Talk:PlayStation 3 system software/Archive 1

Categorizing Articles

As has been done with System Software V. 2.10 I belive that individual changes should be categoraed under

• Game
• Music
• Video

This would make looking for individual changes easier to find [[Seanor3 (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)]]

language to write in

I can see that the last few changes have all been to do with using British or American English. Now obviously there are always going to be differences of opinion on how something should be spelt, but its not as if its as such spelling mistakes. Both forms of English are acceptable on Wikipedia, and therefore should be accepted by all users.

I'm English (British), but I'd probably say to leave it as American spelling, cosidering that 99% of the games you buy aren't adjusted to British English when published in Europe.

However, it doesn't exactly ruin the flow to have it half British and half American. DO NOT correct it, unless it is a GENUINE spelling mistake and not just different spelling from the countries Chocobogamer (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, the article should be consistent throughout. In cases where there is no particular national bias (such as Britain, or United States), the article should maintain the standard that is predominant in the article. If no standard is predominant, then the first user to edit the article shall be considered the "first major contributor", and his style should be followed thereafter. Aericanwizard (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK fair enough. Therefore, as the first person who made a change (which had a word with different regional spelling), is apparently British, it should be written in BRITISH English according to Wikipedia's rules, REGARDLESS of the fact it span off from the main article. Simple. Chocobogamer (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All articles branch off from the main page. Yet not all articles are US English. WTF HAX~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see the argument is going to go on, so I have changed the terms used. Colour, however, I have put back to color, considering it is more globally used, and that if you program, you have to use the American spelling. Please everyone, stop being petty before the page is locked. Chocobogamer (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The very first edit indicated that this article was created as a break off from PlayStation 3. It was incorrect for that first author to impose British English on what had been formerly an American English article (note the first edit to PlayStation 3). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

removed xmb and linux sections

i have removed the 2 sections as they have their own articles and were irrellevant to this article in the sense that the articles for psp, wii and 360 concentrate on the os updates, and in the case of the wii, channel updates, which doesnt yet have its own article. have included links to ps3 linux and xmb in see also section, all the article needs 80.7.73.24 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the XMB section because the actual article on the XMB is not nearly as detailed on the PS3's version of the XMB. Also, the reason the PS3's system software page is so much more detailed than the Wii and the 360's software articles is that much of the info here was moved from the PlayStation 3 article, which was getting far too long. Also this article doesn't necessarily have to just be about the software's updates (even though the 360's and the Wii's articles are like that). I don't think there is enough information to warrant making a seperate PlayStation 3 XMB article and the Xbox 360 Dashboard section/article is far shorter than the section on the PS3's XMB (though the Wii Menu article is seperate and very well written). Also, if we do ultimately decide to keep the section on the PS3's XMB in this article, I think it would be a good idea to leave it between the two large table to help seperate them better if you are scrolling rapidly down the page. Thingg (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How about if the PS3 section of the XMB page is modified to include the info on this page? Chocobogamer (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, don't know why I didn't think of it before. Thanks. Thingg (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

VC-1 Capabilities

My PS3 only plays some .wmv videos, some come up as "unsupported data". Should a asterisk be added to VC-1 to represent this?168.102.16.177 (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not every video format is supported yet, its likely that its been encoded into WMV but a different format Chocobogamer (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes on Divx playback

Allright, It's been removed twice so I'm discussing it here waiting to see if there is more than one source to this info I came up with and have verified (Unfortunately, without more sources, it's technically original research and can't be on the page)

[[DivX]] encoded content will always initiate with a brief DivX logo that currently cannot be turned off. [[XviD]] encoded content will not initiate with the logo.<br /> [[XviD]] encoded content must be copied to the hard drive first to play. Otherwise an error (with a number of 80028801 if run off a disc) would occur.

Anyone? --Jack Zhang (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the DivX logo is encoded into the video not by the PS3, and I have played Xvid videos ok over a media stream. But the important question is is this information strictly necessary Chocobogamer (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true, when you pause the video just as it starts, the logo still fades in and out proving it's in the firmware. I double checked and all the DivX files I've viewed through VLC that I have on my PS3 don't have the logo encoded in there. --Jack Zhang (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The DivX logo gets encoded into the video by using a unregistered copy of the codec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.249.3 (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Software Updates

2.00 2.00 System Software was a major update and was released 7th of November 2007. Denzelio 09:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

http://au.playstation.com/support/ps3/faqs/systemupdate200.jhtml

Update features have been added to the article page.

2.01

Although unconfirmed by Sony (as was playback to begin with), the multi-channel DSD to DTS SACD playback over optical audio that was added in version 2.00 has been removed in 2.01. PS3SACD.com confirms this as it did when the feature was initially added. Is this suitable to add to the 2.01 section? DanManX (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, only at this moment it's only mentioned on the home page. The FAQ hasn't been updated accordingly yet.The Seventh Taylor (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be mentioned at all due to the fact it was not mentioned on either of the 2 official Sony release listings that i already posted. It most likely was not a final version and thus taken away in the next minor update. None the less it was not mentioned on either 2 updates and until it is by Sony is not relevant, and should have only remained in discussion. Denzelio (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"most likely was not a final version and thus taken away in the next minor update." That's as good a reason as any to include it. This page is about differences in the versions of the OS. Just because it is not mentioned by Sony does not mean it is a lie. They don't mention changes in files sizes, but they are definitely there. Well, that's my twopennethworth. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

2.10 2.10 System Software was a major update and was released 18th of December 2007. Denzelio (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

http://au.playstation.com/support/ps3/faqs/systemupdate210.jhtml

Update features have been added to the article page.

There is a new music visualization available in this update. It is based on NASA images of Earth from space. I know this is true because I have a PS3, but I have not seen anything on the internet about it except that I posted on an official PS3 forum about it and people backed me up half way down the page I linked to. Can I use that link as a source?J.delanoy (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No not really, also looking for a sony source about the supposed xVid update(playable of the hard drive only), which sony dont seem to have acknowledged. John.n-irl (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

2.17' What's updated in 2.17? ---Majestic- (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it brings anything new at all IMO, I think its probably a re-released 2.10 with a different title to counteract the leaked 2.15 update. Also PS Blog is from SCE USA. It is the most official blog there is :) Chocobogamer (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

'Official' sources are only absolutely necessary on unreleased updates. Otherwise sources like Kotaku wouldn't be usable(and its being used currently).And yeah, PS-Blog is an official source. john.n-irl (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

2.30 April 15th, 2008 http://www.xtremeps3.com/news.php?id=249

Ok, i just found this on the internet and it's on a lot of other major gaming websites:

http://www.psu.com/Sony-confirms-PS-Store-overhaul-for-mid-April-(UPDATE-2)-News--a0003239-p0.php

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2008/03/31/new-playstation-store-interface-coming-in-mid-april/

It shows the new store as well.

Jonapello22 (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• There will now be no content updates for the PSN Stores until the relaunch in mid April.
• No additional downloadable content will be posted prior to the Firmware update.
• PS3 users will be prompted to download a firmware update which will enable entry to the new store.

Again - Do not post this information in the article until the system software update has been released!.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1207

http://darkzero.co.uk/game-news/playstation-store-video-preview-confirmed/

http://www.ripten.com/2008/04/01/playstation-store-redesigned-no-new-content-for-2-weeks/

http://www.gaming-age.com/news/2008/4/2-4

http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/04/01/scee-quiet-on-230-details-how-new-ps-store-will-be-deployed/

http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/03/31/scee-announces-april-revamp-for-ps-store/

Denzelio (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Future Updates on main page

Unreleased updates are perfectly fine on the main page, provided they are sourced from Sony, such as the info on 2.3, which I have just added. John.n-irl (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, they should not need a tag saying they are unreleased. This is obvious by the date. Assume a degree of intelligence. :) John.n-IRL 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How very ethnocentric of you. Until it's actually released, it needs an (Unreleased) tag. Especially since we still don't know for sure when it's going to be released. Quaru (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

wp:npa. We do know, it wouldnt be there unless it was sourced. John.n-IRL 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I wont change it, wp:3rr. However it states else where what the most up to date firmware available is. John.n-IRL 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted you. The date is enough. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think unreleased updates should only be put on the main page if they have a 'release date' such as 2.3 did (although it did get moved forward two days), however, if theres no date set (eg: they reckon 2.4 will house in-game xmb and have reckoned so for 6 months... see the XMB article's history if its not still on there) then they shouldn't go on the page. Chocobogamer (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)definatly

I'm inclined to agree, however only as a "guideline", not a rule. If becomes an issue it should be discussed here and reach an conclusion prior to inclusion. John.n-IRL 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)