Talk:PlayStation 4 system software

Re-rating of page required
In light of new information that has become available regarding the PS4 System Software, this article could use a re-rating from redirect status. Haseo9999 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I had already been working on a replacement for the redirect, but neglected to actually submit my changes. I've merged mine with yours. GSK ✉ ✓ 21:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Linux kernel?
FreeBSD does not use the Linux kernel, and most sourced seem to suggest that is what they are using - and it makes sense because using the Linux kernel would be problematic for licensing reasons, whilst the FreeBSD kernel is available under a more permissive license. So yeah, regardless of what the infobox says it'd be nice to have a source for it. --7R1X (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Archive updates on PS site?
Archive updates such as in PS3 on PS site is unavaiable? I can't found link. Eurohunter (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Current and future releases confusion
Is there any particular reason 'PlayStation 4 system software' and the 'PSVITA system software' pages keep listing future update versions as if it was current?

The system software wiki pages for other consoles doesn't suffer from this confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.144.164 (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? Each entry has the date of release (if known). Are you expecting the article to tell the user whether the date they can see is in the past or the future? The second line of the article and the infobox on the right both say what the current version is. Chimpanzee Talk 09:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Article for deletion
Note that articles regarding "system software" of various game consoles such as this one is currently nominated for deletion. The reason for deletion by the nominator is WP:NOTCHANGELOG. If you have any opinion, please go to Articles for deletion/Xbox One system software and discuss it, thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

About that update history
If there is a compelling and encyclopedic need to include details about past versions of the system software, could we limit it to important and/or noteworthy details? Wikipedia is not the place for complete version histories (but anyone can feel free to start your own wiki for that purpose!). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there’s some resistance to simply blanking the section for the time being, I’ve just done some cleanup, mainly removing non-notable entries that had only generic template messages. I’ve also flagged it as being largely copied from primary sources. We should actually use the third-party sources we do cite here, rather than quoting the official descriptions without any attribution (or even with it). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No justification has been given for keeping the section since I first posted here, and it’s chock full of copyright violations of questionable encyclopedic value, so I’ve removed it again. If there’s any reason to keep it, please join in the discussion here. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted this in the PS3 software page, as it seems to be where most of the discussion is, but I'll post here too: I contest the removing of the tables and think it is a silly thing to do across all of these system software pages, largely on the grounds of WP:ITSUSEFUL. It's important to have a changelog for each one, separate from official sources, and Wikipedia has traditionally served this purpose quite well. The tables also show when certain exploits where removed, this is largely seen on the PSP page (don't get any ideas, 67.14.236.50), but can/could be seen here. A table seems to be the best medium to show this in. If in some cases they're the same info as official sources, they're at least a time stamped and (relatively) safe from unseen editing 69.178.97.25 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why this was posted up here, but please see my reply on Talk:PlayStation 3 system software. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I’ll say this as clearly as I can: Most (by a wide margin) of the text I’ve removed from this article was WP:COPYPASTEd from another source; this is unacceptable. Most (if not all) of the text I’ve removed was changelogs not meaningfully cited to a third-party source; this is unacceptable. A good amount of text I’ve removed carries an absence of information to the tune of “Things were updated”; this is just dumb.

If anyone disagrees with any of these points, please speak up with well-reasoned counterpoints. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You've left a message saying that you are rewriting the section. Do you have any idea when you'll be done with that?  And is there any harm in leaving the existing content where it is, or gradually replacing it with your new version?  That'd be a lot less confrontational than just deleting the information like you've done (which just looks like an attempt to preempt the outcome of the AfD).  It does look like some of the short single sentence entries in the section have been copied verbatim, but when I checked some of the longer ones they appear to have been rephrased.  James (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The outcome of the AfD was to remove the changelog lists. Feel free to use secondary sources (or even the previously listed material itself, if it isn't a copyright violation of another source) to write a section in prose. – czar   01:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure how one could preempt something that ended weeks ago, but it’s not for me to say whether there is any harm in leaving WP:COPYVIO material in place. If you would like to contribute to a writeup, or to finding third-party sources for anything in those tables, please feel free. I never insisted on being the only contributor (and that would actually be a pretty terrible idea—see Wii U system software [current version]). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I’ve gone through the sources in the changelog tables, looking for third-party sources with original content (more than just “improves stability”), and here’s what I’ve got, probably with widely varying weight:


 * 1) Engadget: Dim the controller’s light bar
 * 2) VideoGamer.com: v1.70 exists, adds features
 * 3) PlayStationLifeStyle.net: v1.70 allowing HDMI capture may be exciting
 * 4) VideoGamer.com: v1.70 was buggy
 * 5) VG24/7: v1.74 is boring
 * 6) VideoGamer.com: v1.74’s lack of features “upset some fans”—we need more of this type of commentary, rather than “update exists and has features”
 * 7) VG24/7: v1.75 adds 3D Blu-ray support, improves 1.5&times; playback audio
 * 8) Engadget: v1.75 adds 3D Blu-ray support before Xbox One does
 * 9) IGN, Gamespot: v2.0 adds Share Play “online local co-op,” other things
 * 10) VG24/7: …and a serious bug

And I have no idea whether the two Japanese sources are sufficiently third-party or relevant for consideration.

Can we build an update history section around these sources? Are there any missing from my list? Please discuss. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If no one has any ideas, does anyone have any objection to simply removing the section? I don’t find that ideal, but it seems preferable to having disjointed paragraphs jumping from version to version. I seem to be the only one trying to work on this, but I’m open to suggestion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather prefer to summarize the updates and only keep the main points instead. --Cartakes (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What on earth happened with the update details?
I'm an infrequent PS4 user which means pretty often when I switch on there is a system update. I come to this page to see when the update was released and what it contained.

I'm not interested in the whys and wherefores, all I know is this page is now utterly useless to me. I will now have to go and try and find the information somewhere else, hoping it's listed as conveniently and concisely as it was here. Doesn't that rather defeat the purpose of Wikipedia? 151.229.182.193 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Having done a little more reading of this page, it seems to be somebody complaining about copyright violations? Seriously? This isn't a book, these are update notes released into the public domain by Sony. This article (used) to serve as a place where they are all collated into one easy to find, easy to read, concise table. And to the complaint that the notes were often vague (system stability improved!) that's because Sony themselves are often vague - but it's still important to be listed here as that still provides information to me as the reader (i.e. minor update, nothing noteworthy). Every time I've tried to contribute to this site, I'm left frustrated by some frankly stupid policies. It also seems that there is one person here campaigning to remove information, so everybody else and all the readers just have to suffer the consequences, absolutely nonsensical. If you have something of value to add great, but don't take stuff away. 151.229.182.193 (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree to the above. To the pathetic person changing this from an IP address kindly put it back how it was and go else were. We don't need you around destroying these articles that others have put good time and effort into. The Xbox One has the list of updates and this page should have them like that as well. Goof1112 (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I literally cannot find another source that lists all the updates, with the details of what was included with each update, with the release date of each update. I had to resort to using the history of the main article to find the information I needed, and looks like I'll be totally screwed for future updates. Not impressed. 151.229.182.193 (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can cite where the update notes have been released into the public domain, that would be a good step. However, I recommend that you instead use a wiki (or other resource, perhaps a forum) devoted to PlayStation users, which Wikipedia is not. The crux of the decision to remove these changelogs was WP:NOTCHANGELOG, which is Wikipedia policy, meaning it reflects widely held community consensus. You are as free as anyone else to endeavor to get that policy changed if you disagree with it, but no one has yet made any argument (other than WP:ITSUSEFUL) as to how the inclusion of changelogs would benefit the encyclopedia. But whether you choose to participate or not, I wish you well in your search. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for OS history?
Has anyone found any sources that broadly discuss the history of the system software? Or should we just slap together a paragraph of WP:Proseline about assorted unrelated updates using the sources listed above, or should we remove the section entirely? These look like our only options, short of revising Wikipedia policy like WP:NOTCHANGELOG (and I would prefer any of these options [even doing proseline] over a crufty changelog). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, here you go video game reliable sources custom Google search. Wagnerp16 (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, what did you find? Anything suitable? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am not a PS4 owner, but my tip is to go through the existing table, identify all of the meaningful updates e.g HDCP can now be turned off, allowing video capture over HDMI and then elaborate on those and say why this is important to users. Hope this helps :) Wagnerp16 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it’s not for us to decide what’s meaningful or important, or why. That’s up to reliable sources. I don’t think any of the sources we have here do that, and if we do it ourselves, that feels too much like WP:OR. So unless we find sources that take a broader view of the console’s history, ones that do not focus on an individual release, I’m personally not comfortable with including any update or change that isn’t undeniably a major one. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I’ve started a discussion at the help desk which may be relevant to recent changes to this article: WP:Help desk. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And then a village pump discussion about what WP:NOTCHANGELOG says and should say. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging this article, PlayStation 4 system software, into the main PlayStation 4 article. Other than an inappropriate level of detail about its version history, I think the information here belongs in that article, and it’s not sufficiently notable or sizable to stand alone. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. For the reasons above. This should be a section of the PlayStation 4 article. --Topperfalkon (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, the article is not needed in its current state but information should be readded to the system software section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What information do you mean? If you’re referring to the updates, I agree, particularly if we can find sources as described in the subsection above. If you’re referring to the tables themselves, I couldn’t disagree more strongly. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm referring to the updates as the system has changed significantly since launch, minor updates which only improve stability shouldn't be included but those which add new features should be. Matt14451 (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that sufficient information has been added I say that the article shouldn't be merged but updated periodically.Matt14451 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I have rewrote the section for updates in a standard WP article style inspired by User:67.14.236.50's early idea of limiting the updates to important and/or noteworthy details. In such case I would oppose a merge as the article in this expanded state would be worth an article of its own. --Cartakes (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice job avoiding (or disguising?) WP:Proseline, but the current section is entirely unsourced (and be sure not to use primary/republished sources per WP:NOTCHANGELOG). Also, is it necessary to include the version numbers? I’d think the date would be sufficient. Other than that, I have no objection to keeping the standalone article intact with that section, if notability isn’t a concern. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I do think version numbers are important pieces of information for references (and for verification etc), especially for major updates. I will try to add sources (and maybe more texts) in the following day(s). --Cartakes (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Indifferent. The article is small enough to be merged, and I don't see it as serving much purpose as a separate article as it stands, but suit yourselves. However as it stands it is less of an article than it is a muddle of "so-what?" details that have to be dug out if it happens to occur to someone to wish to find one. No structure or conceptual theme to speak of. The history section for example, should be formatted into a list, each item on its own line, and re-worded where desirable, either sorted by date, or by theme, or something that should make sense anyway! And if no one can find anything special to say to put items into any coherent perspective, I don't think the article would be a major loss if it were deleted. JonRichfield (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment By now I have added a number of sources to the newly written history section. But I am open to any further improvements to the section (or any other sections in the article), including their style or structure etc. --Cartakes (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I believe I’ve indicated before, I would much rather see us giving a higher-level overview of the system’s evolution than a “in version x, this was changed; in version y, that was added” play-by-play, no matter the format. I’d much rather we use sources that have done historical analysis than sources that focus on individual version numbers. Further, I’d argue that if no such sources can be found, the version history—as a whole—simply isn’t notable enough (doesn’t have enough WP:WEIGHT) for us to go into here. Thoughts, anyone? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think what you said earlier was to limit it to important and/or noteworthy details instead of complete version histories. In other words, we ignored relatively minor updates, and only talked about those more important and/or noteworthy ones. This is still different from only "giving a higher-level overview of the system’s evolution". On the other hands, those versions that made major changes as noted by reliable sources should be considered notable. --Cartakes (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would a high-level overview not be limited to important/noteworthy details? Also see the subsection immediately above. Describing major versions is a step up from indiscriminately describing everything; but actually discussing the history, with some context, would much better serve the non-specialist reader. I’m thinking the difference between "System update 1.75 (build number 1.75.3.2.15-34813) is a version that exists, and it added support for Blu-ray 3D at 3:14 AM on July 14, 2014. It also made specific improvements for specific types of video playback, fixed unspecified bugs, and improved overall stability." and "Though Microsoft was first to announce Blu-ray 3D support for their Xbox One, Sony beat them to market with a July 2014 update, which Techgadgmodo claims was a direct reaction to their announcement. The feature was later expanded to support 3D Blu-ray video streams in January 2016." (note: not factually accurate, but hopefully you get the idea). So, my point is that—if at all possible—we should focus less discretely on the individual updates, and more on what Sony has done with the platform. That depends on if the sources are there and can be found, of course. But if the best we can do is list what numerous update did and when, I question the need for an encyclopedia to do such. I won’t oppose it if I’m alone in this last point, though. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. The information about the software belongs in the article about the only platform it runs on. Maproom (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How about similar articles such as PlayStation 3 system software and Xbox 360 system software then? --Cartakes (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reservation I’d have with that is the amount of coverage of the PS3’s withdrawals and legal troubles. But that’s for another discussion. By all means, merge every page that would benefit from merging. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You also mentioned other articles like iOS version history and Adobe Photoshop version history in places such as Village pump (policy), didn't you? Clearly it is not because of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but because of apparent similarities etc (and you even asked there whether WP:NOTCHANGELOG needed to be updated to reflect practice). Frankly I can't see how a merge of these pages would benefit (from merging). We can't put everything related to certain article in that article (the PlayStation 4 article in this specific case), which should be a general overview article. That's why Splitting exists. PlayStation 4 technical specifications is such an example. PS4 is still relatively new, and there is still a lot to be covered and written. I don't think a merge of everything will be desired. --Cartakes (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article has been greatly expanded and become almost fully sourced since the proposition of this merge request. It is worth a WP:SPLIT similar to related articles such as PlayStation 4 technical specifications as well as other "system software" articles such as the PlayStation 3 system software and Nintendo 3DS system software. --Cartakes (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure, without judgment: all said expansion was done by the above commenter. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning this. I think everyone can contribute to the article though. --Cartakes (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. Anything that needs to be said or written on this subject can be said in summary within its respective section of the PlayStation 4 article. This article has collected all sorts of garbage and proseline. This stuff needs to be concise and readable. No prejudice against expanding out summary style in the future if warranted by article size. czar  02:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply: It is already expanded from summary style, and all of them are useful information with sources. With the current article size it can already be split from the parent article similar to other existing articles such as PlayStation 4 technical specifications and Nintendo 3DS system software. --Cartakes (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don’t think that’s a judgment you can make about your own contributions. I’d like to hear some impartial editors weigh in on the encyclopedic value of the new additions. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I see what you mean. I'd welcome comments from other editors. --Cartakes (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose though the merge article is over detailed in parts I'm not sure merging is a good idea -for example the section PlayStation_4_system_software contains encyclopedic information and should not be reduced in size - but I don't think it would negatively affect readability of the main article - making it too long and detailed Suggest trim the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiiophen (talk • contribs) 15:44, 8 October 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Oppose. As an expanded article, it can stand on its own, and I agree with two others. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2015
In the second paragraph of, “allowed the the [sic] hard drive” → “allowed the hard drive”. Also consider using present tense throughout in favor of past, per MOS:TENSE, unless the ability in question is no longer in place.

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Expansion issues
Some of the newly added text reads like promotional copy: “some of the fun options that the PlayStation 4 offers,” for instance. I haven’t had a chance to look through it all, but please make sure the new sections are written with a neutral point of view and with a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How about changing it to something like "some of the most attractive and anticipated features that the PlayStation 4 offers" for the example listed above? Thanks!--Cartakes (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That still has the same problem. It sounds WP:PEACOCKy. I’d either cut out the praising adjectives altogether or specifically attribute them. Some parts also read a bit too much like a user manual or other how-to guide (which of course Wikipedia is not). I’d be bold and do something about it myself, but I’m waiting for more opinions on whether the new subsections belong at all. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Massive content deletion by Smuckola
It is clear that User:Smuckola is removing massive content from this article. While he cited *names* of various policies in his original edit summary, he never explained how these policies are relevant to his massive content deletions. I have tried to ask him to discuss in the talk page, but obviously he refused to do so by now, but only keeping content deletions and edit warring. This is obviously against Wikipedia policy. Since he never actually explained clearly why these massive content are being deleted, I will treat this as close to vandalism from now on if he refuses to properly discuss them in the article talk page. --Cartakes (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As you've already been clearly warned above, this is your personal issue alone of violating the concept of what Wikipedia is not, and now, edit warring. So it belongs on your own Talk page alone, if anywhere, where you can ask people what Wikipedia is and how it works and propose your changes in a sandbox until you learn.  The burden is entirely on you, nor was the content in question even remotely massive. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 23:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it was you that have been warned (in edit summary), not me. You are trying to remove massive content from this article without clear explanations. And it was you who started the edit war, and not my personal issue. As for the content, for example why you remove information like "PlayStation Now"? You are simply doing very bold editions without discussion or consensus. --Cartakes (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What the above user (User:Smuckola) is doing is exactly like what User:OMPIRE was doing earlier in the Console war article, i.e. massively removing article content and edit warring. User:OMPIRE was labelled as "bordering on vandalism" by an admin at that time in Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (now in Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive287). So there is no problem for me to describe the above user as such too. --Cartakes (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted and protected
I've reverted to version 21:43, 13 December 2015‎ ThePowerofX. I've protected the article for one hour to stop the edit war. Please sort it out here. If you cannot solve this within the hour, please continue to discuss things here before modifying the article. And others, please weigh in here to help solve this. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for protecting the page. I have tried to ask the other user from the start (via edit summary or talk) about the exact reasons why article contents are being deleted, but there are still no clear answers as of now even after my requests. For example, I believe it is important to mention some information such as the use of PlayStation Now, the facts that PS2-formatted discs are not compatible with the PS4 system etc, but all of them were deleted without a clear explanation. I think we can improve the article by various means, and in the case there is disagreement most of the issues can be solved through proper discussion. So if some user want to change/remove the article content please try to clearly explain the reasons for them, thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Smuckola's edit summary was on point—it did indeed cut out a lot of speculative, unencyclopedic prose czar  04:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus other useful information which was cut out too. Personally I do agree some part of the text could be more concise (that is exactly why my later version cut out some text as well), but the problem was that the deletion was way too excessive -- encyclopedic part was also deleted without proper justification or clear explaination. --Cartakes (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The current section is long-winded and ineffective, this I do agree. I'm a proponent of concision, so instead of arguing about which version is better, it would be more productive if we agree what the central points are, and work toward a concise way to describe them. — TPX 11:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this general idea. My later edition was an attempt of a more concise way of describe them, but the other user kept on deleting them too without discussion, and I obviously never agreed with an excessive deletion that was not discussed or clearly explained. --Cartakes (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit war again
I see User:Smuckola started edit war again without discussing in the talk page. In fact, I have already tried to work out a compromised version of the content, but User:Smuckola continued to revert to his own version and refuse to make any talk page discussions. This is against the Wiki policy. The article content should be reverted to the version before the edit war before a consensus is achieved. --Cartakes (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring in the article, why not discuss the content in the talk page instead? (It is obvious that User:Smuchkola never done this yet). An example of the content of the "Backward compatibility" section I can accept would be:

The PlayStation 4 was not backward compatible with any games from previous PlayStation consoles at launch. Though PlayStation 4 users cannot play PlayStation 3 games directly, starting in 2014 they are able to play an increasing number of these games using the PlayStation Now cloud-based streaming service in addition to some remasters such as The Last of Us Remastered. In December 2015 Sony also decided to bring classics from the PS2 to the PS4 via the PlayStation Store in the Americas and Europe. However, PS2 Classics downloadable from the PlayStation Store which are designed for the PS3 and PS2-formatted discs are not compatible with the PS4 system. Supported PS2 games run through software emulation (upscaled to high definition) on PS4 systems instead of being remasters. While initially there were relatively few PS2 games available for PS4 owners to purchase, Sony promised to make new releases on a regular basis, and each PS2 game being updated for the PS4 comes with access to all the features users would expect of a standard PS4 game, including Trophies, Share Play, Broadcasting, Remote Play and second-screen features.

--Cartakes (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not edit war. You do. I joined the cadre of people above who discussed everything conclusively, repeatedly and laboriously informing you that you are completely wrong, violating both policy and content in numerous ways.  Consensus was achieved, and your tantrum ensued as per WP:ICANTHEARYOU.  I reviewed each of your edits and it's not my fault that they obviously categorically violated WP:VGRS and everything else.  I don't write policy.  I did my best to interpret, explain, and uphold it, and then walk away.  On two occasions. Now, this is literally the first contribution you've made here that wasn't egregiously categorically unencyclopedic and inadmissible--all ultimately because of my edits.  Having simply finally provided reliable sources proves that you clearly know that you were totally wrong. Now stop making article talk pages personal. — Smuckola(talk) 15:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You did not edit war? You must be kidding. Please note that the administrator left a message in your talk page informing you are editing war and can be blocked too (although you removed the message by yourself). You "joined the cadre of people above who discussed everything conclusively, repeatedly and laboriously informing you that you are completely wrong"? No, this is not the case either. There was no conclusions about your version at all, but simply suggestions in general to make the content more concise instead of any particular versions. Nor the earlier discussions in the talk page since the last edit war mentions about WP:VGRS until now. You lied about this. You only mentioned it in talk this time and there are better sources now. It is clear that you did not join in the discussion last time at all. --Cartakes (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smuckola and Cartakes. Would you two be so kind as to step away from the article and the discussion here for a while? I've posted at the wikiproject here and here asking for others to help. If others comment here, they can read the facts and see the history. Please do not try to sell them on a particular view. That would make the whole thing messy. Please just back off for a while and let others have their say. Thank you both. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did, after committing the edit long ago, today. It's done. So you can undo that request or whatever.— Smuckola(talk) 21:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant starting....................now! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, now, it's still already done. Look at the article. — Smuckola(talk) 21:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is fine. This is not an aggregious BLP issue. And we are probably not talking about an emergency here. Wikipedia and its visitors will survive with a possibly somewhat incorrect version for a little while. Don't let it drive you nuts. Articles find their way. Please be patient. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're not listening (to me now, to the discussion above, or to the article contents). We're not talking about anything here. I'm telling you that you once again filed needless and mistaken requests about an obsolete issue. He finally complied with the clear and simple encyclopedic concepts as instructed from the beginning. It's done. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 21:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh! A thousand pardons. So you are both happy with the current version and this whole thing is now resolved? I tend not to spend half an hour reading arguments and pouring through diffs unless their is some obvious and serious policy violation. My job is mainly to stop disruption. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Regardless of the previous problems, I think Smuckola and I did at least reach an agreement on the article content by now. If possible let's move ahead instead. Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Splendid news! I'll post at the projects saying it is sorted out. Please consider sending each other virtual cookies or scotch or kittens or kittens loaded up on scotch or whatever. Thanks to both of you for working it out. Happy New Year! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Close source with open source components?
Should this not fall under that classing; a reverse of MacOS does being open with closed components? Lostinlodos (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)