Talk:PlayStation (console)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Date format and type of English

Since the other PlayStation-related articles on Wikipedia use month day year dates and American English, it makes no sense to use day month year dates and British English since Sony is a Japanese company. Should we change the date format and type of English in this article to make it equal with the other PlayStation articles? DBZFan30 (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to change it, especially when conventions are in place. Please see MOS:RETAIN. JAGUAR  00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jaguar: I've discussed this issue with Ferret and Dissident93 on another talk page. Dissident agreed with me saying "I agree that it's a dumb system, and Wikipedia should perhaps reconsider its policy on this". DBZFan30 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, ENGVAR is among Wikipedia's most flawed guidelines and should definitely be changed, but I strongly doubt that will happen. MOS:RETAIN is the port in the storm, so as a rule of thumb articles with neutral ties should retain their original spelling/date variants. JAGUAR  21:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Articles have to be discussed on case by case basis. That said, I just don't see a big reason to change it. MOS:RETAIN applies for now and there's no strong argument to change it such as national tie. -- ferret (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

JoshuaRuiz1776 (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC) JoshuaRuiz1776 (3/15/17) Hello fellow Wikipedians, I agree with the fact that since other PlayStation-related articles on Wikipedia use a format of M/D/YR, and standard American English, there should be no use for M/YR/D and other versions of English (British English), since Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) is an overseas company formed in Japan. JoshuaRuiz1776 (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: @Ferret: Japan doesn't use British English and most Japan-related articles (including every article about the Dragon Ball franchise) use mdy dates and American English. That's why we should change the date format and type of English in this article. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Why? It got changed on Breath of the Wild because nobody liked it, and this seems to be the case here. There's no reason to change it just because nobody likes it. JAGUAR  08:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jaguar: Everyone knows that Sony and Nintendo are not British companies. There is always a valid reason to change the date format and type of English. Like I said before, Sony is NOT a British company, which is why I want the date format on this article to be changed. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
They're not American companies either. So there is no reason to change it to a date format that only America uses. There is nothing wrong with the current date format, so stop worrying about something so trivial. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree, time to drop the stick on this one. Zelda had a valid argument that the first prose date format was MDY. In this case, no such argument exists. While articles should be open to discussion if there is a rationale for changing it, these sections seem to mostly hinge on "I like it" and sometimes "Other related articles are X". MOS:RETAIN is against these types of arguments and is meant to prevent wasting time. DMY is not "British dates" but essentially "International non-US dates", and is the default. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The1337gamer and @Ferret: Can we at least change the type of English to American English since Japan doesn't use British English? DBZFan30 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Erm, no. Japan doesn't use American English either... There is no valid reason to change it. --06:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@The1337gamer: @Ferret: I don't understand why people have to disagree with my suggestions all the time. From now on, I will no longer take "no" for an answer. The correct answer is "yes, I agree that the date format and type of English should be changed". Please agree with me for once. DBZFan30 (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Direct statements that you plan to edit against consensus and the MOS can lead to a block if you do so. Please desist in making such statements and claims. You haven't even provided a rationale or argument this time. The answer remains "no". -- ferret (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request - D-Pad Reference

Since I'm new to Wikipedia, didn't want to do this myself...

The article mentions the PS1 did not use a D-Pad, however the Playstation blog itself specifically says they did:

https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2010/09/16/the-evolution-of-the-playstation-controller/

"PlayStation hit shelves and, along with the D-pad, came four shapes – triangle, circle, X and square – that, together, would visually represent a new global culture." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.219.193 (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


The original Playstation controller definitely used a D-pad, you push on one part, the rest move, I know what the article meant though, it's the 1st(only?) D-pad to have it come up through the plastic in 4 different places, rather than be completely uncovered like most D-pads. Lmcgregoruk (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a D-Pad in that the internals work like you would expect. In fact I would say that a regular D-Pad actually uses four "buttons" internally. What makes them a D-Pad is the pivoting actuator, or, said another way, the fact that you can not push down and up/left and right at the same time. The Playstation controllers are no different in that regard. Irrogalp (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Date of discontinuation

I'm a bit confused here; the article has two sources with two different dates of when console is no longer in production. First is 23 March 2006 from one source from GameSpot. Another is 31 March 2005 from Sony's Cumulative Production Shipments of Hardware where the production shipments stops at 102.49 million from that date onwards. Thoughts? – Hounder4 00:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The Gamespot source seems oddly suspect here. I find it strange that it seems to also claim Sony announced 100 million units surpassed, in Sept 2005, but the corporate data says they hit that mark in May 2004. Perhaps software was discontinued later, but the corporate data seems pretty clear that hardware stopped in 2005. -- ferret (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed the date to 2006 according to the source. Dpm12 (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on PlayStation (console). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Copy protection wobble

Hi guys,

The claim that authentic discs featured a wobble is contradicted in the current version of the "Copy protection" section:

"The installation of an unofficial modchip allowed the PlayStation to play games recorded on a regular CD-R. Since it worked by injecting the correct region data into the stream it also allowed the console to play games from any region."

Also, I've personally experimented with many models of PlayStation 1, and have consistently found that various non-wobble discs are fully readable and usable by these PlayStations.

InternetMeme (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the source we have. The fact that modchips inject the necessary information doesn't contradict the claim. Your own experiments are WP:OR. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:OR applies only to article content, not talk page discussions. If you think there's a flaw in InternetMeme's experiments, just say so.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Removing sourced content from an article (and he did) on the basis of "I experimented" is OR , essentially saying he did his own original research. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. -- ferret (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I spent some time reading several other sources in an effort to get to the bottom of this "wobble" terminology. What I found was that the word "wobble" was describing a modification of the standard smooth spiral data track into a wavy spiral data track. There is never any type of wobble (as can be easily tested by spinning a disc at high speed in a standard CD-ROM drive). However, there is a wavy portion of a data track. If you can think of a better term, feel free to improve my edit. I don't know of any better way to describe a spiral with a sinusoidal component added to it.
Here is the most authoritative source:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6304971
InternetMeme (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This is fine. In the end, you're just changing terminology. "Wobble" is an informal way of suggesting a wavy "wobbly" path. Not that the disk itself wobbles but that the path did. Changing the terminology is fine if its clearer. Removing it entirely was not. -- ferret (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not just changing terminology. Removing it was an improvement because it previously said the discs had a wobble, which is extremely misleading, and only indirectly related to terminology. However, instead of just removing it, it's better still to point out that the data track is wavy. It didn't have a wobble, as a wobble is a chronological fluctuation, whereas "wobbly"—or better still, "wavy"—can also describe a spatial fluctuation. Still, I'm happy to hear you're okay with the current wording.
Anyway, the takeaway is that words such as "wobbly", "wiggly", and "wavy" can all describe both spatial and chronological fluctuations, whereas the word "wobble" (being a verb) describes only a chronological fluctuation.
InternetMeme (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No mention of errors?

Is there a reason why errors such as Fearful Harmony, Personified Fear and Forbidden Image aren't mentioned here or are they just not notable? CyanoTex (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've personally no idea what you're even talking about, so my initial guess is not notable. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss them? -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, all three errors I mentioned by name are PlayStation errors. Fearful Harmony happens if a non-PSX game is inserted, Forbidden Image is if a PC Disc is inserted and Personified Fear happens when the BIOS is corrupted. Although, I don't think these errors got any notable news articles or mentions AFAIK. So, I suppose it isn't notable, but I thought it'd be interesting to bring them up. CyanoTex (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah none of this is notable. It's trivial information about oddities that happen when you do things the device isn't designed for. -- ferret (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

New Nintendo + Philips info

Kotaku article. It's really weird, and possibly means that some events that were described in books, in fact, never happened. -Lone Guardian (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A possible hoax about Gates's statement

Hey guys. I have noticed a high probability of a hoax; I am translating this article to other language and verifying at the same time, and the Gates's statement, that was added by this commit, strucks me as pretty dubious. I cannot find anything on the Internet with that statement, that is dated before 2012, an year of this addition. I have also noticed that this editor also sourced some statements using that source in a Nintendo 64 article. Noting that the editor also left wiki that day, I have a serious question – does that article even exist? --Lone Guardian (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable challenge worth looking into. I will say that stories have circulated in several publications suggesting that Microsoft attempted to woo Sony executives in the mid-to-late 90s before PS2's announcement (and likely while it was under development). Here's one such article: The making of the Xbox – VentureBeat. Though there isn't a lot of coverage (and I'm sure some of it is speculative rumor), it wouldn't be much of a surprise if Gates did say something along those lines. But as that article I linked to points out, DirectX was already a viable platform by that time and was critical to the company's continued success in the PC gaming market. Therefore, it would be odd for him to suggest that a Microsoft game designer "likes the Sony machine". What is the value in that statement? What exactly did they like? Did one of the game designers just like playing the PS1 at home in his spare time? It definitely needs more context even if verifiable. I think there are plenty of details from the VentureBeat article and others that we can add in its place. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone do that? Also, as a followup, if no one will be able to verify that Gates statement, I'll remove it in 30 days. --Lone Guardian (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I have finally came around to it. I wasn't able to find it, but that isn't a problem. I suspect that the statement holds no value in the launch section without additional context, so I have removed it and rewrote the launch section. -Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Personified Fear listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Personified Fear. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Why not Japanese name?

Hi wikipedians!

Yesterday, a I put Japanese name on all PlayStation articles, but all my edits was reverted, nobody explain why, in es.wikipedia (Spanish wikipedia) in all articles appear the name in Japanese, so, I added on PlayStation 5 (Spanish wikipedia) and nothing happened, so, I had the idea to add the Japanese names in all PlayStation articles in English wikipedia and this happened, I need an explain of why my edits get reverted, but that doesn't means that all is to be as I want, if I wrong, so sorry

David/デビッド| Let's go! 14:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

They’re all really global products at this point. And it’s called “PlayStation 4” everywhere. We don’t need a Japanese translation. It doesn’t benefit anyone. Why would an English reader need to know that PlayStation 4 translates out to Playstation 4 in Japanese? Who does this help? Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Harvard style citations

Ferret has brought to my attention that per WP:CITEVAR changing an article's citation style is discouraged without seeking consensus. My intention is to get this article to GA after botching it six years ago. I was in the process of adding and converting Harvard-style citations with the desire of standardising most of these refs to harv. I hadn't realised they were discouraged from video game articles, or any topic for that matter, though one can notice the lack of Harvard-style citations in most articles. I think this is a shame as especially for in-depth articles harv refs bring convenience to both the reader and writer in citing specific pages of books and magazines, which this article will soon rely quite heavily on. There is also the added boon of having a bibliography which offers easy access. A good example of this is the recently-revamped Donkey Kong Country. Happy to discuss this - trying to get used to Wikipedia again so my recollection of how things work have been dulled somewhat. Would just like to hear what others think before I continue the rewrite. JAGUAR 22:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to harvard style citations. I feel while they may be helpful to the experienced writer, they aren't as helpful to the reader, as it breaks being able to read the citation in a mouse-over of reference tags, doubles the clicks to resolve a reference (First to the citation list, then to the bibliography), takes up twice as much space (two ref lists essentially, especially problematic for mobile readers), and cause the usage of {{sfn}} which many readers and less-frequent editors are unfamiliar with and BOUND to constantly replace with standard ref tags, especially editing with VE. I don't at all like how DKC is done, and wish I'd had it watchlisted so I could put my two cents in there, but that's in the past. I'm perfectly ok however with moving references out of prose and to the reflist though, if the general goal is to better organize them and clean up the wikitext. The {{rp}} template, soon to be integrated into the ref tag itself, provides for page numbers. -- ferret (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
{{sfn}} is used on 2.5x as many articles as {{rp}}, so the latter is the non-standard implementation, not the former. It also is much more elegant to use {{sfnm}} when citing two books at once than to use [1][2]:45–66[3][4]:563–578 inline. re: not helpful to the reader, they're the standard at FA and if used like they are in Sega Saturn, are not obtrusive by any means. I have not seen a reader complaint that two-click link navigation with {{sfn}} is confusing or unusable, whereas the {{rp}} talk page is filled with such complaints. On the basis of readability alone, this is why {{sfn}} is preferred when citing multiple page ranges from publications. czar 23:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm only suggesting an alternative to specifying page, one that will soon be native to the ref tag itself. The rest of my expressed complaints have nothing to do with page specification. I'll also reiterate that my complaint here began due to conversion of basic web citations from an established reference style to Harv. These aren't books or journals, and are not new references. -- ferret (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Would the citation style used in Sega Saturn#Citations work for you? It keeps the web refs the same and uses short footnotes only for the publications with multiple pages. czar 02:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. If all he'd been doing was adding a few new bibliographies, my attention wouldn't have been drawn. It was the deliberate conversion of multiple web sites from existing style to Harv that drew my attention. -- ferret (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:PlayStation (console)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 22:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


I’ll have a go. Comments very soon. Indrian (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I will give this a full review, but right off the bat we have a serious source problem. This article cannot be considered complete without incorporating material from Revolutionaries at Sony. Indrian (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the review so promptly, Indrian. I know I can count on a thorough review. The article already features a diverse bibliography, among which there are books I own personally. Unfortunately I haven't seen a copy of that, though the scan that exists is a limited preview, I'm not sure where else I could access it - if I could access it I would of course love to use it. I'll keep searching. ♦ jaguar 23:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
You can "borrow" that scan for 1 hour/14 days if you'll log in into archive.org -- it's available right now for borrowing. Should be enough to make screenshots for a personal use. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I had been waiting to see if some material from the book would trickle into the article, but so far I do not think it has. I will start doing a formal review shortly, but a lot of it will be about incorporating key material from the book. GA is not FA, so comprehensiveness is not a requirement, but without some of this material, the article does not meet the requirement for broad coverage. Indrian (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the delay, Indrian. I've been busy this month with tackling my final year of university, among other things, so editing activity has been slow. I've spent the past few days combing through the book and implementing material into the article. The history section is beefier as a result; I've added more content regarding Kuturagi and Ohga's strife with Sony's board, early development and attracting third-party developers. If you think there's any other lack of coverage please let me know. I can of course add more once we start going through section by section. ♦ jaguar 22:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No worries at all on taking some time on this. I will start the formal review very soon. I appreciate the effort you have put into the article and into integrating the new material. Indrian (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I volunteered to take over a FAC for a user that had to suddenly leave due to IRL issues, which has absorbed the majority of my Wikipedia time. I certainly do not want to hold this review hostage, so if Jaguar wants to request another reviewer, they are welcome to do so with no hard feelings from me. Otherwise, I will return to this once the FAC resolves. My sincere apologies for the delay. Indrian (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently in my final week of university so things have been very hectic lately. Like any idiot student I've left things until last minute and have six days to finish my dissertation, so by all means Indrian the delay is very welcome! I'm happy to wait. ♦ jaguar 19:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Indrian:, are you OK to start the review? ♦ jaguar 12:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Indrian, what is the status of the review? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The status is already stated above. The nominator is more than welcome to get another reviewer if they want. If they are okay waiting, I need to conclude the FAC I unexpectedly took over the other month. The nominator knows this. No hard feelings no matter what the nominator decides. Your meddling is not particularly needed here. Indrian (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Namco is finally done. I will review this next week. I appreciate your patience, though I would have understood if you sought out a different reviewer. Indrian (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You deserve a breather after Namco. No worries Indrian, I know that your expertise will help give this article what it needs. ♦ jaguar 14:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Indrian:, ping. ♦ jaguar 20:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, IRL got super crazy. Should be able to do it late this week or early next. Indrian (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Indrian: are you OK to start the review now Indrian? I should have more free time from now on. ♦ jaguar 19:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This has been going on for seven months. How much longer will this nomination be open? GamerPro64 06:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The nominator and I have stayed in touch during that time. Its all good. Don't worry. Have Guinness ready to witness the record for longest ever open GA. ;) Indrian (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suppose since we are all here, we might as well have a review. Gonna start with a few general observations to get the ball rolling and move into more detail from there. It should not take another seven months to get this over the goal line!.

  • First, the lead feels a little out of order. We go from Sony making the console easy to develop for to them releases a slimmed down model in 2000, then we flash back to the launch. As the article does go chronologically through launch and development, it makes sense to stick with that and mention the commercial success before the release of the new variant. Also, since we brought up that it competed against the Saturn and N64, we should probably also mention how thoroughly it dominated the generation commercially.
  • You have a point. I suppose I subconsciously modelled it on how you would write a typical video game article with intro/development/reception format. I've rearranged the lead to agree chronologically. ♦ jaguar 22:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • We have a similar out-of-order problem at the beginning of the development section. We start by introducing Kutaragi, then we go to the siniging of the deal for the Play Station peripheral, then its back to the SFC sound chip. While the SFC did not release until after 1988, the sound chip deal was first, so the section is a bit disjointed by bringing up the PlayStation before the sound chip, which was the first Nintendo-Sony collaboration.
  • I have tried rearranging the first two paragraphs to put the SFC sound chip before the Play Station peripheral deal. I'm not sure if this makes it look more cluttered and disjointed for a new reader, though. Please take a look. ♦ jaguar 20:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "Yamauchi secretly cancelled all plans for the joint Nintendo–Sony SNES CD attachment. Also unbeknownst to Sony, Yamauchi sent Nintendo of America president Minoru Arakawa (his son-in-law) and chairman Howard Lincoln to Amsterdam to form a more favourable contract with Dutch conglomerate Philips, Sony's rival." - While its true that they did not tell Sony that they were going to violate the agreement until they had the deal with Philips in place, they did give notice before the actual CES press conference. Sony tried to get Nintendo to change its mind and even called Philips, which it was already a partner with on CD technology in general, but everyone was unmoved. Sony decided that since they had a contract, they would announce anyway and let the chips fall where they may. As written, the article implies that Sony only found out about the betrayal after their own press conference when Nintendo announced the Philips deal publicly.
  • Yes, you're right. And it seems that certain modern sources like IGN construe it this way too. Rephrased to better corroborate with Asakura's book. ♦ jaguar 20:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "Sony briefly considered allying itself with Sega to produce a stand-alone console. Sega's CEO at the time, Tom Kalinske, took the proposal to Sega's Board of Directors in Tokyo, who promptly vetoed the idea". - So this is all very confusing (not the article, the actual history), and I am not sure that I can find you sources that completely clear this up, but Kutaragi and the PlayStation and the potential Sega-Sony partnership where different things. The Sega-Sony collaboration is something that the American branches of Sega and Sony cooked up between them separate from Kutaragi approaching Ohga about keeping PlayStation going. It may be worth mentioning in the article, but its not really accurate to say that the PlayStation project or something similar was ever going to be a Sega-Sony collaboration.
  • I'm afraid I can't find anything in Asakura's Revolutionaries at Sony book. To come and think of it I never encountered much clarifying the Sega-Sony relationship whilst writing this, and I get your point regarding accuracy. In the USGamer source Kalinske said "let's jointly market a single system – the Sega/Sony hardware system", which at first glance may allude to a proper console but upon closer inspection suggests something along the lines of a CD-ROM attachment for the Mega Drive. I've clarified that this was discussed among the American branches of both companies, in any case. I'd be grateful if you could direct me to those obscure sources... ♦ jaguar 22:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "Ohga shifted Kutaragi and nine of his team from Sony's main headquarters to Sony Music" - We have some corporate confusion because Sony is a really weird multi-headed beast. The "Sony Music" being referred to here is not the Sony Music linked in the article, which is the US-based organization created when Sony bought CBS Records. Rather its Sony Music Entertainment Japan, which was established in 1968 as a joint venture between Sony and CBS before Sony actually bought CBS Records, and remained a separate entity thereafter. Calling it a "separate financial entity" is not quite right to my understanding, because its still part of the Sony Group, but its certainly a different subsidiary of the company. Also, at this juncture, Maruyama was not yet CEO of SMEJ, but was still managing the Epic/Sony label of SMEJ, which is where Sony's Japanese-based console game and CD-I development was housed. If that all sounds like a confusing mess, that's because it really is.
  • I have amended this. I believe one of the sources referred to Sony Music as being a separate financial entity, and indeed erroneously referred it to as being Sony Music rather than its Japanese subsidiary. I've removed the mention of Maruyama being the CEO and reworded it to being a subsidiary. Corporation language... ♦ jaguar 22:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "This secured the launch of influential new games such as Ridge Racer and Mortal Kombat 3, with the former being the most-popular arcade game at the time." - As this sentence directly follows the info about Namco, the structure implies it was securing Namco's support that game them Mortal Kombat 3, which is not the intent of the article.
  • Rephrased. ♦ jaguar 22:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That's it for now. I will have more in the very near future, but I did want to make sure we got things started. Indrian (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Indrian: I've hopefully addressed your preliminary points. Sorry that it took me a week to get back to this, I will be more free from now on. Looking forward to your next round. ♦ jaguar 22:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry it's been awhile again. I have found another potentially useful source. I will complete the review very soon. Indrian (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Indrian: just a heads up that I anticipate to be entering new employment in January and will therefore be very unlikely to commit time to Wikipedia in the new year. I hope that we can get the review wrapped up before then... I don't want to put pressure on ourselves, but just a heads up... ♦ jaguar 23:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@Indrian: I'm sorry Indrian but I'm going to have to ask for another reviewer. I'm wary of time before and after Christmas, but if you wanted to jump in the meantime that would be good. ♦ jaguar 22:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That's totally fine and no hard feelings. I would have done so well before this if it were me. My life has been crazy the past few months, and I have not had the time to give this review the attention it needs. I am glad I was able to point to a few sources and straighten out a few confusing areas. The next reviewer should be able to wrap up fairly quickly. My apologies. Indrian (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Joebro takes over

Well, here goes. I'm going to read through the article and make copyedits as I go along. If I have comments I'll put them here. Big thanks to Indrian for getting this started, and I'll make sure you, Jaguar, get a proper review before the new year. JOEBRO64 19:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

First comments, focusing on the lede:

  • "It was first released on 3 December 1994 in Japan, 9 September 1995 in North America, 29 September 1995 in Europe, and 15 November 1995 in Australia" WP:VG/DATE: "Whenever possible, the release dates in the lead should be summarized to the year of release, or month and year if further applicable." How about "It was released in Japan in December 1994 and in the West in September 1995"?
  • I tried this but condensing it omits Australia's release and I found that it makes the rest vague. Precise dates of release are included on other console articles, so I'll leave it be unless there are other suggestions. ♦ jaguar 17:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "... and was the first of the PlayStation line of video game consoles." I don't think this should be in the first paragraph—it's more of the PlayStation's legacy, given that the PlayStation wasn't destined to be the first in a line of consoles. I'd move this down to the discussion of future consoles in the last paragraph, something like "The PlayStation's success led to a line of successors, beginning with the PlayStation 2 in 2000".
  • Done. ♦ jaguar 17:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think my main issue with the lede is that it doesn't really tell me much about the PlayStation. We're talking about one of the most influential game consoles of all time—and the article's length certainly justifies a longer, perhaps four-paragraph lede. I'd look to the Sega Genesis and Sega CD ledes for inspiration; there's likely plenty of important information in the history, hardware, library, reception, and legacy sections that could be condensed and incorporated in the lede.
  • I've expanded the lead to better summarise the article. ♦ jaguar 21:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Going off the previous comment, I'd restructure the lede to follow this format: developer and distributor/release date/competitors → background/development → marketing/contemporary sales and reception/popular franchises → impact/legacy.
  • Addressed as per above; I've rearranged some parts and segmented it into four paragraphs. ♦ jaguar 21:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

These are the opening suggestions I have. I do emphasize that these are suggestions not necessarily set in stone—I'm more than open to discussing them if there's any contention. I'll be adding more comments over the next few days. JOEBRO64 21:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  • "... (which helped lead to the creation of the DVD)" I'm not really sure if this is relevant.
  • Removed. ♦ jaguar 19:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "While the purchase was controversial at the time..." I've added a {{why}} tag here, since saying the purchase was controversial and then not explaining why it was controversial raises more questions than answers.
  • Removed. A couple of sources did mention the controversy but did not explain why. ♦ jaguar 19:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed two links. ♦ jaguar 19:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "... also being forward compatible with the PlayStation 2, as they use the same connector and protocol." I don't think this is relevant in the Controllers subsection, given that it's about the PlayStation, not the PS2. EDIT: now that I've read through the whole article I think you should definitely remove this since it's mentioned in the Legacy section.
  • Removed. ♦ jaguar 20:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I've noticed the article is a little inconsistent regarding the use of a serial comma in lists. I'm not going to let that get in the way of anything, but I did want to note it. If you bring this to FAC, it may come up.
  • I've inserted commas appropriately. No doubt this would be raised at FAC. ♦ jaguar 20:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Taking a break for now, will finish today JOEBRO64 18:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  • "The initial pack-in games were Jumping Flash! (1995) and Ridge Racer" An inconsistency here—you mention in the Launch section that the PlayStation had no pack-in games at launch
  • I've rephrased this. There were indeed no pack-in games upon launch, but rather those two games were merely available upon launch. ♦ jaguar 19:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "Third-party developers committed largely to the console's wide-ranging game catalogue. At the time of the PlayStation's first Christmas season, Psygnosis had produced around 70% of its launch catalogue" Another inconsistency—you mention in Development that Psygnosis was a first-party developer
  • I've rephrased and moved this sentence to the end of the paragraph. Hopefully that will quell confusion. ♦ jaguar 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "The PlayStation was well received" I'd challenge this as a generalization that requires direct references to back it up. Especially when you consider that the next sentence immediately says that Famitsu gave it a score that's equivalent to a 4.75/10, which isn't exactly a glowing assessment. I'd say the same for Critics in the west generally welcomed the new console
  • I actually think you could cut one of those "well received" statements—we don't need to tell the reader the same exact thing twice
  • Done. ♦ jaguar 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Would you happen to know what exactly Famitsu said in its review? I understand that the score is likely a remnant from before you rewrote the article, but I'm a little weary on including the review if all we have is a score and can't provide the actual commentary.
  • I may be screwed here because I can't find Famitsu issue 335 anywhere, and I'm usually good at searching for obscure magazine prints. Only a limited quantity of scans are on the Internet Archive, and I've had no luck elsewhere. I thought mentioning the Famitsu review scores in the article would satisfy the need for a Japanese perspective, but I'm afraid it's impossible for me to elaborate on context. I'm open to removing it...? ♦ jaguar 22:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to let this hold up the review, but I think the reception section is missing retrospective reception. We've got reviews discussing the PlayStation back in the day—how do critics feel about it now? Are there any retrospectives about it? Maybe look through the more recent PlayStation Classic reviews and see if any critics bring up what they liked/didn't like about the original console.
  • I've had a look through whatever magazines I could access (both physically and online) and couldn't find any solid retrospective reviews, surprisingly. I note that the Sega Genesis and Sega Saturn articles don't offer retrospective reviews, but rather a legacy section similar to the one in this article. I've cleaned up the reception section regardless and will add more reviews if I find them. ♦ jaguar 18:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "ended up going head-to-head with the last major console dedicated to home play to rely on proprietary cartridges—the Nintendo 64" This statement needs to be revisited given that the Nintendo Switch now exists.
  • I've removed this mention and added a footnote. ♦ jaguar 23:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd add comparisons to the NES/SNES Mini and information about the PlayStation Classic bombing commercially in its subsection.
  • Done. ♦ jaguar 19:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I was surprised that the Bleem! controversy isn't mentioned anywhere in this article—is there a place it could be incorporated?
  • Added a new paragraph under the functionality subsection. ♦ jaguar 19:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And that's a wrap, @Jaguar! Sorry you had to wait so long for this review—hopefully my points are useful. JOEBRO64 20:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: that should be that! I've addressed hopefully all of your concerns. I'm open to removing the Famitsu scores since I'm unable to locate the issue (I thought everything was on the internet?) and I've also left the reception section largely intact since both standalone contemporary and retrospective reviews are scarce, and it's a comparable length to other console FAs. Thank you for taking up the review, I'm very grateful Wikipedia's longest GAN is soon to come to an end! ♦ jaguar 19:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
You don't need to remove the Famitsu score if you don't want to; I just commented upon it as I felt like it was one of those things someone might take issue with in a future FAC. Other than that, you need not wait no more. Let's get this sucker promoted. JOEBRO64 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Playstation is the SECOND console to sell 100 million

https://twitter.com/SeroujGhazarian/status/1412861196567515140?s=19 Serouj2000 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


Total number of games released for PlayStation

This page states: " A total of 7,918 games were released for the console over its lifespan" with no source stated. The page titled 'List of PlayStation games (A–L)' states: "There are currently 4105[a] games across both this page (A to L) and the remainder of the list from M to Z."

They can't both be right, and the huge discrepancy is strange. I am surprised that the 7,918 has been allowed to stay up for so long with absolutely no reference and almost every other source giving far lower totals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.118.172 (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Neither is trustworthy. The list's counter simply counts the rows in it's table, and the list may not be 100% complete, or may have odd duplicates or other omissions. -- ferret (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a reference. It is in the body of the article which is where references are meant to be placed, first sentence of the Game library section. redspartatalk 23:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Whoops, didn't even check, assumed the IP had and just commented on how the list isn't trustworthy. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The source link seems to count every region's release of a game as separate, leading to a confusing number. Thus, over on the library page with each game listed out and consolidated without such a split, the number discrepancy is revealed. Not sure why Sony decided the US, Japanese, and EU releases are separate in the total.2600:1702:1690:15F0:B0B4:AF0A:9E29:507A (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PlayStation_(console)/Archive_3&oldid=1216338167"