illegal I honestly don't know how to explain it to you. That's all that web site is: a commercial to PSP Blender, a scam site. We can do this song and dance all day but if you readd the site I'll just go to an admin and have them take care of it. - Throw 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
So, this site, what free PSP games does it offer? And what makes it notable, under WP:EL? I was under the impression that the only free PSP games around were pirated ones, so given that, I'm all for leaving this site off the list of external links. --Oscarthecat 18:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The site on Squiddo is nothing but a commercial for PSP Blender. The site on Squidoo is promising free commercial PSP games which is illegal. PSP Blender is a scam site that charges people monthly fees for commercial content but all the site does is connect their victims to torrent sites.
There are free PSP games that are legal but only those designed and released by hobbyists. offers hundreds of homebrew games. - Throw 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I have looked into this further to make sure I know what i'm talking about. There are games that can be downloaded that are not pirated sites. The page in question has much other content other than linking to another page which you say is a scam. You say that illegal websites are not shut down despite that happening very frequently. I'll be including it until there's some rational argument, so far there's been nothing but incorrect claims about the whole thing. I normally don't easily get my back up but the high-handed way this has been dealt with is just wrong. Wikipedia needs more information of value to those who use it, it shouldn't be deleted because one person doesn't like it. If there are other games links I'm all for that being included too. If people find the links of value that's great, some might not but you can't please everyone. Please leave the link alone. Carlblackburn 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if this product were legal, a link to Squidoo -- any link to Squidoo on any Wikipedia article -- is exceptionally questionable and suspect. Squidoo is just one guy's opinion, no different than linking to some random guy that has a MySpace page or some college kid's blog, which you wouldn't do. Squidoo itself does not manage the content of the link in question, and if they don't, it's very misleading to say it's "at Squidoo", as if they're approving it like the "at" and "at Gamespot" link above it. It's an outside user, a random person giving their random opinion, in this case an anonymous user named GuruBob who runs no other Squidoo page. I'm for taking the link off the page. --Ataricodfish 05:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If the link is illegal, please report it to the FBI for their further action. But in truth that's just a bogus rationale used to justify deleting something that one person didn't like. If Squidoo links are "exceptionally questionable and suspect" I would welcome someone saying why. Is this a rule in Wikipedia? If so please point me to it. I agree it's just one person's opinion, which is also true of the latest article about Iraq in the Washington Post. I checked out that pspupdates page and found that very useful but am wondering why it can be discussed here but not in the article itself. The article could be an excellent resource for PSP but at the moment it reads like a Sony press release. Are there company employees involved in this discussion? Carlblackburn 05:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The standard for challenged link inclusion is not "it stays until it is shown to be in direct violation of policy". If an external link isn't useful per WP:EL (and this one is not), it doesn't belong. It's an advertisement for a commercial site which, by common sense and trivial interpretation of copyright law, seems to be conducting illegal activities. This link has no place on Wikipedia, please stop restoring it. -- mattb 05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, items 5, 11, and 13. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, at least for the user who originally added it. Add to that much of what the others have mentioned. Dancter 05:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I would caution you to note the three-revert rule policy. If you continue to revert and strongarm this li

PlayStation Portable homebrew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediank onto the article, as you have been, you could be blocked from editing. Dancter 05:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This link is useful I think, certainly I found it to be so, more so than this article except for the firmware information which was new to me. So I disagree with you about that. I'm not sure why you say it's infringing copyright law, please explain. I think it's grossly unfair that multiple people come out of the woodwork, fail to advance a coherent argument, issue warnings and general act in a very unfriendly way about what is a pretty small matter. There are countless articles I've seen with very many links, including this one which has dozens. I think this article has been reduced to being the jealously guarded preserve of a few, who probably are involved with Sony in some way. Perhaps the company should be paying a fee for having such advertising in place. Carlblackburn 05:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Distributing software without license from its copyright holders is against the law in nearly every country. No wrongdoing has to be proven in a court of law for us to realize that the services offered by this site are blatantly illegal. I apologize if you feel ganged up on, and even more so if anyone has been rude to you, but Wikipedia's policies on this matter are very clear. This link does not belong here for all the reasons provided. Please do not add it again. -- mattb 05:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Copyright issues aside, I and the other editors have provided several other reasons why the link is inappropriate. You seem to be hung up on the legality argument. Dancter 05:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Distributing software without licence is probably illegal, but where does the link make any reference to doing that? It simply doesn't. And nor as if as I could see does the pspblender site that others have mentioned. Nor does the reference in any way contravene any of the policies that some have been kind enough to refer me to. I have asked whether anyone involved in this discussion has any involvement with Sony, which would certainly be a conflict of interest. Stony silence ensued on that point. I wonder why... Carlblackburn 12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that perhaps we all are? Perhaps you'd like to find some instances where I unfairly edit some Nintendo or Xbox articles, and blow this thing wide open. Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories. That is policy. Merely being useful does not automatically merit a listing. As I pointed out before:
  • Item 5 in Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided: "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." Aside from the Squidoo ads, the actual content is virtually ads in itself (click-tracking intermediary links, solicitations of user e-mail information, hit counter)
  • Item 11: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Anyone can create a Squidoo lens. You can. I can. The one in question belongs to Guru Bob. No offense, but I don't consider them a "recognized authority". Alternatively, it could be considered "social networking" per item 10 along the lines of Digg or Technorati. I think item 11 fits better.
  • Item 13: "A website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject." I pointed this out too. The page deals specifically with free PSP game downloads. For the most part, the other links in the section deal more generally with the PSP console or platform overall.
I don't know how much more you need to be convinced. Dancter 15:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Philadelphia lawyers professing great concern for the legality of one link seem to be quite relaxed about this one [3] and the content of another article[4]. Indeed the PSP Homebrew article has a link[5] to a website that prominently features an ad that includes the words "Tale of Online Pirates". So clearly there is a great deal of inconsistency - if not outright buffoonery - involved in some of those who act like they own this PSP article. I would urge a more reasoned approach. Carlblackburn 12:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that your link sells a product/service. It does not meet any of "What to link" criteria set out in Wikipedia:External links because it adds nothing to the article. Can you justify how anybody researching the PlayStation Portable will find any useful information about the PSP itself at your URL? To the rest of us here, it's quite obvious that this link is not and never will be reference material suitable for an encyclopedia. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why the BBC link was left in, as I tend to think that it is out of place as well. Perhaps it was meant to be a citation for article content that was merely misplaced. Regardless, to address the legality issue, that article itself states: "The problem experienced here is not with homebrew applications, but with hackers who pirate commercial titles." That statement summarizes the problem with the Squidoo link: it facilitates the distribution of commercial video games in violation of the original copyright. The BBC article itself is not "illegal", at least in the sense of state laws. It's protected by freedom of the press, fair use law, and the fact that it doesn't link to any questionable material. I don't edit PlayStation Portable homebrew because I don't care much about it, and also it attracts enthusiasts that tend to have difficulty with certain Wikipedia concepts. Somewhat like in this case, but more difficult. Dancter 15:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the chap who suggested that no links ever be added to the PSP article regardless of what they are. Have deleted the official looking instructions not to do so as they in fact have no status that I could discern. Also reinstating the link which may fit within a review listing better. Hope that resolves all the issues now. Carlblackburn 13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:NoMoreLinks is "official looking" because it is. See WP:SPAM#Tagging articles prone to spam. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Carlblackburn got banned for a week, so when/if s/he comes back and tries to readd it it will be a very small nuisance next time. - Throw 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Software Editions

The system software versions listed here are all from writer Dark AleX; other custom system software releases exist but are not in widespread use.

If this table only lists Dark Alex firmwares, then shouldn't it be renamed to reflect that, and include a disclaimer to that effect, mentioning other firmwares as isolated and not widely used...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

That sentence you quoted does just what you're asking. - Throw 16:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Go! Camera

I read on IGN that there is going to be a camera released in Europe called the Go! Camera developed by Sony. Does anyone know if this the same camera written in the article that was released in Japan? Also, does anyone know if it is planned for a release in America?Playstationdude 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same camera that was first released in Japan with the name changed. There hasn't been any word about an American release, which is a surprise; we're their biggest market. I guess they're throwing Euros a bone for always getting PSP games months after we do. - Throw 03:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Battery Life

I presume the battery life in the article is based on the launch model psp units, do any of the newer models increase it in any noteable way.Atirage 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of an increase in battery life. The specifications still look the same on paper. However, I have a PSP from launch time, and it routinely gets up to 8-10 hours of continuous play, even with Wi-Fi on.(Myscrnnm 21:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Basic Design and Features

There should be a brief summary of the design of the system, and it's major features. I'm mentioning this because it's not even obvious what kind of media the games are on. I shouldn't have to go to "Technical Specifications" just to see that it uses UMD optical discs. Maybe the "Design and Specifications" section should just be moved to the top of the article. -- 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you do a wireless chat, like on the DS?

No, the PSP does not have wireless chat like on the DS. The only thing that comes close is sending an e-mail through the web browser. - 10:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Controls Section

Why is controls under the games section? Seems much more suited to design and specifications section no? I'm going to move it, but I wanted to post this here in case there's some greater reasoning I'm missing XD. Mr toasty 04:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


My first wikipedia post, so be kind.

Recently I updated my PSP from Sony's firmware 2.81 to Sony's firmware 3.30. With 2.81 the PSP was 802.11b and it only had WEP encryption. After the 3.30 firmware update, the PSP connected via 802.11g and I had the option of WEP, WPA1 and WPA2. I can not find any mention of this upgrade on the internet, but a common gripe (amongst people who do not own a PSP or are not updating their firmware) is that it doesn't support 802.11g. I assure you it does. Can we please clean this article up to reflect this update? Additionally I think the summary at the top right should be updated to reflect this.

J.ostheller 23:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The PSP only has WiFib. Mbslrm 19:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm.... no it doesn't. I've got one sitting right in front of me and it says g. Maybe use the product you're writing about sometime.

post above from non-signer

Mbslrm, you are incorrect. if your PSP is only connecting 802.11b then you have not updated your firmware or you do not have an 802.11g WAP. The PSP was made with a chipset that supported both 802.11b and 802.11g. There was much talk on the internet about why Sony didn't turn it on if the chipset supported it. Well they have now officially turned it on as of at least firmware version 3.30. I have not hacked my PSP, and I am only using approved Sony firmware. The PSP is 100% 802.11g (and 802.11g is compatible with 802.11b)... I would suggest that you do one of the following

1. Update your firmware 2. Buy an 802.11g wireless access point or router 3. Stop posting information that you believe to be true but have nothing to back up your statement with

J.ostheller 17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source that says that the PSP is now 802.11G compatable? I would not change this until a source is found, but it is a "B" device which is indicated on the PSP box. Momusufan 18:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I can not find an official source from Sony, and I do not understand why they would not make this upgrade more well known. It happened a long time ago, yet I still hear people complaining that "they will buy a PSP when it supports 802.11g"... It does! Listen to me... I DO NOT run a modded PSP. I bought it at bestbuy, and I only use official Sony firmware updates via its self updating mechanism. When I had version 2.81 it connected at 802.11b and WEP only. I was upset about the wep encryption and I updated teh firmware at that time (to the latest 3.30) simply because I was hoping they would turn on WPA 1 or WPA 2. When I updated the PSP then connected at WPA1 and WPA2 and 802.11g. This is easily verified by anyone that has a PSP with the latest firmware and has an 802.11g WAP. Stop changing the article to say it is only 802.11b.

There is no one out that that has a PSP with the latest firmware and a 802.11g WAP that is not connecting at that speed. If there was they would post something against my posts. Stop changing something that you have no idea about.

J.ostheller 19:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally Look at the comments on ask dave

"The later firmware supports all standards, both b + g and also wpa. I usually update my PSP whenever there's a new firmware - and have since the 2.51 update been running WPA and 54Mpbs :-) Posted by: Bjarne Karlson at April 17, 2006 12:59 AM"

This is an extremely old firmware update. yet for some reason wikipedia people insist on keeping outdated information on their article.

J.ostheller 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than editing this backwards and forwards, let's get a decent ref (see WP:CITE) to support the text of the article. I've found a Sony source which indicates it's 802.11b, so have updated the article to reflect this. If someone can find a good source (e.g. Sony) indicating it's 802.11g, please update the article to reflect this. --Oscarthecat 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Help me out here. Hypothetically lets just assume that there is ZERO documentation that says the PSP is 802.11g... Additionally lets assume the device is in fact 802.11g.

With the two assumptions above, what should Wikipedia reflect? Is Wikipedia supposed to be accurate, or outdated because some engineer did not upgrade the specs?!?!?! I am being completely serious.

FACT : 1. Momusufan does not own a PSP or a 802.11g WAP (would bet a million dollars on it otherwise he/she wouldn't be correcting bogus information 2. I own a non-modified PSP, and use only official Sony PSP updates. I have the new D-link 4 port gigabit eithernet router + 802.11n WAP. My PSP connects at 802.11g and WPA2.

J.ostheller 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an old article talking about how the hardware on the PSP is 802.11g complainant, but the firmware has not enabled it.
Additionally here is an Spec sheet listing it at 802.11g
Is this enough evidence to change it?
J.ostheller 21:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, first of all, please indent your comments, makes it more readable for everyone!
Second, the ars technica article says it's compliant, but doesn't say it's enabled, so let's ignore that ref, it's just noise.
The E-Depot article says it's 802.11b(g) whatever that means, and also says "It actually comes with a WI-FI adapter inside (802.11b with WEP/WPA encryption)". So not a great ref this one either.
I found another Sony ref here which says "Make sure that your Wireless Access Point supports 802.11g wireless devices and that it is configured to communicate using 802.11b, or "Mixed Mode", which communicates with both 802.11g and 802.11b devices", thus suggesting that the PSP is 802.11b.
Further, the IGN PSP FAQ says it's 802.11b.
And the PSP Fanatic FAQ says it's 802.11b.
So I'm still of the opinion that the PSP is 802.11b and not 802.11g. If there's a decent source out there saying it's 802.11g, great, let's solve this once and for all. But until then, weight of evidence is pointing to it being 802.11b. --Oscarthecat 21:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
attempting to indent. Alright, I am done fighting this battle. What do I care if wikipedia is inaccurate. My unmodded retail PSP i bought from bestbuy that said it was 802.11b complainant on the box connects at 802.11g. For some reason that is not evident to me, Sony has not advertised this fact...
It is your right as an administrator to make the final call, and your call is that outdated documentation on the web determines what wikipedia says is the connection rate. I can promise you a billion times that it is 802.11g (or that the sky is blue) and it doesn't matter because you have some outdated documentation that says it is. I am not trying to cause problems here but to update wikipedia with accurate information.
Why is no one else speaking up about this (except one anonymous poster above?)... Why did sony not publish this really big firmware update that would probably cause more people to buy their system? Why have more people not noticed that their PSP was updated with 802.11g? I have not met one single person who has claimed they have the latest firmware and it still only connects at 802.11b. The only people who insist on it being 802.11b are people who do NOT have first hand knowledge of this device.
Anyways... I am done. J.ostheller 21:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually own a PSP and update the firmware on it. "B" routers are not sold anymore so it's mainly "G". "G" routers can also accept "B" devices as long as you have it set up for 802.11b/g in your routers options. but in reality, the PSP is a "B" device. Momusufan 02:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

FTR, This is much more helpful. Because you said this, last night I borrowed my friends PSP and hooked it to my network (he doesn't have a 802.11g WAP). The results dumbfounded me. His PSP with the 3.50 connected at 802.11b... Yet mine with 3.30 connects at 802.11g. It is easy to tell the connection rate... On my router it has a wireless status page. Sitting at my computer and turning the PSP's on 1 by 1 displays what rate they are connecting at. I will no longer be changing the article... Why is mine G? perhaps a short or solder bridge on the wifi IC chip g/b pin? Perhaps they turned it off again with 3.50? J.ostheller 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
J - thanks for providing this feedback, appreciated. For the time being, can we all agree on leaving it as 802.11b for now? --Oscarthecat 17:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course. You obviously can not say this device is 802.11g unless all such devices can connect at that rate. Since I saw mine connecting at that rate I assumed all must be the same, but I proved that isn't the case. I am still puzzled, but thankful for the higher data rate. It makes streaming TV to the device that much better.—Preceding unsigned comment added by J.ostheller (talkcontribs)

System Software removal

The system software table was removed earlier by User:A Man In Black, citing "This is well out of Wikipedia's scope; we don't do revision histories for most software)". Well, most software doesn't affect functionality as much as the PSP's system software does, so I can see why it's not done for most software. For software where the revision changes behaviour/functionality so much : by this I'm thinking of other system software articles Linux kernel, MacOS, Xbox 360, iTunes and iPod, HP-UX, Solaris, all of which feature revision history. Just because it's about a gaming platform's operating system doesn't necessarily mean it should lack such information, in my opinion. Any thoughts out there? --Oscarthecat 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is a continuation of the earlier Talk:PlayStation_Portable#Firmware_update_history discussion. --Oscarthecat 20:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Augh, those article sections are equally terrible. They're full of esoteric, largely statistical data of interest only to enthusiasts who already know where to get the info from primary sources.
It'd be appropriate to talk about how features have been added over time, but a gigantic table including even the most trivial changes is not the way to do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay - how about I recreate the table to be similar to the one at Playstation_3#Software ? Just canvassing thoughts so I don't go wasting my (and your) time on this. --Oscarthecat 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
By not making a table at all. PlayStation 3#Operating System covers all the salient points, without being overly large or crammed with trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm with AMiB on this one; the important parts of both tables are already in prose. Nifboy 08:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
@ AMIB - Can you find any rule\etc. that states that software revision is not allowed on wikipedia or that it qualifies as 'trivia'? Cause if so I'm sure everyone here will back off. If not, please stop imposing your personal opinions on the article. The idea of the table is to arrange the information in an easily accessible format. The table included release dates and, to you, 'trivial features' that are not in the rest of the article. --Thaddius 12:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
They're ugly and redundant with prose. Did we really need more reasons that that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wth bring back the table. Other articles have it, why can't PSP have it? Oh, maybe just because it's a gaming platform, it's somehow insignificant eh? Stupid ass wiki mods/rules. ShinraiTS4 04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So, AMIB has no Wikipedia rule related reason for removing the table so there's no reason why it can't be put back. AMIB, it seems the only way you can remove it again is if you find a rule stating that tables and\or software version history is not allowed. If you do remove it without a valid reason, that will constitute as VANDALISM. Glad to see that we finally came to a consensus. --Thaddius 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I readded it. It can be moved around and such so it doesn't interfere with the rest of the article. --Thaddius 15:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thaddius - looks good, seems we have a reasonable compromise now, to satisfy all parties. --Oscarthecat 18:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It was removed under the mention of this article. I was not aware of that article, AMIB can focus his attentions there. --Thaddius 19:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Speculation and plagiarism

I'm not going to be in long enough today to fix this, but the "New Version" section that's just been added is not only full of speculation, but is also ripped off almost entirely from the provided source. Just because you say where you plagiarized text from doesn't mean it isn't still plagiarism. The section is here, and the article that was ripped off is here. (I'd just delete it entirely, but I think someone rewording it would be less likely to get reverted. Bladestorm 18:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done a quick rewrite, capturing the essence of the rumour. Not spending too much time on it, as unsure whether it's even worth mentioning in the article - crystal ball gazing etc, no confirmation from Sony themselves. --Oscarthecat 21:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The rumor doesn't have any creditable sources. It does not need its own section. Maybe one line somewhere in the article. 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources can easily found on Google News. Allen649 12:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Biggest Memory Stick Size for PSP?

I was just wondering, what's the largest capacity memory stick the PSP can handle? There's no mention of it in the article. Nintenboy01 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure, but I know that there are 16GB and 32GB models in the works...That is official... ShinraiTS4 04:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the biggest you can currently buy is 8GB (I believe), but Sony keeps talking about a 'theoretical size' of 32GB, which probably won't be released until long after the PSP has been made obsolete by Sony's next handheld. --Thaddius 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Aye, Good ol' 32 MegaBytes, lmao. It's only Theory! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talkcontribs)
This is not a forum. And sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --Thaddius 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I own a 4GB and they do sell 8GB on ebay 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The swedish article

We really need to find someone that can read swedish. The swedish article of PSP i huge...

Banned advertisements

The article says that the adverts with the white and black woman were only in the netherlands. But I have seen the adverts in England. It was quite a while ago, but there were definately adverts like these over here. 11:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

PSP Redesign

Can someone add also that the new PSP supports power charging from the USB port now?

Maybe, but it should go in the PSP Redesign page, the PSP 2000 hasn't been released yet... Df747jet 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Redesign article merger

Is it really worth giving the second generation PSP its own article? It's the same machine at the end of the day, a few notes in the main article about the differences between the first and second generation editions will suffice. Marwood 18:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, well maybe your right. But the Nintendo DS Lite has it's own article too. Maybe we should make a link that is directed to the PSP redesign article if people want more info on it. Or we could just merge if others agree too. Let's see what everbody wants. Sjgerges 10:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really an argument. I could point out that iPod Nano and iPod Shuffle don't have independent pages for their first and second generation models. Arguably, there is more difference between a first generation and second generation shuffle than there is between first and second generation PSP's. Perhaps Nintendo DS Lite should also be merged into Nintendo DS? Seriously, the new PSP is practically identical to the original. I really don't see how we can justify an entire article about it when two paragraphs or so on the differences between the first and second generation models would ably do the job. Marwood 14:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A separate section wouldn't cut it. If a merge is appropriate, the PSP-2000 series would have to be covered throughout the article. Coverage of colors, accessories, packages, battery life, specs (such as the amount of RAM and UMD drive performance) all would have to be rewritten to accommodate the new model. Dancter 15:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think this article should be re-written to focus on the new model, including a section on the first generation model and how it differs. I expect that, increasingly, people will be coming to this page looking for information on the second generation model rather than the first. If we don't merge, then we should change the name of the article from "PSP Redesign"; it's hardly encyclopaedic. Perhaps "PlayStation Portable (2nd generation)" or "PlayStation Portable (2000 Series)". Or maybe this page should be about PSP-2000 and "PlayStation Portable (1st generation)" created for the original model? Marwood 17:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, then I think the best thing to do is to merge the articles and give the redesigned PSP it's own section/paragraph. Because I agree with Marwood that if people want information about the new PSP, they can find it right here and not look at the other article. I didn't even know there was a article on the PSP redesign until Marwood higlighted it. Besides these is a paragraph about the redesigned PSP already on this page. So i agree with the merger.Sjgerges 08:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed a Nintendo DS Lite comparison, though the Lite is actually quite a bit different from the original DS models. This redesign is not substantially different, and will only have the difference that the slim PlayStation2 models had from the original PlayStation2s. It's only slimmer and lighter, and in Japan, a few different colors, though merely slimmer and lighter isn't enough for an article. C. Foultz 09:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The DS Lite, in terms of performance, is no different than the original. The primary difference is the form factor and negligible battery life brought about by screen brightness options. I would argue that the PSP redesign is similarly (in)significant. Although the form factor has changed minimally, the internals are different (64 MB instead of 32 MB, different UMD loading mechanism, TV Out port, etc). I believe we should be consistent between the DS and PSP articles, insomuch as console fanboys would complain. If it is deemed that the PSP revision shouldn't get its own page, then neither should the DS Lite. Kyouryuu 02:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the articles should stay the way they are, meaning in two, seperate articles, the original and the redesign. It's more convenient to read two articles than one huge article with two or more topics, even if they're related. A paragraph or so about the redesign and a nice link to the other article would be fine, just the way it is now.-- 12:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The new PSP (dubbed Slim & Lite) should have it's own article. It has a large amount of new features and updated specs. I know that this supposedly isn't a valid arguement, but it is logical that, if the DS Lite, who's only improvements were form factor and brightness, gets an article, then the PSP Slim & Lite, who has additional RAM, TV Output, and a new UMD Drive, should get it's own. I also believe the Redesign is notable enough for it's own article. AsunaNegi 21:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

let it stay

It should be the way it is. Past history of the original design should be phased out into its own page and be replaced with the new design but since it will take time to do that it should stay the way it is while adding more infomation due to new acessories that are specifically for the model and other future pursuits involving it.

Popstation article links here, but then there's nothing here about popstation

Has there ever been any popstation content in this article, that has been removed by some zealot who didn't care for side effects of his actions, or is this just another case of 'let's link there and leave the blame to them for not mentioning it'? -- 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two definitions for "popstation", it could be the knockoff PSP that only plays one game: Popstation and there is "popstation" as in the slang word for the official PS1 emulator bundled with PSP OS 3.00 and above. Df747jet 05:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Interface Section

Why is the "Interface" section under the "Redesign" title? It obviously doesn't belong there, as it's referring to the original PSP and not specifically to the redesigned version.-- 12:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New edition

Final Fantasy VII aniversary edition of the PSP:

hardware sub-article

Currently TA-082 and TA-079 redirect here yet are not discussed here. Rather than add the details here, I think that this article is large enough to warrant a sub article PlayStation Portable hardware that focuses on the hardware, similar to PlayStation 3 hardware. Some of the technical firmware details currently on PlayStation Portable homebrew could be part of the new hardware article. John Vandenberg 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessively technical/confusing to laymen

The technical mumbo-jumbo in this article is mind-boggling to an average reader who just wants to learn about the PSP and its capabilities/features. I suggest slapping the technical tag on this article and revising it for improved readability for the general public. 18:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


I noticed that the Wii page had a "reception" section, talking about people's opinions on that system. I think the PSP should have one too, mainly stating the system's faults(lack of game sales, porting all their best games to PS2 or PSN), do you think so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not supposed to put POV, original research, or unsourced stuff. 06:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
True, but if you can cite criticism( and praise) to reputable outide sources, it can be added. --WikidSmaht (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


In addition to the aforementioned Reception section, I noticed that this article is missing any sales data whatesoever, despite the presence of such information in articles on most other modern consoles.( In fact, I searched the article for the word “sales” and found not a single instance thereof.) Can anyone remedy this? --WikidSmaht (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PSP Test Kit

This article makes no mention of the PSP Test Kit, as pictured here 20:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Video Without Audio

Hi, first time using wikipedia, so tell me if I'm doing anything wrong. Anyway, here's my suggestion for an improvement for the psp wiki:

I just got a slim, and being a computer artist for nearly eight years, I've a number of videos made with various programs. I got pspVideo 9, and was trying to convert and transfer these files over. However, once on my psp, they were recognized as videos, but I was told they were 'unsupported'. Now, as I'd coverted them to MPEG-4 AVC, this seemed a little bewildering, and more than a little disasppointing. However, upon converting and moving over one of the few short films I've made WITH sound, I found that everything worked fine, and also that the converter did a spectacular job.

Anyway, the point to all this is as follows: the Psp-or at least the 3.60 firmware-appears to be unable to play videos that don't have an audio track. I know this isn't a concern for most individuals, but in my case it caused a great deal of frustration. I think an edit regarding this limitation should be made to the Multimedia Playback area of the Psp's main wiki. Also, though I guess there isn't much the good folks at wikipedia could do about it, it would be nice if sony added support for files that didn't contain audio. Until then, I guess I'm just going to have to add white noise to all my movies. Sigh.

Anyway, other than that, I'm satisfied. It's an incredible machine, and it's a darn shame DS is beating it in sales and games. I've got both, and frankly, they're completely different devices that both deserve success. I just wish the stores in the tiny town I live in had more good-and under 50 dollar-psp games other than liberty city stories, which is sadly out of reach until my next birthday :(

Oh well, at least I'll soon have burnout legends to keep me company :)

Bye, Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


The image at the top of the page has been changed to an image of the PSP-2000. Shouldn't it be an image of the PSP-1000? The PSP-2000 has its own page, and this is kind of like making the main image for the PlayStation 2 article a picture of the SCPH-70000.(Myscrnnm 05:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

I didn't see it before but it's the PSP-1000 now. (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

New Features

The PSP will soon have remote play, allowing it to play games in the PS3 anywhere in the world via WiFi, read it in Game Informer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartman0052007 (talkcontribs) 14:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

New Firmware

3.72 was released today, can someone add it, because some power-mad admin put a block on me 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

New 2200 Mah battery for PSP Slim & Lite Reportedly the same 20 % more battery life on PSP and 80 % more on the Slim. Oh and If I remember it will be released in December (basically a battery cover comes with battery to cover the old batteries that stick out) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Store for North America

The article mentioned that the European store for PC downloads was opened on November 22. There's no mention of it, but the North American version opened at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LS650 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


I've added some merge proposals for recently-created stubs for Go!-branded items. I'm not sure they really need a full-blown discussion, but I'm not sure when I can get around to actually performing them. Dancter 19:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, guess u can. I'm just collecting all the data required and the pictures and stuff. It'll be ready in about a month or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aashish950 (talkcontribs) 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)