Talk:PlayStation

Vandal

In case someone gets the wrong idea, I blanked the Talk: page because I had originally created it, but then realized I made a huge mistake. But anyways, there's a vandal with IP address 172.209.64.144 who has vandalised several articles relating to Sony. Perhaps this should be reported.(Myscrnnm 03:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

PlayStation 4

Could it redirect to this page? Just wonderin'.... TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just added some details on the new PS4, it's not perfect yet, but I gave my best :D. 188.60.32.232 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I put some info about it up from a source I found. JDC808 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison

It would be a good idea to put a comparison section here (like above) toi show the huge difference, also a comparison on the psp, ps2 and ps3 to show what the psp takes from the other two. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyortonfan6 (talk • contribs)

PSOne Software

N/A for system software for the PSone is false. Leaving the disk tray open boots into the PSOne bios where audio CDs can be played, and memory card data can be managed. The PS2 was similar, but it could play DVDs as well. Even the PS2's column for system software features has nothing in it. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rating

I upgraded the rating to C-Class. I feel the article is no longer totally incomplete and developing. It is substantial, but it does need resources and cleanup which is what a C-Class article is. Feel free to give a second opinion. BrownsRock10 (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

ps4 and psp2

are fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.247.51 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Pages moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

---

PlayStation (brand) → PlayStation — Since the launch of the first PlayStation console has developed into a wide brand consisting of numerous consoles, handhelds, controllers, an online service as well as magazines. Thus PlayStation is now more commonly referred to as a brand rather than as simply the first console. In addition the public usually calls the original PlayStation, "PS1" or "PSX" while Sony usually refers to it as the "PSone", this can be seen from their naming of PSone Classics instead of PlayStation Classics and uses the name PlayStation when referring to the brand. Hence the first console should be moved to PlayStation (console) and the brand page should be moved to PlayStation. KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• PlayStation → PlayStation (console)

Survey

• Comment Isn't the first console referred to more popularly as PS1, PSX or original PlayStation? 76.66.192.73 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per the nominator's argument that "Playstation" is now more likely to refer to the brand than the console. Propaniac (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I know this has already happened, but I Object. I have started a new section over at WikiProject PlayStation to discuss this, where it is more likely to get attention, so please comment there. Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

I added alot of new content as well as sections to the article. However it needs to be further expanded with more content as well as examples and citations for the Reception.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Playstation 4?

Can we see the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 9K58 Smerch (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no PlayStation 4 at the moment, so I don't really know what you want a source for.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

PS9

I don't see a mention of the PS9 commercials that aired during the end of the PS2 generation. Does it not deserve a spot in the main page? 64.6.52.82 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know how notable it is, but if you want to add something just stick it in the marketing section. Don't make it too long though - maybe a line or two at most. Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

I've worked hard over the last few months expanding the article on a large scale, I've added numerous new sections covering almost every aspect of PlayStation including its newly created history section, and others such as marketing, online services, games, software and controller sections. I think its time for a peer review of the article since its pretty well detailed as well as well-referenced in every section. Is there anything else I need to clean up or improve upon in the article? Peer Review page.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Country?

Why does it say "Minami-Aoyama, Minato, Tokyo, Japan" under the country section in the table on the right hand side of the page? If that's the place in Japan Sony's located shouldn't it have a more fitting name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.130.93 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:PlayStation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Basic GA Criteria

1. Well-written: ✓ Pass
2. Verifiable: ✗  Fail - a few sources should either have more information added to them than just an URL and a title. Preferably, use a template such as Cite web or Cite news.

   Fixed by editors while the article was on hold. elektrikSHOOS 05:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage: ✓ Pass
4. Neutral: ✗  Fail - The article contains a controversy section. In the past, dedicated controversy/criticism sections have been seen as jeopardizing the neutrality of an article. If possible, information in that section should be integrated into other sections where applicable. I've tagged the section appropriately to alert interested editors.

   Fixed by editors while the article was on hold. elektrikSHOOS 05:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

5. Stable: ✓ Pass - Other than the typical vandal I don't see any edit wars or other such disputes which would compromise the integrity of the article.
6. Illustrated: ✓ Pass - All images are properly tagged and licensed (fair-use-wise). I'd personally look to add more but I don't see the existing amount as not being enough. (If that makes sense.)

Reviewer: elektrikSHOOS 19:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As per the recommendations, all references on the page use a Cite Web template while the controversy section of the article has been removed and reintegrated into the Marketing section with a neutral section. The article has also been better illustrated with additional images.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, thanks for fixing! Now go for FA class! elektrikSHOOS 05:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sony Xperia Play Android Phone

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to add a little section on the Xperia Play phone, since it is related to the PSP? --Gamer5KOs (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me - even if it wasn't related to the PSP, it is PlayStation certified. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 01:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of material available in the main article Sony Ericsson Xperia Play - X201 (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't at least get a mention here - it is part of the PlayStation franchise and is a major device (it's not like it's some obscure accessory or something). What I meant was along the same lines that the NGP is talked about, so just a sentence or two with a main article link. Heck, if the PocketStation gets a mention then I see no reason not to include the Xperia Play as well. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 11:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it shouldn't, and wasn't inferring such either; just providing the link as a help, because it hadn't been mentioned in the discussion. - X201 (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see - my mistake. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 12:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

what about the eyetoy

"The PlayStation Move for the PlayStation 3 is the brand's first foray into the motion gaming industry."

Would not the Eyetoy be considered as motion gaming? Should not this statement be deleted?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.177.128 (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2011

In fact I'll delete it right now! Thanks wikipedia for giving me this power.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.177.128 (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2011

Playstation TV

At E3, Sony revealed a Playstation-branded 3D TV. Doesn't that deserve a mention? Loligator (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably just a passing mention, but I don't see why it shouldn't be included… especially given that we already have the Sony BRAVIA KDL22PX300 (a TV with integrated PS2) listed. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 02:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mascot

I'm wondering if there's a notable reason to mention PlayStation mascots, or rather the lack of one. Sure, Japan kind of had Toro (for Sony as a whole), but while Nintendo had Mario and Sega had Sonic, PlayStation had a bunch of unofficial contenders (like Crash Bandicoot and Abe). Could go in the PSX page, or here, or nowhere at all. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It had a mascot, briefly. See Polygon Man - X201 (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The closest there is to a real Playstation mascot would be Sackboy from Little Big Planet. Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft doesn't have a mascot for their XBox range either; in fact the only games platform with a real mascot is Nintendo, who continue to use Mario for their mascot as they have since the early 80's. Since Nintendo is currently the only manufacturer with a persistent and recognisable mascot in the video games business, I find Sony's lack of a mascot unremarkable. If Sony ever choose to adopt an official mascot for their brand, it's inclusion would be justified in this article, though I don't believe the lack of a mascot is worth noting since there's nothing tangible to add.Pobatti (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Slogans?

Are the list of slogans really that relevant to the campaign section? the list doesn't seem to accomplish anything and it seems to make the article look a bit messy (but then again the excess of images also seems to make it look messy). Maybe a quick clean up would do?Lucia Black (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the marketing sections have been one of those things that I've always been meaning to write. I have the source material for both Sony and Sega articles. They are important subjects because they both changed the way video games were marketed, and I could easily expand it to a standalone article given time. But that's the problem. Time. - X201 (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

think they should be merged then, rather than listing them.Lucia Black (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

1986?

"The console's origins date back to 1986 where it was originally a joint project between Nintendo and Sony to create a CD-ROM for the Super Nintendo." I have a feeling two separate thoughts were merged over time, i.e. the origins of Sony's home entertainment business and the particulars of Playstation's creation. Neither Super Nintendo nor CD-ROM were anywhere near the radar in 1986, and I highly doubt "Game Over" can be considered an authoritative source on any of this considering it was written about two years before the Playstation's release. Whelkman (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Game Over is being misquoted: the book says the deal was signed in 1988. Kutaragi first proposed a joint Sony-Nintendo project of some kind in 1986 but was rebuffed by Nintendo. This was not the PlayStation. Game Over is perfectly reliable for these matters (when properly quoted) because the original Sony-Nintendo PlayStation was being worked on from late 1989 and the public snubbing of Sony came in 1991, which all happened during the period of time the book covers. Indrian (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

PlayStation Orbis "rumored to have AMD hardware"?

I might get a lot of hate for this, but if the next big PlayStation console does include AMD hardware of any kind, I will immediately lose faith in Sony.

PS3 was better when it had nVidia's Reality Synthesizer and the best processor ever. I would hate to see Sony put AMD inside their next console because that would be like throwing an innocent animal off a cliff; nobody will ever know why you did it, what made you do it, and what people expect from it.

Aside from the hating of the hardware, I wonder what Sony will do with the processor. Make it have more SPE's and PPE's? Make it a better kind of architecture? ('cuz seriously. PowerPC is just too damn old and pointless like money.) Will the OtherOS feature return and actually support Windows?

Those are some things I want to know. --Doubled-revolutions (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Playstation 4

It redirects here, but there are enough sources (of rumours, no doubt) to warrant that it gets its own page, rather than a redirect. Techradar hes plenty of links here: [1] and lots of rumours [2] and news [3]. Unflavoured (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

All we have so far is rumour, so making an article on the subject would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)