Jump to content

Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive 11: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Xymor (talk | contribs)
58 edits
Xymor (talk | contribs)
58 edits
Line 463: Line 463:


same, not much I can find about it.
same, not much I can find about it.
:Report of said game being developed for the ps3
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/ratchetclank/news.html?sid=6146408


=== Dynasty Warriors 6 ===
=== Dynasty Warriors 6 ===

Revision as of 23:34, 24 July 2006

WikiProject iconVideo games B‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
BThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Archive
Archives

video

happy the "1080p30" and "1080p60" may be valid (last number signifies frames per second), but I agree they need references before being posted. --69.214.11.36 17:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

by the way, downloading the popups javascript is faster --69.214.11.36 17:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought component video could output more than 1080p30, but can't find info to confirm or disprove this at present.HappyVR 17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems that a component video ouput can 'do' 1080p60 but I can find any reference to prove (or disprove) that the PS3 component output itself will be able to go to 1080p60. HappyVR 17:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
yeah i don't know where this guy was getting that information. might be just 30 because it's progressive though. but just a guess. --70.226.94.71 18:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
In CES2006, sony demoed video BDs running in the ps3 hardware (Picture) at 1080p60 12bit color HDMI output.

organize games section

anyone feel like making a table? I think it would be a lot easier to read. How's this format?

The wii article uses it, and it looks nice.

Article text (whatever is remaning) here.


If you don't have time to finish it feel free to edit this one in the discussion page until it's done. --Gatoatigrado 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

if you don't like it, please fix it, don't revert. it took some time. developer information might be nice. --Gatoatigrado 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Good effort - before it looked a bit messy, it does indeed look nice. I've removed the final paragraph: Kaz Hiraz's statement that there could be 15 launch titles now seems unnecessary as there are 17. The list was duplicated in the table, except The Eye of Judgement - I haven't added this myself but I imagine someone else will if it's sufficiently notable.HappyVR 11:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Heavenly Sword won't be a launch title. --HQ 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Heavenly Sword will probably be released in early 2007. But is that necessarily outside of the "launch window"? I guess that depends on how the window is defined, but the developers at E3 said it would make the window. --Kamasutra 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but Silent Hill 5 isnt even announced let alone exclusive and Mercs 2 isnt exclusive either
Mercenaries 2 was announced for Ps3, and for no other platform yet. Christophe Gans has also stated in various interviews that the fifth Silent Hill game is in development. --Xymor 23:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bandwidth Issues

Image:Cell_bandwidth.gif I've recently stumbled across this: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32171 You dont seam to mention this in this article, so I thought I'd link you, sort of make sure you know about it, just in case you didnt already.

I saw this quite a while ago, but unfortunately still don't know exactly what the figure (16MB/s) refers to as it doesn't seem to match anything else?HappyVR 11:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This is fos; I'm sure it's a typo. Even if it doesn't have any latency that's way too slow. Another document on the Cell (though this may not be the same for the playstation) says it is 51GB [1] per second. The other numbers do appear to be in line with the Playstation. --Gatoatigrado 16:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the "SB" bandwidth is?
"SB 2.5 GB/s write and 2.5 GB/s read". --Gatoatigrado 16:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No idea, I asked the exact same question months ago and still don't know.(my guess is external serial bus)HappyVR 17:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the same Cell Broadband Engine ([2]). I'm adding the correct specification of 51.2 GB/s. --Gatoatigrado 17:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The real reason why Cell read speed is 16MB/s is that measures the speed reading from the video memory but that number is very irrelevant and doesn't detract from the effective performance. For the uninitiated: The graphics pipeline that's in place in todays modern game systems (PC and console) is that the CPU calculates the current environment and hands those calculations to the GPU to draw. This Cell reading number is how fast it takes the CPU to read from the GPU memory which is a very rare and only needed if your programmers are incompetent. There's no realistic reason why the CPU doesn't know something and it's only source to get said information is the GPU.
I saw this same thing a while ago and touted by Xbox 360 alarmist fans as a blow to the Sony camp in an attempt to dent the looming superiority of the PS3. It was debunked by knowledgeable people that actually know what they are talking about. This Inquirer article is flagrant stupidity. They are completely stupid and should avoid writing on articles dealing with modern technology. LighthouseJ 20:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
oh...it's reading from the graphics card's local memory. Thanks for the explaination. please post it at the end if you reply later, thanks; i moved it. You're right; it's quite impractical. --70.230.234.174 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my bad, like I said, just thought I'd bring it up. Thanks for the explaination (if not for the fanboy outburst of pure ego). As I wasnt entirely sure of the layout of memory and such in the PS3 I had assumed that the "local memory" refered to in the picture was the system RAM as opposed to the GFX card, an understandable mistake since I only had the pic to go off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.173.128.90 (talk • contribs) .

Don't worry about it, friend. I think it's good that you brought the issue up and afforded an opportunity to discuss it in order to squash disinformation. LighthouseJ 17:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
who's ego? criticizing the article doesn't necessarily show ego. --70.237.121.64 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

sb

can anyone explain "SB" in system bandwidth? thanks. (copies of) the official specification sheets are all over the internet, but i can't find any explaination for this statistic. Also, some say that it's "less than" and some say it's "equal to" the figures in the article. --70.230.234.174 20:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I found that "SB" is System Bus, but now I don't know if this is the IO part of the BIC or what. It's obviously slower and not part of the XIO (XDRAM IO) controller. How is the "system bus" different from "FlexIO"? Someone can look at these pages [3], [4] pages 2 and 3, and [5], and try to figure out if this is just the IO or what. --Gatoatigrado 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's probably Southbridge_(computing) a standard system architecture term. Alexr wiki 09:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Release dates

Why are the estimated release dates being used in "first available" section of the infobox? You can't factually define the date something became "first available" by using a date that points to the future. Kil (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to say "first available" can only be applied to events in the present or past? I don't agree with that so you can't authoritatively determine what the usage of "first available". LighthouseJ 23:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't say "will be first available". Further, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and no source can verify future events. At the very least, "estimated" or "scheduled" should be worked in somewhere. Kil (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
How about when Sony themselves say it'll be released on November 17, 2006? When the manufacturing company names a specific month and day, I think it's quite apt to say that's when it will be first available. If something really crawled up your ass about this common phrase, feel free to further qualify "first available" with phrases like "will be" or "expected to be" but apparently the rest of the known Wikipedia-reading-public acknowledges what "first available" means and doesn't expect Wikipedia to predict the future any more than Sony can. If the release date does change, we can change the date here too thanks to the editibility of Wikipedia. LighthouseJ 16:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No. The PS3 is scheduled for release on that date. Is Sony well known for being able to predict future events? No, which is why we don't rely on them for that, and instead apply common sense to our prose. If you had bothered to learn what the "first available" parameter was intended to contain, you might have received valuable insights into the what the "known Wikipedia-reading-public" actually acknowledges. Either way, I repaired the wording days ago, so unless for some reason you must have the ambiguous version, the issue is ended. (Formerly Kil) AMHR285 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Helloo, but 'scheduled' applies to Q4 as well; by that reasoning the box would contain "First available:No idea it's in the future..".HappyVR 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what it should say, but that would be silly. To me, the phrase "first available" has a certain historical finality to it. Why not leave it blank until the console comes out since its redundant with Release date(s) anyway? Although, with the scattered way the infobox was developed, there isn't much in the way of direction or precedent regarding what goes where. Since the consensus in next-gen articles seems to be usage of both, so be it, although I still think its uneccesary. AMHR285 (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the 'historical finality' must just be the way you are reading it. 'First available' clearly can mean in the future (will be) and the past (was). I'd prefer to leave it in. I'm less keen on the release date by region - which looks messy - I think it's thee flags - are they necessary? Also the qualifier "estimated" doesn't seem quite right - it's more of an official date rather than our estimates. Could this be deleted or changed?HappyVR
This is the only article (that I know of) that uses the release date portion of the infobox, and the designer of the infobox expressed similar concerns over messiness, but there are no real established rules. Flag usage varies amongst others. As for (estimated), it's more or less removable due to the disclaimer on top of the page. AMHR285 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You're a silly idiot. I've already said before I understand the argument for both sides. Plus, there's the added benefit that on November 17th, the PS3's aren't going to just appear out of thin air. They are going to be first available to the public on November 17th, thus making the phrase very apt. You're off the deep end if you don't realize that the average reader knows it's not a definitive date any more than Sony themselves know. LighthouseJ 18:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You obviously don't. You never explained why we need to mention the PS3 release date in three or four different places, two of which are pointlessly in the same infobox (when the actual release date isn't even known, meaning that this info always needs to be updated all over the article). All you really seem to be concerned with is promoting an over-zealous and fanboyish tone in the article. What exactly is the big deal with removing ambiguity? AMHR285 (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is doubting the 17th Nov date for N. America. However it's quite likely that Japan may get the console a few days earlier - I think this is the reason the 'first available' date in the info box hasn't been changed to 17th Nov.HappyVR 17:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As the http://playstation.com/products.html states 'in november' and this matches the japanese, european and american dates; so I will change it to just november 2006.HappyVR 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that the whole point of the "future product" tag? It says pretty clearly that this isn't set in stone. There's no need ot duplicate this information throughout the article. If the date gets pushed back, we can just change the infobox. Ace of Sevens 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Release information

Firstly there is "first available" on the page, which is essentially its release date. These dont mention the dates, just the month which is quite strange. Then there is a release date which quotes the japan or NA release. Please fix this Wtatour 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

According to this, "first available" was intended to define the year the console was released (it's also what's being done on the Wii article). I moved the estimated dates to the Release Date(s) parameter. Kilgamesh 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert - games in developement , request protection

I've reverted this article to the point it lost semi protection, and requested semi-protection. Reason: adding games that do not exist.HappyVR 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Release date

I've added the release date info by region to the retail configurations box and removd it from the info box. Reason - I think it looks neater and makes sense. However I should change the title of the section from "Retail configurations and pricing" to something else I think. If you disagree veemently please revert and then discuss, otherwise please just discuss. Thanks. Changed the section heading to 'retail configurations,price and release date'.HappyVR 00:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Power subsection

As this section now contains info relating to cooling I've tentatively changed the name to 'Power supply and other components'HappyVR 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Name

It's not PlayStation 3, it's PLAYSTATION 3 (note capitals)

This is clearly shown on any official website of the PLAYSTATION 3 and in interviews by Ken Kutagari. CahalanesDunmanway 11:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Dancter 11:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I read the discussion and recall it too. It seemed that the matter was left hanging. It does seem that sony has indeed changed the format of the name and is calling it PLAYSTATION 3 or "PLAYSTATION®3" and is also using PS3. It looks like we should consider changing it:
Specifically "PlayStation 3" is wrong - it's not the capitalisation being used.
I could understand using "Playstation 3" for simple common sense reasons.
I think we should change it to one of these, (my vote is for the version sony is using) but must get some more feedback from other people.HappyVR 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Specifically check http://playstation.com/products.html
"PlayStation 3" is fine, IMO. Do a Google search for "playstation-3". First hit is "World of PlayStation"; note caps. Inside there ("PlayStation Global"), you can select your region; I chose North America. (Note how even "PLAYSTATION 2" is capitalised in the navigation bar; since we all know it as the "PlayStation 2", this reinforces the notion that the capitalisation is purely stylistic.) Now I hit "News", and the only PS3 article I see is Kojima on PS3, dated 2006-06-29. And in the first sentence, "PlayStation 3".
Personally, I agree with previous sentiments that "PLAYSTATION 3" is loud and a bit "rude" in all caps. "PlayStation" seems to remain the sanctioned capitalisation, as well as the norm established by the series. The caps are (IMO) just marketing to make the name stand out. Not uncommon in advertising. I wonder if using them in Wikipedia might even risk appearing as an advertisement …
Even if "PLAYSTATION 3" becomes the official name, I expect everyone except Sony will continue calling it the "PlayStation 3". But certainly I think it's appropriate to mention the caps thing in the opening paragraph. — Wisq (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point - PlayStation remains the generic name for the brand. And it looks like not all sony's minions have decided to capitalise - and who can blame them - putting PLAYSTATION 3 in the middle of a sentence looks LOUD. However I think the capitalised version is the correct one even if it's only being used in releases direct from Sony HQ. HappyVR 21:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
My two cents... I hate the capitalisation as much as anyone -to me it looks like the writing that new-computer users do on chatrooms- "HELLO HOW ARE YOU NICE WEATHER" kind of thing. However, if you look at official Sony Press releases [6], you notice something stark. While Sony continues to utilize the prior spelling deliberately for "PlayStation" and "PlayStation 2", in the very same press release you have every instance of "PLAYSTATION®3" capitalized as such. That they would make a point of utilizing it in that manner is a rather clear indication that, as others have said, the official Sony name is... "PLAYSTATION®3". With the caps. Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You can name in the article that it is supposed to be PLAYSTATION, but the article name should be Playstation 3, as the naming guidelines take precedence over the brand name typography. I guess it is kept as PlayStation 3 due "historic" reasons (the original article was created on 2001.[7]). -- ReyBrujo 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair point, but, for instance PowerPC doesn't follow this rule, nor would I suggest that the guidelines overule the intended capitalisation.HappyVR 22:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC) After all guidelines are there to help, but are not laws.HappyVR 22:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to find some similar examples to see what other people have done: Notably Category:Toy companies shows no problems with capitalisation eg TOMY.HappyVR 22:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Re: "PLAYSTATION 3" -> "Playstation 3"... where exactly in the naming convention guidelines does it say we can't use all caps? Being a title, I assume "PLAYSTATION 3" is a proper noun, and is thus (as I read it) exempt from the basic Wikipedia "first letter capitalised, rest lowercase" guideline.
Note that I stand by my arguments for "PlayStation 3" over "PLAYSTATION 3", particularly since Sony uses "PLAYSTATION®3" and we can't really do that every single time we mention the PS3. But either way, I'm just trying to understand your case. — Wisq (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If you'd read the survey below you may have been lead to WP:MOS-TM, which states that special marks like ® shouldn't be used anyway. So regardless of opinion, it couldn't be that way. Nevertheless, the proposed move has already been defeated. --Kamasutra 06:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I did read the survey. My point was not regarding the "®", it was regarding the notion that we could not (theoretically) name an article "PLAYSTATION 3":

You can name in the article that it is supposed to be PLAYSTATION, but the article name should be Playstation 3, as the naming guidelines take precedence over the brand name typography.

My point was, I don't see why naming guidelines would require that "PLAYSTATION 3" (or presumably, "PlayStation 3") become "Playstation 3". If it's a proper noun (which it seems to be), that makes it exempt from normal capitalisation rules, as far as I understand them.
Yes, I know it's all hypothetical, since the move was rejected. I'm just trying to more fully understand the rules and policies involved. — Wisq (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sony Uses Apples Logo. . .Needs a mention?

[8]

While the subliminal blip is long gone now, there is proof of it.

Maybe this should be mentioned? Infinitys 7th 19:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I say no. There is no context provided for the information. While it was there, I don't think it has any place in the article, as Wikipedia articles are not news reports. Dancter 20:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with the no. It was a fluke, just like the X on Cheney's face. It was a simple error but people of course, even on that linked site, went crazy with speculation. LighthouseJ 16:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It was most likely due to them (theoretically) using a trial version of the Apple "Shake" program. But, it has since disappeared. MastrCake 07:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the debate was no concensus for move. Joelito (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

PlayStation 3 → PLAYSTATION 3 – Rationale: use manufacturers official brand name capitalisation. Have asked for advice at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Naming conventions consumer products which confirms this viewHappyVR 13:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose. The Wikipedia policy at WP:NAME is clear. We should use the "most common usage" spelling for an article title, meaning the spelling that a typical user would most likely search on. There is plenty of precedent that the press routinely uses the spelling of "PlayStation 3" when discussing this product. [9]. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) which has a specific example covering this exact issue (don't use all caps). --Elonka 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To your first point, you can't exactly prove that people will more likely search for "PlayStation 3" instead of "PLAYSTATION 3". After all, people might use "Playstation 3" more than both. You just havn't proved it. Therefore, I would advise that you check your facts before putting it in a statement. MastrCake 07:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not exactly. On their home page, the link that goes to the "PlayStation 2" page is all caps. However, along the left of the page, it is spelled "PlayStation 2" and not "PLAYSTATION 2" like on the home page. They also capitalized "SYSTEM" in "PSP SYSTEM". That is most likely to make it look more uniform. I think that if Sony wanted the PS3 logo to be uniform with all the other consoles, they would've made note of that. MastrCake 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Caps are just used for promotional purposes. When it comes down to the fine print, including instruction manuals, PlayStation is used. An example can be seen here. --Reaper X 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The all-caps spelling is new for PS3, as all official PR material from SCE consistently spells the name with all caps, which is not the case for other PlayStation consoles.[10] (Follow the links for evidence. Headlines are customarily in all caps; this is not what I'm referring to.) Nevertheless, the all the MoS articles are pretty clear about the issue. General use overwhelmingly favors the camelcase spelling, so the article should remain at PlayStation 3. I think the official spelling could be indicated in the lead sentence and/or infobox, though. Dancter 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Since some time has passed without any objection to my proposal, I'm moving forward with adding a mention of the official trademark in the lead sentence. Dancter 17:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Update And hopefully to settle the debate over whether the all-caps spelling is official, here is a translation of an interview in which Kutaragi provides an interesting explanation of why. My oppose stance still stands, for the reason I have already given. Dancter 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That doesn't mean anything. I just checked the systems I own and Dreamcast and PlayStation 2 are the only ones that don't have the name printed on the system in all caps. We don't put articles under SEGA GENESIS, SUPER NINTENDO ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM, SEGA SATURN, NINTENDO 64, GAME BOY ADVANCE SP, SEGA GAME GEAR, XBOX, etc. Ace of Sevens 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sony's official press release here [11] has the company deliberately using PlayStation and PlayStation 2 with the first letter and middle lowercase for both the previous consoles, but when it comes to PLAYSTATION 3, the text reads in all capitals. The fact that Sony was quite deliberate when they did this means: It's not a font or lowercase issue, it's not a typo or a trademark issue either. It's the way Sony has deliberately placed the name, the same way as TOMY is also uppercase. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The link you provided clearly states regarding the manual of style that "All capitals are used for acronyms and some trademarks such as IBM". Can you provide any proof that using the lower/upper combo actually is "totally in line" by providing some sort of official link that shows Sony themselves using lowercase letters for the PLAYSTATION 3 name? Given the fact that Sony's own press releases clearly show them using the all caps for the PS3 name and in the same press release the lower/upper cap comb for the PS1 and PS2 names, the guidelines you linked to would clearly show a need to move for this article to all uppercase. Ex-Nintendo Employee 05:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - let's wait until the console is actually released before coming to any conclusions. --Zilog Jones 10:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I have been fighting against the current name of the article for a long time. I am glad to see someone step up to the plate (more than I did). I still don't understand why people are against a name change. It just makes sense, because, not only does the name on the console feature all caps, but because all of the Press Releases state the name in all caps. So what if (for example) Xbox is all caps on the console. In their press releases, it is always "Xbox". I believe that we should go BY the press releases. It is what we have been doing for the Xbox, is it not? It just makes SENSE! MastrCake 07:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The official homepages clearly write PLAYSTATION3 while on the same page writing PlayStation2 (ex [13]). The fact that some people might be likely to mistake the name doesn't mean the article should give the wrong name. If somebody is wondering what the official name is, they might check the Wikipedia article on the PS3 and I think this article should give them the correct name and nothing else.Mackan 16:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even though I believe PLAYSTATION 3 is the official name, I think Wikipedia's naming conventions and manual of style have precedence (see the first post). --Kamasutra 06:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as per Elonka. Dionyseus 03:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stronly Oppose for the same reasons as Elonka. Jhfireboy I'm listening 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

My prior vote
I had previously added in a "Support" vote and reasoning (plus several comments) regarding this poll. At that time I considered it to be legitimately placed by HappyVR. However, I have since been made aware that the user in question's edits such as this one change my viewpoint significantly. I have withdrawn my support vote and the comments associated with them. If someone wants to create a new proposal sometime in the future, I might listen to it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 05:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is something against Happy? lol that was obviously a bad edit. --70.130.203.183 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because of this comment made by Happy? Wow. Like they always say, "What happens in the Untied States Wikipedia article, stays in the United States WIkipedia article". I agree that what Happy did was wrong, but you are taking this too seriously. Just think about the PLAYSTATION 3 arguement. Just try not to be too sensitive about these things. Every vote counts (and, quite frankly, I think that this vote will not succeed, partially due to you withdrawing your vote). MastrCake 07:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democratic experiment. Mackan 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better, I don't think the tally is as lopsided as you might think. Some of the oppose "votes" are based on weak or poorly-supported arguments, and shouldn't carry as much weight. I've also added back Ex-Nintendo Employee's comments, and indicated that they have been withdrawn. Despite the fact that they don't count for the "vote" anymore, they are still useful for readers to form their own opinion. (Sorry if you disagree with this, Ex-Nintendo Employee. You can clear them again if you like.) And I don't know what everyone else is thinking, but since HappyVR was the one who opened the request for a move, I'm waiting for them to come back before closing it, which can't happen for a couple more days. That gives more time for supporters to speak up. Dancter 15:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
HappyVR is under a weeklong block at the moment- I think it's scheduled to end on the 16th. Should we postpone any further discussion on the matter until then? Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to hold off on discussing the naming issue. My thoughts on keeping the request open was just to allow HappyVR the chance to engage in some of the discussion that has occurred since they were blocked. That can be done without freezing the discussion. There's no rigid rule about how long a move request can be kept open. Though discussion of the matter of possible bad faith on the part of HappyVR should probably be refrained from, for the time being. Dancter 21:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Region Coding

The Playstation 3 cannot be region coded for Blu Ray Disk movies in Australia. Is the Playstation 3 going to come from the factory to Australia as region free or is it going to come with instructions on how to unlock region coding? Or is it still going to be region coded? - lil_naruto

I'm not sure where you got your information, but Australia was under Region B last time I checked. However, it may have changed to C since some charts now have it missing — "and all other countries". --Kamasutra 08:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

An Australian Court found that Region Encoding was a restrictive trade practice or something so now mod chips are legal in Australia. ~~ Jargon

True, but I don't know of any places where they're necessarily illegal. And who knows if there will be mod chips for such a thing any time soon. I highly doubt it would come with instructions to bypass it though. --Kamasutra 09:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
So how is it going to be sold in Australia? According to Australian laws, it must come in as multi-region or come with instructions on how to unlock it. -- lil_naruto —The preceding comment was added by 58.168.149.100 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

countdown till launch

http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?day=17&month=11&year=2006&hour=0&min=0&sec=0&p0=136 - thought this might interest PS3 fans :) Wtatour 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

not appropriate for the article, as you know. thanks for keeping this on talk only. --Gatoatigrado 13:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese name

Taken from the edit summary "It adds nothing to the article, it takes up unnecessary space and to people without Japanese language support installed it's confusing. would for example adding Arabic script be relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackan (talk • contribs) "

Instead of reverting your edit, I'm taking the discussion here. Saying it takes up "unnecessary space" has nothing to do with it. And ofcourse we don't ad the Arabic to this article, but considering it's a japanese product, by a japanese company, located in Japan. I would see this is actually a nice part of the article. It shows the diversity of Wikipedia, and it's not like it's a link to the japanese website, some people might find that little tidbit og information nice. And arguing it only confuses people without the japanese language pack is not a problem seeing as there is a ? link next to it that will explain what they are about to see. I'm awaiting your comment on this Mackan. Havok (T/C/c) 12:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If people really want to see the japanese name, why dont we just leave it to them to go to the japanese article? --Reaper X 13:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Because 1. It dosn't hurt the article. 2. It's a japanese product. 3. Mostly all other consoles/games made in Japan, or with a Japanese counterpart has it. 4. It's a nice tidbit. And I honestly see nothing wrong with it. If the only arguments are "Takes up space", "People who havn't got Japanese language support can't see it" then there is no need for it to not be there. It actually adds to the article, dosn't dither it in any way. Havok (T/C/c) 13:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but "romaji", i.e. roman letters are a part of the Japanese language as well as the katakana you insist should be in the article, and are commonly used for certain words, often abbreviations such as "CD" and "DVD" but also for certain product names, such as the PS. The official name for the PS3 in Japan is "PlayStation 3", in romaji, and not "プレイステーションスリー”, that's the way they pronounce it. if you need proof, check out the official Japanese playstation homepage [14]. Close to the bottom it says "商品名 PLAYSTATION®3", that means "the name of the product" It doesn]t say プレイステーションスリー or anything else. Adding the katakana is relevant in the Japanese Wikipedia article but seeing as it's not even the official name in Japan I can't see why anybody would argue about it's inclusion. I also object to the fact that you're "voting" over it, first of all "Wikipedia is not a democracy", secondly, maybe you should listen to both sides before you decide on your vote. Mackan 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you keep saying it "adds to the article", but could you be more specific what it is that it adds, exactly? As for the katakana, any speaker of Japanese would already be familiar with them so it's not for them. As for the romaji, the fact that Japanese people pronounce the title slightly different from the English pronouncation seems natural and not worthy of inclusion in the article.Mackan 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia might not be a democracy, but I have just as much right to edit in the Japanese name as you do removing it. That is why we have "votes" on where the article is supposed to go, consensus rules if no policy is made for it. And I havn't seen any policy stating that the article can't have japanese information. I have allready stated my opinion on why it should be keept. Havok (T/C/c) 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course you do. But you have no actual arguments for its inclusion except for "it's nice" and "it doesn't hurt the article". And you won't even reply to my arguments.Mackan 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd again like to protest the "voting", I'd prefer a real debate instead of you saying "I think we should do it this way but I won't debate over it, instead I hope the majority will follow my lead". You're not willing to reach a concensus, you're just hoping you have an ill-informed majority on your side. Mackan 10:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see [15]. "Any Wikipedian may start a survey on any topic, but attempts to reach consensus are much, much, MUCH preferred, and should perhaps be followed even when it pains us most". "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process". I think you should familiarize yourself with that page. Mackan 10:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"PlayStation" is not rōmaji, but "Pureisutēshon" is. The name of the console is presumably just derived from English. --Kamasutra 06:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken, "PlayStation" is romaji, romaji just means "roman letters" and I think you should re-read what I wrote above, (how CD and DVD, etc are commonly written exactly that way in Japanese text). "Pureisutēshon" is also romaji, yes, to be precise, it's a romanization of the katakan word プレイステーション. Mackan 10:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I know what rōmaji is and I don't believe I'm mistaken. You are taking a literal translation out of context. "PlayStation" is derived from English (obviously), it's not a romanization of a Japanese word (except possibly the one made from "PlayStation", but not in any romanization system I know of). However, this is beside your point which I clearly understood and I've seen many other examples as well. I had just thought I would let you know that you shouldn't refer to it as rōmaji. --Kamasutra 11:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Kamasutra, I should advise you that any notion of you "informing" me about the Japanese language is quite misguided from somebody who, according to their userpage babelbox, speaks no Japanese. I live in Japan and study normal university courses at a normal Japanese university and I previously majored in linguistics at UCL. Romaji doesn't mean "transliteration of Japanese word into Roman letters", romaji is the Japanese word for Roman letters ie the . PLAYSTATION is not a romanization of a Japanese word but it is romaji. I'm afraid that you indeed ARE mistaken. Mackan 13:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I know little Japanese as I have only taken a single course aside from self-teaching, but nothing in my book, from my professor, or the rōmaji article supports what you are saying (except the literal translation). Because of this, you can imagine why I said what I did. If what you say is true, then I encourage you to contribute this knowledge to Wikipedia by making changes to that article. --Kamasutra 00:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that the current article is unclearly worded, (in my opinion, the biggest problem is that romaji is a redirect to "romanization of Japanese", they're not the same exact thing). But just check the roman letters page in the Japanese wiki. One of the titles is romaji.Mackan 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Could Havok also please explain why he adds it again when we are currently discussing the issue? Do you have any respect for the process at all? I doubt that you even listened to my arguments, you had made up your mind from before that the Japanese should be in there for whatever reason. Mackan 10:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as this was discussed before in the PlayStation 3/Archive5, and wasn't removed from the page. I see no reason to edit it out before the vote to keep it or remove it has been finished below. You also removed "The" which has been discussed on the Wii talk page and voted on here, which is re-added to the page. Havok (T/C/c) 11:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny that the vote you refer to ended 4-3 for removing the katakana. The fact that nobody followed through and removed it doesn't in any way say "ok, it should be in there", more likely that the people interested lost interest and forgot about it. And, as user:TRegal said in the previous vote: "Thankfully, wikipedia is not mob rule. The plurality does not always get their way but rather the person who has the most information valuable to the reader. Please tell me how including katakana for a romanji word is valuable to the readers of the article". You are still not responding to my arguments.Mackan 13:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"...considering it's a japanese product, by a japanese company, located in Japan. I would see this is actually a nice part of the article. It shows the diversity of Wikipedia, and it's not like it's a link to the japanese website, some people might find that little tidbit og information nice." It's also a nice bit of trivia. Nothing more to say, and this I have stated two times or so now? Havok (T/C/c) 18:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be unfamiliar with the word "debate". You are simply stating your opinion. That's not how Wikipedia works, please familiarize yourself with [16] . Please also note that this poll has not been carried out in a correct manner ([17]) and is therefore entirely pointless. Mackan 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't start this poll. And it seems even though this is not a valid poll, most people want this to stay in the article. Why do you then continue to want to remove it? Feel free to remove it from the article, but don't get mad when it is re-added or reverted. That's the thing about Wikipedia, even though it is not democracy, it is the people who work on the article who tend to maintain it, and they have their own vision for it, and what they want included. You are outnumbered in wanting to remove it, but again, feel free to do so. And stating my opinion is the only thing I can do, just as you state your opinion on it's removal. I feel this is a good thing to have in the article, you do not. There is nothing against having this in the article anywhere in the policy or guidelines. So why do you insist on removing it? Because you don't feel it has any place there, just as I feel it does. It's all about opinion. Havok (T/C/c) 12:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
All right, you've got me. Discussing with you is like discussing against a wall of bricks. You refuse to respond to my arguments and suggest it's a question of opinion, like reasoning has nothing to do with it at all. I think it's to the detriment of this article but I don't want to waste more of my time over this, and I certainly won't be involved in an edit war, which you seem to invite me too (which I think says alot about your qualities as a Wikipedian...). Mackan 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because that is exactly what I said.. Please become acquainted with WP:CIVIL as you have been told by others on your talk page. Because I do not see your points of view, I am the person that has no "reasoning". Why do you not see that this is actually something good for the article? And responding to your arguments? What have I been doing? You ask my why, I tell you why. And then you tell me that I am not answering. As you can see below, more people show support for this, are they to at fault here? Do their "reasoning" not count? I have yet to see any reason for this to be removed, your reason is in my book not valid, hence I will not support it. Simple as that. Just as you will not support what I am saying. Havok (T/C/c) 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Votes Before considering casting a vote, please note that the guidelines specified at Wikipedia:Straw polls have not been followed.

Please motivate your vote. We are not simply tallying votes. Mackan 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a Japanese console. Dionyseus 11:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the result was not "overwhelming support for the Japanese name" 3 months ago as you suggest, the poll ended 4-3 in favor of removing the name.Mackan 01:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose On the grounds that the kana has nothing to do with a "Japanese name". As Mackan pointed out, the product is spelled with Latin characters even in Japanese contexts. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-11 18:18Z
  • Weak Support, this is a japanese console, thus the japanese name is just fine. However, although the official name is PLAYSTATION 3, they are also using プレイステーションスリー to refer to it.[18] -- ReyBrujo 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
True, it is used as well, but is that enough to include it? I think it DOES hurt the article because it clutters up the intro with unnecessary information. I am not opposed to including the Japanese name in general, in fact, I have added such to a large amount of articles on Japanese subjects. But in this case the name is the same in Japanese - the original title is no different from the English one so no clarification needs to be done. Mackan 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. As above, even though PLAYSTATION 3 seems to be the primary name even in Japan, the secondary name(s) should not be excluded since the product originates from there. --Kamasutra 06:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose If mentioning the official trademarked spelling (PLAYSTATION 3, in all caps, which is also being discussed on the talk page) can be considered a given and unnecessary (and I'm not saying that I agree with that), then including text used only as a Japanese phonetic representation of an English word certainly doesn't belong in an English-language article. Dancter 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Playstation 2 has had the same secondary name for as long as I can remember, what makes it all of a sudden a problem? In fact, the first time the secondary Japanese name was included in the PS2 article was in January 15, 2004. [19] All of a sudden Mackan is all up in arms about the secondary Japanese name for the Playstation 3? As for Mackan, how exactly does the secondary name clutter the article, the name is so short. Dionyseus 02:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that it has been there for a long time is hardly a valid argument that it shouldn't be removed..! It seems obvious the inclusion of katakana should be the same for PS2 and PS3, but I don't want to get in a revert war with Havok (who after stating on the top of this discussion that he wouldn't revert my change, reverted it), which is why I haven't reverted this page. What are you trying to establish with your comment, make the debate more infected? I don't think the fact that it's short is a good argument for inclusion, the arabic name is probably not that long either. The only possible reason for including it is if the ORIGINAL name of the product is different from the one used in the States. It isn't.Mackan 03:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, the guideline on straw polls is just that, a guideline, not a policy. Havok (T/C/c) 12:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the katakana name, support Havok's decision to reinstate a long-time established article element while its validity was being discussed, but object to calling a poll with only two arguing participants and no outside opinions.
    • Regarding the Japanese name: Please take a (second) look at [20], the link raised by Mackan at the start of this discussion (in support of removing the katakana name). While "PLAYSTATION®3" is used (three times) only in the table of product details, "プレイステーション 3" is used twelve times in the prose that surrounds it. (However, the current article lacks a space before "3", which I will add in a minute.) Arguments about lack of browser support are (IMO) generally moot because the {nihongo} template offers help in that regard.
    • Regarding romaji: According to my copy of EDICT (2006-04-30), "ローマ字" ("ローマじ", romaji) is "transliteration of Japanese in "Roman" or Latin letters; romanization; romanisation; romaji". While "ローマ" is "Rome" and "字" is kanji for "character" (among other things), the dictionary is pretty clear on the actual meaning of "ローマ字". This is also my understanding as a student of the language. (Disclaimer: I study using kana books almost exclusively.)
— Wisq (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I added that space, but that made it "run in" to the romaji (since they were only separated by a single space). So I added a comma, which shows up fine in Konqueror, but looks funny in Mozilla. Maybe it was better without the space, even if that was less correct (AFAICT). — Wisq (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It should probably be kept to how the template makes it, as far as the comma goes, unless there is some special situtation with these words that shouldn't be made in general to the template. --Kamasutra 06:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

should we talk about how you can only play "your" games on the PS3?

I'm not sure if the rumour was confirmed, but I heard EVERYWHERE that your ps3 will only allow your game on the console, which means that you can not bring it over to a friends' house. I'll put this info in the article once I get back from work. -Dragong4

I've never heard of it, and (given the read-only nature of the optical disk media) it's close to impossible for that to happen. Unless you've got a linkable reference source, I would recommend against putting that in the article. Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have heard about it, yes. It got so strong Sony itself had to debunk it. -- ReyBrujo 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
As of now, Sony has disbanded all console locking rumors, this might change by september in TGS, so no. --Xymor 22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the only article I've read about it. ~ Hibana 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The title of that article is wrong, it's potentially damaging to Sony, and it should be fixed immediately, it sounds like a tabloid headline. Even in the article they admit that it was patented back in 2000 before the release of the PS2, and that Sony has repeatedly tried to blast these rumors. Dionyseus 23:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have found 4 or 5 sites, but I think this is the best one, because it includes a Sony representative comment. Note that Eurogamer also contacted Sony about the matter,[21] and that Next Generation also did some research about it.[22] -- ReyBrujo 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice find ReyBrujo. So it seems that the tabloid The Inquirer is responsible for starting this false rumor. This doesn't surprise me, The Inquirer is known for that kind of stuff. Dionyseus 20:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

SACD?

Someone just added Super Audio CD to the list of supported formats. It seems plausible as the PS3 seems to have the necessary physical equipment and its a Sony-developed format, but I don't recall seeing this mentioned in any of Sony's press materials. Can anyone confirm/deny this? Ace of Sevens 13:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's been consistently indicated on the spec sheets, including the one in the Japanese E3 press release that is cited;[23] but Sony never made a big deal about it, probably because next-generation audio CD formats never really caught on. The info has actually been in the article for a while, but only recently was the SACD thing added to the infobox. Dancter 14:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Open this page up

no need to have it closed anymore. me > you 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Malik1

It's not closed, it's semi-protected. Anyone who's been registered for at least four days can edit it as much as they want. Regardless, you didn't give any reason to support why it shouldn't be "closed", which would probably be helpful to the administrator who would consider it. --Kamasutra 23:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There is not a lot of news, and most edits are spam or organization. If you have new information, post it on the talk page. --70.130.148.202 17:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed... If a new user really has something good to add before they have been around four days, they can mention it here and someone else will gladly add it. I see no benefit in taking this article off semiprotection. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-15 18:04Z
I agree with Kamasutra, 70.130.148.202, and Uberpenguin. Dionyseus 18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
where the hell you guys been theres tons of news. The ps3 games are projected to be $70-$100.me > you 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Malik1
That info has been in the article for a while. It's the last sentence in the Retail configurations, pricing and release date section. Dancter 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Showcasing graphics

The article states that the graphics were showcased by using devkits on current PC hardware; but isn't the power of the PS3 really much higher than anything a PC could currently produce? So how could a PC display the graphics in real time of games like Guns of the Patriots? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.51.27 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that metal gear was produced on a pc - maybe someone changed it since. they could easily render it at a slower frames per second, and speed it up to what they expect the ps3 could do. however the metal gear trailers bragged that they were not prerendered, and they in fact gave a demonstration to a reporter, captured on tape, with live manipulations (the moving of the controller is actually not seen in the video, but it is improbable they could time the interview perfectly with the demonstration). the dev kits have been out for some time. also, a very high end apple g5 quad core might come close enough for some of the games. the graphics from resistance, fall of man improved, possibly because the early videos were from a pc and later ones from the playstation 3 dev kits. --70.237.121.64 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Silver PS3 Picture

why on earth is the pic set to the Silver PS3, and the controller when they are only being launched in black?? Wtatour 11:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear god, not this again... Ex-Nintendo Employee 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Because this is the best free image we have available. -- ReyBrujo 11:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you want to read about the previous discussions about images, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. -- ReyBrujo 12:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

you're telling me not 1 person has a personal photograph of the black Playstation 3? Wtatour 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah, it's not impossible. it's not out yet. upload it if you do. or maybe if you want to write an email to sony they'll give permission for the image and it won't be fair use. the pictures convey the information necessary; there is no need to make this page a piece of "artwork" like something corporate. we're not here to sell the ps3, but to inform consumers. Do you think a note under the images would be appropriate? A silver ps3 has been mentioned as a possibility after launch anyway. --70.237.121.64 02:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have tried that, and the image would still be copyrighted by Sony and useless to Wikipedia. They would have to release the images on GPL if we want to use it. Just leave the image as it is. Havok (T/C/c) 07:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
How is this not fair use? It would seem to be a pretty clear case to me. Ace of Sevens 07:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia basically says this: Any picture that we use from ANOTHER source (like a magazine, a press-release photo, or whatnot) is called "fair use". We can use it but we can't modify it. A free image, however, is one that one of US actually take and then put on here. Like the one that's currently up there at the moment. We can use it, modify it or whatnot. And according to Wiki, if a free picture exists, we have to use it instead of a fair use one. Ex-Nintendo Employee 07:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
But no free image of the actual model exists. i would think that would justify a fair use one. Ace of Sevens 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
We have discussed this before, I have very much wanted to keep the fair use one, but if a free one exsists we must use that. If we want to use the fair use one, the difference would have to be monumental. And as it stands now, only the color is different. Havok (T/C/c) 07:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"only the color is different" lol yeah, i made that point earlier. so a copyrighted with permission isn't better than fair use? why do we need to edit it? --70.226.93.228 17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
A copyrighted with permission picture IS "fair use"... Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

you can have it in any colour as long as its black, so lets upload a silver photo!! Can we not just email sony and ask if we can put their "stock" photos on Wikipedia? For someone who has no idea about the PS3 it gives the impression it is only available in Silver. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wtatour (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if they gave permission to Wikipedia to use the "stock" photos, it is very unlikely that Sony will grant the sort of copyleft license that would favor their use over the free images already avaiable to us. There are freely-licensed images of the black model (current revision) available,[24][25] but I think quite a few editors were of the opinion that even with the color issues, the current image of the silver one was more informative, with better visual quality and more discernable physical detail. You are free contest that, of course, but I doubt anything will be brought up that hasn't already been mentioned many times before. Dancter 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

how about this from kotuku.com http://www.kotaku.com/images/2006/07/DSCF5292.JPG

Being a photograph doesn't immediately make the image any more or less free than a promotional shot. We still need the image to be explicitly released in a free (Wikipedia-compatible) way by the copyright holder. Personally, I also think that image is less informative, even if it's more accurate colour-wise. — Wisq (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah don't worry about it; we'll get a good image when the product comes out. we don't need to promote the playstation and make it look nice. some people can get very combative about it; at least this one has the right controllers and everything. 1. --69.221.234.227 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a point, but if we allowed to edit the picture, why doesn't someone just photoshop it so it is black? Most decent editing programs have texture addition features, so just use black and shiny or whatever. -- Gizzakk 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The license for the current image does allow it to be modified, so that is an idea. I have my doubts that it can be made to look like the black version, but people are free to try. Dancter 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

what is this?

"Sony has also announced at last years E3 that PS3 would be an always on, always connected device, allowing you to connect to it to access your stored media via the internet" --70.226.93.228 17:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

a citation was added. very neat. --69.221.234.227 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

games list

I know this looks like I'm deleting people's hard work, but some of this isn't appropriate for the "major games" list. Some of these may become major, but at this point some are rather undeveloped.

I suggest moving them to the List of PlayStation 3 games games article. --gatoatigrado 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

socom4

media out? news? its coming for ps3, but other than that, why is it major? the previous version's fame (if it had any) doesn't count.

Jak and Daxter: The Lost Frontier

media out? news? its coming for ps3, but other than that, why is it major? the previous version's fame (if it had any) doesn't count.

Killzone PS3

Other than a fake trailer, there's been no media.

Reports in Gamespot and IGN:

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/killzone2/index.html?q=Killzone http://ps3.ign.com/objects/748/748475.html

Mobile Suit Gundam

media out? news? is it coming for ps3? the previous version's fame (if it had any) doesn't count.

Gamespot report on gundam for the PS3

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/sim/gundamworld/index.html?q=Mobile%20Suit%20Gundam

Ratchet & Clank PS3

same, not much I can find about it.

Report of said game being developed for the ps3

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/ratchetclank/news.html?sid=6146408

Dynasty Warriors 6

media out? news? is it coming for ps3? the previous version's fame (if it had any) doesn't count.

God of War 2

for the playstation 3?

Dynasty Warriors: Way of the Swords

repeat of dynasty warriors?

It might not be one though. 24.188.203.181 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

Shin Megami Tensei

no media, needs a playstation 3 link on wikipedia.

  • Removed all said games until more info is released.

-74.33.11.34 09:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Atlus announce reported by gamespot: http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/rpg/shinmegamitensei/index.html?q=megami%20tensei

--Xymor 23:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Silent Hill 5

There is no confirmed console for it. It states on the games page.

Konami wasn't sure which next-generation console it will be put out on but mentioned that it will be the best one, "be it PS3, be it Xbox 2 [sic]... It won't be on the current consoles."


Wikipedia acrticles are NOT for rumor or fan speculation. Stop adding Silent Hill to the list of games until it's confirmed. -74.33.11.34 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

the ref for the tflops should be changed because it is 2.18 now, and sony says two. google search shows the number was circulated and is probably correct. a reputible source would be nice. google. --gatoatigrado 01:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

resolutions

I don't want to put in anything stupid, but doesn't HDMI support all of the resolutions in the table? --70.230.233.91 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Core version doesn't have HDMI -74.33.11.34 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:PlayStation_3/Archive_11&oldid=65651206"