Talk:PlayStation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PlayStation article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	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.	CVG Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: X-Men vs. Street Fighter Expand: New CVG Articles, List of Nintendo trademarks, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: Super Transformation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, Yoshi, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Black Isle's Torn, Rise of Nations, Kirby (Nintendo), PlayStation 3, Mega Man Zero 4, Luigi Cleanup: Shiny Entertainment, Age of Mythology, Serious Sam II, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Ted Price, Betrayal at Krondor, Little Fighter 2 Merge: Current Events (Update needed!) / Deletions / Essential articles / Workshop / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Contents 1 Tech Specs (Video performance) 2 Price Points 3 Screenshots 4 Audio Cd Capability? 5 Audio 6 PSOne 7 Requested move 7.1 survey 7.2 discussion 8 PSone, PS One, PS one 9 PLAYSTATION 3 10 Musical trivia 11 Controller Strength 12 Merge 13 External Links 14 Top-Selling Game 15 Easter Egg 16 Lack of actual information 17 MSX 18 NPOV 19 Sold vs. Shipped 20 First CD-ROM System? 21 Developer kits 22 Game Rave 23 Shaky graphics 24 Triangles per second 25 History 26 Bus Bandwidth 27 gran turismo screenshot 28 CD-ROM speed 29 Hyperbole 30 Removed Criticism for reasons equivilent to the removal of it from PS2 & PS3 31 Request for page protection 32 PlayStation CDs 33 crash bandicoot 2 34 Article needs cleanup... 35 Predecessor 36 Who... 37 Games 38 What the... 39 What the... It's repaired

[edit] Tech Specs (Video performance)

Not really that important, but the article says that Sony originally gave the theoretical graphics performance of PlayStation as 4.5 Billion flat shaded polygons per second! I think the author meant "million", but I don't have any sources for this. -- Robert Knight 03:19, 07 January 2005 (GMT)

[edit] Price Points

How about adding the price drops/pricing of the psx, akin to the Playstation2_Price_hi[story_section ?

[I originally proposed this as an anoymous user] Wskora 16:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Where can we find launch prices for the Playstation in US, JP and Europe? --DDG 15:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

Is there a reason why the screenshots were removed? Can someone put screenshots up displaying the graphical power of Playstation?

User:random 22:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm the below statement from the page?

The PlayStation has historical links to an averted CD-ROM add on to the SNES which would be able to include large multimedia. For various reasons including the failure of the Sega CD, this project was cancelled.

Camster342 16:09 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've heard things to that effect many times, but I have no actual proof that it is true. I would say yes, however. — Braaropolis | Talk 06:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I actually found a dogeared old copy of Total Nintendo about a year ago, dating from about a decade ago, which made reference to the Sony-Nintendo "PlayStation" add-on in a small news article, so it's definately true. If I find the magazine again I'll scan the article in. Sockatume 23:06, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the Ultimate History of Video Games, by Steve Kent, there's a section on the history of the PS. I can confirm it did contain details on how the PS was originally born from a failed venture with Nintendo. Haoie 22:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

On Nintendo 64, it says that Nintendo backed out of the deal due to Sony's insistence on being paid all licensing fees from CD-ROM based games. If this is true, it should appear here.

---

The sentence near the top of the article: " It was the console that angered Nintendo," obviously meant something to the author of the article. But it means nothing to the general reader. What was Nintendo angry about? Copyright infringement? Patent infringement? Loss of revenue? Loss of prestige? Who knows from reading this article. Patrick0Moran 05:09, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Multiple reasons. First, the Playstation was Sony's initial entry into what was, until then (and this is of course highly debatable) a two-player game (that is, Sega vs. Nintendo.) Secondly, Sony stood, with it's name, to legitimize the CD format for console-based gaming; the Sega CD was the first step towards the eventual downfall of Sega. (Moreso in the U.S.) Third, there was a complex series of underhanded business maneuvering that Nintendo did, with Sony and Phillips (there should be an article on this, if there isn't already). Basically, Sony was under the impression (and poured considerable funds into) that they would be the one developing the Playstation add-on for the Super Famicom along with Nintendo. However, the next day, Nintendo comes out and says "We're making the Playstation in joint cooperation with Phillips." So, of course, Sony, in full-revenge mode, says "We'll just make the Playstation ourselves." Ergo, the injunction. Nintendo, however, didn't learn from their mistakes,see :Nintendo_64DD.

For more information on this, see: http://www.nintendoland.com/home2.htm?snes/snescdr.htm

---

That is strange. Anyway, I fixed some grammatical errors here and there. It's all good.

- Drake

---

PSX is "still used" because it doesn't refer to the same thing as PSOne. PSOne (abbreviated PS1 because it's not Phantasy Star Online) is the new device, compatible with the Playstation, but smaller and prettier. PSX refers to the original PlayStation as always. But then the "PlayStation X" is going to screw it all up.

Hobbified

Actually, it's already "all screwed up". The PSX is, and has been for a while now, a luxury PS2/PVR released only in Japan... The official abbreviation for the PlayStation is PS1 or PSone...

Wulf 03:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audio Cd Capability?

Why does it say in the "Variants" secton, It has the additional capability of playing Audio CDs, referring to the PSone? My (original) Playstation certainly has the capability of playing Audio CDs. So, I changed that sentence.

Speaking of audio CD playback, it's too bad Sony took out the visualisation for the PS2... I hope they bring it back for the PS3. --Wulf 03:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audio

From what I know the PSone has enhanced audio cd playback compared to the PS1...

I've certainly never seen anything to indicate that. Each hardware revision has an upgraded set of visualisations when playing CDs, IIRC, but that's been around since early US-model PlayStations. Sockatume 22:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I bought and use the first Japanese model (SCPH-1000) as the CD player for my hi-fi. The overal sound quality is pretty much better than the majority of mid-end players for a reason I can't explain. Before I bought it, I tested later models and they have a much weaker sound, making them not worth using as CD players. User:greekalien 23:13, 21 Aug 2006 (GMT+2)

That means very little. To get in this article there needs to be some measurements such as THD or a double-blind study. A couple of anecdotes aren't going to cut it. I think the entire section about the Playstation's use as a CD player should be removed, since it's totally unsubstantiated. The site linked to in the section also has crazy things such as this. Yeah, an inner tube is really going to improve audio quality in a digital system. The PS1 uses a 1 bit DAC with a THD that's probably worse than most AC'97 integrated devices on computer motherboards. This whole idea is totally nuts. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you (or whoever did it) for removing this section again. I'd removed it some time ago after waiting a month for credible sources (there were none), but someone re-added it since. 70.45.49.36 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PSOne

and alternate versions...we should add images of these. i'll dig around. Lockeownzj00 20:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone might want to mention the switch from AC to DC input as a fourth difference; I'm locked out. —216.203.xxx 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I still have the PS1 and the original Playstation system. How much would they be worth? -71.224.24.99 20:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] PSone, PS One, PS one

I don't see _space_ betwen PS and one in my controller/console/box. PSone (with o) is what see here. --Brazil4Linux 14:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PLAYSTATION 3

is the proper name of the console, not PlayStation 3. Sony changed it for marketing reasons. Kuciwalker 20:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you show us a link where that information is stated? Otherwise, your change will be reverted. -- ReyBrujo 20:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20683 and http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0608/kaigai186.htm (the latter is in Japanese, the former is a machine translation. Kuciwalker 18:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Musical trivia

i removed this from the /*Titles*/ section. it didnt seem to belong anywhere, nor warrant its own section, so im placing here --Quiddity 03:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

On November 30, 1999, the Italian eurodance band Eiffel 65 released an album entitled Europop. Track #6 is a song dedicated to the PlayStation, entitled My Console. Written by the band's DJ Gabry Ponte, the song mentions Tekken, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Gran Turismo, Omega Boost, Bloody Roar and X-Files, in that order. Further along in the song, in a part that is more difficult to make out, they also refer to Ridge Racer and Odd World, seconds before spelling out the word "PlayStation."

[edit] Controller Strength

Surely there should be some mention of the durability of the original PSX controllers, as they are quite tough to break accidentally.

[edit] Merge

It has been suggested the PSone content be merged into the Playstation article; Please post your opinions here.

• Support. Not enough info on the PSone article to warrant its own page. cave 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Don't post links, for example, free psp games, they will be removed. Please note, external links are for fact referencing and authority sources.

Hello! I just entered a link to our PSone Download Section where you can find monthly updated intros and trailer of PSone Games ripped from demo cds. I believe that we are the only source web-wide for classic PlayStation vids... might be interesting für readers of this article.

Greetz from Germany

Jehuty

No spam please... -- Daniel Davis 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not spamming...

[edit] Top-Selling Game

This page claims that Final Fantasy VII is the best-selling PS1 game. This is false. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_game :

Gran Turismo (10.84 million)
Final Fantasy VII (9.72 million)

Both of these are backed up by appropriate sources. I'm going to fix this mistake. Phediuk 05:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The only "mistake" is trusting a game advertisment to rely on your assumptions. The Magicbox (which is a much, much more trusted source than "nlgaming"'s ad, gives Gran Turismo's sales at a MUCH more conservative 5.8 million unit level. In order to reach 9.72 million units sold, that would mean that Gran Turismo would have had to sold over 5 million units in the Euro market alone, a figure close to double either the US 2.54m or Japan 3.26m market. Don't mess with this article again, please. Daniel Davis 06:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I went directly to Magicbox and got the sales figures for for FFVII.

Japan: PS Square Final Fantasy VII 3.28
US: PSX Sony Final Fantasy VII 2.45
5.73 mil in total.
The numbers you give for Gran Turismo add up to 5.80 mil. Since we don't have reliable numbers for the European market, I'm going to change the top-selling game to be safe. Phediuk 15:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on, there's got to be Euro market data SOMEWHERE that can resolve this, why can't we locate it? :P Stupid Europe. Daniel Davis 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do people keep changing it back? I posted the sales figures for both games from the same source, and it clearly shows that GT has sold more than FFVII based on the info available. Since we don't have any European sales figures, there's no way to prove that FFVII has sold more than GT. We'll just have to use what we have. Phediuk 00:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much to me. Daniel Davis 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Last time I heard Gran Turismo was the best selling PSX game. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, I'm changing it. Phediuk 02:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed back to FFVII again. Who keeps doing this? This is blatantly false info. Phediuk 03:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it back one more time, and this time put a note on the edit explicitly stating that the top-selling game is incorrect, and to see this talk page for more info. That should solve it. Phediuk 15:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the note in your edit summary—otherwise I would've continued helping Doom127.—thegreentrilby 00:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user changed it back yet again, and once again provided no proof. All evidence points toward Gran Turismo selling more than FFVII; I put a note saying to provide some proof or stop changing it. Hopefully that solves the issue. Phediuk 19:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easter Egg

I remove this:

A rarely-noticed Easter egg tying in with the console's SNES roots lies in the PlayStation's controller design. The four face buttons on the right (Circle, Square, Triangle, and X) seem to be based off the magic attack cast by the Magikoopas found in Super Mario World and Kamek in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. The spell consists of three spinning geometric shapes (a circle, a square, and a triangle) followed by a trail of sparks that appear X-shaped.*

Rationale: Until backed with hard facts, this is pure speculation -- not the purpose of Wikipedia. Moreover:

1. Putting a tribute to Nintendo in the controller design doesn't sound like a wise move from Sony, which needed both to be perceived as radically new and to avoid any possible legal attacks by Nintendo;
2. There are immensely more important issues when choosing the symbols for a standard controller that is going to be produced by millions;
3. This set of symbols is obvious, and has been used before. Lisp machines have triangle, square and circle on their keyboard; some vending machines feature the four symbols.

Palpalpalpal 18:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of actual information

Has anyone noticed that information about the actual console is missing. There's no introduction, no overview (see GameCube's), it just jumps right in and tells you about its history, launch, and then variants. The article doesn't seem to feature what makes this console different from any other in the same time period, except its specifications. Surely the reader would want to know this. Mortein | Talk 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Then be bold and add it. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would, but unfortunately, I'm one of those readers that need to know that kind of stuff. Mortein | Talk 04:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSX

I remove this:

It is also Sony's second direct attempt at producing a mainstream console themselves (the first being their brand of MSX in the 1980s).

MSX a standard for computers, not consoles, and I haven't heard of any Sony console based on it. Sony's MSX computers are just that, home computers, not a "direct attempt at producing a mainstream console themselves". Maybe we could still mention the MSX, only more accurately. Palpalpalpal 10:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sony's MSX was (though it had a very computer-like appearance) a very powerful game system. On it debuted such titles as Castlevania, Metal Gear, Snatcher, Puyo Pop, and it also featured titles like Final Fantasy. While it had a keyboard, so did a lot of other systems at the time- adding to that, it was the first game system that actively featured a wavetable sound system, enhancing the games that were on it. One must be honest- during the period of time that the MSX came out, EVERYONE (even Atari) was trying to get into the "computer" buisness- that's why they called the 2600 the "Video Computer System", and offered a brand of basic for it.

Adding to that, If you're going to edit the article, even if you feel like changing it, don't just ERASE it from the article. Repeat the mantra- "edit, not erase, edit, not erase". Don't be a deletionist. Daniel Davis 12:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The MSXs, including those made by Sony, were computers. Like most home computers of their time, they were popular as game machines. That does not make them consoles. Does the list of consoles made by Atari include the XL and ST series? Did Sinclair make consoles? Are today's PCs consoles? The line between computers and consoles may occasionnally be difficult to draw (where does the Amstrad MegaPC fit?), but in this case it is very clear. The keyboard and Basic are not obscure add-ons, they're an essential part of the machines.

It might sound fun to impress uninformed people by saying that Sony's first console is not the PlayStation, but it is a distorted point of view that does not belong in an encyclopedia. We might mention it's not their first home game system, although I'm not sure their MSXs were targetted at gamers.

About Atari: two years after the release of the VCS, Atari had a clearly distinct line of computers; I don't think they've ever been interested in marketing the 2600 itself as a computer. They may have done some research in that direction, but with no proper output at retail. The 2600 couldn't even do character graphics. The Basic "Game Program" is not common, and the "keyboard" controller, well, speaks for itself. Also, the MSX were born in 1983… that's six years after the 2600, quite not the same time period in the world of videogames.

I don't see how your last point is relevant; anyway, at the time of the MSX, Nintendo and Sega were not trying to get into the computer business.

As for deleting parts of an article, I would have been happy to write something better instead, but mentionning the MSX there seemed so off topic to me that I couldn't find what to say. Do we mention the Vaios (on them debuted such titles as World of Warcraft, Black & White…)? So my choice was either to let false information or to remove it. I can't see why I shouldn't remove it; however, as I understood it would hurt the author (and I am sorry about that), I made a point of justifying my edit here, and I will be interested in seeing other people's point of view on the matter. Palpalpalpal 10:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

apparently some editors here don't know what neutral point of view means

"The games were terrible, and seen as another ill-fated attempt by Philips to enter the computer market."

opinion is not allowed in that form, ever. It doesn't matter if there is consensus of this opinion, it's still opinion, and if opinion is going to be presented it needs

• citation
• must avoid weasel words

You could dress it up in "most people considered these games terrible", but that would just be slapping on some weasel words, and that's not welcome on wikipedia either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Weasel_words

I, for one, as a long time gamer, know that the games on that system were crap, but that doesn't belong in the article and I wouldn't put it there myself, because I know better. We're here to improve the quality of the articles by holding the information to real standards such as objectivity and verifiability

"they/it sucked" doesn't pass that test even if it's true. Even the slightest shred of opinion, such as what's "good" or "bad" doesn't belong in articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBilly (talk • contribs) .

The statement is no longer in the Playstation article, for one. Secondly, the statement should be changed to "critical and popular consensus was that the titles were very poorly constructed". These games were the primary reason for the failure of the CDi, but that's a Nintendo thing, not a Playstation thing. Which is why it stopped being in THIS particular article a long time ago. :) Daniel Davis 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The games are considered the worst Zelda ever created. You can check the beginnings and endings doing a Google search for site:kotaku.com zelda phillips cd-i horrible horrible. However, there is no need to leave the PlayStation topic to go as far as to how the Zelda in CD-i fared. -- ReyBrujo 01:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sold vs. Shipped

Even though Gamespot's article says "sold", the official link from Sony http://www.playstation.com/business.html clearly states "shipments" at the top. Meaning the statement "By March 2005, the PlayStation/PSone had sold a total of over 100.49 million units" should be changed to shipped and under the category "Units sold" should be changed to 102 million units shipped. Unless there is any source more official than Sony.

[edit] First CD-ROM System?

I think this might be innacurate: "because PSOne was released as the world's first CD-ROM video game console" Let me know if I'm wrong, but the 3DO was released in '93, and the CD-i was released in '91. Now, since the PS1 was released in '94 in Japan... those other two predate it. --Thaddius 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone actually had the gall to put that in? Good lord, yes, remove it by all means. -- Daniel Davis 00:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Developer kits

I don't know if you want this article to include this, but PS1 dev kits (at least in my experience as a developer in the US) came in two flavors, both of which were boards that were installed inside a PC. These boards contained the PS1 hardware and the stuff necessary to communicate with the PC and run code compiled on the PC. The older kit had two such boards (my memory fails me on whether they where ISA or PCI) and the newer one had one board that fit into a PCI slot. I'm sure someone else who's worked on PS1 development could fill in the huge gaps here :)

Also it was possible to communicate with the "special" blue PS1 via a serial port on the console.

Finally, I don't know how cart platform development worked, but at least for us, the CD-based development seemed that it would allow for getting the games into the hands of testers/QA fairly rapidly (once one mastered the relatively arcane format and tools used to create the disks). Within Sony, this was one aspect touted as an advantage over carts (clearly, not NPOV there). Tmurase 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Rave

In March I removed this link before, deeming it as spam. The site has lots of info, but looking at Dangerboy's contributions it's clear that he's advertising his site. He's also the owner/creator of the site. As a fan site, it's not a reliable source of information, and it doesn't source it's information. I'm removing it. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The site is original research. I don't see why it would need to be sourced. There's no requirement that extenral links document their sources anyway. All of the external links except the SCEA one are fansites and this is one of the better ones. The contributor's motives are irrelevant. The question is whether it merits inclusion. The information on the site seemss to be relevant and it has things none of the othe rlinked sites do, like photos of the original SNES add-on protype. I say that makes it worth including. Any other opinions on this? Ace of Sevens 11:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You answered your own question: it's original research, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. -Unknownwarrior33 23:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research doesn't belong in articles. However, there's no rule that you can't cite original research or include it in external links. Everything is original reasearch at soem point. The policy is that the articles can't be original research, not that they can't make use of original research published elsewhere. Ace of Sevens 00:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaky graphics

Why playstation 3d graphics are so shaky??? What's the technical explanation for this?

e.g. doom (dos version) is a game from 1993 and it has >not< shaky graphics.

On the contrary quake and hi-octane both have shaky graphics (both pc versions) with these games you can say that pc didn't had special hardware for 3d graphics, but ps did have hardware designed to handle 3d graphics, so why does it look so bad with 3d?

Even emulators (psx, ssspsx, etc.) can't improve the shaky graphics. --Licurgo 23:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Playstation lacked a hardware-based Z-Buffer. This meant that all the management of image depth coordinates regarding 3 dimensional graphics had to be done in software. Having to use software buffering in this manner was what resulted in the "shake" syndrome common in many games (the polygon had to move or else it would "flicker") [1]. Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the issue was more its lack of perspective-correct texture apping, which caused textures viewed at severe angles to shift and pop. Ace of Sevens 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the polygon edges are snapped to pixel positions, which results in jittery movement. A polygon rasterizer that takes fractional pixel shifts into account during the texture mapping will look much better, especially with slow-moving objects. 68.105.109.51 01:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answer. Could you give more data about the z-buffer issue? I thought that ps was intended to have fairly good 3d-graphics. --Licurgo 01:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triangles per second

The article currently claism the PlayStatin could push 180,000 triangles per second in real conditions (effects, textures, etc). The Nintendo 64 article says 100,000. Are these numbers correct? If so, are they measuring the same thing? I know N64's graphical advantages of PlayStation were largely a matter of having more memory and handling textures better, but I was pretty sure the raw geometry power was a little higher, too. Certainly not half as much. Does the lack of z-buffering prevent hidden-surface removal, so half those polygons are wasted on things we can't see? Or is this just a theoretical number being compared to actual performance? Ace of Sevens 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That matches the data I've read, though I don't remember the source. The N64 simply did a much better job per triangle. 68.105.109.51 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

The histroy part seems a tad biased and selective. Certain things were omitted. The way it is now is that it seems like Nintendo up and switched to Phillips for no apparent reason making Sony look like the girl who got stood up at the prom. I feel the reasons for Nintendo's abrupt change should be aloborated on, especially the role that Sony played in all of it as that's half the story. Otherwise its not very NPOV. --thaddius 17:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is neither biased, nor is it selective. It's clearly stated in the article the reasons why Nintendo abruptly switched from supporting Sony to Phillips. Namely- The deal gave a large degree of control to Sony despite Nintendo's leading position in the video gaming market (control that Nintendo relied upon for its continued profits), Hiroshi Yamauchi had not fully read the original 1988 contract (and when he did, he was not happy with it) either. It's fully sourced in many places (such as the David Scheff book "Game Over") and factual. Ex-Nintendo Employee 11:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

All those little details you said there are not in the article. Behold:

"However, when Hiroshi Yamauchi read the original 1988 contract between Sony and Nintendo, he was furious. He deemed the contract totally unacceptable, and secretly cancelled all plans for a joint Nintendo-Sony SNES CD attachment."

You'll notice that it never said he REread it, nor does it discuss the reasons for the contract being 'unacceptable'. Instead it seems that Yamuchi just became furious and said it was unacceptable for no apparent reason (such was my original complaint). My original post up there asked for a little more deatil on what happened and I maintian that there is information missing. --thaddius 23:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

They ARE in the article. It clearly states: "This was also to be the format used in SNES-CD discs, giving a large degree of control to Sony despite Nintendo's leading position in the video gaming market". On top of that, the Scheff book never states whether Yamauchi himself had actually read the original contract in 1988, given that that first contract regarding the CD ROM media was originally a very minor pairing between Nintendo and Kutaragi. The "unacceptable" part of the contract was, (as was mentioned) the fact that Sony would have such a large measure of control over anything on the CD media, as per the original contract. Nevertheless, the article CAN be clearer, so I've made the following change:

"In 1991, the SNES-CD was to be announced at the June CES. However, when Hiroshi Yamauchi read the original 1988 contract between Sony and Nintendo, he realized that the earlier agreement essentially handed Sony complete control over any and all titles written on the SNESCD-ROM format. Yamauchi was furious; deeming the contract totally unacceptable, he secretly cancelled all plans for the joint Nintendo-Sony SNES CD attachment. "

Hopefully it's easier now to read. Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why then would one base this article on a book that has incomplete information on the matter? Ah well. I suppose your changes will have to suffice until a more complete history of the system arises to be used as a source. I just remeber there being much more to the story than was written is all. --Thaddius 11:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bus Bandwidth

The bus bandwidth is listed as 132Mbps. This seems extremely slow to me. It's not suppossed to be 132MBps, maybe? I noticed the 32-bit CPU runs at ~33MHz, and standard PCI is 33MHz 32-bits, for 133MBps total bandwidth. - MSTCrow 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gran turismo screenshot

because it is the best selling game, it might be a good idea to let users view the approximate graphics in the PlayStation 1. http://www.us.playstation.com/Content/OGS/SCUS-94194/Site/detour/media/screenshots/05.jpg. --gatoatigrado 19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but posting a screen shot of a replay is not an accurate representation of the Sony PlayStation's in-game graphics. How about a screen shot of the actual in-game graphics? 72.43.143.68 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CD-ROM speed

The article currently states "Originally Single Speed, later replaced with a Two Speed drive, with a maximum data throughput of 300 kB/s ". From memory, I thought that all models had a double speed drive - didn't Sony claim that in their specifications even before the system was released? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Total Eclipse (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Hyperbole

edit kind of caught my attention. We need sources in that section and a reduction in hyperbole before someone edits it to read that people's heads were literally exploding with surprise. Anyone know the history of the machine's reception? Got a suitable book? Anything? Sockatume 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Criticism for reasons equivilent to the removal of it from PS2 & PS3

Wow I just noticed Playstation has a criticism section as well, why do all Sony consoles recieve this ? It doesn't get placed with the xbox or 360 or the nintendo consoles. I removed it from the playstation article. It's an attention grabber and also had no citations, basically weasel wording.--67.70.109.75 19:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done the same on the article PlayStation Portable. Criticism sections are usually very deliberately POV even if they do have sourced criticism from professional gaming websites, not to mention they are troll magnets. At best, any criticism should be incorporated into the bulk of any article to prevent there from being a troll magnet present on the page. - ZakuSage 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for page protection

Due to recent vandalism by new accounts & IPs, I've put this page up for request for semi-protection. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PlayStation CDs

I don't actually own a PS myself, but I noticed the CDs it uses are much thinner than typical CDs: that they're just a single black disc with no obvious reflective/data layer (is that even in compliance with the Rainbow Books?), can someone write up about these? W3bbo 01:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They're just normal CDs, however the polycarbonate has a dye which is opaque to visible light (but transparent to the laser's wavelength) making it look black. They've still got a reflective/data layer on the label side (otherwise they simply wouldn't work) which can be seen on the European "Platinum" series (the label side is black text over the reflective layer) and the original printing of MGS (in Europe, at least, the reflective layer shows through the Metal Gear Solid logo). PS2 CD-ROM games work the same way but with a violet dye. Sockatume 04:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph under "Variants" that informs "the device was purposefully designed not to read discs without this black tint" doesn't seem to get this. —216.203.xxx 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] crash bandicoot 2

Crash Bandicoot 2: Cortex Strikes Back is the top selling game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_Bandicoot_2:_Cortex_Strikes_Back#Trivia

Sourcing another Wikipedia article that doesn't list its source for that information isn't enough information to change the top game entry. I've changed it back to Gran Turismo, and removed the unverified unsourced information on the Crash Bandicoot 2 article. - ZakuSage 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs cleanup...

I don't know about you, but a link to PlayStation3 games (in the games Section) isn't really meant for this article... Also, someone's been adding stuff from the PlayStation 3 article to this article... whole sections, infact. Please, whoever you are, stop. That's what the See Also section is for.Abby724 03:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It really needs cleanup. There are already separate articles for the PlayStiaon's successors. I'll try to deal with the cleanup. I'll probably do it by segments. Makes my life a bit easier. Loompyloompy313 03:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you beat me to it :P. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loompyloompy313 (talk • contribs) .

Playstation is the fuckin large console and expensive too

[edit] Predecessor

Because of the information in the history section, technically the Super Nintendo Entertainment System is the predecessor of the PlayStation and should be indicated as such, albeit with a footnote, in the main table on the upper right of the article. Thanks! --172.165.170.145 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who...

the hell edited the box!? It is pretty fucked up. That's why I locked it last time. Anyway, I'll try to fix it. EDIT: The only thing I couldn't fix was the Austrailia logo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikifan21century (talk • contribs).

[edit] Games

In the article it says the Playstation stopped being made on a certain date. Have new games for Playstation stopped being released as well? If so, what was the last game release? M8gen 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, games stopped coming out in 2005. According to MobyGames, the last one was Schnappi - 3 Fun-Games. Rabish12 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the...

I've nodiced a pretty disturbing image and text in this section, (and to top it off it dosen't have anything to do with the subject). Can somebody fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.43.96.151 (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] What the... It's repaired

II've repaired the page back to his normal state. What a picture was that?