Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

New Page for RSX

I noticed that a lot of the info about the RSX has been cut in the latest edit - I agree with this the article looks a lot neater now - however quite a lot of infomation is gone so I simply copied the lost infomation into a new page specifically for the RSX - I'm suprised someone hasn't made a separate page before. The link is RSX 'Reality Synthesizer'. Hopefully someone will have more info to put in it - any good?HappyVR 00:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it really require a seperate page? Insofar it has zero significance outside the context of the PS3. Currently there is very little information about it, so its article can be little more than a stub. When/if detailed design specs for it are produced there will still likely be insufficient information to merit its own article... I say just leave it as a paragraph in this article. -- uberpenguin 02:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the Specs for the RSX should be left in the ps3 article because it is a ps3 specific part, it won't be used elsewhere. Also we don't know enough to create a seperate article about the RSX. Seraphim 04:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

However the info in the RSX article (the second paragraph) contains so much unvalidated comparison and so little hard facts about the RSX that it isn't significant enough for inclusion in the main PS3 article - my opinion anywayHappyVR 18:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Expected Price

Sony has said it will be expensive. The cost to produce the PS3 has been estimated to be $451. Also it was suggested that Sony would sell an add-on hard disk to allow Linux to run on the PS3. This suggest that they can not sell the PS3 for a loss. The realist price for the PS3 is then $450+. Daniel

Where did you hear about the add-on hard disk, form what I heard there will be no hard disk. Yes, the cost to produce the PS3 has been estimated to be $458, but just about every console is sold at a loss at first, software is where they make their money. The Xbox 360 is sold at a loss of $126 per unit, so for example take off $126 from the production cost of the PS3 and an under $400 launch for the PS3 is very possible. Some people might be wondering why the production costs for the PS3 is lower than the 360, and the answer is actually quite simple, Sony owns the manufactiring factories, they own the BR disk technology, they own the Cell, so they save a lot of money by not having to pay royalty fees. $300-400 launch price in North America is very possible. As for the "going to be expensive" comment, let's be serious here, $300 is considered expensive to casual gamers. Dionyseus 01:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I heard it here: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/624/624046p1.html

They are suggesting a traditional PC box sales model for the PS3, not the sold at a loss model. -Daniel

That article is from June. Anyways, I don't see how that article would suggest that Sony cannot sell the PS3 at a loss. They did it with the original PS and the PS2, why can't they with the PS3? Dionyseus 02:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I take it back that they can't sell at a loss. If they sell a hard disk with Linux on it then they may not sell game software, which is where they make the money. This means that either the hard disk is going to be expensive or the console.

-Daniel

That is how all game companys make money. Xbox360 was sold at a loss, as will the PS3 and Revolution. Companies make money off of their games, not their consoles. All companies have undersold their consoles for the past few generations. Consoles would be 600+ if they sold them for a profit. I expect the PS3 to sell between 400-500 dollars, because it is more expensive to produce than the XBox360, but will still be competitive. - Chuck

Why are some people changing the expected price to $400-500? The price changing that has been going on started when Daniel changed it to 400+ using some strange logic about Lynux and hard disk. The source for the original $300-400 expected price was [1] , note how the value of the Yen has fallen, 54,000 was about $494 when the article was made, today it's about $458. Consoles are generally sold for a loss during launches to penetrate the market, the Xbox 360 for example is sold at a loss of $126 per console, so a $300-400 price point is very possible for the PS3 launch. $400-500 makes no sense, considering it only costs about $458 to make. Dionyseus 22:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The points I made are not strange for professionals in the industry. Given all the data including: the hardware costs, hardware features, alternate sales model potential, additional price for hard drive, it is very plausible that the PS3 will sell for $500. No one should be changing the web page to say the max price will only be $400. Mostly likely we will know for sure in one week during CES. -Daniel

You consider yourself a professional in the industry? Why do you think it will come with the hard drive? The article you referred to even points to the unlikelyhood of it coming with a hard drive. Also, please sign your commentsDionyseus 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a direct professional in the industry but I work with those who are and discuss such things with them. There will most likely be a bundled hard disk option. That is what I'm refering too. I'm referring to the upper range of the PS3, so we should include hardware that is available, similar to what is done with the Xbox. Thanks for the discussion, Daniel Cardenas

There's no indication at all that there will be two different packages like for the Xbox 360 (core and premium) . I think you're confused. PS used memory cards, PS2 used memory cards, it is much more likely that the PS3 would use memory sticks than a hard disk. Dionyseus 00:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Putting a price of $300 is unrealistic. You were confused about hard disk option. You are in violation of the wikipedia 3 revert rule. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR Let the consensus opinion stand. - Daniel

Do not push price if it is estiimated. Wait the console release.

It is you who are completely confused. You come here all of a sudden claiming that the PS3 will be bundled with a hard disk. How about you take some of your own advice. Dionyseus 21:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it so important to list an expected price? Any number we put up there now is just speculation, any number of analysts will come up with estimated prices, and we can keep tossing around analyst sources left and right, it doesn't mean any of them are more valid then the other. We should just say that the price is still to be determined, leave in that sony mentioned it will be expencive, take out the references to the xbox 360's price and leave it up to the reader to go find rumors themselves.

If you guys remember the psp launch, analysts are infact frequently wrong, and sony doesn't automatically sell their systems for the same price over here that they do in japan.

The little pricing edit war really needs to stop, and we need to reach a compromize or you guys are gonna keep on going in this edit war over speculation, not even fact. Seraphim 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Notice the prices for the blu-ray disks that are coming out? http://www.blureporter.com/blu-ray/news/111 Manufacturors aren't stupid and they are aware of Sony's plans. They wouldn't be releasing these devices unless they feel they are competitive with Sony playstation 3. Because of this I'm expecting the PS3 to come out with a price as high as $650. Daniel.Cardenas 13:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Blue-Ray technology is Sony's, they can price it whatever they want. I expect the PS3 to retail somewhere between $300 and $400. Dionyseus 14:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

http://askmerrill.ml.com/markets_news_story/1,2263,%7BC1CF3196-5EED-4E98-A350-A2052E991F46%7D,00.html Once Sony releases the prices for their stand-alone blu-ray players than we will have a better estimate for the PS3. Expect the PS3 to cost at least $100 more than the stand alone blu-ray player. Also this gives us another clue about the release date of the PS3. It is unlikely that the PS3 will be released before Sony's stand-alone blu-ray player. Sony is saying early summer for player. Daniel.Cardenas 16:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It is widely believed that Sony will price the Playstation 3 at a much lower cost than most Blu-Ray Players (Samsung's costing $1800) so that it can compete with the low cost Revolution and the $399 360. It is both an advantage to the consumers (low price tag for game console + blu-ray player) and to Sony to push the Playstation 3.

Gameshout as a reliable source for May Release date?

Right now the only official sony word is spring 2006, and they reiterated spring 2006 at CES.

I read a lot of news and I didn't see that. EETimes said that, but they were talking about some Sony people they talked to. Not a very reliable source either. Official references from Sony said 2006 without any more clarification. Daniel.Cardenas 05:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

However the article currently says May 2006 based on a gameshout article that was posted 2 days before CES. Now I don't mean to sound mean or anything, but "Gameshout" is not a major game news network, why would sony give them such a HUGE exclusive? An exclusive that they didn't even mention at a major press conference 2 days later. Also in one of their posts today http://www.gameshout.com/news/012006/article2370.htm they completly contradict themselves. And switch back to the spring 2006 date. And on top of that they say that "Sony also mentions that the Sony PS3 will be unveiled at the annual video game conference E3 in Los Angeles" since E3 is in may, if that's true, they would be announcing the release of their system and releasing it within 30 days globally. That's not gonna happen. Even more contradiction "Just yesterday at CES, Sony said that they will have a Blu-ray disc player in "Summer 2006"." there are going to be no BD players untill a few months after PS3 launches?

I'm going to remove the may 2006 dates and revert them to the Spring 2006 official line. Also i'm going to remove the Gameshout Link because it's obviously not a valid source. Seraphim 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please site a reliable reference from Sony. I removed the Spring reference and put 2006 which is what the latest official sources from Sony say. Sony official sources say summer for standalone blu-ray disk player. So March release for PS3 is not realistic. Daniel.Cardenas 05:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's a backtracking thing. There were a ton of sources to point to spring 2006, including all the major gamesites that got that as an official date from sony, and an interview with one of the sony bigwigs. However now that they are just saying "2006" as the official line leads me to believe that the rumors about them not making a spring release are problary true. So I guess all the old sources are thrown out, and we just go by what they said at CES today, 2006. Seraphim 05:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Where's your source Daniel. Where's your source that Sony changed it 2006. Dionyseus 06:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sony.com/ces/playstation.shtml. Its listed as a refence in the main page. Daniel.Cardenas 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Northern Hemisphere release in summer is wrong and should be removed. North America is correct. Unlikely release in that time frame to China, India, Russia, etc... Daniel.Cardenas 06:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That little page cannot be used as evidence that Sony has changed it to 2006. Dionyseus 06:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it can, because sony used to state Spring 2006, but now they are saying just 2006. When you combine that with sony announcing that no bluray players will be avaliable untill the summer, it all adds up to them dropping their spring target.

Either way, right now the latest word from sony is a generic 2006, all sources from before they made that annoucement are no longer the most up to date info, and therefore the "2006" is what should be posted. Seraphim 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2007 Release stated in a SanDisk CES 2006 Press Release

In a press report by Sandisk which has a date of January 5,2006 , there is the following statement: "And early announcements from both Sony and Nintendo have indicated that their next-generation game consoles – PlayStation3 for Sony and Revolution for Nintendo – will also support USB connections when the consoles go on sale next year." Seeing as the press release has the date of the current year, 2006, could it mean a 2007 release of the PS3, even if its only true for the North American market? The source of this is [2] NeOak 04:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is more likely that Sandisk has no idea what they are talking about. Dionyseus 06:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is more likely they wrote the press release in 2005. Daniel.Cardenas 16:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Cost and Release date section

I don't believe the following paragraph in the main page adds much value to people wanting PS3 info:

For the consumer this means one should be able to buy a PlayStation 3 at a lower price than its actual manufacturing cost. Although manufacturing costs for Blu-Ray and the Cell are unknown, it is safe to say like all new systems, they will loose money from the first year. The nature of pricing a video game system is to sell as many games possible. Profit loss is something normal for any new system. Manufacturing something costs alot less then the actual profit.

For example MFG cost is not mentioned elsewhere except in that sentence, so it seems out of place. Should the paragraph be deleted? Daniel.Cardenas 16:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually manufacturing cost has been estimated to be around $458 (54,000 yen) by Merril Lynch, this used to be in the article but it has now been removed. The link is still in the References section though, here it is: http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/28/news_6128295.html

Note that at the time Merril Lynch posted their analysis, 54,000 yen was worth $494, but today is worth $458. As for the paragraph, I say it should stay, it is normal for consoles to be sold at a lower price than it's actual MFG cost, the Xbox 360 for example is sold for $126 cheaper than the MFG cost.Dionyseus 13:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it helpful to the reader to say it will be lower than mfg costs if they don't know what the mfg costs are? Daniel.Cardenas 22:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively we can add a sentence about what the mfg costs are. Daniel.Cardenas 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You can put it back up, I don't know who took it out of the article but it used to be there. In a couple of months it wouldn't matter anyways, Sony will reveal the retail price at the Games Developers Conference which takes place on March 20-24. Dionyseus 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Rendered/Real-Time

Is it fair to say that the demos were pre-rendered? If someone could send me some sort of proof about how they know that the demos are pre-rendered then okay but I think that the section about the demos should state something along the lines of how it is unknown whether or not these were pre-rendered or real-time demos. Jondy 21:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Some editors are insisting to put "note: Some shots are pre-rendered and not representative of final gameplay". I think this is original research because these editor's need prove with developer words what they thinks, remeber that Motor Storm developers confirmed that E3 video was real-time and Hideo Kojima proves at TGS that MGS4 was real-time and Phill Harrison just said all videos at E3 was realtime --Rick Browser 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You can have real-time pre-rendered stuff if you mash what the words mean enough. It was mentioned that some of the videos that were shown were rendered real-time on apple systems at 1/2 speed, and then recorded to video tape and then shown at double speed for the presentation. The entire argument really is kinda pointless, since there were no ps3's in existance at the time for developers to run it on.Seraphim 05:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's our job to report the facts, not to decide what was or wasn't realtime. Hence, we should just say "So and so said this or that was in realtime", and not "Ken is full of crap"the1physicist 16:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but if someone said it is in realtime, and someone else said something contradictory both should be adressed. It also needs to be pointed out, that no ps3 videos we have seen so far are actually running on the ps3. They are being built to run on a system with the same projected specs as the ps3. Seraphim 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the infamous Killzone 3 footage was rendered on an alpha kit (with the framerate upped 'to spec' in post-processing), as was the MotorStorm video (IIRC). It's not like they made these videos in Maya or 3DStudioMax or Lightwave3D, etc.the1physicist 01:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah your just making my point for me :)If something is rendered at 1/2 speed and then sped up how is that real-time? It isn't. Also they are making them 'to spec' for the theoretical specs. We know the real specs will be significantly less, even up to 1/4 less.Seraphim 05:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well what I'm saying is that it's not fair to say whether or not they were pre-rendered since we don't really know. Maybe that's just me, but come on, we can only take peoples words. I say that it should be along the lines of what I originally said. Jondy 19:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

---

(Line Break because of brand new developments)

I have removed the Killzone 3 "screenshot" from the screenshots section. It is now proven to be CG and is misleading to put it under the "screenshots". Either put a disclaimer or don't show the image.

The Killzone 3 footage was NOT pre-rendered and sped up to speed. That was confirmed bogus by gamespot months ago. There is absolutely no reason to have an image so misleading under "screenshots". It's not a screenshot, it's CG. Confirmed CG by Blur's president http://youtube.com/w/GameHead-Killzone-PS3-Interview?v=SWo3Memcbxs . There should either be a disclaimer or removal of that image. And no, me removing the image isn't "Vandalism" like some moron thinks. The image has nothing to do with PS3 hardware.

"At one time there was a rumor started by PSM article, that the footage was in fact rendered with in-game engine on a PS3 alpha kit at ~5 FPS (frames per second), recorded, and sped up to 60 FPS for the presentation (pre-rendered, technically). This was before more recent developments proving the footage was infact CG."

Cut the crap, the Killzone 3 image IS CG, and it IS misleading to put it under the section "Screenshots". -TRega123 1/26/06 7:10PM EST

The origin of the Killzone 3 screenshot is in question but it is still believed to be a representation of the game e.g. a screenshot. I believe that you are guilty of vandalism and breaking 3RR. Also this is a civil community discussion you don't give ultimatums like "put a disclaimer or don't show the image". I will let someone more experienced in 'wiki-policy' deal with this. Xkxdxmx 00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"I believe that you are guilty of vandalism and breaking 3RR." I'm sorry, but that's hilarious to be coming from you.the1physicist 03:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was ignorant of wiki-policy. But my changes were in good faith and ounce I was advised of the precedures I followed them. Xkxdxmx 17:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I noticed. I think I'll put up a disclaimer on your talkpage stating your new position.the1physicist 21:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit uncalled for. Xkxdxmx just wasn't aware of wiki policy (he was changing the wrong talk page). If you noticed alot of his changes were added into the article because they were very valid. In this case he is 100% correct. Seraphim 04:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if it is CG or not? It's not relevant. We went over this on the talk page already down further. Look here http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/492/492220/imgs_1.html that's Ign's screenshots for FFX-2 notice anything about the first image? Or 1/2 the images in there? They for the most part arent' gameplay. Is there a disclaimer there? No. The industry standard is just to call any game images screenshots because they came off of a Screen (Monitor) they are snapshots of the screen. The KZ3 Trailer was on a Screen was it not? And the image your removing is a snapshot of what was shown on that screen. Therefore it's a Screenshot!

Also I know this isnt' very wiki like of me to point out. But your entire user contribution history has been vandalizing of Killzone 3 related articles. I don't know why you have this agenda, but it is inappropriate and will result in you getting blocked and this page locked. Seraphim 02:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be put as a disclaimer though. The Killzone demo was in fact produced by a company in Scotland that normally produces CGI movies, as was confirmed in a recent interview with another CGI producer, Blur Studios who commented on them. A link to this interview is at the bottom of this page here: http://www.gametrailers.com/gamehead.php

It doesn't matter. Go look at screenshot pages of any of the Final Fantasy games, FMV clips are still screenshots. No disclaimer needed. Seraphim 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Expected Price and release date Jan 11

What do you think about putting back the estimated price at $400+ based on this article: http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/11/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/ ::

... Developers, for the most part, say they, too, are expecting the PS3 to be more expensive than the Xbox 360's highest price package. Sony, they said, has been sending mixed messages to the gaming world, but several developers I spoke with (under the condition of anonymity) said their studios were expecting the system to launch at $499...

Also what about putting an estimated release date of Summer 2006 for North America? Daniel.Cardenas 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote no, and I agree with the Sony PR manager who said that all talk about its price is pure speculation. The retail price will be revealed at the GDC in a couple of months, be patient. Dionyseus 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No estimated price or launch date is my vote. Price is still way up in the air and I highly highly doubt a summer launch would happen. Summer launch would kill their launch lineup, since devs like to hold releases till the holiday season.Seraphim 06:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

ps3focus.com link

I don't see the point of having the link to http://www.ps3focus.com/ in the article. The ign site and the blog site we have on there (ps3guide) do a much better job of covering the same news. And this isn't suppossed to be a link repository. So remove? Seraphim 06:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

been up for 2 days with no responce, so i'm going to remove it Seraphim 02:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim, ps3guide.org is a new site that exists since 2006. It is wrongly listed as a "Blog site of Playstation 3 core developers". What are "Playstation 3 core developers" anyway?

I am not sure whether you're associated with ps3guide.org, but (oh the irony!) the new ps3guide.org site actually "borrows" verbatim from PS3focus.com, and to put the icing on the cake, didn't even provide a clickable link back to ps3focus.com. http://ps3guide.org/2006/01/13/kutaragi-%E2%80%9Ci-can-produce-the-ps3-anytime%E2%80%9D/

I am associated with Ps3focus.com so I won't list ps3focus.com as an external link myself (as I did initially, shame on me). PS3focus.com has been reporting on PS3 news since April 2005, with many stories that were first broken by PS3focus.com.

Comparing the two sites, you'd be hard pressed finding that ps3guide.org "does a much better job covering the same news", especially if the site just uses the content of others.

If you remove ps3focus.com, then I'd suggest to remove the copycat ps3guide.org as well.

Wyxel 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the site also copies IGN articles in full (at least this one got a link back): http://ps3guide.org/2006/01/17/medal-of-honor-airborne-details-revealed/

Wyxel 07:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a blog site, they go around the web and just stick up stuff from other sites. Of course they copied from IGN that's what they do.... it even says "Via IGN" with the link to the article at the bottom. :p Seraphim 09:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they just copy stuff. I am glad you agree. The stuff taken from IGN got a clickable link, the stuff taken from PS3focus didn't.

Motion to remove that site from the external links (and reinstate PS3focus, ideally).Wyxel 15:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason ps3focus was removed was that it was completly redundant with the ps3guide link, the reason I kept ps3guide was that they do a much better job of getting the news up quickly. However I do realize now that they aren't sourcing alot of their articles, so i'm going to remove them. However, PS3focus does not belong on here. I know your involved with the site so i'm sorry about bashing it. However in every way I look at it, the site lacks quality. Tons of ad's with tracking cookies, Bad looking frontpage, Slow updates, lazy editors (if you look back in the site's history past september it's basically an Xbox360 website). You also claim that there were many story's broken by ps3focus but... I don't see any...

I'm gonna remove the ps3source link too, but not re-add ps3focus. Seraphim 19:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean the reason why _you_ removed the PS3focus link, right? There is no evidence that others share your point of view.

Regarding the ps3guide.org blog site: Having a blog web site is not a license to violate copyright. Regarding your comment about Xbox 360, there was a time when PS3focus reported also on Xbox 360 and Nintendo Revolution news before the site was split into http://www.xb360info.com and http://www.nrgame.com.

It's ok to bash PS3focus.com. Many others like it exactly because of the quality of its content. What you call slow updates and lazy editors is what others call editorial scrutiny on what to report and what not (you may have seen the slogan "Playstation 3 news that matters" on that site.) It's exactly that editorial policy that separates Ps3focus.com from fan and blog web sites.

As to the look of the front page, that's again your personal taste. Of course I'd be pleased if Ps3focus.com were listed, and I understand if you're not keen, after all I'm asking to have your "ps3guide.org" removed exactly because of "low quality". I would wager it only survived for so many days in the external links section because of the original false claim it were about or by "Playstation 3 core developers", which by and in itself should be reprimanded, in my not so humble opinion. Was it you who added this link in the first place?

Calling ps3focus.com redundant because of the link to ps3guide.org (who only copy articles of others without permission) is really missing the point. The sites couldn't be more different. PS3focus has direct links to Japan (and Japanese in-house journalists) and that's why it can often bring a story coming out of Japan first (and it's based in Australia, sharing the same time zone with Japan). Ps3guide.org is a fan/blog site that's hardly 3 weeks old that just posts other people's content (without permission and often without even providing the source and/or a link). 'Nuff said.

I invite other editors of this page to chime in on the matter. Wyxel 00:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, the only reason why focus was listed in the first place, and not just outright removed, was that I didn't notice the link was added for a few days after it was added on the 4th. Normally it would have just been immediatly removed because there was no talk discussion first, as the link section requires for adding new links. It's obvious that your two websites are having a fight or something, since the same person that posted the focus link has removed the guide link twice. A fight like that is not what wikipedia is about, whoever's link gets posted wins and the other site looses? What are we 5?

I removed the focus link at first because it adds nothing to the page, it's not used as a reference at all, and it's covered with ad's. Also it's a site that has no problem with posting rumors, however you don't post stuff when the rumors are proved false, that is where I made the lazy comment from. If you look at the site, it's impossible to tell that the "Possible Playstation 3 Launch titles" were removed. Instead of making another post or editing the other one, there is a comment added to the original post that isn't visible from the front page, so if someone just glances at the page they would get the wrong idea immediatly. Also Wikipedia is a NPOV website, because Focus allows writers to editorialize after their news posts with the "writers comments" it is inherently not NPOV. When you compare the site to say, IGN which is already on the list is a much higher quality and respected site.

Also I find it funny that you are attacking guide for stealing from other websites, when what your site does is basically the same thing. Your post about the PS3 launch titles on the japanese site was posted well over a day after the rest of the web put it up, yet you don't mention what site pointed you towards that extremely obscure link. Same goes for the comment where you say they were taken down. And I can't find any stories that "broke" on that website, that would make me believe that it deserves to be considered one of the elite ps3 news websites. Like I said before, i'd rather put up 1up or gamespot's ps3 pages before ps3focus. Seraphim 01:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not about attacking ps3guide.org. What they do violates copyright, but that's a separate issue and not really relevant here.

However, I was simply taken aback that you listed it as an external link in preference over PS3focus. And how is reporting news from Japan in any way comparable with verbatim copying articles of others? "Well over a day after"? Where did you get that? All over the world, journalists and editors are able to get to work on emerging stories when they come to work. Sometimes Ps3focus is first, sometimes others are first. Gamestop and IGN certainly are hardly ever first. But this is not relevant - Ps3focus doesn't claim to be a "always the first to report" site. If you want the latest PS3 news, try http://news.google.com/news?q=playstation%203 More often than not, you'll find Ps3focus reports listed.

PS3focus doesn't post rumors, however, it reports about rumors when they are deemed of general interest. Gamespot made a whole recurrent section out of their bogus-or-not feature. The PS3 titles WERE there in that table and PS3focus translated what it said - did you see any other site with that translation? The information was there on that playstation.jp page and it has been removed. PS3focus updated their report on this fact accordingly. Does that make the information reported by Ps3focus in any way wrong or misleading?

Regarding the NPOV. I'm sorry, you got that completely wrong. PS3focus is so much NPOV, it makes a point of separating facts from opinion, hence the clear separation of what is the news part and what is the writer's or editor's comment.

I have never said that Ps3focus is meant to be considered an "elite ps3" web site. What is that anyway? It is totally ok to put up 1up or gamespot'3 ps3 pages. I am not at war with anyone. I noticed that you had removed the ps3focus link, claiming that ps3guide was somehow doing a better job at something, so I thought you were associated with the site. If not, I apologize for the assumption.

Let me make it really clear. This isn't about PS3focus and this isn't the place to attack it nor to defend it (and I shall do my part and stop this now, accordingly). This is not so much about having Ps3focus.com listed. I'm ok if it's not listed, but you'll forgive me commenting when you list a 3 week old blog that steals from Ps3focus rather then listing ps3focus itself. -- Wyxel 02:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with SeraphimXI's position. There are approximately 2.2 bajillion websites dedicated to every major video game console these days, and it's neither our intent nor our desire to review all of them and promote one over another on Wikipedia. In general it's good practice to keep external links on these sorts of pages down to official web sites, references (preferably first-hand sources), and one or two highly respected or well known sites devoted to the subject. Knowing nothing else about your site than its focus, sources, and general exposure, I'd have to say that its inclusion as an external link here would be frowned upon by most editors. Please review WP:EL for generalized policy on the matter of external links and thank you very much for taking the time to discuss this. -- uberpenguin 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Uberpenguin, PS3focus may not yet be highly respected enough to be listed as a valuable Playstation 3 resource, but that isn't the point. Listing a 3 weeks old fan blog site that steals content from PS3focus (and others) while falsely claiming to be somehow associated with PS3 core developers however it NOT ok. The offending site in question has now been removed so I rest my case. -- Wyxel 02:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Floating Point Performance (part II)

I am changing the comments on overall floating point performance to more accurately reflect the information that we have available to us right now. I want to make it clear what my reasoning for these changes is:

Firstly, I would like to update the calculations regarding the total floating point performance of the Cell microprocessor. According to IBM's Paper on the design and implementation of the Cell, an individual SPE has a peak floating point capacity of 25.6 GFLOPS in single precision. The 7 enabled SPEs in the PS3's Cell would total a theoretical maximum of 179.2 GFLOPS. This is in addition to the performance of the VMX unit in the PPE, which we do not have definite numbers for. However, the PPE in the Cell is the result of the same design process that led to the 3 symmetric cores in the Xbox 360's Xenon CPU, which also have one VMX-128 unit each. Based on Microsoft's marketing, the theoretical peak performance of the Xenon is 115 GFLOPS. Dividing by 3, the performance of a single core's VMX unit should be about 38.3 GFLOPS, which we can take to be a reasonable approximation for the PPE in the Cell. The total single-precision floating point performance of the Cell should then be 218 GFLOPS. I want to emphasize, here, that my calculation is in line with Sony's own marketing materials, as well as the performance of IBM's server blades (about 200 GFLOPS for one 3.0 GHz cell). I would also like to emphasize that this theoretical maximum performance would be well-nigh impossible to achieve in real-world applications. The IBM report referenced above details testing which indicates that SPEs can be expected to achieve about 75.9% of their maximum performance under normal operation.

Secondly, I am changing the comments that indicated that the Cell is equal to or slightly better than the Xbox 360's CPU at floating point tasks. When we use IBM's factor of 75.9%, the Cell will still perform at over 165 GFLOPS (or 136 GFLOPS for the SPEs alone), which is significantly higher than the XBox 360's theoretical maximum of 115 GFLOPS (of course, real world performance for the 360 can be expected to be reduced by a similar factor). I am returning the article to the old language which read "considerably higher".

Spoonboy42 03:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrectly mixing results of two entirely different test runs. In IBM's Cell Engine Architecture Performance Review IBM uses a "wide range" of applications to "showcase the performance of the Cell": Matrix Multiplication, Linpack, MPEG-2 video decoding, Triangle Transform and Lighting, and cryptography algorithms such as AES, TDES, MD5, and so on. We are concerned with the first two, Matrix Multiplication and Linpack, as those are the two that you are confusing.

Matrix Multiplication (single precision):

C = A X B

256 x 256 matrix

Result:

SPEsim (GFLOPS) 25.12

Hardware (GFLOPS) 25.01

Accuracy (%) 99.6%

Efficiency: not given for this test

"the matrix multiplication performance increases almost linearly with the number of SPUs, especially with large matrix sizes. Using eight SPUs, the parallel version of matrix multiplication achieves 201GFLOPS, very close to the theoretical maximum of 204.8GFLOPS".

Linpack (single precision):

Ax = b

1kx1k to 8kx8k matrices

Result:

SPEsim (GFLOPS) 16.03 - 160

Hardware (GFLOPS) 14.94 - 155.5

Accuracy (%) 93.2 - 97.19%

Efficiency

-single SPU 1.02 - 91.8%

-parallelized 58.36 - 75.93%

Note: parallelized metrics for 7 SPUs and 8kx8k matrix not given

As you can see these are two entirely different tests. As such it is incorrect to take the efficiency metric from the Linpack test and apply it to the Sony stated figure of 218 GFLOPS which is derived from Matrix Multiplication theoretical performance.

Theoretical Matrix Multiplication performance:

25.6 GFLOPS per SPU

204.8 GFLOPS total across 8 SPUs

179.2 GFLOPS total across 7 SPUs (PS3 Cell)

38.3 GFLOPS (estimated) PPE

179.2 + 38.3 = 217.5

We get the Sony stated figure of 218 GLFOPS (217.5) which was obviously theoretical.

Actual Matrix Multiplication performance (SPEsim):

25.12 GFLOPS per SPU

200.96 GFLOPs total across 8 SPUs

175.84 GFLOPS total across 7 SPUs (PS3 Cell)

38.3 GFLOPS (estimated) PPE

175.2 + 38.3 = 213.5

The actual benchmarked figure of 213.5 is very close to the Sony stated figure of 218 GFLOPS.

I am removing your inaccurate extrapolation references.

Xkxdxmx 13:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sony's theoretical performance is 100% efficency, IBM's whitepaper said that it was achieving 75% ish of it's total power. Therefore it is impossible for the actual figure to be 213.5 when their 100% performance figure is 218. That math doesn't work out. Seraphim 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The math works out fine: The theoretical peak performance is 218 GFLOPS accross 7 SPUs and 1 PPE (the figure stated by Sony). The theoretical performance per SPU is 25.6 GFLOPS. The actual benchmarked performance per SPU (according to IBM's paper) is 25.12. And IBM's paper goes on to state: "the matrix multiplication algorithm is easily parallelized to all eight SPUs. Figure 5 shows that the matrix multiplication performance increases almost linearly with the number of SPUs". IBM's paper concludes that "Using eight SPUs, the parallel version of matrix multiplication achieves 201GFLOPS, very close to the theoretical maximum of 204.8GFLOPS"

25.12 GFLOPS (as benchmarked by IBM's paper) per SPU x 7 SPUs = 175.91 GFLOPS (SPUs along)

175.91 GFLOPS + 38.3 (estimated) GFLOPS PPE = 214.21

The "75% ish" metric is from the Linpack pack tests which is entirely different from the Matrix Multiplication tests. I can't stress this enough they are two entirely different tests (reread my comparison above). You can't take the efficiency metric from one test and apply it to the result (the final measured metric) of a completely different test.

Xkxdxmx 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been 3 days with no further rebuttal or counterpoint. I am removing the inaccurate extrapolation figure and references. Xkxdxmx 04:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, all this information about the theoretical and estimated practical performance of the Cell in particular and the PS3 in general well bear a disclaimer indicating that all calculations are a theoretical maximum based on a best-case scenario. The 75.9% performance factor will be mentioned, as will the fact that specifications may change before the PS3 is launched. The difficulty in optimizing for the Cell architecture will also be addressed.

Spoonboy42 03:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The performance is noted as theoretical 6 times:

"The performance statistics given for the PS3 and XBox 360 in Sony's presentation were based on the theoretical maximum performance of the systems"

"real-world performance for both systems will be lower"

"the theoretical peak performance of a single SPE is 25.6 GFLOPS"

"all the above figures are based on the theoretical performance of components"

"real-world performance WILL be less than the theoretical maximum"

I am removing some redundancy

Xkxdxmx 13:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Copied over from archive for clarity. And made noted corrections again. Xkxdxmx 17:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that is redundant at all. It's worded for clarity. If you say, change the 4th line to say "all the figures are based on the performance of components" that is too ambiguious, and will lead to confusion. Seraphim 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Reiterating the same information 6 times in the same section is the very definition of redundancy. Consequently it actually reduces clarity.

Xkxdxmx 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not repeating the same information 6 times. It's making it clear what thing you are talking about. Real-world performance, theoretical performance, and theoretical maximum/peak performance, are all different things. Therefore putting in the adjectives to show what "performance" you are talking about, is necessary. Seraphim 23:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless they are still referencing the same thing. Paragraph 1 and 2 already note that the numbers are theoretical. Isn't it redundant to come back again with another disclaimer saying that the numbers are theoretical? Or are you trying to say that the theoretical numbers themselves are theoretical? Maybe hyper-theoretical? :) Xkxdxmx 23:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been 3 days with no further rebuttal or counterpoint. The figures in paragraph 1 and 2 are already noted as being theoretical. I am going to remove the redundant disclaimer at the end of the section that declares (again) that the numbers are theoretical. Xkxdxmx 04:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The 75% performance is during video rendering and Cg image, not gameplay. I saw that benchmark result, its approximately 50%

Screenshots

Someone needs to explain to me why adding an advisory on the top of the screenshot section is vandalism. Is the statement not true, is it not fair, does it not impart useful information given that every other console's screenshoot section with an article on wikipeadia has screenshoots from actual game play? Without the notice anyone would draw the wrong impression when compared to other like articles in the encyclopedia.

If it's true that these screenshots are pre-rendered, please provide a source to back up your claims. Secondly, one of the main reasons you have been reverted is that your grammer doesn't make any sense, as I already said on your talk page. Finally, you have been violating WP:3RR. When people are changing back your edits, it is not acceptable to keep pushing your version by revert warring. It's good that you've finally made some attempt to reach consensus by discussing your changes on the talk page. Jacoplane 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end of your comments, so we know who we're talking to. Jacoplane 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the term "vandalism" is (mis)used by some too frequently :(

Xkxdxmx 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I only started using the term vandalism when he had violated the 3RR rule. Jacoplane 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. My comment wasn't in reference to you. Xkxdxmx 23:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I neglected to make this point earlier, but given that I actually changed the content of the addition several times how exactly did I break 3RR rule? And would not your constant reverts of the different subsequent changes I made be in violation of the 3RR rule? 141.157.50.98 23:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, when I was warned the first time I took the advise given and fixed the grammatical problems early this mourning. So it seems to me that the changes I made were being reverted out of habit not merit. Further, if you concede that the statement is not in error, slanted, or biased it would seem to me in the spirit of the collaborative nature of this community to fix the grammatical mistakes instead of reverting the page. It strikes me as a little vindictive.~~~~

You were implying that all of those screens are pre-rendered. That is not the case. Motorstorm was real time. I-8 was real-time. MGS, Warhawk, Gundam etc. are all real time. I'm fairly sure that nearly all the games there are real-time. --HQ 01:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

All of these shoots are from E3. From everything I've read it's pretty much universally thought that these images are pre-rendered. The only shoot in contention is KillZone 3 which Sony Executives have said is real time. Which is why I qualified and cited my most recent addition. (Which was again reverted) 141.157.67.53 01:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources are all conflicting on the vast majority of them. Sony was going around saying stuff was real time, and then the developers of those games were saying that they were rendered at 1/2 speed. Which doesn't really matter, since the demos run at e3 were not running on the PS3 they were video clips shown, therefore pre-rendered. People also tend to forget that the demos they showed at e3 weren't running on ps3 dev kits or the ps3, since they didn't exist at the time. They were being coded to run smoothly on a target specification machine. If you talk to 10 different people you will get 10 different answers. That however doesn't change the fact that adding a disclaimer to the screenshots is at all necessary. Also the reason it was reverted was that you put it up before we agreed to have it put up, which is against wikipedia policy. It's not "I posted it on the talk page so screw you guys i'm adding it".Seraphim 02:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the screenshots are not of gameplay isn't relevant. They are screenshots that's all. It isn't necessary to put on them if they are gameplay footage, or fmv, or pre-rendered. Especially when we can't determine what each individual one is. Seraphim 22:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The term "screenshot" does not specifically denote gameplay. Xkxdxmx 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim ordinarily I would agree with you however I believe in this particular context it is indeed relevant. These are not screenshots of a software application, or a television show. They are part of a article about a gaming console any casual visitor would assume these were examples of actual playable games on the discussed console, not pre-rendered cinematics. 141.157.50.98 23:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Pre-rendered scenes are in games all the time, yet caps from those screens are still considered screenshots, and never have a warning attached to them. Look at all the Final Fantasy games, 3/4 of the screens you see from them are during cutscenes, do they have warnings on them "not actual gameplay footage". No. Also just because you posted this does NOT mean you can just add the disclaimer. It means that you have to get a majority of people that come here to agree with you that it should be added, and sufficient time has passed for the interested people to see the discussion, before changing it. Neither of which have happened yet. Seraphim 01:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking to your second point please point out where in the wikipedia rules it stipulates that you have to get the consensus of the "majority of people that come [to a particular page]" before making a change. It seems ridiculously arbitrary to me. It seems to me that the page is for the general public not just the "majority of people" who frequent it.141.157.67.53 01:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

From the Be Bold Page

If you would like to edit an article on a controversial subject, it's a good idea first to read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page, and view the page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is.

If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references.

Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Wikipedia in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning.

"If no one objects", also if you look at the Resolving Disputes page you will see the bit about reaching consensus. Seraphim 02:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In what way is my edit "controversial" from what I gathered it was reverted originally because it had no references and there were grammer errors. I really didn't think I needed to get consensus to fix those issues. I fixed those things and made the statement even more innocuous. Yet it was still reverted.141.157.67.53 02:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have followed the life of the ps3 at all, you will know how the videos and screenshots being show are all very contravercial. Also the second someone started reverting your post, it became a dispute. So even if it's not controvercial it still has to be discussed. Seraphim 03:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It had been discussed at some length before I made my most recent change. 141.157.67.53 04:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your first edit ever was 21 hrs ago. Nothing could have been discussed at length in that period of time. Seraphim 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't concede any such thing. I merely said that if it is true, you need to provide a source before it can be included. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Ps. When signing, don't include the "nowiki" tags. Jacoplane 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to throw my hat into the ring here and say that there's no need for a big ole' "warning" box above these screenshots. Honestly, the arguments made beforehand concerning prerend shots is a valid one; game companies use prerendereds all the time (such as the Final Fantasy games). On top of that, from what I know, these ARE gonna be actual games. It's not like all of a sudden we're gonna start seeing massive drops to PS2 level or anything; these shots are accurate representations of what games on the PS3 will look like. As such, a warning label isn't neccesary. Daniel Davis 14:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

PS3 Live?

According to this article, Sony has changed their mind on the online issue. Should we update the appropriate section or wait for more confirmation?

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29148

Willy Arnold 23:55, January 20, 2006 (EST)

The article that all these news sites are using as source material (gameshout) is incorrect. Sony never confirmed anything about an online service, they just put out a survey where they asked questions about if people would be interested in a Live like service. Gameshout's article is completly wrong. I already removed a section about this earlier today. Untill sony either says something in an interview where they are quoted, or make a press release, don't believe anything you read. This is a really good example of someone trying to read between the lines, and pretend their analysis is fact. Seraphim 09:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the recent Online Pollsby sony? Will they be proof enough?kura 09:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what caused the rumors to start. It's cause for speculation, not proof. Seraphim 17:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

According to this article, Sony is indeed going to provide an Xbox Live type service.the1physicist 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeup that's brand new today (er yesterday now). PSM is notorious for getting the details wrong, so it's gonna be interesting what the actual status of this ps3 network is. It took microsoft 8+ years of work and research to get xbox live to where it is at. This is gonna be very interesting, sony has been bashing the XBL system for years, and now they want to create a super version of it? Also i'd like to note that sony stressed in another recent issue of PSM that they weren't doing this and were going to stick with their decentralized system so they have now flip-flopped. Personally I think sony might be biting off more then they can chew with this, they are trying to compete against XBL directly now, and they might end up with pie all over their faces. Seraphim 10:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

External links disclaimer

This comment appears in the external links section:

<!--=========================================================-->
<!-- DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS: THIS SITE IS NOT A LINK DEPOSITORY -->
<!--       If you have a link that you want added please       -->
<!--        use the talk page before you post anything.        -->
<!--=========================================================-->

Basically, this scares away editors that just want to add links in good faith. If someone does indeed add a spam link then this article is on enough people's watchlist that the link will be swiftly removed. Therefore, I propose removing the disclaimer from the links section. Thoughts? Jacoplane 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If people are acting in good faith, they will have no problem posting a request on the talk page. The reason for the comment is that Wikipedia does have a policy on external links (Wikipedia:External_links), and the vast majority of the time that people will be adding links to an article, they really don't belong. It's just a way of keeping the link spam to a minimum. The comment shouldn't scare people who are acting in good faith away, they just basically need to get it "approved".

It is a really common comment on Wikipedia articles that get alot of link's added to them from fansites and random forums, both of which aren't allowed according to wikipedia policy. I have no problem with it. Seraphim 01:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that some kind of disclaimer is in order, I believe that a simple pointer to Wikipedia:External_links is sufficient. Any link that does not follow those guidelines can be removed immediately. I just feel that asking permission on the talk page is over the top. Jacoplane 06:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason it's suggested that people post on the talk page is so that they are able to argue their points, and get constructive feedback, instead of the limited amount of space we have in edit summaries. Nothing is preventing them from posting on talk and then immediatly adding it, or just adding it and not posting on talk. It's a request. Personally I feel that it's a way of getting people to read the feedback about their links, instead of just getting angry and into a revert war. Seraphim 07:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If it was simply a request, then of course I would agree with all the sensible things you say about using the talk page to resolve potential conflicts. It's just that "DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS: ... " does not really seem like a request to me, more like an order. Jacoplane 07:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll change it to say please. That is just the generic disclaimer that I have seen on alot of pages on here that get hammered with fansite links :p Seraphim 07:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sweet. Sorry if I was nitpicking :) Jacoplane 07:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just being cheeky :P Changed it to say this

<!--================================================================-->
<!--   Please follow wikipedia policy on external links.            -->
<!--        that can be found on the page WP:EL                     -->
<!--If you have a link that you want added please use the talk page -->
<!-- to explain why you feel it should be included in the article.  -->
<!-- Doing so will let other editors understand what you are doing  -->
<!-- and will prevent misunderstandings from turning into reverts.  -->
<!--================================================================-->

That good?Seraphim 07:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Cell Processor Section

The cell is a standard processor. There is a page for it already, if people want thousands of numbers on the Cell they can go to the cell processor wikipage. The only relevant information is that the ps3 has a cell processor with 7 active SPE's.

Because the Cell is a generic chipset, and not custom made for the PS3 it would be redundant to list all it's specs here. Note: This doesn't apply to some of the other game consoles since they run custom processors. Same with it not applying to the RSX section since that is a custom chip for the PS3.

Also the ps3 specific cell performance numbers are already mentioned or covered in the Overall Floating-Point capability section. Seraphim 05:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sony, Toshiba and IBM came together in 2001 to design a custom multimedia processor with game consoles specifically in mind; the Cell BE. Sure the Cell is based on PowerPC (a standard architecture) but with the addition of the SPUs and EIB there is no other processor quit like it. Not only is the Cell and SPU architecture unique among processors but the PS3 Cell is itself a unique implementation. There are many potential uses for the Cell on the table: TVs, servers, medical and defense equipment etc, but the PS3 Cell is the only 3.2GHz 7 SPE implementation (the Cell has been tested beyond 4GHz and currently IBM's blade implementation only runs at 2.8GHz). Other consoles have used fairly 'off-the-shelf' processors and they have more info than you have reduced the PS3's cell to. (The Genesis and Jaguar used a Motorola 68000, the same proc found in all Amigas. Even the N64 used a standard NEC MIPS processor).

If the other page's for Genesis/Jaguar/Amiga/N64 have the processor information there when there is a page already dedicated to the processor, they need to have the redundant information removed also then. 2 wrong's don't make a right. In this case there is very indepth Cell processor numbers on a page not dedicated to the Cell Processor. The numbers belong on the cell's page not here. If there were huge differences between the PS3 cell and the other possible cell implimentations then I'd agree with you, however all the details are the same except for the 2 variables the cell architecture allow, clockspeed and SPE count. Seraphim 02:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the differences, how ever small or large, warrant notation: clock speed, SPE count, GFLOPS and SOPS at least. Xkxdxmx 20:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the difference need to be noted. The only things that make the PS3's cell implementation special are the 3.2 clockspeed and the 7/8 spe thing, both of which I left in the article. Theoretical Performance GFLOPS/SOPS are not information that the audience for this article in specific will require from the article. Especially when it is still speculation(that's what theoretical means), which is something that wikipedia isn't suppossed to cover. If someone who is more technical wants the details of the Cell chip they just need to click on the wikilink. Seraphim 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the 4 pages you mention (Genesis/Jaguar/Amiga/N64) the only one that needed fixing was the Genesis/Megadrive page, the N64 chip doesn't have it's own page on wikipedia, the Amiga chipset does, so the detailed information on that is on it's own page(It has a slight analysis just like we have on this page in the Overall Floating-Point capability section) , and the Jaguar's setup is also custom archetecture "tom" and "jerry" that don't have their own pages.

Are there any other pages you can find that I should fix to bring them all inline? Thanks Seraphim 02:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the information should stay (at least most of it, some of it could be pruned). Xkxdxmx 01:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The cell is a generic processor, the only difference in how it's used on seperate machines is the amount of SPE's it has access to and it's clock speed. It was designed as a multimedia processor, i'm not arguing that at all. I'm just saying that it's pointless to have alot of Cell processor details on the page, since it has it's own page with all that information on it already. Your argument is agreeing with me, that the Ps3 cell is unique that it has a 3.2Gig 7SPE implementation, therefore that is all the information needed on this page, the stuff that makes it unique. If I was making a page about the new intel-mac's I wouldn't list all the theoretical performance numbers of the new chip on it, since that chip already has it's own page, the only information needed is what version of the generic chip is being used.Seraphim 22:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Linux Not Confirmed For Hard drive

I have been going through the resources in the article trying to see if I can find better ones, and I noticed something very odd about the reference link for the Linux/GNU section (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/624/624046p1.html). The headline is not "Sony confirms PS3 will run Linux", the headline is "Sony Considers Linux for PS3 Hard Disk". And infact if you read the article it says " Kutaragi makes it clear that even with a terabyte worth of network storage, for the PS3 system to be recognized as a computer, it needs to have a drive running an operating system." he says that with the unique Cell OS it allows other OS'es like Tiger or Linux to run over it. Nowhere in the article does it say that the PS3 HD will run linux. So of course my interest kicked in and I started investigating.

I cannot find any source at all that has confirmation from sony that Linux will be on the PS3 HD. Everywhere I turn it's "considered" or "may", and the article on gamespot that most of the blog posts use as a source was actually deleted from gamespot (it doesn't show up when viewing all the site news for the day it's URL says it was posted 6/9/2005). It seems like it's a misunderstanding of the translation of a website interview with Ken Kutaragi that got out of hand. This is what appears to be the correct translation of the interview. ""But people won't recognize it as a computer unless we call it a computer, so we're going to run an OS on it. In fact, the Cell can run multiple OSes. In order to run the OSes, we need a hard disk. So in order to declare that the PS3 is a computer, I think we'll have [the hard disk] preinstalled with Linux as a bonus. " If you notice he doesn't confirm it, he says "I think". Other translations of it have him saying "may". He also says " "The kernel will be running on the Cell, and multiple OSes will be running on top of that as applications. Of course, the PS3 can run Linux. If Linux can run, so can Lindows. Other PC Operating Systems can run too, such as Windows and (Mac OS) Tiger, if the publishers want to do so. Maybe a new OS might come out," nowhere in that conversation did he ever say that the harddrive would come with linux pre-installed. Just do a google search and you will see what i'm talking about. Take for example the first google hit http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23878 the Headline is "Playstation 3 hard disk to run Linux" but the actual article says "Entertainment boss Ken Kutaragi has suggested the upcoming Playstation 3 will come equipped with a hard disk. And the hard disk may come with Linux pre-installed." It is my conclusion that in the Kutaragi - Impress PC Watch he never actually confirmed that the HD would come with linux on it, he was speculating. And other then that Interview I cannot find any other official sources from sony that say that the drive will come with linux on it.

I realize that this may sound a bit like a conspiracy theory, however this is an encyclopedia, and our information needs to have reliable factual sources. Since one does not exist for this section right now I am going to remove it. I am also going to e-mail IGN's PS3 department about this since they say in their PS3 FAQ "Additionally, the drive will come with a version of Linux pre-installed, thereby making the PlayStation 3 a full-fledged PC as soon as the HD is installed. ". However they have posted no news that works as a source for that statement (According to google and the search string "linux site:ps3.ign.com", and I want to know where they got that information from.

If you can find an official straight from sony source other then the Kutaragi interview with Impress PC Watch please re-post the section and add the new source. Seraphim 05:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Also the rest of that section is about the Cell Chip in general not the PS3 so i'm removing that section since the information is already found on the Cell Processor page. The fact that there is an IBM Linux Distro that can run on the Cell Processor is not relevant to the Playstation 3. Seraphim 06:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I sent the following e-mail to IGN's PS3 Editors, will post any response I get:

"Hi IGN editors. I realize this may sound like a conspiracy theory but please hear me out.

I was editing the Playstation 3 wikipedia page today, and decided to go through the source links to check to see if they were still active URL's. When I got to our section on the PS3 Harddrive running linux our source material was an article here on IGN "http://ps3.ign.com/articles/624/624046p1.html". However when I clicked on the article the headline said "Sony Considers Linux for PS3 Hard Disk". This seemed odd to me so I read the article and found that according to your story Kutaragi never actually said in his interview with PC Watch that the PS3 HD will come with linux installed. He just talked about the PS3 running OS'es in general.

I immediatly went to your PS3 FAQ and found that you say that the PS3 HD is confirmed to run linux, which is not what the article said. I then went to google and ran the string "linux site:ps3.ign.com", which will give me back all the times Linux is mentioned on the ps3.ign.com domain, and the only relevant hits that came back were the "Sony Considers..." article and the PS3 FAQ. You never posted a story that stated that sony confirmed linux on the PS3 HD.

This started a 2hour trek around the internet where I tried to find out everything I could about the Kuturagi/PC Watch interview. In no translation I could find, does he ever say that the PS3 HD will come with linux on it. Infact alot of websites that posted articles saying that it is confirmed contradict themselves in their articles. For example the first google hit http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23878 has the headline "Playstation 3 hard disk to run Linux" however in the article it says "Entertainment boss Ken Kutaragi has suggested the upcoming Playstation 3 will come equipped with a hard disk. And the hard disk may come with Linux pre-installed. " It say it may come, that is not a confirmation. I searched the web for over 2 hours, and I cannot find any reliable websites that say that he definatly confirmed that the harddrive will come with Linux in that article. Alot of the sites say it's confirmed, but they quote him as saying "may". They also leave out that in that interview Ken was discussing OS's as a group, actually using Apple Tiger as an example at one point. After searching for 2hrs and reading over 100 news posts/blog posts/linux website posts, I came to the conclusion that Ken Kutaragi never confirmed that the PS3 Hard Disk will come with Linux on it in his interview with Impress PC Watch.

Needless to say this stunned me, as I really thought that this was confirmed. However I cannot find any sources where a sony official or sony corporate has said that the harddrive will run linux, or the extent to which the linux support will be. Since I cannot find a source I had to edit it out of wikipedia untill we find a source. I was hoping that you would be willing to explain where you recieved your confirmation about the PS3 hd running linux that caused you to add "Additionally, the drive will come with a version of Linux pre-installed, thereby making the PlayStation 3 a full-fledged PC as soon as the HD is installed. " to your PS3 FAQ. Also if your source was the PC Watch interview, I was wondering if you would be willing to contact Sony for official confirmation." Seraphim 06:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a forum where someone copy and pasted the entire text of the gamespot article before gamespot deleted it from their website (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-54911.html). If you read the article not even the gamespot translation of the interview confirms that the PS3 HD will come with linux. The relevant quotes are "Although a network drive would allow for terabytes of storage, there's still the necessity to run an operating system offline. A hard drive for running an OS will be required for [the PS3] to be recognized as a computer." and "It is really a pain in the neck. This time, we're positioning the PS3 as a "supercomputer." But people won't recognize it as a computer unless we call it a computer, so we're going to run an OS on it. In fact, the Cell can run multiple OSes. In order to run the OSes, we need an HDD. So in order to declare that the PS3 is a computer, I think we'll have [the PS3's HDD] preinstalled with Linux as a bonus." (Notice he is speculating "I think we'll" not "we will"), "Linux is legacy, but it will be a start. In the case of the Cell, operation systems are applications. The kernel will be running on the Cell, and multiple OSes will be running on top of that as applications. Of course, the PS3 can run Linux. If Linux can run, so can Lindows. Other PC Operating Systems can run too, such as Windows and Tiger (Max OS X 10.4), if the publishers want [them] to do so. Maybe a new OS might come out." so apparently it can run Windows and Tiger also. If anyone knows how OS's work you know that you can't run an OS as an application on top of another OS since it's the OS's job to actually manage the scheduling of processes. If they were serious about installing linux on the HD why wouldn't they just make a custom linux distro that runs on the Cell Processor and put it on there? The fact that he says that it will be running on top of the "Cell OS" is very odd, it seems like he is talking outside of his area of expertise. But anyway, as you can see the gamestop translation doesn't have him confirming anything either. Seraphim 19:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Sony did previously have motivation to justify the PlayStation 2 as a "computer" (I think it was something to do with how it was taxed). Sony even included a version of yabasic on one of the demo CDs. Though I'm not sure if they were successful in having the PlayStation 2 legally classified as a computer, they could be including additional software on the PlayStation 3 in order to pull the same thing off. (Of course, this is just speculation, and deserves no mention in the article.) Someone42 06:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

They did release a linux kit for the ps2 http://www.us.playstation.com/peripherals.aspx?id=SCPH-97047. However they were released in extremely small limited release numbers, and havent' been available anywhere for a while. Seraphim 06:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

While I think it is very likely that the PS3 HDD will run Linux (Linux already boots on the Cell, runs very well with Nvidia and Open GL and runs most of the worlds "Super Computers") there has been no confirmation. Linux was just noted as a possibility. Xkxdxmx 20:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image formats and compression

This article, IGN: New PS3 Tools, mentions a tool that Devs can use to generate .dds and RGBA8888 image files for use in the PS3. It also mentions that S3TC(DXT1-5) compression can be utilized as well. Does anyone think this data is relevant enough to be added to the article?

For further reading, here's a translation of Optix's main site --n00b 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we should make a new section for technology ps3 game studio have sublicensed... note that this "Optix Imagestudio" isn't part of Sony's the Sony SDK for the PS3. It is up individual studios to decide to license it. It is like photoshop, which is used by plenty of game studios but isn't unique to the particular platform the game runs on. What do you guys think?

My main point wasn't refering to the image editor itself, but to the image formats and compression that it can edit. That confirms each of those will be available for the PS3, which might be good to list. --n00b 13:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well that is more part of the video card technology then, for example DDS is a compression format for Direct X.

Peripheral backcompat

Current content:

"The PS3 will not be backward-compatible with some of the hardware peripherals of the PS2. For example, memory cards for PlayStation and PlayStation 2 will not work on the PlayStation 3 hardware. [18] Instead it was announced that the PS3 will only use the Sony Memory Stick to save games via MagicGate. This means that the PS3 will not be able to use PS1 and PS2 memory cards; however, this will allow gamers to trade saved games over the Internet more easily. Also, Memory Stick will also be compatible with both PS1 and PS2 games, Unlike PS2's memory card."

I believe the content about the memory stick is irrelevant. Being able to trade game saves is not relevent to the compatibility of PS2 memory devices. The fact that the new storage media is a memory stick and is "cool" is not relevent when discussing what PS2 peripherals work with the PS3. Nor is the PS2 software back-compat story relevent relevent when discussing what PS2 hardware will work with the PS3.

This content should be present in the article somewhere, but not in this section.

I've tried to fix this up once, but it was reverted. Instead of getting into an edit pissing match, I decided to solicit feedback here before changing it back again. 24.18.202.92

Regarding your statement, whether or not you "believe" that the ability to transmit games saves on and off the Memory Stick is a backwards compatibility point, it is. As I stated on the message you sent to my talk page, 24.18.202.92, being able to transmit saves to the Memory Stick means that saves from previous consoles can be transmitted from Playstation 1 and 2 Memory Cards to the Playstation 3. The enabling of game saves from previous consoles makes Memory Stick save usage on the Playstation 3 a backwards compatibility topic; being able to transmit said saves via the internet is merely an added bonus onto that backwards compatibility. In a nutshell, being able to move saves to and from the Memory Stick allows the PS3 to have a form of backwards compatibility with save files from previous consoles, if not with the save hardware itself. "Coolness" has nothing to do with it, utility does. Daniel Davis 12:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Now that I ponder it, you are right that internet saves aren't technically a backwards compatibility thing, (even though being able to utilize PS1 and 2 saves are). In the interest of good faith edits, I've removed the little blurb about being able to transmit saves to and from the internet. Hope this solves the issues you had with the paragraph. Have a nice day! Daniel Davis 13:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

That was the biggest issue I had; I still think that additional content needs to be pruned/moved to other sections. This section of the article is supposed to represent what PS2 hardware will be compatible with the PS3. Information about how the PS3 manages running PS2 games isn't very relevent when I'm trying to discover what perhiperals I've bought for the PS2 will still function with the PS3.

As I said, this information is relevent somewhere in the article (most likely in the section describing how PS2 games will function on the PS3), but it isn't relevent in a hardware compatibility discussion. 24.18.202.92

Regarding AI suitability

I don't fully agree with this: "may fare better on dynamically branching code, like that used for artificial intelligence.". The wording seems to stipulate that all artificial intelligence relies on dynamically branching code. While this may be true for the kind of simplistic rule-based approaches commonly used in computer games today, it is hardly true for more advanced approaches to AI such as artificial neural networks or support vector machines. In fact, many of the algorithms used in these methods are known for being massively parallelisable. They may not have entered the computer games sector to any extent yet, but a stream oriented processor such as the Cell provides an interesting opportunity. -- Grahn 21:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But this phrases is faily speculative, is there a source for it? Sounds like original research.

Also isn't cell suppossed to be worse at branching code? Seraphim 04:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly. But supposedly you can unroll the branches too. But I don't think that is his point. I think his point is that AI code isn’t necessarily branchy code. Maybe the entry should read "may fare better on dynamically branching code, like that used for some artificial intelligence" Xkxdxmx 17:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable suggestion. -- Grahn 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I am trying to say: artificial neural networks, support vector machines and several other similar methods are not branchy, and are very easy to vectorise and parallelise. This I know for a fact -- I have personally implemented SVMs (using SSE instructions) as well as various forms of ANNs. And from what know about the Cell processor, it is more or less built to do such things. However, what I don't know, and this would be where I speculate, is whether such methods will be used in games in the near future. But since there seems to be a good possibility for it with the PS3, the article shouldn't allude that the PS3 is ill suited for AI. -- Grahn 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

DVR capability

This is to the people that keep adding that the PS3 will be capable of being a DVR. Please stop adding this. There is no possible way to pass video and audio signals into the PS3 from an outside source, therefore it's impossible for the PS3 to record video and audio. Unless they all of asudden announce a redesign and the addition of audio/video in jacks this is 100% impossible. Seraphim 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim, the possibility of the PS3 having DVR capability, while it remains officially unconfirmed, is something that has been flowing like wildfire lately. Apparently it stems from the newest issue of PSM magazine- it reportedly has a quote from someone within Sony stating that the system will have a DVR in it. It's speculation, yes, but it's not "100% impossible"; I would wager the opposite if Sony is indeed attempting to make the system a media hub. Daniel Davis 06:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

PSM is not a reputable source, they get sooo much wrong. The reason it's 100% impossible, is that out of all the ports on the ps3 none of them are video/audio in. It has "six USB 2.0 ports, four on the front and two on the back. It has slots for Memory Stick, SD and CompactFlash cards. There are also three wired gigabit Ethernet ports, an optical port for audio, a multi-AV connector and two HDMI ports. ". None of those ports would make DVR functionality possible. You can't call something a DVR if it can't even accept video/audio in, because it would have nothing to record. I personally feel, it is just PSM trying to generate hype, which is what they do. But all personal feelings aside it's still physically impossible for the PS3 to act as a DVR. Seraphim 08:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

All of which are based on old specifications which are subject to change. Besides that, I've seen the magazine get more right than wrong as a whole, which leads one to lend it a bit of credence. Daniel Davis 10:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding more ports would have to significantly change the design of the system, especially if you add the ability for it to recieve an av signal. PSM's "sources" have a history of contradicting themselves. Afterall it was PSM that reported that "sources" said that they were sticking to the same network gaming system for the ps2. Seraphim 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about a video in port- One seriously would doubt that something that's been an industry standard on VCRs since the 70s would "significantly change the design". Daniel Davis 22:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Right now the console has no hardware to handle the input of a video signal, also if they are trying to sell a service that will allow you to download movies and tv shows, why would they allow you to just copy them? Plus if it is part of the "HD Revolution" it wouldn't be a simple video in, it would be HDMI in. Plus all this is pointless, since in the spec sheet that sony released there is no av in capabilities, also the pictures of the PS3 at it's recent showing at CES shows that there is still no change as to the ports on the back of it. Seraphim 22:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think at the moment, this is little more than rumors and probably breaks Wikipedia:Verifiability. Probably best to wait until more concrete details are available. Jacoplane 22:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Programming difficulty

Word on the street [[3]] is that this will be really hard to program for, and according to John Carmack in an interview with PC Gamer magazine (January) that the PS3 dev kits are still at a primitive stage. Shouldn't this be in the page? I'm too lazy to add it myself. A Clown in the Dark 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of a way to add it, that would be considered verified information, and NPOV. Obviously it's hard to program for since inorder to use the processors efficently you need to manage 8threads running at once, that is not easy to do. However some interviews with developers show that some developers are just using the main core to pass off tasks to the SPE's as they come in. It's not efficient but it still will run and it's pretty easy to code a scheduler (i have :p). Seraphim 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a technical article on game programming difficulty:

• Powerpoint - http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~dpw/popl/06/Tim-POPL.ppt 9 MB
• PDF - http://www.st.cs.uni-sb.de/edu/seminare/2005/advanced-fp/docs/sweeny.pdf
• Main Page - http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1277

Daniel.Cardenas 04:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

External Links

These are the current external links on the page

• PLAYSTATION 3 at PlayStation.com
• Sony Japan PlayStation 3 site (English)
• Hands-On with PlayStation 3, Kikizo, Feb 10, 06
• Sony may swap proprietary API for 'Open' one EE Times
• PlayStation 3 Explosions Demo
• Sony E3 Public Convention 2005

I suggest we keep the "Playstation 3 at playstation.com", "Sony Japan Playstation 3 site", "Playstation 3 Explosions Demo" and "Sony E3 Public Contention 2005" links because they are all official sony content. I suggest we remove the "Sony may swap proprietary API for 'Open' one EE Times" link on the fact that it is speculative in nature "may", and that we remove the "Hands-On with PlayStation 3" link due to the fact that it cannot be proven to be anything more than creative writing. Seraphim 01:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many other unverified links in the article such as the inquirer link. I think we can and should remove more, but some articles have a ring of truth to them. The many of us with experience in reading articles know which ones tend to be true and which ones tend to be mal-informed. Articles with lots of details tend to be true. I suggest we keep the "Hands-On with PlayStation 3" because it agrees with many other rumor articles out there, matches technical reality (1080p is too hard), and has lots of details. It should be deleted in a month because we will probably have better sources by then. Seraphim, thanks for being so dilegent in deleting the trashy links. :-) Daniel.Cardenas 02:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The links used as resources are seperate from the external links section because they are used as a reference for a statement in the article, we can't remove those without adressing the section in the article. If you can figure out a way to get the Kikizo article used as a reference i'll be all for it, since I would personally like to include it. However allowing it to stay as an extra "External Link" would be breaking WP:EL since it is unverified original research. Seraphim 02:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL lists exceptions to original research, such as review of a song. I don't think the policy tried to think of every possible exception. We have to ask ourselves does it add a bit value? Is it consistent with the article intent of informing the readers of a future product? Daniel.Cardenas 02:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been up for over a week. I'm removing the EE Times link because it's speculation ("may" in the title), and the Kikizo article due to it having 0 verifiable content. Seraphim 21:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What verifiable content does the IGN link you just added have? Zero. I suggest it get deleted. Even if the Sony source can be identified, it may not be credible if it not someone who is officially tasked with releasing information. Daniel.Cardenas 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"A Sony public relations representative" that is an official source. Seraphim 22:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sony PS3 article is about what we as a community believe is going to happen. It should not be about whatever Sony wants us to believe. We are not their marketing pawns, to propagate their half truths. Nothing in the article is verifiable from that perspective. We as a community need to agree and add our subjectiveness to whatever information is available even if it comes from Sony. Daniel.Cardenas 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow for editors to place subjective comments in articles. And the "future product" tag covers the chance of official information ending up being wrong.Seraphim 22:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. We already discussed this. And what Sony's Marketing department spews out is subjective not fact.

Sony's marketing department has access to information that all of the other sources do not. They are the most valid source we have access to. All of the drifting away from spring 2006 as the launch date was caused by a long period of no information from sony, now that they have re-stated spring 2006 that is the official launch date and must be included. In the article it's fine to state that other sources speculate that sony will miss the launch date. But that doesn't change the fact that the PS3's official launch date is currently spring (Q2) 2006. Seraphim 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Playstation network

You wish to talk? Pure inuyasha 02:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh...sorry please see section below. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I propose we merge Playstation network into this article. First of all, the former isn't verifiably proved to be the service that will actually be. For all we know at the moment, the PS3 might come with the same decentralized service as PS2 has. Plus, the article is very short and the service is directly tied to the PS3. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sony has stated that they will have a unified online service. And a trustworthy source supports the PSN. Pure inuyasha 02:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Where have they stated this? — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think i remember hearing this at either http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/ or http://www.ps3forums.com/ The latter of which is highly trustworthy.

• Strong Oppose - The Playstation Network RUMOR was started in the March 2006 issue of PSM. It is already adressed in the article under "Online Services". It is an unverifiable rumor and cannot be proven as fact. It does not belong on wikipedia period, the page needs to be deleted, not merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeraphimXI (talk • contribs)

• Deletion is a little too far. If it is a rumor it can be placed in this article, but it shouldn't have its own article and be flaunted as fact. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the article. "However, the March 2006 issue of PSM magazine reports that Sony intends to launch an online service with the PS3 designed to compete with Microsoft's Xbox Live." that is all the "Playstation Network" rumor currently deserves. I'm opposing the merge because the information in the Playstation Network page needs to be deleted, not merged into this article. Seraphim 02:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Forums aren't very reliable and verifiable, unless the post links to something more reliable. I also see you're trying to commission anons to come and flood us with support for you. That's not usually a good idea. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Similar opposition to adding this information. The trustworthiness of any fan forum is automatically highly suspect. With high profile consumer devices like this one, the best rule of thumb is to avoid calling anything fact until it has come directly from the manufacturer in the form of a press release, a designer/engineer/marketer interview, etc. As I've pointed out before, if this information proves to be trustworthy, Sony will soon release official information about it. The article certainly does not suffer from being a week or two behind the latest shavings from the rumour mill, but it does indeed suffer from publishing current rumour as fact and being wrong. (Also: damn the edit conflicts) -- uberpenguin 02:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Additionally, I don't even think mentioning it with the "rumor status" disclaimer is necessary. I see no reason to spread rumors here; an encyclopedia article should report only fact. -- uberpenguin 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Hehe sorry about the ec's. Well anyways, just remember that the article is there whatever you do with it. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't there whatever we do with it :) I posted the cleanup-verifiability tag, and after that has been on the page for a short while, I will put the page up for deletion. Seraphim 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with uberpenguin and SeraphimXI on this one- as Jacoplane stated regarding the possibility of the PS3's DVR, until more concrete information (as opposed to rumor and speculation) can be released regarding the network, we should treat it with extreme caution. Daniel Davis 02:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

I'd like to point out that the Playstation Network page was deleted this morning. 01:00, February 15, 2006 Marudubshinki deleted "Playstation network" (agree with justificaions re CITE and crystal ball)

Since you are all SO sure everything is unverifiable....

I've added a verify tag on this article. Pure inuyasha 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not everything there is unverifiable, kid. Most of it can and has been verified. --HQ 02:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

All things discussed in this article are verified and properly cited. I have removed the tag. If you can point out some specific instances where you feel it is unverified please re-add the tag in the section that you see a problem with, and list them here so they can be dealt with accordingly. Seraphim 02:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In the bit about the storage it says that it will have a removable hard drive with linux installed. this is not verified. Pure inuyasha 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your correct, linux is not verified, I missed that section when removing all the linux information from the article. Thanks for pointing out what I missed. Seraphim 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The harddrive isn't verified either. Pure inuyasha 02:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed to have HDD, unconfirmed whether or not it comes standard or will be soled alone. --HQ 02:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Famitsu magazine (a very reliable source when it comes to Japanese games and systems) has already clearly stated that the PS3 will indeed have a hard drive, just that it will be sold seperately. [4] Daniel Davis 02:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Bad example in this case :p he's doing this because the PSNetwork info by PSM is unverifiable Seraphim 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Also the HD is confirmed by Sony in the Specs they released at e3. Where it clearly states "2.5" Hard Drive". If you want confirmation just watch the video it's the bottom link :) Seraphim 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that the article states the size of the initially availiable hard drive will be 80GB, care to add that part in as well? Daniel Davis 03:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, sony has never officially stated the size of the harddrive, if we included that, we would also have to include the PlayStation Network information from PSM. Their only comments so far is that whatever size they offer will be too small. The specs that sony released at E3 are posted at ign and it says "Storage: Detachable 2.5" HDD slot x 1" we have no official information on the harddrive size. Seraphim 03:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"In recent interviews with the Japanese press, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said that he expects the initial capacity of the PS3's hard drive to be 80GB."

So... Is Ken Kutaragi considered to be official? Daniel Davis 03:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

If you can find a link to a translation of the interviews i'm all for adding it. (if we just use that article, we would be saying "Famitsu says, that Ken Kutaragi said" and as we can see from the "confirmation" of Linux on the harddrive, getting access to the actual interview is the only trustworthy source. Seraphim 03:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the original actual Nikkei Buisness Magazine interview article: [untranslated]

And [here] is a translation of the interview. Daniel Davis 04:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Works for me, put the actually quote in there, so like "2.5" HD which according to Ken Kutaragi in an interview with "Nikkei Business Magazine" (translated) will be available in 80GB and 120GB.". You have to specify that Ken said it since it is not an official sony Press Release. Seraphim 04:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

BD-RE and BD-RW?

What is the difference between BD-RE and BD-RW? The wikipedya entry about Bluray only mentiones BD-RE as rewriteable. Perhaps we need to update the Bluray entry? --Pinnecco 08:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

From the official Blu-Ray Disk site [5] "As with CD and DVD, Blu-ray Disc media comes in pre-recorded, recordable and rewritable variants. The pre-recorded disc is called BD ROM, and usually contains movies or re-issued TV shows in High Definition format. The recordable disc is called BD R, and can be used for archival of huge amounts of data or video. The rewritable disc is called BD RE, and offers the same large capacity in a disc format that allows for repetitive usage." So BD-RW doesn't exist. Seraphim 09:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PS3 not to include a HDD as a standard feature confirmed

If you go to http://playstation.com/products.html and scroll to the bottom of the Playstation 3 spec sheet it says "Storage Media(HDD, "Memory Stick", SD Memory Card, and Compact Flash) are sold separately." This is now confirmation that the PS3 will not come with a HD standard (Sony has already confirmed only 1 SKU this will not be like the Xbox 360 with 2 versions, 1 with and 1 without a HD) Seraphim 06:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

PS3 Tech Spec

I dunno if you all wiki have the tech spec (real) or not. But here is the tech spec [6]

>x<ino 18:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Merrill Lynch Mfg costs Estimates

How much faith can we have in a company that changes its BOM estimates from $500 to $800? And they can't seem to add up the numbers in their article correctly. I suspect ML drove up their estimate at the urging of Sony because Sony wants initial estimates of the PS3 to be high so that they can look like hero's when they actually deliver the unit lower than rumored . Daniel.Cardenas 13:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, am leaning towards that article being fake. Merril Lynch should know how to add correctly. --HQ 13:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think someone hacked their web site and put it on there? Look at the references in the main PS3 article. The BOM costs add up to $800 but then they say the MFG costs are $900. Not good, but not a severe math error.

Even still, they should at least flat-out state that these are guesses based on stuff that Sony hasn't announced yet. --HQ 15:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Cell chips and BD-Rom drives are already being manufactured and sold. Sony will probably never officially announce the amount of money they loose on each system, I can't think of any electronics manufacturer that ever has. There are companies that specialize in doing Teardowns, if companies just announced everything teardown companies would be out of business. Seraphim 00:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that publicly traded companies are required to release this information. I could be wrong, though. --HQ 02:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope it's considered a trade secret. They will release their total net losses. Seraphim 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I know plenty about semiconductor costs. It is not realistic that Sony is paying $230 per cell processor. Sony would start to look dumb if they paid more than $100 for it. So from that standpoint the article is fake. I suspect BOM costs for the blue-ray drive are also unrealistic. Daniel.Cardenas 14:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sony cannot purchase Cell Chips or BD-ROM drives for less then other people, they are not able to get a discount, they are members of a board on both items they do not own the exclusive rights, and they cannot get a substancial discount over the other board members since they are all in competition.

Sony doesn't purchase period. They build the parts! Xkxdxmx 21:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. They do purchase them, sony is not the only member of either group (cell or blu-ray), nor are they the "leader" of the groups, sony has to pay for them just like everyone else (for example, each cell chip IBM gets money for, each Blu-Ray drive Microsoft gets money for). Also because the tech is liscenced out to 3rd parties, sony cannot charge significantly less for the tech compared to it's competitiors that liscence the tech because it's unfair business practices. Seraphim 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you "purchase" something from yourself where does the money go?

Sony is a joint owner in the Fishkill and Oita (OTSS) fabs as well as owning their own Nagasaki Fab2 (the 3 facilities where the Cell and the RSX will be fabricated). And Sony is 1 of only 2 manufacturers of the laser diode for Blu-ray. Xkxdxmx 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In order to "purchase" something from yourself you have to be the only group that would recieve proceeds from that transaction. That is not the case at all with Cell or Blu-Ray. Even if sony is a joint owner of a cell manufacturing lab and a Blu-Ray manufacturing plant, they still have to pay for the materials, the machines, the labor, the RnD cost (that gets paid back by sales of the developed tech), and most importantly the liscencing costs. For example, if sony was able to get extremely cheap BD-Rom drives why would any of the Blu-Ray group companies even try to go into competition against them? Sony would beable to charge them more for parts, and then sony could just underprice them out of the market. That is very illegal. Sony cannot get a "huge discount" on either the cell or the BD-Rom drive, anyone who claims they will get a "huge discount" is most likely uninformed, or getting their information from a poor source. Seraphim 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are making too many assumptions. I never said that Cell and Blu-ray would be free for Sony, the point is that those technologies will be cheaper for them simply because they make it.

Of course Sony wouldn't price their competitors out of the market: in this case their competitors are their customers! Xkxdxmx 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You're still not grasping the entierty of what i'm saying. Sony cannot get it "cheaper" because sony does not own the technology. Both tech's are owned by groups, each company in the group will get access to the technology at the same cost as all the other groups. For sony since they do the manufacturing, the cost of the actual manufacturing labor will just push the numbers from one division of the company to the other. However they still pay the cost of creating the actual plant, paying the workers, purchasing the material, etc, and then the liscencing costs per chip, the RnD costs, all of that they still have to pay. Sony will not have access to either technology for significantly less then the other companies that co-own the technologies. Seraphim 23:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that any hardware manufactured by Sony will be cheaper for Sony in comparison to those who have to buy the hardware (mark up) from Sony. Example: Sony manufacturers CCD chips. The cost of the chip for Sony's cameras is X (R&D, materials, labor, fabrication, etc divided by the numbers of usable units). Sony sells these same chips to other Camera manufacturers such as Canon, Nikon, Konica Minolta and Olympus at X plus a mark up of Y.

Sony's cost: X

Competitor's cost: X + Y

X < X + Y

Xkxdxmx 23:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In most cases you would be 100% right. However in the cases we are talking about Cell and Blu-Ray they are group owned. Sony is not manufacturing the blu-ray stuff for themselves, they are manufacturing it for the Blu-ray group. They are a group. Sony cannot markup the manufacturing cost for other groups since sony does not sell the stuff to other members of the group. They buy the chips from the group as a whole. Seraphim 00:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are a group. But all the members aren't equal. Read this. Xkxdxmx 00:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The companies that this discussion is about (people who will sell Blu-Ray products) are all on the Board of Directors. They are all equal. Seraphim 01:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no indication that the BDA BOD members share in the cost of hardware production or even that the hardware purchase cost is equal between them. In fact that is counter intuitive. It makes no sense that Disney or WB would have to help pay for blu-ray hardware production or get a special price when they don't even produce or sell hardware. Xkxdxmx 01:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said all the Board members share in the cost.... where did you get that idea from? All I said was that people who sell blu-ray hardware will all have to pay the same cost per drive, Sony will not have access to cheaper BD-Rom drives then pioneer for example. Seraphim 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That was an assumption on my part. I can't imagine any other scenarios where a third party would have access to technology at the same cost as the manufacturer unless the manufacturer was selling hardware at cost. Xkxdxmx 03:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing, they aren't 3rd parties. Seraphim 05:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the BOM Price is 900 dollars, they put down the RSX as costing 70 dollars and over 3 years dropping to 50 dollars. It's obviously a typo, and the RSX is suppossed to go for 170 dollars dropping to 50 dollars over 3 years. Seraphim 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a typo but it wasn't in their estimation of the RSX cost, the typo was the $900. From C|Net :

"Some analysts have suffered addition problems, too. Merrill Lynch wrote in a widely publicized research note that the component bill would total $900, not including a detachable drive, but Merrill later told CNET News.com that it meant to say $800." Xkxdxmx 21:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good info on RSX. Is there more info on the cost you can point me to? Thx, Daniel.Cardenas 13:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, I just assumed the typo was the RSX cost because all the other analyst reports ive seen have the RSX at atleast $120. FOr example from later in that report "Sony teamed with ATI rival Nvidia for its chip, which could cost $120 to $150, according to Dean McCarron at Mercury Research." I guess they really are being conservative in that report. Seraphim 01:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Double-checked the math just in case. Yes, that $100 makes the addition work. I dunno where the $170 comes from, but it seems much more realistic than saying a massively next-gen graphics chip would go for $70 anyway. And anyone who thinks Cell shouldn't cost that much only need to look at the specs- essentially 8x3.2Ghz chips hacked together to form one board... a single top-end (normal) 3.2 Ghz processor currently costs that much. Gspawn 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem i'm having with finding a source to back it up. NVIDIA doesn't release chip prices, so all I can go by is the prices of their chips that have been leaked, however it can't be verified, which can't go in this article. I guess we just sit and wait for the Merrill Lynch correction that should be coming up soon. Seraphim 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A recap of the problems with this report:

1.The $900 BOM estimate is directly contradictory to Merrill Lynch's previous estimate of ~$500. They can't both be correct. Either one or both is wrong.

2.Merrill Lynch can't add? 230 + 70 + 350 + 50 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 80 =/= 900

3.The report is inconsistent in the naming of the product; they use Playstation 3, PlayStation 3, PS3, PS III and PSX III often in the same sentence (the latter two being entirely incorrect).

Xkxdxmx 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Number 1) their previous estimate was before they knew the cost of the big 3 components, the Cell, the BD-Rom Drive, and the RSX. It is not contradictory it is an update, something which financial companies do all the time.

Number 2) They dropped the leading 1 from the RSX price. It's obvious that the RSX is not going to cost 70 dollars and then drop to 50 dollars after 5 years. 70 dollars for a top of the line GPU is absurd. It's suppossed to be 170 dropping to 50, which matches the $900 dollar figure.

Number 3) That make the report less valid how? Merrill Lynch is a prestigious financial group, the reports they put out can cause the stock market to change drastically. I don't think them Getting the capitalization of the name wrong will hurt them in the long run. It should also be pointed out that Sony itself is never consistent with the naming. In it's E3 presentation it uses Playstation 3, PlayStation 3, and PS3. (PS III and PSX III are obviously incorrect) Seraphim 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

1.An almost 2x difference in estimates isn't an "update" it's a shot in the dark ;)

2 and 3.Rudimentary editing mistakes indicate ineptitude. How can we trust their cost analysis if they can't even get the name of the product right?

Xkxdxmx 22:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an update. I think your confusion comes from you not understanding the nature of Merril Lynch as a source. They are not a group of reporters, or a person that just decided to make an article about ps3 missing it's launch date. Merril Lynch is a financial institution that is extremely influential and prestigious. They are held to much much much much higher standards than normal publications due to the fact that they can literraly cause a company's stock value to drop in half by just releasing a report. If they release a report, it is what their researchers and analysts consider to be 100% factual at the current time. Any subsequent reports on the same material is an update to old material with new facts added. In this case the old report had Cell and BD-Rom drives at $101 dollars (which they clearly stated in the report was an estimate) now that they know the cost of Cell and BD-Rom drives they have updated their figures. Seraphim 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly who Merrill Lynch is: a company with a vested interest in the delicate ebb end flow of stock prices.

Don't you think it is a bit odd for such an "extremely influential and prestigious" company with "much much much much higher stands" to have so many rudimentary editing mistakes in an officially published analysis? Xkxdxmx 23:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel there are many mistakes. They typoed a 1 on a chart, and have problary since fixed the article, however since it's a pay article we have to wait for someone to leak that too. People calling the PS3 (PSIII) is not a "huge" issue, I mean people call E³ E3 all the time, when the only correct names for it are Electronic Entertainment Expo, E³, and E³ Electronic Entertainment Expo. It's not a big deal. The content is what is important, not how they label the system. Seraphim 23:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't feel that there are "many mistakes"? How many mistakes does it take to register on your radar? Would you tolerate that many mistakes in this very article?

PlayStation 3 and PS3 are correct, even Playstation 3 is forgivable (even though it is in the paper title). But PS III and PSX III are entirely incorrect (and are used 26 times). Roman numerals are not part of the official PlayStation name (and never have been), even in the original Japanese version. And the PSX is an entirely different product of which there isn't a second generation let alone a third. Xkxdxmx 00:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone like fix that section of the page.

PS3 Source

I dunno if this information has been added, but the ps3 (xboxlive) will be called HUB. It will be released around September. I would add the data, but don't wanna waste my time typing later reverted. Here is the source [7]

>x<ino 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Unofficial. --HQ 02:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only unofficial other unofficial sources said that HUB is one of the many names they are considering. Seraphim 06:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Being Stooges for Sony Marketing Department

I presented my point of view about Sony being a verafiable source at the wikipedia village pump policy discussion. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#About_Future_Products I encourage to post your comments here or there. Here is what I stated:

Articles about future products cite the company as the main source of verifiable information. The problem occurs when the marketing department of a company purposely distorts what is likely to happen in order to gain a market advantage. Example: it is in Sony's interest to keep potential game purchases believing the PS3 will be released soon in order to hold off purchases of XBox 360. It may not matter that there are many credible rumors out there that there is no chance of a significant release of the product within the company stated time frame because the company is verifiable and the other sources aren't. In my opinion Wikipedia policy of NPOV is in contradition with verifiability in this example, since most people looking at the situation would agree on a different release date then the one the company is publishing.

So what is the solution?

   * Don't allow discussion about future products
   * Add a disclaimer to verifiability, saying that NPOV has a higher precedence.
   * Add a disclaimer to verifiability: statements companies make about future products need to be subject to community opinion on probability of being true.
   * Add a policy about future products. Everything is speculation and that the community needs to agree on what is most likely to occur and not the company. Yes company stated information is usually 95% accurate.

In conclusion if we continue the current course of policy we become pawns for companies marketing departments to add credence to their half truths.

What is your opinion? Should articles about future products be about what the company says or should it be subject to our own opinion of what is most likely to happen?

Opinion has no place on wikipedia. The future product tag deals with all of this already. Plus we aren't being stooges, if we were being stooges we would be reporting rumors as fact, like the PS3 hub stuff that anonomous "sources" are pumping out. There is a substancial difference between sony confirming something about the PS3 and PSM saying that "sources say". We report on what the company confirms as fact, and the future product tag clearly says that it is all of a speculative nature. Seraphim 02:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You put on the main article that PS3 is to be released in Q2. That is not fact and is closer to opinion.

From dict.org: From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

stooge - 1: a person of unquestioning obedience [syn: flunky, flunkey, yes-man]

You take what Sony says and plaster it on the article with out questioning.

Daniel.Cardenas 03:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not opinion at all. Sony has re-confirmed as of yesterday that they will release the PS3 in spring 2006. How is that in any way opinion? If that information is to be removed we might as well blank the article, since everything comes down to sony comments. Might as well take out the entire Hardware specifications section, the INterface section, the SDK section, the Online services section, the Backwards compatability section, and take out all the pictures of the console since that is all content that has that little "subject to change" disclaimer on them. Seraphim 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Sony said it. It is not fact that it is going to be first available in Q2 2006. Fact is something that is true. You can't state something is going to happen in the future as fact. If something may not be true, then it is not fact. What happens if the PS3 is not released in Q2? Since it is not fact, then what is it? To state a release in Q2 2006 is either wishful thinking, opinion, undying believer in the word of Sony, etc...

>If that information is to be removed we might as well blank the article, since everything comes down to sony comments.

The stuff that is hard to swallow we can either

• Don't list it
• Say it in a skeptical manner: Sony says this, but many others don't think so.

Daniel.Cardenas 03:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Official Release date for the Playstation 3 is Spring 2006. That is a fact. Seraphim 05:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it mention that it "will" be released at any specified time. It only mentions the expected release time. Q2 2006 is the official expected release and nothing more. All of your points are void as they are covered in the future products disclaimer at the top of the page. Obviously nothing can be verified from the future, and that is common sense.

Your definition of "stooge" describes the obedience as "unquestioning". Sony has been "questioned" about these things and they have either opted not to comment or have confirmed what they've already said. I'm not sure what you expect short of interrogation. Also, wouldn't your option of adding "but many others don't think so" be giving in to POV unless conclusive evidence was cited for their reasoning? The disclaimer does cover speculation, but it shouldn't be encouraged. However, if a very credible source can debunk anything and backup their claim then it is noteworthy. --Kamasutra 22:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean to you?

First available Q2 of 2006 [1]

The article is telling people that it is going to be available Q2 2006, which of course for North America it is not. Daniel.Cardenas 12:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that the North American launch is going to be in q2 2006? If it says anywhere in the article that the North American launch is in Q2 2006 then it should be removed. Seraphim 13:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I just looked through the article and nowhere in the article does it say that it will be avaliable in north american in Q2 2006. It says "Sony is hoping for a Q2 2006 launch" and "First available Q2 of 2006", both of which are 100% true and verifiable. Seraphim 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this look familiar? (User showed the infobox from the main article page, I have removed it because it destroyed the talk page layout ~Sera) Daniel.Cardenas 13:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it looks familiar, it says "First available Q2 of 2006" which is what I said in the post you just responded to. Seraphim 13:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So you believe that "First availabile Q2 of 2006" is true? Who do you think is going to be able to get a PS3 in Q2 of 2006? Are you talking about internal Sony developers? Misleading at best. Daniel.Cardenas 14:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

???? Sony has stated that the release date for the PS3 is Q2 of 2006. That means people will beable to purchase it in Q2 of 2006. It will be "First available" for purchase in Q2 2006, I am not following your argument at all.. we already established that sony announced Q2 of 2006 to be the release date... Seraphim 14:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a consumer product and therefore availability implies for the consumer. The same can be seen for all other products on Wikipedia -- past, present, and future. Unless you have proof that Sony is wrong then their word is the most authoritative source with respect to their product. After all, who knows more about it than them?

I'd like to also direct you to other future events as examples. 2008 Summer Olympics states in its infobox the location and dates for future events. Any number of factors could change these, but nevertheless that information is true to the best of anyone's knowledge. Again, nothing from the future can be verified, but that is covered in the disclaimer at the top of the page. It seems that the source of your confusion may be in not understanding this disclaimer. --Kamasutra 17:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

>that information is true to the best of anyone's knowledge.

Have you read PS3 news articles? They are many reports that state it is not true. The only people who believe that is true to the best of anyone's knowledge are the ones who believe Sony without questioning. There are reports from fired Sony employee about the stage of development. There are reports from 2nd tier manufacturors that say Sony is not ready. Developers say it isn't going to happen. The list goes on and on. Since people have some sort of obligation not to out-right report this info, it is reported as rumor. Anyone who following this knows the truth and knows when rumor can be believed, not believed, or somewhere inbetween. Sony itself has given two disclaimers that it is not true. One by saying that unless the blu-ray spec is finalized soon, the date won't be meant. Also in their CES press release did not state Q2 release date. Contrary to what Seraphim has stated several times, there hasn't been a recent press release by Sony stating Q2 release. It only quotes and IGN article that says Sony says. Hearsay. Daniel.Cardenas 18:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"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." that's from febuary 20th. "Sony Computer Entertainment has reaffirmed it's aim to release the PlayStation 3 in spring." That means that their current release date is Q2 2006. They don't need to put out a new press release because nothing is changing. Spring 2006 has been their release date since E3 last year, and it still says Spring 2006 on their website. 3rd parties can do all the analysis they want, but it does not change the fact that the current release date for the PS3 is Q2 2006. There is NO RUMOR. Rumor is stuff that is printed in PSM that says "sources say" or "my friend told me" sony has officially confirmed that their release date for the PS3 is 2006. In this article that is law. YOu can post all the sources you want that speculate that sony is going to miss the launch date, but that is all they are doing, speculating. I do not understand why you cannot understand that sony has stated that the official release date will be Q2 2006, you can verify it from atleast 3 places now. If your going to consider stuff that sony says unconfirmed hearsay you need to delete basically the entire article. People have already explained this to you on the pump where you posted for commentary. If you cannot realize that the release date is Q2 2006, i think you need to look inside at yourself and re-evaluate if you should be editing future-release articles, since you are unable to understand the difference between official information and rumor. Seraphim 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What is your source of "Sony ... reaffirms..." info? Its rumor if it didn't come from Sony. Yes it says Spring on Sony's web site, but that was listed last year. They haven't changed that part of their web site since last year. They listed more recent information at CES. Give us something from Sony with a date after CES. If someone else posted the IGN type link you would delete it as rumor. But it agrees with your opinion so you listed it as fact. Daniel.Cardenas 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you read any of my posts at all? On the 20th of Feburary Sony Public Relations told IGN that they are still on track to launch in the spring. You seem to be confused as to what rumor is. If sony says something, it is not rumor, it is official. For example did you notice how we have HD sizes listed, and the fact that the HD is not going to be standard listed. Do you know where that came from? That came from stuff that "sony said". What I remove is stuff that is sourced to "sources say" or "insiders say". The source of the new Q2 launch is NOT IGN it is Sony. IGN is reporting on what Sony said. This is not like PSM who reports on what "sources say" and don't list their source. There is a huge difference between official information and speculation.

You asked for something with a date after CES http://ps3.ign.com/articles/690/690176p1.html that was posted by IGN on Febuary 20th from the sony PR department "We cannot comment on analyst reports. At the present, we're aiming for a spring 2006 launch, just as planned.".

Once again, On February 20th, Sony PR said "we're aiming for a spring 2006 launch". Seraphim 19:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this is IGN saying Sony said. It is not Sony saying something directly. This is known as hearsay or in other words rumor. These are definitions used in a court of law. Where are you getting your definitions from? Daniel.Cardenas 19:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is sony saying something directly, sony said something to IGN and Ign reported it. IGN quotes the sony rep, that means it's exactly what the sony rep said. You need to calm down and take a step back and think about what you are saying. You are getting paranoid due to all the rumors that people try to post on this page, and are apparently unable to see the difference between someone quoting sony, and someone quoting a non-sony source. I'm going to stop replying to this since nothing productive can come of it since you do not seem to be listening to reason. I will make it very clear, sony has said that Q2 is the release date, that is the information that will be reflected in the article since that is the only verifiable information on a release date, if you change it you will be replacing verifiable information with rumor, that will be vandalism, and will be reverted as such. There is no discussion on this matter since you are flat out wrong. 4 people have told you this since you posted this section and nobody has agreed with you.Seraphim 20:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

fyi: from: http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-gh.aspx

Hearsay - Any evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them. For example, if Bob heard from Susan about an accident that Susan witnessed but that Bob had not, and Bob attempted to repeat Susan's story in court, it could be objected to as "hearsay." The basic rule, when testifying in court, is that you can only provide information of which you have direct knowledge. In other words, hearsay evidence is not allowed. Hearsay evidence is also referred to as "second-hand evidence" or as "rumor." You are able to tell a court what you heard, to repeat the rumor, and testify that, in fact, the story you heard was told to you, but under the hearsay rule, your testimony would not be evidence of the actual facts of the story but only that you heard those words spoken.

Think of Bob as Ign and Sony as Susan. Daniel.Cardenas 20:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Q2 means April to June right. And its febuary now. Thats a long time. I can't see why you are so uncertain about this. The only infomation I've got supposedly from Sony is that they are 'aiming for spring release' - thats Q2. HappyVR 19:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a debate going on here as to the validity of two separate types of sources - manufacturers and journalists. Frankly since journalists produce nothing more substantial than paper I tend to regard ants slightly more highly. In general the manufacturer of a product has a clear advantage in believability. (even if it's Sony) (and please stop arguing)HappyVR 19:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The controller

I removed this:

Also possibly complicating the controller design is Sony's ongoing legal battle with Immersion Corporation of San Jose. In March 2005, Sony and Microsoft were sued by force-feedback company Immersion for patent infringement for the use of vibration functions in their controllers. While Microsoft settled out of court, Sony continued to defend the case. Sony lost, and has been required to pay considerable royalties to Immersion and suspend the sale of the controllers, including all PlayStation and PlayStation 2 console packages containing them. Sony has appealed this decision and will be able to sell its products while the case is under appeal.

My reason is that this (i.e. the patent 'battle') doesn't affect the exterior design which seems to be the point of contention here.HappyVR 00:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I removed this:

Unconfirmed reports suggest that the PS3 may in fact support the older DualShock 2 controllers, however, this is thought to be true due to the PlayStation 3 striving to attain backwards compatibility. The number of ports to support such backward compatibility would most likely be limited to one, although this is also an unconfirmed rumour. The PS3's specifications, and E3 display units, don't support DualShock controller ports. Though Sony itself had previously admitted at this past E3 that the controller design for their PlayStation 3 console was not finalized, GameSpot believes any purported changes will not be substantial. Their downplays concerning a rumor suggesting Sony would unveil a revamped PS3 controller at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2006 were sound, as the controller was not shown in any form during the event.

My reason for removing this was the lack of references supporting it. As for the final shape and function of the controllers I guess we will have to wait and seeHappyVR 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both removals. The Immersion lawsuit is not because they have vibration functions, it's a lawsuit about how the game interacts with the vibration mechanism (force-feedback). Also that's a huge section with 0 reference links. "unconfirmed rumor" doesn't belong here. Seraphim 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia is for facts, not rumors. Dionyseus 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Merrill Lynch

User:SeraphimIX stated in an edit summary "Manufacturing costs - the old ml article is obsolete, it stated that they were using estimated costs for alot of things, the new one is an update with actual costs, they consider the old one false" but in the new article (.pdf file page 3 top right table) these costs are still estimates. I haven't found any cross reference between the two estimates - Can anyone provide a reference? My reason for adding the older estimates was that I felt it gave the necessary 'pinch of salt' to these figures - I have no reason to be believe that they are either 'right' or 'wrong'. I also have no reason to believe that ML has access to Sony's 'cost sheets' either.( I consider them at best educated guesses.) Do these two ML articles really have any more validity than any 'Joe Blogg's' guess on any talk page? If there was a rumour section in this article (as there is in the Nintendo Revoluyion article) I would put this ML stuff there.. Especially in the absence of any evidence that these analysts know anything about the costs manufacturing electronics. I could go on.HappyVR 01:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This new ML article is also based on estimates with little or no actual costs. There's nothing that would set it apart as "more accurate" from the original one. --HQ 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The nature of the ML reports are that they always report with the best numbers they have. The new report is based on the most up to date information they have, usually from insiders. It would be illegal for them to simply "estimate" numbers and not say it's an estimate. Infact in the report they talk about their old numbers, and the new information they have. They also mention that $230 for the cell is the minimum cost they expect "at least". By updating their numbers they assert that their old numbers are now obselete and false. The old report's numbers are no longer backed by ML and is therefore not a viable source. Seraphim 03:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that their old report had a disclaimer in it saying that no numbers were avaliable on the Cell RSX or Blue-Ray drive and that the report was "based on the assumption that the Blu-Ray drive, Cell chip and RSX graphics processor will cost around $101". Now that they have figures for the Drive and Chips they released an update. The assertation in the old report is false therefore the entire report is invalid. Seraphim 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks - I now know why the old report no longer applies. However it still seems a matter of debate as to whether the new figures are actually more accurate. (I agree with User:HQ). I'm suggesting that the report has no validity and should not be included at all. However I'm not really qualified to judge - but neither is there any evidence that the analysts at Merrill Lynch have any real infomation to work on either. If I describe myself as an independant finacial analyst and produce a web page containing a pdf document estimating the cost to produce a PS3 as less than £200 would that qualify for inclusion in any encyclopedia? By comparison my hypothetical report seems to have no less validity than Merrill Lynch's. The web is full of infomation 'from insiders' and I would recommend that any reference to Merrill Lynch be removed from the page.HappyVR 04:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way the hardward specifications section is way out. After the introductory paragraph the text reads:

According to a press release by Sony at the May 16, 2005 E3 Conference, the specifications of the PlayStation 3 are as follows. [9]

But the following text

a. Does not match sony's released specs accuratly

   e.g. there is 1 vmx on ppe the vector units on spe are not identical to vmx
         and some extra info has been included e.g 76.8 GB Cell FlexIO bus (not in sony's pdf) must be from ibm?

b. The tech data is interspersed with extraneous info

   e.g. NVidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang stated during Sony's pre-show press conference at E3 2005 that the RSX will be more powerful than two GeForce 6800 Ultra video cards combined.

I don't think anything here is incorrect? but it could do with cleaning up and references included to the new infomation - its become disjointed. Also some tech info has gone e.g. ppe cache size, spe local mem . Anyone ?HappyVR 04:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to hardware specs

I have attempted to clean this up a bit. The introduction states the info is from a sony conference [8] so any data not from this should have its own reference. Below are the bits that need references:

• 204.8 GB/s Cell EIB
• 76.8 GB/s Cell FlexIO Bus (44.8 GB/s outbound, 32 GB/s inbound)

These are cell specs but were not in the above reference

Also this I think may be technically incorrect unless infomation is provided showing that the RSX can simultaneously read or write from two separate memory locations at the same time:

Since the RSX is connected to the XDR DRAM and GDDR3 RAM similar to a Turbo Cached GPU it can access both memory locations at the exact same time. This gives the RSX an effective 48 GB/s when sending data to/from GPU and RAM.

This info is not from the pdf and is duplicated in the RSX section I intend to remove it soon:

NVidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang stated during Sony's pre-show press conference at E3 2005 that the RSX will be more powerful than two GeForce 6800 Ultra video cards combined.

HappyVR 17:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The "204.8 GB/s Cell EIB" spec is taken from IBM's cell performance review which is cited on the main page.

The "76.8 GB/s Cell FlexIO Bus" metric refers to the bus between the Cell and the RSX not between the RSX and RAM.

Xkxdxmx 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also this:

The 8th SPE is there for redundancy: if one of the other 7 are defective the 8th SPE will activate and stand in for the defective part.

I suggest removing this. Was this speculation - from what I have read it seems that it is now thought that the eigth SPE will be used for DRM. Does anyone have the most recent answer?HappyVR 17:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of your edits are good, I've just cleaned up some units conventions. I've additionally removed the bit about "each SPE having a VMX unit" since it's utter BS and I have no idea how it even creeped into the article. Each SPE IS a self-contained vector unit; the VMX-128 unit is an AltiVec implementation with 128-bit wide internal registers and is part of the PPE (you can see this in the die layout photos). The 8th SPE is definitely for redundancy and (more accurately) to increase functional IC yield at the factory. There's a solid first-hand source that confirms this, but I can't remember it off the top of my head. -- uberpenguin 18:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

new page

I have suggested this page be archived soon and a new talk page started because the page is getting very long.HappyVR 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Too much (now)worthless junk. --HQ 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10