Talk:PlayStation 4

PS4 or Playstation 4?

The article has uses of PS4 and Playstation 4. Eg. "The playstation 4 supports many blah blah" or "The PS4 supports many blah blah". Which should it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrededits (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sony appears to very much favor the "PS4" term in their press release. In fact, they only spell out "PlayStation 4" once in their press release. It sounds as though the console is going to be known primarily as the "PS4," with the longer name just a formality. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

To be consistent we should pick one, if we want to go with PS4, we should use PS4 everywhere. Currently the first paragraph only says "officially abbreviated" rather than "officiall branded" or anything. --Andrededits (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just not sure which is the official name, if either one is the official name. So I would hesitate at trying to pick one. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we stick with Playstation 4 for now then? --Andrededits (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine by me. If I had to guess at which one is the official name I would err on the side of the longer one. I suppose the default is to go with the longer name as the default. So let's stick with that for now until Sony publishes more publicity material; they might reveal which one is the primary name, and which the secondary name, over time. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I also changed the lead to indicate that the two names - longer and shorter - are aliases. It is not necessarily the case that one is the abbreviation of the other. In other words, it would appear that both are equally valid and equally official. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks --Andrededits (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It is fine to use PS4 as long as it's mentioned in parenthesis next to PlayStation 4 ahead of time. I've done this in the History section, so the body of the article can and should use the terms interchangeably. Once the lead gets to a certain length, the same can be done there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Current event

Could we remove the current event tag as the announcement event has finished? Logan (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I went ahead and removed it since the announcement and the basic details are taken care of. I kept the under construction tag for the moment, as further structural changes to the page are not out of the question. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

CPU Details

We do not yet know which architecture the PS4 CPU is using from AMD, why are we assuming that it's based on the "Jaguar" APU? Could just be that the CPU used is just a codename and has nothing to do with the AMD APU. I think that should be clearly stated as there's no information that confirms that it uses the tablet CPU. It also doesn't make sense for Sony to be using a tablet SoC for the Playstation 4 and couple it with a mid-range graphics processor that's likely in the Radeon HD 7800 series range. Not sure who put in the details that it's based on the upcoming Jaguar APU architecture... I suggest that we remove any references to the AMD Jaguar APU architecture... Cncxbox (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/02/20/sony-further-details-playstation-4-hardware-specs/#continued 2620:0:2820:2210:B1E5:19C5:FE9D:D4C8 (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I believe you're right -- "Jaguar" is a codename and not an architecture. There seems to be confusion about this matter in the tech media. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

When I said that this uses the Jaguar architecture I was going off this post, which is perhaps inaccurate. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Jaguar is an AMD architecture. It is their low-power core. There is a difference between an APU and CPU. The CPU, in this case, has 8 Jaguar cores. An APU, Accelerated Processing Unit, is when a CPU and GPU are combined on a single die.

Source: AMD Blog

BasementTrix (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources to use

Dear editors -- here are some press releases that will help flesh out the article with more exact information.

• Announcement
• DualShock 4 and PS4 Eye
• The press conference itself

I tend to rely on press releases for objective information, and articles for more opinionated pieces / comparions. For example, a press release will tell you how many TFLOPs the GPU operates at, while an article from a tech site will tell you how that GPU compares with other GPUs. Please post any other links or sources that you find useful for editing. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"I tend to rely on press releases for objective information"

For hardware and other technical specifications, sure. That makes sense. However, keep in mind that press releases tend to contain peacock terminology and are not always objective. Secondary sources are still preferred over primary sources per WP:WPNOTRS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that I use those primary sources for technical specifications (which are often misinterpreted and/or misstated in secondary sources). I'm not going off primary sources to tell, for example, how revolutionary or awesome the next console might be. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

PlayStation 4 specs

I am new to Wikipedia only have four edits since the article is semi protected I cant edit it. In the specs it should say for the cpu x86-64 My reference is http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/130221a_e.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiguy303952 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The reason I put it as 64-bit x86 is because x86-64 is more of a marketing term than a technical term. Both 32-bit and 64-bit CPUs are based on the same underlying x86 architecture. I believe it's helpful to the reader to explain that it's a 64-bit x86 architecture, because x86-64 makes no sense to the vast majority of readers. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

64-bit x86 makes no sense from a technical perspective. Changing to x86-64 and linking to the wiki page.

Hmm, I hadn't realized that was the prevailing terminology. Sounds fine. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sony has published specs on a PS4 site. https://secure.webassets.scea.com/pscomauth/groups/public/documents/webasset/feb21/pdf/playstation4_specification.pdf BasementTrix (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hold on. Per Eurogamer -- "x86 in nature, with 64-bit addressing - Sony calls it 'x86-64'" -- my understanding is still that x86 on its own is the correct term. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

x86-64 is the term most widely used to describe the 64-bit extension of the x86 instruction set, which is why Sony also uses this term. Kapitaenk (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Holyday

"with a release date set for holiday 2013." - When is that? Like holidays are not the same for Americans and Italians. Very vague and not really saying anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.134.165 (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to Q4, which is the accepted standard for future dates, season names like "Winter" should not be used either. See WP:SEASON - X201 (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please edit the article, as it is not an upcoming product any more: it's released to public

See http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/20/sony-announces-ps4-touts-unification-of-hardware-software-internet-capabilities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.153.230.50 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done It hasn't been released. It has only been announced. - X201 (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sensor Bar image (Edit Request)

Addition of a visual representation of the sensor bar provided by the Verge.

http://www.theverge.com/products/playstation-4-eye/6877 Lorondos (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: mainly because protection of this article expired after this request was made. I'm also not sure what exactly you want added to the article. We can't just copy and paste the image from the source to this article unless you can come up with a good fair use justification. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

PS4 with Gaikai integrated technology (Edit Request)

Sources:

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/sony-and-gaikai-join-forces-for-social-and-remote-play-in-ps4-1131847

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/20/playstation-cloud-revealed

Can we include Gaikai as Playstation 4's Cloud service provider? - zerohot99 (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Backward compatibility

A citation is needed for the statement: This is a consequence of moving away from the Cell architecture of the PlayStation 3 in favor of x86-64 for the PlayStation 4.

This statement is an assumption and shouldn't be included unless a reliable source supports it. The reason is that through emulation, you can run games across different platforms. For example, on an x86 processor can emulate games for the original NES. Later versions of the PS3 in fact did this for PS2 games. Emulation has a lot of overhead and isn't as efficient, but it's certainly possible as long as the CPU has enough horsepower to make up for inefficiency. So if the PS4 cannot play PS3 games, then it's not just a consequence of changing architectures; Sony may have simply decided not to include the feature. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the change in architecture does not make emulation impossible. I think the basic idea we want to communicate is that the PlayStation 4 does not natively play PS3 games. Having a powerful processor capable of emulating programs written for the Cell is very different from having a Cell inside. Just like early PS3s had Emotion Engine chips inside, whereas later PS3s lacked the hardware component of the original console. That being said, moving to an x86 architecture by its definition means moving away from the Cell. So the statement, in my view, is mostly correct, as long as we make it clear that native execution is impossible. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the page previously said "The PlayStation 4 hardware will not include the ability to natively play or emulate PlayStation 3 titles." This appears to have been quite incorrect. I edited the wording in this diff. A citation from a reliable source is still needed, though. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The PS4 APU will be much, much more powerful and could easily emulate the PPE's and SPE's of the PS3's cell CPU. The decision to not program an emulator seems to be of a strategic nature. Probably to push the Gaikai streaming service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapitaenk (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"could easily emulate the PPE's and SPE's of the PS3's cell CPU" - citation needed. I think you're underestimating the complexity of emulation. It isn't straightforward, and usually requires hardware far in excess of the power of what is being emulated to be functionally the same. Also, while it is probably possible, it is probably also cost prohibitive, at least to be included at launch and with a decent number of games supported. Remember, in order for the launch PS3s to run PS2 games, they included various pieces of PS2 hardware. When they removed one of the chips in the second generation models in favour of emulating it, the compatibility list went down significantly.

Personally, I find it more likely that, rather than leaving out emulation to push Gaikai, they bought Gaikai so as to not have to code the emulation.

Regardless of that though, any discussion of this is pure speculation, so doesn't really belong here. Unless there is a source indicating reasons one way or another for the lack of BC, it has no place on Wikipedia, talk page or otherwise. (WP:NOTAFORUM.)

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we're on the same page then. At least two editors kept removing the citation needed tag, so I initiated this discussion, which is appropriate in the context of keeping or removing that statement. After a little more time, I'll remove the statement altogether if no citation is provided. Thanks for the feedback. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course emulation requires a very complex software... But the PS4 APU does have more than enough power to easily emulate the two general purpose threads of the PPE and the parrallel threads of the SPEs. The theoretical raw performance of the entire PS4 APU is well over 2 TFLOPS including the GPGPU capabilities of the GPU, compared to the 0,2 TFLOPS of the PS3 Cell.

Sony wanted a streaming and steam-like download service including social features, so they bought Gaikai. I seriously doubt that Sony bought Gaikai just for emulation, although it is quite possible that this affected the decision IMO. Kapitaenk (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Like Alphatron said, let's avoid turning this into a forum. Any further comments that are not about the statement in question do not belong here and may be removed. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the discussion is just fine (so far). As you can see there are different assumptions but nobody has a proper reference to back up his premise. I think that the statement in question should be removed or quoted out. I also believe that it is fallacious. Kapitaenk (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the point. Since no-one has a reference (proper or otherwise) for their opinion, any statement about the reasons behind the lack of inclusion of PS3 backwards compatibility is merely a hypothesis. It has no place in the article, and nor do we have any justification in discussing our hypotheses here (per WP:NOTAFORUM, quote "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article"). Statements such as "The PlayStation 4 hardware will not include the ability to natively play PlayStation 3 titles." are fine since citations are readily available. Speculating as to why emulation won't be included (or ever that it won't be - they haven't ruled it out for PSN games yet; see http://www.joystiq.com/2013/02/21/psn-transfers-ps4/) is not. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Development kits

An editor is challenging that the following statement is a rumor:

"In 2012, Sony began shipping development kits to several game developers consisting of a modified PC running the AMD Accelerated Processing Unit chipset (formerly AMD Fusion)."

Any search will turn up dozens of reliable sources that these dev kits exist. It is true, however, that Sony has not commented on them (and probably never will). I do think mentioning their existence is beneficial to the article, but I'm not opposed to removing it if that's the consensus. I just take issue with the accusation that the statement is a rumor and removing it on those grounds. Opinions/thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we agree it is quite obvious that Sony sent out Dev-Kits back in 2012. But back then it was a rumor, and that is also the basis of the article you linked. Stick to the rules, don't treat it as a fact until you have a proper reference.

BTW, it is fine if you state in the history section that there were rumors about Dev-Kits being sent out. This is a fact, and I was trying to emphasize this before I removed the statement. Kapitaenk (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following. Multiple sources confirm that the dev kits shipped, including this one which was cited. It's not a rumor that they shipped; it is a fact. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So if any site states that their "sources" have legitimate factual info, then it can not be a rumor? ^^

The source is undiscernible, so it is a rumor, no matter what you say. You are just assuming (as do I) that it is true now that the PS4 has been announced.

Look, I see that you really want to have this info up for some reason. So just put the quote back up, remove the original citation and use a "citation needed" template. I will leave it be then. Kapitaenk (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not just any site. The source needs to be reliable, as defined by WP:RS. VG247 qualifies as such, hence the information should be trusted. In addition, there are dozens of other reliable sources that have published similar reports, many of which actually reference VG247's research further indicating that it's valid. So unless you are challenging that VG247 is unreliable, there's no reason not to allow the statement. I appreciate that you've responded to state your case, but let's give others a chance to chime in to see what the consensus is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)