Talk:PlayStation 2

'Release date' broken, displaying wrong date
The 'Release date' function of the information sidebar is broken, it's saying the PS2 was released 'January1,1990'/'26 years ago'. This is obviously not the case. I'm only a wee new Wikipedia boy so I'm not sure how the function used for getting elapsed time from a given date works so I wasn't able to fix it.

I know a couple of programming languages, and the basics of JavaScript (but I could probably just look at an example and figure it out), so if someone points me in the direction of a tutorial on how the Wikipedia functions work I don't mind fixing the problem. Or someone could just fix it themselves if that'd be easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nornironhax (talk • contribs) 10:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I reverted an edit from an IP user, . In other words, the date is corrected as "March 4, 2000". I don't think the sidebar is broken, it's just vandalism done by an IP user. //  Hounder4  // 11:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Online Functionality Section
Hello everyone, I was having a discussion with another user named Ferret after I edited this section. This was some of the discussion, ''Ferret: How in the world does one unreliable source mean more are ok? Removed the entire section as its unsourced and no source supports it that I can find.

Me: I guess my point was that both playstation2.onlineconsoles.com and ps2onlinegaming.com are in the same "tier of reliability" and that I thought it was the standards for the page that would allow them both, not that they were both unreliable. I just wanted to help put the accurate information in the section. I did not know about this talk page until just now, and I'm glad I do because I wanted to have a page to discuss without repeatedly undoing each others' edits.

I own and use my PS2 online, it is still functional but I am not sure what you would deem an acceptable source of this information. Would a YouTube video proving it be acceptable? Does a certain news article have to cover it? What determines what is acceptable? I am sure there's probably a guideline, but I see pages on wikipedia with varying degrees of references. There are other pages on Wikipedia that reference ps2onlinegaming.com, should those references not exist? What about pages for individual games that currently have explanations for their workarounds? Is that a more acceptable place for this information?

Not intending to be a jerk, just want to get the information out there, and learn about some things on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.204.60 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ferret: This should be discussed at the article talk page, Talk:PlayStation 2. There isn't a such thing as an article with a lower standard for reliability on Wikipedia. The core policy is at WP:V and WP:RS. User submitted reviews and sources, etc, are inherently considered unreliable, see WP:USERG. It's possible unreliable sources have been added to articles but not noticed, but when challenged they are likely to be removed. -- ferret (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)''

-- Basically the section stated previously that online functionality for all games was stopped on March 31st, 2016. This however was not the case. This was a rumor based on the fact that Sony would be shutting down the DNAS servers for Final Fantasy 11. This lead to articles being writing that all games would stop working once this happened. However, many games did not experience issues until April 4th, 2016, and some other games still work even after both of these dates. The cited source for this was playstation2.onlineconsoles.com, but this site made no mention of the date specifically.

I own a PS2, and online still does work for the games I own. However I understand that this is probably considered "original research" so we cannot use it. I also know of many internet forums where this fact has been discussed like ps2onlinegaming.com as one example. However after reading the guidelines that Ferret linked to me, it seems that, via wikipedia's guidelines, it seems that all internet forums are sweepingly deemed questionable sources. How can we make it so this section of the article contains the true information, but also make it verifiable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.25.254 (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I accidentally double posted, my b.

EDIT : I found this: "An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online. In cases where self-published material has been published by a professional researcher or other expert in the field, a source published in one of these media may be considered reliable in some cases." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.25.254 (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt to find a source that made any specific claims to "all servers being shutdown" and I could not locate anything. The two things I most often found were when several years ago, EA shutdown most of their games, and of course, the fact that March 31, 2016 was the end for Final Fantasy. Since it appears that there are some games still working, (I.e. there is nothing to say they are shutdown), I don't think this article needs any mention of it. For example, the article for Final Fantasy 11 would be the appropriate place to document that the servers are closed. In the case of a game where online services still work, there's nothing to say really. -- ferret (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you have said. If there is not reliable source that all games are offline, then it should not be included yet. There is no reason to point it out at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.204.60 (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on PlayStation 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/110214_e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110322001816/http://asia.gamespot.com/news/6298857.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop%3Bstory%3B17 to http://asia.gamespot.com/news/6298857.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop%3Bstory%3B17
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february04/ps2timeline/index2.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february04/PS2timeline/index2.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february04/PS2timeline/index3.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february04/PS2timeline/index2.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721205038/http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/rpg/finalfantasy11/review.html to http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/rpg/finalfantasy11/review.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/090819b_e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a sentence, unintelligible
History has: "After an apparent manufacturing issue – Sony reportedly underestimated demand – caused some initial slowdown in producing the new unit caused in part by shortages between the time the old units were cleared out and the new units were ready."

What is this supposed to tell us? It's not a sentence. I tried to copyedit it, but couldn't work it out. It sounds like Sony underestimated demand and this lead to shortages. But this is not what it says: it says the shortages were causing the manufacturing issues rather than the other way around? This could be if the shortages refer not to the Playstation, but to components in it. But then the bit in the same sentence about old units clearing out makes no sense, as this is clearly about a shortage of the Playstation itself and not components used in it. Also, an underestimation of demand would not lead to a slowdown in production. Production would still be as quick as estimated, but the estimation of the demand would be wrong. In short, I can't make head or tail of it. And since I know next to nothing of it, I'm just noting it here. Digital Brains (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

PS2 Source for Best-Selling Game is Broken
It's redirecting to a kid's book now, instead of the Guinness World Records book. I cannot seem to find a copy of "Guinness World Records 2009 - Gamers Edition" almost anywhere online, except for a sample of it on Amazon. I've found the page where the information is actually there, but it's an entirely different URL than what the citation said it'd be. What happened? According to the citation, it should be on pages 108-109, which is the only correct part of the citation. But part of me is 100% sure that "Dino Babies", the book the URL links to, does not have the info to how many copies GTA San Andreas sold. The Amazon page is here. You'll have to get lucky with the "surprise me" function (click on 'look inside', to see it), in order to find the correct page. Not sure if I can even use the Amazon page as a citation, either way... (PS. Edited this area to correct wording, as I worded part of it kinda funny) Zekester1191 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Setting the 'lifespan' dates in stone, or atleast attempting to
I've done some digging around for proper-ish sources for the actual end of the PS2's life. The following links here point to 2013. I have yet to find anything suggesting another year, but hey, that's why I'm posting this here lol. That and I don't know how good Amazon is as a source, even if it shows the release date in full.

Zekester1191 (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020
62.201.219.26 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2020
Just a correction: the last NTSC-U game for the PS2 was FIFA 14, not 13 (which was released in 2012, by the way). 200.217.197.67 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The FIFA 14 article says that it was not released on the PlayStation 2 outside of PAL regions, backed by reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2020
74.138.202.245 (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 00:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Linking in infobox
Hi everyone,

I noticed that the value of the parameter Predecessor in the infobox wasn't linked before and I linked it. Some contributors believe that the linking is unnecessary since the exact same value was linked a bit earlier in the infobox. Furthermore, this issue has history on this article. I looked at the previous 150 edits (which is almost a years worth of edits on this article) and noticed that the edits regarding this question didn't mention the MOS:REPEATLINK rule. I don't think that the current version of the article is in line with that rule. I strongly believe that most people who visit Wikipedia are doing that to find specific information and not to read the entire article. This edit, which I'm suggesting, would simplify things on their end and be in according to the beforehand mentioned rule. I can say for myself that I frequently visit Wikipedia to find specific information and linking like this would help me. LukeA1 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a misreading of MOS:REPEATLINK. MOS:REPEATLINK is referring to it being ok to link an article in say, both the lead and the infobox. That's the "repeat". It is not referring to repeating the link multiple times within the infobox by itself. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I never looked at it that way. Just checked some other credible articles on Wikipedia and in fact they only link once in the infobox. Maybe the rule should be a bit better defined to stop people from coming to the wrong conclusion. Thanks again :) LukeA1 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Selling over 980,000 units in Japan by March 5, 2000. That is not a fact.
According to the SIE official announcement, 600,000 units were sold at retail. SIE has received orders for 380,000 units on SIE website. However, most of them are not shipped and number of shipped units is unknown. Therefore, the source is clear for 600,000 units.

Reference: https://www.sie.com/content/dam/corporate/jp/corporate/release/pdf/000306.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by つきみんく (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Fifa 14 is the last NTSC-U/C release
As a previous poster noted, FIFA 14 is the last official release for the PS2's NTSC-U/C region. However, it seems to not have been released in the United States or Canada, instead only in Spanish speaking regions. Seemingly as a result, there are few to no large publications talking about this exact release on the internet. There are many pictures, videos, sales pages, and I even own a copy, but none of those are good sources. The only suitable source available is the ESRB page. Is this enough to support updating the final North American PS2 game from FIFA 13 to FIFA 14?

Carl177 (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No. The current sentence is that FIFA 13 was the last North American release. NTSC-U/C covers South America as well as North America. FIFA 14's own article states it was only released in South America, with source. So yes, the game was NTSC-U/C, but no, it was not released in North America. -- ferret (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! While the NTSC-U/C release was released in South America, it also seems to have been released in Mexico as well. The cover athlete for South America was a different one than for Mexico. North America uniquely got Javier Hernández along side Lionel Messi, while Chile, Central America, and parts of South America got Arturo Vidal on theirs. The version with Javier on the cover can be seen on many PS2 copies, meaning that FIFA 14 on the PS2 must have gotten a North American release. Also the source on the FIFA 14 page for the statement, "The PlayStation 2 version is only available in South America, Europe and Australasia.[24]" only has one relevant quote, "Not for US Release," (under section About This Game, subsection Game Editions) which does not refute other North American releases, such as a Mexican release.  Carl177 (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately what we need is a reliable source for the Mexican release. The preservegames site may not be suitable. Surely some Mexico or Spanish based site covered the release at the time? -- ferret (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A quick look over at eswiki didn't turn up anything useful at a glance. -- ferret (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right, it is definitely very hard to find to find a good article to legitimize this exact release. No publications seemed to have used the PS2 Mexico release of FIFA 14 for an image in their articles. The closest I found is a ESPN Deportes article that lists its location as Mexico and discuses how Javier will appear on the cover of FIFA 14 for Mexico, and lists the variety of formats he will appear on the cover for including PS2. I think that this is proof enough that FIFA 14 released on PS2 in Mexico. Carl177 (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, EPSN is more than reliable. Both articles will need updated. -- ferret (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Cost to develop
According to this

From the source "Another reason why military systems are expensive is the low-quantity orders, he said. The popular Sony PlayStation 2—a joint venture of Sony and Toshiba—cost $100 million to develop, said Oyler."

Can this be included? Magazine is National Defense Magazine Timur9008 (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Timur9008 hello you good 81.106.19.78 (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Playstation War in the Congo
Where's the "Controversy" page that discusses how the sale of this console was largely responsible for fueling a decades-old war in the Congo ? MossyRoots (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Because that story is widely seen as a false narrative, only pushed by a single organization. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

PS2 Sales Figures
''Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE) President and CEO Jim Ryan has confirmed that PlayStation 2 sales reached a staggering 160 million units sold worldwide. The soon-to-be-retired gaming boss offered an updated figure during a chat on a recent episode of the Official PlayStation Podcast. The conversation saw him covering his time at Sony while talking about the company’s direction for the future.'' https://www.ign.com/articles/playstation-boss-jim-ryan-reveals-ps2-sold-160-million-units-worldwide

Both the platform and the speaker are official Sony voices. This is a first-hand source yet such edits to update the sales figure from 155 to 160 are being removed rn. Why? "And? Sony publishes a different figure" is wrong, as Sony itself is publishing this info today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1F:8701:4001:A06A:D27B:8F93:E9AE (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The first and primary reason it's being reverted is that no source was provided. The second is that Jim contradicts Sony's own published figures. Probably the best we'll do is add a "Jim Ryan claimed..." -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, at the very least it should be mentioned in PS2's sales section of its article, but it cannot be consider as an official sales update until there's any actual updates from Sony themselves. Sponge123 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To centralize discussion, please note concurrent discussion at Talk:List_of_best-selling_game_consoles. -- ferret (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)