Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Adding to or changing infomation in articles.

Please when adding new infomation to this article or changing existing infomation please place a reliable reference in the text or something in the talk page - otherwise someone else will have to attempt to find a reference for it.

Also when editing please try to bear in mind not only the context of the paragraph being changed but also the context of the section or subsection the changes are being made to.

Clealy this does not apply to spelling correction etc. HappyVR 18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot disclaimer

We need one. Some of those screenshots are unconfirmed (in-game) and/or are from FMV. Yes, "screenshot" means any shot of a screen (i.e. a word doc in Microsift Word or in this case a screen shot of a FMV), but with regards to videogames, they can often be confused by uninformed gamers as in-game footage (i.e. see Killzone, which was a FMV, but has a first person shooter-type feel). Add discussion here before removing my disclaimer. We don't want to misinform people. Competition is good for all gamers. What we actaully need is two sections with one being confirmed in-game screenshots and the other being screenshots from FMV or unknown source.

We do not need it. Screenshot does not imply in-game footage. We do not need two sections for "In-Game" and "Prerendered" screenshots. That kind of thing should be mentioned in the corresponding game's article. --HQ 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We already had this discussion in archive 4. If you want to label a screenshot as non-ingame footage do it on the image page itself. Seraphim 00:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with the disclaimer. I tried fighting king SeraphimXI for a month or more and gave up. I think it is needed as well and doesn't pose any inaccurate information. In fact, it's more information which (most of the time) is good if you're looking at any article on Wikipedia. Anyway....you have my vote for a disclaimer, but looks like he already deleted your edit. (from) 209.125.57.2 Also, can someone tell me what's biased, controversal, false, and/or misleading about "screenshots may not be from in-game"? You can't. That's why it's ok to post it. But again, good luck, he'll just delete it again and again.

First off we already discussed this months ago, look at archive 4, we reached a decision to not include the disclaimer, if you want to make a change against consensus you need to use the talk page to discuss it and if you get enough editors on your side the change can be made. The word "screenshot" does not mean "ingame footage" it never has. Also as a little side note it would be impossible for me to be a king, i'm more of a princess :p Seraphim 16:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

209.125.57.2 19:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Seraphim, I went back and read the discussion and it seems that it was 3 against 1 for NOT having a disclaimer. But, if you count the person who start this post and myself, its 3-3. So, how about one that says "Unknown if screenshots are from in-game, FMV, or real-time." That the truth (you said it yourself in the previous discussion) and its not broad as "shots may not be from in-game footage". All I'm saying is this website exsists to educate and without some sort of note or disclaimer, the UNEDUCATED (who don't know what a true screenshot is) might think that all screenshots mean in-game. Thus, they will be even more misinformed and uneducated. Plus, it seems biased (in favor of Sony) that you would fight a disclaimer since it can lead people to thinks these are in-game. Let me know what you think.....

I vote for not having a disclaimer, I agree with Seraphim. Dionyseus 20:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Dionyseus.21:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)~~Seraphim...one more thing. You conceeded on my personal page that these screenshots may be misleading, but you thought that a disclaimer wasn't neutral. If you look at all of the other wikipedia game system pages (N64, PSOne, etc.) all of the screenshots are from in-game or real-time...EXCEPT for the PS3. So, someone looking at other wiki pages (i.e. the N64) and then goes to PS3 will say "wow" look at this "in-game" footage. They would be incorrect because PS3 is not consistent with the rest of them. Thus, it's needed. 209.125.57.2

And because the PS3 isn't out yet, gamers that care to come to Wikipedia should be smart enough to check the entry for the games and not just look at the pretty little pictures and jump to conclusions. --HQ 02:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry about the "king" thing earlier. I just feel strongly about this because more competition = better for gamers.

Wow. I didn't think my discussion post would be such a sore subject. Thanks 209.125.57.2 for your input, but I don't think the others are going to let our edits stick. I guess wikipedia isn't the know it all website I've come to love. Seems we like to misinform the public. Oh well. Win some lose some. But one thing before I go, 67.188.152.129 05:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)User:HQ, I'd like to think that users of Wikipedia wouldn't jump to conclusions, but I'm sorry to say, I'm sure at least of few have come to the PS3 page and thought all of the screenshots were in-game.

Proposal for Sony First Available Date

Here is the current body of evidence for Sony Release Date

First Hand Evidence

1. Sony initially on their web site stated Spring of 2006. They haven't changed that since.
2. Sony at CES stated release in 2006, without clarification.
3. Merril Lynch estimating Sony may not be ready till next year.

Second Hand Evidence (Also known as Rumor)

1. Ign recently talked to unnamed source at Sony Press Room. They state that Sony is still aiming for a Spring release, but may not make it.
2. Digitimes quotes 2nd tier developers stating that Sony is not ready for PS3 release till August.
3. Various articles from unnamed developers stating Sony is not ready till Summer or later.

Let me know if you want sources for these links. There are additional reputable sources if you want them that say Sony isn't ready.

My recommendation is that we change the Q2 date to something like June+ or June-Sept. Reputable sources are stating September release in North America. What do you think?

Please define "reputable sources," as compared to Sony itself. Mhking 03:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this crusade you don't know what your talking about. Ign did not say that Sony is aiming for a spring release. They reported that the Sony PR Department said they are aiming for a spring release. They quote Sony PR as saying that, that means that those exact words came out of the mouth of sony's public relations people. It is not rumor. That's like saying that if you link to a news article about the results of an olympic curling match it's considered rumor since the newspaper isn't the IOC. Also I find it hysterical that you think that information sourced to Merril Lynch is more official then information that sony puts out. Daniel if you really want the change your going to have to go through dispute resolution, you obviously cannot grasp how future-product articles work, even though 5 people now have told you your wrong. Seraphim 03:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We repeat only what Sony publishes on this matter. Not speculation from third parties, even if the third parties should magically know better than Sony itself. This page is about Sony's product, not a place to publish our personal speculation. -- uberpenguin 03:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please stop. Your own first hand reference gives a spring release so why recommend June-Sept - that is just speculation. I appreciate that your aim here is to give an accurate estimate of the release date. But I would leave it as Q2 for now - remember it's still only feb. Q2 starts in april? By then I'm sure there will be a lot more solid evidence or news. (I also suggest that you include sources as a matter of course, even in the talk page - it saves everyone time in the end.)

Also the section 'cost and release date' is now a MESS.

The original Merrill Lynch article doesn't even have a link in the text.

Reference 5 links to an interview to Ken Kutaragi (mostly about a hard disk when it's supposed to be about Blue ray release dates.

Reference 6 is supposed to link to internal sony developement - it does not seem to.

Reference 7 links to a tiny news article about Phil Harrison - when a link to the game developers conference website might be better.HappyVR 04:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Train of Thought

If an average person where to use just the first hand evidence (only want Sony publishes) then:

• Latest statement from Sony says 2006.

One would then conclude that the release date should say 2006.

If one where to accept some of the second hand evidence such as the IGN article then:

• Article says in marketing speak that they are still hoping to make it by the end of Spring, which is June, but they may very well not.

Using this info then would conclud that the release date should say maybe end of Spring but unlikely.

If one where to accept all of the second hand evidence, then the conclusion is based on putting to gether all of the pieces of info and weighing it appropriately. This does not count 3rd hand evidence. When one web site reports what another one said.

I'm curious where do you see the speculation in this and what is your train of thought?

Here is an interesting link:

• http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=14821 They are quoting Sony and saying maybe June or July. Should we use that as a source?

Daniel.Cardenas 21:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I used your link and put it in the text (Ref. No. 4) I think that the article/page now has a reasonable level of balance as it has 3 references in the release date section (approx summary):

Ref 3 States Sony's most recent statement

Ref 4 (The reference provided a few lines above) Gives both sides and suggests June/July

Ref 5 Tends to suggest a launch delay

I'm sure interested readers will be able to form their own opinions - (my opinion is that the article is presently unbiased in this respect.) HappyVR 23:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Check the page

The links were getting out of step with the index of links at the bottom of the page... I've reset them up to link No.8 I thought I'd stop there and ask if this is the way the page should be???

HappyVR 13:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I got bored and completed on the links - there are a few problems left:

Look at the index of links at the bottom of the page:

Look below link number 24 - these links no longer have references in the text to them - if they were ever there? Some seem to relate to Cell more than PS3.

Only link B4 seems relevant - but where is it supposed to be linked to from.. (That's "Kutaragi talks more on PlayStation 3")

Also if you have time - check the links - are they any good?

So in the future hopefully this list will not get disjointed again.HappyVR 15:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)HappyVR 15:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK the comment above about extra links no longer applies. I've removed them - I think they were from when the article must have had much more Cell processor infomation.

Only ONE task now remains - to check that the links are actually any good?HappyVR 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

We should problary change the article to use the new ref tags. Seraphim 07:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Playstation World

At E3 05, Sony talked about Playstation World and also had a little presention of it, i cannot seem to find any images for it yet ,online though, we need to find Sony's presention screenshot of it, because everything be on Playstation World for there online stratgy is just rumors, such as the Playstation hub rumor, Sony never said anything about the service being called Playstation hub, Sony offical online service name is currently Playstation World, Sony has not changed the name at all or made any other announcements about the online senice E3 05, so we, need to use the current offical name , Playstation World, until Sony announces a different name, Playstation World could be both the codename and the final name of the service. HP465 14:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I found the images from Sony's E3 05 confreees, WE ARE NOT RUNNING A RUMOR MILL HERE WIKIPEDIANS!!! Unless it comes from SONY mouth, it isnt OFFICAL! Playstation World is still the offical name of the online Strategy and until they say otherwise(which they havent) we will treat it as such!! Thank You! HP465 15:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? See Talk:Playstation World . Can you give a reference showing that the name is official please - a web search turns up a blank for me at present.HappyVR 18:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

They used "Playstation World" as a hype line during e3. It's not the name of the service. Seraphim 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait I saw wrong, i went over the video again and noticed that, they never said playstation world at all just had it writen down, sorry HP465 19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the page Playstation World be deleted or merged with something then?HappyVR 20:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

References *&!£$£$* F++@#+++%^

PLEASE NOTE

When adding removing references please UPDATE the reference index at the bottom of the page otherwise the reference numbers no longer match. I don't want to spend the rest of my life fixing this.

If anyone knows of a way (perhaps some script) to automatically create a correct reference index for a wiki page please let me/us know.

Otherwise the obvious solution is to use the same (much easier) referencing method that Xbox 360 and Nintendo Revolution pages use.HappyVR 19:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Also the link [1] doesn't always seem to work - not sure why. I'll try to sort this out.
This link about HDD is now an orphan - ^ "Sony Considers Linux for PS3 Hard Disk". ign. June 9 2005. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) HappyVR 19:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll go through and update it to use the new cite.php ref tags if you want. It makes it so the bottom is automatically updated. Once your done matching up the tags just let me know and i'll do it, should take like 10 mins :p Seraphim 20:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The references are good now (20:28, 1 March 2006). Yes please do this.HappyVR 20:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

okies i'll do it Seraphim 21:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done, looks right but I might have missed an error. Alot of the tags were done wrong you don't need to put [[ ]] around the stuff in the date fields it's just | date = Month day | year = year |. Seraphim 21:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Great. Seems okay. Except ref 14 links to IGN site quoting interview with famistu not EDGE and interviewee is Masayuki Chatani so I've moved it up one line. That should be the end of it.HappyVR 22:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How to use the Ref Tags

It gets a little confusing because it's wikimagic so i'm going to explain it it's actually really simple.

In the article where you used to put {{note|abc}} you now simply put what you would have put in the reference section without the {{ref|abc}} part. For example if I wrote a line "The alphabet is 26 letters long" and my reference was alphabet.com's faq on the alphabet i'd put:

<ref>{{Web reference | title=Alphabet FAQ | 
work=alphabet.com |url=http://www.alphabet.com/faq.html
 | date = Mar 1 | year = 2006}}</ref>

(I have no idea if that page actually exists.)

What's in between the ref tags gets automatically picked up by the references section (by the <references/> tag that's in there don't remove it!). This allows people to keep the references inline with the text it's referencing, which makes it alot easier to keep track of. Plus it's less work. Seraphim 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the underlined bit: eg "No More Memory Cards. www.maxconsole.net. URL accessed on Jul 31, 2005."
It seems to happen when the first field is 'Web Reference' and not when it's 'Cite news'.
Apart from that the new reference method seems clear. Maybe you should put a note at the top of the talk page in big letters or where-ever people are most likely to see it.HappyVR 22:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because that's how it's properly cited. :p Seraphim 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Still a bit confused - it seems that maybe some of the references should be changed from 'Web reference' to 'Cite news' e.g. ref 5 ; Sony PS3 launch could be delayed. since it's news? (obviously it's also a web reference) Can anyone confirm this or expand on this. Thanks.HappyVR 16:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hardware specs

What's all this MiB / MB rubbish - why dont you check the reference from which the data comes and use that info without changing it?
What is it about naming conventions that turns normally sane people into ???? Use some common sense.
Also in the hardware spec sheet (system bandwidth) there is an entry:

SB 2.5 GB/s out 2.5 GB/s in (or very similar)

Previously I assumed this to mean system bandwidth but this seems too little..I now think that it probably means serial bandwidth e.g USB + Ethernet etc.
If anyone out there actually knows could they please edit the page so that it is correct. Thank You.HappyVR 17:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Can anyone help. Thanks.HappyVR 16:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be irresponsible for us to use MB when MiB encapsulates the whole mystique concerning this on going debate in the MB Vs. MiB scene FlavarB 17:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

We could handle the MiB/MB issue the same way we handle currencies. For Canadian publications we write CAD$100. We just need to divide the world into two distinct continents: those who prefer accuracy, and those who prefer whichever ruler makes their unit look largest. Now, we just need to invent a special symbol to designate metric units quoted from publications originating within the island republic of Long Dong. I propose two small hands held this far apart.

Humour aside, when an encyclopedia quotes dates originating from sources adopting different calendars, dates must be reconciled into consistent terms. Think how ridiculous it would be to freely intermix American and British billions and trillions without distinction.

History of bifurcating bimillions

From the one, two, many camp:

You get the idea: a billion is such a large number it does not matter which definition you use, American or British.

The Long Dong way of life:

"If you want to be a billionaire," advices William Morris, author of Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins, "stay right here in America." It's a thousand times easier. MaxEnt 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Variety Article

The Link The relevant quotes: "Sony's new PlayStation 3 was widely expected to be introduced this spring, but will be delayed as the company fine-tunes the chips that are crucial to the success of the console's Blu-ray function.

The PlayStation 3 --- which is being called "the poor man's Blue-ray" --- is vital to Sony's plans because it plays Blu-ray discs as well as videogames.

Sony will roll out the PS3 by year end, in time for the holidays. If PS3 "delivers what everyone thinks it will, the game is up," Stringer boasts."

Notice anything? Nowhere does sony say there will be a delay, it is simply another news place making a prediction. The reason everyone got so confused about this is because they toss in a completly unrelated Stringer quote on the line that says sony will roll out the PS3 by year end.

Once again, this article is no different then all the other articles claiming a delay with no official sourcce, so far the last official word from sony was that they are still on target for a spring launch. Seraphim 23:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the what the Q2 reference on the main article links to:

Sony Computer Entertainment has reaffirmed its aim to release the PlayStation 3 in spring. However, it has also admitted that some areas of the system's specifications have yet to be finalized, and if finalization is delayed, the system's launch could be pushed back.

It doesn't say they are still on target for spring launch. It says they are aiming for this.

The playstation web site that says "in spring 2006" was created last year and still holds a 2005 copyright date. The January 2006 press release says they will release the PS3 in 2006. It doesn't say spring 2006. The main article should say the last thing Sony is saying and not some distorted overly optimistic excerpt. It should say "aiming but..." or should just say 2006.

Daniel.Cardenas 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK the box now says 2006 only. The section 'cost and release date' is unchanged.HappyVR 19:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It probably should still say spring but there is so much second, third and fourth hand infomation out there it now seems almost impossible to find an original first hand statement. As for a source from variety magazine it's an interview with a business person, he talks about himself. I can't see the relevance. I wouldn't expect any new release date infomation in this and there isn't any there.HappyVR 20:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The last official first party source says q2 2006 that is what we are required to show in the infobox, any other information presented as fact fails WP:V and WP:RS. We already had this discussion, now that the variety article came out with the same speculation as plenty of other 3rd party sources has no impact on the facts. 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to? The last official first person info says 2006, not Q2 2006. That would be the press release from CES. The playstation web site that says spring 2006 was prior to CES. The IGN article says aiming for Spring, but... It doesn't say on target or will be released Q2 2006. Saying Q2 failes WP:V and WP:RS.

Daniel.Cardenas 22:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

2006 does not make previous Q2 2006 statement incorrect.HappyVR 22:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but 2006 is significantly different than Q2 2006. We should strive to give our readers the best possible information. Q2'2006 is a distortion on the truth. Should say "... aiming for Q2 2006, but ..." or just the 2006. This is what Sony is quoted as saying.

Daniel.Cardenas 22:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But, as an example if I say "I will catch a train at 3pm friday" and later I say "I will catch a train on friday" to assume I'm catching a later train is reading between the lines... Only time will tell. Perhaps you would like to place a bet ?HappyVR 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just Japan or North America? I did notice that a 2nd tier mfg received orders for PCBs from Sony, so that tells us that at least Sony will be displaying working PS3s at E3. Daniel.Cardenas 13:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

>Perhaps you would like to place a bet ?

Yes, I'll take that bet.  :-) Daniel.Cardenas 13:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sony PR stated to IGN and a few other websites that they are still on track for a Q2 release during feburary. We have gone over this before, you already know this, why are you pretending you don't? Seraphim 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The title of the IGN article says that, but it is not attributed to Sony. I'm not aware of the other sites you mention although I looked at plenty. The title "Sony on track..." seems to be what journalists inferred from Sony saying it was aiming for Q2 release. Daniel.Cardenas 13:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We have already gone over this are you trying to make a WP:Point:point or something? "A Sony public relations representative didn't specifically deny the report, stating to Reuters, "We cannot comment on analyst reports. At the present, we're aiming for a spring 2006 launch, just as planned."" it is a direct quote from sony, you know this that is how it got changed to Q2 in the first place. Seraphim 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you guys learned anything? I hope you learned:

1. Don't be overly optimistic.
2. Don't take an overly optimistic excerpt from what is said. If they say "...aiming for Q2, but...", then that is what should be put on the page, rather than just Q2.

I put the exact quote of what Sony said and summary versions of it, and Seraphim reverted them all. It would have been more informative to our readers if for the past month if we would have said "...aiming for Q2, but ...", and today's news would have been less of a surprise. Daniel.Cardenas 13:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In the article it explained that there might be a delay. See WP:NOT's Crystal Ball section. Putting Q2 but... would be unverifiable since Sony was still stating a Q2 release. Obviously there was going to be a delay, it was apparent after sony said ps3 would have a ton of booths at TGS but then it showed up in a small glass bubble. However sony's official stance was Spring 2006 and that's what the article must say untill they officially change the date. Outside speculation does not change official news. Seraphim 17:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what Sony was quoted as saying

Sony Computer Entertainment has reaffirmed its aim to release the PlayStation 3 in spring. However, it has also admitted that some areas of the system's specifications have yet to be finalized, and if finalization is delayed, the system's launch could be pushed back.

I put that in and you reverted it. I put in summarized versions of that and you also reverted them. "However" and "but" are synonymous. If you prefer "However" to "but" you should have said so.

Saying that Sony was stating a Q2 release is false. They stated an aim to release Q2 with a however/but clause. I don't know what outside speculation you are refering to in this context.

Daniel.Cardenas 20:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Controller

I just noticed this from Phil Harrison:[2]
"There has been some criticism regarding the design of the new controller. Have you had a chance to use it yet? Is it really that different from a DualShock?

That controller design is a prototype. It's not the final controller."

Seems pretty clear. I suggest replacing the second paragraph in section 'controller' with this info.HappyVR 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We already have sony's CTO saying it's a prototype we should just remove the 2nd paragraph since it's redundant. Seraphim 22:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Made the changes but still added a Phil Harrison quote as briefly as possible - as he is more certain the controller design is not final - i.e. may not be final vs. is not final.

hasn't gamewinners confirmed the glideFX is the new ps3 controller? http://xataka.com/archivos/images/glidefx.jpg http://news.gamewinners.com/index.php/news/4132/

floating point

Can anyone explain the current obsession with floating point performance - not just in general but in this article? As I see it floating point is neccessary for high dynamic range lighting calculations but in terms of vector calculations fixed point is better (faster to compute). Is this just a result of marketing bullshit?HappyVR 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your bullshit detector is overheating. Ten years ago that might have been true. With enough transistors available, floating point performance rivals fixed point performance. The Cell processor is unusual in performing floating point multiply faster than fixed point by a small margin. Both operations use the same multiplier circuitry, but there is an extra small delay for the fixed point operation to 'borrow' the multiplier unit from the floating point unit. This was a design decision made by Sony. Use of floating point often simplies algorithms and the Cell is already hard enough to program in other respects. Working with single precision floating point you do lose some precision (typically 23 mantissa bits vs 31 precision bits for signed integers) but for visualization you don't often need 32 bit precision, and where you do need more precision Cell is still quite impressive working with double precision floats. For scientific applications it's a lot harder to accept the precision loss involved in working with single point. Because the operands are twice as large, each instruction completes two results (2x64) instead of four results (4x32) so you lose half your speed right there. Then IBM/Sony decided to save silicon by reusing the single precision multiplier four times for each double precision operation, which is another factor of four performance loss, plus a little more for juggling. The final bill is a 10:1 performance degradation. Still impressive, but unlikely to take the world by storm. If IBM elects to pursue the scientific market more seriously, a future Cell processor would need to seriously beef up the double precision multiplier. But for this generation, the nuclear reactor being simulated is only burning virtonium so a little precision loss is no biggie. FlavarB 02:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - it definately seems that sony/ibm have really made only a half hearted attempt at double precision. I'm not suprised that multiply is the same speed (or a little faster for some reason (not 23bits vs 31??) ) but I would be suprised if floating point add or subtract was a similar speed as fixed point. If it was me I'd save silicon by just using fixed point units for maths and no floating point units at all - ((it might be interesting to see if double precision (or higher) sums could be done faster in software (using non double precision machine code) than the cell does it natively - It's probably not possible but as you describe it double precision emulation should come close.))
It seems that 'cell' would make a pretty good replacement for pentiums in 'PCs' but I can't actually imagine the market conditions to make such a thing take place. I think the section on floating point got shortened anyway a while ago.HappyVR 17:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggest cutting 2nd and possibly 3rd paragraph in section:Overall floating-point capabilityHappyVR 17:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

references

to add an extra link to a reference that already exists use:

<ref name="insert name here" />

and in the original link change:

<ref>

to

<ref name="insert name here">

I think thats right - HappyVR 18:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Clustering

So, if the PS3 runs GNU/Linux, it should be able to form a cluster... 150 PS3s should be able to beat the speed of BlueGene/L and become the fastest supercomputer in the world, not counting for speed loss between the systems, although on a 1GB/s ethernet LAN that wouldn't ammount to much negative impact... Wow.

Feel free to point out any problems with the theory,

Wulf 22:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is it doesn't run GNU/Linux. Seraphim 23:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If the HDD has "a version of linux pre-installed", and the dev tools are GNU/Linux, shouldn't that lead to the conclusion that the "version of linux" on the HDD is GNU? --Wulf 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't think the cluster you describe would make a really good supercomputer - if the ps3s operate on the same data set then there must be a copy of that data set in each ps3 and any changes made to one copy of the data set must be sent to the other 149 ps3s - easily filling up the relatively minute 1GB bandwidth. Supercomputers need to be specially designed. My opinion is that a room full of PC's connected via their serial ports is not really a supercomputer.HappyVR 18:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The HDD doesn't have "a version of linux pre-installed" it's never been confirmed by sony, people latched on to crazy ken saying "might" and changed it into all of asudden the HD coming with full fledged linux, he was also talking about OS'es in general and mentioned Tiger, you don't see people saying it will come with Tiger on it. Look back in the archives of this talk page, I researched it for a few days, all of the "Ps3 HD has linux" claims go back to 1 interview, that 1 website posted, and then people spun it completly wrong, much like the recent "sony confirms ps3 delay in variety" fiasco. Also even if the HD does run a version of Linux that doesn't mean that users will beable to edit it or that it will be powerful, my cellphone runs linux. Seraphim 18:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree (considered using caps.).It's all hot air.HappyVR 18:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I quote from the slideshow at Sony's press conference today:

HDD is required !

• 60GB HDD (2.5")
• Upgradable
• Enhance Game Play
• Network Game/Application
• Powerful Network Platform
• Full Internet Access
• Home Server
• LINUX OS

So, there will be a HDD, and it will run Linux. --Wulf 02:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly the current wikipedia article on Supercomputer seems to classify the type of thing User:WolftheSaxon is taking about as a quasi-supercomputer.HappyVR 19:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There are alot of articles that show that Sony's insistance that the PS3 is a supercomputer is hogwash anyway. The cell is simply a specialized chip for non-interactive multimedia signal processing, that's what it was designed for and that's what it is. If the PS3 is a "supercomputer" then all the tv's with cell chips in it are too. Seraphim 19:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not an especially deep analysis. What makes a fast processing element into a supercomputer is a good interconnect. I haven't looked at that spec. sheet lately, but Cell already has an excellent bandwidth per pin interconnet. In this version of Cell they only provided enough coherence logic for two-way glueless configurations. A future version of Cell could implement a far grander coherence mechanism over the existing signalling interface and nudge into the supercomputer space. Completely worthless to build all that coherence logic into a chip where the initial mass market is a game console. They can already build a future PS3 with two Cell chips using the existing glueless 2-way design. The word 'supercomputer' generally connotes paying through the nose to go the extra mile. If you insist on regarding it as a performance threshhold, then your Toshiba TV will have a great deal more compute power (and bandwidth) than Wargames vintage Cray. MaxEnt 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Stay tunned tomorrow (15 march)

Sony will make a press conference tomorrow and probably the price and launch date will be revelead. [3] [4] [5]. A press release must be available on WWW.SCEI.CO.JP at 06:00 GMT. --Rick Browser 20:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another "confirmed delay" article (the 1up page)

There is NO confirmed delay.

From the 1up article "When asked for a comment, a Sony Computer Entertainment America spokesperson only went on record saying that SCEI has not issued any official statement itself yet. " yet earlier in the article 1up says "Today, Sony officially conceded defeat to the recent flurry of rumors and speculation" which is 100% false.

What has actually happened is a japanese magazine called Nihon Keizai Shimbun speculated that the launch date is being delayed.

From 1up "Nihon Keizai Shimbun [is] reporting the machine has been pushed back until November." From IGN "the morning edition of Japanese business paper Nihon Keizai Shimbun is reporting that the system will see its release pushed back until early November of this year."

Also from IGN "IGN contacted Sony US representatives who unsurprisingly told us, "Sony Computer Entertainment does not comment on speculation stories.""

The PlayStation Business Briefing 2006 begins in less then 10 hrs, if they are going to confirm such a thing they will confirm it there and we will have an official source for the delay. Right now it is still 100% Speculation.

Just wait 11 hrs, if sony confirms it at their conference then we can add a good official source, if they don't then it's confirmed to be speculation. Seraphim 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been 11 hours, but I know this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060315/tc_nm/sony_ps3_dc;_ylt=Ajc6l2arPNWLbN2x7cL8L2lk24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4ZnRnZjhkBHNlYwMxNjk1) suits your fancy. --Big.P 04:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but it's so close it doesn't really matter. From the yahoo article "Sony is expected to announce the delay at a briefing for software licencees at 3 p.m. (0600 GMT) on Wednesday, which it opened up to media and analysts at the last minute." we can replace ref's and re-word later I guess. Seraphim

The Yahoo article is simply relying on the same Japanese newspaper. I suggest we wait until Sony actually announces it, what's the rush? Dionyseus 05:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm out of reverts :p If you want to revert it i'll support it. However the announcement is expected in about a half hr from now. Seraphim 05:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Official slide show 15 March

Lot of development questions can be answered here:

[6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] --Rick Browser 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I analysed the pics just to be sure, they are definitely actual photos of a projector screen in a professional looking room... --Wulf 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they are legit. Bo need to worry. --Thorpe | talk 08:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Sony is now saying a 60gb hard disk is practically required now.[27]. What do you make of that slide? Daniel.Cardenas 13:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep :) That was my favorite slide. --Wulf 03:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Official Release Date

I've found out according to Gamespot and IGN that PlayStation 3 will be released in November 2006 and it'll feature 100% backward compatibility against PS2 and PS1 although any game of PS2 and PS1 will be viewed in the next-gen graphics of the PS3. It'll also have an Xbox Live type-like interface which will be like the PS3's Xbox Live. Apart from that there will be an 60GB Hard Drive which can feature Linux OS and it'll be sold seperately. The game formats for PS3 will be Blu-Ray but since it is backward compatible it can only play DVD's of PS2 and CD's of PS1. No PS3 game will be in DVD. All PS3 games will be in Blu-Ray. Mastermind 11:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the article now reflects all this information. Thanks. --OscarTheCat^talk 11:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily lost the source but I seem to remember that Sony was / now is telling developers that they can develope games and make the assumption that a HD will be present. Obviously I wasn't there but again I got the impression from reports that the HD will be standard now not an extra - can anyone confirm this???HappyVR 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article next to the hard drive specs. You can see the actual slide as well as IGN's reiteration of what Kutaragi said. [28] --Kamasutra 16:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, silly me.HappyVR 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

£300?

From here. That is totally not right? --Thorpe | talk 20:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PS3 Profit

Sony's taking major hits over reported delays of the PS3. Sony has long led us on to believe a spring release of their new console Playstation 3, though the skyrocketing costs could push back the release date up to 12 months. Merrill analysts estimate that unit could cost Sony $800, costing customers $400 retail. This means that they loose alot of profit on sales that will have to be made up somewhere else such as game sales.

On the business aspect for Sony, their getting killed by Microsoft. Sonys loss on the release date is a gain for the Microsoft Xbox 360. Microsoft plans to sell 10 million units by the end of 2006; which is destroying Sony's 70% market share. In addition to the Xbox 360 domination Microsoft plans to reveal Halo 3 during the PS3 relase. Even though its the games that make the console sales, Sony better fix the bugs and get in the game if they want to win the console war. LP121

Rolling Stone Magazine: Console Wars Issue 996 >> March 23, 2006

Has 2 million Xbox 360 units even been sold yet? While I highly doubt MS would be able to sell even a quarter of their 10 million goal by the end of 2006, even if they managed to sell that many it would barely put a dent to the huge lead Sony has enjoyed for about a decade. Considering past Playstation sales records, it wouldn't be impossible for the Playstation 3 to surpass total Xbox 360 sales in just a mere two weeks. Dionyseus 23:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Another joker in the deck is how long they continue to produce Cell at the 90nm node. The STI alliance has already poured a bundle into the 65nm node. The 65nm shrink could cut their die size roughly in half leaving the design relatively untweaked. A smaller die generally improves yields as well, though these speculations have become increasingly less reliable. From a business perspective, one of the features Sony is selling is a stable platform for the content developers to buy into for a long ride. It's not a technology that will run out of steam in two or three years. The cruel reality here is that to pull off this proposition you have to front load manufacturing costs selling a chip with a 230mm die and a bright future (in far less costly editions amortized over the long haul). What is the present delay costing them? Large volumes sold at a large loss? With not enough content available yet to really show off the system? As I see it, the only component in the PS3 with a poor value/cost ratio at present is the BluRay drive. The cost of optical technologies tends to fall rather sharply within a year of first introduction. Normally the expensive front end of the ramp is foisted on price-insensitive early adopters, but in this case Sony wants to slam them out the door to Joe-gamer-sixpack to establish an early foothold on the install base war. In other respects the capabilities of the system are in reasonable proportional to the cost, so it is late relative to the recent xbox update, but it has not fallen behind the curve on price/performance. The BluRay subsidy comes from a separate war chest devoted to video format domination redemption (I wonder which one they care more about). There's no way Sony loses so much share in the six month launch delay that they can't gain it back again if their broad ambitions were well judged. MaxEnt 03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Woooww... HD native default!

[29] Well looks like PS3 will be bundled with native 60 GB hard disk! --Rick Browser 17:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is gonna jack the price aint it... Tutmosis 16:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, but I think the HDD may be sold as an extra?HappyVR 17:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No. It will be included, and guessing by a statement made by Ken Kutaragi [30], there will not be any version that doesn't have the hard drive. It will be upgradeable. A 3.5-inch 60GB ATA hard drive (just an assumption, the interface has not yet been announced) costs US$40–55 (depending on manufacturer, revolutions/minute, quality, number of platters, interface, etc.) for OEM, which Merrill Lynch factored into some of their estimates (probably not the oft-quoted $800 one [31], though), so it will probably not have a significant effect on the price, which is still largely unknown.—Kbolino 04:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Two minor questions or suggestions

1. Should the controller be in the hardware section? 2. Should interface and operating system sections be combined?HappyVR 19:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Yes, for both questions. --Rick Browser 20:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes to both in my opinion --Wulf 22:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What's with that patent infringment talk in the "backwards compatibility" section?

Seriously, whomever edited that section clearly didn't know what the heck is going on with the PS3 controller. We need verification on that!!! Jack Zhang 21:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone misread something, the PS3 will be fully compatible with all previous games for both PS1 and PS2. The information has been removed. Here is proof: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=2171 --69.21.147.67 07:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Something got removed my accident or on purpose - the backwards compatability section is back to normal now I think. There are some patent cases going on regarding the vibration function - check SONY vs. Immersion on the web or something like that.HappyVR 16:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Cost/Price Anaylsis

HappyVR removed analysis of the PS3 costs which is helpful in determining the final price. Should it be put back in?

When PS2 was released it was more expensive than the cheapest DVD players. If history repeats itself then the PS3 will be more expensive than the cheapest blu-ray players, currently at $1K. http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=2833   Should we put in a note about cost comparison with standalone blu-ray players?

Like the release delay, you guys are going to be dissappointed with the price. Expensive. Daniel.Cardenas 21:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the PS2 was cheaper than the cheapest DVD players, this is suggested to be the main reason a million PS2's were sold in Japan in just the first two days when it launched. Dionyseus 22:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The cheapest DVD players sold for $250 and less at PS2 launch. PS2 sold for $300. What is your recollection of history? Daniel.Cardenas 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How about you back up your statement with proof. By the way, your suggestion that the PS3 would launch at over $1k is humorous. Dionyseus 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How about you back up your statement with proof? By the way, are you still sticking with your estimate on Jan 5th that the PS3 will cost $300-400? My suggestion is that the price will be comparable to the cheapest blu-ray drives when it launches. Daniel.Cardenas 23:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is some interesting info from wikipedia: "By the spring of 1999 the price of a DVD player had dropped below $300 US." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD

The PS2 article states that the release price in U.S. was $300 in Oct 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2

Daniel.Cardenas 00:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I remember reading that the PS2's low price for a DVD player was the main reason a million units were sold in its first two days in Japan. Of course, human memory is not perfect. Dionyseus 02:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of the U.S. launch. Perhaps that was more true of the Japan launch, and even more true when they first announced the details of the PS2. Daniel.Cardenas 02:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Merrill Lynch [32], the Blu-ray drive (remember, not a complete Blu-ray player, the PS3 hardware functions in that capacity) will cost around $350 at launch. That's no where near the $1000 figure mentioned above, which is for retail models that intend to make a profit. It has been mentioned or hinted at that Sony will take a hit by selling for (possibly significantly less than) the cost to them, to remain competitive. My estimate is $500, based upon the Merrill Lynch report and various things thrown around.—Kbolino

Hard disk again

It seems that the hard disk will be an optional extra [33] or not?HappyVR 17:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No it will come bundled with the system. That page is just a simple product outline. Dionyseus 18:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed by Gamasutra, the hard disk will be standard, with larger ones available at a later date. [34] I am modifying the article to clarify this. -- ReyBrujo 16:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Pricing Dilemma

It seems to mee the issue of pricing is full of random numbers; How and why would sony drop the price of a console within a year of launch? The PS2 didn't drop in the US for 19 months ($300 down to $250). I haven't found pricing data on the PSOne, but if i remember correctly, it was still costly years after it was released. ````phonzonappy

Indeed : having a bunch of pricing numbers without some references to back it up is just Wikipedia is not a crystal ball territory. Pricing will certainly drop, but it'll depend on market forces (pricing of hardware / demand / competitor's pricing etc etc). --OscarTheCat^talk 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Its a bunch of malarkey that should be deleted. For example ML said costs were $900 not $800. Daniel.Cardenas 16:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

PNP

I've removed the majority of the content in this section. It was a duplicate (and an out-of-date duplicate, at that) of the PlayStation Network Platform page contents. --OscarTheCat^talk 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why include Japanese name?

Why does the average reader of this article need to know the Japanese name of "Playstation 3"? Here's how the first sentence looks to someone without Japanese fonts: "The PlayStation 3 (PS3) (Japanese: プレイステーション3)..." This is ugly and at first glance looks like some sort of error. Browser gibberish is not a good way to start off an article. At the very least, use a PNG/JPG/GIF image instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.188.96 (talk • contribs) 20:44, March 20, 2006 (UTC)

In the free world, this debate was largely settled two years ago. It's the job of the browser to display what it gets in the best way available. If it receives foreign fonts and it doesn't have those fonts installed, it should do something appropriate. Displaying gibberish is not normally penned in development roadmaps as appropriate behaviour. Content should be authored in the best possible way on the assumption that browsers do behave in sensible ways. In the same way that Wikipedia puts verification ahead of truth, the content vs install-base experience debate was settled in favour of rich content over bad programs. MaxEnt 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Should we keep it or not?
Clarification: Voting "Support" is voting to support the inclusion of the Japanese spelling.

Oppose. --Original anonymous poster (66.215.188.96)

Supprt -- Sentence looks fine to me. Including the Japanese name of game consoles and companies is pretty common practice here. I don't see much reason to change it. -- uberpenguin 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing my vote to oppose. TRega123 is right; the kana is merely a sounding out of the Latin alphabet, not a "different" Japanese name. I feel stupid for not seeing that before. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-04-08 01:07Z

Support -- I don't have a Japanese font either, but it doesn't distract me. --Wulf 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we voting yes to keep or yes to remove - either way I'm not bothered - suggest remove tentatively.HappyVR 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Support (keep it) -- Since the PS3 is a japanese console, I see nothing wrong in having the japanese name. I would rewrite it to "PlayStation (プレイステーション, puraisutāshyon) 3" using the nihongo template, though. -- ReyBrujo 23:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - The name is no different in Japanese as in English. Those Japanese symbols are simply Katakana used to spell out the English word "Playstation". It is unnecessary. -- TRega123 13:44, April 07, 2006 (EST)

Support -- As stated earlier it is a Japanese product and there isn't anything ugly or wrong with that knowledge. Besides it already been given a English name. The fact that's its in Katakana means this is a foreign word. (Katakana: is a Japanese syllabary used mainly for foreign word)Also this is suppose to be a simultaneous launch both in America and Japan. Maybe they are showing this with the use of both languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.29.66 (talk • contribs) 20:59, April 7, 2006 (UTC)

Please state who you are when supporting something. By the way, the fact that it's a simultaneous launch is irrelevant. What's relevant is that including Japanese katakana for an english word is verbal pollution. It does not add any value to the article. The other supporting view states "I don't have a Japanese font either, but it doesn't distract me". This is also irrelevant. Thankfully, wikipedia is not mob rule. The plurality does not always get their way but rather the person who has the most information valuable to the reader. Please tell me how including katakana for a romanji word is valuable to the readers of the article. TRega123

Silent Hill 5, Soul Calibur 4 "news"

Neither sourced or mentioned at any other major gaming outlet as matter of factly as it is on this humble PS3 wikipage. So my question becomes, is this or isn't this verifiable? If so, there should be no problem supplying a link? If not, let's get it off of this page.

And I'm sure we'll all agree that if this are "likely to happen" yet unconfirmed and therefore hearsay, the wording should be changed to reflect that. -- Charles M. Reed 01:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's hearsay or speculation (as you seem to suggest) then it should be removed completely.

silent hill 5
Nothing on soul caliber 4. HappyVR 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Minimum $425 price

A couple of times someone has put a minimum price of PS3 at $425 with some other verbage without a reference. GamersReports is the only site reporting something like this. http://www.gamersreports.com/news/1746/

"As for price, Sony has said the unit will not cost less than 50,000.00 JP YEN. This equates to $425.607 USD. Oh boy."

Does the reference meet the credibility standard? Daniel.Cardenas 01:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not. I find that reference suspicious, how come no other big site has mentioned that price quote? Dionyseus 07:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Daniel.Cardenas 07:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, though. GamersReports is a pretty notable site Alexa ranking of 16,292. A quick Google search shows that IGN, ComputerAndVideogames and Gamespot studied a previous article found in a japanese article. As for credibility, Wikipedia asks for verifiability, not truth. In other words, if IGN, a notable site, says the PlayStation 3 will cost USD 900 because the editor will sell his for that amount, although very likely false, it can be included to Wikipedia as long as it is possible to point to where that statement has been made. -- ReyBrujo 23:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Let me restate what I understand and correct my misunderstanding.

GamersReports is a pretty notable site because it ranks 16K down on the list. 16K is pretty low, how do you figure it is "pretty notable"?

You list some articles that are a year old that have conflicting information. What is the point?

Wikipedia asks for verifiability from a reliable source. We are wondering if gamersReports can be considered reliable. One of the main measuring sticks for reliable is if they quote a source for their information. GamersReports quotes unnamed Sony sources. Its really borderline to me. Daniel.Cardenas 02:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Until recently, Wikipedia deemed a site "notable" when its Alexa rank was 10,000 or better. In case you didn't know, that means a ranking of between 1 and 10,000. Having a rank of 16,000 is pretty notable, considering there are over I have seen sites with Alexa ranking of 8,000,000 or lower. Consider that Sega.com has an Alexa ranking of 13,208, Namco an Alexa ranking of 34,442, the Sony official home page has an Alexa ranking of 41,765.

All the other reports I linked to state what GamersReports stated, coming from a source in a japanese newspaper. Even if you don't like GamersReports, you can use the Gamespot link which states the same. -- ReyBrujo 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Rey you do realize that Gamespot and IGN articles are over a year old, right? Basically the only thing the IGN and the Gamespot article says is that they found a newspaper report that supposedly quotes Sony officials. Since over a year has passed and the newspaper is the only source, one can safely conclude that the newspaper article is in error. Dionyseus 18:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know the article is old. But note that it is the only reliable article that sets a launching price of Y$ 50,000. Wikipedia guidelines state that the site must be reliable, one that is known to confirm the information. If you do not trust GamersReport in which they state the price is going to be that amount, you can replace it with a year's old article from a more trusted source like IGN or Gamespot.

The second part of the argument ("Since over a year has passed and the newspaper is the only source, one can safely conclude that the newspaper article is in error."), that is pretty... illogical at best. You can't dismiss news just because they are exclusive to a medium, otherwise every "EXCLUSIVE!" headline you find in CNN/ABC/NBC/BBC/NHK/etc for any special report they work should be dismissed. Mainichi, sourced by both reliable sites IGN and Gamespot, is a reliable japanese newspaper with an Alexa ranking of 12,000. They source "various retailers", which is a vague source. But Wikipedia doesn't ask editors to investigate every source until finding first and last name, just that the quoted site from where you pick the news is a reliable one.

We are discussing about the launching price. We have a relatively reliable site stating this year about the price (GamersReports). It doesn't matter if they have invented the interview with the Sony employer, you are not required to investigate that, only that the site you source is reliable. If you discuss the reliability of GamersReports, yet you want to include a note about the Y$ 50,000 price tag, you will have to go back to 2004 to find a more reliable source than GamersReports. I am only giving options. -- ReyBrujo 02:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The gamers report article says "As for price, Sony has said the unit will not cost less than 50,000.00 JP YEN. This equates to $425.607 USD. Oh boy." since no other sites back it up, and they don't attribute the quote to anyone just "Sony" it should be presented as "an article on gamersreport claims that sony has said ...". 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would be more encyclopedic to just put something like "Although Sony hasn't officially confirmed a launching price, different sites reported it to be of around Y$ 50,000 [reference to Gamespot] [reference to GamersReports]." The article based on Mainichi's report may be a year old, but it is still a valid one since Sony hasn't dismissed it. -- ReyBrujo 02:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Gamersreport is reliable enough. Its 16k Alexa ranking is no where near IGN's 193, nor Gamespot's 209. Like I said previously, IGN and Gamespot simply reported the newspaper, this does not in any way make the report reliable. None of the other big gaming sites picked up on it because the newspaper article simply isn't reliable and isn't worth notice. Also, just because someone doesn't dismiss something doesn't make it factual, they could simply not be aware of the article, or they probably felt it wasn't worth dismissing. Dionyseus 06:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Then please do remove the link (if it hasn't yet :-D). However, note that we are using references to www.psp3portal.com (No Alexa rank), www.maxconsole.net (17,903), www.gamesindustry.biz (11,335), www.pixeluxentertainment.com, (No Alexa rank), www.alias.com (13,250), kynogon.nerim.net (46,199), www.digitimes.com (15,042), www.cdrinfo.com (18,969). In articles I colaborate, I usually like sites with Alexa rank up to 300,000 for external fan links, and links with Alexa ranking up to 25,000 for references. If you are removing a reference to a 16k Alexa ranking site, then you will have to remove all the other sites with Alexa ranking worse or just slightly better to keep it consistent. From all the links I posted, GamesIndustry.biz is the only site I would make an exception for, since it is the sibling of EuroGamer.net. -- ReyBrujo 12:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The link was never placed in the article. As for the other references you list, they should be treated the same way, if the information they provide is not reliable enough and has not been backed up by the big sites, they should be removed. Dionyseus 16:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The link was in the article. I removed it and the related information yesterday. Seraphim 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

11th Nov

Can anyone confirm or debunk the 'ps3 released before 11th nov' and if true give a reliable reference to it for the article - all I can find is early november : http://playstation.com/products.html
The current reference (bbc webpage) doesn't give this much detail. HappyVR 10:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Early november is fine if thats what sony reps say, i only removed it because i didn't see any source. The 11th of november release however shouldn't be included in the article until a reliable source is found, for the moment i'm changing the sentence to match what the current source says.--Count Chocula 10:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any authoritative sources that say anything specifically about release within the first ten days of November. The most reliable/popular source I found that stated it is from 1UP in this article, and judging from its popularity compared with all else who stated it I'd venture to say that's where it began to spread if it is in fact false. Only someone who heard and understood Kutaragi can be sure unless there's an accurate transcription available. --Kamasutra 11:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Has 1080p support been dropped?

I have read a few reports since the 3/15 news that 1080p support has been dropped. Can this be confirmed?č

Those reports are false. Dionyseus 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Does the PS3 have a firewire port?

Like the PS2? -- McDonaldsGuy 22:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the specs released - no.17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hardware section

The hardware specs. section has been messed up with stuff like this:"* Clocked at 550MHz

• 211 GigaFLOPS per second maximum theoretical programmable performance (384FLOPS x 550MHz)
• 720p/1080p game resolutions
• 24 Fragment Shader pipelines
• 24 Textures Filtered & Unfiltered
• 16 ROPs with 8 ROPs possibly turned off to avoid stalls with the 128bit memory bus
• 13,2 GigaTexels per second (24 Textures x 550MHz)
• 8,8 GigaPixels per second (8 ROPs x 550MHz)
• 136 shader operations per clock
• 74.8 billion shader operations per second (136 Shader ops x 550MHz)
• 33 Billion DOT Products per second
• 128 bit Pixel Precision
• 32 bit Full Precision Floating Point
• 256 MegaByte Graphics Render Memory
• 128 bit Memory Interface (2x64bit data chucks)"
  

Where are the referenes for all this stuff etc etcHappyVR 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/050517e.pdf :P 6th link, also it was in the june presentations

No it's not there.HappyVR 08:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It was this exact section that caused me to arrive at the talk page, before I stopped a few times along the way to feed the trolls some extra chewy biscuits. I'm leary of most of these numbers. This was the worst in the version I saw:

• 74.8 billion shader operations per second (100 billion with CPU)

With CPU? What CPU? One PPU thread, two PPU threads, a SPU thread, eight SPU threads, some other CPU I don't know about? It needs to read "based on reported configuration [quote source] of X fu units and Y bar units, if capable of achieving 100% duty cycle, running at a reference clock speed of XXX MHz [the final product might differ], it wouldhttp://img218.imageshack.us/img218/337/rsxbandwidth0oe.jpg achieve Z megablorps", etc. MaxEnt 03:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you aren't getting about this simple notation so I will break the whole thing down for you:

At E3 '05 Sony claimed that the PS3 (Cell (e.g. CPU) + RSX) was "The most powerful graphics system ever built" ( slide ) with the following specs: (Cell (e.g. CPU) + RSX)

-100 billion shader operations ops/sec

-51 billion dot products/sec

-2TFLOPS

-512MB of graphics render memory

Sony also noted that the RSX itself (without the Cell (e.g. CPU)) is capable of 136 shader operations per cycle ( slide )

136 x 550MHz = 74.8 billion shader operations per second, 100 billion with the Cell (e.g. CPU).

Sony has never stated anything further about this but it would be reasonable to assume that all specs were theoretical maximums.

71.241.215.115

It now does...(see talk a few sections down)HappyVR 19:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The hardware section is pretty messed...it talks about a "gigabit ethernet hub" with "in and out ports"....hubs don't have any directional ports, only routers with WAN port do. Also, why would the PS3 need to support 802.11b when today it's considered an obsolete standard (in favour of 802.11g, and the fast emerging 802.11a)? Scott 110 02:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

PS3 Hard Drive

I'm wondering- I know Sony says there's a HD coming out, but where would it be located (Top, side, etc...) and has anyone seen a prototype of it?Delta Elite 01:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As I remember there was a rectangular slot on the left side of the console. It's the side that's never seen on official Sony pictures. HappyVR 08:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You can just about see it in the picture here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4805788.stm and here (1st picture of 2)http://andrew.i.ph/albums/ps3/playstation3_d.sized.jpg and no doubt other places. Possibly this slot isn't finalised and the released product might be different???HappyVR 08:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing link

Found this link at the bottom of the page attatched to nothing so I removed it: http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/playstation-3/phil-harrison-qa-162269.phpHappyVR 08:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated

Sony was originally aiming for a spring 2006 launch as announced at the 2005 Electronic Entertainment Expo, but Sony revealed during a press conference in Japan on March 15, 2006 that there will be a delay due to issues over a Dual Shock Technology Patent Infringement and the finalization of Blu-ray disc copy protection technology, and as a first for any PlayStation console, Sony is now aiming for a worldwide release in early November 2006.

---

Is this at all related to the PS3 being delayed? I believe Sony confirmed that the sole reason for the delay were the Blu-Ray finalization issues and that the Immersion lawsuit had nothing to do with it. Is the lawsuit part speculation, or am I wrong? --HQ 19:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you - Sony has stated the reason for the delay is blu-ray finalisation. I saw the edit and was thinking about it - the wording is currently wrong. We may speculate that patent problems (ie dualshock and Immersion lawsuit) might play a part in this (and a delay would no doubt help Sony to sort this out etc etc) but as far as I know they have not mentioned dualshock problems at any press conference (nor would anyone expect them to).
I'd suggest something like this: "Sony was originally aiming for a spring 2006 launch as announced at the 2005 Electronic Entertainment Expo, but are now aiming for a worldwide release in early November 2006, giving issues relating to the finalization of Blu-ray disc copy protection technology as the reason for the delay."
Plus a reference...HappyVR 19:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively if the controller part is left in then the wording should be changed to something like "due to a lawsuit relating to alledged patent infringment by the Dual Shock Controller's vibration funtion" or similar since Immersion have the patent not Sony. I think adding this would be an infered conclusion - probably not in line with wiki policy.HappyVR 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So yes it's probably speculation but not necessarily untrue - not sure how to handle this - as it stands the current statement seems 'more neutral' but my first suggested replacement - whilst following what Sony officials have said could be considered 'biased towards sony's company line'. Hopefully someone else will sort this out.HappyVR 19:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sony said it was due to BluRay, and the whole controller thing is really unsupported speculation. It seems like everyone at least used to be onboard with the idea that the reason for the creation of the boomerang was to get around the potential lawsuit, and that lawsuit was related to the PS2 only anyway, so it has no bearing on the PS3 barring Sony being dumb enough to put the same technology in the boomerang again to get themselves back in court. So unless I'm missing something, the whole controller issue is basically nonsense, and needs to be removed. Editing to Sony's official statement. Gspawn 14:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy

Removed part about a new final fantasy becuase the evidence is just speculation in a the named magazine - no doubt we'll hear about it when it becomes semi-official.HappyVR 17:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Graphics processor section

I removed this:
"(trillion floating point operations per second)"
because of ambiguity of 'trillion'

and this:
"theoretical floating point capability counting fixed functions as well and programmable"
because the second part isn't really clear

and this:
"* 136 shader operations per clock

• 74.8 billion shader operations per second (100 billion with CPU)
• 33 billion dot products per second (51 billion dot products with CPU)"
  

because it has no reference for it (as far as I know)HappyVR 18:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I approve. MaxEnt 19:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The latter information is from Sony and NVidia via E3 '05

reference 1

reference 2

136 x 550MHz = 74.8 billion shader operations per second

71.241.215.115

Price (again)

This seems promising :http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060405-6526.html Price between 499 and 599 Euros - (about 350 to 420 pounds sterling?) and seems like an official 'estimate'.HappyVR 17:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Recently Gamespot or IGN (can't remember which one) has been hearing some developers stating that Sony announced them the final price will be USD 499, and that there would be no modification. Knowing that, for gaming, €1 = USD1, it seems likely. -- ReyBrujo 18:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes the arstecnica article makes the same 1 dollar = 1 euro assumption based on prices of other consoles. The actual link would be to http://www.europe1.fr/s-exprimer/references.jsp?id=1945&pos=65# I think for play back of a radio interview (French radio?). I would certainly agree to inclusion of the euro price and not object to the same dollar price in the article (as an estimate).HappyVR 19:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and do it, since it was your finding ;-) Gamasutra hasn't picked the news up yet, and from work I only check it, not IGN, 1Up or Gamespot. Maybe they have already done that, so better to add that before we get a massive flood of edits pointing to the new price. -- ReyBrujo 19:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

O.k I done it - and removed all this as it seems slightly irrelevant now there is 'a price':
Sony has not yet announced the pricing for PlayStation 3. Sony Computer Entertainment president and "father of the PlayStation" Ken Kutaragi has been quoted as saying "It'll be expensive" and "I'm aware that with all these technologies, the PS3 can't be offered at a price that's targeted towards households. I think everyone can still buy it if they wanted to" and "but we're aiming for consumers throughout the world. So we're going to have to do our best [in containing the price]". Ken Kutaragi believes that customers would be willing to pay extra for a superior product, as they had in the past for the original PlayStation (¥39,800 vs. ¥12,500 for the Super Famicom). (Yen to US Dollars is 117:1, so ¥39,800 is $338.79)

Hope that is ok but no doubt there'll be a lot of edits to this over the coming week.HappyVR 20:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

price again (again)

Made edits changing article to include euro price - however now there are some reports saying George Fornay was misinterpreted.. I don't know - if anyone can understand spoken French it might help if they could listen to the original interview... Unlikely, but otherwise please be aware that this info. might not turn out to have been right after all.HappyVR 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sony says Fornay's comments were mistranslated or misunderstood. [35] With this new information, I suggest we remove the Euro estimate. Dionyseus 17:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the same thing. I assume? that these new sony 'denials' are genuine - anyway the correct revert would be to Revision as of 15:28, 5 April 2006 by User:BrokenSegue.

Again it would be useful/interesting if a french speaker could tell us exactly what he said - the link's there via the arstechnica report. Otherwise sorry for this mistake.HappyVR 17:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to revert out the Euro price mention, it is highly unwise for a company to release pricing information 7 months before release (this would give their competitors ample time to prepare), thus I doubt any credence can be given to Mr. Fornay's words or even possibly mistranslated words. Microsoft for example did not release the official price of the Xbox 360 until 2 months before its release. Dionyseus 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sony gave a clue to the pricing. Microsoft gave similar clues early on also. Daniel.Cardenas 01:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sony did not give a clue to the pricing, in fact they are claiming the French guy was simply misinterpretated or misunderstood. Daniel, I know that you have been inching and jumping at your feet to put a price estimate on the article for so long, but you will just need to be patient until Sony actually announces an estimate (might come as soon as next month on E3, who knows) . Dionyseus 03:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you didn't read the reference I provided. It was a translation of what Sony Europe said. Yes, Sony Europe was misinterpreted the first time. Not with the translation. Daniel.Cardenas 05:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all your reference seems to indicate that he thinks the PS3 will be "well below €500," not "cost more that €500" as you put in the article. Second, I get the feeling this French guy, Mr. Fornay, has no clue what he's talking about. Third, €500 would be $609 if one were to do a direct conversion using today's rates, confusing and misleading people. In my state the taxes are 5%, a $500 product's tax would only be $25, I don't see how €500=$500 even if tax isn't considered. I am removing this foolish estimate, Wikipedia is about facts, not guestimates or user interpretations of radio interviews. Dionyseus 10:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The taxes are in Europe not U.S., like I stated. 17%+ VAT tax is common in Europe. Also historical pricing of products between U.S. and Europe has a 1:1 relation Euros to dollars. For example look at xbox 360 pricing.

He says the PS3 will be in this range. What range do you think he is talking about? Your feelings are not facts. Stop messing up the article with your fanboy feelings. Daniel.Cardenas 16:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fornay did not say the PS3 will be in that range, look at your own reference you provided, it says "Fornay did not explicitly state that the PS3 would cost between €499 and €599" [36]. It really doesn't matter what Mr. Fornay tried to say anyways, he doesn't speak for Sony, and Sony denied his price estimate [37]. Dionyseus 20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

== 1080p30 == (Discussion concluded until further information is released)

I think it is important to note a 1080p60 standard does not yet exist because of bandwidth constraints. When saying plainly "1080p", it is immediately assumed the frame rate is 60 frames per second. This can be misleading because the highest standard supported by HDMI is 1080p30, not 1080p60. Please see 1080p as well as 1080p30 TRega123

Something seems to be wrong here 1080p30 is 2million pixels (approx) at 24 bit color and 30 fps this gives approx 1500 million bps? (2,000,000 x 24 x 30 = 1440 million) - but max data transfer is 350MHz for dual link (according to wiki article) - so even 1080p30 is impossible - I must have made a mistake or be missing info.? Anyone know???HappyVR 20:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The alternative is that the max data rate is for 24 bit pixel transfers - quote from DVI article :"HDTV (1920 × 1080) @ 85 Hz with GTF blanking (2×126 MHz)" - in which case the 1080p30 edit is wrong - can someone sort this out please.HappyVR 20:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please reread the article. The data is compressed before being sent over the HDMI cable. The television then decompresses the data and projects the image. TRega123

Actually, they may include MPEG-4 Part 10 support for future TVs, who knows... For now we should just say exactly what the offical product page says (1080p.) I'm changing it back for now. --Wulf 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the term 1080p30 might confuse some people. --Wulf 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if it confuses people? They can click it and find it's definition, that's why it's a clickable link. What's more misleading is saying the PS3 will be able to do 1080p60 (60 is assumed when not specifying a frame rate after the resolution) when the technology and the standard does not yet exist. No television manufacturer will make a television that does not meet acceptable standards. Standards are not just magically made over night. Standards require cooperation and colaberation between multiple companies and may take many years to make. I am changing it back to 1080p30. If you were to read the article on 1080p, the resolution does not yet exist beyond 1080p30 (see chart). TRega123

I'm confused as to why you keep asserting that not specifying a frame rate with a video transmission protocol automagically assumes the number 60... Especially in light of the fact that all the major old analog TV signal encodings (NTSC, PAL, SECAM) used 2:1 interlacing at ~25-30 frames per second (a bit above the average threshold of human motion detection). It's no accident that the frame rates of old analog encodings are related to their respective countries' standard line power frequency, but I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. Please explain your reasoning on assumed frame rates, since your entire argument here seems to be based on this. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-04-08 01:18Z

I'm sorry, I should clarify. All progressive resolutions are assumed to be 60 unless stated otherwise. All interlaced resolutions are assumed to be 30 unless stated otherwise. TRega123

HDMI does support 1080p60. A broadcast limitation is not application to the PS3.   I've updated the HDMI page to make it more clear with reference. Let me know if you need it to be even more clear. Daniel.Cardenas 02:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, you know what you are talking about, but the point is 1080p60 is not yet standardized. If 1080p60 were to become a standard, it would have to go through a process including many layers of approval, cooperation, testing, ect. I see you are a software engineer, I am a college student training to become a software engineer so I will not question your knowledge. I am however wondering how much experience you have with television resolutions and standards. TRega123 22:27, April 07, 2006 (EST)

I work at a semiconductor company that is developing unannounced products for digital TV. I have recent experience with TV resolutions and standards and have taken classes on them. I created the wiki pages for ATSC tuner and transport stream and contributed to others. I also own a couple of reference books on the subject such as "Video Demystified". Thanks for letting my pound my chest.  :-)

Not sure where the confusion is around 1080p60 being a "standard". I know microsoft was throwing around some FUD here. There are and have been equipment that support it, so although maybe not completely standard there is support for it. Blu-ray does support and so will ps3. I've read that the latest release of HDMI standard takes away the uncertainty. Daniel.Cardenas 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it back to 1080p. My strongest suspisions however, are telling me the PS3 will only be able to do 1080p30. TRega123

Online service

The new section on the online service seems good but would it be possible to change:
"It is official, to answer to Microsoft's Xbox Live, Sony has confirmed a unified online service at the PS Biz meeting in Tokyo, Japan on March 15th, 2006. The name of the service is not known yet but Sony has confirmed that a "basic version" of the online service will be free much like "xbox" live's "silver" online."
To something a bit more descriptive for people who have no idea what Xbox's live service is like?HappyVR 09:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Made a few small changes - added the reference provided in main article. Suggest people might wan't to delete "It's official! to answer to Microsoft's Xbox Live," from the beginning of the article...HappyVR 09:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea, we need to change the "The name of the service is not known yet but Sony has confirmed that a "basic version"". The name as been said it is code named for now PNP.

>x<ino 14:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)