Talk:PlayStation 4/Archive 1

PS4 or Playstation 4?
The article has uses of PS4 and Playstation 4. Eg. "The playstation 4 supports many blah blah" or "The PS4 supports many blah blah". Which should it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrededits (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sony appears to very much favor the "PS4" term in their press release. In fact, they only spell out "PlayStation 4" once in their press release. It sounds as though the console is going to be known primarily as the "PS4," with the longer name just a formality. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To be consistent we should pick one, if we want to go with PS4, we should use PS4 everywhere. Currently the first paragraph only says "officially abbreviated" rather than "officiall branded" or anything. --Andrededits (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm just not sure which is the official name, if either one is the official name. So I would hesitate at trying to pick one. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we stick with Playstation 4 for now then? --Andrededits (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's fine by me. If I had to guess at which one is the official name I would err on the side of the longer one. I suppose the default is to go with the longer name as the default. So let's stick with that for now until Sony publishes more publicity material; they might reveal which one is the primary name, and which the secondary name, over time. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I also changed the lead to indicate that the two names - longer and shorter - are aliases. It is not necessarily the case that one is the abbreviation of the other. In other words, it would appear that both are equally valid and equally official. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks --Andrededits (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It is fine to use PS4 as long as it's mentioned in parenthesis next to PlayStation 4 ahead of time. I've done this in the History section, so the body of the article can and should use the terms interchangeably. Once the lead gets to a certain length, the same can be done there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Current event
Could we remove the current event tag as the announcement event has finished? Logan (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I went ahead and removed it since the announcement and the basic details are taken care of. I kept the under construction tag for the moment, as further structural changes to the page are not out of the question. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Holyday
"with a release date set for holiday 2013." - When is that? Like holidays are not the same for Americans and Italians. Very vague and not really saying anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.134.165 (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to Q4, which is the accepted standard for future dates, season names like "Winter" should not be used either. See WP:SEASON - X201 (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please edit the article, as it is not an upcoming product any more: it's released to public
See http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/20/sony-announces-ps4-touts-unification-of-hardware-software-internet-capabilities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.153.230.50 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 February 2013‎
 * It hasn't been released. It has only been announced. - X201 (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sensor Bar image (Edit Request)
Addition of a visual representation of the sensor bar provided by the Verge.

http://www.theverge.com/products/playstation-4-eye/6877

Lorondos (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: mainly because protection of this article expired after this request was made. I'm also not sure what exactly you want added to the article. We can't just copy and paste the image from the source to this article unless you can come up with a good fair use justification. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources to use
Dear editors -- here are some press releases that will help flesh out the article with more exact information. I tend to rely on press releases for objective information, and articles for more opinionated pieces / comparions. For example, a press release will tell you how many TFLOPs the GPU operates at, while an article from a tech site will tell you how that GPU compares with other GPUs. Please post any other links or sources that you find useful for editing. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Announcement
 * DualShock 4 and PS4 Eye
 * The press conference itself


 * "I tend to rely on press releases for objective information"
 * For hardware and other technical specifications, sure. That makes sense. However, keep in mind that press releases tend to contain peacock terminology and are not always objective. Secondary sources are still preferred over primary sources per WP:WPNOTRS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant that I use those primary sources for technical specifications (which are often misinterpreted and/or misstated in secondary sources). I'm not going off primary sources to tell, for example, how revolutionary or awesome the next console might be. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

PlayStation 4 specs
I am new to Wikipedia only have four edits since the article is semi protected I cant edit it. In the specs it should say for the cpu x86-64 My reference is http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/130221a_e.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiguy303952 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. The reason I put it as 64-bit x86 is because x86-64 is more of a marketing term than a technical term. Both 32-bit and 64-bit CPUs are based on the same underlying x86 architecture. I believe it's helpful to the reader to explain that it's a 64-bit x86 architecture, because x86-64 makes no sense to the vast majority of readers. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 64-bit x86 makes no sense from a technical perspective. Changing to x86-64 and linking to the wiki page.
 * Hmm, I hadn't realized that was the prevailing terminology. Sounds fine. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sony has published specs on a PS4 site. https://secure.webassets.scea.com/pscomauth/groups/public/documents/webasset/feb21/pdf/playstation4_specification.pdf BasementTrix (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hold on. Per Eurogamer -- "x86 in nature, with 64-bit addressing - Sony calls it 'x86-64'" -- my understanding is still that x86 on its own is the correct term. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * x86-64 is the term most widely used to describe the 64-bit extension of the x86 instruction set, which is why Sony also uses this term. Kapitaenk (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

PS4 with Gaikai integrated technology (Edit Request)
Sources:
 * http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/sony-and-gaikai-join-forces-for-social-and-remote-play-in-ps4-1131847
 * http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/20/playstation-cloud-revealed

Can we include Gaikai as Playstation 4's Cloud service provider? - zerohot99 (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

CPU details
We do not yet know which architecture the PS4 CPU is using from AMD, why are we assuming that it's based on the "Jaguar" APU? Could just be that the CPU used is just a codename and has nothing to do with the AMD APU. I think that should be clearly stated as there's no information that confirms that it uses the tablet CPU. It also doesn't make sense for Sony to be using a tablet SoC for the Playstation 4 and couple it with a mid-range graphics processor that's likely in the Radeon HD 7800 series range. Not sure who put in the details that it's based on the upcoming Jaguar APU architecture... I suggest that we remove any references to the AMD Jaguar APU architecture... Cncxbox (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * http://www.joystiq.com/2013/02/20/sony-further-details-playstation-4-hardware-specs/#continued 2620:0:2820:2210:B1E5:19C5:FE9D:D4C8 (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. I believe you're right -- "Jaguar" is a codename and not an architecture. There seems to be confusion about this matter in the tech media. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * When I said that this uses the Jaguar architecture I was going off this post, which is perhaps inaccurate. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Jaguar is an AMD architecture. It is their low-power core.  There is a difference between an APU and CPU.  The CPU, in this case, has 8 Jaguar cores.  An APU, Accelerated Processing Unit, is when a CPU and GPU are combined on a single die. Source: AMD Blog BasementTrix (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The CPU is confirmed Jaguar architecture. Source: http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/130221a_e.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anexanhume (talk • contribs) 17:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Backward compatibility
A citation is needed for the statement: This is a consequence of moving away from the Cell architecture of the PlayStation 3 in favor of x86-64 for the PlayStation 4.

This statement is an assumption and shouldn't be included unless a reliable source supports it. The reason is that through emulation, you can run games across different platforms. For example, on an x86 processor can emulate games for the original NES. Later versions of the PS3 in fact did this for PS2 games. Emulation has a lot of overhead and isn't as efficient, but it's certainly possible as long as the CPU has enough horsepower to make up for inefficiency. So if the PS4 cannot play PS3 games, then it's not just a consequence of changing architectures; Sony may have simply decided not to include the feature. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the change in architecture does not make emulation impossible. I think the basic idea we want to communicate is that the PlayStation 4 does not natively play PS3 games. Having a powerful processor capable of emulating programs written for the Cell is very different from having a Cell inside. Just like early PS3s had Emotion Engine chips inside, whereas later PS3s lacked the hardware component of the original console. That being said, moving to an x86 architecture by its definition means moving away from the Cell. So the statement, in my view, is mostly correct, as long as we make it clear that native execution is impossible. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I noticed that the page previously said "The PlayStation 4 hardware will not include the ability to natively play or emulate PlayStation 3 titles." This appears to have been quite incorrect. I edited the wording in this diff. A citation from a reliable source is still needed, though. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The PS4 APU will be much, much more powerful and could easily emulate the PPE's and SPE's of the PS3's cell CPU. The decision to not program an emulator seems to be of a strategic nature. Probably to push the Gaikai streaming service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapitaenk (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "could easily emulate the PPE's and SPE's of the PS3's cell CPU" - citation needed. I think you're underestimating the complexity of emulation. It isn't straightforward, and usually requires hardware far in excess of the power of what is being emulated to be functionally the same. Also, while it is probably possible, it is probably also cost prohibitive, at least to be included at launch and with a decent number of games supported. Remember, in order for the launch PS3s to run PS2 games, they included various pieces of PS2 hardware. When they removed one of the chips in the second generation models in favour of emulating it, the compatibility list went down significantly.


 * Personally, I find it more likely that, rather than leaving out emulation to push Gaikai, they bought Gaikai so as to not have to code the emulation.


 * Regardless of that though, any discussion of this is pure speculation, so doesn't really belong here. Unless there is a source indicating reasons one way or another for the lack of BC, it has no place on Wikipedia, talk page or otherwise. (WP:NOTAFORUM.)


 * Alphathon  /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk ) 22:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like we're on the same page then. At least two editors kept removing the citation needed tag, so I initiated this discussion, which is appropriate in the context of keeping or removing that statement. After a little more time, I'll remove the statement altogether if no citation is provided. Thanks for the feedback. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course emulation requires a very complex software... But the PS4 APU does have more than enough power to easily emulate the two general purpose threads of the PPE and the parrallel threads of the SPEs. The theoretical raw performance of the entire PS4 APU is well over 2 TFLOPS including the GPGPU capabilities of the GPU, compared to the 0,2 TFLOPS of the PS3 Cell.
 * Sony wanted a streaming and steam-like download service including social features, so they bought Gaikai. I seriously doubt that Sony bought Gaikai just for emulation, although it is quite possible that this affected the decision IMO. Kapitaenk (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Like Alphatron said, let's avoid turning this into a forum. Any further comments that are not about the statement in question do not belong here and may be removed. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, the discussion is just fine (so far). As you can see there are different assumptions but nobody has a proper reference to back up his premise. I think that the statement in question should be removed or quoted out. I also believe that it is fallacious. Kapitaenk (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the point. Since no-one has a reference (proper or otherwise) for their opinion, any statement about the reasons behind the lack of inclusion of PS3 backwards compatibility is merely a hypothesis. It has no place in the article, and nor do we have any justification in discussing our hypotheses here (per WP:NOTAFORUM, quote "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article"). Statements such as "The PlayStation 4 hardware will not include the ability to natively play PlayStation 3 titles." are fine since citations are readily available. Speculating as to why emulation won't be included (or ever that it won't be - they haven't ruled it out for PSN games yet; see http://www.joystiq.com/2013/02/21/psn-transfers-ps4/) is not. Alphathon  /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk ) 14:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed the statement in question. Sony has not ruled out if PlayStation 3 games will be emulated or not, as you can read here http://www.joystiq.com/2013/02/21/psn-transfers-ps4/. If anyone thinks that this statment should remain in the article, then feel welcome to add it again (and state why here). Kapitaenk (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit suggestion
Near the beginning of text it reads that PS4 is the second entry into the eight generation after Wii U. Would wording such as "second home console entry into the eight generation" be better as this takes into account the handhelds that exist in this generation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.207.137 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with the statement now, is that it assumes the PS4 will release before the next generation Xbox (or any other eighth-generation console for that matter). The PS4 is the second one to be announced, not released. This needs to be emphasized. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Add RAM bandwidth of 176GB/s to spec box.

Source: http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/130221a_e.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anexanhume (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Development kits
An editor is challenging that the following statement is a rumor:
 * "In 2012, Sony began shipping development kits to several game developers consisting of a modified PC running the AMD Accelerated Processing Unit chipset (formerly AMD Fusion)."

Any search will turn up dozens of reliable sources that these dev kits exist. It is true, however, that Sony has not commented on them (and probably never will). I do think mentioning their existence is beneficial to the article, but I'm not opposed to removing it if that's the consensus. I just take issue with the accusation that the statement is a rumor and removing it on those grounds. Opinions/thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we agree it is quite obvious that Sony sent out Dev-Kits back in 2012. But back then it was a rumor, and that is also the basis of the article you linked. Stick to the rules, don't treat it as a fact until you have a proper reference.
 * BTW, it is fine if you state in the history section that there were rumors about Dev-Kits being sent out. This is a fact, and I was trying to emphasize this before I removed the statement. Kapitaenk (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not following. Multiple sources confirm that the dev kits shipped, including this one which was cited. It's not a rumor that they shipped; it is a fact. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So if any site states that their "sources" have legitimate factual info, then it can not be a rumor? ^^
 * The source is undiscernible, so it is a rumor, no matter what you say. You are just assuming (as do I) that it is true now that the PS4 has been announced.
 * Look, I see that you really want to have this info up for some reason. So just put the quote back up, remove the original citation and use a "citation needed" template. I will leave it be then. Kapitaenk (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, not just any site. The source needs to be reliable, as defined by WP:RS. VG247 qualifies as such, hence the information should be trusted. In addition, there are dozens of other reliable sources that have published similar reports, many of which actually reference VG247's research further indicating that it's valid. So unless you are challenging that VG247 is unreliable, there's no reason not to allow the statement. I appreciate that you've responded to state your case, but let's give others a chance to chime in to see what the consensus is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there has been no response, I have restored the statement without the "citation needed" template (per reasons stated above). If there are any further objections, let's discuss here. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Write in present tense
There's no need to write in future tense once something's been confirmed by Sony, even if the console hasn't been released. If you add something, write it in present tense, so others don't have to correct it later. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there a policy or guideline that discourages future tense? For planned films that have not been released, use of future tense is actually encouraged (See WP:FFFORMAT). That was the best example I could dig up, unfortunately. The problem I have with present tense, is that many of these details have not yet been finalized. Present tense implies that they have been. Also, the article will go through a lot of changes leading up to the console's launch anyway as more information is released, so having to "correct it later" shouldn't be a big deal. The template can be used to tag future-dated statements. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That essay isn't a policy, but for the sake of consistency and if we have consensus to use future tense, then go ahead and continue to use future tense up to release. Still, I consider it unnecessary to write in future tense about specifics that have been officially confirmed and aren't subject to change. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Details that are not likely to change do not necessarily need to be described in future tense. However, there are exceptions. Some statements in present tense might imply a feature or product already exists when clearly that's not the case. In those situations, present tense should be avoided. Good examples: "PlayStation 4 games are downloadable", "It is the fourth game console in Sony's PlayStation series". Although we are confident both will remain true, we should still use future tense to avoid that dilemma. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...And while the example above is just an essay, it still reflects the opinions of multiple editors and holds some weight, albeit a small amount. Do you know of any examples (essays, guidelines, or policies) that contradict it? --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any examples that contradict it, and this article is generally following WP:FUTURE pretty well, although it includes some vague and speculative news-style sentences. For example, this kind of sentence from the Hardware section should be rewritten: "This familiarity should make it easier and less expensive for game studios to develop games for the PS4." WP only reports on concrete details, and should not make statements like this. If they are to be included, then they should be presented as actual quotations rather than paraphrased statements. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2013
In the games section there is a game missing: Rainbow Six patriots, I want to add the game on the list so would be possible to me to edit the section.

189.122.146.208 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source stating that the game is slated for release on PlayStation 4? The1337gamer (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that ubisoft allready told this check the page. So please allow me to add the game in the page, its not asking much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.146.208 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . No reliable source provided, and I can't seem to find one with official confirmation.  Ubisoft said last year there is a "good chance" it may release on next-gen consoles, but that is not confirmation.  When there is an official announcement, it can be added. The1337gamer (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Mono speaker on controller - link correction
The (mono) speaker on the controller should link to "Monaural" not "Monophony" --194.83.82.3 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed Alphathon  /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk ) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request
Hi, i would to request edit please? Their is a couple of information left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikes1472 (talk • contribs) 3 April 2013


 * You need to specify here what you want to add or change first. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
 * You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
 * You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
 * You can provide a specific request to edit the article on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You can provide a specific request to edit the article on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Battlefield 4
Following a discussion on the Battlefield 4 Wikipedia Article, we are unable to decide if Battlefield 4 has been offically confirmed for releace on the PS4. We are considering changing one of them. FranktheTank (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Games
In development-Lords of the Fallen. http://www.psu.com/a019186/Lords-of-the-Fallen-announced-for-PS4-inspired-by-Dark-Souls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popthepuff (talk • contribs) 12:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Unified Memory and Heterogeneous System Architecture (HSA)
On HSA: Although it has not been officialy announced yet, the PS4 almost certainly utilizes the newest HSA features (check HSA architectual integration). Although this info was added to the Console section of this wiki, I do agree that it is better to not include this info until it is official; I am fine with the fact that it has been removed until then. Note: Sony's use of the term "unified memory", and the fact that AMD is designing the APU, hints that the PS4 does indeed utilize HSA (including the newest features). Without "HSA-MMU" (memory management unit) and HSA's "unified address space", the PS4 would simply be using shared memory (like in the Xbox360).

On shared memory: It is true that a shared memory architecture (falsely called unified memory in the Xbox360) does make it easier for a programmer to develop a program, unlike in a system with split memory pools for the CPU and GPU (like in the PS3). The programmer can choose how he wants to partition the memory, which is much more flexible.

On unified memory: Both "HSA-MMU" and a "unified address space" greatly reduce latency, seeing that the CPU and GPU can share pointers, which in turn removes the requirement to copy data from the CPU's memory resources to the GPU's memory resources. This also obviously simplifys the programming of a game-engine.

Kapitaenk (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, I want to start by acknowledging that I understand you have the best intentions for improving this article, and I agree with many of your contributions thus far. The problem here is that some of the information being inserted (by several editors) appears to reflect original research. Whether accurate or not, it shouldn't be included unless it is clearly supported by a reliable source. After checking the sources in the Console section thoroughly, I'm having trouble locating the proper support. Also, sometimes there is a tendency to combine information from multiple sources to advance a new position that is not directly mentioned in any of the sources. Though unintentional at times, this is considered synthesis (a form of original research) which is highly discouraged on Wikipedia. I'm not denying your knowledge on the subject, or even what you've said above. We just need to make sure that everything is properly cited.
 * On latency:
 * We can easily find sources that talk about the "unified address space". However, finding sources that discuss the effect on latency in great detail are scarce. If you can find one that relates specifically to AMD's Fusion architecture, then I would support mentioning it in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. Which is why I reverted the topic, seeing that you also started your own research as well (which in my opinion was also technically not 100% correct, at least not with the wording you chose).
 * There are articles about HSA'a latency improvements (although extremely scarce) but I suppose we should just leave it as it is until more official info about the PS4's technical capabilities are released, which should be around the E3 I suppose.
 * Kapitaenk (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, let's talk about that. Here's the information you most recently reverted:
 * The unified memory architecture gives the CPU and GPU access to the same memory pool, making it easier for programmers to write code that targets both processors.
 * If you look at page 6 in the source that I cited, it clearly states:
 * As a result GCN will be adding support for pointers, virtual functions, exception support, and even recursion. These underlying features mean that developers will not need to “step down” from higher languages to C to write code for the GPU, allowing them to more easily program for the GPU and CPU within the same application...the memory subsystem is also evolving to be able to service those features...This goes hand-in-hand with the earlier language features to allow programmers to write code to target both the CPU and the GPU, as programs (or rather compilers) can reference memory anywhere, without the need to explicitly copy memory from one device to the other before working on it


 * The memory architecture is partly responsible, according to the source, for making it easier on programmers to "target" both the GPU and CPU. This other source that you removed through your reversion also discusses the use of "GPU compute", a feature that allows "a strong GPU to help a weak CPU on certain non-graphical tasks". So you see, the statements I included had backing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You originally wrote: "The unified memory architecture also gives the CPU and GPU access to the same memory pool, making it easier for one processor to assist the other." and, after my objection, you changed it to: "The unified memory architecture gives the CPU and GPU access to the same memory pool, making it easier for programmers to write code that targets both processors." Both of these statements are extremely vague and as you can see from the text excerpt that you posted, are also not correct in this context.
 * If you would like to write a text based on the quote that you just posted (GPGPU + numerous HSA hardware features; not to mention our discussion), then feel free to do so. Your source (although somewhat vague) is actually correct.
 * Kapitaenk (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * EDIT: "The memory architecture is partly responsible, according to the source, for making it easier on programmers to "target" both the GPU and CPU."
 * The unified address space of HSA does not mean that it is easier for the programmer to write a program, it only means that the programmer does not have to explicitly copy data from the CPU's resources to the GPU's resources (and vice versa). This is because both processors share pointers. As I said, this greatly reduces latency, i.e. it is a performance feature - and not only for GPGPU features but also for "regular" graphical capabilities.
 * The ability to program a GPU with C++ (for example), now that is a feature which dramatically eases a programmers job.
 * Kapitaenk (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree about the reduction in latency, but we shouldn't mention it until we have a reliable source that does. It could be considered original research without one and a possible point of contention. I also understand your point that the unified address space is a performance enhancement, and not something that directly makes it easier for a programmer to write a program. The next-gen APU architecture as a whole is responsible for that; the unified address space is just a piece of the pie that serves as a complement (less code to write does make it easier, but that's not its main benefit). So I agree that the wording used is somewhat vague and inaccurate. If you'd like to take a stab with better wording, be my guest. I'm fine with the way it's worded now. Sometimes less is more! --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by latency. It takes time to copy data + command overhead from CPU to GPU and that is a part of latency. From this point of view there's a clear reduction in latency. As for the general efficiency of the memory controller, I can't comment, only refer to AMD hUMA (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/01/amd_huma/ - the only publicly announced technology that uses a single pool of memory) which promises that data recently accessed on either the CPU or GPU will likely be pre-cached for the other via cache coherence, which will have a positive impact in many instances. Regardless, if the former statement is true, there will be a significant overall reduction in latency.GMScribe (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Kapitaenk regarding "The unified address space of HSA does not mean that it is easier for the programmer to write a program"
 * I would strongly suggest that it does make programming easier. Copying data to-and-fro frequently requires asynchronous barriers, you trigger a transfer and proceed with your program, you then have to be cleaver about making sure the CPU is always busy working whilst data is still being DMA'd over, you have to ensure the copy has finished before continuing at certain points and in general can be a balancing act as to where and how to place/use your barriers and the concept itself breaks away from the simple procedural paradigm of working within a single thread. There's a lot less/none of this when data doesn't need copying.GMScribe (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * EDIT:Not to mention there's not going to be any end-of-development memory bandwidth optimisation, something that's highly prevalent in high-end game development.GMScribe (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Kapitaenk regarding "The ability to program a GPU with C++ (for example), now that is a feature which dramatically eases a programmers job."
 * I think what's important here is that support for pointers, virtual space and recursion means that the fundamental hardware required to implement a high-level language is now present (such as a virtual machine or C++). Recursion alone means that it will no-longer always be a requirement to convert every recursive algorithm into a complex loop, that alone makes programming easier, recursion itself is a concept that makes programming easier.GMScribe (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Some news regarding HSA: http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/series/rt/20130325_593036.html (first translations efforts: http://gamingeverything.com/44227/lots-of-ps4-hardware-tidbits/) --85.216.15.79 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Chris Norden is talking about an "unified address space", which should pretty much confirm the HSA-like architecture. Even the google translation of the already mentioned japanese articel should make that clear. --Belzebübchen (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Some very interesting details on the PS4's hardware implementation, including confirmation of hardware audio with many mp3 stream decoding and hardware zlib decompression for bluray:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191007/inside_the_playstation_4_with_mark_.php?page=3 GMScribe (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

PS4 Release?
Hi there all just wanted to ask about the release date. Has the console actually been confirmed by sony company that it is getting released at the end of 2013? European Combat Warrior (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember that talk pages should not be used as a discussion forum, but yes, Sony confirmed a "Holiday 2013" release. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 23:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

O Im sorry didn't know. I just wanted to ask as there is no sources that shows a proper confirmation.European Combat Warrior (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd just guess October 29, 2013 due to a couple of games (Battlefield 4, Assassin's Creed IV) having the same release date in North America, just a hunch though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.83.121 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We will definitely know a release date sometime at E3, but we can't really glean the date from multiplatform releases. Many of those will be coming out on existing systems and might come out later for the launch of Xbox One/PS4. We'll see. Have they given any hints about upcoming exclusive game release targets? Loganman86 (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As GSK mentions above, we should avoid using this talk page as a general forum. Discussing release dates for exclusive content takes the conversation down that route. Even if there is news about those release dates, they aren't going to be helpful to the article, as they cannot be used to draw any definite conclusions about when the PS4 will release. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Backwards Compatibility Statement
I feel as though there should be a statement indicating the switch to x86/64 is why there is no B/C? It seems needed so people have a basic understanding why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.78.153 (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source which corroborates this? The switch to a different architecture alone does not make backwards compatibility impossible. If that were the case, neither the PS2 or PS3 would be backwards compatible with PS1 software. The reason for its exclusion is due to a decision by Sony to do so, presumably because they consider it to be too expensive to develop for it to be worth their while. <font color="#900">Alphathon  /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (<font color="#900">talk ) 11:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sony confirmed in their Press Release that backwards compatibility will, shortly after release, be implemented through Gaikai, which will use Cloud-based emulation or custom hardware to stream older products to compatible consoles. This is a sensible and modern approach to backward compatibility. However, this article states: "do not add Gaikai here, backwards compatibility means it plays older media, i.e. it runs games from the disc", however, this doesn't agree with the wikipedia page on backwards compatibility, where for example, the Vita plays old PSP and PS1 games. At some point most of these games were physical media and the Vita only supports the downloaded binary image of these games, not the physical media. Gaikai is still fundamentally a binary compatible backwards compatibility service. I believe we should be list the PS4 as having planned backwards compatibility, simply ensuring that it's appropriately contextualised, as this is an important consumer fact and general capability. GMScribe (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Analogue sticks
Hi, there seems to be some slightly misleading references to the analogue sticks now being concave in a way similar to Xbox controllers. In fact, as can be seen in pictures released by Sony and those taken by the media, they are still slightly convex just with very pronounced ridges stopping a player's thumbs from slipping off (which, while effectively makes them concave on the whole, is really quite different to the entirely concave analogue sticks of the Xbox One controller). This can be seen here: http://cloud.attackofthefanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/playstation-4-shortages.jpg Here: http://latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ps4controller3.gif?w=600 And here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vgntnkNgh7U/USbRSX_6etI/AAAAAAAAEHg/ZPeu2A3QrK0/s1600/playstation-4-cover.jpeg With an Xbox One controller for comparison: http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEzLzA1LzIyLzg4L0hvbGRpbmdfWGJvLmUyMDYyLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/5041f624/926/Holding_Xbox_One_Controller1.jpg And an Xbox 360 controller for comparison: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Xbox_360_wired_controller_1.jpg Apologies if I've made a hatchet job of editing in this request, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.13.189 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 May 2013‎
 * ✅. And yes, you did make a hatchet job of it [[Image:Smile_eye.png|20px]] - X201 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Please change "8 GB" to "8 GiB" (of RAM; gibibytes). Thank you 93.129.9.216 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Why gibibytes instead of gigabytes? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Depends if you prefer SI or IEC notation, either way the values are equivalent and I'm not aware of Wikipedia adopting any one standard?GMScribe (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gigabyte is more commonly used in published sources, as evidenced by the references cited in the article. Until a majority of reliable sources begin citing gibibyte, it isn't necessary to change it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * 1) Computer memory is measured in Gibibytes, not Gigabytes. This is because machine operates with binary values, not decimal.
 * 2) For gods sake, please look at the article on wikipedia for reference, before asking questions.
 * 3) Gibibytes and Gigabytes ARE NOT equialent. Gibibyte is 589,934,592 bytes LARGER than Gigabyte.
 * 4) Only outdated systems still employ Gigabytes, for example windows. MAJORITY of modern systems measure memory in right units, that means KiB, MiB, GiB and so on.
 * 5) The only reason why PS4 would use Gigabyte, would be if PS4 would have NO RAM, and instead work outright from hard disk drive(because only them still use GB notation, whilst correctly specified, its completely ILLEGAL to be used in that scope). This is because hard disk drive marketing deparment have a LONG PROVEN history of manipulating numbers (for example old 1,44 disks), and partially due to this misunderstanding Gibi- prefix was introduced.
 * 6) The SI prefix is FOR SI VALUES ONLY - base of 10, decimal! Its usage within binary-operating machines is INVALID. Computer operates with binary values, since the ONLY valid prefix is IEC "power of 2".
 * 7) Published sources are usually marketing morons, that have zero understanding behind. One needs scientifically correct sources, for example start with JEDEC.
 * 8) Wikipedia is encyclopedia, and not man cave. Don´t poison it with cave logic from "public cave sources"
 * 93.129.43.82 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * After reading your post, my guess is that you're not going to get much response. - X201 (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On the other-hand, I'd quite easily argue that the combination of 'giga' and 'byte' clearly denotes a relation to a multiple of 8 or a power of 2 (byte meaning 8 bits and byte being a computer-geared term). Just because some standards organisations have agreed on a new term doesn't mean that the world at large has and it's not the purpose of wikipedia to overwrite decades of acceptance and references to the term in textbooks for the sake of X organisations or because X marketing firms have misused the historically-adopted term, if it was common practise to take the values generated by standards organisations at face value for the sake of clarity, we'd all be using terms like gigioctets and would never even know the word 'byte'. The article you reference quite rightfully also makes it clear that adoption of the new term is anything but close to concrete. The PS4 is a consumer device and consumers primarily understand GB and are used to hearing it in marketing, for one thing it's more catchy, just like the word byte, which decided to stay.GMScribe (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DRM in Reception | Sony boss confirms
Please, add the following to the reception section;

"Sony has implemented their patented method to control playback of used games http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sony-Files-NFC-Patent-to-Eliminate-PlayStation-4-Used-Game-Market-318301.shtml on the PS4. Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida said, regarding the PS4's ability to play used games; “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”

Citations for the last sentance: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/409184/ps4-to-regulate-used-games-like-xbox-one/ http://au.gamespot.com/news/yoshida-talks-all-things-playstation-4-6404291 http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/pre-owned-games-block-on-ps4-is-a-publisher-decision/0111344 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.102 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a claim from one journalist in May combined with Yoshida's comments from February. Either on their own are OK, but linking them as if they're the same thing isn't - X201 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps start with the second sentence, and the 3 citations please. The first sentance, can be put elsewhere later (after details are arise.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.102 (talk • contribs)  15:49, 28 May 2013‎


 * Yesterday, the firm officially confirmed that there will be no first-party DRM in this context and that there will be no requirement for third-party DRM or any online connection, and, that this will be a publisher choice. It's possible but highly unlikely that Sony will 'enable' game control for publishers through dedicated hardware and will likely leave them to their own devices:

http://kotaku.com/5985874/ps4-will-not-require-an-always+online-connectionGMScribe (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledge the lack of images
Can somewhere there be an acknowledgement that no one knows what the console looks like? There's no direct mention of it. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've completely forgotten what it's called but there's a policy or guideline about this which says that articles shouldn't contain statements about unknown things, so saying that the look of the console hasn't been released wouldn't really be encyclopedic unless it was a somehow notable thing which sources had specifically reported on. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of information in the article that specific articles haven't been written about. I recall many articles when the PS4 was launched where there were mentions that the appearance of the console wasn't shown. I think it's worth at least a sentence of mention. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User Interface
In the article it states "The design instead will resemble the latest PSN interface available at the time of the announcement.", however, on a personal level I'd disagree and I'm fairly sure I've seen contradictory sources claiming that it's a complete redesign, which, given all the planned functional changes, sounds more likely. Is anyone able to back this up? The current source is but a writer's interpretation. GMScribe (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Display section in infobox
The Display section in the infobox can be filled out using the information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS4#Console [the last sentence of the last paragraph]. I am not familiar enough with video outputs to add it. If someone else could add the relevant info to the display section, that would be useful. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hardware / APU and Modules page
Hi guys,

I've begun placing together a page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_hardware to go into further depth over the details of the APU and other hardware modules as details of differentiating factors with the GPU and other hardware modules have begun to emerge. A lot of work to go but I want opinion on if this page should instead be called "Playstation 4 APU and Other hardware Modules" or if it's appropriate to leave as-is and expand to include other hardware elements as with the PS3 hardware page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMScribe (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Share button
needs correction. share button will STREAM video. not upload. that needs to be corrected by someone who knows the difference. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources say it does a number of things: upload a screen capture or video, and access live broadcasting options. — TPX 09:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Playstation camera
Someone should add some images of new camera to either this article or existing Eye article. Plenty of them already floating around... 173.68.110.16 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Release date
The various rumour sites are preducting different release dates ranging from the 26th of November to the 31st of December. Please wait for an official date before updateing the article.--Racklever (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Misinterpreting sources
Is rampant in this article. The reception section is the best example.

"After Sony's E3 2013 press conference, IGN wrote that both the PS4 and its games looked "good", while the price and Sony's attitude were "right". They agree with Sony that "if you care about games, you'll buy a PlayStation 4".[73] In addition to Sony's policy of no DRM, no online requirements, no restrictions, and no authentication, the PlayStation 4 is also region-free and its HDD is removable and upgradable, which IGN thinks would give PS4 advantages over Xbox One, which is region-locked and has an inaccessible HDD.[74][75]"

Citation 73 through 75 does not align with the information written in the article. There are many other examples through out the article where someone takes a source talking about a particular feature or quote and then the contributor on this website makes their own conclusions, passing them off as the citation. --173.32.93.209 (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for raising this issue, I've altered the paragraph in question to reflect the articles better (in my opinion), and have removed reference 74 as it had no place there. Samwalton9 (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Which Price is Right?
Lame reference, real problem; I've noticed we've had an edit war over which prices to mention in the article, with one editor persistently removing price information for all other territories that use currencies called the "dollar", stating that "Canadian & Australian Dollar are NOT leading world currencies, and were not mentioned in the release of the PS4". After the changes, he then removes the disambiguation of "U.S. dollars" from each reference to the US price, citing MOS:CURRENCY, which does not contain any guidance for this situation beyond classifying the article as either country-specific or non-country-specific, and that "When there are different currencies using the same symbol in an article, use the full abbreviation (e.g. US$ for the US dollar and A$ for the Australian dollar, rather than just $), unless the currency which is meant is clear from the context."

In my opinion: since this is an article about a product being released in multiple regions, yes, its non-country-specific. Yes, we should mention launch prices in major, English-speaking markets, though personally I'd drop Canada and replace it with Japan at some point (Japan is more significant in relation to Sony and Nintendo, as that's their homeland).

Any other opinions? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There should be four market prices, three which Sony explicitly made at E3 (US, UK, and EU), and the one from its home country, Japan. All other pricing detail is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia - we're just trying to show the baseline and enough to comment on price differences between this and other consoles. --M ASEM (t) 15:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But thenagain, I do notice a significant deviation with the Australian price; price gouging of consumer electronics there is a major and well-known problem in Australia, plus the PS3 was the most popular, sales-wise, down under. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True, the AUS/NZ get higher prices and that might be another data point, but we need do need a Sony-stated MSRP for that region. But, yea, like we don't need the price in Canada as that will just adjust for the US/Canada exchange rate. --M ASEM (t) 16:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So-called "price gouging" is an issue and quoting A$ and NZ$ would be relevant in an article on that topic — but are they really notable in an article about the PlayStation 4? That is, have there been reports from reliable sources saying that the prices in Australia/New Zealand are wildly out of step from the global market, in order to justify the inclusion of these prices in this article?  —sroc (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

edit request re analog audio output
The comment about the non availability of an analog audio output is confusing and appears to be incorrect. The footnote links to article which in fact concluded that there is one.

"I emailed a press contact at Sony, and I asked “Can you confirm or deny analog-AV out support with the PS4?” Not long afterward, I received a clear and concise answer in the affirmative. The Sony representative said “The information on our website is correct.” So, as it stands, Sony has officially confirmed to ExtremeTech that analog output will be supported with the PS4." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.127.42 (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Today the official site says the PS4 only has a "HDMI out port" and "DIGITAL OUTPUT (OPTICAL) port". If this changes the article will be updated.--Racklever (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas for the image?
Since the encyclopedic image the was used here is apparantly forbidden can we at least TRY to find a replacement image that does NOT have a HUGE LINE through it! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wait for some time, someone will eventually upload a decent free pic, like those in PS1, PS2, PS3 articles. And walk away, pal, don't waste your time getting angry with other users. It's just Wikipedia :/ Shrine Maiden 02:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am currently looking for an alternative to the current image. Hopefully one comes up soon... I personally think that no image is better than this and that leaving this image in is only degrading the article but obviously people in high places seem to disagree with me. PantherLeapord (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, how is it degrading? Remember, we don't strive for professionalism, just clarity, and the system is clear from that. Yes, it's in a case, the line from the case blocks part of the shot but you can tell it is a PS4. --M ASEM (t) 04:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Only because of a faint logo on the console! I think that everyone would appreciate a much better image... like the one that qualifies for fair use that was already on the article. PantherLeapord (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Free >>> quality, in terms of image policy. And why do we need to see the logo? The logo's on the page already. The picture gives the reader enough idea of what the console and units look like within the scope of this article. If we can eventually get better and free, great, but free outweighs quality. --M ASEM  (t) 04:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone should just contact Sony and ask for an explicit permission or request a press kit with these images. The current abomination of the photo is disgusting - it is barely useful on mobile devices and has a huge glass intersection "line" which covers up the details of PS4, such as the inner edge of disk tray. It is no better than the drawing up the PS4 in MSPaint (hey, if people will see big "PS4" logo on such drawing - it should be enough, right? Right?). How about you guys do this useful activity (request Sony to use existing official images) instead of "...but, but, WP:OMGWTFBBQ!!!!" stuff? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are a free content encyclopedia, and once free content is available we use it. If someone wants to contact Sony ask for free media of the system, they can, but at this point,we can't use non-free, with the system out and free replacements available. --M ASEM  (t) 05:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I shall list why this image meets all ten criteria for use here:
 * 1) There IS no free equivalent that would have the same or higher encyclopedic value and it cannot be created until the console is in the hands of the general public rather than being seen by the lucky few at E3!
 * 2) If anything having this image on the article will be BETTER for everyone as it provides a much better representation of the console than any free media for it currently out there.
 * 3a) The image is only being used in the infobox
 * 3b) The image is only being used on Playstation 4.
 * 4) This image was published here.
 * 5) This image EASILY meets the content standards and is very much encyclopedic!
 * 6) The image meets Image use policy.
 * 7) The image will be used on Playstation 4 once this whole kerfuffle is over and Masem stops reverting the addition of it.
 * 8) The presence of the image DOES significantly increase the readers understanding of the product by providing a clear and UNOBSTRUCTED visual reference.
 * 9) The image will only be used in the article namespace.
 * 10a) The source is readily identified.
 * 10b) The provision for fair use is listed in the description.
 * 10c) The fair use rationale is unique, simple and easy to understand.
 * Thanks for reading and I pray that you will see reason and put the right image be used in the article. (I am also NOT suggesting that you have a problem with people editing your article) PantherLeapord (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I get the need for priority to be given to a free image, but considering the new one does a really poor job of illustrating the console itself, wouldn't it be preferable to put the non-free image back until a more suitable one could be found? SynergyBlades (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I already TRIED arguing that point. However Masem seems rather determined to enure that the better free use image is not used PantherLeapord (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A key point here is that there is nothing being said by sources about how the unit looks. It is a black box with an interesting angle to it. We don't use non-free imagery (particularly when free images are available or can be made, which is the case now) just to show what a black box looks like. If there was a critical analysis of the unit's design (say, it was shocking pick and shaped like a globe, which I'm sure would have gotten attention), I could see the arguments for using a high quality non-free over an obscured free because the appearance is necessary to understanding the article. But as it is, it is a black box - just like all the others - and thus using non-free when free imagery exists completely fails our NFC policy. --M ASEM  (t) 13:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We could just ignore all rules for the time being. -- JDC808  ♫  03:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving parts of the introduction's text to "Hardware"
Should we move most if not all of the second paragraph to the "Hardware" section? And should all or part of the third paragraph be put somewhere else or not? I'm just wondering. For convenience purposes, I'll post a replica of them here:

"Moving away from the Cell architecture, the PlayStation 4 will feature an AMD processor based around the x86-64 instruction set.[1] This is intended to make video game development easier on the next-generation console, attracting a broader range of developers. These changes highlight Sony's effort to improve upon the lessons learned during the development, production and release of the PS3. Other notable hardware features of the PS4 include 8 GB of unified memory in the form of GDDR5, a faster Blu-ray Disc drive, and dedicated custom chips for processing audio, video and background tasks.

By incorporating a 'share' button on the new controller and making it possible to view in-game play streamed live from friends, Sony plans to place more focus on social gameplay. Among new applications and services, Sony plans to debut Gaikai, a cloud-based gaming service that hosts downloadable content and games. The company also plans to release the PlayStation App allowing PS4 owners to turn smartphones and tablets into a second screen to enhance gameplay, and to allow almost all games to be streamed to the PlayStation Vita through Remote Play." —The Sackinator (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you moved all of the second and third paragraphs, then you'd only be left with a one paragraph lead, which would be too short for an article of this length. Maybe after it's released they could be trimmed and merged and add a reception paragraph. But until then, IMO, the lead provides a good overview of what's to expect of the PS4, with more info following in the article. -- JDC808  ♫  06:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd trim some, but keep most. I say trim out the part that says: "These changes highlight Sony's effort to improve upon the lessons learned during the development, production and release of the PS3. Other notable hardware features of the PS4 include 8 GB of unified memory in the form of GDDR5, a faster Blu-ray Disc drive, and dedicated custom chips for processing audio, video and background tasks." - I say trim out this part. It's a little more detailed than the lead needs to be, and could be better summarized by a more general "it has better capabilities" type sentence. I'd keep the stuff about the "Share button", "Gaikai", and "Remote Play" because these actually change how the game's may be fundamentally be changed. Sergecross73  msg me   12:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see that too much should not be moved. Does the second paragraph sound a little too technical, though? Maybe it should be in "Hardware," and maybe the third paragraph should be the second paragraph. Does that sound reasonable or not?
 * —The Sackinator (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be worth keeping the bit about moving away from the difficult cell processor in favor of something more developer friendly, since it's not so filled with tech jargon. But otherwise, yes. That sentence could be merged with the "third paragraph" to make a "what's new" sort of paragraph. Sergecross73   msg me   16:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I thought that bit was containing tech jargon. I mean things like like "the Cell architecture," an "AMD processor based around the x86-64 instruction set," etc. I like your idea of putting it in a paragraph titled something like "What is New." Whatever the consensus will be, that's what we'll do, I guess.
 * —The Sackinator (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. It would probably be better to trim out the processor stuff, and just leave the general part about it being easier to develop for. (I didn't mean for a literal "What's new" section, I just meant that kind of loosely tied together the information that would be merged into one paragraph.) Sergecross73   msg me   12:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. We don't have to title it "What is New" but do something else. Well, shall we begin? —The Sackinator (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So, either we're not on the same page, or you haven't checked the page lately; I've already made the changes I was talking about, before you even wrote that last comment... Sergecross73   msg me   00:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What! You already did what you said? On my page, the second paragraph begins saying this (emphasis in bold): Moving away from the more complicated Cell architecture of the PlayStation 3, the PlayStation 4 will feature a simpler AMD processor, in hopes of attracting a broader range of developers and support for the system.


 * However, maybe that part is good for the introduction. I just thought that those who are less technical, if you will, would feel small hearing such things right when they begin reading this article. What do you think about this? While I wait, assuming that it will not be controversial, I'll place the text somewhere else in the paragraph, that it may not be read so quickly. —The Sackinator (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Im all about simplifying things down, its something I do a lot on the project...but is it really that hard to understand a this point? Both processors have wiki links, and have been broken down in the most simple of terms as far as their significance (One is complicated, one is dev friendly). Seems simple enough no matter how little people know of tech stuff. Sergecross73   msg me   03:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Haven't read through all of the discussion above but the new wording looks much better. I often see exorbitant technical details included on video game related articles, and I make an effort to strip that down. And even if the technical aspects are explained clearly, the lead shouldn't mention such finite details as it's a general overview.
 * As a demographic Wikipedia editors (especially on the video game articles) tend to be bright and technically knowledgeable, so it makes sense that we'd focus on the details. It's a matter of striking the right balance and tone for the sum of readers. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess the article isn't too hard to understand. After all, all one needs to know is why the PS4's change was (or, if you prefer, will be) made. —The Sackinator (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Two CPU Cores Reserved for OS
Eurogamer's Digital Foundry recently posted an article regarding a presentation given by Ubisoft Reflections that stated, "Note that the PS4 has two Jaguar CPU clusters for eight cores in total, two of which are reserved by the operating system." I feel like this should be information included beside the CPU information in the infobox, much the same as the note about Memory in the Xbox One infobox. -- HereticKiller6 (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Important context is missing from the caption. Richard Leadbetter wrote in May:


 * And in June:


 * In other words, Sony is uncertain how much power the Operating System will require at this stage of development, so are giving themselves plenty of headspace by ringfencing 2 cores. If the OS is not as power hungry as, say, Xbox One (which runs 3) Sony will free-up additional resources for game development later. — TPX 09:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Improvement over PS3 Memory Bandwidth figure is incorrect.....
The 176GB of known bandwidth is not a 16 fold increase in performance over the Playstation 3.

The Playstation 3 had approximately just over 25GB of bandwidth available to it, as seen here in the slide:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1007286/ps3-hardware-slow-broken

therefore, a notional 6 to 7 fold increase is the correct figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.202.232 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've corrected the article. Thank you.--Arkhandar (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually ps3 has 25 (main memory) + 22 (VRAM) = 47 GByte/s bandwidth compared to PS4 single memory pool, which is used by both CPU und GPU. --Belzebübchen (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You cannot combine the separate bandwidths of the CPU + GPU to achieve a usable, single figure available to the PS3 at any one time like that. The PS4 has a single, maximum figure of 176GB of bandwidth available to use at any one time, the PS3 had a maximum single figure of 25GB of bandwidth available to it at any one time, not 48GB.

If we follow your logic, the PS4 has 176GB (memory) + over 150GB (Radeon 7850 class GPU) of bandwidth on the GPU, on which the PS4 is based on, giving over 325GB of Bandwidth, usable at any one time, which is clearly not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.65.133 (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said, there is no extra memory pool for the GPU on PS4. So there is just 176 GByte/s bandwidth altogether. http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/593/760/html/16.jpg.html --Belzebübchen (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OS RAM Usage Set for 3.5 GB With 1 GB "Flexible"
Eurogamer's Digital Foundry has posted this article stating that "PlayStation 4 reserves 3.5GB of its 8GB GDDR5 memory for the operating system, leaving 4.5GB of space for game code,". It goes on to say that "[...] an additional 1GB of "flexible memory" may be reclaimed from the OS reservation, based on availability." It also makes mention of the six cores available to games. -- HereticKiller6 (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds plausible. Richard Leadbetter reports that—unlike Microsoft engineers, who appropriated a 5/3 split for the entire lifecycle of Xbox One—the reservation on PS4 is a starting point for game development while running unoptimised operating system code. As Sony move forward, streamlining their code and services, they can free more game RAM for developers. But as yet we don't have a fixed number. — TPX 18:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The same point made by CVG below. — TPX 18:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this information should be added to the info box, similar to the Xbox One article. HereticKiller6 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's problematic. We have multiple quality sources that have reported Xbox One's memory allocation independent of each other. This number is not expected to change. For our article on PlayStation 4, we only have a single source (citing anonymous individuals) for a figure that the journalist himself says is likely to change. Personally I would wait for other RS to reach out for more information before we add anything to the hardware section. — TPX 20:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Official statement
Sony has released an official statement clarifying the issue.

Given this new information, what do you think would be the best editing approach in order to improve the article? --Arkhandar (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Should probably mention this article as well, in which the Digital Foundry rumors are called "absolutely false" by a PS4 dev. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 17:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. That's odd. Maybe the dev kits are given more RAM for debug purposes, which is common practice. But honestly, what do you think we should give more credibility: a random developer or an official statement released by Sony?--Arkhandar (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sony's statement makes no mention of actual numbers (the rest of their official statement is "We have no comment to make on the amount of memory reserved by the system or what it is used for"). The fact that the statement is attached to Eurogamer's article doesn't make their numbers correct (the paragraph following Sony's statement reads "Based on this information, plus the new source coming forward to explain the properties of flexible memory, our take on this right now is that there is 4.5GB of conventional RAM available to developers, along with the OS-controlled flexible memory Sony describes, in addition to that.") So if it's a contest between Eurogamer or an actual PS4 dev (no matter how random or obscure), I'm going to take the dev. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 17:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, you're right. I absolutly missed the part that they didn't actually mention the quantaties for memory allocation, sorry. Eurogamer can be tricky sometimes. Maybe we should update the article to 6 GB then, based on developer input? --Arkhandar (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sold on 6 GB though. The developer only said the claims made by Digital Foundry are false. The article with the response from the developer made reference to a "known insider" on NeoGaf that claimed there are games in development using 6 GB of RAM, but I don't think we can count this as a reliable final word on the issue. I think we need more input from editors before a decision is made. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 18:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:DUST, it is best to let the dust settle and avoid adding details that are likely to be outdated or corrected relatively soon. Many reliable sources are only concerned about being "correct enough for today", while an encyclopedia should strive for stabilized information that has consensus among its sources. Wikinews might be a better avenue in the meantime. That being said, a broad description about "Direct" and "Flexible" memory on the PS4 would certainly be appropriate in this article. Just thought I'd throw my 2¢ out there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese/Hepburn
Is it really necessary to include the Japanese/Hepburn translation in the start of the article? It's phonetically identical to the English translation. JDiala (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal: Unless there's something noteworthy about the Japanese name or something very different about it, it shouldn't be shown there. ViperSnake151   Talk  23:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Japanese/Hepburn version. — TPX 11:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove - It serves no purpose. Sony didn't announce it in a Japanese title, and then translate it over to English as "PlayStation 4". They announced it globally, and its being released as "PlayStation 4" first. Sergecross73   msg me   13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring over lead section "50% as powerful".
Here, and at the Xbox One article, there has been edit warring over the commentary that its 50% more powerful than the Xbox One. No one's bothered to discuss it, so I figured I'd start it up:

On one hand, there's plenty of sources reporting on it, so while I don't know for sure that it's actually true, it is in fact true that "sources" are reporting it. But I also agree with the other side of thing; this shouldn't be mentioned in the lead though.


 * 1) Per WP:LEAD - new ideas are not supposed to be introduced in the lead paragraphs. This is not discussed anywhere else in the article. (At least this particular factoid isn't.)


 * 1) I think it brings up WP:UNDUE issues as well. It's too specific of a statistic to be mentioned in what is the broad overview of a product. It's not the place to compare/contrast against competitors.

So in general, while I don't oppose having it in the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. Put it in hardware or something. Thoughts? Sergecross73  msg me   13:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is needed at all. First how do they know it is 50% more powerful and not 49% 100%, that is an arbitrary choice of a number. This also does not aid in the understanding of what the PS4 is or Xbox is, it seems like a marketing ploy and does not belong on wiki.Cky2250 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To further this all of the resources are getting their information from one source, this is all alleged news, with veg facts and if this will continue to put on wiki at least have hard proof of what the facts are. What I read from one source said that the memory is 40-50% faster that does not make the whole system faster there are bottlenecks in every electrical device.Cky2250 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that until the units are actually in the hands that can test the hardware and make that assessment the information will be useful but not on the individual console articles but over at the history of the 8th gen article. But that's only if the difference is really that significant - a 2-5% boost is really nothing to scream home about. --M ASEM (t) 15:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I too would completely approve of keeping it out of the articles altogether, for the very reasons given above, I just most strongly against having it in the lead. Sergecross73   msg me   15:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please give verifiable citation and respected sources stating that:


 * Edge (magazine) and ExtremeTech are making things up.
 * What some Wikipedia users like Cky2250 say are more relevant than what IGN and game developers say. Shrine Maiden 16:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How closely have you read your sources? Edge and IGN did not conduct these tests. Edge says "We know a guy who says this." Then IGN wrote and article saying "Edge knows a guy who said this." These aren't independent stories corroborating facts, its one source, Edge, saying they talked to unattributed people, and then a bunch of websites paraphrasing the same story. And the story is vague, just presenting vague percentages, not any concrete information. And beyond that, as I said before, comparing/contrasting stuff like this doesn't belong in lead by its very definition. Sergecross73   msg me   16:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They said "memory reads on PS4 are 40-50 per cent quicker than Xbox One, and its ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit) is around 50 per cent faster, ESRAM is a pain to use". No concrete info? I'm cool with it not in the lead. I tried to put it in another section below, and Cky2250 quickly deleted it again, claiming that it is a "marketing ploy". He just does not want it anywhere. Shrine Maiden 16:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, no concrete info. We don't know speeds, we just know percentage over one another, correct? Sergecross73   msg me   16:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What info are you demanding? A game developer called John Doe, who wanna commit career suicide, gave GameSpot detailed technical maths about how Microsoft's XB1 ESRAM running at 800MHz is slower than Sony's PS4?
 * Your words: "it is in fact true that "sources" are reporting it... In general, while I don't oppose having it in the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. Put it in hardware or something." Shrine Maiden 17:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because no one else wants in the article altogether, and after reading their reasons, I agree with them. I was swayed by their arguments here and at the other talk page its being discussed at. Sergecross73   msg me   17:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Price in Brazil
The article currently states, as a fact, that the high price in Brazil "is largely due to the Brazilian government's high import charges,[98] which make up 60-70% of the cost.[99]". As one can see from the two sources given, this is just what Sony says.

This is a blatant lie by Sony. Import fees in Brazil vary by product category. In 2012, these varied between 0 and 35%, with mean 11.61%, mode 14% and median 12%

It seems that most of the price difference is due to Sony's high profit in Brazil. This is a common practice, something which has been well documented for car prices Pfpenteado (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:VNT - we write what can be verified by reliable sources, not people's subjective claims to "truth". If you can find sources to directly support your claims, then its different, but right now, Sony's stance is supported by reliable sources, so it should stay. Feel free to add more perspectives to it, but remember that Wikipedia is to be written in a neutral tone, so make sure not to word it as a personal editorial against Sony or the government. Sergecross73   msg me   17:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

will it run playstation 3 games
it is commonly believed at least in norway that the playstation 4 will be able to run playstation 3 games so lots of people are selling their playstation 3 consoles while keeping their games. even a person working in game in norway believe that it will be able to run playstation 3 games. i therefore suggest that people start digging to see if it is true or false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.64.62 (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sony has confirmed that PlayStation 4 will not natively support PlayStation 3 games. While the company has yet to also rule-out on-console emulation of some previous generations, the company has detailed plans to explore cloud-based emulation of previous generations as a long-term solution to the challenges of backwards compatibility.--Racklever (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Somebody is in for a big disappointment. No, it's not backwards compatible whatsoever.-- Arkhandar ( Talk • Contribs ) 14:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only that PS3 games have been announced to work through a PS4 is is pretty well summed up here, through streaming it through Gaikai. Anything else is an unofficial, unverified rumor at this point. Sergecross73   msg me   18:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Suspend mode unavailable at launch
Source:http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/10/25/ps4-system-software-update-1-50-details

I wanted to edit the article to reflect the developments regarding suspend/resume mentioned in the above linked blog post. Since the article is (understandably) semi-protected and well out of reach of my brand new account, here is an edit proposal for your consideration:

Original text:

Cawt (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks. <font color="#CF7000" > Chimpanzee  Us &#124; Ta &#124; Co 10:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)