Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive 17

Reception
I think the reception part of this article only shows 1 side of the story, at the time I seem to remember a significant number of negative reviews regarding the PS3, articles pointing to the fact that even just after launch PS3's were easily available in stores, when compared to the Xbox and Wii launch, where neither system was readily available for months, and it is debatable that the Wii still isn't available. Also the launch party in Paris turned into a bit of a Shambles, and I think most of the attention was drawn to Microsoft with their party crashing stunts. StevenAFC
 * Well, that is not the case in Europe, where, in Great Britain, some one hundred and sixty-five thousand were sold in, what, two days. More than the Wii and the Xbox 360 did in that same period. Also, speaking of sales, has anyone any new offical sales results for the Playstation 3 in Europe. The sales section of the article has sales reported a mere four days after launch.Michael Mad 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be doing fine in Britain, but not in US or Japan or even Europe in general. From wiki, Wii sales:

and PS3 sales:

(there's only a shipped figure on 360 page so I am not listing here)

I agree with Steven that as an informational page, this PS3 article is misleading on how PS3 is actually received by the public. The article mostly states the strengths of the PS3, but fails to account for why it is falling behind in sales. There have been information on negative reviews, but they don't survive long enough as someone always remove it real soon. Frank Law 03:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, But the "Reception" part is extremly biased. Hate ot break it to you, but the PS3 is doing absolutly HORRIBLE in both the US, Europe, and esspecially in Japan. First weeks sales don't matter when 6 monthes pass and it's doing worse then the PS2. You can't just use excerpts from Puplications during the first week of release. The reality is now, and that reality is that the PS3 is not living up to expectations. That passage is extremly one sided, both sides need to be put up.

Well, it did just sell one million units in Europe in less than ten weeks, better than both the original PlayStation and PlayStation 2 did in the same amount of time. If you call that doing horribly, then you must have quite high expectations. But yes, the PlayStation 3 is doing poorly in its native Japan, there is no denyng that, but you're wrong in saying that it is doing horribly in Europe. Also, as bad as it is doing in Japan, it's still doing far better there than the Xbox 360 is. Michael Mad 08:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Thurrott
This section "On his SuperSite for Windows, Microsoft's MVP Paul Thurrott said in a review of the PS3 that Sony "absolutely has a winner on its hands" and that the console "has the technical prowess to not only compete, but win this round."[133]"

the phrase "Microsoft's MVP Paul Thurrott" implies that Paul works for Microsoft. he does not.

This should be simply "Microsoft MVP Paul Thurrott".

70.178.154.145 18:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Is Way Too Long
This article is way too long, a lot of the information is duplicated from other articles and does not belong here. I have a few ideas and would appreciate some feedback before making any changes to the article: Cheers. – ARC Gritt TALK —The preceding comment was added 12:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC). 
 * 1) Major reduction in text in Release data and pricing section, move it to Playstation 3 launch.
 * 2) Complete removal of table in Release data and pricing section, move it to Playstation 3 launch.
 * 3) Major reduction in text in the first section of Games section. Possibly make new article Playstation 3 launch games or new section in Playstation 3 launch.
 * 4) Removal of some text in Graphical user interface belongs in Cross Media Bar or not at all.


 * Pretty much agree with all of that, i'd even suggest a complete removal of the 'Games' text, and simply have it linking to a separate article (List of PS3 Games?). It's a haven for (lack of) NPOV, people keep editing it into some sort of advertisement. It's pretty useless. Slydevil 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also believe that the large table entitled "Operating System Versions" should be split off into a new article. – ARC Gritt TALK 21:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

3 million sales figure is out of date
3.6 Million PS3s have been sold as of March 2007. Also, the figure should be updated again in June after the console goes on sale in Korea.

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=16171

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=112412

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2007/gb20070516_346923.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2007-05-17T061317Z_01_T275737_RTRIDST_0_TECH-SONY-GAME-COL.XML

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/17/bloomberg/ps3.php

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International__Business/Sony_hits_high_pitch_on_hopes_of_better_PS3_performance/articleshow/2058542.cms

Also, I have been hearing that sales of the PlayStation 3 console on Amazon spiked after Gamers' Day. Michael Mad 21:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read figures properly and not rush to copy inaccuracies. "by the Mar. 31 end of its fiscal year, its factories made and sent off just 5.5 million. Worse, the actual number of PS3s *****IN STORES**** was closer to 3.6 million." Business Week

In stores is NOT the same as sold. And judging by the number languishing on store shelves across the world in March it would be a gross overestimation.

The choice to follow Sony Marketing press releases in judgements on the launch claims is a shame - still that's about the only figures they will let anyone know, so a citation for more balanced opinion is nigh impossible. Un-citable sources suggest PS3 software sales have now sunk so horribly low in Japan as to be solidly below its MS rival for the first time in the history of video games. Starting to make the 'greatest launch ever' Marketing guff above look pretty silly really. Perhaps you can balance it out with an update of 'greatest Sega lookalike ever' when you get proper up to date figures some day?

IT is even worse as reported in Gamepro.com that Wii now selling 5-1 compared to PS3.. I got the feeling that PS3 are really in red zone.-Leong

Well, there have been more one million PS3 consoles sold in Europe, so that sales figure is indeed out of date. Michael Mad 08:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

DVD sizes
In the 2nd paragraph of the article, it says:

"A single-layered Blu-ray disc boasts a maximum storage capacity of 25 GB, while a dual-layered disc holds up to 50 GB. This is over 3x the maximum storage capacity of a single and dual-layered DVD-9 respectively, used in other consoles."

Now, you cannot have a single-layered DVD-9. The definition of DVD-9 is a single-sided dual-layered DVD, which is 8.5GB. Whereas a DVD-18 is a double-sided dual-layered DVD, which is 17GB.

So should it be re-written as:

"A single-layered Blu-ray disc boasts a maximum storage capacity of 25 GB, while a dual-layered disc holds up to 50 GB. This is just under 3x the maximum storage capacity of a DVD-9 and DVD-18 respectively, used in other consoles."

or maybe:

"A single-layered Blu-ray disc boasts a maximum storage capacity of 25 GB, while a dual-layered disc holds up to 50 GB. This is just under 6x the maximum storage capacity of a single and dual-layered DVD respectively, used in other consoles."

or better still:

"A single-layered Blu-ray disc boasts a maximum storage capacity of 25 GB, which is approximately 3x the maximum storage capacity of a DVD-9, while a dual-layered disc holds up to 50 GB, about 6x the maximum storage capacity of a DVD-9."

Just to remind people:

DVD-5 (single-sided single-layered)              = 4.7GB, DVD-9 (single-sided dual-layered)                = 8.5GB, DVD-10 (double-sided single-layered)             = 9.4GB, DVD-14 (double-sided single-layered/dual-layered) = 13.2GB, DVD-18 (double-sided dual-layered)               = 17.0GB

So, any thoughts?

Dancinginblood 00:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the dig at other consoles seems POV (remember this is a encyclopedia, not a sales brochure), other than that any of the options are fine. -- MisterHand 12:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to "A single-layered Blu-ray disc has a maximum storage capacity of 25 GB, while a dual-layered disc holds up to 50 GB, almost 6x the maximum storage capacity of a DVD-9.", if you feel it needs any further changes, go ahead and change it. :) – ARC Gritt TALK 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Excellent. -- Dancinginblood 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly believe that this information should be only in the article on Blu-ray Discs and I feel that it is redundant to put it in the PS3 article. If someone did not know what a Blu-ray Disc was, they could simply follow the wikilink. The Blu-ray article does an excellent job of describing the technical aspects of the disc. This article is about the PS3, not Blu-rays.69.205.185.158 19:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

the features chart at the top of the article
in the features chart at the top of the article, under HDMI, the 20GB model is listed as having HDMI, this is not the case and should be corrected in the interests of accuracy.

The 20GB model does have HDMI, it was added in a month or two before release. 72.12.138.36 18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Section Removal
I'm going to remove the 'User Modifications' section, as I believe on an article about the hardware, it is simply not notable. I'm sure millions over the world modify their products. Not only that, but how do you decide which modifications are notable. We also don't need the article to be any longer. Thanks. Slydevil 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I don't think the article length would've been a strong enough reason, I think the spelling/grammatical errors, coupled with the fact that it just didn't 'fit' warrants removing the section. (In addition, of course, to your primary reasons of lack of notability, and the difficulty of deciding which modifications could be notable) Bladestorm 15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you don't have to remove the User Modifications because this article helps expand the PS3 capabilities. Also, I wanted to know if you can change the SIXAXIS PS logo color in the middle. Thanks-Leong

Fair use rationale for Image:PS3 60GIG BOX.jpg
Image:PS3 60GIG BOX.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 00:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ps3 song?
Should it be noted in the reception section that the song "How to Kill a Brand" (link here) focased on basically how "Sony killed the playstation brand"? Unknownlight 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this song should not be included. Might attract war of words. Just my 2 cent opinion.-Leong

No, that's just retarded internet fanboy fare. It has no place in this article. Let the PS3 have SOME dignity, won't you?

7FlushSetzer 01:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I wasn't giving the PS3 any dignity, I just wondered if it should be noted. That's all. Unknownlight 18:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

--Uhm, nope. This is Wikipedia, not a fanboyist forum. Only important information plz--

Does PS3 support 110V ~ 240V
Can anyone confirm that all PS3 support worldwide voltage? or is it just the Japanese PS3? Lancerex6 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been rumors of a PS4 coming out 3rd quarter 2008-09. Is that really true, because everyone's talking about

PS3GRID
What about a mention of http://www.ps3grid.net/PS3GRID/ ? It is a distributed computing science project that is specifically designed for the PS3 platform. Vgy7ujm 16:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Xbox nonsense in Sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_3&diff=130523460&oldid=130522799

Of course the PS3 is behind 360 in sales, it launched a whole year later, and globally later than the Wii. I feel it's worth mentioning this... In addition, nowhere has it been suggested that Ken Kutaragi was made to step down because of PS3 sales. It was always his plan to step down after PS3 was lauched.. I made these edits, and explained why, but they were simply reverted WITHOUT EXPLAINATION. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgillespie (talk • contribs) 12:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC).


 * No wonder that the total sales of Xbox360 would be higher because it was released a year earlier. However, as the sales per month PS3 is also lagging behind, that statement remains to be valid to me.


 * As a side note, PS3 and Wii were released basically at the same time in US and Japan.  Frank Law 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But not in Europe. The Wii launched 4 months earlier.  It's obvious WHY the Wii and 360 are therefore higher, the 360 launched 12 months earlier in Japan and North America, and 16 months earlier in Europe.  The Wii launched 4 months ealier than the PS3 in Europe.   The implication is that the PS3 is not selling, based on the sales figures, which is totally untrue, the sales figures are lower, because it's not been out as long.   What bugs me more, are the self appointed moderators of this article, who see fit to revert edits without so much as a comment as to WHY they are reveting..  Personally these guys arn't fit to be article moderators... User:ARC_Gritt yes you...


 * Comment -- I've added clarification that this includes monthly sales. The original edit implied that the PS3 launched far behind the Wii as well -- which is not the case in the US; they launched at the same time. As it stands, I'm close to flagging this section as NPOV due to undue weight. There's only a couple sentences mentioning the lagging sales, and the rest of the section reads like a glowing sales brochure bragging about how great the PS3 is doing (which is clearly not the case). -- MisterHand 10:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that XBOX 360 has a 1-year lead compared to PS3. Don't forget, XBOX 360 is made of low quality chips. There could be evidence that every 2 out of 10 XBOX 360 face Ring Of Death. If warranty is void, consumers forced to buy new one and if 20% of 10 Million, you get the picture- Leong, 25 May 2007, 5.46pm


 * "Don't forget, XBOX 360 is made of low quality chips. There could be evidence that every 2 out of 10 XBOX 360 face Ring Of Death. If warranty is void, consumers forced to buy new one and if 20% of 10 Million, you get the picture-" You may be right, but the same can be said about the PlayStation and the PlayStation 2.  Could that be why 102 million PlayStation consoles were sold?  How many of those were replacements? 69.203.64.174 21:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

True, the Wii had a four month head start in Europe. So what? You can't logically justify that a four month head start in one territory is enough to boost sales to the point of out-selling the competition (in this case, the PlayStation 3) by more than 2-to-1. Other factors are obviously involved in this situation. Perhaps the PS3 is too expensive? Perhaps there aren't enough good PS3 games out? Perhaps people didn't believe the hype this time around? It's a fact that every giant in video gaming has fallen: Atari, Sega, Nintendo, and now Sony. If those companies can't dominate the market every generation, what makes people think Sony can? 69.203.64.174 21:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the Wii or the 360 had a head start. If they had all been released at the same time PS3 would be in the same situation, dead last. It may be the fact it's too expensive, maybe that they are losing all of their exclusive titles to the other systems, or maybe it is that it just fails. Either way, buying a PS3 would be a mistake, since you can just buy all of the games for a cheaper system once they lose all their titles. And yes, 360's may break down (well mine hasn't and I got the earliest version from the Mountain Dew contests), but all of the money put into fixing a 360 would still outweigh the horrible mistakes of the PS3.

Wow, let's try to avoid the fanboyism here on Wikipedia. This page is for discussing how to make the article better, not discussing the article's topic itself. Useight 15:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this 11th June about?
I keep hearing from www.gamepro.com. There are people saying that 11th June or July, there will be a huge announcement by Sony.. What's that? Anyone heard of this before? -Leong


 * --Sorry, it appears to be bogus-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.149.87.57 (talk • contribs).

It was an announcement about The Agency MMO that is coming out on the PC and the PS3. Starwarsrulez 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know this might be too late... but on July 11, Sony will be making a huge announcement in the E3. Dnlkk94 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ken Kutaragi
I don't see why it was put in the article Ken Kutaragi he stepped down because of the ps3. I can't seem to find a quote from Sony or Ken stating he stepped down due to lack of sales. Unless someone can find evidence otherwise I think the statement should be removed. Lt. penguin 21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The headline of the article reads "Playstation boss pays the price of weak sales". Seems cut and dry to me. -- MisterHand 21:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What that sounds like to me is a hook, to grab the viewers attention and I don't think it is properly justified. Lt. penguin 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article cited is speculation, not fact, wikipeida is for fact, not gossip... Df747jet 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I restored the statement. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia is not fact, it is verifiability. In other words, we don't need something to be true, we just need someone better qualified (that is, reliable) to speculate.According to Verifiability, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Hope that clarifies the matter. -- ReyBrujo 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All Wikipeida articles should be written in a 'neutral point of view' saying that "As a result, (of insufficient) sales the head of gaming at Sony, Ken Kutaragi, stepped down in April 2007," is biased because the article that it cites is misinterpreted. The statement tries to show that he left because he failed at his position. He retired because he is 56--common for the wealthy to retire...if you still want verification please read the following: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6169725.html Df747jet 23:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with 747 and i think the article should be changed, whats the point of having an encyclopedia when all its contents are wrong. I think that if neutrality and verifiability conflict that verifiability should win but I have seen articles stating ken retired of age and other reasons (which should be acceptable under both), look under the update in: http://psp.joystiq.com/2007/04/26/sonys-ken-kutaragi-announces-plans-to-retire/2 . It states that Ken planned to retire for a while. Lt. penguin 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article quotes the Wall Street Journal, a very reputable news agency, as saying 'Ken Kutaragi was a "stumbling block" for Sony', 'the 57-year-old exec was recently kicked upstairs, removing him from day-to-day operations following what many considered to be a botched strategy for the PlayStation 3'. It is only SCEI's official statement which says he was retiring for other reasons. I will add both of these bits to the article to give both the media and the Sony sides of the story. - ARC Gritt TALK 21:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds like a fair compromise. Lt. penguin 14:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have also seen and heard many many negative receptions about the PS3. The Reception side of the story appears to be written by an Sony Employee, not a partial observer.74.138.94.60 06:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The sales
Should we mention that PS3 is selling less than the game boy advance and will be included in the dead platforms soon? After all, this article is so bad that it just can't get worse. Sir Dante 14:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you're just making a joke, but since somebody is sure to answer this anyways, I think I will. No, the PS3 isn't in direct competition with the GBA (both systems probably sold a lot less than some lines of cellphones, which can typically play games, but we don't include that either). Nor should we speculate that it's going to be a "dead platform". Much as I don't like the system, I think everybody knows that it'll pick up eventually (though, to what extent, is a mystery). Bladestorm 14:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a especially well-thought reply to a joke question VTNC 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sony has sold more than one million PlayStation 3 consoles in Europe. So much for your biased dead console theory. Michael Mad 16:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not 1 million in Europe, it's 1 million PAL systems, which includes Australia. An interesting number would be the number of systems sold just in Europe. I wager that number is significantly lower than 'over 1 million.' Either way, if you combined European sales with Australian sales for the PS3's competitors, the numbers are skewed heavily in their favor.

Here's a (serious) question: So if Company X say they've shipped 1 million units of something, is there any way to verify if this is true? Is at all likely that Sony would say they had sold more than they had (this is a serious question, what I mean is, does anyone know of cases where companies have been misleading or openly lied about the sales of a product?) Gantlord 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we just have to take their word for it. If we didn't trust the very maker of a product about its sales, then we can't trust anyone, and thus, the entire Wikipedia is pointless as we'd have no reliable sources. Oh, I just remembered, I'll have to change the sales about that the million units sold, it does counts Austrailia. Michael Mad 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese sales need to be updated
I can understand if the rest of the sales are a tad outdated, by the Japanese sales are from all the way back in March. Despite the lackluster Japanese sales, the PS3 has sold more units in Japan than it had in March.

7FlushSetzer 22:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't the ps3 sell like 2.2 million in japan.And are expected to be like another 2 million for FFXIII release? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hitamaru (talk • contribs).
 * No, sorry, they haven't yet broken the 1m mark. -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

--Unfortunately there has not been any update to the Japanese sales--

PAL Sales
The PS3 has sold 1 million units in the UK!Themasterofwiki 18:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PAL also includes Australia and New Zealand. -- MisterHand 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PAL includes all of Europe and both Australia/New Zealand. 1 million in the UK in 3 months would be almost impossible. TJ Spyke 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

About SCE's Loss
"Poor sales and high costs of the PS3 led to Sony's games division posting a loss of ¥232.3 billion ($1.97 billion US) in the fiscal year ended March 2007" - Criticism Since the PS3 sells at a hefty loss per unit, the greater this figure is, the more PS3's are sold. They will take losses regardless of "poor sales", so please remove that little obfuscation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitamaru (talk • contribs)
 * It doesn't work that way. The cost to manufacturer each console is already spent, so when Sony sells a console -- even though they don't recoup their full costs -- they get some of that money back. In other words, the more consoles sold, the less their loss will be. -- MisterHand 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather isnt it units shipped that determines how much of their money sony gets back?Bushido Brown 01:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

--They actually gain the money spent with software sales. It usually takes a year or two, so its a long process. SONY also suffered heavy losses with PS2 launch--


 * "They actually gain the money spent with software sales." Sorry what!? Are you from the future? How could you, better than anyone else here, possibly know that this is what's going to happen? Can we stick to determining facts, go to a fanboy forum if you want to speculate... Gantlord 13:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

IPTV just in Korean version?
Why ist IPTV just with the Korean version possible? Every version can connect to the internet.. and with a softwareupdate IPTV should be avaliable..McCoother 13:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 80GB Korean PS3 is idential to Euro 60GB PS3, aside from HDD. --205.179.229.226 12:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it is misleading to say only the Korean version supports IPTV. There is no extra hardware for IPTV.  But like you said a software update is needed for IPTV support outside Korea.  Sony if you are reading this, give all PS3's IPTV support.  I'm in the USA and already have IPTV to my house.  I would rather use my PS3 to view it then the crappy set-top-box I have to rent now.The Goat 12:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Korean PS3 software is identical to Euro, US and Japan PS3. The confusion comes from the Korean PS3 being IPTV capable. It was never stated that other units were not capable.  Infact PS3's from ALL region are IPTV ready. --Mgillespie 12:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All PS3's are IPTV ready? Then how do I connect my PS3 to my IPTV service?  Hardware wise yes they are all IPTV ready.  But not software wise.The Goat 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WRONG!!! "The PlayStation 3 uses a version of the NetFront browser by Access Co. as its internal web browser. "
In the article it states that "The PlayStation 3 uses a version of the NetFront browser by Access Co. as its internal web browser. " but if you read OFFICIAL interviews with the higher ups at sony(mainly by those speaking only Japanese) say that it was developed INTERNALLY but sony.

Just thought I'd point it out before someone looks it up on a website that bases it so called facts on mere appearance and not any official sources. I have fixed this in the article about the web browser but its hard to proven when you can't translate Japanese to English.

Once again...Appearances aren't everything. --71.252.209.111 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well tbhe browser reports it's ID as NETFRONT, so I trust that. I think the Sony official was confused.. --Mgillespie 18:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WHEN
When will the PS3 drop in price in the U.S. and what will it go down to?--Roxas 00:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You can try searching the web for this information, but it's not available anywhere.  If you were an electronics company would you tell people, "The price is going to drop next month by $100."?  Everyone would hold off on buying it until the price drop.  As soon as the price does drop or a price drop has been announced, the information will be available on Wikipedia.  Useight 17:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just happened for the 60Gb version, it is at USD $499 in the US, CAD $549 in Canada, there isn't a confirmed price drop in Europe yet and there probably won't be one in Japan. Also the 80Gb version will launch at $599 in the US.
 * Sorry if my above statement sounded rude, as mentioned by Roxas, I was just trying to explain the economics behind it as concisely as possible. Useight 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PS3 has sold 50k units in Australia
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6173349.html

We can say that the combined sales for Australia and Europe are AT LEAST 1,050,000.

7FlushSetzer 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the combined sales of Europe and Austrailia would be just one million plus, as Sony has sold one million PlayStation 3 consoles in all Pal territories, not just in Europe(Austrailia, if you may not already know, would be a PAL territory). Michael Mad 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Sentence
Since its release, the Playstation 3 has also been outselling the Wii and the Xbox 360 in Australia.

I believe this sentence is misleading as it implies that the PS3 has sold more units since its launch than the Wii did in the same amount of weeks after its launch, which is not true. Comments? - ARC Gritt TALK 22:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've clarified the sentence since then. Beta

It's expected for the PS3 to be consistently outselling the other consoles as it's only months after its launch, just wait, in a few months the Wii will be trouncing the PS3. Maybe that should be added to the article (except for the Wii trouncing bit, little bit of fanboyism there :)) カ  ラ  ム  21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sony Hate Campaign
Anyone think it's worth mentioning the Internet news/blog sites hat campaign aganist Sony and the PS3? Even a total idiot can see the PS3 comes in for unfair criticism, and it's nothing more than sites wanting to knock the previous generations winner.. Is it also worth mentioning Microsoft's FUD war against the PS3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgillespie (talk • contribs)

Microsoft isnt using FUD, its because they have unlimited funding, unlike sony who realies on PS2 and PS3 sales as the main income for money.

If you have a reliable source to back up your claims, then perhaps it is worth mentioning. Oh, and please sign your posts. Michael Mad 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Short answer: No. --Ciao 90 23:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, if this alleged "Sony Hate Campaign" exists, it's only because Sony deserved it.C. Pineda 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Czarbender: this isn't a forum to express your opinion, were talking about improving the article here (in case you didn't read the top of the page). Df747jet 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you crazy,Michael...Sony relying solely on the Playstation brand for revenue.Have you forgotten that Sony is the 2nd largest consumer electronics manufacturer in the world and that it's sales are nearly 10-20 billion dollars ahead of Microsoft.And believe me,no company can say it has unlimited funding...losses are losses whether you are a fortune 500 company or a small business.Sugreev2001 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PS3 - Phantasy Star 3 reference
Non notable, in Google Search the first 20 pages no results for Phantasy Star 3 and being a gamer for years never heard PS3 in reference for that game. --Ciao 90 14:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk:PlayStation_3/Archive_15 --Ciao 90 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have never heard "PS3" refer to Phantasy Star 3 and I seriously doubt there's anybody searching for it using that acronym. -- MisterHand 14:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

PS3 System Reliability < 1% failure rate
Many sites are reporting the horrendous failure rates of the 360 (between 25% and 30%), and comparing to the PS3 and Wii systems with less than 1%. I think this is important information that should be added to the article. --195.75.83.25 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Section 4.6. Although the current wording seems a bit POV to me. -- MisterHand 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be added to this article, it is mentioned in the 360 article already. You could add the PS3's failure rate to the hardware section if its not already there, but the 360's should stay out. Lt. penguin 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

HD format war
I have heard that though the PS3 is currently a failure in terms of video gaming it may have tipped the blu-ray format war to Sony. It would be nice to see something of this sort in the article. 71.219.94.176 00:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can find an article to back this up, then go ahead. VTSPOWER 10:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Only people that believe Microsoft's FUD, actually think the PS3 is a failure. It's sales are very good, considering it's only been out 7 months in the NTSC regions and 4 months in PAL regions.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgillespie (talk • contribs) 17:48, July 7, 2007

I was thinking about this, something should be mentioned about PS3 technical issues

Microsoft isnt using FUD, its because they have unlimited funding, unlike sony who realies on PS2 and PS3 sales as the main income for money.

Sony announces $100 ps3 price cut right before E3
http://news.com.com/Sony+cuts+PS3+price+by+100/2100-1043_3-6195402.html?tag=nefd.top

http://kotaku.com/gaming/truth/retailer-confirms-100-ps3-price-cut-275456.php

Ofcourse this is kotaku, a blog site. So take it with a grain of salt, just saying to you account holders to expect this addition to the article in the coming weeks. 76.64.193.9 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * DailyTech has similar news. — An as  talk? 22:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6173806.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0--Dentine 02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty official now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6283170.stm

Price
Why isn't the price of the console mentioned anywhere in the article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have added the following to the sales and pricing section: they are priced at $499 and $599 respectively. The pricing got removed when the large table was moved to the launch article. - ARC Gritt TALK 07:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

IPTV/Korean PS3
I have done some edits, as the original article implied that only Korean PS3's had IPTV compatability, and that there was some internal hardware difference to the PAL PS3. Sony have confirmed that the only difference is the 80GB HDD. Son in effect all PS3's are IPTV ready. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgillespie (talk • contribs) 17:55, July 7, 2007
 * Please could you provide a reference for this. Thanks - ARC Gritt TALK 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * NVM found one: :)  - ARC Gritt TALK 17:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether its official or not, the price has been lowered by many shops (Sony are waiting for E3 to announce it)
60GB PS3 with 5 free Blu-Ray movies for $499 in Target, Best Buy, Circuit City etc.....

http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/4586

http://www.ps3news.ca/07072007/22/confirmed_499_ps3_has_been_sold_at_target

http://www.psu.com/node/11976

http://www.laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=2686

http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/more-moles-confirm-ps3-price-drop-275588.php

its been dropped http://www.gamespot.com/news/6173806.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0--Dentine 02:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely official (and promises a new 80 GB model: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/fun.games/07/09/sony.price.reut/index.html DarkSol 23:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

GA comment
Before the article is reviewed by another editor, be sure to add sources for all of the statements that have "citation needed" tags or remove them until a source can be found. If there are too many on the page, an article may be quick-failed solely for that purpose instead of being put on hold. The article is well-sourced already, covers the broad aspect, and has images, so don't let it fail over a few statements. Good work so far, and please address these before somebody reviews it. --Nehrams2020 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed the following unsourced statements:


 * 1) It was not until E3 2006 that games were shown on actual PlayStation 3 systems.
 * 2) However, the console was criticized for offering such a limited number of top-tier titles, both at launch and in the following months.
 * 3) Also, despite the high-definition operability touted by Sony, NBA 07 was the only launch title that could be played in full 1080p.
 * 4) Sequels are planned for some of Sony's most renowned franchises, such as God of War and Gran Turismo.
 * 5) In addition, in 2005 Sony purchased SN Systems, a former provider of Microsoft Windows-based development tools for a variety of console platforms; including PlayStation 2, GameCube, PlayStation Portable and Nintendo DS to create additional GNU development tools.
 * 6) The console has many ventilation holes, a single large fan, and uses heat pipes to dissipate heat.
 * 7) The power supply is built into the console and a standard 3-pin IEC connector is present at the base of the console.
 * 8) The power supply has power factor correction.
 * 9) Both territories  received only the 60 GB model.

Will look for references for these later incase they can be readded. - ARC Gritt TALK 12:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4: I got a reference for God of War III: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157967, and for Gran Turismo 5/HD: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/733/733728p1.html.
 * 7: I really don't think that needs to be referenced, anyone who's seen the back of or set up a ps3 can tell you it has a plug for power and no external adapter...But if you need one anyway I'll quote, "It's of course internal, It's better that way. We of course do things the good way." ~Izumi Kawanishi, from: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/708/708601p1.html. Lt. penguin 13:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Price drop, region?
For the price drop, what region(s) is it for? Just NA? --Zeno McDohl (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its just North America for now but I heard they are considering a PAL price drop and Japan is probably not getting one, it already 480$ USD.

Successor to...?
I'm curious about the wording in the beginning of the article, "...and the successor to the PlayStation and PlayStation 2." Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't something only succeed the direct previous model in a line? That is, can't it technically only be the successor to the PS2 due to the very fact the PS2 succeeded the PS1? I'd alter it myself, but I wanted to know if there was some official reason why it's worded this way before I stuck my nose in. But, to me it's bit like saying, "The Wii is the successor to the Nintendo 64 and Nintendo GameCube," or, "The Sega Dreamcast is the successor to the Sega Master System, the Sega Genesis/32X/CD and the Sega Saturn," or "The Core2 Duo CPU succeeds the Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV...." Well, you get the point. Any thoughts? Danny 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess it's only the successor to the PS2. - ARC Gritt TALK 21:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Negative
I couldn't help but notice that the "Publicity and reception" portion of this page has nothing but good things to say about the PS3. Since this is suppose to be an unbiased website, I feel that it is fair to include the overwhelmingly negative press the PS3 has received. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the PS3 is indeed receiving more negative press than positive. I know that's asking a lot, considering this page is run by a slew of Sony fanboys but 10X better than bretchels comp. --172.146.207.110 01:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is semi-biased but on the other hand it does have at least something about negative Sony's horrid PR relations after they announced the PS3's price point.

Rgoodermote 21:51 July 10Th, 2007 (UTC)

According to some of you Microsoft cronies,everyone else is a Sony Fanboy.Sugreev2001 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Yes. I took the liberty of fixing minor styling problems throughout the article. Since the 'Form factor and power consumption' section is so short, try to merge it with an existing section.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Citations are almost all correctly formatted, but some are missing author / publication information. Please clarify and cite the last sentence of the Launch section.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: This article may be too thorough. I don't know whether this is serious enough to damage a GA nom, so I'll let it slide. Consider removing all those little details, such as pricing for accessories, and leaving the technical description of the Cell processor (with all those acronyms and wikilinks) to the Cell's own article.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Maybe I'm the one without a NPOV, but hasn't there been a lot of bad press about the PS3? Perhaps it's ill-represented by the one small paragraph in 'Publicity and reception.' Correct me if I have a skewed perspective. :)
 * 5. Article stability? Long-term semiprotection since 7 March. Looks stable - no editwars.
 * 6. Images?: Image:Sixaxis2.jpg lacks source information, Image:XMB_of_PS3.jpg lacks a fair use rationale, and Image:Ubuntu-on-ps3.jpg probably has the wrong licensing information (consider finding or making a similar image with a CC, GDFL, or public domain license).

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Carson 06:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly with #4, if I may be so bold- I know that there was at one time a much more comprehensive criticism section, that someone evidently removed... For instance, I had added a sourced blurb about how EGM- no featherweight mag- devoted a cover story to the perceived failing of the PS3, which included a talk with Jack Treton. Can't find it digging through the history, but its bound to be in there. David Fuchs 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, here it is, all the way from Feb: David Fuchs 14:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to re-add it, but it would be preferable if you could find an internet link to that same article, so it is easier for readers to verify for themselves. - ARC Gritt TALK 18:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re #4: just over an hour ago I had a similar perception to this, but I just did a google search for "PS3 review" and looked at the top 10 results. None of them gave an overall bad review to the console, whilst most of them did critisize the lack of decent games and its price. Most said that overall it was a good buy due to it's Blu-Ray functionality. I have tried to add something to the reception section, but I feel that it should be rewritten from scratch using the existing references. - ARC Gritt TALK 18:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re #3: I have significantly cut down the amount of information in the CPU section. - ARC Gritt TALK 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have cut out the pricing information from the accessories section as well now. - ARC Gritt TALK 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re #2: I removed one of ther sentences from this section, and added it to another section on this talk page awaiting citation. It would be good to also get a citation for the Europe release date. - ARC Gritt TALK 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold (2nd review)
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: As quoted in the FAC, longer isn't always better. Perhaps compressing stuff, or seperating into seperate articles, would improve its quality.  There are also a few very short paragraphs (1 short sentence only) which could be expanded.  Eg: "On 9 July 2007, Sony announced the release of an 80 GB model in North America" and "The PS3 was launched in Europe, Australia and New Zealand on 23 March 2007."The 2nd quote there also needs a ref.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Excellent
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: There doesn't seem to be that much on how the system itself was developed, from its announcement etc. The sections could therefore be re-considered to include this (or just add something like that under History)
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Good
 * 5. Article stability? 22 edits on July 11 is a bit worrying, but there doesn't seeem to be an edit war. Obviously, something this new would rapidly produce new info, and the edit rate should slow down in the future.  This is also concerning, but again I'll assume that the vandalism is slowing down and will stop soon (actually, I think the semi protection could be removed now, since it's been up since March)
 * 6. Images?: WP:FURG -

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy  UCP 23:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, in terms of images... What about the main image? Though an SVG, it seems to be a really overt derivative work of a promotional picture of a PS3 (right down to the reflection), seen here. Download that image, and zoom into the upper-right corner of the picture. See those reflections of the Sony logo and power symbol? Now, go to the expanded view of our version of it here. Zoom to the same upper-right corner. I realize that, since everybody's PS3 (of the same model) is going to look the same, so too will the pictures, to at least some extent. But that seems to be an obvious original work. Is that really something we want to raise to FA status? (Or, conversely, would it really be so terrible to simply have someone take a picture of their own PS3, just so that there's no doubt?) Bladestorm 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll assume nothing there, but taking a photo of your own PS3 would be the easiest solution (make sure you upload to commons though!). Giggy  UCP 01:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Due to the PS3's reflective surface, it's actually a little tricky to get a good-looking shot of the console. Dancter 02:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That was discussed in a deletion request at Commons. Dancter 02:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A second review, so quickly? It hasn't even been a day yet... Carson 03:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was at GAC, so I reviewed it. Giggy  UCP 04:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what happened there. You should have skimmed this talk page before doing it. =P I didn't think it was necessary to reply to ARC Gritt's message on GAC. Carson 05:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I posted on the GAC page after it's status was set to on-hold but before Carson had posted his message on here. - ARC Gritt TALK 06:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well...it happens :D Either way, in a few days time, Carson and me can check the status and promote it together!  Giggy  UCP 22:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dancter, that link doesn't work for me. I *do* seem to recall reading something about it in a deletions request, but I don't recall ever seeing him directly state that he never based his image on a photograph. I'm not implying that he intended to break the rules, but rather did so accidentally. (I've frequently seen cases in wikipedia where uploaders didn't understand what a 'derivative work' was, and uploaded modifications or tracings, presenting them as being their own work) What's more, commons is commons. I don't have an account there, and don't choose to create one just for a single purpose. My only concern is what's here in english wikipedia, which appears to include a rather conspicuous (though unintentional) copyvio. Bladestorm 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I confused the interwiki prefix with the namespace, and only did one. It should work now. You are correct that Ssolbergj never directly stated that the image design was based on the photograph, and I interpreted his statement that "It wasn't intended to resemble any copyrightet picture" as meaning that he didn't intend to violate any copyrights, which isn't exactly the same thing.
 * I mention the old deletion request because technically, if an image is valid for Commons, it is supposed to be valid on individual Wikimedia projects. I believe I had brought up your very points in that discussion. The outcome had thrown me off significantly enough that I haven't really contributed at Commons much at all since then (I still don't quite understand the trademarks issue there). There's not really a system in place for disallowing the use of images on Commons on en.wiki. Dancter 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure there isn't? I'm pretty sure that the copyvio policy applies, regardless of what people believe in another project. And I think that link still doesn't work. :) Bladestorm 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm open to be proven wrong, but I am unaware of any such protocol. As for copyvio policy, the discussion called into question the strength of Sony's copyright claim in that particular case. I'm not trying to stop you from doing anything. I just don't expect anything to happen. Honestly, as far as this article is concerned, I think it would be easier to just replace the image with a freely-licensed photograph. Dancter 23:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'd prefer to simply see a real photograph added as well. :) (I mean, if nothing else, as good as the SVG is, a photograph still seems more appropriate than an illustration). My current concern is not in getting the image deleted (that's common, this is english wikipedia. I can't be everywhere at once. :) ), but rather in getting this article truely to good article status. And I don't think it can truely be a good article with a copyvio. I'm seriously hoping that someone can come through for us and get that photo! Bladestorm 23:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure someone is willing to cough up $1000AUD to get this to GA, right? ;) Giggy  UCP 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could this image (http://flickr.com/photos/20179579@N00/582672938/) work for the article? It's free. Dancter 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up
Alrighty, it's been 4 days into the hold, so here's a review update: Carson 22:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The content disputes/discussions that have sprung up during the hold period needs to be resolved. The amount of significant edits to the article has ramped up significantly since last review.
 * 2) Dancter has tagged the intro for rewrite. GA can't be achieved with cleanup tags in place.
 * 3) Playstation SVG image with disputed licensing needs resolution.
 * 4) Image:XMB_of_PS3.jpg still needs a fair use rationale.
 * 5) Image:Ubuntu-on-ps3.jpg needs to be replaced with an alternative or, preferably, removed. The image has the wrong license (it's just a Ubuntu login screen), and the image has nothing in it that proves it's being run on a PS3, besides the image description text.
 * 6) Is there a reason Template:Dedicated video game consoles is placed in that particular location?
 * 7) I remember that there's been criticism that the PS3 platform is hard to develop for. This is not mentioned in the article.
 * 8) Unnecessary detail in the article still needs to be reduced. If the section has its own main article, try to keep all those details in the main article instead.
 * 9) Merge or expand the "Form factor and power consumption" section. It's too small for a section by itself.
 * I'm going to have to fail this, also per the use of introrewrite. Solve the issues mentioned above and bring it GAC again. Giggy  UCP 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you really do that?! I thought they're supposed to get the full 7 days to solve problems. Carson 04:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's minimum 2, maximum 5 last time I checked. In any case, there's a long list of changes required.  Giggy  UCP 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Failure Rate
It says the wii has a close to 0% failure rate, and this is cited by a quote from a single retailer. This is not factual please someone remove that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.153.179.242 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the Wii/360 comparisons altogether. Fan boys may care about the "competition" on that aspect, but for an encyclopedic entry, I don't feel it's necessary. Especially with such a large claim that the Wii has an "almost" 0% failure rate based on GameStop saying none have come back. Personally, I bought my Wii at Sears, so GameStop's say on things doesn't tell me much. And even a .5% failure rate is still not "zero". And the reference to the 360's 33% failure rate (is it really that low? lol) reads more as gloating than general information presentation. Other than a brief, casual mention about the other seventh generation consoles' existence in general, constant comparisons to the other "big two" in any of the "big three" articles is out of place. The article should be about the subject at hand, not, "Well, a couple dozen PS3's melted, but it's okay by comparison because 1 million 360's™ exploded..." Danny 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you for the most part, however I believe that it is important to make comparisons on the sales section. The low sales of the PS3 (until now?) is an important piece of information, and the sales of the other 2 consoles should be included to give the reader some perspective. "PS3 sold 1m units before christmas" for example, has no context. It is important to say how many units other consoles have sold to show how well/badly the console is doing. Also, I think that a price comparison in the reception section is important, as many reviewers have criticised the price of the PS3. - ARC Gritt TALK 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that comparisons are fair or necessary.
 * For example, the Wii is selling immensely better than the PS3. The problem is that it's partly because it's targetting a different demographic. Saying the Wii is outselling the PS3 is almost like saying the iPod is outselling the PSP. Is there some overlap? Of course. Both are media players, capable of video and music playback. And there are even some people who might consider one but go with the other. But, for the most part, it's apples to oranges. The wii and the ps3 are simply too different to compare their sales. And the same applies to price. (A blackberry costs more than a cheap cellphone. So what?)
 * You could still make an argument specifically for comparing it to the 360, but even that is a red herring (did I use that term right?). A big factor of the PS3 is that it's a bluray player. It shouldn't be expected to really 'take off' in that role until the format is more accepted. Combine that with the incredible lead the 360 had over the PS3, and I still think it's too hard to do direct comparisons.
 * To be blunt, if an article has any quality to it, it should be able to stand on its own. An article on the PlayStation 3, or on the XBox 360, or on the Wii, should be able to stand on its own, with its own content. Leave it to customers to do their own comparisons. Leave it to readers to decide if they want to read about the other systems. But someone who wants information on the PS3 really shouldn't be presented with information on the (far more fun) Wii. Bladestorm 18:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistake
In the Publicity and Reception section, the last sentence in the third paragraph is repeated. I'd remove it myself, but the article is locked.
 * Fixed, thanks! Remember, you can edit this article yourself if you get a Wikipedia account. :) - ARC Gritt TALK 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PlayStation 3 "has the lowest failure rate in the industry"
Is this true?

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2750521.ece
 * Heh... well, so far, I only know of "Jack Tretton, the chief executive of Sony Computer Entertainment America" saying that it has the lowest. Of course, it'd depend on what "industry" you're comparing. If you're only talking about the industry of high-definition-capable-seventh-genderation-consoles, which, of course, is only two machines, then yes. If you're talking about the industry of PlayStation consoles, then yes. If you're talking about the videogame industry as a whole, then there's really no way to prove it either way. Bladestorm 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

power supply
How does the power supply work for the ps3? I've been told that it only gets power from the Tv its connected too, and does not have a plug. Is this true? If not, how does the plug difference effect the North American and pal regions? Because as i understand it they both have different mains supply voltages. Also, is it possible to use a North American ps3 in Europe and vice-versa? --Chickenfeed9 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It has a plug. It is not possible for a video game console to be powered via it's connection to your television. -- -- MisterHand   (Talk to the Hand|Contribs)  20:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the fast response. --Chickenfeed9 20:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a japanese ps3 in australia and its has run fine since march using an off the shelf pc power cable. The only evidence i have that the psu is universal is a picture on this site http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/NEWS/20061111/123436/, which i found from this forum post http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=871008&postcount=10. edit: The australian support manual also list a universal power supply in the specs http://au.playstation.com/assets/support/PS3/PS3-02_03-1.5_1.pdf. However the American manual only lists american voltages. -- Kfyh 60.240.142.65 16:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No more 60 gb model in the US?
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=26704

"SCEE president David Reeves has told GamesIndustry.biz that the 60GB PlayStation 3 will no longer be available in the US after stock sells out - which he predicts will occur by the end of the month" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.81.116 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6427&Itemid=2
 * And that lie is.....OUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTA HERE!!!!!!!
 * 7FlushSetzer 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe, maybe not. Sony is not known for being entirely forthcoming about things, especially when it would affect their bottom line. Sony had flatly denied a price drop mere days before the announcement. Reeves makes a compelling case. It makes sense that with the replacement of the hardware-based backwards compatibility, the 80GB version is probably cheaper to make than the current 60GB version. Sony already sells the PS3 at a significant loss, and would be reluctant to take a bigger hit than they already have. Right now SCEA and SCEE have competing interests in terms of PR, given their differing approaches to sweeten the PS3. Dancter 18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry, was that not enough? Here...
 * http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/13/sony-says-499-60gb-ps3-is-staying-alive-alive-in-us/
 * Ridiculous!
 * 7FlushSetzer 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=25772777&sid=6174978&action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1
 * And then there's also that. Oh goodness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 7FlushSetzer (talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why properly handling source material is not always as simple as accepting the last official statement. Dancter 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that source now seems to state that the 60 GB will not be reproduced, suggesting that it is going to go away. 1UP contacted Sony and recieved a similar message: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161297. Also, it may be a good idea to not get too worked up and excited about these citations. --Orion Minor 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/13/sony-says-60gb-is-not-over-in-us/

Specially when things like that pop up. I wonder how long we'll have to wait for exact, 100% set in stone verification.

7FlushSetzer 01:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is pretty simple. The old US 60GB model is no longer being produced, and thus will last as long as the supplies are in the market. Once they are depleted, there will be a single, USD 599 SKU (unless they announce a price cut). That was a hectic day, wasn't it? -- ReyBrujo 18:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Playstation 3 sales in America
Even though the source says that it is as of July 9th, the article says the sales were as of May. Let's not use sales as of 2 months ago and not admit to it.

7FlushSetzer 16:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try to assume good faith. David Reeves was not "lying", so to speak, and the contributor probably did not mean any deception. My guess is that they mistakenly assumed that the sales figure was valid as of the date the article was published online (July 9), and didn't read the article closely enough. If you find an error, you should be bold and fix it yourself. So far it looks like you've been a back seat driver on Wikipedia. Dancter 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's me.

I'm backseat because I'm still trying to understand Wikipedia's codes. In the mean time, I'll cry if I see something wrong.

7FlushSetzer 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just sent you a welcome message with some links to information that should help you in getting "behind the wheel", as it were. In any case, it's still important to heed the talk page guidelines when commenting. Dancter 23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed "60gig rumour out of production" rumour stated as "confirmed" fact
I feel this article describes this news the best. It's just a rumour at this point based on what a few people in high places at Sony been heard to have said. At this point it is not confirmed and not the official Sony position so stating it in the article as fact is misleading. It may very well turn out to be true but until that time I would only include it in the article if it's clearly stated it's a rumour. It's also disputed by others. I have removed it before discussing for this reason, it's uncomfirmed and people reading this article may get the wrong information. I hope anyone who disagrees with my edit will understand based on this comment. Since this rumour is denied by some I would term the sources publishing it online to be "questionable sources" per WP:RS and don't feel the article should follow up on every rumour to be circulating in gaming circles. &mdash; Tutmosis 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a common misconception about Wikipedia: We don't work with the truth, we work with facts. In other words, we only put in articles information that can be verified. So, if there is a rumour that the 60GB is being phased out, and we have a verifiable source for that information, we can include it, even if it is just a rumour. If it is later demonstrated that the rumour was false, the information is removed. We are encyclopedia editors, not journalists, so we base ourselves in verifiable, reliable facts. We have plenty of reliable references (IGN, GameSpot, Gamasutra, etc) stating the 60GB version is no longer being produced and is being phased out, that the USD 499 unit will be sold until depleted, and afterwards there will be only one USD 599 SKU. Our references include reliable sources, your removal was based on two blogs. I think there is not much to say. -- ReyBrujo 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "A few days after the initial price drop announcement, SCEE president David Reeves and SCEI president Kaz Hirai both confirmed that the "price drop" was in fact a sale price intended to eliminate stock of the 60GB unit, the production of which had actually been halted at the time of the price drop announcement. After all 60GB units are sold, only the 80GB unit will remain in stores in the US, selling for $599."


 * This statement states the opinion of various editors of gaming websites that the price drop was intended to "elimate" stock. Since IGN had no article about this, I consulted gamespot and in their article the Sony Europe president is the one that advanced this position, which both Sony America President and Kaz Hirai stated as not true and that the model is no longer in production but will be in stock for plenty of time to come. Since this is not even the official Sony position (yet), and all the sources on the matter are basically opinion articles based on the interviews with this 2 Sony personnel I am confused why you state so clearly the biased opinion that it has been "confirmed" that the 60GB is going on an "out-of stock clearance sale" which is nothing more than an opinion of a few gaming website editors. I have no problem in stating that the "out-of-production" confimed by Sony Europe and Sony president and hope it we be reworded as such. &mdash; Tutmosis  21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't belong in the lead at all, and is covered better in the "retail configurations" section below, without the editorializing "clearance sale" commentary. That said, the matter of whether the North American 60GB model is no longer in production can't really be described as a "rumor" at this point, considering that it has been acknowledged by SCEA reps. Dancter 22:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the editors are reliable, working for a reliable media, then their opinion can be included here, because it represents the opinion of the outlet and not their own. The news, as far as Wikipedia is interested, can be included. If some people consider writing a statement backed by a media outlet in the article "biased", then they should read our policies about verifiability and reliable source. -- ReyBrujo 22:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The text remains in "Sales and pricing" subsection clearly indication "that the "price drop" was in fact a sale price intended to eliminate stock of the 60GB unit". &mdash; Tutmosis 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we have a reference from an outlet stating that the price drop was intended to eliminate stock? -- ReyBrujo 22:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What else could you call slashing the price on a discontinued model? 209.153.128.248
 * As a side note, I agree with removing the full second paragraph from the leading, we don't need timeline information about the configurations and price drop there. -- ReyBrujo 22:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sony's Unethical Business Practices
Does anyone else concur with me that Sony has used cheap business practices in order to "compete" with other systems? I mainly speak of how sony copies other system's features and change the name and look so they can call it their own. You may say, "But Sony needs to do this in order to survive." I say that's not true, they can come up with original features. An example of their theft is the use of a wifi module (used from the PSP but STOLEN from the Nintendo DS) which can download previous titles onto the PS3. (An Obvious theft from Nintendo's Virtual Console) Also, probably the cheapest rip-offs ever encountered, is the theft of the gyroscopic controller. They had the "Boomerang" Controller announced for a few years, then all of a sudden pulled it back and issued a gyroscopic controller very similar to the Wii's controller with gyroscopic capabilities. This is why I believe that Sony has unethical business ethics. C. Pineda 00:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are to discuss about the article, not the topic itself, sorry. -- ReyBrujo 01:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, Nintendo invented the accelerometer? --66.127.53.241 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sony doesn't steal inventions (that would be against patent laws), but do they incorporate similar controller ideas after Nintendo does (D-Pad, Rumble, Joystick, Motion-Sensitivity). However, if the article accused them of unethical business practices, it wouldn't be very neutral.  And as ReyBrujo said above, talk pages are for discussing improving the article, not the topic itself.  Useight 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Atari made wired controllers for their consoles, does that mean nintendo copied them?
 * Atari made cartridges for their consoles, does that mean nintendo copied them?
 * There were pc gaming pads that had motion controllers before the wii, does that mean nintendo copied them?
 * I could go on endlessly on what all of the consoles "copied" but there's no fucking point. Every product has to take what it can and build from it, if everyone thought the way you did the consoles wouldn't evolve at all. 74.14.107.120 04:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ReyBrujo & Useight: "Talk pages are for discussing articles, not topics" is a stupid comment that shouldn't even be here. Any information that could be contributed to an article to make it more up-to-date and informative should be valid to TALK about on TALK pages. If it turns out not to be valid, fine, but don't shoot something down right away because you don't want to hear it: TALK about it first. 12.206.192.78 13:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, both the outsold and the outseller?
I had to go back and reread it but I found it interesting that the PS3, according to this article, both was outsold and outsold the Xbox 360 in June. There are some numbers on the 360 page but I'm not sure who's right. I don't have unlimited access here at work so if anyone can help remedy these conflicting numbers that would be great. Eris11 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Worldwide, PS3 is behind the Xbox360. But in Japan, it's ahead. I've reorganized that section so it makes more sense. -- -- MisterHand   (Talk to the Hand|Contribs)  17:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Low low sales!
PS3s sales are very low! i mean PS1 sold 110 million while PS2 has sold well over 120 million! PS3 has roughly sold 3,5 million in months! Wii is way ahead with about 8.5 million and xbox360 11.5 mil0lion! nitendo is the leading companie. I was lanched several (a LOT of) months after XBOX360 and it has sold almost at much (360:11.5 mil wii:8.5 mil.). Should i write anything! Other Opinions!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.32.16 (talk • contribs)

--Mysterious Spy 15:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This information is already in the article, under "Sales and Pricing". -- MisterHand   (Talk to the Hand|Contribs)  20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Those sales were counted when the PS1 and PS2 were long relieased the PS3 is still new and has started the same as the PS2 did so its still uninterpatable what the end sales will be. There is no company called Wii, Wii is made by a "companie" called nintendo


 * Wii is most definitely at it's sale mark, the 360 is not. Microsoft counts shipped as "sold", so those numbers are inaccurate and guessing how many are sold is a long shot. The PS3 numbers might be false as well, but they have a firm distance between their shipped and sold numbers. Not that, that's a good thing. 74.14.107.120 05:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * in didnt say that a companie called "wii" is existing! why did u say so....? i know what nitendo is! why do u have such a offensive attitude!? were discussing here!

well ur right! i wrote "wii is the leading companie..." sorry mistake, thanks for correcting...

--Mysterious Spy 15:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PS2 didnt start as PS3 did! PS2 sold almost 1 million (in Japan only) inITS FIRST WEEKEND!!! PS3 has sold (in Japan only) roughly 0,9 million in MONTHS!!! THIS SAIS ALOT! i believe that nitendo made a comeback with Wii and will achieve sales similar to N64. PS3 has actually flopped and thats bad for every single sony product. PS3 wasb used to promote blu-rays. A potential failure would cause sony huge economical damage. That potential failure seems to start being reality!... Also PS3 has powerful enemies. Nitendo is finally back (sales wise) while X-Box is going very good. PS3s sales are dangerously back. it will probably end up with 15-20 million copies shiped and 10-15 million copies sold (thos is the good senario). This will be a disaster for sony. 110-115 million less than expected ( PS2 sales are well over 120 million) is not only a disaster ....furthermore, its games have taken bad critiques and they also sell horribly low. only one game has shipped 1 million. Wii and X-box 360s games sell very good and mario galaxy and mario 123 will become blockbusters. PS3s future seems to be veeeeeeery daaark............

--Mysterious Spy 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That was painful to read, because it was incredibly incorrect through and through. Yes, the PS2 sold 1 million in Japan in 3 days, but everything else in there was pretty...well...stupid. Unless you're an analyst, which you obviously aren't, then you have to realize this isn't a forum.

7FlushSetzer 18:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont be so hursh.........why is everything so wrong to u! they seem preety potential to me!

--Mysterious Spy 17:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed harsh, but this isn't a forum. If you have a link to some analysts who share those opinions and predictions, then list it. But otherwise, you're better off on a games forum. Just be careful to not make yourself come off as a troll.

7FlushSetzer 18:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah ur right... i was just thinking about this and i thought that this stuff were obvious... but nobody knows... PS3's sales may suddently rise....

--Mysterious Spy 13:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Backwards compatibility
"'Many games had also been reported to have problems with garbled or unreadable text on-screen and generally blurry image quality, but the January 24, 2007 software release, which updated the system to version 1.50, has fully resolved this issue.'"

I think it was resolved for me with 1.50, but I hadn't really noticed it prior. I've changed my setup now, and it's very obvious with some games with version 1.82 and 1.81. Is anyone who had experienced this graphical glitch with older versions experiencing it again?

SeanProctor 12:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the problem's back on your PS3? I haven't played PS2 games for a while so I haven't noticed anything. Camann • TALK  15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the problem is back for me. 1.90 is the same. It seems to only appear during the actual game. Pre-rendered scenes look quite good. The "Square Enix" in the start up for Final Fantasy 7: Dirge of Cerberus looks quite bad. It's very apparent in some parts of Rogue Galaxy. It looks like the edges of some things have some kind of bad effect that I have trouble describing. SeanProctor 01:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So does the PS3 have 4D graphics yet?
Yeah they said the PS3 will have 4D graphics, can anybody provide me with any proof so I cn add this in? Pie76 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is 4D graphics supposed to look like? lol!LN3000 05:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure man, we should call Phil Harrison and find out. Pie76 05:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If the picture I'm showing is supposed to be a Rubix Cube, here's what it would look like in 4D...

http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.gif

Very strange.

7FlushSetzer 05:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a stupid. We live in 4 dimensions, so for the graphics to be 4D it would have to put us in the game like virtual reality.69.209.68.126 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Very stupid. That example looks to be just a stupid 3D render. Don't see the point of that. LN3000 07:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Arent PlayStation Eye games such as The Eye of Judgment and Eyedentify classed as 4D games?? User:Jericho1337 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 4D is merely a marketing term. If the fourth dimension is understood to be time, then graphics have been 4d for as long as they've been animated. Adding a fourth spacial dimension doesn't make for very useful pictures since we live in a universe of 3 spacial dimensions (the rubix cube shown above would have 4 spacial dimensions). It's really just best not to think too hard about it. Camann • TALK  15:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, all I did was search 4D in Google. Don't attack me.

7FlushSetzer 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe 4D is just more realistic 3D garaphics... only the word 4D could attract new buyers so maybe its only a commercial trick!

++ does anyone knows if there are any existing plans for virtual consoles? i know it sounds stupid but technology moves fast.

--Mysterious Spy 13:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what Camman said:(from Wikipeida) Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension". It is, in essence, one way to measure physical change. It is perceived differently from the three spatial dimensions in that there is only one of it, and that movement seems to occur at a fixed rate and in one direction.

So basically we have been playing 4D games all along since we interact with the 3D objects on the screen. (the Sony statement was basically a marketing pitch) Df747jet 02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

PS3 SALES in JAPAN
Wikipedia you need to add this to your sales table for the Japaniese PS3 market

The Japaniese PS3 sales have now hit 1,000,000 as of 19 July 2007

This brings the total sales, world wide of the PS3 close to 3.6 million All of the above by - 82.26.192.3 07:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs a citation before it can be included. Camann • TALK  15:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6175274.html

7FlushSetzer 18:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sales table exclusiveness
India, Russia, South America, Southeast Asia(China, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia etc...) are excluded from sales data. They're not Japan, North America or PAL(Europe, Greenland, French territories, Middle East, Africa, Australia and New Zealand).

Could we put an "other" or "rest of world" category into the sales table to account for sales outside the three big console markets? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beta (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. Are there reliable sources for sales data in those countries? -- -- MisterHand   (Talk to the Hand|Contribs)  18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This does touch on the point that we should be very careful on how we treat our sources. Sony usually lumps these areas in when citing figures. "Japan", for instance, is not just Japan. There is no SECAM PS3, so Russia just gets PAL PS3s, and is listed as a "PAL" territory by SCEE. Dancter 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we can take Russia out of the equation, its PAL. The 1 million+ figure in the table is from Japan retail sales only. The survey covered sales from 3,500 shops. http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/07/18/afx3924642.html

Then what about Southeast Asian countries (China, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines etc...) India, Pakistan, South America, Central America(or is that included in the North America figure).

The PAL region is Europe, Greenland, French territories, Middle East, Africa, Australia and New Zealand. It does not include the far east or Southeast Asia, neither does the 1 million+ Japan sales figure which comes from 3,500 shops in Japan. Our main problem is that Sony's figures include sales in areas of the world (Like South/Southeast Asia, South America, Central America etc...) that other news sources don't have figures for.

http://uk.playstation.com/help-support/ps3/faqs/detail/item49602/What-are-the-regions-of-Blu-ray-Disc%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD-I-can-play-on-my-PS3%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD-system/?/

If we could get a recent global sales figure we could deduct the sales of the "big 3" console markets and the remainder would be the figure we are looking for. The 3.6 million figure we have currently for global sales from march 31st is useless as it has already been surpassed by sales in the "big 3" markets.

Still it would be much better if there was a cited "rest of world" figure or equivalent.


 * Wouldn't Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, China, India, Pakistan be PAL territories? Also, China & Korea are not in Southeast Asia. However it appears Sony's figures include PAL Asian territories and NTSC together as Japan Nil Einne 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind I think I get it now. Looking at PlayStation 3 launch, I don't think think there are any countries missing so to speak. Rather there are 3 versions of the console. PAL, NTSC-US and NTSC-J. Japan gets NTSC-J obviously and the US get's NTSC-US. NTSC countries and some (all?) PAL countries in the Americas get NTSC-US. NTSC countries in Asia get NTSC-J. Certain Asian PAL countries, predominantly East Asian and Southeast Asian ones get NTSC-J. Other PAL (& SECAM) countries get PAL. I presume then that the sales charts simply reflect the versions, Japan are all NTSC-J consoles whether in South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, (probably Malaysia), (probably China), Hong Kong, Taiwan etc. US figures refer to all NTSC-US whether the USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil etc. Europe or PAL territories refer to all PAL consoles, whether Europe, India, Pakistan etc. No countries are missed by these figures. Nil Einne

Russia is SECAM, isn't it?! It's SECAM along with most of the former Soviet Union. India and southest asia are PAL (except for thailand which is NTSC). Brazil is PAL. And finally (for some odd reason?) it says that France is SECAM. Here's the picture to prove all the things I just said. I'm not sure how accurate my findings are though.

PS3 - Wholesale Price: US $147. 25
Is this Correct?

http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/12156223/Sony_Playstation_3_60gb_Console_US_147_25.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.125.22.114 (talk • contribs).
 * Interesting. I don't honestly know. It could be. RC Master 17:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The page doesn't exist. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the post may have ruffled some feathers:

There's always google cache: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:yWcC2GoUXSkJ:www.alibaba.com/catalog/12156223/Sony_Playstation_3_60gb_Console_US_147_25.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.125.22.114 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the real PS3 worldwide sales figure?
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Sony_To_Announce_A_PS3_Price_Cut_At_Leipzigs_Game_Convention_07170.html

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25771559&union_id=2413

4.48 million.

http://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/26-07-2007-6094.html

http://www.n4g.com/industrynews/News-54730.aspx

http://play.tm/story/12089

http://peruseme.com/2007/07/27/448-million-ps3s-sold-sony-aiming-for-145-million-by-march-08/

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/1599.html

http://www.ps3vault.com/worldwide-ps3-sales-448-million-1875

Official Sony figure says 4.28 million: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/07q1_eleki.pdf

Er, Japanese?
Why is the Japanese relevant when the console's name is in English? The japanese transliteration would be relevant if it was a Japanese name, but it's not! "Pureisutēshon Surī" - is it really necessary? 193.82.139.220 12:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The PlayStation 3 is a Japanese console. カ  ラ  ム  07:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job GCFreak2, but you completely missed the point of the topic: ITS _NAME_ is in English. The inclusion of the "Japanese name" is redundant and stupid: it's simply the English name being pronounced phonetically with the Japanese alphabet. There is no reason to include it in the article.

Well, since a majority of English-speaking people don't know how to read katakana, I think it's sort of a good idea to put the Japanese pronounciation in English there. Abby724 14:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you get the point. The name is in ENGLISH.  There is no reason - regardless of whether the company is Japanese - that it should be in Katakana script or a transliteration or a phonetic rendering specifically for Japanese.  The localised renditions of names are only relevant if the name is actually from that language!  194.193.212.133 12:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a Japanese company that makes a Japanese product, it has a Japanese name, or is it irrelevant to have Moskva on the capital of Russia's page, or perhaps we should rename this article For Elise? It is encyclopedic to include the original name of a product/place/person or object of significance, otherwise, how many people would know where The Meadows are?             BradK 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The original name of the PlayStation 3 is not Japanese. That's part of the point. プレイステーション doesn't have any native meaning in Japan. This isn't unusual there. For example, トワイライトプリンセス doesn't mean anything in Japanese, either. It's the English words "Twilight Princess" in a Japanese script. The game did not have a true Japanese title. If you look at the Japanese packaging for both, the English names are the ones most prominently displayed. The most common use of katakana is for transcribing words from foreign languages. Dancter 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

1.90
Please update this it is no longer version 1.82, 1.90 is out now.

6 million in sales!
According to Sony Computer Entertainment MD Michael Ephraim the PS3 has sold approximately 6 million units worldwide. Check it out http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/808/808656p1.html if confirmed please update the data on the ps3 page please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Team-my1 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Controversial, that is. Sony has been known to count shipped as sold, so we'll just have to see. 7FlushSetzer 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure sony SHIPPED 6.21 million PS3s as of July 2007 (5.5 milion last financial year up to march + 0.71 million for the first quarter this year)
 * Most sources on the internet say that the sony has SOLD 4.48 million PS3s as of July 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.125.22.114 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No that's the currnet figures because he also showed the PS2 and PSP sales and they were less than what they shipped. Starwarsrulez 16:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll have to point to that source. Both Team-my1's source and Damien Russell's source show the same slide, which indicates "March 2007" in the footnote, with global figures that seem to be rounded to the nearest million. They are consistent with SCEI's data for last quarter, which had PS3 shipments at 5.50 million. Dancter 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the best choice would be to wait until Monday when the official blog is updated. If it has the site that says the PS3 sold 6 Milllion it is true. Starwarsrulez 18:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll revert to the most-frequently reported fiscal Q1 numbers for now, though even the 4.48 million figure is thrown into question when you look at the breakdown in the official supplemental data Sony released, which adds up to 4.28 million. Dancter 18:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say the 6 million figure is fine enough, said by a reliable source and published in a reliable media. We don't analyze statistics, just report them if they are reliable. -- ReyBrujo 18:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We have conflicting data, all from sources that meet a certain level of reliability, and all very current. What can we do but either report them all or exercise some judgment, and determine which is the most reliable? Reliability is not a all-or-nothing thing, and it's not practical to always expound on the character of sources. By no means was I turning to original research. I was turning to the most popular figure, by count of search results. Dancter 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If sources conflict, we should expose all variants according to prominence. In other words, the article may read "4.48 million, although XXX YYY, very important someone from Sony, claimed the figure to be at 6 million". -- ReyBrujo 19:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly talking about what goes in the infobox and table, which aren't well-suited to that. Dancter 22:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Me and him say six million, you say 4.48 sorry but you are outnumbered. Besides Sony can only approximate the sales numbers, if they are way off then they are violating trade commmision laws. Starwarsrulez 20:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even in a generous count, it's 4-to-3, which is not a strong consensus whatsoever. Dancter 22:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

These numbers seem rather high. Would it be possible to just put both numbers in the box and then cite both sources. Media Create puts the Playstation 3 under a million in Japan and NPD puts it around 1.5 million at the end of June. Numbers from Europe are a little more difficult to come buy as the last numbers given I believe were around a million sold.(I think in like April). But even if the Playstation 3 sold 300,000 this month in the United States(highly unlikely) and a million in Europe since then(once again highly unlikely) then the figure would be put at 4.8 million. That means the rest of the world would have to sell 1.2 million which would be feasibly impossible considering that all the other markets are small. Oh, and consensus has not been formed here yet. That said while it should be the goal of an encyclopedia to be accurate its not the end of the world if one sales figure is off by a few million. 74.137.230.39 03:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see there are numbers of 1.2 million for Europe and a little over a million for Japan.(Although Media Create differs) So if we gave an extremely generous 200,000 for Europe this month it would still need another 1.6 million to account for bringing the total to 2.8 million. 74.137.230.39 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is what we should do: sony will adress this on Monday so lets wait til then. Starwarsrulez 03:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: a lot of the sales information in this article (and the talk page) reads like desperation and spin trying to boost the numbers, rather than simply reporting the facts as seen in the Xbox 360 and Wii articles. "An exec made a mistake? Let's report it as fact!" -- MisterHand  (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On the reference given the picture in the blog has a double asterix next to the worldwide, and at the bottom says **As of Ma...., I pretty sure it says As of March 2007, so it's just their sales to stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.195.85.159 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The fiscal Q1, for which the 4.48mil figure was cited, ended in June 2007. That means in the past month, the PS3 would need to have sold 60,000 units per day, almost a consistent 2100% increase in all stores worldwide since July 1st onwards. Considering we already have sales numbers for the week of the price drop, which IN A WEEK were 60,000 or so, then the PS3 would need to sell 72,000 units every single day other than that week. Since obviously that didn't happen, the 6 million units sold number is false. I will revert it until we get a credible source. IGN has been known to make mistakes before and Sony itself reports shipped as sold. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nzk (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "IGN has been known to make mistakes before and Sony itself reports shipped as sold." If IGN is such an unreliable source, why do we link to it on many, many other game-related pages here on Wikipedia for release dates, and other information? As for the information, I found it a few days ago on a link which was on the Official PlayStation Blog. I believe that I even found the info on GameSpot (I'll have to go find the link). At any rate, If we need to "wait" for Sony to announce everything that we put on Wikipedia relating to them, then we will need to remove probably over 1/2 of the content we have, if you catch what I'm saying. If I might add something else, and please excuse me if I'm wrong, but I do find definite fanboyism in this dispute. I also believe that this "6 million sold" is highly probable, because of the PS3's recent 135% rise in sales due to the reduced price of the 60GB SKU (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6175529.html?sid=6175529&part=rss&subj=6175529). W  IKIPEE  DIO  14:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point, the statement is disputed because it appears to be a slip of the tongue or typo. If it's factual, than you'd think that it would be big news across several gaming news magazines. Let's wait for confirmation from another source, since this one is sketchy. -- MisterHand  (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, you should reread my comment. That small 135% burst made 60,000 or so units sold in the week after the price drop. You are telling me, that for absolutely no reason, on July 1st it started selling at 700% and doing every week BUT the week of the price drop? Perhaps you should rethink your logic. It boosted sales but you are giving it way too much credit. It was likely a misinterpretation, a typo, or a slip of the tongue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.234.2 (talk •

contribs) 12:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Then how come you are counting the the 11.6 million Xbox360 sold,considering that company has also been known to associate items shipped as sold.Plus a company's sales figures are more reliable than from a website like Vgchartz.com. Sugreev2001 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Overstock of PS3s
I've looked on the internet for a while and can't seem to find anything on this, but it seems to me like there's a huge overstock of PS3s not just due to supply/demand issues, but also because of consumers returning their PS3s en masse. At my local Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City, and Gamestop they have had an alarming number of PS3s come back after the release date, none of which are being sold. All of the friends I've spoken to have noticed the same thing. Any official data on this that can be included in the article? La Bicyclette 13:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

looks like people either couldn't make it on ebay, or they are trying to get a hunderd bucks.

Felix 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but there is a PS3 shortage at the mo, as the price drop has ignited sales.--Mgillespie 20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A shortage? I'm aware of the sales spike, but have read nothing about a resultant shortage. Could you point to where you came across that information? Dancter 21:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Flash RAM for OS
It should be noted that the PS3 has 128 MB (1 Gb) Flash RAM for it's OS. As shown here, http://www.chipworks.com/uploadedFiles/Technical_Competitive_Analysis/Capabilities/Sony_Playstation_report%20(2).pdf --Yewyew 23:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 1024MB makes 1GB. So 256MB is 1/4 of a GB. And besides, it just says it's there, not what it does. Df747jet 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold on, 256 MB (Megabyte) equals 1 Gb (Gigabit), which is exactly what's implied here.--Yewyew 23:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * uh, no.
 * Corrected, that's actually 128 MB equalling 1 Gb, but there seems to be another chip on the back side of the main board. If not the same chip then that means 256 MB total (2 Gb).--Yewyew 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you just don't understand a GIGABYTE (GB) is EQUAL to 1024 Megabytes (MB)  and I would sign but I don't have a user name

Quarterly sales charts?
I noticed that the 360 page has a sales chart that lists sales over time. The PS3 page could really use something like this as well. I copy-pasted the one from the 360 page to give an example.

A lot of specifics (notice how many 360's were sold due to Gears of War's release during Q4 2006) are revealed in a sales-over-time chart like this. It appears as though within the short period of time during which the price of the 60 GB dropped, the PS3's made more than 2 million in sales, and a chart to reflect that would be highly informative. The Wii page needs something like this too, but since their sales don't fluctuate in consistency as the other two consoles, so I wouldn't say it's as necessary, but it'd be nice. I'm not sure if the PS3 page had one before and it had been removed for some reason, so I'm posting the idea here to make sure everyone agrees with it. Yamamoto114 09:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is though, do we have the sources available to make a box like this? We can't just pluck numbers out of the air. RC Master 11:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that Sony cites recorded sales instead of production shipments starting with the most recent quarterly report (see the link I posted in the above discussion), it may be a little difficult to make a box like that moving forward. Dancter 15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind it's OR to say the Q4 was due to GoW. It surely was at least partially because it was the Christmas buying period and a year after the previous year's Christmas supply debacle (and some people might have also given up on the PS3) Nil Einne 14:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

SCEH releases PSN pre-paid cards
Sony Computer Entertainment Hong Kong Limited is releasing PSN pre-paid cards in Tawian. http://asia.playstation.com/tch_tw/index.php?q=node/1472 - 60.231.107.26 10:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PS3 in Flops
the theoretical peak performance in flops is rather misleading and is really only a form of advertising because it is just that-cthe theoretical peak. because of latency (which in their specifications is completely disregarded) it is able to reach nothing near this, and can easily be outperformed by 8800 gtx. the POV of this article is something like a rave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.178.7.100 (talk • contribs).

Inconsistent Sales numbers
There is a table which has information regarding the sales of the PS3 based on geographic area, and total sales world wide. The numbers for the individual territories don't correspond with the world wide numbers.

Japan 1 million USA 1.5 million PAL Territories 1.2 million

All of which have sources for July, adding them up gets roughly 3.7 million PS3s

However the worldwide numbers have a source from June which indicates 4.48 million PS3s. Obviously this makes no sense. How can there be almost 800,000 more PS3s sold in June, and then subsuquently have them disappear from the July numbers? Either the worldwide numbers are wrong or the numbers based on geographic area is wrong. 216.141.239.249 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * South Korea, Canada, Mexico and other NTSC regions other then Japan and the USA? Nil Einne 13:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it appears rather complicated. See . Evidentally PAL territories doesn't actually include all PAL territories and Japan sometimes means all of Asia including PAL and NTSC. Unfortunately Sony sales figures are not particularly clear who they're referring to from what I can tell Nil Einne 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

DVB-t
It appears Sony is going to support a DVB-t tuner, for PAL territories anyway. It will be interesting whether they will support it in NTSC-J particuarly the ones likes Singapore, Malaysia etc that are PAL. Nil Einne 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have noticed some vandalism throughout the article and since I am indeed using a playstation 3, I am unable to remove it.

It is fairly easy to spot

Felix 01:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Blu-Ray playback
I've searched the article for information on the subject but couldn't find any information. Can you play Blu-ray discs from different regions? Some people I talked to say it's possible, while others deny that possibility. -- Ishikawa Minoru 00:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some titles are region locked, others not. There are a few sites with lists.

This is fake, right?
"As of current the backwards compatibility has been removed from the PS3 the following is a petition for the backwards capability. http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/PS3BC"

I don't think this is true, but I want to make sure, as I don't actually own a PS3 yet. It's wrong, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.113.234.136 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it. The statement was wrong in quite a few ways. The rest of the information under the "Removal of hardware support" section is probably okay, though. Dancter 20:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)