Jump to content

Talk:CD-i

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 47.208.18.49 (talk) at 23:10, 30 April 2019 (→Should we change CD-i to be a 'format'?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Models

This para removed, having little in common with this list of models:

The Philips CD-i system came in four models: the CD-i 450, which was the "video game CD-i", the CD-i 210, which was the common multimedia version, the CD-i 220, which was the full featured top model and the CD-i 550, which was basically a 450 with the Digital Video Cartridge installed plus it came with an arcade pad.

Dtcdthingy 03:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why not leave it in, still interesting information that you have to come to the discussion to find out.


The Loophole

As far as the loophole, I've heard it numerous times, and when I get home from work I'll take a look into finding a trustworthy source on it, because I don't believe Nintendo willingly let them do it, but they were allowed to based on the language of the contract. --Visual77 20:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're right, and I didn't mean to imply that the term loophole is blatantly misleading, but we would basically have to see the contract itself if there was a legal loophole that Philips exploited, or at least an article about Nintendo being angry. Most likely Nintendo was placed in a bad position when they went to Philips to get out of their licensing situation with Sony, and Philips was happy to exploit any connection with Nintendo legally allowed. I imagine that Nintendo grumblingly let Philips release Nintendo games but didn't complain too much when the royalty checks started rolling in. This is, of course speculation, which is why I tried to make the language as ambiguous as possible in my revision to your revision. I don't recall Nintendo ever publicly complaining about the situation, although they might have, I was about 10. Dwiki 07:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know from reading old video game magazines, Nintendo and Sony split ways, then Nintendo went to Philips, because the CD-i was already in development. Nintendo then assured, in some random blurt in a random issue of Nintendo Power in 1992, that Nintendo's CD-ROM unit would be 100% compatible with CD-i. Now what does that mean? Nintendo didn't do a damn thing about the four "Nintendo" games released on CD-i, and I remember if somebody called 1-800-255-3700 and asked the rep about CD-i, before Nintendo split with Philips and went with SGI for Project Reality, they were giving info out that those games were approved or whatever. Anyways, it's been too long to really remember. I suggest just getting a bunch of old-ass magazines from the era and carefully reading the news and previews sections, maybe even gossip, and see what and who said what. Coffee5binky (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to emulators

Well, the emulator entry sure links to a lot of them. In general, content providers may claim that emulators themselves are illegal, but it's my understanding that at least in the US, distributing emulators is legal, since they don't infringe on copyright. Distributing the ROMs is, however, illegal, which is why [1] doesn't provide any. -- Dwiki 19:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the line stating "The most popular games for the system were The 7th Guest and Burn: Cycle." Unless there's a verifiable source, this seems to be inherently biased. Genocidal 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a biased topic. To me (and I have the system still along with about 30 CDs), I enjoy Dragon's Lair and Space Ace the most, though 7th Guest is ok.

Notion of the CD-i platform as being a game machine.

While Philips did dabble with the idea of expanding into the edutainment market, there was never a presumption that they would compete with Nintendo or Sega. At best there was the idea of competing with the 3DO as a multi-media appliance (or as Pioneer called it, "in­teractive home-entertainment system") in the high-end market, and a limited number of games were presented at tradeshows to round out the platform library. This was a way to sell their video platform to the affluent A/V consumer by adding the pitch tha their video system is better because your children can use it for their entertainment as well. In 1995 the home entertainment market was very segmented with multiple stratas of competition. While it's easy in hindsight to blanket them all into the "video game market", as vertical market players, in reality they were horizontal market players that crossed into the space to increase their feature lists.

These catagories of systems were generally never even marketed on the whole as game machines. They were attempts at driving a home video format/player when it was preceived that the killer ap to sell your video player was including the ability to do other things than play movies. Pioneer attempted to enter this market as well with the model CLD-A100 LaserDisc player which had Genesis/PC Engine AND karaoke expansion capabilities. But even then, that system was marketed as a LaserDisc player with these extra enhanced features. The Nuon was originally planned as an enhanced DVD player that *also* played games and would eventually have internet access. The Pippen was a home Internet appliance that *also* played games. Heck my Palm Pilot plays games but that doesn't make it a game machine.

In 1995 the replacement for VHS was the killer ap everyone was searching for. Everyone wanted to show you how great a movie looked on their player first followed by "oh and by the way it will play games too!" But that didn't make any of these systems video game consoles.

Personally I think that it's questionable having CD-i in the cvg comparison listings, and at best it should have it's own side catagory. BcRIPster 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wrong to describe in the summary that the CD-i was the biggest commercial failure for game consoles, because it was not from the start intended as only a game console. It should be toned down. Andries (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I just removed the whole sentence. I personally take odds with GamePro's dubious classification for the system. BcRIPster (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first cd based home consoles

If I am not wrong, this console the CDi, was one of the first cd based consoles releaced on the market and this should be included in the article. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No joy? Give us a bell on wether or not the Phillips CDi is one of the first CD based consoles asap. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was. Andries (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not just go on belief though. Someone should confirm release dates. The real challenge here though and what I suspect you're getting at is it being the first cd-based videogame console? If not, then how are you defining console? So with that said, how do we factor in that it wasn't re-purposed as a videogaming console until 1994 at the earliest? If you take it from that approach then it is possibly the last cd based gaming console for that generation. BcRIPster (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the CD-i is the first CD-rom based "console" if you want to call it that. The Sega CD was released two days earlier in Japan, but it is categorically an add-on (a peripheral to the actual system which uses cartridges) and preceded by the PC-Engine/TurboGrafx-CD by almost three years (also an add-on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed statements

I've just removed the following unsourced and unclear statements from this article:

"What is little realized or understood is that Philips and Sony made large sums of money of the patents pioneered with CDi, and these patents carried over to many other formats, so all of the efforts were both product centric and also pioneering research to helped us get where we are today."

"What it is important to know is that Philips and others filed so many patents from the CDi development that enormous revenues were generated. For those who actually understand the economics of the compact disc evolution, it is useful to understand that large continuing revenue streams were created that were not calculated into the typical reporting or understanding."

If these statements can be sourced and elucidated, it would be better to place them in the Green Book (CD standard) article. 66.18.219.221 (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed merge tags

I've also removed the merge tags on this article and on the Green Book (CD standard) article. There was no discussion present about this proposed merge anywhere that I could find, and no reasons were given for it back when the merge tags were added on March 16, 2013. 66.18.219.221 (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better source needed

The source for this statement:

"The CD-i was also the first console to feature online gaming, including subscriptions, web browsing, downloading, e-mail, and cross-country online play."

appears to be a self-published blog, which usually does not meet with Wikipedia's verifiability and reliability standards as per WP:SELFPUB. And though there is no in-line citation, presumably the entire Philips CD-i#TeleCD-i and CD-MATICS section is sourced from this blog too. Can we not find a more reputable source for the information contained in these sections? Also, though the bare hardware may have been present "first", certain features listed here may have been present first in other consoles. Without proper sources, there is no way of knowing for sure. The Sega NetLink came out in 1996 I believe, for instance, even though that article is lacking a specific date. 66.18.219.221 (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reputable source? The damn thing has actual sources and pictures, blog or not That shit is not photo shoped. Uou are arguing $1 bills don't exist if someone on a blog posted a picture of an actual dollar bill being spend at a store. It does not workj here.
I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, as it explains better than I can why I object to the use of a blog as a source. Certain sources of information are just more reliable than others. 66.18.219.221 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter whatsoever, if you really want a better source, than tag it instead of deleting the whole thing. I added a youtube video of an actual commercial as well and that was removed so it seems there is a confliction that won't be solved. Here is the source again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbLaD4S8Ruw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did tag the source as requiring improvement. Oddly, that tagging was removed by your revert. As for the sections you were attempting to add, I do not quite understand what they mean, and I do not understand what these pictures (here and here) are meant to indicate in context with your edits. As for why I removed your edits, the entire string of edits you have made over the last day or two have been disruptive to several articles, and these are the kinds of edits which need discussion first, as per Wikipedia:Consensus. I feel that this particular case is precisely the kind of situation that needs to be properly discussed by several editors so that a consensus can be reached on adding content to the article. That Sony looks like a fascinating piece of hardware, by the way, and if more substantial sources can be found, perhaps mention of the technology would be better suited for the Green Book (CD standard) article. 66.18.219.221 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10 million

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4YpOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Ox8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=5685,2426045&dq=philips+cd-i+internet&hl=en

Accroding to the above link. Has made an estimate into the year 2000 for CD drives, however, he also stated that "AT THE MOMENT" the "SHARE was, while not very big in comparison to 70mill audio and 30mill PC CD drives, the current market share of the CD-I was 10 million drives. Which although i put the original 1 million link, due tot he over 30 kinds of CD-i players from various manufactures, and the announcement of disconinuation in 1996, but instead releasing an internet modem and gong on until 1998, that this makes more sense. The source is also from Philips, which considering the amount they lost i doubt they would outright lie about there figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is what that article actually says: "Hawkins [executive vice president of Philips Media] said the market for CD-based hardware was about 110 million divers per year, rising to 200 million in the year 2000. At the moment the lion's share, 70 million, is for audio compact discs, with 30 million computer CD-ROMs and the rest CD-i." Nowhere in that are sales figures mentioned, and nowhere in that is current marketshare mentioned. What is discussed is what Hawkins believes the yearly demand now is for CD-based hardware and how much he thinks it will grow by the year 2000. He goes on to break this down by what he thinks the share will be for three types of CD technology and reaches the conclusion that there will be a market demand for CD-i hardware of 10 million units per year. I am really at a loss to understand how you pull any claim of lifetime sales out of a statement that basically boils down to "demand is now 10 million per year and will double by the year 2000." Indrian (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are not reading in the context of the quotation. "Hawkins [executive vice president of Philips Media] said the market for CD-based hardware was about 110 million divers per year, rising to 200 million in the year 2000." And THAT's where his estimates end. Lions share means the current standings, and if you look up "Lions Share" you will find articles describing exactly as i said. 110 was the actual, 200 million was the expected, that's why he cut down the drives for the current time period and not for 2000.
      • I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. He claims the current market is 110 million per year. If he were giving a sales figure, he would say something like "sales were 110 million last year." This is how marketers and analysts talk. Indrian (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and then he goes on to break it down. You miss the part where he mentioned 200 million projected for 2000. if they were not the number than why did he break down the sales in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, he breaks down the 110 million number into three smaller pieces, but that initial number is still not a sales figure, so neither are the smaller numbers. He is giving figures for the total demand per year. Indrian (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No he is giving "Current' read Current "Lions share" (look up lions share) Numbers. I am not seeing how you are not getting that. The number is the number of drives, CD-I comes in only one type of drive, thus you can convert it to sales as CD-I players are the only drive that could possibly mean. What you are stuck on is the 200 million prediction for 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this has nothing to do with the figures he estimates for the year 2000. Please parse the paragraph. The entire paragraph is about "the market for CD-based hardware," which Hawkins says is 110 million per year. Then he breaks that down. He says the "lion's share" of the market, 70 million, is in audio CD hardware, another 30 million is in CD-ROM, and the rest (ie ten million) is in CD-i. So those are market figures addressed in drives per year. These are not sales figures, which are expressed in units shipped or sold. They are market size figures, which he says is 110 million per year. That does not mean that the year before 110 million units were sold, it means that as of the time he made that statement, he believes that CD hardware is selling at a pace of 110 million per year. That is an estimate because it represents expected demand rather than actual sales. Indrian (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But again, you fail to realize what he actually said. You are right up to the point of 110 per year. However with the split he talked about the CURRENT market share, of which the CD-I had 10 million drives. (which he assumed would continue) 10 Million dirves is the same as sales figures, because unlike Audio and PC drives which can have multiple variables to come up with overall figures being impossible, there was only ONE type of device that had CD-I drives and that is the CD-I players. The CD-I format can only be played by CD-I players that have the CD-I drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but you are the one who is mistaken. He is breaking down the market for hardware, which is already defined in the previous sentence as "drives per year." Therefore, the market share referred to is share of demand per year, which refers to anticipated sales in the coming year, not actual sales. Indrian (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am going to try this slowly. This sentence here "said the market for CD-based hardware was about 110 million divers per year, rising to 200 million in the year 2000. At the moment" See stop right here. You are not reading "At the moment" you are stuck at the estimates from before. What he was talking about was at the current rate the estimate would be "X" in 2000, "at the moment" would not be a valid statement if he was still talking about what you are saying. Again, Drives for the CD-I would be CD-i players. "Current" is not as you say "The coming year", you seem to be stuck on one part of the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this step-by-step post, because it shows me where you got off track and will hopefully allow me to explain things clearer. So, what happens is that he talks current market demand, estimates future market demand, and then goes back to discussing current market demand again. That is why the transition "at the moment" is used. But look what is actually said. He says the market was "110 million per year." That is short form for saying that, right now consumers are buying hardware at a rate of 110 million units every calendar year. This is market demand, which by its very nature is an estimate because until the calendar year is over and final sales are tallied, this is just a guess as to how many units will be purchased. The phrase "per year" here is key. If he were discussing the number of units on the market, he would say that currently, there are 110 million owners of CD hardware, or something similar. By stating the "market," i.e. the demand, is 110 million PER YEAR, he is telling the reporter how many units he expects to sell in the calendar year. As the article is from February, the calendar year had barely begun when he made that statement.
Next, he gives his estimate for how much the market will grown through 2000. The numbers here are not important except to show that he is continuing to estimate future demand. This is how market analysis works, you discuss the market at present and then discuss how much it will grow in the future. After this, he returns to the current year figures. There is no noun in the sentence to indicate a new thought, so he is once again talking current market DEMAND, which is different from market SHARE. In the preceding sentence he indicates a current market of 110 million per year. After discussing the future, the transition "at the moment" is used to bring us back to the 110 million per year figure described previously. Then he breaks that figure down. So demand for audio CD hardware is 70 million PER YEAR, the demand for CD-ROM is 30 million PER YEAR, and the rest of the demand (ie 10 million PER YEAR) is for CD-i. Yes, he is speaking in the present not the future, but he is speaking of how much consumers will buy PER YEAR, not how much has already been bought in the past. This is what you are failing to understand about the article. Indrian (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I understand the article, it's just this whole thing is based on you focusing on one part of the sentence. You have said "After discussing the future, the transition "at the moment" is used to bring us back to the 110 million per year figure described previously." The issue is this is where you are stuck at. Because he talks about the current market breakdown by current "lions Share" he is not predicting the future like you are implying. Yes, i understand he "was' talking about per year, but what you are not getting is AFTER that sentence he broke down the current market and what is IN THE MARKET is the trend he is starting with for his predictions, so because of that the trend started with the share of 10 million CD-i drives sold. As well as 30 PC and 70 Audio as well. That is were the start of his trending came from, those are the drive number of the "then" current market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.64.30 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lion's share is not a technical term, its an idiom that means majority. The use of the term here has no bearing on the argument you are trying to make. Also, if you are not still following user_talk:Wgungfu you should go there because, he agrees with everything I have told you after an independent reading of the article. I believe you don't have any experience with how a business operates because otherwise you would understand that market predictions do not mean what you think they do. It does not matter though, because the article clearly states 110 million PER YEAR. That means its not a figure stating what is currently in the market, its a rate of sales. I am being patient with you, but this is getting tedious. Indrian (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost insulting as how you did not even read my paragraph at all and just skimmed over it making your own conclusions. You stick to one part and ignore anything else. In a market, especially for estimates on trends and etc. You must have a starting point. You are stuck on the earlier part of the statement. He explained the "current" marketshare that he would use for the trend on his prediction of "200 million in 2000" you need a starting point to make these predictions/estimates, and that's why he broke it down so it would be EASIER to follow. IF he did not do it that way than explain how instead of selective reading please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw this conversation and wait for a second opinion to come in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S-video support

So, someone removed S-video from the "accessories" list. Granted they didn't ship with S-video cables, some systems did have S-video ports. It just wasn't universal and apparently the manual that is being demonstrated is for a model without the port (I didn't look at the manual myself). So... it probably doesn't belong under "accessories", but S-video and SCART should both be listed as an output formats supported on some models. We may need to rework that section of the page. BcRIPster (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Philips CD-i. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philips CD-i. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CD-i sales get more confusing

The October 1994 Desert News article says "According to Philips, there are one million CD-i owners worldwide." However, the GamePro article I've just added references a Wall Street Journal article which says Philips, in July 1996, claimed it had sold 200,000 CD-i units. Since both sources are unquestionably reliable, and the wording of the Desert News article rules out the idea that 1 million was a "shipped to retailers" figure, I can only think of two explanations for this discrepancy:

  1. Philips was outright lying in October 1994.
  2. Third-party manufacturers accounted for the lion's share of CD-i sales.

And I'm not really happy with either explanation. Sure, exaggerating your sales figures is part and parcel of the gaming hardware industry, but claiming sales more than five times what you've actually sold? (I say "more than", because the CD-i must have sold at least a few thousand units in the two intervening years.) If they could get away with a whopper like that in 1994, why didn't they stick to their story in 1996? As for explanation 2, given how much Philips invested in making the CD-i a success, it's hard to believe they could have been trounced that badly by their own licensees.

Ideas, anyone?--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin IIIa: It's our job to report the sources, and sometimes we can't totally reconcile them. Sometimes you can just say that sources vary, and one says this and the other says that. So that's a lame answer but that's one idea, at minimum. — Smuckola(talk) 17:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know, at first I thought the text implied that the 200,000 figure is worldwide, but double-checking it now I see that if anything it hints that the figure is US only. Here's the relevant text: "The WSJ called the CD-i a 'marketing nightmare' in the U.S., although Philips maintained that it had sold 200,000 units and would soon be integrating the system into a new digital video disc player." I really wish I could read the original article in the Wall Street Journal, but I checked online before starting this thread, and WSJ's archives only cover up through 1923. And unfortunately, GamePro doesn't identify which issue of WSJ it was, just that it was in July.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's this: "CD-I sales help Microware: Worldwide sales of compact disc interactive players, an audio-video CD system partially invented by an Iowa software maker, doubled last year to about 200,000." The Gamepro article might very well be talking about an old number for yearly sales, not all time sales.--tronvillain (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, where does that GamePro article mention the Wall Street Journal? And that version of the article appears to say 570,000 units. --tronvillain (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, that GamePro article on worst-selling consoles has been thoroughly discredited, as several of the figures are verifiably wrong. I think you are on to something though with the idea that the 200,000 units figure represented sales in a single year. Indrian (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems odd to describe the GamePro article as "unquestionably reliable." Anyway, here is a 1996 WSJ article on the CD-i, if anyone is able to access it.--tronvillain (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, found the full text of the GamePro blurb that has the above quote. It could be yearly sales, or US sales, or US yearly sales.--tronvillain (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's for the U.S. only. It not far from Phillips announced 100,000 U.S> sales the year/year and a half ewarlier. I also find it odd that this talk page has this conversation but someone place the words "but in July 1996 they said they had still sold only 200,000 units" as if that's a factual statement with consensus behind it. Removed. 71.178.34.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Between this and Talk: Gex (video game), it feels like lately I'm really coming under fire for reporting contradicting sales figures from reliable sources rather than just pretending the figure I don't like is from an unreliable source. For the record, here is my version of the text (minus the sources so as not to have a bunch of ugly footnotes at the bottom of the talk page): "In October 1994 Philips claimed an installed base of 1 million units for the CD-i, but in July 1996 they said they had still sold only 200,000 units." And prior to adding it, I started up the discussion here. 71.178.34.108, please explain how these actions constitute misrepresenting the facts and going against consensus. Your reasoning for removing the GamePro citation is also unclear to say the least; first you say that their figure is for the U.S. only (with no explanation for why you think that), immediately after you imply that the entire article is factually incorrect (again with no explanation for why you think that), and your edit removes that one specific citation, not the source entirely.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again, I'd say that the sentence probably constitutes WP:SYN. Combining them like that implies that one necessarily contradicts the other, when the sentence reporting 200,000 units has "in the U.S." in its first half about marketing. Here we have reports of 400,000 units in 1994, and here and here we have over a million units in 1996. --tronvillain (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I finally have access to the WSJ article that the GamePro article is apparently referencing (linked previously), and what it actually says is "More than one million Sony PlayStation game machines have been shipped to U.S. stores in less than a year, but Philips has sold a mere 400,000 CD-i units in this country in five years." It also says "Although Philips won't discuss its losses, many industry veterans think it dropped more than $1 billion on CD-i, a huge amount even in a business where new products regularly crash and burn." --tronvillain (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think think the word "but" always implies a necessary contradiction. Doesn't really matter, though, if GamePro made a crucial typo in reporting the WSJ figure. Would you be willing to edit the article to replace the GamePro figure and citation with the Wall Street Journal figure and citation? I don't have access to the WSJ article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word "but" doesn't necessarily imply a contradiction, but in this context it's the implication that's likely to be drawn. But yes, I'll tweak the sentence and reference the WSJ. There's quite a bit of information in the WSJ article I can add. --tronvillain (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple reliable sources placing higher numbers during that time period. The gamepro/WSJ article clearly refers to the U.S> as the context across the pages around it makes clear, therefore it makes no sense to add to the article "but Phillips claimed 200,000" especially since there's nowhere in the article that says or even implies the number comes directly from Phillips. 71.178.34.108 (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've been meaning to substitute the WSJ info. --tronvillain (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The detail that the 200,000 referred to only US sales is pertinent, but the idea that the GamePro source didn't quote the numbers as from Phillip's is a little silly. The exact text in the source is "Phillip's maintained", attributing the statement clearly to Phillips. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It contradicts Phillips own press release around the same time but that doesn't matter, the point is the 200,000 was US only and the issue has been resolved. 71.178.34.108 (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change CD-i to be a 'format'?

I think calling CD-i a standalone CD player or computer games system is wrong, because if you think about it CD-i (CD interactive) was in fact an optical disc format that was used by other manufacturers too other than Philips themselves. [This article] about CD-i's history explains how Philips owned it but other makers could license it. Others have also called this a 'format', like in [this link] and [this link]. In fact, [This website] which is all about CD-i lists the hardware products of CD-i and notice that there are non-Philips CD-i players too, like from GoldStar, LG, and Sony. Here for example is info about a Sony Discman CD-i player: http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102662474.

It's presence in the gaming community both from it's functionality and marketed presence I would say qualifies it as a gaming console. Playing games on it was a focal feature, although it was established with the intention of a hybrid multimedia device and gaming device. I think it is categorically respected as a video game console and the absence of it's presence would be less informative of the console climate in general.--47.208.18.49 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it's currently misleading like this. It was a format much like CD or VCD, but owned by Philips (not open to everyone). I know there is a Green Book (CD standard) page but having read that, it seems to be rather a developmental and technical thing (after all it's called 'Book', surely does not sound like a optical disc format).

Another thing I've noticed is that discontinuation date is set to 1998, but I've seen sources that say 1996 (for example [this one] and also including [this one] from the website all about CD-i). I am guessing 1998 was a date written by someone here on Wikipedia long ago and stuck on, but really the year should be 96 (I know this is personal but I am pretty sure CD-i left the market before 1997, at least in Belgium where I were at the time). --DeLeeuw83 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is primarily about the Philips CD-I system. It was also a format (Green Book, just as CD used Red Book and Video CD used White Book) but this article is about the systems (the article already mentions other manufacturers). The format itself was published, so in theory anyone could have released discs in the format, but Philips was reportedly reluctant to share the technical specifications of the system. --tronvillain (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:CD-i&oldid=894936012"