This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Psx-5100.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I'm adding it here instead of the userpage since the uploader is gone. Wizardman 01:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Broken external link
The official help & support site link is broken as the URL erroneously contains a pipe at the end. --71.37.30.250 01:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed HeavyD14 04:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Holiday season
there is a few mentions in this article to the "holiday season". I believe this is a North American phrase, could we perhaps change the first use of it in this article to specify this means the "Christmas/winter holiday season", which is what it is referred to on its own Wikipedia page, just to make it a little more clear. For example in the UK (where I am) "holiday season" would not immediately be interpreted as being the “late November to early January period“. any objections? Benson85 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
When will they stop making PS2's and PS2 games? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.81.149 (talk) 02:38:53, August 18, 2007 (UTC)
When they stop being profitable, i'd imagine. HeavyD14 02:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Freezing
helo i have a problemb every time i logg on with socom ca i enter a ranked room and my game freezes and locks up i herd it could be the router .can someone help me on how to solv this problemb? --75.89.191.36 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Call tech support or visit [1]Vdub49 04:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Will my British video games and British PS2 console work in America?
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)
Too advanced for the older model
How come a PS2/3 game can't play on PS1?
how come only Origonal (not copied by a guy who owns an origonal) PS1s play on PS2.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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".
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)
