Talk:PlayStation 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PlayStation 2 article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Sony PlayStation Portal
This article is within the scope of the The PlayStation Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of PlayStation products. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. April 2004 – December 2005
  2. January 2006 – June 2006
  3. July 2006 – August 2007

Contents

[edit] Will my British video games and British PS2 console work in America?

And will they work with American PS2 games? Please do tell me!Tourskin 08:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


No American PS2 games are NTSC and UK games are PAL they will not work together.

Unless you are bringing British games to use on your British console. That will work. You might need power converter, though. Does the UK use 110 or 220 volts? Useight 02:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well my PS2 says 110 and it was baught here in UK.OsirisV 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Useight: You can't feed a PAL signal to a NTSC TV set. OsirisV: UK uses 220-230 volts like the rest of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.49.188 (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually the PS2's power-block most probably uses a transformer to alter the voltage to 110 from 230 so that they didn't have to alter the innards of the PS2 dependant on where they were selling it, meaning just a new plug & power-block would be required dependant on the country you are using it. PAL will display on an NTSC screen, but you may loose colour and/or the aspect-ratio may display incorrectly. It's the same with displaying NTSC on PAL TV's. 82.27.224.161 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too advanced for the older model

  1. How come a PS2/3 game can't play on PS1?
  2. how come only Origonal (not copied by a guy who owns an origonal) PS1s play on PS2.
  3. Is it the same with Xbox360s in a normal Xbox console? cos my dad wont believe me and is planning to buy Halo 3 for the Xbox and he'd get very angry (as angry as Road Rage) if it turned out he spent c. £29 on somat that won't operate.OsirisV 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


1. No offense, but are you an idiot? That's like asking why a DVD won't play in a VCR, or why a N64 game won't play in a NES.
2. I'm not entirely sure, but it uses some sort of digital signing or lockout feature/chip. Basically, the console knows whether or not the disk you're trying to play is legit. Something like a modchip will sort that though.
3. No. See answer to 1.
Ha ha ha ha ha!!! This is hilarious! Your dad'll get mad like Road Rage? Holy crap! --91.105.13.49 18:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    1. The answer to 1 in a polite way is no, the hardware isn't able to run the games (Processor / Graphics Card being too slow) or read them due to format (DVD's can't be read by a CD laser) issues.
    2. The answer to two is Sony implemented copy protection on all games and the games must have a legitimate signature on them to be run, this was bypassed by hackers using mod-chips in the PS1/PS2.
    3. Halo 3 won't work on an old XboX, Halo 2 Will, but not 3, it requires the more advanced hardware of the XboX 360.

82.27.224.161 22:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4000 ps2s in Iraq?

Is that a joke? Or is it supposed to mean something. It if is true... why did Hussein buy 4000 ps2s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexFili (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


The graphics chip can process a crap-load of information at lightning-fast speeds, making it ideal for missile guidance systems. - netskye

[edit] Intro

per WP:LEAD I removed redundant information about Xbox, Dreamcast and Gamecube, those informations can be read just bellow at History section or fully detailed sixth generation era article. --Ciao 90 18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been some recent edit-warring over particular statements in the lead, and since most discussion of the issue has been fragmented across various talk pages (under what I can only assume to be a false assumption that they are personal "incidents", rather than topics for discussion among a wider community of editors), I want to help get the ball rolling on a centralized discussion here. The edit-warring dispute I was involved in was concerning whether the "120 million units" milestone was referring to end-consumer sales, or to production shipments (sales to retailers). The crux of the discussion seems to be the on the sources and reliability. Considering that this "sales or shipments" semantic issue is discussed frequently on console article talk pages (e.g. this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, a couple threads here, and this), in which a recurring theme is that regardless of the number or reputation of the sources, unless they are clear and explicit about the distinction, references to "sales" cannot be presumed to be end consumer sales.
As for some of the other statements, my issues are that the statements are mostly ambiguous weasel-wording. For example, which system is the "fastest selling" depends on the criteria one is using for measurement. If you count the months in which the PlayStation 2 was only available in select markets (which is fair game), both the Wii and Nintendo DS reached various sales milestones in less time. As for "most dominant", in terms of market share, the Nintendo Entertainment System can arguably be claimed as more dominant. "Commercially successful" is a bit harder to dispute, if only because it is even more ambiguous. As far as I can see, the only broad claim that could be reasonably asserted is that it is biggest-selling console, and even then only as a summary statement that would need to be addressed in more detail in the body. Dancter 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The weasel words in the lead should be removed. And on the "sales or shipments" issue, which source should be used, http://tgs.gamespot.com/story.html?sid=6178841 or http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/070920ae.html ? --Silver Edge 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
My choice would be the latter. The gaming press tends to flub the distinction a bit, but at least in its official press and investor materials, Sony is pretty reliable. For instance, in its press release, Sony clarifies it's 500K-unit PSP sales announcement as sell-in, rather than sell-through (http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/071004ae.html). (Note: As of the time I posted this, the Wikipedia article on sell-through wasn't accurate. A proper definition can be found in this MWJ article.) Dancter 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Fastest selling" comes from Sony press release and most sucessfull is obvious because was the only sold more than 100 million units. I just cleaned section again looks like User:JTBX disagree but avoid to discuss properly the lead section. I repeat that Dreamcast Xbox and Gamecube citations in lead is not necessary, details are provided bellow in History section. Avoid redundancy. --Ciao 90 10:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The source you provided (http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/051130e.pdf) does not state that the PS2 is the fastest selling console, instead it indicates the PS2 is the fastest shipping console. Stating: "most sucessfull is obvious because was the only sold more than 100 million units" is original research, and you contradict yourself by saying the PS2 is the only console to ship over 100 million units, when in the source you provided states that the PS1 also shipped over 100 million units. --Silver Edge 11:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep up the good work cleaning up the console articles. Dancter 16:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Using the 100 million units mark to determine that the PS2 is the fastest-selling console is unfair to many newer consoles that haven't been around as long as it took the PS2 to reach that mark. This includes the Xbox 360, PSP, Nintendo DS, PSP, and Wii; some of which have been claimed to sell faster according to shorter milestones, as I previously mentioned. Also, if you're using the same piece of information to support a "most commercially successful" claim that is being used to support being the highest-selling; it is redundant and unnecessary to mention alongside the more concrete statement. Dancter 16:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Question: WHO CARES which console sold the fastest? From what I've read, the Sega Dreamcast was also a very fast-selling console (selling close to 1/2 million in just the first month), but where is the Dreamcast now? DEAD. It's the long-term that matters, and in the long-term the Dreamcast sold only ~10 million units and almost drove Sega into bankruptcy. ----- So I repeat, WHO CARES which console sold fastest? It's a meaningless and unimportant statistic, and doesn't matter to long-term success. - 14:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
When placed in the proper context, particular trends in public reception such as high initial sales are worth noting in a console's history. Placing it in the lead is a bit harder to justify, as it tends to be placed there mostly to promote a certain impression of the subject. It's a bit strange to ask "who cares" when there has been edit-warring involving someone who seems to care quite a bit. Dancter 16:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect when you say PS2 was the only one to exceed 100 million units. - Theaveng 14:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
From the revision history: "17:34, 7 October 2007 JTBX (Talk | contribs) (44,819 bytes) (Undid revision 162655298 by Theaveng- You are wrong. It is the most dominant as most people have them and over 120 million sold. AND THERE IS a citation to back it up. Don't be so silly.) (undo)"
-----And again: "15:24, 9 October 2007 JTBX (Talk | contribs) (44,933 bytes) (undo)" (He inserted the same old nonsense, trying to push his fanboy love for the PS2.)
----- And so I issued this warning on his talk page, because he keeps trying to push his agenda, AGAINST the majority wishes of the group:
This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 October 2007
As a small note, Wikipedia works by consensus, which is distinct from a majority. Dancter 16:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat myself: "Unless they are clear and explicit about the distinction, references to 'sales' cannot be presumed to be end-consumer sales." Dancter 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

JTBX has changed the intro to state that the PlayStation 2 reached 120 million units in sales in October 2007, citing this GameSpot article. I had reverted the edit on grounds that the news reports were derived from an SCEA press release distributed shortly before, which if read carefully, does not support the precise claims made in many of the news articles. JTBX then reverted back, claiming that I had not read the source, when in fact I had, and was prompted to track down the aforementioned official source for the announcement, which I had. Even the Gamespot article makes no mention of when the alleged milestone was reached, nor specifies whether the sales correlate to sell-through, which is what most people think of when they hear the word "sales", but isn't always the case. Dancter 23:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] critisiom on the newer 70000 version???

I've heard bad things about the 70000 version becasue of the smaller design and no fan it has been none to over heat and break and their have also been rumors about the cord sparking and casuing fires?? ive heard about this and i want to know if anyone else has and if they have add an arcticle to it please.(im not a good arctile editor) Atvrider1919 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It has a fan, and I've never heard of it setting on fire. Must just be rumors. -- Vdub49 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to this. I guess your right it might just be rumors Atvrider1919 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a 70002 model, and it does overheat, but it does have a fan, just not a very good one. But i wrapped a blanket around mine and left it for an hour and it didn't overheat. I think when it gets hot the fan goes to high. I've had it 2 and a half years and it works fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GT4GTR (talk • contribs) 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I disagree with the merge, it's totally unnecessary. -- Vdub49 19:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just drawing attention to the proposal by Wafulz made several months ago on the Playstation 2 internal display clock page. Personally, I don't think it should be covered in its own article, and believe the link should redirect here, even if there is nothing worth merging. If you mean to say that article should remain, you may want to clarify that. Dancter 22:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I think a clock section isn't necessary in the PS2 article, however if the clock article is scaled down I will agree to merge it into the PS2 article. -- Vdub49 00:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with the merger--w_tanoto 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
DISAGREE All PlayStation products here, apart from PSOne and PocketStation, have their own system software articles. There is also an article on XrossMediaBar. So I think it's fair the PS2 gets one. Also, the article is long enough for one. Maybe there should be one for PSOne and PocketStation? JTBX 13:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
See WP:N and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While it is plausible that a multi-platform graphical user interface such as the XrossMediaBar or Cover Flow would have the sort of external coverage that would speak to its notability, this is a clock display for a single console, which is doubtful to have such coverage. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, with pages that merely describes things in comprehensive (read: excessive) detail, but an encyclopedia which places subjects in a general context. Not a single sentence in the article speaks to the subject's relevance to the PlayStation 2 platform, or even the OS in general. Dancter 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Ciao 90 is outright refusing the merge proposal, I have opened an AfD discussion for the aforementioned article. Everyone is welcome to comment there. I thank everyone who took the effort to discuss the issue here. Dancter 19:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: the result of the discussion was "delete", but I have elected to post a rough copy of the text to Encyclopedia Gamia. Dancter 03:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "most successful" phrase

so I'm just going to try to resolve things here and suggest we take a vote on what to say. Instead of arguing and threating and all that, so I vote that we put the "most successful" phrase in. (KEEP) -- Vdub49 20:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

From the page I linked to above: "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'." Voting tends to draw the discourse away from from this framework. Wikipedia is not a democracy. As contentious at it may be sometimes, reasoned discussion is the best way establish the sort of consensus called for when there is a difference of opinion. See WP:POLLS for more information. Dancter 20:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If the "most successful" phrase were to be used, what would be the source? --Silver Edge 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you could find plenty of sources that say it, but considering how sensationalist most of them probably are, I really want to shift things away from the notion that simply finding a source for a claim is enough to warrant its inclusion in the article. Dancter 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well said Dancter. - Theaveng 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that wikipedia isn't a democracy however when I see,..... "PlayStation 2‎; 12:13 . . (-19) . . Theaveng (Talk | contribs) (The phrase "most successful" has no meaning. It has no citation. STOP TRYING TO PUSH YOUR FANBOY AGENDA. I already gave you a warning. Do this again, and I report you for vandalism.)" On my watch page it seemed apparent that there was an argument/disagreement, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy "Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." I know I didn't say it but what I meant by "vote" is to have a disscustion/vote not just a blind vote, don't assume someone is a fanboy or has an agenda. How about "...arguably the most successful..." -- Vdub49 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The actions of a few aggressive editors does not mean the discussion is failing. Given the variety of people who edit Wikipedia, some edit-warring can still be expected in even when the discussion is fruitful, and even if a clear consensus already exists. That's where policies such as WP:3RR come in. For whatever reason, the user Theaveng was edit-warring with was not truly participating in the discussion, so it can't really be said that the discussion was failing to establish a practical consensus based on their behavior.
Regarding your vote proposal, from what I observed, the vote you were starting was set up to encourage editors to comment based on what they prefer, rather than what is best for the article as established by the content policies. While you say you meant to have both voting and discussion, you started off with a straight (KEEP), providing no rationale behind your vote, thus setting the example for others to do likewise.
With respect to my previous comments, perhaps where I was referring to weasel-wording, the concept I meant to convey was of peacock terms. But adding "arguably" in front the phrase is definitely weasel-wording. Dancter 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not intend nor insinuate that the discussion was failing. I did not start straight off with (KEEP), I ended with (KEEP). I'm not trying argue, I'm just going to state a fact [115 million units worldwide were sold] in most peoples eyes that is successful, therefor I vote to put "most successful" in. -- Vdub49 00:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason I object to "most successful console" is because (1) its sounds like a marketing brochure, not an encyclopedia. (2) It has no citation to backup the claim. (3) I know many people who would argue that the ATARI 2600 and NES were the "most successful" consoles ever to exist. Why Atari? Because it brought the Arcade to people's living rooms, sold 30 million units (a lot considering its market was only ~200 million, not ~1000 million like today's market), and also became a part of the culture with jokes such as "Atari is the 3rd most-popular TV network". ----- Why NES? Because it controlled over 80% of the market... no other console has ever done that. None. ----- Thus "most successful" is not factual, but mostly opinion, and can be applied to multiple consoles, not just one. - Theaveng 11:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Theaveng, were's your citation regarding the atari's sales? And if that 30 million figure is true, that still leaves the PS2 has 70+ million consoles over the atari. -- Vdub49 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were just discussing. I didn't think I needed to go bust my balls trying to find a citation for an informal discussion between colleagues. Jeez. I have citations; I just need to dig them up from my archives. Anyway.......... "Most sold" and "most successful" are not the same thing. That's my point. Yes, the PS2 had more units sold, but the Atari & NES also had smaller markets. The PS2 only dominated 66% of its market, while the Atari 2600 and Nintendo ES both dominated 85% of their markets. Thus I argue that the PS2 is "most sold" but NOT the most-successful; that crown goes to the Atari and the Nintendo, respectively. - Theaveng 18:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Theaveng, I understand the point you are trying to make with your recent edits, but I'm not too keen on having the lead section cluttered with even more unnecessary material. Plus, the citations don't actually verify the statements. The NES citation makes no claim of market share. My intentions were to remove nebulous claims from the lead, not counter them with more nebulous claims. Dancter 19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're serious about that seemingly captious semantic criticism of my use of the phrase "started off", we have a communication problem, as you missed the gist of that statement, which was that there was essentially no other substance to your initial post. My main points were that a vote is a bad idea at this point, and that "most successful" is a peacock term. If you are not saying that the discussion was failing, then the rationale for resorting to a vote is even thinner, as I see it. Perhaps you didn't read the existing discussion when you originally posted? My assumption was that you had. Success can be measured in different ways; as opposed to the term "best-selling", "commercially successful" is a more nebulous term not necessarily determined by straight console sales numbers. Considering that the PS2 was a loss leader for many of those 120 million units, that figure alone is insufficient to support the claim. Dancter 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Theaveng you have advocated not to use the "most successful" phrase in this article saying that "its sounds like a marketing brochure, not an encyclopedia." and "...Thus "most successful" is not factual, but mostly opinion, and can be applied to multiple consoles, not just one." But yet you have recently edited, and skimmed over this "most successful" to read "...although experts still maintain (*note you changed "many experts argue" to just "maintain"*) the Nintendo Entertainment System was the most-successful console overall, thanks to its 85% dominance of the market..." You have gone so far as to have someone blocked for putting up the phrase for the PS2 however the Nintendo seems to be an exception. My question is why not practice what you preach and take out any and all "most successful" phrases? -- Vdub49 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"...although experts still maintain the Nintendo Entertainment System was the most-successful console overall, thanks to its 85% dominance of the market. [4] For comparison, the PS2 captured 66% of its 6th-generation market (120 out of approximately 180 million consoles sold)."
This should be removed as it seems to be original research, especially since the source provided only states the NES sold over 60 million units and it has nothing about "experts still maintain" or the percentages. --Silver Edge 02:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I know. I did that on purpose. Sometimes you gotta hit some people (cough JTBX) over the head to make them "wake up" and think. Perhaps it wasn't the best method, but I was extremely angry at the time. - Theaveng 20:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Uhhhh....What? Fanboyism ofcourse, though I have added citations, you kept removing them and added this in without a citation. Though I really don't want to say it, Hypocritical Ignorant. There. Vdub49 Seems to understand. And before Silver Edge got rid of the same phrase because a specific citation did not have it and he wrote please state your source so I did, only to have Theangry come and take it all away. Also, as I have already pointed out, many articles have a similar phrase such as biographies and successful corporations, etc and I only added it to show that it is a successful product and felt it needed to be included. JTBX 13:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a Nintendo or Microsoft fanboy. I'm not trying to push an agenda, as you seem to be trying to do, in violation of wikipedia's Peacock rules. - Theaveng 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information. Such terms do not help establish the importance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section. Let the facts speak for themselves. If the ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it will come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters the writing and adds nothing. - from WP:PEACOCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] redundant phrase

Hi all,

wrt the phrase at the beginning

Its development was announced in March 1999, and it was released subsequently after a year in Japan.

The part "and it was released subsequently after a year in Japan" is a bit of a tautology (hate that word!). It is also unclear on exactly what the timing references - "after a year in Japan". After a year of what? Is a year in Japan different to a year elsewhere? If it is a year after the date that "development was announced" then the phrase should be something like "and it was released in Japan a year later" or "and it was released a year later in Japan". So the whole thing reads

"Its development was announced in March 1999, and it was released a year later in Japan".

Thoughts? Iaindb 05:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Change it to "Announced March 1999, and released in Japan in 2000." Eliminate the ambiguity. ----- P.S. As a rule of thumb, I like to pretend my readers are like ten-year-olds, intelligent but ignorant about this particular subject, so I spell everything out explicitly. - Theaveng 11:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm reporting JTBX for vandalism

- I have put warning on his page, and he just keeps erasing them. - In addition, he keeps trying to add "most successful console" WITHOUT any citations. - .... plus even though he's been warned not to do that.

I've had enough of his refusing to listen. I'm reporting him for vandalism. - Theaveng 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

CHEER! From User_talk:JTBX'S page: "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts and violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs) 18:28, 11 October 2007
Please don't call it vandalism. Though blockable offense in its own right, disruptive edit-warring is its own thing. This was a difference of opinion; vandalism should only refer to actions with malicious intent. In addition, editing while not signed in is not automatically sockpuppetry, especially when the registered account wasn't blocked at the time, and the user does not appear to be trying to masquerade as someone else. Dancter 19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to respectfully object to this block, I do not believe that the user's action called for a 48 hour block. Please see my comment above in the "most successful" section -- Vdub49 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
When people are trying to disrupt a newsgroup, a forum, or a website, they deserve a slap on the wrist. That's what a temporary ban is. JTBX will be back tomorrow, hopefully having learned his lesson not to be so Obstinate & going against the Consensus. (Jeez; sounds like something from Star Trek Voyager. "And consensus says...") Hopefully he'll listen to the other editors to NOT add "successful console" without citation. - Theaveng 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
AS stated before, I added a lot of citations, but you have been removing them. So I changed the phrase to 'one of the most successful' but you removed that too. I just don't understand why you would place 'Nintendo has a market share of 85%' that 'experts' have argued though the citation provided did not state anything about this. Also you added the PS2 had 66% share without any citation. You have a problem against seeing this sentence, admit it. You are the real fanboy, and trying to assert your opinion across by removing this sentence, one WITH a citation. And yes, Dancter is correct, I wasn't masquerading, I was auto singed out at the time. Something to do with web page memory cache. JTBX 13:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Most of those citations were not that good. Using phrases such as "one of" sidesteps the real problems of peacock terms (see WP:PEACOCK#Don't hide the important facts), which shouldn't really be used when concrete and objective claims are possible to use. Despite Theaveng's inadequate referencing, the NES did have a larger market share in its time than PS2 ever did, and is a valid metric for commercial success. While still inappropriate (see WP:POINT), the statements were added in an attempt to communicate the points made in discussions here, which at that point seemed to be willfully ignored by you. Please refrain from name-calling, as it is not in keeping with policy on civility, and distracts from the substance of a debate. I'm not conceding any arguments, but given that this dispute has become somewhat trivial, and I would rather focus my editing energies on more fruitful endeavors, I am willing to accept the current compromise statement for now. Dancter 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I was accused of being a Nintendo fanboy. That's funny because right now I don't even own a Nintendo console (my Gamecube was sold because I thought the games were too easy). Or anything made by Mickeysoft. What I am is a classic gamer with thirty years of experience, and that gives me perspective which many of today's younger gamers seem to lack. Atari 2600, NES, SNES/Genesis, PS1.... they all were the best of their respective eras, and it's not fair to those other consoles to ignore what they contributed to today's hobby. They were the foundation, and the PS2 would be nothing without them. To call the PS2 "most successful" is a disgrace to the programmers, artists, and companies from the past generations, as if they do not matter.
The FACT that the PS2 sold 120 million units in only ~5 years time is enough. LET THE READERS DRAW their own conclusions; don't force-feed them with your own. (Almost a direct quote from Wikipedia's "peacocking" page.) - Theaveng 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
A Console that sold more than 100 million units is the most sucessfull until another console get this. This is a FACT, by simply compare and check numbers. --Ciao 90 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
^ Ciao's comment. Exactly I agree. Anyway I find it amusing that you are 30 and I am 13. And you always seem to contradict yourself. Above, 'WHO CARES ABOTU SALES!' etc.


Pure numbers alone is not the only measure of "success". One must take into account other factors such as (a) the Atari 2600 and Nintendo ES dominated with 85% of total video consoles sold, while PS2 only had ~66% (with Xbox/Cube taking the rest). (b) There were 2 billion fewer humans back in the 80s, thus limiting how many units either Atari or Nintendo could sell. Smaller population == fewer opportunities for sale; a factor pure sales numbers do not reveal. (c) The fact that Atari gave birth to a brand-new hobby for home entertainment (1977) and Nintendo resurrected the hobby from the dead (the 1983-84 crash) is also a reason why they deserve "most successful", not PS2, because the atari and nes succeeded even though most "experts" predicted gaming was just a fad & they would fail. POINT: There's more to the word "success" then dreamt of in your limited philosophy. - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If we just consider gaming; Playstation has done alot of great things. For starters, do you really think that Final Fantasy 7 would have been anywhere near as good, if it ended up on the N64 (where it was originally headed, before Nintendo opted for cartridges)? It would not have been anywhere near as long, nor would it have been as cinematic, and basically, would not have been the masterpiece that we all know and love (and what most of us consider to be the pinnacle of the entire series). We have Resident Evil. The game was only given the go-ahead, because Capcom new that the Playstation's userbase were generally older, and on it there was a market for stronger, more mature material. Not that it never would have happened, but it wouldn't have happened the way it did without the Playstation, and it wouldn't be the game it is today. JTBX 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. PS2 is my favorite console (for now). That still does not mean I think it should be labeled "most successful". (See comments above.) Best-selling, yes, but not most-successful. ----- Also: Most Final Fantasy fans consider FF6 to be the best, not FF7. (See various polls.) If you've not played FF6, do so now because it's the better game. ----- And Resident Evil is not the first survival horror game; that was "Haunted House" on the Atari, plus several similar games released on Commodore, Nintendo, CD32, and IBM-compliant PCs. Don't hold-up RE as some grand-new idea, because it isn't. The RE-style genre existed long before PS1 came along. ----- - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Playstation is responsible for getting gaming out of the nerd fraternity, and into the mainstream. While this is certainly a double-edged sword, there certainly wouldn't be the market for multi-million dollar gaming epics, without what Sony's Playstation did to the industry. Not the booming market we have today, at least. Look at Gran Turismo, it was placed in bars and clubs so it would help push gaming further. JTBX 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Into the mainstream" is a well-worn urban legend that many people like to repeat (along with "Betamax had a better picture" and "porn helped VHS win"), but NONE of these supposed claims are backed by any kind of citations or proof. The previous consoles Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis both sold (combined) ~150 million units, comparable to how many PS1s/N64s were sold overall. I don't see any "explosive growth" as often is claimed. The market size was 150-160 million units for both the 16 bit and 32 bit generations. - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that the games industry is galactic in scale, more money is put into developing games. While sure, alot of crap has come of it, do you really think anyone, let alone SEGA, could have afforded to make Shenmue? Or what about Resident Evil 4? It's not like little gaming masterpieces have been stamped out. PS2 has helped elevate gaming and sold a crazy amount of units, and this all I want to sum up. But you don't read and accuse a news site for a blog? And does it mean all the news sites we use are not 'experts'? I don't want to be involved anymore, do with the article what you want [deleted]. JTBX 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't reveal my real name on the public forum. That's extremely, extremely rude, and I'm sure it violates some rule somewhere. I've deleted it. - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppetry

Theaveng, just to clarify for me, are you saying that user Ciao90 is a sockpuppet of user JTBX when you commented, "Restored introduction to where it was before JTBX's sockpuppet Ciao90 ruined it. ALSO reading Ciao's talk page -- it appears he needs to be reported."  ? -- Vdub49 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That was inappropriate, and not assuming good faith. There is no reasonable basis for suspecting Ciao 90 is a sockpuppet of JTBX, and it seems the accusation was based solely on the fact that both disagreed with Theaveng and reverted his edits. In fact, the Ciao 90 has been critical of JTBX in other comments, which is evidence against sockpuppetry. When communication breaks down, civility is even more crucial. Dancter 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is getting out of hand, the user JTBX said he didn't want to be involved with this anymore, I can't help but to look at this and think he's being provoked to get back into a discussion. -- Vdub49 20:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I should have said "suspected sock puppet" since I don't know for sure. ----- At what point do we stop "assuming good faith"? Put another way, how many times should we allow a user to knowingly conduct "disruptive editing" before we say "enough is enough". (For the record, I think JTBX passed that point many days ago.) - Theaveng 01:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether you say "suspected" or not, sockpuppetry is a serious charge, and due diligence is expected of any user who makes such an accusation. From the guideline: "If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack." Perhaps this is a matter of experience, but to me, even a cursory examination of the contributions histories shows that the sockpuppetry claims do not pass muster. Dancter 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That said, it's a shame they both share an apparent unwillingness to engage the finer points of the debate. What I should have done in the first place was request temporary full protection on the article. Vdub49 is probably the only one in this debate who hasn't done any aggressive edit-warring. Dancter 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I repeat my question since nobody answered it: At what point do we stop "assuming good faith"? Put another way, how many times should we allow a user to knowingly conduct "disruptive editing" before we say "enough is enough"? - Theaveng 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If you think there is sockpuppetry going on then have the courage of your convictions and make a sockpuppet report then see what the results are. Fnagaton 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Still didn't answer my question about how to deal with Disruptive editors. - Theaveng 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The "assume good faith" guideline describes things well enough, which is why I wasn't particularly motivated to respond. JTBX's account is a little over a month old, and the user could still reasonably be considered a "newcomer". Despite the difficult behavior, the evidence for the malicious intent associated with vandalism and sock puppetry has not been shown. While I tried to convey this in a previous comment, I'm going to quote directly this time: "It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent." Even the three-revert rule allows for blocks in clear cases of disruptive low-level edit-warring that don't reach three reverts in 24 hours. Dancter 20:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.  :-) - Theaveng 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I did answer your question, my answer is above. It means that you should let the community decide by opening a sockpuppet report. If the community decides there is a case for sockpuppetry then action will be taken. If the community decides there isn't then you're going to have to reevaluate your position. Fnagaton 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
My question wasn't about sockpuppets. It was about disruptive editors. - Theaveng 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong because here, here and here you specifically mention sockpuppetry and you think the editor is being a vandal hence disruptive, so in this specific case and in your question you equate "disruptive behaviour" and vandalism with sockpuppetry. Therefore me mentioning sockpuppetry in my answer is specifically answering your question. Fnagaton 09:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protect

I suggest we ask for a semi-protection on this page due to vandalism in the last few days. -- Vdub49 23:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, someone swapped the PS2 on the main page with an SNES console - I just spotted/fixed this.... it was a little bit odd, to say the least LudBob 05:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't think it's that bad, but feel free to request it yourself if you disagree. Dancter 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not that bad now but a few days ago it was very annoying, once you reverted their vandalism they would revert your revert and about two or three people did this. Unless they resume this I don't think that I'll ask for it. -- Vdub49 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do I ask for semi-protection again? -- Vdub49 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. I am not sure there is enough activity for protection, though. -- ReyBrujo 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

it appears its some "anon" vandalising the place, 168.212.119.120 is their IP, enjoys spamming up the place with Paul and Tony's mum, from his contribs, looks like a lot to the PS2 page, plus others, can this guy be banned? Dar-zero (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Gen

Someone whom has a better knowledge should probably add info on the 3rd gen version of the console detailed here. However why they have released this a year after the PS3 release god only knows! 82.27.224.161 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production Run on PS2

When are games for the Ps2 expected to stop selling? HIYO (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PSone had releases in 2004, so expect 2011 or more. --Ciao 90 (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I'm removing the template Refimprove, any objections? --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capabillities

What is this about? "Ps2 components can guide ballistic missiles" what does that have to do with anything?? It seems irrelevant to me.71.127.88.164 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gran Turismo Top Selling Game?

I am confused here... who put Gran Turismo as the top selling PS2 game at 14 million units? It has been confirmed that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has sold 20 million alone as of September 26, 2007. I think someone needs to change this. Damien Russell (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not confirmed. The webcast does say that " “Grand Theft Auto III launched in 2001 and sold over 12 million units. We then shipped another sequel in 2002 which sold over 15 million units, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. And then in 2004 we shipped Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which sold a remarkable 20 million units ... the entire franchise has sold over 65 million units..." It never specifies that the sales for San Andreas is PS2 only, it can include the Windows and the Xbox versions as well. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay.. but then wouldnt it make it around 45 million just on the PS consoles and the rest on the PC and Xbox? I mean that would make perfect sense since not all games were ported to the Xbox and the two together would account for around 20 million? i dunno.. just seems odd to me.. it's one of the most popular games of all time afterall. Damien Russell (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You have to keep in mind that the "65 million units" sold for the franchise most likely includes the sales of GTA1, GTA2, the GTA games on the PSP, etc. --Silver Edge (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Price history of Spain

Why isn't there?

I know that the very first price was 74500 Pts (but I'm not sure), what I don't understand is the fact that there's no price history about Spain.

Sorry if I have committed a mistake

HenryMax (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What are the colours of the PlayStation 2?

What are the colours of the PlayStation 2?

Black Blue Red Yellow Pink Green Silver Orange Purple Brown Grey White —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australiaaz (talk • contribs) 08:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also will be released in Japan only as red [1] Limited time only, I believe Adonai-aus- (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a small thing on specs

On the xbox page the mod went ahead and put up need citation. Howhever the GC page is wise enough not to put this up.

What those numbers are is basic math fact (talking of T&L), they go by rules and equal similar numbers.

GC I found to be about 6.2M/sec with all lights/effects(texture)/motions/3 bones (bone per triangle) using this formula.

Nintendo goes by 6-12 and state 6 is the rounding of with everything tops. So I trust this leads to about the same numbers inreality Xbox and PS2 can do.

I dissbeleive the raster Triangles as the real ones as this is not 2d transform, now the numbers are factored by the T&L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobtheVila (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a small thing on Wikipedia. Cite sources. If you have any questions, see this page:Wikipedia:Citing sources. Whoever put the "need citation" tag on the Technical specifications section for the xbox was right. That section does not cite any sources at all.----Asher196 (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

They do not have a source because their telling is limited to raw and they do not care like sony and nintendo. Journalist are liers and make people not able to trust to a medium simple math and I guess this is where this is coming form, xbox can't do more then 30M raster triangles, the VS may boost the geometry engine triangle BTW. Z buffer adding polys, also PCvsConsole is bull to.

Experts would agree, as they tell similar numbers(15-20M, 6-12M, 10-30M). I will only make it less exact as i'm not sure on some of this.BobtheVila —Preceding comment was added at 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Optical audio

I see no details outlining the playstation 2's use of digital optical audio. Why is this? Faucett (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PS2 still selling for a loss?

anyone can answer? might be added to the article Kamuixtv (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] PSP and Wii Ports

Hi, would it be a good idea to comment on the fact that the PS2 has a life-support system of PSP and Wii ports and an example of each? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthall1991 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The History Section

We have to fix the history section. It seems like wrong and exaggerated facts. Also there isnt much history of the PS2 before the launch of it. Tut74749 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection Required

Hi I have noticed a lot of vandelism on the PS2 pages like the fact that the PS2 has shipped 120 million units as of September 210 2009, Which I fixed so I am asking for semi protection for the page thanks Anthall1991 (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] price history

Is the price history section necessary? It seems excessive and is currently unverified. None of the other consoles have a huge table like this. 129.120.159.176 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, what you say is true. However, I think we should try and dig up some refs before we just go out and remove the section. Anybody else? RC-0722 247.5/1 02:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed it. It was ridiculously large and I don't feel it was encyclopedic.Asher196 (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Few Q's about PS2

1. How can I know what revision of PS2 I buy when I do so. Is it written there somewhere? 2. Downloaded PS1 games would work on PS2? Or only licenced? (Not that I'm thief, it's just they are hard to find) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.234.163 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "CDI am a retard and a loser" Vandalism

I changed this page back to a normal state but i would like to say that it was vandalised with CDI am a retard and a loser. can someone suggest this for a semi protection thing please

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxrules1337 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)