PlayStation 3 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	PlayStation 3 is part of the Video game consoles (seventh generation) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 26, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 12, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 17, 2008 Good article nominee Listed January 23, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted June 20, 2008 Featured topic candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games FA‑class Top‑importance This 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Template:Playstationp Template:Blurayp

Take-Two: GTAIV Sales Split Almost 50/50 Between PS3/360. This means that GTA4 has sold at least 6 million for the PS3. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Can we use this as a source for best-selling game? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it doesn't explicitly state that it's the best-seller, and comparing it to all the other sources we have to determine that it is the best-seller constitutes a violation of Wikipedia OR/synthesis rules. I really wish Sony would just release their top-sellers list every quarter so we wouldn't have this problem. =( KhalfaniKhaldun 16:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, cant we just at least delete the Motorstorm figure? It's really agitating seeing that there. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 12:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS3/360 Gap

Just as a side comment, I think the most interesting piece of information in this article that we actually can use is that the PS3/360 gap is down to 7mil and still shrinking. =D KhalfaniKhaldun 16:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be its own section but yeah, that's pretty impressive considering the PS3's price point, something that a lot of analysts have neglected/ignored/forgotten. (Psychoneko (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know what mags you read but there's few people that have neglected or forgotten the PS3's price point. It's the only real argument against the thing. Every aspect of it screams "Buy Me". Streaming audio/video, Blu-Ray player, Next Gen game console...price point is the only thing I hear from the nay-sayers. Padillah (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are my edits goin? mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Padillah - I'm saying that a lot of newsgroups track the number of consoles sold without mentioning the price tag of the respective systems. Had they tracked the type of SKU sold as well, then we might have a better idea of the relative positions each console with respect to their weight in price. This means that we can normalize the numbers to better understand consumer demand and purchasing habits. It may seem like a lame thing to do, but normalizing different sets of data is a fairly routine procedure for various users. (143.89.190.40 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

God damn it, I wish Wikipedia would let me stay logged on forever. (Psychoneko (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Still no joy? If anyone's got any, give us a bell asap. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I hear, naysayers say more than just about the price.
1. There are apparently no games for the console.
2. The hardware is either too good to be true, false, or exaggerated.
3. Blu-ray Disc is not a revolution in technology.
4. The Cell Broadband Engine is not as powerful as the Xenos.
5. PlayStation Network is nowhere near as good as Xbox Live.

I could go on forever. The point is, people just find more reasons to try and cover up PS3's technology, power and quality. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 12:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation above doesnt sound POV neutral. Wikipedia is not a forum for advocates to present a "sales pitch". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.141.166 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages don't have to be POV neutral, but you're right, they do have to stay on the topic of improving the article. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But this basically reads as collusion by these editors to crate a Posivite-POV article. The discussion page's POV is not really relevant, but these people are literally plotting to make the *article* an advocacy piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.46.67 (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. From a statistics point of view, this would be an interesting exercise, especially for market analysts. I mean, we have things like GDP, power purchasing parity and various other statistics that the CIA compiles and publishes (for its World Factbook) and other statistical values that are used in other industries and more recently in major sports teams so it stands to reason that adding price points to the data would add an invaluable insight that currently doesn't exist for the console market. Bottom line is, number-crunching is an invaluable tool for analysts and scientists and I doubt it it will ever go away. (Psychoneko (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I don't see any reason to include the topic in the article hahaha ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 11:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have info the internal I/O architecture used by the PS3? Is it HyperTranport, PCIe, or Sony proprietary? I believe that the table summarizing the tech specs (at the start of the article) should include the bus transport technology used. If I find it, I'll add it in myself, in the meantime if a PS3 HW 'expert' can fill in that that info, that would be good too. 66.130.154.212 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have a PDF with all the details somewhere... I'll see if I can find it. I'd ask my friend's dad who works for IBM and actually drew up the original designs for the PS3 system hardware on his own laptop, but that would be original research. =/ KhalfaniKhaldun 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a small article about how to make your vista PC and IIS7 deliver video content of upto HD quality to the PS3 web browser. This negates the need to use the media player to view video and therefore DLNA and UPnP are not needed. This helps with playing to PS3 as there will be no more DLNA errors when using this solution.

I want to add this to the main page, but worry that it will be gone before I blink.

Anyhow, the need for this to be added to the main article is that you can use all of the media player HDD play capibilities from the playstation controls when launching a movie file from the web server using the playstation netfront web browser. This posibility is not listed on the wiki page and is not known about by most PS3 users.

http://phat-reaction.com/how-to-play-all-types-of-video-through-your-playstation-3-using-windows-vista-and-iis7/

There is video on youtube also on how to do this process and video playing through the web browser. So you can see it in action working. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxP93C7Olpk

It does not need IIS7, any HTTP (web) server will do.

Can someone help me in the placement of this information in the main page of the playstation 3 on wikipedia or suggest where to put this information. 85.144.194.211 (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 85.144.194.211 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it would be "gone before [you] blink," is because as you also said, "[it] is not known about by most PS3 users." Since it isn't functionality that the PS3 was originally meant to use or developed by Sony, it needs to achieve notability and be covered in a few reliable secondary sources before it would be considered for appropriate inclusion in the article. In less wiki-fied speak, we want to make sure that it becomes popular and mainstream before adding it to the article - Wikipedia isn't a route to advertise this functionality. KhalfaniKhaldun 01:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks loads, I'll have a look around to see whats going on in the field before reporting back here. I have see a few blog items and things in this direction, but not too much. Anyhow, before I go any further I'll get some more opinion from this talk forum. Thanks again.

85.144.194.211 (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some additional information that is notable and reliable and not me :)

quote from text

"Using the Internet browser, you can now play a linked video file* as it is being downloaded.

• Some types of video files cannot be viewed in this manner and must be downloaded completely before playback. "

See the Network section of PS3™ System Software Update 2.20 on this page

http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/SystemUpdates/PS3/history.html

2. source from Sony Quote "# Depending on the data type, some files may not be playable or some control panel options may not function during playback." "# Some video files distributed over the Internet have playback restrictions. For details, contact the content provider."

From hints section http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/current/video/filetypes.html

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intranet running your own server in your home network makes it an intranet, but you are the content provider.

4. Personal choice here, I believe that the playstation is not only a games computer and sony marketed for ages to Video watching people, who might like to game also. See blu-ray. http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Sony-PlayStation3-80GB/ . And I believe we will see in future much more use of the brower as a play device for sony content of all descriptions, not just games.

So for me given these sources, it should be in there. You can use the browser to access video on websites, not just flash, all supported content types. what do you think? 85.144.194.211 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

85.144.194.211 (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC) not had any feedback in months on this item, so I shall be adding it to the main page. Will be dissapointed if it is removed by anyone as there has been more than adquate time to respond and say their piece.[reply]

As there is no challangers now. It is safe to say that this information is true and does represent the capibilties/features of PS3

theres a playstation 3 special editon for the remake of the final fantasy VII movie, "final fantasy VII advent children Complete". Is this the right place to mention it? i believe so, the Xbox article showed a special edition Simpsons Xbox so why not here for final fantasy VII. discussDeathBerry talk 16:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the console is "Cloud Black" so it is unique. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion as to whether the flash-card carrying models, or at least the 40GB & 80GB versions, sport SDHC compatibility. What's the current status of these devices vis a vis SDHC? MrZaius^talk 07:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PlayStation 3 (PS3) web browser is mistakenly being described as a NetFront-based browser, whereas it is an internally developed browser. This NetFront rumor likely came about because the PlayStation Portable (PSP) browser is in fact a NetFront-based browser. Sony's Izumi Kawanishi has stated that the PS3 browser was developed internally based on software from their web device group. Reference: http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1219/mobile360.htm. Also, you can tell it's not NetFront because it simply acts differently with non-trivial pages. Lastly, a Sony rep personally told me this today as part of a tech support response.

Can we get this mistake rectified? It's been propagated quite a bit around the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutlawSipper (talk • contribs) 07:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is a Netfront browser but we don't have a reliable source either way. The link you provided isn't from a well-known/respected source and isn't in English. I'll just remove "Netfront" as we can't cite "in-house" or "Netfront". ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 08:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anywhere in the source that says the PS3 has 8.5 million units sold in Europe. The number itself seems a little high. Can someone double-check the figure? Mahanga^Talk 03:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from about a year ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7386879.stm . That said, I don't think it's unusual for the PS3 to have sold 8.5 million units by now. (Psychoneko (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, ignore the BBC article, I was drunk when I posted that. http://kotaku.com/5222722/lifetime-pal-console-sales-figures-get . (Psychoneko (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Playstation 3's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps3) main article is giving a wrong information with a missleading reference.

At the main summary box it says that "Motorstorm game" is the best selling video game of the system as of December 31 of 2008; the problem is that the reference used for such statement is linking an "Edge Magazine's" article made in December 30 of 2007. How can an article from 2007 afirm sells made in 2008, that doesn't make sense.

Such statement should be fixed. pirulee (talk) 14:44, 08 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention in the article about the Yellow Light of Death (YLOD) which indicates a general hardware failure on the PS3.

There is ample discussion of this matter and a wide body of citations available;

Currently 9M returns for "yellow light of death"

http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=yellow+light+of+death&form=QBLH&filt=all

and 1.9M returns for "yellow light of death"

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=yellow+light+of+death&meta=&aq=f&oq=

There is also zero mention the bricking problems Sony has while updating PS3 firmware. There is ample discussion of this matter and a wide body of citations available, this is but one;

http://gizmodo.com/5021399/playstation-3-firmware-24-bricking-some-ps3s

Something should be mentioned in a new section, titled "Technical Problems". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.141.16 (talk • contribs)

Addition of "YLOD" has been discussed here in the past and the main reason it hasn't been included is that there weren't any reliable, notable sources discussing it. It's mainly talk on forums and on fansites which is original research and therefore cannot be used. I don't know if this is still the case but as far as I know, the problem hasn't been widely reports by the likes of Gamespot, 1UP, Gamasutra, etc. People have suggested that it should be included because RROD is mentioned on the Xbox articles and the response to that has been that while YLOD is known among PS3 users, it isn't nearly on the scale of RROD which was very widely reported on in both the gaming and mainstream media and it's notability has therefore not been so strongly established. Regarding the firmware update that "bricked" some consoles. This is covered in the PlayStation 3 system software article. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A huge problem with the video game industry is fanboyism. Criticizing a product is basically a declaration of war. Anyway, the problem is at least known and suggested. I found this briefly searching for a reliable source. Maybe add a little blurb about it being suggested? --Phil1988 (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, let me get this straight: you think we should include a blurb about how high hardware fault rates have been suggested, but proven wrong? That sounds kinda like a little bit of undue weight to me. Every piece of hardware that is ever mass produced has a certain failure rate, and unless that failure rate is oddly high (like the 360) it's not going to be notable enough to mention at all. =/ KhalfaniKhaldun 02:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the anonymous, here are a few links that you might want to read more seriously so that you can better understand why the YLOD isn't a significant enough of a problem to be included in the article:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36070/98/

http://blog.squaretrade.com/2008/02/xbox-360-issues.html

full report: http://squaretradebuyerblog.typepad.com/squaretrade/2008/02/xbox-fail-rates.html

Most consumer electronics industries expect a failure rate of 1 to 5 percent, which is perfectly acceptable. The PS3 has a failure rate of roughly 3% whereas the 360 has a rather disturbing failure rate of over 10% (the established 16.4% from the 2008 research and the rumored 33% often announced by retailers and service centers). Comparatively speaking, which of the two carries more weight in a class-action lawsuit: the PS3's 3% or the Xbox360's 16.4%? Also, we have public records of class-action lawsuits brought against Microsoft that specifically questioned the Xbox360's build quality. We don't have any such records for Sony's PS3 nor do we have any such records for Nintendo's Wii. Since the media isn't interested in a 3% fail rate, it's no wonder why the YLOD isn't mentioned in this article. (Psychoneko (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

For those of us who grew up on the Atari 2600 and haven't much upgraded the gaming machine since, it's not clear how games are delivered to the system (probably by Blu Ray/DVD/internet) and what would be stored on the hard drive, so one might select an appropriate size drive. -- User | Talk | Contribs 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.99.50 (talk) [reply]

Responding to the anonymous, what do you mean? Current generation of video game content are delivered through the following methods: traditional retail and online distribution. It would depend entirely on what game you're looking at and which "store" you bought the game from in order to determine the size of the installation, if any. The only company (remaining) that limits the allowed installation sizes is Nintendo. Microsoft used to limit the file sizes of game demos and whatnot on Xbox Live back in the 360's earlier life cycle and has since removed that limit due to developer pressure. I personally don't know how anyone can replace the harddrive on an Xbox 360 without taking the console apart but the PlayStation 3 allows the end-user to replace the harddrive through a specific hatch on the side of the PS3. (Psychoneko (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The 360's harddrive clips onto the left side of the console itself. It's kind of like a PC's external harddrive but connected through a direct port rather than a cable. Replacing it is a simple matter of unclipping it and clipping another one in place. Transfering data is slightly more complicated and requires a cable provided by Microsoft, but there's no reason anyone should ever need to open up the console itself. 86.166.128.214 (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• PS3 games shop-bought are on Blu-ray disc, some install data to the hard drive, varying sizes.
• Some PS3 games receive patches which install to the hard drive, these vary in size.
• Downloads are entirely on the hard drive and are currently at most a few gigabytes in size, although this will get bigger over time. These downloads can include PS1 classics, games designed for both PS3+PSP, game demos or full PS3 games.
• All PS3's include PS1 disc playback, and early PS3's have PS2 disc playback, all PS1 games used CD and did not have a hard drive option, PS2 games were on DVD and CD and, bar a handful of games, did not use the hard drive
• Blu-ray movies can install data to the HDD as well

The hard drives Sony includes are intended for casual-to-middleuse gamers, the size has increased as more and more games install data to the hard drive to stop load times (DMC4 takes around 20 minutes as it installs so much). The 20GB PS3's were discontinued quickly becuase Sony realised after a handful of games it would fill the drive up too quickly. Hardcore gamers may need or want more space so Sony included a very easy upgrade option chocobogamer mine 23:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, can you install the games on the hard drive, or do you still need the disc for all of the content? I'm guessing that you probably still need to put it in for copy protection.... 72.87.188.65 (talk)

Only PSN games. Try copying Blu-ray games to the PS3 console eh? It'd take days and it would chomp up 25 or 50GB each time! ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 11:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixstars Solutions should be added to the manufacturers. Fixstars Solutions made the Yellow Dog Linux, which is web browser in Playstation 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyyhkyBoy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Dog Linux is a distibution of the Linux operating system. Not a web browser. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 00:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Dog Linux is an installable operating system, optional to the PlayStation 3. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly enough bad press on the Playstation 3, but this one caught my eye, enough to actually add this to the talk page.

Read it here: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6531367.ece?print=yes&randnum=1245400825888

To sum it up, Activision is saying that Sony should reduce the Playstation 3's price point. This is a major blow, because Activision is one of their largest developers, whether or not their games are good. The Legacy (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say this is a major blow, as it is just talk at this point. It may just be a negotiation ploy to convince Sony to lower prices. See the Ars Technica article. 140.172.225.35 (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as a negotiation ploy from Activision. There's a large enough user-base for the PlayStation 3 that simply cannot be ignored, especially not in this global slump. (Psychoneko (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It's not just price, data should be presented on how the removal of PS2 backward compatibility is affecting sales of PS3s. Activision should be asking to add back features to the PS3, not just cutting prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.33.226 (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as Activison testing to see how far they can stick their hand in the trap before it springs. Really, they have no right to tell Sony to lower costs of the PS3. In that case, they should tell Microsoft to quit charging their users for Xbox Live. 166.102.225.41 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thing about Live is that the ads are covered by the membership fee so it sort of makes perverse business sense to advertise to consumers who foot the advertising bill. PSN's advertisements are more in line with traditional advertising protocol where the advertiser foots the bill to have an ad placed on the network. (Psychoneko (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, we all know that Sony has fixed that problem. And, for the first time, PS3 is the most dominantly advertised game machine (at least in NZ). And even the Nintendo DS then the Wii are outmatched! ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 11:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VidZone

This was not released in New Zealand as was expected. The final release countries were UK, Ireland, Australia, Italy, France, Spain and Germany. The quote from the EU blog “The reasons we’re only launching in those countries for the time being,” added Russo, “are largely to do with sourcing local advertising that is relevant and appropriate. We can’t wait to roll out in the remaining territories though; we’ll bring you more information when we have it.”

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2009/06/04/e3-interview-vidzone/#more-1267

Tig3rfang (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the new PlayStation3 systems no longer have any PlayStation 2 compatibilities so instead of leaving it as "and the successor to the Playstation 2" in the PS3 article should it be edited as "and it is currently supplemented with the PlayStation 2"? Any admin on Project PlayStation agree with that? Kyrios320 (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the lack of PS2 compatibility in the newer PS3 models makes it any less of a successor. It will ultimately replace the PS2 when it's lifecycle ends but there's a period of overlap where both are supported. Either way, "successor" doesn't dictate that both can't exist at the same time, or that they have to be compatible. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GameCube is considered the successor of the Nintendo 64, despite its complete non-support, albeit remakes. And the Dreamcast is the successor of the Mega Drive. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its called Playstation 3, in what universe is 3 not the successor of 2 ? The fact that its not backwards compatible hasnt got anything to do with whether or not the PS3 is the successor of the PS2 Leprecon (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beware but some sites are suggesting that a slim lined version will be released in the next 1-2 months. I'm not adding this info to the article unless it is true, but beware. [1][2][3] -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a rumor, until something is officially announced by Sony it shouldn't be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.188.126 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we're considering it to be a rumour but considering that Ars Technica's mole has an impressive record of predicting the behaviors and actions of the console makers (Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony), it's a rumour that many people have taken fairly seriously. Problem is, without hard evidence, it'll just be a rumour. I think Joystiq or Kotaku had an article about FoxConn and another company recently signing another contract with Sony for production runs of the PlayStation 3 console. The thing we don't know at the moment is _which_ PlayStation 3 console was just signed into production. (Psychoneko (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

at this point there's about half a dozen photographs of the slim models floating around the net. imho there's enough reliable info to just add it to the article, but i really don't feel like adding the info and then arguing with editors about whether or not the guy who leaked the info about the PSP GO is a reliable/valid source.99.153.29.112 (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should an interesting read... http://www.wmorefresher.com/2009/07/you-lookin-good-baby-oh-yeah-im-on-that.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.34.68 (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

slim version was recently added to the german amazon.com, however the pics have been removed. kinda silly that slim version still isn't mentioned in the article anywhere due to the mountains of evidence that it will most likely be released within the next couple of months.99.153.29.112 (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"german amazon.com" eh? its called amazon germany, or even amazon.de ;p Suggestednickname (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's because we haven't had an official source saying it's true. ESTEMSHORN^talk_Sign 18:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

amazon germany has listed playstation 3 slim as a new upcoming article now, was in the news everywhere online, no dates or prices or much details yet though. http://www.amazon.de/dp/B002JM1GPU Suggestednickname (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The internal power supply was removed in favor of an external brick, as noted in the use of a non-standard male connection in the rear of the unit."

Looking at some of the pictures online, the power connection on the back of the PS3 Slim seems to be a common one used by many laptop AC adapters and the PS2. --questionlp (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please put new comments at the bottom so everyone can see them easily. I'm not sure what your point is with this question/statement. Putting a transformer block power supply on is a pretty standard method of cutting costs, size & weight, heat and therefore power consumption. Its not yet relevant. chocobogamer mine 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's trying to say that the statement in the article about the "power brick" (correct name is a power adapter) is incorrect and that it uses the standard plug with no adapter. I think that is true. The IGN unboxing didn't show the power plug with the adapter. But just to be safe, we'll have to wait for other people to unbox it. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After all the unboxing videos and whatnot, there are no power bricks. The Power Supply Unit is still internal. Someone must have gotten confused about something somewhere along the way (Psychoneko (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I can confirm. I know someone who opened their PS3 slim box and found a standard power cable in it. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 11:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of March 31, 2008 the PlayStation 3 Sold 22.73 Million Units.
Shown on the official Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Website
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisishot12 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be actually a little less than noted on the sidebar of the article. http://kotaku.com/5340392/sony-talk-playstation-lifetime-sales-psn-revenue or anyother set of people who covered the 18th of August Gamescon Sony Press conference. (Not sure of the Formalities here should I edit the Title of this Paragraph?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.29.168 (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to edit the image of the Playstation 3 by either replacing the main picture or adding a second one. I would like to do so because it would help show the PS3 more and the picture shows much more detail.

Picture: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryticate (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That image is no-doubt copyrighted. As there is a suitable, free (non-copyrighted) image available the use of the copyrighted one couldn't be justified under fair use. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC) i would like to look over any mistakes in this article so it appears better[reply]

Could someone please put more info on this into the article?; I still do not understand exactly how the PS One compatibility works. PalkiaX50 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says at the bottom of the comparison table that all models have PlayStaiton One compatibility. I don't know how it would be made clearer? Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 11:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is adequately covered, but Palkia is right - It could certainly be made to jump out at the reader more effectively. I didn't see the line in question at all on my first couple of read-throughs while weighing my own purchasing decision. Listing the "no" ones as "PSOne only" would fix the confusing undue weight issue described above, making both answers clear from the chart proper, not solely available in the buried sub-footnotes prose section: See this edit. If my edit isn't allowed to stand, we might consider adding a footnote in the grey box clarifying PSOne compatibility and attempting to fix the weight issues by moving the prose above the chart. MrZaius^talk 11:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, is the PSone backward compatability only for certain games? For some reason I cant get FF8 to work yet 6, 7 and 9 do. The PSone screen doesn't come up, i just get a black screen. It could just be my disk but I am curious to know if the PS2 backwards compatability is only for certain games the PSone might be too. Dark verdant (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely to be a limitation of the software emulator, but it's odd that you don't even get the menu. From the Compatibility tool:

"Throughout gameplay, when the user's party encounters a random enemy in the "world map", and the “pre-battle” transition screen appears, approximately 40 - 60% of the “pre-battle” transition screen appears black, and the remaining portion of the screen appears corrupted."

That said, this isn't a forum and we probably ought to just let this go after linking to press coverage of the tool. MrZaius^talk 12:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All PS3s have PS1 compatibility (with their respective region-lock). Not all PS3s have PS2 compatibility. I seriously wish that people would use the friggin' model number (i.e. CECHExx or CECHAxx) when talking about compatibility because it gets repetitive and annoying really quickly. (Psychoneko (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Correct, Psy. Note that PS3 games aren't region locked, the PS1 games are e.g Japanese FF = Japanese PS3. Bahahs 01:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

Hmm, I've just downloaded Wild Arms 2 and FF7 from the Japanese PSN and it works on my American PS3 (CECHE01). So yeah... the region-lock mechanism is now something that has my interest. (Psychoneko (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think it is also important to mention that the PS3 consumes about 5 times as much energy as a refrigerator, thats 10 times that amount of a Wii! [5] --LOctopus (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's totally untrue...

PS3 is about 100w (the 80GB units at least). A refrigerator used approx half that. However your refrigerator is on 24x7 and your PS3 is not... You should stop listening to fanboy FUD. FYI the XBox consumes double the power of the latest PS3, due to Microsofts inability to improve the Xbox production process

So possibly the fridge part may have been false, but the test is found here: [6] LOctopus (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The test on your link did not specify which models of the Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3 were used for the test, so current models are to likely have different figures. The test also did not elaborate on how they came to get such numbers, so those statistics are not safe to use. 166.102.225.41 (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News links suggest otherwise. Sony says that the PS3 is "greener" than competition. http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/4889.html Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could throw in Digital Foundry's PS3 Slim power consumption test if people want. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3slim-hardware-test-article?page=2 (Psychoneko (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Does it support IPv6? Maybe it should be said if it does or not. 92.206.50.120 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does, though the IPv6 support is much more important when dealing with ISPs and infrastructure than from end-users. (Psychoneko (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Has anyone tried downloading PS1 games from the Japanese PSN to their American PS3s and played it yet? I know that the discs are region-locked but I'm not sure if the downloadable PS1 titles are region-locked or not. (Psychoneko (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It is not possible to make credit card transactions for overseas PlayStation Stores, as the credit card must originate from the country that is stated. Obviously, if the country stated is different, therefore the address will not match and the credit card transaction will be denied. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's weird because I have a friend in Korea who is about to purchase a 60 GB Japanese PS3 from another Korean who has been able to purchase a whole range of games from the Japanese PSN store. (Psychoneko (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Then their credit card or their source of PSN credit is most likely from Japan. See the above or look up reliable sources for the same. There's plenty out there. MrZaius^talk 13:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so I've noticed. Thanks for the response! (Psychoneko (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No, it's because Korean games have NTSC-J coding usually, excluding BD region which would be region 1 or something. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 02:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than organize by HDD size, I think it makes more sense to organize the model chart by introduction date. This allows the generations to be clearly identified.

Something like the following...

Thingythingy (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs reorganising, its practically unreadable, however I think a lot more of it needs rewriting - all consoles have ps1 compatibility - that should be in the bottom bit not ps1 and ps2 listed on every console - it should just say as the column title - ps2 compatibility - yes via software, yes via hardware, no. a few other things as well. chocobogamer mine 23:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and looks good! Pardthemonster (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is an excellent idea. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 07:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat agree. Something should be done but I think this layout makes it feel more cramped than it does at the moment. Is there any reason to include things like "PS2 emulation removed entirely" in the Generation column as these are already in the table, in an easier-to-compare way. The table didn't used to include "PlayStation" in the Backward compatibility column but it was added a few months ago (possibly by me, I don't remember) because people were commenting on here that it wasn't clear. The statement below the table wasn't obvious enough. I think it should stay as it's an obvious source of confusion for a lot of people. It doesn't add any width to the column or use any more space. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism welcome, I have included all your suggestions in my recent edit. Feedback is also appreciated. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, actually. I still feel that listing the Playstation2 compatibility so prominently in the chart and failing to list PSX compatibility may lead to confusion, but it would be a bit of a trick to merge it neatly into the new model without cluttering it up with new columns containing nothing but "yes" or "software emulation." Far more important, however, the new edits dump the chart into a section on the PS3 Slim rather than a separate section. Seems like a bit of a no-no, dumping the specs for all previous models under a section header about just one. Fixed that and noted feature removals in the Slim builds. MrZaius^talk 13:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, I really like the narrative in column one. It flows well, IMHO. I changed one thing, though - The "Slim" entry in the narrative column seemed to ignore that the name actually was the title of its generation. Adjusted the layout accordingly. MrZaius^talk 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone moved the number of USB ports and a number of other things out of columns and into the prose with little to no explanation or real gain. That one area in particular was a much simpler thing to deal with in a separate column and flowed more nicely when paired with the memory card reader column. Not sure how I feel about the other changes, but they might work. No time to fix the USB thing, though - Off to work: MrZaius^talk 02:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this formatting, i'm fairly new to this. I just wanted so say, I have used this table a lot, purely for interest. I just had to say that i really preferred the old version where more differences were listed, rather than just saying all models in this gen have 2 USB ports etc. I also liked having the 4 USB ports box colored green, while he 2 USB ports was in yellow. It made it really easy to compare the systems. For whoever decides to make the next changes, I thought I would give my thoughts (an my other peoples.) 21 August 2009

Alright, this is just getting ridiculous, please keep it at the one which was edited after me (the one with specific features between and not on the tables). Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to the user prior to FF, the only problem with using colours etc are that using amber using the "partial" function means we're saying its not fully supported. 2 USB's are now clearly the norm and using the "partial"'s colouring is wrong. I originally cut a couple of bits out that were essentially pointless, came back further was cut and the table had a column with 'generations' - this isn't a correct term. I'll admit I was the main person who started the editing. However the original table was far too cluttered- I'm using my netbook (1024W pixels with about 25 of them going on vertical tabs) and its near impossible to use on here so I cut a couple out. IMO the current table (even if it is my own work) is the clearest and most useful its ever been, and its restored sortability that went AWOL when the slim was announced and opened space up for more useful info. chocobogamer mine 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)'[reply]

Hmm, then again, I quite like it actually. Good job. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mind the model from yesterday or the one shown above (preferred), but the one on now is terrible? Any reason for the change? Pardthemonster (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above chart is inaccurate regarding the "PlayStation 2 compatibility type". The 1st generation has the "EE+GS" Slim PS2 chip inside. The 2nd one has the GS non-slim PS2 chip inside, and only the "EE" has been emulated in software -- so there isn't a fully software emulation here, either. (It's important, as the GS is much harder to emulate in software.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.184.126 (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

source for this?? chocobogamer mine 12:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Original_model -- you can see it on the photos of the motherboards of the given models, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.184.126 (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/godofwariii/news.html?sid=6215547 http://gamescom.gamespot.com/story/6215296/299-ps3-slim-unveiled-existing-console-prices-drop-aug-19

PEOPLE, EDIT THE WIKI NAOOOOOO>... Bahahs 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

Quite right, a more official source would be the PlayStation Blog. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 07:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still, everyone knows Gamespot and IGN. Thanks for the blog link. When is everyone going to add this to the article? Bahahs 16:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

Here is the official press release:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/news/8ido180000026ml6-att/0819E.pdf (English)
http://www.sony.co.jp/SonyInfo/IR/news/8ido180000026mno-att/0819J.pdf (Japanese)
--Krtek2125 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Bahahs 21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not registered so I can't make the change, but there is NO PS2 compatibility in the new Slim unit. PS1 emulation is provided. Verify here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10313110-1.html Please somebody make the change, thx. 128.147.248.126 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been added. Thanks anyway for your contribution. Bahahs 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

Should we revamp the table with the prices and eliminate the precious it's taking up? Bahahs 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

As with previous PlayStations, the newer, slimmer model is slimmer and smaller, yes, but none of them are actually called Slim. This is not the PlayStation 3 Slim, it is not the PS3 Slim, it is just called the PlayStation 3. The slimmer PlayStation 2 was just called the PlayStation. The slimmer PlayStation Portable was just called the PlayStation Portable. So on, and so forth. Unless Sony themselves say it's called any different, such as with the PSP Go!, it is just the PlayStation 3.

The boxes just say PlayStation 3, and it was revealed at Gamecon as just being a slimmer PlayStation 3. Fans/conumers may call it whatever they want, that is not what I'm trying to correct and have no desire to do so, but it is not officially nor advertised as "PlayStation 3 Slim". I just wanted to point this out, to make it more official —Preceding unsigned comment added by Th8214 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's called the "PS3" - that's how it's written on the box. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 08:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the FCC filing for the 250 GB PS3 Slim under the "Models" section, the 250 GB Slim hasn't been announced nor has it been listed for sale yet. Since the product doesn't exist yet, should it be mentioned at all or should it be removed? I was under the impression that wiki guidelines prefers to list tangible products. (Psychoneko (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't believe that the talk page had come to a consensus regarding Activision and Valve's dispute with Sony so I'd like to know whether it should stay there or be removed completely because there are quite a lot of weasel words involved with those statements. (Psychoneko (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Those are notable criticisms, so they should stay, otherwise there would be undue weight. Just remove the "weasel words" as you see fit. 124.179.173.61 (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a collection of statements, I support remove completely. --Ciao 90 (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms certainly have established notability as they were widely covered by the gaming press at the time. It could do with rewording but I think they should have some sort of mention. And also, a consensus doesn't need to be reached on every piece of information added to the article. Only if a disagreement arises, as it has now. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 10:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria seems pretty vague to me because developers have also criticized the 360 and the Wii and those criticisms have been reported across the gaming presses as well. It'd really help to have a set guideline on when to include such criticisms and when not to. (Psychoneko (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

While the section did mention the move from 90nm Cell processors to 65nm Cell processors, it probably needs to be updated to reflect the issue that the Slim currently uses 45nm Cell processors. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/08/sony-answers-our-questions-about-the-new-playstation-3.ars

This isn't the first time the 45nm process has been mentioned because about half a year ago, the head of SCEE mentioned the move from 65nm processes to 45nm processes in this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/05/david-reeves-sony-europe-losses

Just my two cents. (Psychoneko (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Although it is the newest version of the PlayStation 3, I believe the original version should be used in the info box, and the slimmer versions picture should be in the 2.1 Slim section. That's how the PlayStation 2 page does it, that's how the PlayStation page does it. Same thing with the logo, except with the logo for the slimmer version, you could put that in another section section. With all this in mind, I believe it should be changed. Also I believe the "Slim" section should be titled "Slim version" simply because PS3 Slim is not the official name of the model, it's just a name given by many gaming sites and fans. JDC808 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. I'm going to revert it back until this gets agreed upon. I've added the new logo down in the slim section as well. Pardthemonster (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Slim" also isn't the official name of the current PS2 (yes, that's right, the PlayStation 2) but most people refer to it as the PS2 Slim because of the convenience in differentiating the larger older models from the smaller newer models. (Psychoneko (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It really doesn't make sense to not have the current model in there. All the ipod articles have the current version not the first version. This is no different. The picture in the infobox should be the current model. Macbook article shows the old one while the Macbook Pro shows the newest model. So saying that another article has the oldest picture in the infobox isn't a good argument because I can point to many articles that show the current modals. So the my argument is the PS3 is now going to me most recognizable as the new version. When someone goes to the store and looks at the PS3 they see the new PS3 not the old one. So why not show in the infobox what the majority of people are picturing the PS3 looks like. Within a mouth no one is going to picture the old version of the PS3 when someone says PS3 to them they are going to picture the new version. Just like when I say ipod nano you picture the newest version not the square fat ugly old one (sorry I just hate how the ipod nano 3rd gen looks). Plus the logo as officially changed. So you must change the logo of the PS3 in the infobox. Then you look at the picture of the PS3 and get a different logo. Again you HAVE to change the logo. --Fire 55 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes total sense. Take a look at the PS2 and PS1 articles. Why are you comparing Apple's pages to the Playstation 3 page? Pardthemonster (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what the PS2 article does. The PS2 is 6th generation system which makes it a past system. I was making the point that some articles about apple products use the current generation and some the first one that came out. No it doesn't make sense. What are sony advertising on the TV a system that looks different from the this articles. Also the PS2 is never advertised. You can make a case about using the first model when the system is obsolete (like the PS2) because IT'S HISTORY not present. Please tell what do you see when you click to a version of the PS2 article page before the PS3 was release. Here's a link and click on any date you like that is before the realease of the PS3.[7] No please do it. FYI the PS3 came out on November 11, 2006. This is why your argument isn't valid. You are comparing an obsolete system article with one which isn't. The funny thing about this is your argument about the ps2 article supported me not you and I was the one saying who cares what other articles do. Anyway I think this won't need anymore explaining.--Fire 55 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PS2 is a past system that is still the number one selling console in the world so saying it's history and obsolete is a bit too much since it is still selling and remains to be the number one selling console in the world and games are still being made for it. You don't see Nintendo and Microsoft still supporting the Gamecube or Xbox. You're saying just because this is the newer mode, that pic should be used, yet the older models are still being sold, until they sell out of course. Then you say that when people are going to think of the PS3, they're going to think of the slim version, yet that's probably not going to happen, especially since 23 million or so people in the world own an original. When you say PS3 Slim, then that's going to happen to those people. The article is called "PlayStation 3", not "Slim version of PS3". The slim version is still being shown in the page, just not in the info box. Putting the slim versions pic in the Slim section of the article makes more sense than to put it in the info box. JDC808 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that this is HOW the PS2 page did it. just look at the previous link I gave and tell me what the ps2 page did. They had the slim being the pic all the until the the PS3 came out. COINCIDENCE??? I THINK NOT. Your ONLY argument was the fact that the ps2 page does it. Now that that has rebutted you have to rebuke that and not rebuke my points since you have no points anymore.--Fire 55 (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for using Slim logo and photo in the info box as is done with any other electronics line in Wikipedia. The fat model also it's is phase out process use it's logo and photo gives the article outdated impression. --Ciao 90 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't get a reply from either of the 'ONLY' two people that disagree with the new pics in the the next 24 hours I'll revert it back to the new pic. Since I look at Pardthemonsters activity and he's still making edits and JDC is almost one here everyday and hasn't made an edit (it could be coincidence that JDC is taking a break), but still I feel they are both realizing they're wrong. Especially on the fact that the PS2 didn't use the slim version. For anyone else who disagrees speak now or forever hold your peace--Fire 55 (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree ONLY if everyone agrees on the change of the PS2, PS1, and PSP images matching this format. That was the only reason I agreed that it should stay the same. Pardthemonster (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to this. Since it is a norm for all original versions of consoles to be displayed in the infobox, the PlayStation 3 article should follow that norm, rather than changing the guidelines. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please say where is the guideline that says use the original picture, ALSO IT IS NOT THE NORM IF YOU READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS. Everyone here is ignoring the fact that the PS2 changed to the new one as well and ONLY changed when the PS3 came out because it was no longer a a curent system HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS THE PS2 SYSTEM CHAGED THEIR PIC TOO JUST LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE ARTICLE. I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS FOR THE FORTH TIME. LEARN TO READ PEOPLE. LASTLY, THE PSP HAS A SEPARATE PAGE FOR EVERY MODEL. Again the facts do not support you. All you say is change the PS2 page too, but you still don't get that the PS2 ALWAYS USED A PIC OF THE SLIM MODEL AND ONLY CHANGED IT WHEN THE PS3 CAME OUT. I don't know how many times I have to say this until it gets in your head. Of I have to repeat myself one more time I might not be able to be civil anymore and just go out on an all out rant on you guys.--Fire 55 (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

learn to talk without 'shouting' and people may listen. why doesn't someone just make a combined picture? if not the original is fine.. it wouldn't surprise me if the article ends up split like the psp slim and 3000 anyway... chocobogamer mine 17:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lets look at other articles in the history of video games

• master system - uses ms1 pic
• mega drive - uses md1 pic
• game boy, ds, psp - articles split
• playstation - uses playstation pic not psone
• ps2 - uses big ps2

what other convincing do you need?

chocobogamer mine 17:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To think someone won't get pissed when someone is just ignoring what you have to repeat yourself over and over again is naive. That was the only comment that I typed in all caps to get my message across and all you are doing right now is adding the fuel to the fire and pissing me off more. To act like people have no emotions and don't get pissed is stupid.--Fire 55 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just copying and pasting your stupid comment on how the ps2 does because you obviously haven't read my previous comment like everyone else here. Here's the quote"Please tell what do you see when you click to a version of the PS2 article page before the PS3 was release. Here's a link and click on any date you like that is before the realease of the PS3.[8] No please do it. FYI the PS3 came out on November 11, 2006. This is why your argument isn't valid. You are comparing an obsolete system article with one which isn't. The funny thing about this is your argument about the ps2 article supported me not you and I was the one saying who cares what other articles do. Anyway I think this won't need anymore explaining". --Fire 55 (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how can a console that is still on sale and still as far as i can see, in production, with new games still coming out for it (FIFA10 and Guitar Hero 5 for example), be remotely obsolete? i did read it, but its your argument that is the one that is wrong. Wikipedia is open source and they even say if you don't like it TS. chocobogamer mine 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like pissing people off?? I think you are trying to provoke me. Answer me this why did the PS2 page have the slim pic for well over a year then had changed it the orginal the same time the PS3 came out. I know you can't see that because you and everyone else here is ignoring it which is pissing me off. --Fire 55 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

without a reason descriptor we can't explain my it was only then the pic was switched, at the end of the day the majority of people are saying original, concensus has therefore been reached. no-one is trying to provoke you we are just pointing out facts here. i mean, why is the '3rd' revision of the ps2 not used as the header pic? (rhetorical) this one came out after the ps3's release. it avoids any confusion using the original's pic. avoids potential EW'ing if a 3rd iteration comes out etc. chocobogamer mine 17:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

at the end of the day concencus and ignorance overrule ideas and opinions - i created a combined psp slim and psp3000 article, nobody commented on it at all, despite it flowing better and not taking up anywhere near as much space as the 2 seperate articles. they still stay split chocobogamer mine 18:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline for this at WP:CVG as I can remember. The fat model is phasing out and replaced entirely by Slim, so use fat image in the infobox gives the article an outdated aspect, IMHO. Older consoles articles use first version images for historical reasons, I guess. --Ciao 90 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as there is only one tiny section regarding the PS3 slim in the article, using its picture would be very wrong. Theres even a section on the design of the "PLAYSTATION3" (capitalised to refer to the original) including talking about the font. Besides, judging by the fact that there are articles for the 2 slim PSPs (2000 and 3000) as well as the original PSP, despite the fact that you can merge them and only use one paragraph like on here (which I still think is a complete waste and the 2 articles need merging), as well as the DS lite which is just another redesign, I'm certain the PS3 slim will end up with its own article anyway. Its also continuity - all the other articles, regardless of the fact they're in production (which as I said the PS2 is so its not dead), I still say leave as is. chocobogamer mine 16:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the infobox has a subtitle under the image which says "Original PS3 Model". To appease both sides, why not show BOTH images with the current model at the top followed by the original model under it. I mean, we already have a prototype PS3 image in the article so we might as well set it up that way until a real consensus can be reached. (Psychoneko (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Great that you want an updated article, but can you find a free version of the console picture? And to solve it all, use Chocobogamer's suggestion to have a co-joined picture. Easy as that. I don't see what the fuss is. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've put a combined pic of the original and new model designs of the PS3 in the infobox as well as putting both logos. JDC808 (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Much appreciated. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay everyone, I've integrated three of the images made by or taken by Wikipedia users into the new PS3 picture. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 11:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks really weird... The title, "PlayStation 3", then the first logo, "PLAYSTATION 3", then the new one, "PS3", and finally its subtitle, "PlayStation 3"... @.@ Yes, I think we get it, this is about the PS3... I understand why you would want to put all the official logos, but too many is like not enough, and here I think we could get rid of one or two. And also the two consoles in the same picture, that makes really a lot for a "simple picture that should easily demonstrate what this is about". Looks like a PS3 is this set of things (two consoles and a controller makes a PS3!!!). Ok, just wanted to help by giving my opinion, you can get mad at me, I won't be following this talk page. --72.0.211.100 (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as though you asked, Wikipedia must label the infobox (PlayStation 3) and there are only two logos there. The first one is PLAYSTATION 3, and the second one is both PS3 and PlayStation 3. So, I dont know why you're complaining. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The model comparison chart is inaccurate. The second generation 80GB that came out in Aug 2007 has 4 USB ports, not only 2 as it says under the heading. Tut74749 (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tut74749 is right. All PS3s that have 4 USB ports generally have PS2 backwards compatibility. They should read this list instead: http://playstation.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/playstation.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=232&p_sid=ZLfVwVFj (Psychoneko (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I forgot to mention this but the current model chart in the article is horrendous. I personally prefer the model chart that's currently on the Talk page. (Psychoneko (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There is a misleading bit in the comparison chart. It mentions "Software-based PS2 emulation" for the CECHCxx and CECHExx, so it suggests all parts of the PS2 is emulated in software. This is of course not the case, as these machines still had the PS2 GS chip (instead of the "EE+GS" chip in the earlier models), and only the PS2 EE chip has been emulated in software here. (Look Models/Original model.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.184.126 (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "Sales and Production Costs" section, someone quoted the current PS3s being 70% cheaper to manufacture. Thing is, I don't recall ever hearing about a Sony conference where the CEO mentioned the PS3's cost reduction being 70%. The problem I have with this information is that every other article that mentioned the PS3's cost reduction mentioned it as a "rumor". Since we don't have a newspaper or financial article regarding that aforementioned conference, I don't know if it should be included at all because we don't have the hard evidence for it. (Psychoneko (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There are now three sources for the statement and this Kotaku article includes a link to the Sony conference call where Sony executive vice president and chief financial officer Nobuyuki Oneda made that statement. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing that article when it was first posted on Kotaku. The problem back then was that it had a "rumor" tag on it. Obviously, it has been weeks since I last read that article so if the rumor tag has been removed, then this issue is closed. (Psychoneko (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The article says that the slime model features an upgradeable 120 GB hard drive, but it is also down gradable. I suggest replacing upgradable to removable, changeable or replaceable. --Regular Mario o}8|3) (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all the console are upgradable - the option to change it is for upgrading. the term upgrading is correct because theres no reason to downgrade chocobogamer mine 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think upgradeable is the best term since it clearly indicates that a larger hard drive can be installed while any other term would require an explanation. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that downgrades are an option seems a touch unnecessary, but using words like "user-serviceable" et al might be warranted, if not already present. That said, even that should be shunted off to the Hardware article. MrZaius^talk 13:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mentioning "downgrades" is stupid. No one in the PC-gaming (personal computer) community ever talks about downgrading their hardware. It's always upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. So mentioning downgrade-able is not just redundant but stupid. Downgrades are only a real aspect when discussing the PSP's custom firmware but this is a PS3 article so it doesn't belong here. (Psychoneko (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I feel that "User-Replaceable" would be the most appropriate terminology to use. People can take their 80GB PS3 and downgrade the capacity to a 32GB SSD for example. Although in theory(though hasn't really worked this way) you would see an upgrade in performance. In my own personal experience I considered removing my PS3s 60GB HDD for use in my laptop, as I would be swapping out my laptops 40GB HDD and using it in my PS3. Although this is definately the exception, not the rule... I still feel that "User-Replaceable Hard Drive" is better general term than "Upgradeable" hard drive. The term "User-Replaceable" also designates that the PS3 is designed superior to the 360s "upgradable" hard drive. Downgradable however, is definately something that is not worth mentioning. Maybe we could use another term? bi-gradeable? Ha! 209.53.189.42 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"User-Replaceable" is much longer than just saying "upgradeable". "Upgradeable" already implies that the user can swap out the hard drive at will and carries none of that "superior/inferior" flame-bait that you're trying to insinuate. The terms that you're looking for are "universal" and "user-friendly", both of which are appropriate without the baggage of bias that we don't want in a Wiki article. (Psychoneko (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What do you think about specifying the manufacturing process of the CELL and RSX processors?

• 20/60/80: Cell 90nm, RSX 90nm
• 40 Core: Cell 65nm, RSX 90nm
• 80 Core: Cell 65nm, RSX 65nm
• Slim: Cell 45nm, RSX 65nm

--Ciao 90 (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
source?? chocobogamer mine 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about this. There is enough subtle information as present, without processor speed, energy efficiency and disc spinning speed etc. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- 65nm Cell in 40GB model is officially confirmed (Nov. 2007): http://www.neoseeker.com/news/7313-sce-president-40gb-ps3-does-use-65nm-cell/

- 65nm RSX in later 80GB models (CECHK/CECHL) is officially confirmed (Oct. 2008): http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=50450

- 45nm Cell in 120GB model officially confirmed at launch (and by IBM): http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/20090820/tc_pcworld/sonysps3slimcarriesupdatedcellchip

(Clock speeds are obviously the same.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.184.126 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting material. But why is RSX still 65nm and not 45 nm like the Cell? 83.108.193.157 (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSX is handled by NVidia and is therefore not in Sony's control. (Psychoneko (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Now that I think of it, that is a good question. Who manufactures the RSX? Sony or NVidia? My guess is that Sony licensed the RSX so that it could do the manufacturing in-house. (Psychoneko (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The RSX 'Reality Synthesizer' was co-developed by Sony and NVIDIA. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 04:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so who manufactures the RSX then? Sony? or NVidia? (Psychoneko (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think its a Thailand company that does the manufacturing, while Nvidia does the main design. 83.108.193.157 (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there one what happened to it The Movie Master 1 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It kept getting changed to MGS4 because websites were showing that it had sold over 4 million copies (more than motorstorm). However the MGS4 amount was actually for the MG series and not just the one game. It was decided that it would be original research anyway to put it as there were no sites saying it was the best selling game, so we will have to wait for Sony to publish details of a best selling game before any can be put into the article. Dark verdant (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should put it in the article, as it is tied to the Best-selling games article. So we should put GT5 Prologue there. 77.251.187.104 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This report from one of the senior editors at yahoo gaming mentions that Sony's 2008 annual report shows a loss of $3.3 billion on the PS3 since release. It also says the investment may not be recovered. I wanted to see if there was any objection to including. [9]Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't see the same discussion on financial investment/returns on the Wii and 360 pages, I don't think that it makes sense to include such a financial report, for the sake of consistency across the articles. (Psychoneko (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Although I agree with not including the report, remember that similar articles do not have to be the same. Xbox Live and PSN were extremely different until only recently. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 11:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slim has buttons. Pics show touch-sensitive panels. Fix it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.167.131 (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is willing to upload a professional picture of their slimline so a vectorized derivative can be made, now is the time! « ₣M₣ » 01:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have changed the picture. Please comment and tell me whether you like the new picture or not. ✰Ffgamera✰ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 06:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert the PS3 picture. Only update it if you can make a better one. But at the moment, that is the only picture that incorporates free-use images. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the pics fine now and looks good chocobogamer mine 18:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a notice, Ssolbergj uploaded this File:Playstation3vector.svg. So I asked if another can be made with the Slim included here: User talk:Ssolbergj#PS3 graphics request. The current image will suffice until an ps3 slim image is available at creative commons« ₣M₣ » 18:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need. I have done extensive Photoshop-editing to make it look as original as possible. Also, someone uploaded the file to Wikimedia for it to be used in other projects as well. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 11:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who made the current image at the top of the article? It's extremely good. Is it definitely free-use? If so, then good work! InternetMeme (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it uses both the user-made and the publicly released pictures of the PS3 and my own DualShock 3 picture, yes, it is free-use. It's not really that great of a job, the reflection couldn't be done, and the shadow was a quick job. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 02:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Slim image is from File:PS3slim.jpg, which is from [10], correct? Just want to clarify that. « ₣M₣ » 13:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the original source was the PlayStation.Blog, who posted the images on flickr. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 06:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr page reads, "All rights reserved" for that image. Dancter (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I made a new image. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 10:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to an image you've already uploaded, then I think you're confusing the concepts of fair use and free license, among other things. Dancter (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not particularly making any sense. I made all three candidates in the pictures. Therefore it qualifies for us to use it without infringing copyright. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 09:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must be confused. For File:PS3&PS3slim.png, which is currently used in the infobox, wasn't it addressed here that the depiction of the original case design was from Ssolbergj's vector image, and that the depiction of the slim case design is from the Flickr image? I'm basing my assessment on File:PlayStation 3 Slim model.png as well, which is clearly derived from the same Flickr image. That image has a non-free media use rationale, yet for some reason is also listed under a public domain license. For that image, you claim an "extreme makeover to qualify for originality." An extreme makeover of a copyrighted work is still a derivative work. The originality of a derivative work establishes a new copyright for the original contributions to that work, but the new copyright does not extend to other elements of the work, and does not supersede the copyrights thereof. Dancter (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that someone included some TechRadar quotes. One of those quotes feels particularly irrelevant; the part about the PS3 Slim's "ugliness". It is my impression that subjective descriptions are frowned upon on Wikipedia so I'd like to hear what people have to say about it before I remove it. More like, why was the new paragraph added without any discussion whatsoever? (Psychoneko (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Remove it. Subjective opinion on the look of a console is hardly relevant to the critical reception of said console. 124.179.173.61 (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as aesthetics are an important point in the design of any console, and SCE themselves point to the looks of it, as well as the quote that they started with the logo & font on the fat ps3 and worked from there. also, if the console 'flops' you can refer to reviews that point to its looks. remember - the PS3 is still technically identical (bar a different manufacture process) so any reviews are going to be about the looks so it is relevant to critical reception and consumer uptake. keep it chocobogamer mine 18:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, the looks aspect is fairly ambiguous. What makes even less sense to me is why we would still need a quote on its aesthetics if we already have images of the PS3 and its Slim successor. I mean, to me, it is as if I were being quoted for saying that Picasso's artworks look "ugly and incomprehensible". I'd rather let people make up their own minds on what they feel about how something looks rather than prod them unnecessarily. (Psychoneko (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with the post above. The reception section should be about what the machine can and can't do. Not the way it looks. What I mean is, with most reviews about say games, UI, hardware specs, etc, some subjectivity comes into play, but for the most part the reviewers opinion is based on objective facts. However, when solely judging how "good" or "bad" something looks, that is entirely subjective; as they say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

But if the TechRadar quote about the slim's "ugliness" must stay, then surely we need more quotes about it's looks for balance. From what I've read, reception is mixed over the slim's looks. Here are some example's:-

• Cnet - "The story here, then, is all about design, and it's generally a good one. For starters, the Slim is 33 percent smaller and 36 percent lighter than its predecessors, and it really does look significantly more compact when you put it up against the "fat" PS3. Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, and many people, including this reviewer, think the Slim's new frame is fairly fetching." - Favourable
• Engadget - "Of course, the big debate here is gonna be the matte body. The Engadget staff is largely divided over the "toy-like" new form factor vs. the lustrous, fingerprint- and dust-loving predecessor, so much so that we're not gonna give a verdict one way or the other here." - Neutral
• Gizmodo - "You also get a new matte finish, which makes the console look less "premium", but eliminates the crazy fingerprint and dust problem the original had. Overall, it's a net gain in goodness." Neutral, leaning towards favourable

So, what say you? Remove the TechRadar quote, or add more to it? 124.179.173.61 (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're not looking at this correctly. Part of any design, even more on redesigns, is aesthetics. So opinions are important on looks. Especially in this case where they've redesigned the console's logo and even game packaging, The console itself is essentially the same inside with 'novelties' changed so any relevant reviews on the slim are going to be on looks - the rest of the review that calls it ugly can be applied to the fat console. Reviews on looks are definitely relevant in the case of a complete redesign (the NGage for example criticises the design of the console and 'sidetalking' and that the QD sorted these problems) and therefore I agree that more reviews on both sides should be included chocobogamer mine 15:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, the problem here is that I'm fine with descriptors. The PS3 article (when it talked about the Fat) mentioned its piano-black shine and chrome-trims when describing it. What you're in support of is a qualifier and not a descriptor. Secondly, if aesthetics is such a huge concern to you, then why didn't you bother to add to the article about how it is often (jokingly) referred to as the "George Foreman Grill"? A redesigned console with a redesigned logo; sure, since there are many ways to describe what it physically looks like without inducing/imposing a bias, which is essentially what you're in support of. (Psychoneko (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just so you all know, the English language Asian official PlayStation sites are referring to the new PS3 as "PS3 Slim & Lite" in the sense of it being its official title over there. Also, UK site has at times referred to it as 'slim' In my opinion, it is therefore fair to use the term "Slim" as long as there are quotation marks as the company itself refers to it so chocobogamer mine 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sony does indeed refer to the new model as the slim. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 07:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to use that name then. Probably worth adding a citation if it's used, to it to stop people (like me :) ) thinking it's a mistake. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that there is no mention of the fact that Sony has said that the PS3 Slim will not have the ability to download or carry Linux applications like Yellow Dog and GIMP. Unless there is a change in this policy a lot of potential buyers will probably seek out second hand PS3's just specifically for the Linux software.--Redblossom (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm tired and have absolutely no patience for this sort of stuff. So I'm just gonna say it as it is: look harder! ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

catclaws lol. well from unofficial places, hence why its not quoted, Sony had feedback that it was only a tiny tiny percentage that used it so it wasn't required really, i'm not sure what difference it makes to the hardware to exclude it though chocobogamer mine 23:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the PlayStation Blog and other websites, I've noticed that certain new games use the new PS3 logo along with PS family logo on top now, instead of the PLAYSTATION 3 along the left. This is almost certainly true for all new games (not old ones), so boxart fetchers, watch out for this. Thanks. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yh when kotaku showed the slim ps3 they showed a redesigned eyepets case its about as unofficially official as you can get chocobogamer mine 23:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pro-Evolution-Soccer-2010-PS3/dp/B002K8PTYC/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1253453362&sr=8-16 PES2010 artwork chocobogamer mine 13:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA! My mind = blown

brings an interesting question though - FIFA10 is in old packaging and PES2010 in new packaging (obbviously the 2 best to showcase the redesign but thats not my point), could this be a test to see which packaging sells best? I know EA exclusively advertise FIFA on PS3 and Konami exclusively advertise PES on Xbox360, but its definitely something interesting that one had old and one has new on PS3. The new packaging could also lead to purchase confusion, particularly with parents chocobogamer mine 17:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase confusion as in, they might think that PLAYSTATION 3 games are only for the big PS3 models and PS3 games are only for the slim PS3 models? ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 13:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the ps3 slim has a diffrent caseing to the ps3 phat so this discussion is original research. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research. Take a look at the pictures. Think before you post. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 05:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

exactly that, FF, I know my Mother thought it when some Master System games didnt have the square paper background. And I love it(!) when people comment before reading and looking, MC. We are not talking about OR or anything it is a fact they have changed the game packaging. And there will not be 2 different cases for each game or anything like that. chocobogamer mine 17:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaz said at TGS '09, the logo was changed to strengthen the brand. I don't recall Sony admitting to that before, so, I just thought to mention it. « ₣M₣ » 02:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I can safely say this is orignal research. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on what grounds? chocobogamer mine 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's research, yes. Original research, no. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 11:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Ffgamera I disagree. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do you think I made this up? Check your definition of original research. Original research does not mean that I go and find it from the internet. That's called research. Do you think I made this up? I don't have any original research to prove it anyway, seeing as though I don't have any games with the new casing. Sony admitted to this casing, officially. So, unless you think words from Sony is "original research" I would try grabbing some sense out of what you are disagreeing on. Please read Wikipedia:No original research before you try and accuse me of falsehood. Besides, how can you talk, when you have a history for making candidates for speedy deletion, bad formatting, improper use of minor editing, inability to sign talk pages properly and most notably, being blocked for repeatedly causing disruption to the project. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 09:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is getting off-track. There's no need to start taking any of this personally. Chill out everyone! It's only box art! I think the new packaging, along with the redesigned PS3, is part of rebranding process - but this takes time. Games go to press at different times so they can't expect every game to instantly start using new box art templates - which is all these are. The banner has no bearing on which model they run on. It's just that the PS3 now has a new logo, and the box art is changing to match that. Even if a source is found, is it really notable enough to put in the article anyway?! Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 09:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I wasn't ever gonna add it in. I just wanted to warn people who fetched box art pictures, to see if it has a newer logo version. Because Uncharted 2's picture had to be changed, for instance. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 09:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is made up and it is orignal research. However, may I warn User Ffgamera that personal grudges against User mcjakeqcool or any other user are irrelevant to wikipeida. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mcjakeqcool, how is it made up exactly when we have listed links to pictures of boxart that show you the new art. example http://kotaku.com/5369959/uncharted-2-western-box-art-vs-japanese-box-art showing three different boxarts for Uncharted. Besides its little more than half a sentence to say that 'along with the new PS3 and new logo, the boxart was redesigned for future releases as part of the rebranding'. The evidence is clear that there is new boxart. If you're on about 'the logo being redesigned to strengthen the brand' then it wouldn't be included without a source anyway, and I'm pretty sure that FF is reading an article, I may have read the same one IDK, but I think that it paraphrased the statement that it was to make the branding equal for the 3 consoles [ps2 ps3 psp] (I don't remotely remember the quote thats just a summary) chocobogamer mine 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User chocobogamer, I have seen proof that it exists with my own eyes, however I still it's existence and it is therefore orignal research. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

um, what? chocobogamer mine 13:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said... User chocobogamer, I have seen proof that it exists with my own eyes, however I still it's existence and it is therefore orignal research. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently someone decided to add this section without mentioning it here. The links are ok but it's missing this one link: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/watchdogs-ps3-repairs-stunt-falls-flat-interview , and also neglects to mention the fact that the host works for Microsoft and is a self-proclaimed Xbox fan. So yeah, that's about it. (Psychoneko (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not a reliable source. Delete the section entirely, since it's based on Microsoft-lobbyst remarks. --Ciao 90 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It looks like he is neutral. He updates the wikipedia neutrality articles and also plays a part in the editing of the Xbox 360 technical issues as well. I agree tho that ppl need to find more adequate sources. I read that Playstation 3's have a 3% failure rate and others say 20%! :/ Hope ya come to a quick conclusion on this and dont bump into any trolls. ;) BTW, I'm a casual user and i dont want to make a wikipedia account. thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.138.110 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not get into an edit war so I'd like to hear from the others first like Ffgamera and ChocoboGamer. (Psychoneko (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

duly noted lol, Theres definitely an issue thats coming to light. BBC's Watchdog did a story on the reliability issues and this can be used as a reliable source to highlight that there is an issue. Drawing comparisons to the Xbox 360's issue, at the moment, has to remain limited for now. We don't know how widespread the issue is, just that it appears to be primarily on (but not only) the launch range of consoles and that its happening for the most part well out of warranty. It is worthy of a mention though, yes. chocobogamer mine 20:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that it should be mentioned, but at the same time, I also believe that certain inaccuracies about the program need to be mentioned as well. Watchdog listed the PS3's price as 400 GBP even though the price drop had occurred a full month before the show aired. It also needs to be mentioned that 3rd party repair technicians were used to fix the broken PS3s and that 4 of the 10 PS3s that were repaired during their stunt had broken down again, which Watchdog acknowledged as well. I also think that the most important item to mention is the fact that the co-host of the program, Iain Lee, had already been announced by Watchdog to be a Microsoft employee and was also a self-proclaimed Xbox fan. I would say that the biggest difference between Sony's and Microsoft's handling of hardware issues is also different as in Sony actually provided a figure of 12500 problem consoles whereas Microsoft declined to provide any figures whatsoever. As such, I do believe that bias needs to be mentioned for the Watchdog program. (Psychoneko (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The PS3 hasn't been £400 since launch. The BBC was referring to the 3 highlighted consoles that were bought at launch, at £425 to be exact. It doesn't matter if they're 3rd party repair technicians, its the same process - SCE didn't argue over the repair process. The BBC are bound by an honour code and therefore Iain Lee being a MS employee (loose terms by the way)/fan means nothing as his BBC contract means he has to be impartial. Yes Sony have given a figure, already proven to be a lie, as its not including people who thought sod it and didn't even report it, who went third party for repairs etc. Microsoft are well within their right to not publish fail rates they did the good thing and extended warranties. Sony's consoles are still dropping like flies and the number will jump up. Sony have not claimed bias in BBC's report, they've argued everything else but no you cannot say its biased. Ofcom or whoever it is now would be investigating bias if it was founded due to the honour code. chocobogamer mine 23:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it hasn't, but the Watchdog report (at least when I watched it) didn't mention anything about the launch price. It merely said (and I quote) "400 pounds is the cost" at 1:04 in this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRyRxKlo9-o .

Secondly, there's still no guarantee that what Iain Lee did was in accordance with the Honor Code that you mentioned. Better yet, I'd like to see this Honor Code you speak of because I certainly did not see any disclaimers regarding the existence of such a code. I should know what an Honor Code means seeing as how I went to Caltech; you want Honor Code? Have some Honor Code: http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/techers/honorcode .

Third, the "already proven to be a lie" part, I'm curious about where you're getting such figures from because last I checked, SquareTrade mostly covers warranty issues for the US market despite its eBay and Yahoo! arrangements. Fourth, Microsoft didn't bother to publish fail rates and initially blamed the fiasco on the end users. You could argue the same with Sony but the difference is that Sony was willing to publish fail rate figures, which is at least something that people can work with. As for Sony laying the blame on end-users part, I haven't seen such articles from Sony yet so feel free to fill me in on that.

Fifth, did you not read item 18 on SCEUK's response? Here, I'll post it for you:

18. I regret to say that neither the correspondence to date, nor the “PlayStation Repair Action Team” stunt, have given me much confidence that you are treating this issue fairly. If the report is broadcast in what appears to be its current form, SCEUK will scrutinise its accuracy and will take all necessary steps to protect its reputation and that of the PS3. Unsupported and potentially misleading allegations of the sort that the BBC appears, from the correspondence to date, to be planning to make concerning the reliability of the PS3 could do significant commercial and reputational harm to Sony and its brands. This is particularly so, given the recent, highly successful launch of the new, slimmer model PS3 and the fact that the last quarter of the year is the busiest sales period for the consumer electronics industry. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-tackles-bbc-over-ps3-failure-report

I'm no bureaucrat, but that sounds like the polite way of saying "bias". (Psychoneko (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wake up guys.. the section is made by fanboy to disrupt article with unreliable and non-verifiable remarks. Gabe Newell emotional statement is up only for rage/blaber purposes. The whole reception should be remade, its looking childish. --Ciao 90 (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you asked for my opinion, which I am most honoured to fulfil.. I do know that the PS3 has technical issues. I am being honest here, so please don't tell me off. I know for sure that four of my friends have had hardware failures, one of which got the YLOD recently (User:JDC808). Two of which have/had original models, and one with the 40GB, and one with the 80GB (Non-PS2). The YLOD was detected on the 60GB. The issues are not something which are fake, because it is real, but it is with all appliances really. One of my friends (the 40GB owner) is on his third PS3 because the second time, an insect went inside and my friend apparently tried to get it out and ended up breaking the PS3. I think the problem is storing the PS3 in a place where heat can build up fast, like a cabinet. Also, keeping it in the horizontal position for long use can be bad. I think the one with the 80GB had a software issue, not sure, but Firmware 2.40 did a serious number to the PS3, not only disabling access, but making it completely faulty. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 11:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ffgamera! I am fully aware of the YLOD issue. I just disagree with how chocobogamer could assert his statements without anything to back it up. At the moment, I still haven't found BBC Watchdog's "Honor Code" policy that chocobo mentioned. The bias issue, unfortunately, is not subtle at all. I'll refer to the youtube link again. The inclusion of Iain Lee doesn't help and the worst part is that all articles referring to Iain Lee on MSN have been removed. Anyway, I'm not sure what to think of the vertical vs horizontal positioning. I think it depends entirely on how much space/ventilation you provide for the PS3, but that would also be true of the 360. (Psychoneko (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

All models up to the slim produce an incredible amount of heat (more than the Xbox 360 does), but it usually manages the heat well. I do not know how the people stored their PS3s, but I do know that the PS3 doesnt particularly like the horizontal position and feels colder in the vertical position. Also, apparently the Ethernet port and the hard drive produce much heat, so games that access the internet rapidly, or games that access hard drive installs rapidly would increase the workload of the PS3. The Blu-ray Drive doesnt produce that much heat as it spins at 2x compared to DVD. Even the PS3's DVD speed is slower to reduce overheating. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 08:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I start by correcting a misconception by you. The "2x" Blu-ray drive was ahead of the standard at the time of development, it is by no means "slow on purpose". It still reads faster than most speed DVDs. And I do believe the standard read-speeds of DVD at the time in a combined drive were that slow - there are 2 seperate lasers on a BD drive, they had to develop it to make sure it worked together in a stable way, I'm pretty sure it again wasn't "deliberately slow"

I would question the truth on the "ethernet port" theory, it would make no more heat than wifi, but the wifi card is in a different area of the board, but yeah the hard drive access can heat up the console (if upgrading you should avoid the high-end 7,200rpm mobile drives and stick to a 5400 or even a 4200 as its sufficient for what it needs).

As to standing it up or sitting it down, if its like the Xbox 360, then its probably better laid down as when components heat up, so does the solder. This is where something can desolder itself.

I know people who have had a slim die - in a week from its launch, and they were replacing a launch 60GB. chocobogamer mine 09:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I say slow, i mean physically slow. I didn't mean disc read slow. I am aware that BD 2x is faster than say DVD 18x. But Microsoft commented on unplugging the internet to reduce heat build up on the Xbox 360 and it's true about the hard drive access. And also, the slim dies in a fast manner if any problems, so it wouldnt be a problem cos it's covered by warranty. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 02:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, all this talk about setting the PS3 to stand up and so on got me thinking about convection currents. Would that be why there's a ventilation port on the "top" side of the PS3? Other than that, hard drive access does generate heat. As for the wifi heat, the PSP's wifi is capped at 300 MHz and it's been known and explained by Sony that forcing the wifi to go any faster than that will burn out the PSP's wifi chip, so there is some truth to what ffgamera said. (Psychoneko (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Providing evidence of notability

I think there are two very important issues to consider here:

1. "15 percent of all consumer electronics are expected to fail in their third or fourth years" (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/02/xbox-360-failure-rates-worse-than-most-consumer-electornics.ars)
2. The normal warranty provided for most types of consumer electronic devices is one year.

Therefore, unless we can provide references that specify that either the PS3 failure rate or the PS3 warranty fall outside of these averages, there is no reason to add anything to the article.

The most notable aspect of BBC's "Watchdog" segment is that it singled out a consumer electronics product for having a normal failure rate and a normal warranty. InternetMeme (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the issue was discussed by a programme on the BBC, that the report was then given extensive coverage by other sources and that Sony themselves responded to the report, makes it notable. Whether they were right to do so or not is irrelevant. I don't see why notability should be based solely on the failure rate and whether that rate falls outside of the industry standards. I'll re-add the information. If a consensus is reached here that it's not notable, then it should be removed. [I MISINTERPRETED WHAT WAS REMOVED IN THE DIFF] Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 13:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

im not liking the term 'works for microsoft'. its too general. he writes a column for MSN gaming section. its like saying if a song is used in a film, that the band that made it worked for the company that made the film, which is not true (ok thats too loose). yes, he is a self-confessed xbox fan but generalising his job in such a manner is publicly questioning his conduct or motivation in the watchdog segment - it is potentially libellous. and no i'm not being stupid. chocobogamer mine 15:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of hard to deny "guilt by association" when the guy himself admits to this:

Don’t get me wrong, I may be in the employ of Microsoft to write this column, but there is no way I’m taking dirty money.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:49OVClANy10J:tech.uk.msn.com/gaming/article.aspx%3Fcp-documentid%3D7838134+iain+lee+ps3&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Also, it doesn't help MSN has removed his articles.

(Psychoneko (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hey guys.

I added the fact that Iain Lee is a self-professed Xbox 360 fan, I thought it was relevant in the context. What do you guys think? InternetMeme (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys,

I just watched the segment in question ([BBC Watchdog Sony PS3 Yellow Light of Death]) and from a selection of at least 40 members of the audience, there are only three PS3 owners who have experienced failures. Can anyone clarify whether it is implied that the entire audence are PS3 owners, or just chosen at random?

If so, this presents a failure rate of no more than 7.5%, which I think is within the range of the failure rate of normal consumer electronics of any kind.

Two questions, then:

1) Is this technical issue notable (given that it seems to be within the acceptable limits for this industry)?

2) If so, shouldn't the article neccessarily contain a reference to the host's potential bias?

InternetMeme (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I can recall the 40 members were all people who had complained over it. even if not, there were 3 highlighted cases. there were also another 5 being repaired on the show live, ones they had done before themselves. so you saying 7.5% is completely wrong.

Iain Lee hosted the bit, he will probably have no idea on the rapair side of it, diagnosis etc. I doubt very much he did much more than read a script. If you call into question his comments because he's a fan / employee then David Coulthard needs sacking from the F1 because he works for RedBull. As I said just because they have a bias doesn't mean anything. Did you see any bias from Andy Gray, an ex Everton player, when Gerrard scored for Liverpool in the Champions League..? I seem to recall him being elated... who you work/work for means nothing. who here hasn't said something about their employer before..? chocobogamer mine 16:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure about the Yellow Light of Death as inherent problems on the first generation PS3 consoles, meaning those with 60GB HDs bought around 2007. Almost all PS3 first gen consoles are getting this problem, and a google search on it will turn up a lot of results.Youtube has lots of videos on it too. (165.21.109.194 (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)QL165.21.109.194 (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

First, my english is horrible, but read that http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2009/09/18/an-open-letter-to-bbc-complaints/commenpage-3/t-. I dont understand why Chimpanzee consider it as unreliable or "notable", the letter seems to be professional, it should be noted. And related to Kottick's lines, it should be removed because its related to ECONOMICAL problems and not the console itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu89 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed TheSixthAxis stuff because (while I like the site), it is essentially a self-published blog and therefore not considered a reliable source/notable. There's essentially nothing that makes TSA's letter any more notable or important than a letter you, I or anyone else would write. (in fact, I did write one and it's in the comments on that post if you care to look for it... but that's beside the point :) ) Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you say about Kottick??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu89 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your talk page: "The comments are clearly criticisms of the PlayStation 3, cited, from a notable figure in the industry. What specific aspect of the system the criticisms were aimed at is irrelevant as they were written under the Reception section, not Technical issues or anything like that." Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 19:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

READ the article, he is talking about Sony read the lines

-The target is SONY, the once-dominant hardware maker... THEY have to cut the price... we might have to stop supporting SONY.... The interview is about economy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.100.203.203 (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're Nu? "They have to cut the price"... of what? The PS3. "We might have to stop supporting Sony" - read "We might have to stop making PS3 games". He's not saying "This bloody economy! I wish it weren't in such a state because Sony have the price just right for the PS3." He's not talking about Sony's pricing on Bravias of Blu-ray players, he's talking specifically about the PS3. If you're saying that it shouldn't be included because he's talking about Sony's pricing of the PS3, then none of the criticisms should be included. Let's not include the stuff about hardware failures either because the BBC were actually criticising Sony's design and Sony's decisions on build quality. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 07:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

first this page should be locked from editing and should be cleaned up, it's too messy to read properly. Markthemac (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article is a collection of bias with sources. It is a typical case of systemic bias. The tone of the Reception section encompasses a "movement" of the gaming industry and press of prejudice Sony and PlayStation platform. So, I don't think there is something to do because this issue is very common in the Wikipedia, with some exceptions where editors do a task force to improve the quality of the article. --Ciao 90 (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read in the reception article, its definitely not well balanced. In terms of reviews its pretty much all positive, with the criticisms coming from developers. Technical issues should be paired with the criticisms so that its easier to check neutrality. Also its not mentioned with the Valve statement but definitely worth mentioning that their statement rang true - EA did the PS3 version of the orange box chocobogamer mine 18:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]