Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Linux

"Sony has made an option for your console to toast bread in the XMB menu to install other operating systems. Among other Linux distributions, Ubuntu, Fedora Core 5, Gentoo, Debian, and Yellow Dog have been run on the PS3." Shouldn't it be "have been ran on the PS3."?

See Wiktionary here, number 2, sample sentence 3.....J.delanoy 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Header information

Should "PlayStation 3 competes with Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Nintendo's Wii as part of the seventh generation of video game consoles." exist in the article heading for the Playstation 3 article? I feel that this information is irrelevant and should be removed. At the very least it should be in a different section of the article. The Playstation 3 isn't defined by its competiton and it seems odd for it to be in such a prominent place. --Bdhoff 04:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Reception" renaming

I feel that the "Reception" section should be rename to something else...like "criticism" or something, since it is is 3 months after launch and the section reflects more than just how it was recepted. Your thoughts?

(I also feel there needs to be a new index picture) Kmillard92 03:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

--This reception and criticism crap needs to be removed, didn't we just remove it a few months ago, now it's back, wtf for ? weasel words ...

--70.48.38.151 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be something about how many people won't buy it straight out (In the UK at least) thanks to its huge price.

  • Remember to maintain a neutral stance to the PlayStation 3, wikipedia is for information, not fanboy flame wars. I agree that there needs to be a new index picture (I suggest something off the Sony Virtual Press Release) Evansam 08:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ps3 sales are going backward. Ps3 scalpers returning Ps3s to stores.

hamilton spectator

[1]

“ Despite the PS3 costing more than the Wii—and having less units available—it seems Sony's console is easier to find than the Wii. So much so that people are swapping PS3s for Wii straight up. And the scalpers who can't trade for a Wii or flip their PS3s for more than a 10% or 20% profit? They're returning the consoles to the stores they bought them from.

According to the Hamilton Spectator, these scalpers are having a tough time selling the PS3s for their asking price of $1,000 to $2,000, even during Christmas. Thus, they can either open the boxes up and enjoy it themselves, or return it to stores before their return period expires. Most are choosing the latter. Excuse us if we're not crying on behalf of the scalpers.

 ”

I'm not sure if this is fit to be in the article, but i found it interesting. dposse 00:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading this I think that this is very intersting (i can't spell). PS3 wins 14:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I read on IGN that 2007 speculation may mark the end of the 20 gb version.Pumapayam 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I work as a retail manager at an electronics store, and although my knowledge of this only extends in a small area, I can confirm this to be true. Most of the other stores in my district are reporting negative sales for the console. Xabrophazon 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your own anecdotal evidence is not allowed on Wikipedia, only published sources are allowed. Scalpers dumping them doesn't mean people aren't buying them, it just means they're not buying them from scalpers. The fact that Sony had only about 200,000 units in North America in November and 1,000,000 by the end of December (confirmed by Neilsen) could give a perception that they are not selling because more units are hitting the shelves than are being purchased. Sony could almost be oversaturating the market right now, which would be yet another image mistake. 67.49.249.169 03:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If putting out one million units is oversaturating, then Sony is in deep trouble. Microsoft sold 1.5 million 360s in 05, and that was restricted by supply! The Playstation 3 might have crushed the 360 if it was released a year ago, but its launch has thusfar only provided leverage for the Wii. Of course the Japanese market can bail Sony out on this one, but not for a couple of years. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is because the people buying it are people who can't afford it, they then return it and get the money back(like their renting it) or worse they sell it for MORE, I think that Sony is a bit in trouble if they don't lower the price...I mean look at the manufacture price only $40 to $80 extra for the 60GB model, if they lower the price of the 60GB one at least more people could buy it. BobtheVila

I don't think this article on them returning to stores is very accurate, as none of the big gaming sites have reported this from what I've seen. It could be possible sites like IGN/GameSpot contacted them and alot this information can't be backed up or is another viral anti-sony marketing campaign. 64.231.254.212 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't say average people are returning them to stores; it's saying a lot of returned PS3s are from profiteers who bought them to sell on ebay for higher prices but ended up with no takers.

[edit] CNBC sales figures are wrong

According to Gamedaily, NPD informed them that several sites are wrongly crediting the sales figures from the CNBC report to NPD, and furthermore the actual NPD report will be released on January 11. [2] Dionyseus 13:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backward compatibility

"Final Fantasy" isn't a single game, it's a series of games. There are 12 games (including the NES & SNES compilations) in the series released for the PS and/or PS2. Which of those games are the ones reported to be having glitches on the PS3? Redxiv 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It likely referred to Final Fantasy XI, which has since been fixed via a firmware update. --Kamasutra 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i heard somewhere that its able to play PC games, is this true?

[edit] To a lesser extent?

"competes primarily against Microsoft's Xbox 360 and, to a lesser extent, Nintendo's Wii. " Why does it compete with one of the consoles to a lesser extent, it's the same market after all and Wii has already sold more than Wii. Nothing serious, I just want an explanation please. Thanks! :) Beachw 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It just has to do with the similarities of the consoles. Perhaps it is the same general market, but when considering the capabilities of the consoles and targeted audience/demographic it seems the Wii diverges from both of the other two more so than they are dissimilar to each other. For instance, if you want a video game console that also plays high-definition movies then it will be Microsoft and Sony "competing" for your money. Of course, this is just my short analysis of the statement and it should have a reliable source associated. --Kamasutra 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In the same way a Rolex watch competes against a Breitlung watch for the buyers attention and to a lesser extent competes against a Casio watch.87.102.23.224 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Basically, Nintendo has stated on numerous occasions that it’s not interested in competing directly with Microsoft and Sony’s next-gen consoles. That’s evinced by the Wii’s lack of support for features that are considered standard on both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 — things like DVD and CD playback, high-definition games/movies, and full surround sound. Also, as Kamasutra mentioned above, Nintendo is targeting a much wider demographic (namely, everyone) with their system, while the PS3 and 360 are generally considered to be aimed at the 18-to-34 male crowd. Plus, there’s the wide discrepancy in price between the PS3 ($499 or $599) and the Wii ($249.99) as well. (See IGN Wii: Wii Stands Alone for more details) —BrOnXbOmBr21 06:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So apparently, the phrase “to a lesser extent” has been removed from the article in the numerous revisions since my last comment. I vote for leaving it in, because frankly, it’s true (see above for my reasoning, and Kamasutra’s as well. —BrOnXbOmBr21 07:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

But when it comes down to it there is a competition between the different philosophies as to the way forward in the Video Game industry. Just because the DS does not include video playback as standard, is it not competing with the PSP? No matter what the three companies say, they are still competing for the same core market - video game players. The difference is the non-core markets that they are aiming for. The PS3 is aiming for the high-end video market, the Wii is aiming for the casual and non-gamer market. In numerous publications the three consoles are treated as competing with each other, they are marketed alongside each other in shops, many of the market will buy more than one. It is an inescapable fact that they are in competition and this page will look absurd if it pretends otherwise purely to put a good face on what is likely to be a temporary lead for the Wii in sales figures. Bryces 23:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-release reception

http://www.guidetohometheater.com/hddiscplayers/1206ps3blu/index3.html

http://www.hometheatermag.com/playstation3/1206playstation3/

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127868-page,1-c,gameconsoles/article.html

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/12/prweb494193.htm

http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2006/12/29/features/weekender/4bbcf1ef4bf0ce45872572520062e366.txt

PS3 using 25% of power http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=14978&ncid=AOLGAM000500000000017

PC World lists the PS3 in spot 8 of its "Top 21 Tech Screwups of 2006" [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.88.146.173 (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Time Magazine included the launch in its top screwups list of 2006 as well. Does anyone have a source? -70.160.166.121 12:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"PS3 demand slows, stores stocked aplenty" [4]

"Ex Microsoft Employee, Gabe Newell Says PS3 Is A Disaster" [5]

[edit] Trademark name

Is it my imagination or is the font used for the PlayStation 3 title and the Spiderman movie title the same font? Could it be that Sony, whom owns the PlayStantion 3 also owns Sony Pictures whom released the Spiderman movie series (see: http://movies.ign.com/articles/615/615465p1.html) Metamorphousthe 15:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this statement be removed? ALL trademarks are listed in all capital lettters at the USPTO website. Maybe it should be changed instead to mention that it's Sony who writes it that way. TJ Spyke 06:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking on the official US website,

they clearly and consistently write it as PLAYSTATION®3 while previous incarnations are written like PlayStation® 2

Secondly, PlayStation 3? No Dummy, It's PLAYSTATION 3
any bot up for the challenge??? 194.120.158.162 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Have to agree here. We went back and forth a few times on this issue, but it's pretty clear now that Sony prefers the all-caps rendering. -- mattb @ 2007-01-23T00:57Z
Since it is agreed here and is in fact the proper spelling I have now capitalised all instances of PlayStation when is precedes a number 3. I assume Wiki would allow ipod to be spelled as Apple wishes iPod...so the same courtesy should be extended to Sony KsprayDad
Actually, there's some disagreement as to whether to follow a trademark's preferred capitalization or to normalize it to English grammar rules. You can read about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks) and add your two cents. -- mattb @ 2007-01-24T15:16Z
But the guideline as it is now at WP:MOSTM seems to state that that it is preferable to "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". Might be best to just follow that guideline for now and have maybe a short mention of the change to capitalization in the trademark, and have any debate about whether to change that guideline at the more appropriate place of its talk page, which mattb linked. --Codemonkey 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From time to time we get someone who changes every PlayStation into PLAYSTATION because Sony wants that. However, Wikipedia has its own guidelines. According to this, note that point 7 sends us to the trademarks guidelines, which reads Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names and Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment In other words, Sony can ask others to write playstation in uppercase with slashes between every letter, we will write it this way. Oh, and if you are wondering why PlayStation and not Playstation, consensus was to write it in the former way because it is more common than Playstation. -- ReyBrujo 16:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So PlayStation is by 'concensus' but PLAYSTATION gets denied due to Wiki rules? Seems arbitrary. Why are Wikipedians in charge of what should and should not be capitalised? Using PlayStation 3 is completely wrong as that is not the product's name. Concensus should have nothing to do with it. MHO. KsprayDad 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"Why are Wikipedians in charge of what should and should not be capitalised?" Because that's how Wikipedia works, and consensus decision forming has everything to do with that. If you want this particular rule changed to be more beholden to the trademark owners' desires, you could argue this at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) talk page.
If what you're wondering about is why the MoS has rules about ignoring trademark spellings in the first place for more standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, then I can venture a guess. Readability and reflecting standard language usage. Which is why a consensus on this particular case may have ended up with a preference for the "PlayStation" CamelCase capitalization. --Codemonkey 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
KsprayDad, check Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive9#Requested move. And read Wikipedia:Consensus too, since you seem to need to refresh some concepts. -- ReyBrujo 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ps2 graphics on Ps3.

"Recently, gamers have noticed Playstation 2 games look significantly worse when played on the Playstation 3 (as opposed to being played on the PS2), which includes the PS3 making the textures worse, dulling the colors, and blurring the image. [[6]]"


I've removed this from the article as original research because a fan created video on Youtube is not a proper source. If anyone can find a better source, then add it back in. dposse 19:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Many people have countered it saying the graphics look the same on both. glocks out 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also a wise choice to be removed because there is a compatability ussue already stated like with 360. Flickering and other are an issue stated on some games when going to the official compatability list at the ps site. There is now or soon going to be a software to fix this, this is possible as the ps3 is actually emulating the ps2 in software like 360. So the software is to fix the code in the emulator. BobtheVila

It looks like this was enough of an issue for Sony to fix it in the latest firmware update. As of 1.5, this issue has been resolved[7]. I think this should be included in the article, I don't think it still classifies as original research. By the way, BobtheVila, the PS3 actually does not use software emulation for backwards compatibility, it uses the same chip set used in the PS2 Slim[8]. Fforde 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The graphic glitches were fixed in firmware with work arounds for games that broke spec. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.65.216.64 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Sales section

User:Ciao 90 added one in this recent edit. It's not really referring to sales, but simply shipped consoles, and whether goals for shipping are important or not is debatable. Just pointing it out. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely forgot that Sony figures are shipments, and not sales. Does anyone have the most recent confirmed sales total? The infobox needs to be fixed. Dancter 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedic?

"In addition, the backward compatibility function is not region-free[47] and as of this moment there are no known homebrew hacks or patches to solve this issue."

I take issue with the last part. How is the lack of ability to circumvent a design feature something worth mentioning? I doubt the Wii article mentions the lack of homebrew hacks. --Bushido Brown 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so but the simple fact that the PS3 does not allow for the playing of genuine but imported games is of some concern to many console players. Because the Germans in COD3 Drank all the Coffee and ate all the Doghnuts!

I'm among those concerned... Full backwards compatibility with Japanese and European PAL Playstation 1 and 2 games would have gone a long way towards motivating me to buy this system, as it would open up a huge library of games.
I'm not impressed by the Wii (poor selection of games on virtual console service, and regional lockout in virtual console as well as wtih regular software) nor am I impressed by the X-Box 360 (backward compatibility issues)...
Right now I personally am not interested in buying any of the current systems and I plan to continue to collect vintage games. Rag-time4 14:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How simular is the PS3 Controller to the Wii Remote?

This page nor the PS3 controller page has not made it really clear how simular the PS3 controller is to the Wii Remote. In short this is what I want to know, and I think should be explained on this page: Is the PS3 tilt sensitivity a direct carbon copy rip off of the Wii Remote or is it slightly different (eg. less detailed, more detailed etc)? Also has Nintendo made any statements about intellectual property theft or not? --Little Jimmy 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats a pretty naive statement. Just because they get the same end result doesn't mean you can sue for intellectual rights. It's like saying Daimler-Chrysler should sue all other car companies for breaching intellectual rights for copying their idea of a motor-carriage. Or the Wright brothers estate should sure plane companies for copying there idea. You can only sure for breach of intellecual rights when the device uses the same mechanism to achive the end result, and such things can be legally licensed. I'm willing to bet that Nintendo don't own the rights to the motion sensors and license them as Sony would. The only exception would be if they designed them themselves. Pretender2j 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

They also are NOT the same. The PS3 controller does not have any way of determining it's position. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.74.109.122 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay then thank you. This should be noted somewhere in the article. Also I didn't mean to imply that Sony stole the idea, I was just wondering if Nintendo thought that.--Little Jimmy 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also it's worth noting that the PS3 motion sensing was intended atleast as far back as early 2005, when they debuted the boomerang controller. The new shape was meant for ergonomics for the motion sensing. --Cmsjustin 14:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cmsjustin: find a reliable source saying that, then add.--WhereAmI 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt any reliable source would be able to affirm anything more than its ergonomic design. It would be original research to say that it was intended to be in the SIXAXIS, but according to this patent it seems that Sony did have the intention to implement gyroscopic sensors with piezoelectric ceramic elements into a controller back in 1997. --Kamasutra 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bring back the flags

The small writing in the infobox, for the release is small to read and confusing, the flags where a lot more sensible. The Xbox 360 page has a good layout with flags and a map at the bottom with a link to more release dates. AxG (talk) (sign here) 19:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese PS3 sales

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/753/753859p1.html

Sony has sold 466,716 PS3s in Japan, and I have noticed that this hasn't changed on the wiki yet. -- SuperEvilCube, 1820, Central Time, 9 Jan 07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.24.66.124 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the article. We are using Media Create's figures instead because they update more regularly, but the article you link to might be useful for its PSP sales figure. Dionyseus 00:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Sony has now shipped 2 million PS3s in total...
http://threespeech.com/blog/?p=245 ... 1 million in US, 1 million in JP
Just thought i'd point out the latest shipped figures....
xx 00:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the PlayStation 3's hardware more or less capable than the 360's?

Just curious. The Captain Returns 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The PS3 has less ram available meaning not much good for producing lamb chops for textures, this means that the Xbox 360 can produce games with more textures and better detailed textures than the PS3. So as the saying goes theres no I in pea but there is an I in Pie. The PS3's CPU is more powerful than the Xbox 360 cpu, this means that games on the PS3 will be able to handle effects such as fog better, however the Xbox 360 CPU is quite powerful and it will be hard to discern the differences, and the fact that the Xbox 360 archictecture is more well known and easier to develop for might make the PS3's slight advantage here moot in the long run. So eat pie. The Xbox 360's GPU is superior and the GPU is what matters more for gaming graphics, however the PS3's GPU is quite powerful so again it will be hard to discern the differences. Pie is good. I think we got two excellent systems here, and the games will determine which platform is superior. Do you want a share of my rasperry pie? May Shai'hulud bless us with many great games. Dionyseus 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The difference is not so clear cut. 360 uses DVD which means puting high res textures on leads to multi disk or sacrifices else where. The 256 + 256 mem division makes thing a bit more dirty but they are very equivalent machines in overall performance. Textures will be a weakness for both of them for different reasons and the 360 does nto have a garentee of a HD so there may be issues there with load time later. Especially with high res textures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.75.33.118 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Haha I agree that the GPU is what matters for the graphics, but you got mixed up, the PS3 GPU is better than the 360 GPU in almost every way. If you don't believe me, you can look at the comparison article for some basic information on the differences. 222.153.90.27 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Except the RSX does not have universal shaders and the Xenos has a better fill rate. The principal effect is the current gen of 360 games are percieved to have better frame rates then the current gen of ps3 games. The universal shaders are easier to keep optimally busy resulting in a slight performance edge now. The PS3 may be able to make up for it by having an SPU help shade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.65.216.64 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
This is not the place to argue this, no one else bring this up. There are MANY places online to do this, Wikipedia is not one of them.--WhereAmI 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. Who is arguing? 72.43.143.142 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It was more of a "Saw it Coming" thing.--WhereAmI 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All the analysis I've seen conclude that the Sony GPU is more powerful, but not by much. Comparison_of_seventh-generation_game_consoles#Hardware Daniel.Cardenas 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the opposite from an actual developer, though I wouldn't even pretend that he's reliable. The numbers on the Comparison page are only numbers, they're not necessarily indicative of real-world performance. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up - Numbers don't mean anything when you compare the 360 and PS3 GPUs. PS3s GPU is a modified version of Nvidia's GF7800 while the 360s is a custom made GPU made by ATI incorporating tech from their current gen cards as well as some of the experimental aspects of their as-yet-unreleased DX10 cards. In terms of numbers the RSX looks more impressive but in actuality the unified shaders of the 360 GPU along with the 360s memory architecture (which allows its GPU access to more memory than the PS3s) equates to better texture quality on the 360. That and because of said unified shaders, there are a few DX10esque effects that the 360 can do that the PS3 can't (basically the PS3 has a really fast DX9 card whereas the 360 has the equivalent of a really fast DX9.5 [if that existed] card. High end PCs atm have really fast DX10 cards, for comparison) This is yet another wonderful example of why big numbers don't always equate to better performance (like the Ghz battle between Intel/AMD) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.19.75.25 (talk • contribs).

The memory "split" if often mis-understood as "less graphics memory". The 360 uses a general computing approach of a single batch of GDDR3 memory that is uniform and can be accessed with equal ease by the GPU/CPU. The PS3 has the same amount of memory but has it split between GDDR3 and slightly faster XDR. The GDDR3 dedicated to the GPU in the PS3 is similiar to that of the 360, the XDR is slightly faster in theory. The GPU can still access the XDR but at a performance hit. In a way it is correct that the xbox can dedicate more of it's ram to graphics while the PS3 has a practical limitation of only being able to use the GDDR3. It is also true that real life workloads have a much heavier mem requirements for the GPU then CPU but it's not 2:1 like some people liek to portray it as. The 360 must also keep stuff in memory aside from textures etc too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.65.216.64 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
As someone already said, this is no place to argue superiority. You're not only wasting your time, but you're using some inaccurate information. For instance, I really doubt the RSX can be considered a "DX9 card" considering DirectX is a Microsoft technology and they would not license it to a competitor. The PS3 actually uses PSGL APIs among others. --Kamasutra 21:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand what DirectX is. It's not the underlying algorithms, hardware, design ect.. It's an API. It's an interface library. It is also a specification for how each part of that library should behave. A RSX can be a DX9 compliant card without ever having to be licence by MS unless they was to stick "DX9 compliant" on the box. DX9 compliant means that it can do everything a DX9 card can. If the RSX can do everything a DX9 chip can or more then it is a DX9 compliant chip. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.75.33.118 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
The original question is not answerable in its broad, general form. The only people who would even pretend to answer it are marketers and people who have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, but not enough to provide a proper response. The utilization of hardware resources of both consoles is on the shoulders of the developers, and the software techniques needed to make good use of the two consoles vary significantly. There are very few broad generalizations you can make here. "Cell is more powerful than Waternoose" is an incorrect generalization. In highly parallelizable tasks (those generally suited for MIMD hardware), Cell will likely excell. In tasks more classically associated with high ILP and the need for powerful superscalar execution (very branchy code like AI), Waternoose (Xenon) will probably do better given the very meager branch prediction and other superscalar resources available in Cell.
As I said, there is no one-liner that can be the end-all in a discussion of which console is fundamentally more capable. Capability is a complicated function of various hardware specifications, ease of programming, programmer skill, and cost of development. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, they are either ignorant or trying to sell you something. -- mattb @ 2007-01-14T21:48Z
Kamasutra, NVIDIA GPUs have always supported DirectX, and so does the RSX. Microsoft licenses its software technologies to competitors all the time, it is required otherwise they would be hit with more monopoly fines. Dionyseus 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

John Carmack though saying he dosen't like the ps3 said the ps3 is 2x more powerfull then the 360. Also the GB/sec in the ram in 360 won't matter, remeber it has to fit on a disc, also it only stores little parts of the disk to the vram at a time. So realy the 256GB/sec in the eram will never see it to the full potentual intill they are using lots more charas or a disc big enough for it, ps3 has 48GB/sec overall because the space in a blue ray disc(25 to 50GB for single layer). But it's wierd to note ps2 has more bus banwith overall then ps3, ps2 has 48GB/sec in the vram alone and 3.2GB/sec in the main ram.BobtheVila

Digital bandwidth figures mean little, as any computer architect or competant programmer will tell you. They are a burst transfer metric, making them optimistic for actual application utilization at best. I guess no amount of cajoling will convince people to stop trying to reduce computer performance to simplistic marketing metrics, though. -- mattb @ 2007-01-18T03:01Z
True, though bandwidth is how much information can go through the pipe to the vram frame and texture buffers(see frame buffer), a ps2 or 360 disc won't ever actually ever allow them to do this, so it's meaningless, especiually since it only has to load a tiny portion of the disc at once. Ps3's bandwidth is just right there with the blue ray amount that they are going to utilize at a time. So that guy who was comparing from MS needs to realize the numbers he shows are actually showing that ps3 is only a little off in a couple areas, that bandwidth thing is a smaller problem then you think when you think with disc space into play. Demos I seen for BloodMoney, Serious Sam2 that only cover information in the level are only like close to a GB.BobtheVila 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

I really hate to get into this because it is definetly becoming an aguement but sony includes the cell processors floating point power into its GPU numbers. Because of this those numbers are useless since its not a fair comparisson. A better way of comparing GPU power is to look at the exact same game on both systems and compare the framerates. Tony Hawk's Project 8 has framerate issues on both consoles but the PS3 has a noticeably worse framerate than the xbox360. Because the games use the exact same textures and 3d models this is a perfect comparison. The CPU's power has very little influence on framerates. It should also be said that the RSX has a huge memory bottleneck and therefore has to compress colours resulting in less contrast.

On paper, the PS3 is technically superior to 360, however, this is just the first generation for both consoles. Let's see how things play out. BTW, I'm sure its been said before but I'll say it again. The PS3 is NOT limited to 256 MB of RAM for its GPU. It has access to ALL 512 MB when necessary, but 256 MB is always initially laid aside for system resource necessity.Evilgohan2 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Just a little note: PS3 has launch titles, the 360 is already on it's 2nd/2.5nd gen of games. It's not a proper comparison as well because the games that use the same assets are ports. Wait for something like MGS4 and compare that to Gears of war. That would be a more legitimate comparison.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just another way of saying the PS3 is limited to 256 MB of RAM? :^) --142.59.106.238 06:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You can use tricks to make it more comparable. The 256 is dedicated to the RSX, the RSX can still utilize the XDR but it's not garenteed to be free. I believe there is also a performance hit. You can imagine using the XDR as a level of cache, with the most frequently used textures in the GDDR3 and some soon to be used textures in the spare XDR. So no it's not really limited to 256. Also a garenteed HD helps with the overall "cache" architecture idea.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.65.216.64 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 3 March 2007.
Please sign your comments, also I should point out I answered that question two days before, making your comment somewhat redundant. Golden Dragoon 10:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Not really, the Cell is limitied to a maximum of 256mb of ram (it cannot acess the 256mb of GDDR3), but if the developer wants to they can put aside some of the 256mb XDR ram that is normaly used for the Cell and assign it to the RSX, not quite as elegent as the Xbox 360's way of doing things (As the XDR and GDDR3 ram used in the PS3 are different speeds\latencys which could cause problems and headaches for developers) but it is a workable solution. As for which GPU is more powerful, I will stay out of that one, but I will point out that the 10mb EDRAM on the 360's GPU, is used as a very high speed frame buffer, and is also used to allow 4x AA efectively for free, as there is no performance loss doing it this way, so the PS3 may be at a slight disadvantage in that respect, as any AA used will impact negitavely upon the memory bandwidth avalible. Golden Dragoon 10:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird

So I tried eating pie but it was the wrong kind of pie, so i went ahead changing an unnecessary comment in the article, and the article screwed up. I think it has to to with Wikipedia reading the page coding, and I am not fully understandable on how Wikipedia works in that manner. Can someone fix this?--WhereAmI 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was able to fix it, someone forgot to /ref--WhereAmI 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you help with the PS3 release data page?

Hi there I am asking if any of you could help me eat some pie?, before i full the table with all of the prices on the PS3 release data page. PS3 wins 18:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enchanted Arms!?!?!?!?

Enchanted Arms is now going to be available in the U.S., so I've listed it (again) in the table. If anyone doesn't think it should be there, please post here before you delete it. Amish Gramish 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception / criticism section?

Not seeing it, and there are plently hardware reviews of the PS3 out there. Someone please add a critical section. --Zeality 06:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. The backlash from people on this console is enormous. - pokemaniacbill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.86.5 (talk • contribs).
Don't confuse a vocal minority with a real backlash. The PS3 is doing better then the 360 at a similiar point in it's life cycle. Although the wii is trouncing both of them. The backlash has mostly been vocal online criticism, but as snakes on a plane pointed out, loud online noice does not translate into real world that well. Wait for xmas 08 numbers to roll in before making a jusgement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.65.216.64 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
I agree. While they are hardly established game reviewers, TIME Magazine posted an article (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1560635,00.html) slamming the hype of the PS3 which seems notable, not to mention the articles that call the PS3 a disaster (don't have sources for those, however). I also feel that there should be something about reduced sales after seeing at least ten PS3 units at Target today (at least more PS3 units than there were Xbox 360 units and not a single Wii unit). We're talking about a console that was expecting mass shortages and saw not even half as bad a time as the 360 did. However, I have no sources to go along with this. --Omex 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll be honest; I prefer Nintendo to Sony. However, I think it's ridiculous that this article has absolutely no criticism in it. The Wii article has criticism (which is absolutely fine, of course) and it's had a lot more positive press than the PS3 since their respective launches. Apparently adding criticism to the PS3 is tantamount to vandalism. Maybe that's why it's locked. Anyway, I'm adding an NPOV tag. It will probably get removed quickly and piss off some people, but this issue needs a good discussion. --buckeyes1186 17:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I greatly prefer Nintendo to Sony (primarily because of the DS vs PSP, and Wii vs PS3), and consider the PS3 to be an expensive piece of garbage, horribly marketed, with no proper vision in terms of games. So, I don't think people can accuse me of bias when I say this: I don't think there should currently be a criticism in the PS3 article.
It isn't that I oppose criticism sections for hardware per se. It's just that... the PS3 seems different. I've talked to so many people, and read so many things, about the PS3, and the sheer amount of disinformation seems to be colouring people's opinions. For example, I've seen so many references to the unreliability of the systems, and some people even cite it as fact that they spontaneously catch fire. And yet... I've yet to track down a single reliable source proving that. See my problem? There's just too much bad hype, and too many urban legends, to really know what is or isn't verifiable. Sure, if ign, gamespot, or even kotaku had hardware reviews up that blasted the PS3, then that'd probably be notable. (and if you can find such reviews, then by all means, suggest them) I'm just a bit concerned about what general searching would bring up. There comes a point when so many things get passed around so much, that even "reliable" sources tend to take them as fact. (Just as an example, I seem to recall so many "reliable" sources getting the external ram in the wii entirely wrong. Near as I can tell, everybody was going off of eachother's rumours)
Anyways, my suggestion would be to leave it out. At least for now. (Again, that's unless you can find some really good, and very specific, sources) Bladestorm 17:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
For the proposed (and in my mind, needed) criticism section (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20070117123243.html) PS3 widely available. (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20070116154134.html) Valve developer calls PS3 a "total disaster". --BHC 06:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it news worthy that Sony is able to manufacture enough units and Wii is not? Is this cause for criticism of Sony? I think not. The second article sounds like a rant from a single developer. Daniel.Cardenas 19:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Criticism is criticism; it doesn't have to be well based, just notable and verifiable. I think we might have that here, to some extent; only those things cited from credible sources would be included of course, so excluding the spontaneous combustion and such that you mention. That said, I'm personally uneasy with having a dedicated criticism section unless absolutely necessary; I prefer integrating the content with the other sections, because of the more NPOV tone it lends the article. It might not be absolutely crucial to maintaining NPOV as long as a dedicated section treads carefully, but it wouldn't hurt. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think most people agree it has to be well based, similar to notable. The article is already long. There is a lot of "stuff" written about the PS3 and we don't need to put people's rants on this page, regardless if it has 3 different sources (wikipedia standard for notable), and verifiable. Daniel.Cardenas 15:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No one says that we need rants either. The Wii page is handling this decently right now, though it might be done better. It has a relatively brief mention of a couple issues, under the Reception section. That's what I'm talking about. No rants, opinions, editorials, or essays. Just a long enough mention to put out the issue, along with a source link (or more than one, depending). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you put the specific criticism you would like to add in the talk page first. Saying it is overpriced isn't encyclopedic. Something like that goes better on a comparison page. Daniel.Cardenas 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless we have a significant number of sources criticizing it because of its price... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest to start listing them on this talk page. If they appear like execs whining then I doubt people will consider it significant enough. Daniel.Cardenas 15:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Just because a game executive says he doesn't like a paticular system does not make it "whining". Qualifying any negative statements about the PS3 as whining does not seem appropriate. --BHC 02:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The number of exec personnel from publishers citing pricing as an obstacle has been very small, as has been the ones viewing it as appropriate for the technology it packs. The vast majority of criticism has been sparked by the pricing, yes. However, it's been largely online rants from both interested, and uninterested consumers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.153.62 (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Three well known issues so far don't seem to get any real mention: lack of rumble due to Sony losing a patent challenge (Microsoft and Nintendo coughed up licensing fees), launch delays due to shortage of bleeding edge components, and HDMI problems such as the blinking reported by popular mechanics. 59.167.56.72 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make the rumble difference obvious on the comparison page: History of video game consoles (seventh generation) Daniel.Cardenas 19:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added a "Reception" section. If it seems biased against Sony, I apologize, but it's important to understand that finding good press for PS3 is extremely difficult. Conversely, there's a lot more negative stuff I could have added, but didn't. Feel free to edit it with any new stuff, but DON'T DELETE IT. --buckeyes1186 00:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to make an article

Hi, I am new hear and was just wondering how I could make an article. I am sorry for posting hear. --Kingdom hearts llll 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You want the help desk, not this place. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phantasy Star III redirect

For the video game, see Phantasy Star III. This should not be here. This is not a "PS3" disambiguator page; it is the page for "PlayStation 3" specifically.

That seems like a rule you just made up. It is not uncommon to use such a message when there is no disambiguation page. Notice that "PS3" redirects here (because it is the most common usage), but it is not the only thing to be abbreviated that way. See top links for more information. --Kamasutra 23:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Gundam Musou

Koei is going to release a new PS3 game - Gundam Musou on 1st of March. Don't know what's going on, but someone removed the name of that game from the gamelist. Lugiadoom 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XMB Background Color?

A while ago, I put a {{fact}} template in the section that has the month-by-month table of the XMB’s background color. At the time that I put the template there, no color table existed; there was simply a list. The template has since been removed, and now there is the table. I still don’t see any reference listed for this information, and frankly, I can’t verify it myself. I bought my PS3 on December 31, 2006, and the background of the XMB at the time was certainly not red (instead, it was black). Right now (January), though, it’s gray. I’m putting the citation template back in there...please find a source. —BrOnXbOmBr21 08:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PS3 main picture

Haven't seen this article for a while, but the picture should be changed, the glare and lighting seems completely off. Isn't there any official white background images ? —The preceding comment was added by 64.231.254.212 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

"Official" images cannot be used on this page if any free alternatives exist. -- mattb @ 2007-01-16T17:59Z
I agree with the first statement a bit. The current picture just doesn't do the PlayStation 3 justice. However, a possibility is the PlayStation 3 image currently being used in the Sony Computer Entertainment article. That one is a bit smaller, but has high contrast for better detail. Myscrnnm 05:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The current image does look quite shoddy I must say, especially compared to the 360 main image, etc. Is there no way we can get a better one? --CharlieA 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have the ability to take one yourself, please do, and insert it. Whatever the main picture is, it must be a free image — not a fair use picture. If you can obtain one that has no restrictions on its licensing, feel free to go ahead and put it in. —BrOnXbOmBr21 06:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake?

In the article: "The PS3 and Xbox 360 are both capable of HD at resolutions of up to 1080p (1920 by 1080 progressive)"

- As far as I know, the Xbox 360 is only capable of up to 720i (1920 by 1080 interleaved)

That was all it used to be capable of, but in the 360 firmware upgrade they added it in. 222.153.90.27 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

- Xbox 360 goes up to ture 1080i, but 1080p is upscaled, not native. 65.23.246.34 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The Xbox 360, as with the PS3, can both upscale games to 1080p, or have them native. It was not capable of this at launch, but can with the update. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

What is not neutral about it? Discuss here and without a week of discussion the neutrality dispute will be deleted.--WhereAmI 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's related to the above discussion on including criticism of the console. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The History section definitely seems to have been written with a biased slant. Sentences like "At E3 2005, Sony claimed the PlayStation 3 would have two HDMI and three Ethernet ports, which were later reduced to one of each (due to decided redundancy, therefore not worth the extra costs)." For example.(89.240.88.241 09:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
Thats because it was redundant to have the two HDMI's and would have made the price go high. The Ethernet ports are also phased out since the PS3 is a wireless router (the 600$ model.) It is not like it was impossible to put in the extra Ethernet ports and the extra HDMI, so how else would you word it? Besides, thats Sony's official comment.--WhereAmI 18:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how that bit is POV'd at all. These features cost more money, hence they were removed. Where's the bias? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High-performance computing blurb

I've added a section on cluster computing. I'm not sure where it best belongs (maybe in the "Linux" subsection???) so I just created a new one. Perhaps an editor with more experience on the PS3 article can place the info some place more appropriate. Hpcanswers 07:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense as a sub-section in the Hardware Summary, so I’m putting it there. —BrOnXbOmBr21 08:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Not sure how to do this, but wanted to pass it along...

Someone built an 8 PS3 cluster at NC State on January 3rd, 2007.

[edit] Swedish price

The Swedish price of 5999 SEK is more equivalent to $850 than to $650 ($856 according to Google, and I can instantly tell $650 in an incorrent conversion). Please, someone correct this.

He is right, the prices when converted to US dollars are off for quite a few of the countries/zones.
The UK price converted to US Dollars is also incorrect. The Dollar/Pound exchange rate has not been anyway near 1.6 for the past three years. At current exchange rates it should be in excess of $800. 129.215.48.96 09:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales

It says that in NA 1 million have been sold and in Japan 1 million have been sold. So shouldn't the worldwide sales be changed to 2 million?63.3.5.130 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Shipped does not mean sold.--WhereAmI 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. While although I'm sure that more than 1.2 million have been sold, there are apparently at least hundreds of thousands of units that either haven't hit the shelves yet, or that people simply don't want to buy. Bladestorm 00:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I should add that all 3 hardware manufacturers only release shipped figures. Microsoft cleverly worded the matter at the CES as "we've sold 10.4 million", and Nintendo simply used the word "sold and delivered" in reference to the 3.1 million units shipped in 2006 (While stating that 4 million were manufactured). Sell through figures from the NPD are the only reliable data to go by in North America, since a good percentage of those shipped units can be in transit or simply sitting on shelves.

[edit] Maths for PS3 sales

I have changed the numeber of units sold so it matches with the number on the History of video game consoles (seventh generation) can someone see if they can find the number of units now sold in America and Japan thanks 84.69.77.238 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD playing option

How do you play a dvd in the ps3? BOB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.53.174 (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure myself, but I don't think many people will answer here, since this is the page for discussing changes to the article. I don't claim to be an expert on these matters, but I think the Help Desk is the place to go. Trixovator 18:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry! Don't ask at the help desk, that's for asking Wikipedia-related questions, besides we"r eating pie. Pie is Good so Go to the Entertainment Reference Desk for help. Trixovator 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splinter Cell: Double Agent, GRAW 2, Vegas, others on PS3

Ubisoft has announced that it will be releasing Splinter Cell: Double Agent, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2, Rainbow Six: Vegas, and a few other titles on the PS3 in time for the European launch. Splinter Cell: Double Agent, in particular, is a significant title which I feel should be added to the list of major titles. Details can be found on the respective pages of each game. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk ages|unsigned]] comment was added by 129.128.233.48 (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] XMB colouring

Can we change the way of table displaying XMB colour, because the colour apparently CHANGED in the MIDDLE of the month, each month. For example: November is supposed to be Chocolate, but in mid-nvember, it gradually turned red. By the end of december, entering January, it's gray, and I think the colour looks more vivid the month before at date 20-30 of the month, than the actual month that is supposed to display that colour.--w_tanoto 08:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you’re right. Currently, it’s near the end of January, but my XMB’s background has been yellow for over a week now, maybe even two. —BrOnXbOmBr21 22:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico Release date and price

I'm just wondering. Mexico is said to have PS3 release date on Q1 of 2007, and there is no citation to it for several months. Please consider removing it from this article, into PlayStation 3 launch article.--w_tanoto 08:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firmware Version 1.5

Yesterday (January 23), I changed the article’s firmware section to separate the firmware revisions for the US and Japanese PlayStation 3 systems. The most recent US version is 1.32, while the most recent Japanese version is 1.5. Tanoshii edited the article so it now says that both the US and Japanese PS3s are at firmware revision 1.5. I have seen this in an Ars Technica journal (Opposable Thumbs: PS3 firmware update fixes PS2 backwards compatibility); however, according to the official PlayStation website’s PS3 software update page (PlayStation 3 - Network - Updates), the current firmware revision for the US PS3 is still 1.32. I don’t want to start an edit war, but since the Ars Technica article isn’t official (and I’d say that Sony’s own PlayStation website takes precedence here), I think the article’s firmware section should look as it did in the version as of 23:49, January 23, 2007 until Sony updates their official PlayStation page. —BrOnXbOmBr21 19:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, now Sony has updated their official page, so the point is moot. —BrOnXbOmBr21 03:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You forgot the bit about how irrelevant it is to include firmware versions in an encyclopedic article. 59.167.56.72 21:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting the games table.

Would anyone care to delete the games table or replace it with a paragraph? There is nothing particularly encyclopedic about "upcoming games" in a list that omits many, as well as talks about one particular region. 360 doesn't have it, the wii has a table just for launch games and there discusses different regions (both tables should really just be moved to a paragraph). Is there any reason these particular games are listed as it's not even the full list of games and most of these have moved to a multiplatform stance? At the very least a new page for games would help more then this table.Kinglink 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying, please try to convert it to prose. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] organization

I didn't see any comments as to why the games section was moved under "Hardware summary". It makes no sense to me, and I'm going to change it back. Hopefully there aren't any objections. here is a link to the version before, if anyone has a strong objection. --gatoatigrado 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

also, "Despite earlier rumors of programming being difficult,[1] IGN reports that they were told that the dev kit "seemed extremely adaptive and easy to program for".[2]" should be removed. It is a terrible oversimplification. Just because IGN said it dosen't mean it's good or right. Some probably have difficulty, and others have less. Whether it has anything to do with the PlayStation 3 is questionable. From what I have heard, it is more about vectorization and parallelization than the PlayStation 3. --gatoatigrado 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of developers duplicating data on the blu ray discs to reduce seek time, or of hard drive caching, so I added that as well. --gatoatigrado 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope I got the prose right for some of the games section. I don't know that much about the games, so please correct anything. Also, should games in the prose be deleted from the table for organization purposes? --gatoatigrado 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

The photo at the top has a cool green tinge too it, obviously it was taken against a green background, that background reflected onto the console, then the photographer photoshopped the background out. It is a little distracting and misleading, I mean if the console had a metallic green tinge to it would be cool. But it doesn't. JayKeaton 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Photo at the top is horrible, and needs to be changed. It has extremely poor lighting and it is hard to see words on it. Please, somebody change to something more appropriate! 222.153.13.188 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticsm Section

I scrolled through the PS3 page expecting a section about criticism (considering almost anything that's subjected to mild dislike has a writeup about 'controversy', etc.). Or is it already on a different page? Sorry if it's already been written up somewhere else and I'm just being an idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.20.60 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, criticism is definitely present in the article. Most of it is under the release data and pricing. --gatoatigrado 05:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have heard alot of different opinions on the ps3, i think it is clear that there should be a reception section.Widkid85 02:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The lack of a proper Criticism/Reception section damages this articles credibility - look for example at the Wii article, for a system which has undoubtedly had a more positive reception in the mainstream media to date - there's proper cover of criticism in both the name and reception sections, but nothing similar here. The reluctance to mention criticism properly here smacks of protectionist/fanboy sentiment - or does Sony have their employees working on this article just like they've pretended to be regular members of the public before (remember Zipatoni...?)Hongshi 19:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If the lack of a criticism section is bothering you, why not just write one? You'll have plenty of material to work with... ;) - Davidjk (msg+edits) 19:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • edit*

Okay, I'm just dropping in a note. Your critism section doesn't contain any information on the PS3 not including vibration function, having a built in battery for the controller, no HD-DVD support (who wants it anyway xD) or any information about overheating...

[edit] Small Updates...

I changed a few things. For example, it said that the most recent firmware update was believed to fix the graphical glitches found in PS2 games. The firmware update does fix the graphical glitches when playing PS2 games. There was also a list stating rumors as facts for the March firmware update. I labeled it as 'rumored features' for the next update. Escobar4Life 08:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Region locks

I came to this page wondering if the machine and it's games will have any region locks and I can't find that information. I had a good look so either it's there and I'm an idiot or it's not there in which case I think it should be. Surely this has been discussed before (so sorry). The only mention of regions is in the backward compatibility paragraph. What's the story? Kansaikiwi 15:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why something so important wouldn't be in the article, but all PlayStation 3 games are region free. --Kamasutra 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Though Playstation 3 games are region free, Playstation 1 and Playstation 2 games are still subject to regional lockout, correct? In other words, European PAL and Japanese NTSC Playstation 2 games will NOT work on and American NTSC Playstation 3, correct?

This is my understanding of the Playstation 3's regional lockout on Playstation 1 and 2 games, and to me it is so disappointing I'm not interested at all in buying the system. Rag-time4 14:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Companion Chip

Something interesting I found... the PS3 has a special southbridge made for mass video/audio streaming, also handles all of the IO. There's very little info on it, but here's a pdf on the official Cell site, near the end it mentions that it is used in the PS3. http://cell-industries.com/SCC_Details1.pdf?osCsid=6ca2b55facf45e40c9e5d2d2ad4fed8f Vash63 03:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PS3 browser source

"The PlayStation 3 uses a version of the NetFront browser by Access Co. as its internal web browser. It is the same browser used in the PSP (Sony-branded NetFront 2.81) with the same interface, menus and virtual keyboard."

Can anyone provide a source for this? If not, perhaps it should be removed. Admittedly, it resembles the PSP browser in look and feel, but AFAIK (and have been told), the browser was developed in-house and is based off of the existing Mozilla codebase - there was no mention of NetFront's involvement whatsoever.

83.67.205.73 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memory card adaptor

Under accessories:

"The PlayStation 3 Memory Card Adaptor is a device that allows data to be transferred to and from PlayStation and PlayStation 2 memory cards to the PlayStation 3's hard disk."

It is my understanding that the transfer is a one way street. You can't save from the hard drive to the memory cards, right?

Jbluez27 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct as far as I know. --Kamasutra 14:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
IGN reported it only goes one way, i.e. from the Card to the PS3, but not the other way.Pumapayam 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a new user. Can someone remove those two words, since they are untrue? They are haunting me...:) Jbluez27 06:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed those two words myself. Jbluez27 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ‘Reception’ section

As of now, the Reception section is very poorly written, and frankly, untrue ("praised for incredible graphics and online service" — I have a PS3 and love it, but mostly, the PlayStation Network has been criticized). I think it should be deleted from the article, at least until it's slightly more comprehensive. Thoughts? —BrOnXbOmBr21 02:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually wrote that, i shouldnt have considering i dont actually know alot about it. Thats the reason i wanted the section to be there. I wrote it in hopes that someone would rewrite it better.Widkid85 00:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While the PS3 sports excellent graphical capabilities, there are enough discussions around the web comparing PS3 version of games with the Xbox360 ones to try to point out that PS3 graphics is not superior (more often to prove the opposite). While this is still controversial, the "praise for incredible graphics" seems inappropriate. Its inability to process HDR and AA simultaneously also leaves to be criticized. I hope people with more knowledge on this area may write something up for this section. Frank Law 06:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But your also comparing 2nd/3rd gen 360 games to first gen launch ps3 games and ports. It remains to be seen. Also both systems are at the point where doubling the hardware only results in marginal improvements on the same algorithms. You need to do clever things now to get better results. It is now up to the developers to utilize either set of hardware in a clever way.

[edit] Price

In Thailand, It's price around 30,000 Baht —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.120.64.154 (talk • contribs).

I herd sony was going to drop ps3 prices, but i also know they're going to drop it into the grand canyon.--Durs22 02:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The price has already been dropped by certain retailers in Japan as a result of relatively poor early sales, but it doesn't seem likely that we'll see major price drops any time soon - sony don't like to admit defeat (hell, I should know, I have a PSP...). - Davidjk (msg+edits) 02:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Launch Date in Singapore and Malaysia

There is no mention of the critisims of contriversies. Wii should ad a section about that. Before you say that it is already there, i have read the article twice and it is not. User.HHS.student not logged in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.211.83.82 (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

There should be a reception section... just direct quotes from reputable sites I think would be good enough... Lordofchaosiori 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Launch Date Updates for Singapore and Malaysia

For Singapore, its official launch is somewhere between 7th-15th March 2007. I saw this article from www.gameaxis.com where one of the gameshop offer a preorder for PS3 for S$50 deposit. The price is remain the same but according to GameScore, you'll get premiums same as those get from HK.

For Malaysia, there are rumours that PS3 will also launch in March. A roadshow held by Sony Malaysia in 1 Utama Shopping Centre on January, displayed its flagship LCD Bravia TVs. One of the section demostrate the power of Playstation 3 in full 1080i HD. This also sparks the probability that PS3 will also launch in Malaysia together with Singapore. Thus, March is actually the official worldwide launch for PS3. Parallel imports in Malaysia are available anywhere in the capital city of Kuala Lumpur. Originally selling from RM3,500 to RM4,000 (USD920 to USD1,000) on December 2006. Now selling at RM2,400 to RM2,500 (USD660) as in February 10, due to poor demand-OSL

You may notice that the website, www.gameaxis.com have removed the article regarding PS3 launch date. It is because the Sony Singapore could not verify when will they ever launch. Although most of the outlets in Singapore already accept the pre-orders, however, some already removed it and closed the pre-order service because fear that Sony might not launch in March.-OSL

[edit] PS3 price in Mexico

The price of the 60GB version of the playstation is 13,500

as January 2007

[edit] Sony mulls PS3 price drop

should we consider putting this in? http://www.gamespot.com/news/6165103.html Dm-schmieder 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No.Pumapayam 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Care to give a reason as to why not? 142.179.135.251 12:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LEDS

does the ps3 have a harddisk led like a pc does when it acesss the harddrive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcon866 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 Feb 2007 (UTC).

Yes it does. Tome711 02:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Numbers

"Current PS3 units are shipped with 90nm Cell processor, but soon these PS3 units are going to have 60nm Cell processor built into it. This will mean a price cut for Sony on every PlayStation 3 sold[citation needed]. This is because the 65nm Cell processor is cheaper than the 90nm processor. Secondly an overall heat reduction for the PlayStation 3[citation needed]."

The Numbers don't add up, is the new Cell Processor 60nm or 65nm? Please add Citations for this as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.153.13.188 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I changed it to 65NM. There is no such thing as 60NM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/65nm this page lists the things that use 65NM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45_nanometer This page lists 45NM is next.

So there is no 60NM --Falcon866 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, similar to the Xbox 360 chip, the chip will shrink from 90 nm to 65 nm, it runs cooler. No such evidence of any chip being 60 nm.Pumapayam 17:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason FET gate lengths could not be 60 nm. Be careful about trying to analyze unfamiliar territory. -- mattb @ 2007-02-08T00:30Z

[edit] Norwegian price announced

http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=159998 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.69.209.9 (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WIFI Adapter for the PS 3 20 GB version

I would like to propose this subject be openend for discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.181.214.92 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

WARIO?? EHH??? WHAT?? Ok... What do you mean by "WIFI Adapter for the PS 3 20 GB"Pendo 4 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4

[edit] PS3's Blu-Ray disc transfer rate Vs.Xbox360 DVD disc transfer rate

See here: http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/rpg/theelderscrollsivoblivion/news.html?sid=6165505&tag=topslot;title;1&om_act=convert&om_clk=topslot

"Oblivion will make extensive use of the PS3's hard drive by caching multiple gigabytes of data, which seemed to help with load times from what we saw. Bethesda's Pete Hines also commented that recent reports of data duplication on the PS3 Oblivion disc have been exaggerated, and this technique isn't different from the similar strategy that was employed in the creation of the Xbox 360 game last year."

Have removed the claims of Blu-Ray being slower citing the original misquoted Oblivion interview. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgillespie (talk • contribs) 18:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

--Mgillespie 18:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/762/762108p1.html?RSSwhen2007-02-06_170800&RSSid=762108

"The PS3 version of Oblivion isn't a simple port of the game either, although players who have picked up the 360 version will be very familiar with the control scheme. For one thing, the PS3 version has been optimized to take advantage of the Cell processor and hardware that the system offers. As a result, the game runs a lot faster than the 360 build. Entering dungeons or buildings results in a load of 3-5 seconds, compared to the 7-10 seconds or longer for the 360 version of the game. Similarly, the amount of framerate drops or hitches that cropped up in the wilderness as you accessed a new area on the 360 have been substantially reduced on the PS3 version. There is a plan to completely eradicate these issues as the game nears release, as well as fixing a number of bugs that were present in the other builds. Kiss the item duplication glitch goodbye."

"The visual presentation of Oblivion has also been significantly enhanced. While it was a beautiful title on the 360, far off environmental details often displayed low resolution textures. This has been fixed with new shaders dedicated to rendering the foreground cleanly with sharper details, so rocky landscapes now have craggy appearances instead of smooth, non-distinct surfaces. While there is still a fair amount of pop-in that occurs (which can't be helped due to the size of the world), the draw distance is farther than the 360 version. As a result, screens from the PS3 version should approach those from high end PCs running Oblivion, which is an impressive feat."

--Mgillespie 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How does this prove that the read speed isn't slower?..They've simply used some clever techniques to get around the problem. His critiscism of the read speed is still perfectly valid. I'll revert it. Slydevil 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Slydevil, these claims DO NOT prove anything in terms of disc read speed, Allow me to explain the disc read speeds, Blu-Ray's 1x speed is 36MegaBITS per second which translates into 4.5 MBytes/s, The PS3 uses a 2x Blu-Ray reader which has a max read speed of about 9 Mbytes/s, This info coming from the Blu-Ray wiki page, DVD's on the other hand have a 1x read speed of 1.35 MBytes/s, and the 360 uses a 12x read drive which has a max read speed of 15.9 MBytes/s, this info coming from the X_Box_360 page,

so let me clarify: 360 - 15.9 MBytes/s PS3 - 9 Mbytes/s. Do you need any more info than that? Dctcool 15:37, 8 February 2007 (AEST)


Yes, on single layer Xbox360 can read at 15.9MBytes/sec (in theory) but on dual layer, the Xbox360 uses 8x read speed, in addition, you fail to take into account CAV and CLV differences, the PS3 can deliver 9MBytes/Sec across the entire disc, the Xbox360 can ONLY achieve 15.9MBytes/Sec on the inner edge of the disc, and only then on a single layer disc. Until someone can provide CLV/CAV data figures for the 360, re-instating my edits.--195.75.83.25 13:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh, I don't really want to start a debate about the specifications, as it's in fact irrelavent. This certain developer 'finds' the read speed too slow..Whether you agree with him or not doesn't matter, it's a valid piece of critiscism in his opinion. Hence this is not arguable. I'll leave it for a bit before I revert it though.Slydevil 15:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I hadn't realised this was under debate, and removed the quote in question. The reason for doing so was that this was later played down by the person making the quote, stating that there were other advantages such as having a hard drive in every PS3 that would allow caching, and that gradually data duplication could be reduced. This issue aside, I felt that the hugely varying response the PS3 has received - including such quotes as that by Gabe Newell - were more important than one issue about the Blu-ray drive, cited by one game developer; it doesn't really fit with the "bigger picture" of praise/criticism the rest of the section provides. SynergyBlades 16:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

SynergyBlades, your first argument is a dud, as it's too subjective how you interpret what he said, in your case, he was 'playing it down'. Though, I agree with your second point, hence I shan't revert it.Slydevil 01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unfortunately, "Dctcool" doesn't agree, and has reverted it without discussing it here first, so I've put in a supplementary point to balance the argument for the time being. Personally, as I said before, I don't think this one issue about one component is as important about reception of the system as a whole, and so I would rather see the whole Bethesda bit removed, but until we get consensus we might as well show both sides of the argument. SynergyBlades 13:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, your extra comment improves it alot, and since the section is relatively small, I think it can just be left as it is for now.Slydevil 13:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the garenteed presence of a HD render all drive speed issues moot. No optical drive can put out data faster then even the cheapest HD. PRe-caching on the HD makes drives speeds irrelevant.

[edit] Reception

Under reception it says the playstation 3 was given the number eight spot on PC World magazine’s list of “The Top 21 Tech Screwups of 2006. Shouldn't it be noted that this is Microsoft's opinion and they likely want to spread as much bad publicity as possible since they are competing against the PS3?71.31.7.200 22:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The same magazine also rated it the best of the next generation consoles!! I have ammended the reception section with the relevent balancing link... --Mgillespie 11:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This portion basically says that the PS3 is a complete failure. Since there have been 2,000,000 PS3's sold worldwide, [9] calling it a failure is flat wrong. Whoever wrote this cited Microsoft to back up their claim that the PS3 is doing poorly. Doing that is like saying President Franklin Roosevelt was an evil man and citing Adolf Hitler. Would someone rewrite this section to make it neutral?J.delanoy 23:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually read that source? Sony has SHIPPED 2 million, they have sold far less than that. The fact that it's in third place by a wide margin supports PC Magazine. TJ Spyke 10:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Microsoft owns PC World? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't use ridiculous speculation to justify/debunk facts in an encyclopedia. Unfortunately many sources have connections with company's they report on. Though, if you think you can find another, more reliable source stating a similar fact; Then please do. (Don't just remove them, as they're all perfectly valid critiscisms) It's also a fact that the PS3 has recieved more bad press than good (or at least more bad press than most other consoles get) , that is something that cannot be denied. Neverthless, it does need more sources that reflect it positively..So..I guess what you could do is find some? Someone needs to.Slydevil 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for starting a problem. It wasn't my intention. I did some Googling and apparently Microsoft does not own PC World. As anyone has the right to try out a product and post their results in any medium, I will remove the neutrality tag. However, the section cites a Microsoft employee as part of its "negatives", so to speak. Because Microsoft owns and markets the Xbox 360, which is in direct competition with the Playstation 3, that statement should definately be removed. Again, I apologize to the members of Wikipedia for causing this "scuffle". J.delanoy 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Gabe Newell is a former Microsoft employee and fairly respected game developer. I don't honestly know if it should be in there or not, so I won't reinstate it myself, I'm just saying. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the article to reflect the general impression I got from looking at all the sources cited in the current version. Ex-Nintendo Employee is obviously a partisan for the PS3 and does not possess the decency to explain why he keeps reverting the article. He also twisted the review here [10]. In the "Parting Thoughts" section, he only included the bold portion when he stated that the review is favorable to the PS3....

"So there you have it: the PlayStation 3 in a rather large nutshell. It truly is technologically superior to both the Xbox 360 and the Wii (which isn't really a direct competitor). But to succeed, Sony and its third-party partners must tap into their traditional strength of delivering compelling games for the console. The PS3 looks like an expensive box at first, but seems less so when you compare its cost to the cost of a stand-alone Blu-ray player, a high-end PC graphics card, the Xbox 360 with its HD-DVD add-on, or even a Media Center PC."

Quite a difference, isn't there? I believe the changes I made make the section reflect reality.... the jury is still out on the PS3.J.delanoy 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PS3 and Ubuntu Linux

Ubuntu is now working on the PS3, add it in: [11]\

[edit] PS3 Firmware 1.6

"JAM TART PIE" Should something about this be put up? [12] Tome711 03:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FIX NOW!

This article needs to be fixed BIG TIME!Themasterofwiki 19:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow thanks for point out whats wrong with it. Big help. Cmsjustin 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree, every time I stop by, all the Xbox fanboys have removed anything positive about the console, and left all the bad stuff...

Of course if I was petty, I would mention the red rings of death or the Zephyr stitch up in the 360 article, but that does not help anyone. --Mgillespie 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I did change the 360 article, first paragraph last sentence... Tome711 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... you wanna refrain from vandalizing articles? k? Thanks. Bladestorm 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the truth... Tome711 03:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

*sigh*. No. It isn't. 360's are unreliable, overhyped machines. But they don't explode. Bladestorm 04:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Im just sick of all the Spam, Vandalsim,and nonsense in it.Themasterofwiki 13:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Sega should make new console"

At the bottom of the article, under the Reception header, someone has wrote "the ps3 sucks and is overpriced and sega should release a new stystem."

It seems pretty simple that this isn't an encylopedic statement. Hell, I'm not sure if it's even a sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.121.67 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] PS3 prices

This is how retarded Wikipedia is. The 60Gb price of the PS3 in Eurozone is 599. And in Ireland it's 630. In dollars the Eurozone is converted to a price of $660. And in Ireland, $644. :S The price of the PS3 in Euros in Ireland is more than that of the Eurozone. Yet, in dollars it's the other way around. Surely, the more expensive console in Euros would convert into a more expensive console in Dollars of the two.

Fucking A* Wikipedia. You win at internets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.92.140 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is most likely a result of someone changing one figure and not the others, not a shortcoming of Wikipedia. Because exchange rates change hourly, it is very possible that someone changed one figure and neglected to change the others due to the large amount of time that would require. If it bothers you that much, instead of gripeing and swearing, you could fix it. Or, if it really ticks you off, learn Javascript and insert a control that automatically updates it. Also, sign your posts......J.delanoy 13:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, is that possible on wikipedia? Is there any way to embed scripts? Bladestorm 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I apologize for being snippy in the above post. As to embedding code, Wikipedia is very specific with what code it will support. I have personally never tried using a scripting code, so I have no idea what parts, if any, will work.J.delanoy 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you look a bit farther down the talk page, at Talk:PlayStation_3#Currency_Conversions, you'll see that you really did make a very good suggestion. It required the use of templates instead of javascript, but still, I think we have a solution now. Bladestorm 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] power consumation

in the manual it says 380 watts but on wikipedia it says 200 watts what should it be ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcon866 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not an expert, and I'm sure somebody will eventually help you more definitively, but it's my understanding that the PS3 provides a 380 watt power supply. However, that doesn't mean it's always actually drawing 380 watts, but rather than it can do so. (For comparison, many computer power supplies can provide 250+ watts of power, but typically won't unless the system is literally loaded to near the breaking point) Bladestorm 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PS3 price increase in Canada, and North American 20gb version discontinued?

In Canada the price of the PS3 has actually increased. The price of the PS3 is now 700$ Canadian. I guess people can forget about a price drop any time soon. Also, in Canada and the US at least, the 20gb version of the PS3 is no longer available. It is unknown if it was discontinued or if it is just temporarily unavailable, but no new 20gb versions are shipping to stores in Canada and the US right now. Cregan89 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)cregan89

[edit] Currency Conversions

Okay, so there was a problem where someone updated the USD conversion from one entry for the price in euros, but not another, so it made things look both more and less expensive simultaneously, right?
And, in general, when conversions are updated, especially ones with as many entries as Euros, it's easy to make a mistake and miss something, right?
So...
I couldn't find any way to directly embed javascript in wikipedia, so I went for the next best thing. I created a template which, when given a value (in foreign currency), and a currency code, it returns the equivalent price in USD (rounded to the nearest dollar to be more legible in tables).
eg. {{toUSD|100|CAD}} will convert $100cdn (canadian dollars) into $86 USD.
Ain't that spiffy? :)
And, this way, when you want to update the currency conversions, you can just edit a simple template, found here. All you need to do is find the entry you wish to update, and express the value of a single unit of that currency in american dollars. (eg. one canadian dollar currently costs about 86 cents american, so I added "CAD=0.858010" to the list.)
It'd be pretty easy to modify the table to use the new template. In fact, I did so in a copy of it here.
(Notice that, in that version, a system in Ireland is more expensive in Euros and american dollars!) Bladestorm 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see any objections, so I'm going to go ahead with that change now! Bladestorm 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You go girl Cmsjustin 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux

i know linux has acess to the cpus 256MB ram but does it have acess to the RSXS 256mb ram?

I would look at the article on Linux. J.delanoy 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No it does not. The PS3 graphics chip is able to access its own 256 megs of memory as well as the 256 megs of system memory. The Cell processor is only able to access the 256 megs of system memory. Also note that linux does not have access to the GPU for 3d rendering either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmsjustin (talk • contribs) 21:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The PS3 doesn't output in 1080i

Please change article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.245.110.2 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I own a PS3, and I have a full HD plasma TV. The Playstation 3 does output 1080i as well as 1080p, 720p, 480p, and 480i. J.delanoy 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The dude means for games that are 720p native. The PS3 does not upscale these games to 1080i and because of this, older CRT HDTV's cannot display this signal since 720p wasn't a spec when they were made. In these circumstances, games are displayed in 480p172.212.103.159 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception (Again)

I have noticed that someone keeps adding negative reviews to the "Reception" section. I wondered if the implied message (Most reviews about the PS3 are bad) was true. So I searched "playstation 3 reviews" in Google. The first three pages yielded 9 websites that numerical rating. The average rating of those nine websites is 8.6666... (26 over 3) out of a possible 10. I believe this means that, overall, the PS3 is doing rather well. (The Xbox 360 gave a 8.625 (69 over 8) when subjected to the same test.) Despite all this, it is becoming increasingly obvious that this section is becoming an edit war. This section really has no purpose because no one knows for certain how the PS3 will be received as it has only been around for four months. I believe that this section should be removed. Any thoughts? Some input from an administator would be appreciated....J.delanoy 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources to prove those reviews are not valid, please do so. Otherwise, I can't any problem about these negative reviews. As an encyclopedia, we expect to read facts here, be it positive or negative.

As for "google search for numerical rating", it depends on which sites give the rating (reliable source?), and on what aspects the ratings are about. This an average rating of "8.6666" cannot present a good picture on how well the PS3 is doing; the success of a console largely depends on how well it is received by the market (and the sales figure is a good way to reflect this).

I hope everyone would be mature enough not to involve in an edit war. For wiki's sake. Frank Law 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Answers...
  1. I am not saying the sources are not valid, I am saying that someone is trying to dig up dirt on the PS3 by adding any negative remarks they find about it. This makes it seem as if all the reviews are bad. However, if someone actually reads the reviews, most have a "pro" section that is almost the exact same length, or longer, than the "con" section.
  2. When I did my search, I assumed that the most accurate sites would also be the most popular, which would make them rank very high in the search I conducted, due to the nature of Google's ranking system.
  3. I agree that this should not become an edit war, which is why I proposed above that this section be postponed until the concrete results can be obtained, namely end-of-2007 sales results for the PS3, Xbox 360, and the Wii.

Also, to the first two question-askers... SIGN YOUR POSTS!!!!! (Sorry, pet peeve....) J.delanoy 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I just feel uncomfortable to see posting negative news regarded as "digging up dirt", which is the point of my discussion here. And I am concerned about this too for Wiki has been doing very well in acting netural. I also cannot see there is any implication that "all reviews are bad"; in fact there are already positive comments in the Reception.

And no, Google's ranking system does not effectively reflect reliabilty. Good understanding of Google mechanism (which is common knowledge) and good marketing can make a site popular. Frank Law 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not saying that google is trying to evaluate the content of a website. I was saying that most people do not like to be deceived, so if a website consistantly gave false information, no one in their right mind would visit the site. J.delanoy 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone give a good reason for keeping this section? So far we've squabbled over whether Google results in accurate sites. This is beside the point. I vote to take it out, can anyone give a good reason it needs to stay? Camann 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I also vote to remove it. There is no way to accurately judge the reception of something that has been out as little time as the PS3 has.J.delanoy 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
on second thought, I am not positive that this section should be removed, but what does everyone else think?J.delanoy 21:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the point of this section?

What I am asking is this: What is the point of this section? The PS3 has been out 4 months. The Xbox 360 has been out more than a year. So why does the PS3 article have a "reception" section and the Xbox 360 doesn't? This section is pure speculation, based on the changing whims of reviewers. This section should be deleted.What the hell i think i will just sit back and munch the last of this gorgeouse apple pie..J.delanoy 15:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

More properly speaking, it's that 360's require a clean up itself. Instead of deleting this section, you should dig up any reception and criticism on 360 and add that to 360's article. George Leung 06:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because another article doesn't have a criticism section doesn't mean it shouldn't. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PS3 20 GB with WI-FI

A few days ago, i saw a comment saying that if it would be possible to add WI-FI network capabilities to the 20 GB version of th PS3 by connecting a USB WI-FI adapter, and nobody answered that question. So i got interested on this cuz my cousin wants to sell me his 20gb PS3. Anyways my question is (also the question of the user 208.181.214.92 (whatever ur name is fella, u owe me one LOL)) is it possible to add WI-FI connectivity to the 20GB PS3 version with a USB WI-FI adapter?

Unless the PS3 has drivers for the device in question the answer is no/not yet --Bushido Brown 07:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say if you used the integrated networking you might be able to download the drivers off the vendor's site (that is, if the PS3 can download them with the browser and support the filetypes)

Definatly not —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game Section

When was, or rather I should ask Why was the list of games removed from the article?--Bushido Brown 07:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it's POV. For example, I have no interest in White Knight and it doesn't look that good to me. TJ Spyke 02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason why the list was removed is because it is open-ended. Imagine an article listing every PlayStation 2 title released. L--O--N--G doesn't even begin to describe it. J.delanoy 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal or Renaming of "Reception"

The PS3 Reception article is very negative about the console, so im going to either rename it Reception/Criticism or im just going to delete it because the Xbox 360 doesn't have a Reception article.

See above___J.delanoy 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned up there: More properly speaking, it's that 360's require a clean up itself. Instead of deleting this section, you should dig up any reception and criticism on 360 and add that to 360's article. George Leung 10:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree - the xbox 360 has been out long enough for opinions to settle - it doesn't need a reception section. Nor do I think this article will have one in a years time. However the fluid nature of wiki-editing means that for new products part of the article will tend to read like a blog. Also remember that PS3 is not out in europe yet.87.102.20.105 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding a reception page to the 360 article, i'm sure it will be deleted by the 360 droids, if it does, I think it's only fair the PS3 reception section too.. --Mgillespie 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, as predicted, the 360 reception section I added yesterday has been deleted, as it contained some criticsms of the system, therefore I think to keep things balanced, the PS3 reception needs deletion. Have removed it, if anyone wants it back, then the 360 article also needs the same sections, with BALANCED views.. it's no good having any negative criticims deleted from the 360 article whenever they are added, and negative criticisms restored in the PS3 article... --Mgillespie 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What the heck was that? You didn't add a proper section. You merely added a skeleton of a criticism stub. It added nothing to the article, and was incredibly unhelpful.
More significantly, a content dispute in one article probably shouldn't spill over into another. If you have a problem with the lack of a 'reception' section in the 360 article, then try to add a good one to it. If they still remove even good additions, then discuss the issue there. But don't use problems there as an excuse to work unilaterally here. Bladestorm 23:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Check the 360 History, I did not add a stub at all, I added Reception, Praise and Criticism, and some text with references, the references were promptly deleted (because they were negative), leaving the stub, then the sub was deleted later.

In summary, it seems fine to remove the Reception article from the 360 article, despite it containing valid information, but the same does not apply to the PS3 article.. why not? Deleting the References section from the PS3 section again, until some decided to also police the 360 article to prevent that one being removed.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgillespie (talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Okay, you really want to get into this? Fine. Here is the edit you made. Notice that you add a section for 'praise', but leave it entirely blank. Even the 'criticism' section only has a single sentence. And what two sources do you cite for the criticism?
  • CNN. Granted, they're not bad for a lot of things. But for games? Ugh! And besides that, it's an article written before the machine was even released. Besides, that article also included things like, "The Xbox 360 is a truly impressive machine and shows an enormous amount of potential for the years to come." But, did you include that in the 'praise' section? Of course not. You took their complaints about a poor launch lineup, and pretended that it was strictly a negative article. Even if you were going to go with a single quote from the article, you should've used their 'short answer': "Not on Day One". Anything else is incredibly POV.
  • Fox News. Do I reeeally need to say the problem with relying on Fox News as a credible source? But heck, pretend for a second that they were reliable. You said, "and Fox simply saying 'Don't Buy One'". Except, they said a lot more than that. For example, they said, "Oh, it's an amazing console, don't get us wrong. Plugged into a high-definition television set with a booming sound system, it's amazing, a wonderland of sights and music." Hmmm... that doesn't quite fall under the quote, "don't buy one", does it... Besides that, look at their reasons for not buying one: You need to buy a HD tv if you want to take advantage of it (um... like that isn't true of a PS3?). Oh, and of course, the fact that "we have no idea what the next-gen PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Revolution are going to be capable of doing."
In short, you left what was essentially a stub. Zero content in the 'praise' section. Only a single (incorrect) statement in the criticism statement. Citing two extremely bad references. And even ignoring positive statements in your own references. To put it bluntly, there was no freaking chance such an edit could ever not be reverted. It wasn't content. It was making a point.
If you want a 'reception' section in that article, then add a good one. Add properly-sourced, reliable, relevent material. If people still remove it when it's done right, then address your concerns there. Bladestorm 16:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. 'Stub sections' like this in such a major article should be kept in a temporary article or something until they're ready to move in. If the article itself was a stub, or at least less viewed, it might not be such an issue. But it's neither. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bladestorm. I own neither a PS3 nor a Xbox360. It hurts to see that someone removes valid informational materials because they do not like it. If something is false, please point it out. If there are opposite views with reliable support, please feel free to add in. Don't remove a section because "you don't like it". The "Balance" thing is not convincing at all. When I create an article, do I have to check to match all sections with existing similar products/ competitors?

Wikipedia has been a great and rich source of reliable information, please, do not have your console war here. There are lots of forums out there for that. 202.76.98.93 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem here, is that 360 owners are much more childish, and regularly throw loads of bad stuff in the reception section, and the article police don't care, as sone as someone tried the level the field, it gets scrutinsed with a fine toothed comb.. --81.174.171.21 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey hey hey, that's entirely uncalled for. It's insulting, a sweeping generalization, and accuses bad faith. (And, incidentally, I neither own, nor even like, the 360. I just don't like seeing bad edits.) Bladestorm 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am really surprised and very disappointed to hear what 81.174.171.21 has said (why don't you care to sign in first?). You are assuming people are doing this to discredit PS3, and they are Xbox owners. Proof? I only see that people are sharing relevant facts with reliable sources.

This is a public domain. If you find something not true, correct it. If you find something you don't like, leave it! Frank Law 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More expensive in Greece too

According to Sony Hellas, the PS3 will be 60€ more expensive than the EU price. It is verified here [13]. Somebody please update the article. greekalien 19:37, 22 February 2007 (GMT+2)

It can be verified in English here [14]. Somebody please update it, I don't know how to fix everything myself. EDIT: I guess I did. greekalien 17:58, 23 February 2007 (GMT+2)

[edit] Backwards compatibility in Europe

Looks like Sony really hate Europe, PS/PS2 software will be done entirely via software emulation now, not hardware emulation that is done with the US/Japan models. Only 'a limited range' of PS2 games will be playable. Viamp 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


over 1000 PS2 titles playable at launch on EU PS3's [3] --Mgillespie 11:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say that this will also mean the next revision in NA/JP have software emulations instead. As much as I would like to put that opinion on NA/JP into the article, I can't since it's pure speculation. George Leung 15:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Europe and the PAL territories get the PS3:

  • 4 months late,
  • at almost double the price.

Not double the price. VAT in Europe is to blame, not Sony... --81.174.171.21 08:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

- VAT alone does not make up for the difference. Australia has a GST of only 10%, yet no discount is offered.

  • and, with less functionality.

See comment about HD and FSAA on PS2 and PS1 titles for the software emulation --81.174.171.21 08:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And on top of all that, they put laws in place to prevent us from buying the cheaper, more functional models from overseas. They just have us pay lots more for less, and later as well.

Sony must either not care about us at all, or hate us.193.108.73.47 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Proposed re-write to this line: European launch units will ship without this combination, instead relying on software emulation.

To this: European launch units will ship without this combination, instead relying on a software emulation system that only a limited number of PS2 games will be compatible with.

86.20.206.237 07:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Worth noting that the software emulation route provides full HD and FSAA on PS1 and PS2 titles, something the hardware route cannot do. Sony have given EU owners something here.. --81.174.171.21 08:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

its not vat, its just companies know that people will pay and since the europe has less population then the usa these companies charge more to make money. Also see about the back compatible see bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6390657.stm SGAtlantis 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PS3´s IPTV

Is it true that Sony will launch an IPTV service for the PS3 in the next months?

Thats what I heard... Along with live recording Tome711 03:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalsim

Just reverted major vandalism - whole page deleted replaced by point of view sloga. Maybe the page should be protected. Guest9999

Who did the vandalism? You should post a warning on his/her user page Then have a feast on some meat pie!J.delanoy 15:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed legal issues section

The legal issues section was certainly out of place, and I think it's rather non-notable. But, I left it commented in the hardware section, if someone feels otherwise. --gatoatigrado 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat mixed on the subject. I find most of these patent lawsuits to be entirely frivolous and non-notable, but on the other hand, some people find them notable (which actually creates a degree of notability in and of itself).
Overall, I can't say I care either way. But, just as a small issue for future reference: Removing an entire section should never be checked as being a "minor" edit. Just for future reference. :) Bladestorm 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The lawsuit is against Sony and alot of their products, not the PS3 specifically. I don't think it has a place in this article. --Cmsjustin 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] USB - Buzz

Does the PS2 Buzz games and controlers work on the PS3 machine? I don't konw anyone owning the PS3 and I can't find any info ... has anyone got it working?

  • The Buzz games only came out in Europe. Even though PS3 games are region free, PS2 games only work in PS3's from the same region (i.e. PAL PS2 games will not work on a North American or Japanese PS3's). So I think you will have to wait for the PS3 to launch in Europe to find out. TJ Spyke 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Buzz also came out in Australia JayKeaton 06:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European PS3 1000+ PS2 titles compatible

source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.19.109 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

What exactly are you trying to say?J.delanoy 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There are 1000 compatible PS2 title at EU launch. Remember that they use new SKU for EU, which will produce lower backward compatibility.--w_tanoto 20:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unofficial Websites

In the Unofficial websites section someone put a link to a PS3 forum named PS3chat an internet forum with little more than 3,000 members, should the link be removed completely or if a link to a PS3 forum is needed, why not better PS3forums that has over 30,000 members? 196.3.88.166 15:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lot of things announced today..

quoting Gamespot [15] Imagine a three-dimensional avatar-based socializing sim like Second Life. Now cross it with the online gaming and matchmaking features of Xbox Live. Leaven with dynamic streaming in-game advertising a la Massive, throw in some Pogo.com-esque casual gaming, and add a dash of Sneak King-like merchandising. Heat, stir, let cool, serve, and--voila--you've got Home, the new online service for the PlayStation 3. --Ciao 90 22:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I made a page for HOME

I made a page for HOME, but you can't find it on the search for some reason. To get to it, you go to the list of playstation network downloadable games from the playstation 3 page, then click on Home on the list. Would'nt mind having someone help me by adding the pictures on it. The title of the page is Home (Playstation3 game)

[edit] Wrong Protection tag?

Is the wrong protection tag on? I can still edit and I am not an administrator...J.delanoy 02:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Changed. -- ReyBrujo 03:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power Supply

Although the Main Page says the PS3 is 240 capable is yet to br 100% confirmed that ALL the units are. It could be disleading by a picture of the internal cover of the PSU that says 120-240, because a lot of companies simple won't do a part specially for a region, that way all the units could carry the same writing and correct power will be indicated in the sticker outside the machine.

As far as today haven't seen a proof of 240v capable other than a picture, so people in countries that uses 220 and HAVENT any Sony OFFICIAL launch, and uses an imported unit can be free of risk using a voltage transformer, avoinding the risk until further and reliable information is released. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fatez (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] change the bloody main picture it looks bad

as the subject says too much glare in it makes the pic look crap --70.48.38.151 07:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am working on getting a good picture of a PS3. I will upload it ASAP, but the picture that is there now isn't that bad: it does the job of showing people what the PS3 looks like. Your swearing was entirely unnecessary.J.delanoy 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove reception/criticism

Just get rid of this crap, bias shouldn't be presented to what is supposed to be a neutral article. --70.48.38.151 07:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A neutral analysis of reception, a sourced criticism and a referenced praise section are not biased, as far as I know. -- ReyBrujo 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but the general consensus I saw above was that the Reception was good how it was then. If you don't feel it is good, then say so civilly and present some reasons other than you just don't like it.J.delanoy 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The reception section is hardly neutral. I have (again) added a link to some praise for the PS3, yet I can guarentee it will be reverted, yet any criticisms remain intact. It seems the article police themselves are biased.... --Mgillespie 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, respectfully, who is "Paul Thurrot from WinSuperSite"? First time I ever heard of them, and so Wikipedia apparently. I have no problem with criticism and praise, but people usually include non reliable sources and non notable people. -- ReyBrujo 23:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've heard of him for sure, namely because his site used to be a big pro-Microsoft wank fest. That said, I don't think he's exactly notable enough. We can't just cite any old blog or personal site. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, when I changed the the sentence in question, I did it because it was written terribly, not because I agree or disagree with the statement.J.delanoy 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to critisism section

"The PS3 controller is a complete rip off of the Wii controller.

The PS3 just SUCKS!!" I would revert to the previous version but I'm not exactly sure how and I don't have time atm to figure out as i have alot of pie to pass out! Could someone check it out?

Connor oc 22:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been reverted. When you have time, you should look at Help:Reverting. Dancter 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps an edit is in order?

I just wanted to post this for review, see what other people thought about the information contained in the article.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/14/rumor-debunk-no-more-u-s-20gb-ps3-and-euro-backward-compatibil/ ReZerO 11:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Song that might be notalbe in the Criticism Section

The songs name is "How to Kill a Brand" and I'll try to find who the maker of the song is. --Rabin 14:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ehhh, no. It's just fanboy stuff. It's not as though some notable band sang it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PS3 to cure cancer

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/772/772947p1.html

We are gonna add this in. If I'm not back in 3 weeks I'll BE FORCED TO ADD IT IN MYSELF I ALSO HEARD THE CONSOLE CAN SIZZLE YOUR BRAIN! 71.117.224.10 22:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering when you'd show yourself again, Zabrak. It's already briefly mentioned in the article. Any further mention probably is more appropriate for a sub-article, perhaps PlayStation Network. I would advise you to be civil and cooperative. There's no need to be so severe or sensational. Ultimatums, overstated claims, and antagonistic behavior will only irritate users. Dancter 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be added, knowing that its actually a noble work and able to contribute something for mankind —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.93.88.34 (talk • contribs).

The Personal computer article does not talk about "curing cancer", as far as I know. -- ReyBrujo 11:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GunCon 2 and Karaoke Revolution and SingStar microphones

This article should indicate if these PS2 USB peripherals work on the PS3. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact that SingStar mics do work with the PS3; I played the game at a friend’s house, and he was using his PS3. If anything, though, that information should probably go in the articles of the respective games. —BrOnXbOmBr21 08:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed features of firmware v1.6

I think something about the upcoming major update to the PS3 firmware, revision 1.6, should be added to the article. (See here: IGN: Sony Shares Details on 1.6 Update) The IGN PS3 article mentions background downloading (previously confirmed by Phil Harrison), among other important features, as well as the release date: Thursday, March 22. —BrOnXbOmBr21 04:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South African PS3 Price

Could somebody please update the launch price table. The South African Launch price (kalahari.net reference) for the PS3 is R6299.95 VAT incl. (approximately $843). --196.212.20.26 05:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hironobu Sakaguchi quote

The line added recently, "Hironobu Sakaguchi, creator of the Final Fantasy series has expressed his concern that an Xbox 360 release of Final Fantasy XII may be needed for continuing success of the series.[45]" is stretching what he actually said quite a bit. If you follow the link, you'll see that he said nothing about FF12 (and almost certainly wasn't talking about it). If anything, it could be inferred from his comments that he thinks FF13 and on should be ported, but he didn't even say that.

[edit] PS3 Oblivion has faster load times

It has been widely reported in previews and a 1up review has confirmed it; either get rid of that paragraph or include this fact. Also, "fearing that many third party developers who were loyal to Sony during the original Playstation and Playstation 2 eras are going to the Xbox 360 due to the easy developing interface." The last part is extremely subjective with no citations to back it up. Remove it.

[edit] Israeli Price

Last time I was on this page the Israeli price was included in the pricing table (I noticed as it was the highest in US$ at the time) Just wondering why it has been removed. [[Guest9999 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)]]

Well, I can see where it was removed here.
I guess it wasn't officially released in israel? Bladestorm 21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Found this reference don't know if it's reliable or worth adding [16] [[Guest9999 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)]]

[edit] Blu-Ray movies freeze during playback

Not sure where this fits into the wiki, I think it should. My brand new ps3 freezes up on all the blu-ray movies I own. Tonight I noticed a fair amount of buzz on Sony's own forums about the video freezing Sony Forums. Youtube even has several videos of the PS3 freezing from customers and at the electronics stores. This is definately a class-action lawsuit waiting to happen if they could just sell enough to upset more consumers. I plan on returning my PS3 tomorrow after a week of owning, but i guess i'm stuck with the cost of games and blu-ray movies (for the short duration), but I'm not going to be stuck with the cost of ps3. Now how do I delete all my personal information on the PS3 before I return it. --Skunark 06:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, I strongly advise against simply returning your PS3 to the store. Thankfully, I haven’t had any such problems, but then again, I’ve only played one Blu-ray disc on my PS3 (Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, which came with my system). I finally got around to buying an HDTV, so that will change in the near future (until now, I’d been playing my PS3 on an eight-and-a-half-year-old 13" CRT, so I figured it was time for an upgrade). Anyway, you should call Sony’s tech support line at 1-800-345-SONY (7669), and tell them of the problem. Since the PS3 has a one-year warranty, they’ll send you a box in which you can return the system to them. Then, they’ll send you a new or refurbished (but working) PS3 within a week or two (I know this because my friend’s PS3 died and he had to go through this). If you want to delete all the data off of your hard drive, there’s a Format Utility in the System Settings (found under the ‘Settings’ tab of the XMB) that can be used to format your hard drive. I’ve never used it, so I can’t give you any details, but I assume there’s something in the User Guide about it. Best of luck! —BrOnXbOmBr21 08:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The freezing is due to network activity occuring during playback. Try disabling your network connection when playing Blu-Ray movies, until the issue is resolved. There are rumours that it was fixed in firmware 1.54, either way try firmware 1.6

I had firmware 1.54, but I did upgared to 1.6 since it became available, so far so good. --Skunark 03:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/l/a/Talk%7EPlayStation_3_Archive_15_7798.html"