Talk:PlayStation 3/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Page for RSX 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Where's your source Daniel.  Where's your source that Sony changed it 2006.  Dionyseus 06:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.sony.com/ces/playstation.shtml.  Its listed as a refence in the main page.  Daniel.Cardenas 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That little page cannot be used as evidence that Sony has changed it to 2006.  Dionyseus 06:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gameshout as a reliable source for May Release date? 

message: 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  NeOak 04:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more likely that Sandisk has no idea what they are talking about.  Dionyseus 06:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is more likely they wrote the press release in 2005.  Daniel.Cardenas 16:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Release stated in a SanDisk CES 2006 Press Release 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Alternatively we can add a sentence about what the mfg costs are.  Daniel.Cardenas 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cost and Release date section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Expected Price and release date Jan 11

message: 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)
replies: text: What about the recent Online Pollsby sony? Will they be proof enough?kura 09:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what caused the rumors to start.  It's cause for speculation, not proof. Seraphim 17:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  PS3 Live? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image formats and compression 

message: 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)
replies: text: Also isn't cell suppossed to be worse at branching code? Seraphim 04:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that sounds like a reasonable suggestion. -- Grahn 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding AI suitability 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  DVR capability 

message: Word on the street [] 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Programming difficulty

message: You wish to talk? Pure inuyasha 02:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh...sorry please see section below. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playstation network 

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

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: **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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: From the official Blu-Ray Disk site  "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)
thread_title:  BD-RE and BD-RW? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PS3 not to include a HDD as a standard feature confirmed 

message: I dunno if you all wiki have the tech spec (real) or not.
But here is the tech spec
:>x<ino 18:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PS3 Tech Spec 

message: 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 
:>x<ino 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unofficial.  --HQ 02:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  PS3 Source 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, Wikipedia is for facts, not rumors.  Dionyseus 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The controller

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Re: Merrill Lynch

message: 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)
replies: text: I concur.  Too much (now)worthless junk.  --HQ 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new page