Talk:Comparison of seventh-generation game consoles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of seventh-generation game consoles article.
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Prices

I removed the Euro and Yen prices from the Wii price info, because the row title is Price (USD) Maybe there should just be a "price" row that has the prices in USD, euros and yen. Npd 01:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed '$' to 'US$' to represent prices in the United States. The US isn't the only country to have dollars. Seriphyn 19:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motivations

Should the article include motivations on why one console is better than the other?

Certainly not... The entire premise of this article is somewhat unencyclopedic. It would be far better if it were renamed to "Comparison of next-generation game consoles" and included all of the contenders. -- uberpenguin 00:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TFLOPS references

The TFLOPS references need to be changed. According to the PS3 & Xbox 360 articles themselves, the overall system TFLOPS is 2.1+ for the PS3 and about 1 for the 360. The figures in this chart of 1.8 & 1 TFLOPS respectively seem to be comparing the GPU of the PS3 with the total system of the Xbox 360.

[edit] From Sony Inventory

Due to "bug" problems, the PS3 system will likely be released Q4 2006 or Q1 2007.
Lord Falcon 02:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean Sony Inventory? Daniel.Cardenas 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we be listening to rumours that could have possibly have stemmed from Microsofts's Office?kura 09:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit as of 2005-12-15

Removed the speculative Revolution specifications and mentioned processor speed / GPU speed etc. are as yet unknown. I don't know who wrote the howstuffworks.com article on the Revolution (which the previous authors have used as a source), but it is grossly inaccurate. --Robert Knight

The numbers are staying until any other sources state anything else. Fell free to add "accurate" numbers if you could find any official data.

First, sign your edits. Second, it is people with your attitude that contribute to the notion that Wikipedia is vastly inaccurate. Omega21

The sources given in the article are based on what nintendo official states, so I don't know what the heck is wrong with those and why people are screwing up the numbers. As I said, fell free to contribute with "accurate" number but dont replace them with "unknown" when they aren't.

There *is* no official data on some aspects of the Revolution (such as the speed of the CPU, GPU or the quantity of main RAM), something which is evident to people who regularly visit gaming sites such as IGN.com and GameSpot. This is the reason why IGN.com recently published details of discussions it has had with third-party developers, which put the RAM figure at somewhat less than 512MB. See [1], in which the figure is given as between 100 and 128MB. On another note, I cannot accept just keeping the numbers there because they are not explicitly disagreed with elsewhere. On any subject you care to name, I could invent a crackpot theory which would not be explicitly refuted elsewhere, yet that does not make it valid. As far as specifications are concerned, I don't think they should be listed on Wikipedia until they have been confirmed by several reputable sources, ideally including Nintendo themselves. Howstuffworks.com evidently not being one of them. -- Robert Knight.

Wii CPU and GPU pecs removed in the name of maintaining disambiguaty on wikipedia. Those specs have been removed from all other pages that contain specs for Wii by a consensu of editors as they are unconfirmed at this time. HowStuffWorks cites IGN which unnofficially received the specs which were based on early beta development kits. Nintendo, IGN nor any other reputable site has not officially announced any Wii specs for CPU or GPU. I understand verifiability is a staple of Wiki but when the verification is in question and the data is uncomplemented by its peers, the data is to be withheld until further clarification.--The Viper 04:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Could someone merge this article?

[edit] Edit as of 2005-12-14 19:27:48

I noticed a lot of mistakes which I fixed, many of which I get the inkling that some might disagree with.

  • Rev's CPU and GPU are currently of unknown specification.
  • Rev display is 480p (progressive scan).
  • X360's wireless is through an optional $100 dongle.
  • Rev controllers are connected through Bluetooth.
  • Rev is using proprietary disk, as well as GCN disks.
  • Added dimensions.

--Zeromaru[[User_talk:Zeromaru|<sup>T</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Zeromaru|<sup>C</sup>]] 23:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Media speed

Am I being too criticaly by listing the maximum read speed of the PS3 and Xbox360? I feel they're important, but I also realize I'm bias in this area (I don't really like Sony). ChessManXI 08:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really, so long as your facts are straight. Sustained maximum read speed doesn't actually mean squat in most applications, but then again, neither does peak theoretical sustained single-precision floating point performance, and evidently nobody has any problem with that being listed here. -- uberpenguin 19:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The facts aren't straight, though. The basic read speed of BD is much much faster than DVD. I don't know the exact numbers, but they shouldn't be too hard to find out. --Zeromaru[[User_talk:Zeromaru|<sup>T</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Zeromaru|<sup>C</sup>]] 19:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
All the numbers I put there are straight; 1x and 2x Blu Ray is much slower than 12x DVD. But later generations of the Blu Ray Disc will much faster than DVD. All I've read is that 1x and possibly 2x Blu Ray Drives will be available by PS3's launch date. btw, 1x Blu Ray doesn't have enough speed for HD Content, kinda weird. -ChessManXI 10:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sound 7.1

Where's the sourcs about 7.1 Xbox 360 sound? The press release says 5.1

I read somewhere that the Xbox360 has the ability to for 7.1, but not true 7.1. I don't remember where and haven't seen anything like it since, so we should stay at 5.1.

[edit] Xbox 360 shader ops

The official Xbox360 specs list 48 billion shader operations per second, The Major Nelson artical is very misleading and obviously biased to make the Xbox 360 look good compared to the PS3. Major Nelson did not specify where he came up with 80 billion shader ops figure from (it looks like he pulled it out of a hat). Microsoft quoted 48 billion shader operations per second in their official specs, so we should leave it as that.

http://hardware.teamxbox.com/articles/xbox/1144/The-Xbox-360-System-Specifications/p1

I think someone got the FLOPs for the Xbox 360's CPU and GPU mixed up. -- ChessManXI 03:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles that compare consoles appropriate/inappropriate

When are links to articles that compare next-generation console games appropriate or inappropriate? I believe if they add good information then they are appropriate. If they are a rehash of what is already listed on the comparison page then they are inappropriate. What do you think? I added the following two links that were reverted:

Seven Things That the Xbox 360 Does Better

Things the Xbox 360 could have done better

In other words if they provide a perspective or information that is likely valuable to the reader then the link is appropriate. I know that links can get out of hand. Can be used as a type of spam. Perhaps the rule is that the links need to be discussed first prior to being posted. Daniel.Cardenas 01:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

From Major Nelson's page:
"However, the Xbox 360’s GPU can do 48 ALU operations (each can do a vector4 and scalar op per clock), 16 texture fetches, 32 control flow operations, and 16 programmable vertex fetch operations with tessellation per clock for a total of 48*2 + 16 + 32 + 16 = 160 operations per cycle or 160 * 500 = 80 GOps per second."
What are you trying to point out? Daniel.Cardenas 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If you are talking about Xbox 360 shader ops, I don't think texture fetches, flow control operations, or vertex fetch operations are classified as shader operations.

[edit] Further Edit

As of 26th Of Jan, 06 Edited Storage, Online, and Controller Input '['kura']' 12:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Redirect and merge

I've merged this article with [[History of video games (seventh generation era) ]] and added a redirect notice to the top of the page. Hope this is ok.HappyVR 01:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Sorry, I've got nothing to contribute, but I do have a question. Since the XBox 360's network seems to run at 100Mbit/s(100BASE-TX and the PS3 it seems will be running at 1Gbit/s(1000BASE-T), is there any other factors which will determine the network? Or is the PS3 network really going to be 10x faster than the 360's? Mitsugeta 14:11, 27 June 2006

From what I recall, a network segment is only as fast as the slowest device on it. If you connect the PS3 to a network on which there's a 100base-tx system, it'll run at 100. Regardless, online capability is still limited by your internet connection. You probably wont even breach 10Mbit/s on the average connection. 74.131.73.152 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
All devices invoved will need to be 1Gbit/s, otherwise it will not have any advantage, you can have slower devices on a 1Gbit network so long as they are not involved in teh transfer. Since >100Mbit Internet connections are rare it will have little benefit for games or downloads. It could be good for tranfering media from PC to PS3 (assuming that is a feature) but the network switch and PC will also need to support 1Gbit for any advantage.vortex 13:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EVO

Any chance anyone could add the EVO info. I'm sort of illiterate when it comes to understanding hardware. 74.137.230.39 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, sure, why not. I'll give it a go. Somebody can revert it if they are unhappy with it.
    • It's a media center PC, it plays PC games, not a game console. Does NOT belong on this page.70.101.201.248 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that's a matter of opinon. --Thaddius 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that it's running XP Media Center PC, and it only plays PC games. Makes it a factual statement that it's not a video game console.70.101.201.248 16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to agree it doesn't belong on this page. If it's included you will have to include every Media Center made by HP/Acer/IBM/Dell/Apple. Also any of the MythTV/Freevo based players as they can also play games, and a number of the set-top boxes which can also play user installed games (Topfield's DTV for example).vortex 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
PC's should not be included because they don't really fall into generations the same way normal video games do. TJ Spyke 05:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad link

Link [10] goes to a a page with just a Nintendo logo and the words "This page you have requested is not available". Can someone replace it with a current source?

[edit] wii price and release date

Neither of those sources say what they're cited for.Tuesday42 23:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed them because neither are official and just speculation by whoever added them. TJ Spyke 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consumer programmability for Wii

Hello, Wii will have "Consumer programmability" according to http://wii.nintendo.com/hardware.html (the official hardware Wii page).

Text from that URL: "It also will be home to new games conceived by indie developers whose creativity is larger than their budgets."

It does not say how and when it will be possible, but from my point of view is even more uncertain the presence of game programming with PS3. In my opinion XBOX360 should have a "Yes", Wii "Announced, but lack of technical information", and PS3 a "Feasible, but not confirmed".

Indie developers, as in small game companies. Not consumers. The end user can't program anything.74.33.0.16 04:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox 360 and USB Mass Storage

About the mention of the 360 utilizing USB Mass Storage Devices: 1.It doesn't say this on the main Xbox 360 page. 2.The reference given doens't seem to say anything about USB Mass Storage and seems to be mostly speculation anyways. 3.I tried my ordinary USB Flash Drive in my friend's Premium and it just ignored it completely. 4.It doensn't say anything about USB Mass Storage on the box.

1/2/4 Its not on the xbox site, but it does here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/909161/en-us 3. Well...did you browse to it?vortex 09:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table contents ps3 release

Please could somebody sort the PS3 release date table format bit. its on the side on its own needlessly. i'd do it myself but i cant figure out how. Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaptainHaZ (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed that row a bit. To keep things concise, I cut out excess detail and distilled things to the three major territories. If people want to know more, they can go to the individual console articles. Dancter 18:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official Wii Specs

In IGN's latest Wii article, an FAQ of sorts, they mention what seem to be the Wii's final specs. Here: [2] It's in the blue box below the Metroid screenshot. CeeWhy2 06:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Those specs were originally said to have been leaked from developers who had early dev kits... that is assuming the leak came from developers or even someone who knows the specs at all. Unless the information comes straight from the hardware developers (Nintendo, IBM, ATI, etc.), there is not confirmation on the specs.

Geekrecon 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you forgot the Evo: Phase One console on the list

you forgot the Evo: Phase One console on the list

Read the discussion above. It's a media center PC, not a traditional console. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wii VGA removed?

Although back early in the year IGN and other sites reported Wii to have VGA output all systems seen at E3 and all pics on nintendo of the outputs do not show VGA connection. Does anyone know anything more about this?

I'm pretty sure the Wii just uses multi-output connector, like most consoles seem to. It goes from some crazy proprietary connector, to different audio/video connectors, depending on the cable used (possibly including VGA). The units at E3 may not have been complete production models, so you can't draw many conclusions from them. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ps3 safe to say all playstation 1 games?

it would seem the playstation3 would have enough processing power. the playstation 2 had a few playstation 1 games it did not handle, but it also had some playstation 2 games it did not handle (the smaller version). The PlayStation portable has an emulator for playstation 1 games, so if it can play all of them, the playstation 3 could, right? --24.7.86.143 14:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It was expected, but there has been many reports that it has some popular PS2 games not working. one example is [3]

[edit] wii edtv

it might be a stretch to say the wii supports edtv. edtv includes a higher resolution. this is not an issue for the others because they both support up to 1080p.

[edit] audio for movies?

mgs4 is supposed to have 7.1 audio. also blu ray supports more codecs than listed; the new generation of dolby and dts.

[edit] edits

what is this - 10 billion dot products per second, then 33 billion dot products per second (51 billion dot products with CPU)

also if anyone has time please make sure online services are comprehensive for all three consoles. All three consoles have an online store (ms/nintendo point based, ps3 currency), ps3 has a browser, some ps3 games integrate with xfire. nintendo / ps3 free, microsoft $60/month. ms webcam accessories, headset. etc. similar to this. ps3 also has arcade. incomplete comparisons are pov.

The $60/month for Xbox Live is incorrect. It is $60/year meaning only about $5/month.

[edit] Similar article for 6th-gen consoles?

Should there be a Comparison of sixth-generation game consoles article? Shawnc 17:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold :P Sonic3KMaster(talk) 18:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] facts only pov if undue weight

Please comment if you disagree. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 18:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • "Core w/ no Hard Drive" - undue weight in my opinion.
  • PlayStation 3 non-proprietary HDMI port - deserves a mention, although I will admit it was out of place.
  • The Wii's flash storage is not random access memory, unless you plan to rename hard drives as random access. Flash storage has seek time just like a hard drive would, even though it's better, and perhaps even usable for real time rendering. As the wii has 1/6th the resolution of the Xbox and PlayStation, it doesn't need as much RAM. The original Xbox had 64 mb. Do not exaggerate facts to make the consoles seem more similar.
  • Xbox Live does cost money, and is one of the comparisons that has received the most media attention. Therefore, at least a mention, I think is not pov. I added the Xbox Live gold card in the accessories and I think that's enough. It also makes it more clear it can be purchased for less than retail. --gatoatigrado 18:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The way in which the Xbox Live thing was included did introduce a POV. The PS3 doesn't have a unified service at all, except for the store (mostly free on XBL) but the inclusion did not mention that. I agree with everything else though. I don't even think the PS3's HDMI is proprietary, and if so including the $50 price is a bit ridiculous, considering that any old HDMI cable will work; not to mention that the the price seems unknown. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Two things: Who decided that an HDMI cable costs 50 dollars? Is that just some average, because you can find an HDMI cable at Best Buy for 100 dollars, but find the same type of HDMI from an on-line store for 15 dollars.

Second, I think there needs to be an asterisk or explanation for the X-Box 360 1080p capability. If I plugged my 360 into a high-def capable for showing 1080p, the games will NOT be in 1080p. Microsoft is currently working on something that MAY be able to show games in 1080p, but for now 720p and 1080i is as good as you can get on X-Box 360.

Okay, I hope it's okay now. I don't know about the PS3 cable. I think there might be an official one for $50, but I have also heard there are monster (a company) "gold" cables for $30 or something. --gatoatigrado 22:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And a thing about the edits; the XMB, Dashboard, and Wii Channels are not Operating systems. They are graphical user interfaces. They let the user interface with the console, graphically. That's the very definition. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not from a programming perspective. Something like a form is a graphical user interface. True, there are parts of these systems which are graphical interfaces, but other components do networking tasks, provide the central button functionality, etc. In a specific situation, a program like Windows Media Player is not a graphical user interface, although it has one. --gatoatigrado 22:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"They let the user interface with the console, graphically" - no, that's not the definition, read the article here. "A graphical user interface is a particular case of user interface for interacting with a computer which employs graphical images and widgets in addition to text to represent the information and actions available to the user." It's not anything that lets the user interface, it is the interface. --gatoatigrado 22:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose they're not GUIs themselves; I don't think they're operating systems either, especially using the definition from the OS article. Maybe "system software"? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
From Operating system - "An operating system (OS) is a computer program that manages the hardware and software resources of a computer. [...] It also may provide a graphical user interface for higher level functions." It's not too bad, but system software is what I used on the PlayStation 3 and I think that's fine also. In fact, I don't know if the Wii actually runs on an operating system because it may get switched out when games start, as it has less memory, so I'll change it to system software. --gatoatigrado 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure who commented about the 1080p on the xbox 360 (no sig) but the Xbox 360 has as much right to claim 1080p as does the PS3. Both will have some games running at 1080p and both will upscale games from lower res to 1080p as needed.vortex 22:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
yes it hasn't been changed. Both PS3 and Xbox 360 are relatively underpowered for full 1080p resolution, so if you see things in 1080p, only parts of the rendering use the 1080p framebuffer. --24.7.86.143 06:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical FLOPS

I think all of the numbers are marketing crap, and should be removed. Besides that, another editor has been repeatedly changing the PS3 GPU's numbers to 2.18 TFLOPS, an unsourced number that doesn't match up with anything I can find. I just thought I would state that, in case this turns into an obnoxious edit war. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The theoretical flops for the playstation should be the flops from the dual core ppe and 7 spe's, which you can take from the cell microprocessor article. You're right they're not very valid comparisons, and mostly marketing jargon. Perhaps the purpose of the edram could be expanded upon. I don't think it's "black and white" though. --gatoatigrado 11:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. delete gpu mhz. more or less invalid, although it serves as a "multiplier" for "per clock" statistics, why not list the total per second?
  2. delete gpu flops. mostly for texture sampling. somewhat irrelevant.
  3. perhaps keep shader operations. I am not informed enough, nor could I find a definition. If this is a measure of the number of hlsl functions per second - although linear operations are (probably) faster than trigonometric, it could be relevant. It could be limited to the effects framework and not "hlsl" / Cg, but still a possibly relevant statistic.
  4. delete dot products. the statistic is too low level, similar to flops, and could be not accessible to programmers. the cell must be capable of more dot products per second, 51-33?
  5. cpu flops not irrelevant. most are accessible to the user. the cell achieved 98% theoretical efficiency with matrix multiplication.
  6. ghz in ram is perhaps not as important as bandwidth. I'm not completely sure, but I think bandwidth for 700 mhz ddr2 = 5.6 GB/s, bandwidth for 3.2 ghz xdr = 6.4 GB/s. The xdr doesn't have as "wide" a link, although it is still faster. I did the calculation a while ago from the ddr 2 article, and the 6.4 GB/s is from the XDR homepage. Latencies are also important, and I don't think it's necessarily too much detail.
Yeah, I agree with most or all of that. Nothing wrong with CPU FLOPS. The GPU number, however, seems mostly used to beef up the other number in order to make the system directly comparable to super computer or something odd. It's also specifically what I'm having trouble with the anonymous editor with; the number he/she repeatedly adds is a sum of GPU and CPU FLOPS, which is even more completely irrelevant to anything. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If someone is vandalizing, put the {{subst:bv}} on their talk page, and/or add comments <!-- --> in the article source. --gatoatigrado 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not outright vandalism. Vandalism is intentionally harming the Wikipedia; this is a plain content dispute. Not too serious either, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Console images

Rather than discuss this in edit summaries, it would be best to vote/discuss here what is the prefered location of the images.

  • Option A - Separate gallery above or below the tables.
  • Option B - As part of the first table. The images could be made smaller, say 180px if it is the size people don't like.
  • Option C - something else entirely.

Personally, I think it looks much better with the images incorporated into the main table, since it is similar to the console infobox templates. Koweja 14:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PS3 software features

As far as I can tell, most of the PlayStation 3's software features come from the not-included Yellow Dog Linux. Shouldn't these features be reduced to what the PlayStation 3 can do out of the box? --Pianohacker (Talk) 17:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I mentioned that it is sold separately in my edit (see two sections down). I think that's better than getting rid of it because even though it costs money, it's akin to a system upgrade and a lot of things are not available out of the box. Does that work for you? -Unknownwarrior33 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change in Article

In the begining of this article the paragraph:

"The asterisk (*) will be used to designate the higher end models for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and (**) for the lower end models. The playstation 3, being released in fall 2006, has every critic questioning it. Why has playstation 3 been copying others ideas? "Apparently sony cant think of thier own ideas," said Yoshi Nayumato, at E3 this year. Sony has copied many ideas such as the motion sensor from wii and the online marketplace from the xbox 360. They even tried to copy the plot of xbox 360's game of the year "Gears of War". they have copied these ideas along with many other ideas thought of by another gaming company. That is why all critics are telling you not to buy a playstation 3 or any future gaming console from sony, or at least untill they think of their own creative idea. most critics believe that if you were to get only one or maybe two next genaration console, that you should get an Xbox 360 and a Nintendo Wii."

Should be change to eleminate the bias opinion against the PlayStation 3 or at least should be confirmed and citied. This seems like an unfair opinion that clearly attacks the PlayStation 3 and Sony Company. I would do it myself but I am very new to Wiki and I don't want to mess anything up.

Actually, that section was just vandalism. Stuff like that just gets deleted without bothering to fix up. Also, don't worry about messing anything up since if anything goes wrong the page can be reverted with a couple of mouse clicks. Koweja 20:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of my edit

Because I know this topic is a breeding ground for debates being a gamer myself, I want to explain some parts of my recent edit so everyone understands my intentions and reasons and can discuss them if disagreements come up:

  • The exact number of games in Sony's library was removed because it's very specific for such a general page, it's imprecise (new PS2 games are coming out and the backwards compatibility does not support PSP games which the wording suggested), it's unsourced, and it does not serve a page about comparison because a number isn't listed for the backwards compatibility of the other consoles.
  • As the previous section of this talk page says, the mentions of the PS3's Linux capabilities are misleading when describing system software; the same goes for the Xbox programming thing, Virtual Console titles, and (eventually) the Wii web browser.
  • Replaced "Motion JPEG" with "MOV" as the video format compatible with Wii, as all the other formats mentioned in the chart are listed as their three-letter extensions (also included citation to prove that it is MOV and not another form of motion jpeg).

I hope these edits are acceptable; if you disagree with one or more, please discuss. -Unknownwarrior33 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Console Weight

Hey, I think it would be a good addition to insert a row for Weight (pounds or kilograms, either is fine, both would be nice). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.233.70 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree. Does anyone know the weights of each system? Bladestorm 18:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Xbox 360 = 3.5 kg (7.7 lbs) [4][5]
  • Playstation 3 = 11 lbs (5 kg) [6][7]
  • Wii = 2.7 lbs (1.2 kg)[8][9]
Jecowa 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

I don't know if this has been discussed yet or not. I think it could contribute but I'm not going to add it without a consensus because if we add an external links section it could open a Pandora's box of unneeded links. What do you all think?--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 13:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I should also mention that it requires Quicktime...--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 13:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Not a bad idea to include since it gives a more accurate comparison than a list of hardware specs. Can you find a version of it that isn't such a pain to access (as in commercial free)? Perhaps someone can upload it to YouTube. Koweja 13:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7EComparison_of_seventh-generation_game_consoles_6163.html"