Talk:PlayStation TV

Should the God Eater Burst sales numbers be removed?
The article isn't about the game, and its sales are irrelevant to the hardware. The only connection is that it was launched on the same day the title was released. That part should remain, but it seems that the title's sales number needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.191.14 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. How does it look now? -- benlisquare T•C•E 06:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Article naming
currently named as PSVita TV, the machine had been announced for EU/NA market without Vita in its name. should the article be moved?C933103 (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

System software license agreement
Within the system software license agreement for the PS Vita firmware, Sony Computer Entertainment refers to the white device sold in Japan and Asia as "PLAYSTATION®VITA TV", and the black device sold in North America and Europe as "PLAYSTATION®TV". This means that "PlayStation Vita TV" is still the official English name for the device sold in Asia, and that contrary to unconfirmed reports, the brand name "Vita TV" has not been depreciated in favour of "PlayStation TV". -- benlisquare T•C•E 05:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a hacking guide
This edit about hacking the system and increasing game compatibility through hacking keeps on getting added into the article. It does not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines on multiple levels.
 * 1) WP:NOTGUIDE - A few IPs have argued that "buyers should know this". This is not a valid argument. Wikipedia is not a buyers guide, nor is it a "How-to manual".
 * 2) WP:UNDUE - Additionally, this massive block of information on it creates an WP:UNDUE weight issue. Even if done correctly, something like this certainly shouldn't take up almost half of the article space. Far too much time is spent on it.
 * 3) WP:RS and WP:USERG - Wikipedia needs to be written by reliable sources - Wikipedia's definition of this means things like stuff written by actual professional writers and journalists writing as a career. While that block of information uses some sorts like this (IGN, The Verge, Eurogamer etc) far too much of it hinges on sources from messageboards, social media, and fansites like Gamefaqs and HackInformer. I tried to trim out the unusable sources, but then the section lost any sort of narrative, because the usuable sources largely sourced smaller, minor details, rather than the bulk of the content.

In theory, some of the concept (Vita TV having low compatibility with Vita games, the fact that it was hacked) could probably be added in a much shorter, general sense in something like the Reception section, if usable sources covered it. (See WP:VG/S for sources that are usable or not usable.) The resulting work would probably read something more like:
 * A number of PS TV reviewers noted a lack of compatibility of the PS TV with regular Vita games. In (date/timeframe) a (person/group) released (name of app) to add (some degree) of more games to be supported. 

Content/sourcing like that wouldn't go against said policies and guidelines. Sergecross73  msg me  16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ars Technica is a reliable source, so something like https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/09/hackers-restore-playstation-tv-compatibility-blocked-by-sony/ this could be used to source content like I mentioned above. Sergecross73   msg me  16:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)