Talk:PlayStation 4/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about PlayStation 4. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Missing Features

On October 31, Sony Entertainement posted PS4: The Ultimate FAQ where it was revealed, among other things, that the PS4 would not have Audio CD playback, MP3 audio or DNLA capability, features present in its predecessor the PS3 for years. In addition, Blu-ray and DVD playback must be enabled by a System 1.50 update, which must be downloaded by the user upon purchase, or can be requested via a mailed disc to activate. Cedarpark4u (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Price in Japan

¥38,980 => ¥39,980 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.151.0.111 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in PlayStation 4

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of PlayStation 4's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gamespot":

From Gearbox Software: "Borderlands 2 opens up September 18". Gamespot. 2012-02-22.
From Mark Cerny: Calvert, Justine. "IGDA Lifetime Achievement Award for Mark Cerny - News at GameSpot". www.gamespot.com. Retrieved 2008-11-26.
From Final Fantasy: Kasavin, Greg (December 12, 2005). "Final Fantasy IV Advance Review". GameSpot. Archived from the original on August 6, 2011. Retrieved August 6, 2011.
From Atari 2600: Gouskos, Carrie. "The Greatest Easter Eggs in Gaming". Retrieved 2008-01-30.
From Hiroshi Minagawa: Hirohiko Niizumi (1 August 2005). "FFXII producer steps down". GameSpot. Retrieved 20 March 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 15 November 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

KR|HK: December 17, 2013^[1]

175.141.117.103 (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The source gives 17 December for HK but only December (no day) for KR. The article is up to date. --Stfg (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Generation X Generation? Redundant

Why does the following console attribute say: "Generation: Eighth generation". It seems really redundant and reads silly too, may I suggest this convention: "Generation: Eight".

Its a little redundant, but it doesn't really strike me as "silly". The way it is now, is how it is across all the video game system articles, so if it were to be changed, the discussion is probably bigger than just the ps4 article talk page. Might be something to be brought up at WP:VG if you really feel this way. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request November 18

"Moving away from the complicated Cell architecture of PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4 features a simpler AMD processor" seems biased. Being complicated is an opinion not a fact. At least it should have sources of who thinks that way. --186.136.86.228 (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought the same a long time ago. What is probably meant is, that it is more complicated to program for (actually the hardware is in some ways simple (the SPEs) that makes programming complicated). I'm not sure how these edit requests work, but people can probably agree on new wording to this effect (and find refs for it). comp.arch (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

PocketStation teaser

Not sure what to make of this, but Sony has made a teaser page on the PlayStation Japan website, with very little information but references the PocketStation. Expect an announcement soon, most likely on November 5. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a new feature of the PS Vita to perform the capability of the PocketStation for the original PlayStation. This will mean that original playstation games downloaded from PSN to PS4 will be able to be used along with the PSVita (PocketStation functionality). Bibliophile scribe (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

PlayStation 4 release date in South Africa

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, would you please change the release date for the PlayStation 4, in South Africa, from December 2013 to 13 December 2013. Source : http://mygaming.co.za/news/playstation-4-news/58847-ps4-in-sa-new-launch-date-confirmed.html \ http://za.playstation.com/ps4/ \ and Many South African Stores for ex. CNA, GAME, Makro and BT Games have confirmed this release date. Anro321 (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Done; I see no reason for doubting these two sources. Hey mid (contribs) 09:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

PlayStation 4 release date in Romania + price

Release date : 29 ianuarie 2014
Price: 1799 RON
Killzone™: Shadow Fall Bundle: 1999 RON

Source: http://ro.playstation.com/news-and-features/ps4announsero/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.10.249 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

99c rounds up to $1

The price of the PS 4 is $399.99. The when it is displayed as a whole dollar amount the price is $400. This is using the wikipedia roundpad function. It is also basic notation that 99c rounds up. Bhny (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Rounding is unnecessary and introduces a factual error. You have been prompted to support this contentious change by adducing relevant MOS or guideline. Kindly do so. — TPX 22:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what rounding is. "399" is a rounding down from 399.99 (to 3 significant figures) . You are rounding the figure. The problem is that it is incorrect to round down 99, it should be rounded up. I used the standard wikipedia function for rounding Template:Rndpad but somehow even that isn't good enough for you. Where do you get the idea that everything should be rounded down? Do you understand the rounding template? Do you understand "round to nearest integer"? - Rounding Bhny (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need rounding because the price is not $399.99, it is $399 according to sources. The1337gamer (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

what source? price here is 399.99 [] [] Bhny (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Our figure simply omits 2 digits. It's a widespread practice ($99 sounds better than $100). You can argue whether this is fair or unfair but that is how reliable sources print the sum. However, the edit by Rounding Bhny introduces a clear factual error, as PS4 is priced $399.99 not $400 as you assert. Rounding has a function, but not in this case. — TPX 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Not in this case? because you say so? Many publications make mathematical errors. That doesn't justify us doing it. Puting the price as $399 is a factual error. Bhny (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Not because I say, no, but because reliable sources say so. 399 is merely an omission; 400 is outright fabrication. — TPX 19:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You haven't provided any source to your strange method of rounding down. I actually added the wikipedia rounding function and your removed it. As an extreme example would you round something that costs $1.99 down to $1, or something that costs 99c down to $0? Bhny (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The prices were announced without the .99c. Here is the video . The press release also lists the MSRP without the .99c: . An article on the PlayStation website lists the price without 99p: . Plenty of websites reported the price without .99c following the announcement of the price and the press release, here are just a few examples: , , , , . These are the source I was referring to. The1337gamer (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Retailers are selling the console at $399.99 though. I think we should just add that to the article and infobox and stop all this useless whining.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Retail prices aren't consistent though. It says in the PlayStation article I listed that "actual retail prices will vary" and this is the case. Amazon UK, Asda, are selling the PlayStation 4 at £349.00, yet Smyths is selling at £349.99. The1337gamer (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

PlayStation 4 release date in Russian Federation + price

Release date: 28.11.2013. Sales start at- 10.00 PM Moscow time (UTC+4), in Moscow & Saint-Petersburg City's "M-Vidio" stores.

http://www.gazeta.ru/tech/2013/11/27_a_5773341.shtml

Prise: 18990 RUB (~572$)

http://spb.mvideo.ru/playstation-4/# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koshak83 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Japanese translation

@ThePowerofX and Bhny: This is in response to a recent removal of content (diff1,diff2). Every PlayStation article currently uses the nihongo template providing a translation of "PlayStation" in Japanese, so if there is consensus to remove it here, it would also need to be removed in the other articles as well. So first and foremost, has consensus already been established? If so, where? --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the archived request for removal. — TPX 23:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The archive consensus was to remove it (3 removes and no keeps). Bhny (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Three people saying "I don't like it" does not make a consensus at all. The current project-wide consensus set forth at WP:VG/JP states that items created by Japanese companies must include the Japanese language name of the item in the lede. The arguments put forth in that 4 month old discussion do not bear any weight. Simply because it was released in an English speaking nation first, or that it is being released internationally, does not preclude the fact that it was developed by a Japanese company. And saying "This is the English Wikipedia" doesn't mean shit when we have so many other articles that discuss and include text from languages other than English. So I have restored the Japanese language text to the lede of the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, I don't recall hinging my argument on "I don't like it". I was pretty certain my argument was that it was a globally released item and name, announced as such, so a translation wasn't really beneficial or accomplishing anything, its not like its a Japanese name that got translated in English. I don't really care that much, so its not like I'm going to really fight for this or not, but come on, its dishonest to misrepresent the oppositions stance so poorly. Sergecross73 msg me 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to endlessly argue this issue with you, Sergecross, or with Masem, again, as we did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#"Translations" of Japanese titles. The fact that it was released internationally is not a reason to omit the information from the article, nor is the fact that it for some reason got released in the US first and Japan isn't going to get it until February. WP:VG/GL advocates for inclusion of the text. A three-person !vote here does not overrule a guideline set forth by the project that is supposed to be looking after these pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comment on it being a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is fine, I'm much more bothered that you cited the opposition as just saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT when that's clearly not what any of them said. Most of the opposition said they didn't really get the purpose of it being there, something I'm still not sure of. You've made it very clear it can be there. But why should it be there? What's the net gain in it being there? Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And I apologize for that. It just seems that considering the previous discussion that we particpated in, it appeared to me that that was the only reason for such. The reason it should be there is because it provides readers with more information that some may find interesting, and it cements the article in an international world view. Again, I really do not want to rehash everything I stated in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#"Translations" of Japanese titles because the arguments there for video game titles hold the same as names of hardware. In addition, the Japanese language text is included on every other article on a PlayStation console (it was previously removed on PlayStation 3 by Bhny but it was restored by other users and myself on multiple occasions) so its omission here leaves this page the odd one out.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a probably a learning process for a lot of us who haven't been a part of the older discussions, or for those who have, perhaps it will provide further clarification. It doesn't matter much to me either on what the outcome ends up being, but I share the same concern as Ryulong that it doesn't make sense to only remove it in the PS4 article. We need a consistent approach across all PlayStation articles, so that those looking after them know how to respond. If we agree that a broader consensus has already been established, then perhaps those wanting to change it should initiate an RFC, or at the very least, readdress it at the WP:VG talk page to give it the wider audience it deserves. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the point being made here is whether or not the PlayStation 4 applies to the consensus that Ryulong is trying to follow. It seems like a unique situation, and a unique consensus needs to be made of whether or not it does apply. Yes, it is developed by Sony, which is a Japanese company. But due to its global release and other factors, it seems like the translation isn't necessary as it isn't necessarily a Japanese product from a certain point of view. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 05:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it is not a Japanese product is really irrelevant. The PlayStation 4 was developed by Sony. Sony is a Japanese company. Therefore this article is a Japanese subject, even if it has come out around the world. These are the same arguments that were put forward when someone tried to say that because Pokémon X and Y were released around the world simultaneously that Japanese text shouldn't be included on the page. The only thing now is that I hate the lead=yes parameter of {{nihongo}}. It makes everything unnecessarily longer which is one of the things that WP:VG so detested in the first place when I participated in the drafting of WP:VG/JP.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong, the link WP:VG/JP you gave for justifying Japanese even says- foreign language titles should only be included if the game was originally released with that title. Was this PS4 (game?) originally released with a Japanese title? Apart from this and all the above objections, my problem with with including a foreign language translation is that it makes the first sentence extremely difficult to read. If this is useful information (which I don't think it is), It could go in the body of the article. Bhny (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree; personally, I think the Japanese names should only be included if they are noticeably different from the English name (or if there is no English name at all). Can WP:COMMONNAME apply in a way here? ViperSnake151 Talk 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see any benefit. Ryulong speaks of backround info and a "worldview", but in practice, its not really doing much of that. Its a direct translation, providing no sort of insight, and a vast majority of readers here don't know Japanese to begin with. Nothing against Japanese, its just not a very common second language, compared to something like Spanish or French... Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Also note, the page says "These foreign language titles should only be included if the game was originally released with that title; if a game was originally titled using the Latin alphabet, it is not necessary to include the name of the game in any other writing system." (Emphasis mine) Because the PS4 was launched in North America first, the logic of this page would suggest that we don't include a Japanese translation, because it was originally titled using the Latin alphabet. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME does not hold any power here. And the fact still stands is that this is a Japan-related article considering Sony is a Japanese company, which means that the Japanese language text should be included. There is no reason to treat this differently from the PSX, the PS2, the PS3, the PSP, or the PS Vita simply because it came out in the US first. The arguments that it's "international" have no merit under Wikipedia policy or guidelines. However, what I am discovering is that in Japan the console is not known as "プレイステーション4" but is called the "PlayStation 4" when described in Japanese text on Sony's official website.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

And while I'm at it let me clarify that piece of the guideline that you quoted ViperSnake151. If a game is known as FOOBAR in Japan then that means we only need to refer to it as such in English without any katakana accompaniment. Should the game be known as フーバー in Japan, even if it is clearly translated as "Foobar" the katakana and hepburn romanization should be included.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong- you are making up your own rules. The only policy you pointed to- WP:VG/JP contradicted what you are saying "foreign language titles should only be included if the game was originally released with that title". Bhny (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and my example just spells out what the guideline states so let me use a real example. Super Mario Bros. was released first in Japan as "スーパーマリオブラザーズ" so in order to follow WP:VG/JP "スーパーマリオブラザーズ" must be used on the page, and it doesn't matter if "スーパーマリオブラザーズ" is just the Japanese way to write the English phrase "Super Mario Brothers". I think I know what the meaning of the guideline is because I was instrumental in drafting it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying PS4 was originally released in Japan under a Japanese name? Yet when I check the article it says that it won't be released in Japan until next year- JP February 22, 2014 Bhny (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have said nothing of the sort. I have simply described a hypothetical situation and a practical situation for the employment of the part of WP:VG/JP that seems to be in contention here. If the PlayStation 4 was to be released in Japan in 2 months under a name written in one of the various Japanese scripts, because Sony is a Japanese company, I would argue that it the Japanese language text should be included on the page, regardless of the release dates, mainly because it is not a video game and doesn't really fall under WP:VG/JP's umbrella of "video game titles", realizing that I was wrong in bringing it up here in the first place, but it was one of the various prior discussions on this topic. Arguments that "it's an international product" have no basis in policy or guidelines, really.

However, you should note that I have stated, hours ago in fact, that the PlayStation 4 is to be known in Japan as "PlayStation 4" and not "プレイステーション4". So there is no need to have "プレイステーション4" on this article, nor is "プレイステーション" to be used on any PlayStation article, except maybe the main PlayStation page, because in Japan none of the consoles' names are written in Japanese.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess we have resolved this issue. If I may summarize, because the PS4 is not a game WP:VG/JP doesn't apply but it used to apply until it was pointed out that if it was released first outside of Japan then the article should use the English name, but anyway in Japan it is known by the English name, so we should only have English. Bhny (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am not 100% sure how VG/JP applies or does not, but the issue is that in February it won't be called "プレイステーション4" in Japan.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Change of release date in india

Please change the release date for indian market from 18th december 2013(was just a rumour) to 6th january 2014 which is the official date declared by Sony India. Taniket (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads-up. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 16:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sales figures

I understand removing sales figure comparisons to competitors in order to avoid fanboy wars, but a single raw sales figure on its own doesn't really mean much to the average reader: is that figure in five weeks considered "good" by sources? How does that compare to the market as a whole, or to previous generations? There needs to be some element of context, perhaps finding sources that explicitly detail its sales rank amongst its competitors for the time periods being discussed (thus avoiding direct mention of specific competitors, or including specific numbers). SynergyBlades (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I was fine with your edit. Sergecross73 msg me 04:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

PS4 was released in 28 November in Russia not 29 like the rest of europe

https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gazeta.ru%2Ftech%2F2013%2F11%2F27_a_5773341.shtml

--Delighty85 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Updated Sales Figures

PS4 has sold through to consumer 4.2 million units as of December 28, 2013.

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/07/playstation-4-sales-reached-4-2-million-by-end-of-2013/

Please update this information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.221.79 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Already done The figures have already been updated on the page. Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 08:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Date Formats

Last I checked, this article was using the Month, Day, year format. Now there's a mix of the two with the majority being Day, Month, Year. As far as I know, MDY was the format on this article first and should have stayed that way. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I plan on working on this at some point so expect all the dates to be MDY once I'm through. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Spelling error in "Games"

In the sentence: "...going on to say that the polices were designed to be..." The correct plural of "policy" is "policies".

Good call. I fixed it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated Sales Figures no. 2

PS3 sales have reached 5.3 million worldwide. 1.120.137.16 (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Its an estimated figure. - X201 (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing estimated about it. Those are the sales of the PS4. 1.120.137.16 (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Its there in black and white. "Number of retail sales to consumers is estimated by SCEI." - X201 (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

But surely there's some margin of error in any sales figures. It's not like any manufacturer has real-time data from every retailer in the world. The only difference here is that SCEI happened to use that word in their statement. It seems like a weird technicality to prevent showing more up-to-date information in the encyclopedia. Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 12:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

First American PlayStation Console content

In response to this edit which keeps getting re-added.

Is it true?
Does it need to be mentioned?
Does it need to be mentioned like that, in the lead?

If true, it could be something worth mentioning, but I don't think it needs to be put as the second sentence in the article. It keeps being placed as an awkward, random sentence, that breaks flow, and kind of sounds like trivia when presented like that.

Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact is important enough to be put in a place were the average reader will see it as soon as they start looking through the article. PlayStation has been a console by a japanese company with a lot of japanese support at launch. It also usually launches in Sonys home territory first.

However, look at the changes, the console was released in Japan after NA, where it was released first. An American man designed the console, and the console launches in all territories so far have mostly American owned game franchises. It's a real game changer. John Mayor ERS (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, if its true, that's fine, but the sentence should be in place that makes sense, and explain why' its such a gamechanger". (I'm not sure the article body even really covers that at the moment.) It doesn't need to be a random sentence that breaks flow and sounds like little more than unexplained, vague trivia. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not true. Mark Cerny was lead designer, working in-house with Sony technicians in Japan and the US. — TPX 18:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sergecross73. In any introduction, readers want the most important aspects mentioned only. Even if true, I'm not so sure this would be one of them. Certainly, it wouldn't be important enough to be the 2nd sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it is true, but I have heard it before although I agree that even if true, it shouldn't be in the intro. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok so we should put in within the body. John Mayor ERS (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying that. There doesn't seem to be any support for this. You still haven't actually explained why this is noteworthy either, other than being an exception. How did this affect its design? Why is this worth noting that it was lead by an American? You still haven't explained why this is a "game changer". Also, stop re-adding it into the article until there's consensus on how to handle it. Its pretty clear discussion is still on going. Sergecross73 msg me 00:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, just because Cerny designed the console, it does not mean the consoles was "Made in America", which is how you are trying to represent it. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Playstation 4 Reserved memory

The Xbox One entry calls out the amount of ram reserved for the Xbox OS and the amount usable by game developers (5GB available to developers). In the interest of accurate comparisons I recommend the memory distribution mentioned in the Playstation 4 entry be updated to reflect the same information. This would read "8GB (4.5GB minimum reserved for developers, 5GB potentially available to developers)^[2]"

Majinpunisher (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The amount of RAM has not been officially confirmed by Sony to my knowledge. The article provided is old (July 2013) and speculates on an unconfirmed report by Digital Foundry. Best to wait until an official figure is released. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 00:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

The introduction states that the PS4 is the world's most powerful games console. I'm not here to dispute that, but I think it should read "dedicated games console". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.37.45 (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

To distinguish it from what? Sergecross73 msg me 11:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should it read "dedicated"? If I have a new car that boasts being the world's "fastest production vehicle", I wouldn't say world's "fasted production vehicle dedicated to racing". Whether or not it is dedicated to racing is irrelevant, it is still the world's fast production vehicle which includes racing and others. It is still the world's fastest production vehicle. Why point out that which is already included? MrAdaptive343 (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, is there a non-dedicated games console which is more powerful? If not, there's no need for the additional qualifier. I think I know what you're getting at - that there are gaming PCs more powerful than the PS4 - but these aren't consoles so there's nothing to clarify. If it said "the PS4 is the world's most powerful video games device" (or something) then it would need clarification. Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 13:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That is my point exactly. Well said. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was going to be my follow-up statement if this went any further. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete article

Nothing here about the connectors, whether it works on an older 720 screen, HDMI...very basic info missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

4K

Should 4K really be listed under video output formats ? it seems kind of odd considering the console doesn't support it at all right now and may never support it especially 4K gaming. 74.103.250.78 (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So should a 4K TV be called a 4K TV even though no movies were being released in 4K when it came out? Yes, because regardless, it still has the capability. Both the Xbox One and this article include this because both consoles are capable of the output regardless of whether a game is out in that format. The 4K capability is not a dependent. Rilech (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A 4K TV is obviously already capable of playing 4K content and considering the XBONE struggles with full hd i doubt it will ever support 4K the thing is neither console is capable right now so it just seems like false information or vaporware to me thats all im saying. 74.103.250.78 (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

My point was it just makes it look like it currently supports it which it doesn't so maybe it should be changed to 4K (maybe) or 4K (one of these days) to be a little more accurate. 74.103.250.78 (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

But you see, that is where you are wrong. The PlayStation 4 does support 4K. You can check the reference. Regardless of whether any material is out that is in 4K is irrelevant to whether or not the system can support it. Just because my car's gas tank is empty doesn't mean it doesn't support gasoline. Rilech (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I see what youre saying my point was it doesnt have support/content for it right now and in the way it's listed like that under video output format in my opinion makes it look like it supports it right now like its currently an option which it isn't because games and movies etc can only go to 1080p so even if it has the power to output 4K its not going to do it right now. 74.103.250.78 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

After looking through the sources and searching for more updated ones, I have to admit I'm beginning to agree with 74.103.250.78. It was speculation that 4K support would eventually be added for still images and video, but as of today, I'm unable to find any confirmation that this was ever implemented. The closest Sony ever got to officially addressing the feature was in their FAQ with the statement that "still images and movie content is in consideration". So perhaps mentioning it briefly in prose with the sources that are out there is fine, but we shouldn't have it listed in the infobox or any other specifications table without better sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand the counter-point, but if it is removed from this article, it needs to be removed from the Xbox One article as well. Either way, both consoles do currently support it, just not for games. For example, the Xbox One and PS4 could not play Blu-Ray movies until an update was installed. Even without the update, the support was still there, it just required the update to function. Remember, it "supports" 4K for pictures and video. From Webster, support means "the act of being able to enable." The PS4 is able to enable 4K, regardless of when Sony chooses to allow it. Also, if it is decided it should be removed, it would not only need to be done on this article and the Xbox One article, but also the History of video game consoles (eight generation) article. Rilech (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is just listing the specs on the systems itself. Unless they start locking out 4k, it's there to stay. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of whether or not the systems are currently doing it, the support is still there. Rilech (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

Possible change to infobox picture

How would you guys feel about changing the infobox picture to the one located here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sony-PlayStation-4-PS4-wDualShock-4.jpg

It is more close-up and provides a better oriented at the PlayStation 4. What do you think? Chambr (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's better to provide a picture that is representative of how the device appears out of the box. Unlike its predecessor, PS4 is not designed to stand on its side without an accessory. — TPX 11:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

But neither the PS3 (especially the squared slim model) or PS2 included a vertical stand in the box yet both of them are pictured vertically. I just felt it would be more consistent especially seeing as how most people have the PS4 standing vertically regardless of it including a stand or not. The week that PS4 launched, the PS4 vertical stand was number 6 on the Amazon best sellers list. Chambr (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

PS2 and PS3 could be safely operated vertically or horizontally with or without a stand. You'd be taking a greater risk with PS4, wouldn't you agree? In any case, what is your evidence that "most people" have their PS4 standing vertically? I really don't see anything wrong with our present image at this point. We have a picture and it looks fine. — TPX 19:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the fact it is at greater risk standing vertically (without a stand, of course). My argument is that the picture located at commons represents the PS4 better. It gives a more close up view of both the console and the DS4. Not only that, but Sony represents it vertically in all the ads I have seen. I won't argue it, because obviously it is my opinion (and another user according to the page edit history) versus yours. My better may be different from your better. It is just more consistent, I believe to have it standing vertically like in the PlayStation 2 and PlayStation 3 articles. That being said, I could care less what an infobox picture is (people don't come to Wikipedia for pictures). I was just seeing what others thought. Thanks for the input. Chambr (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Most Powerful Games Console"

This statement is just not accurate, regardless of sources. The average journalist doesn't take into consideration the Steam Machine and Alienware Alpha, both of which are significantly more powerful than the PS4, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. They are classified as games consoles, and that is all that matters. I know plenty of journalists that call one TV or BR player the best ever, etc. That doesn't mean it is. Chambr (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OFFICIAL Alienware website calling the Alpha a "console": http://www.alienware.com/landings/alpha/
Secondary Source for console classification: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2360739/meet-alienwares-alpha-console-a-steam-machine-without-steamos-for-now.html
Secondary Source for console classification: http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/12/5992547/alienware-alpha-console-will-steam-to-your-living-room-this-november
Secondary Source for console classification: http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/16/heres-what-the-alienware-alpha-console-can-do-and-what-it-cant/
Secondary Source for console classification: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/dell-s-steam-machine-becomes-alienware-alpha-console/0137023

Regardless of what a few journalists may "think" about technology, the PlayStation 4 is not the most powerful games console on the market. There are journalists who claim that Elvis is still alive. Is there a death date at his article? Chambr (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this probably needs re-wording but I think the intended interpretation is valid and should be kept in the article in some form. The problem is that the definition of a "games console" has become very fuzzy with the introduction of Steam machines and the like. It seems like a "games console" used to mean an unmodifiable, out-of-the-box computer with a specific SDK whose games must be certified by the manufacturer. Obviously Steam Machines don't fit that definition but they're still falling under the "console" umbrella.

Maybe the statement should reference the "eighth generation" of video games consoles, which seems to be defined as Wii U, XOne and PS4? Chimpanzee ^Talk 07:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not surprising Valve are targeting traditional consoles with some of the more affordable Steam machines, but this reflects pliable marketing language than anything else. More to the point, how do a preponderance of secondary sources depict Steam machines? It's easy to find opinion that describe them in terms "like" or "similar" to consoles (but not consoles per se) while other sources make clear distinctions:

It’s too early to tell if Steam Machines will take off, but one thing is for certain: people are confused about the Steam Machine. Today, we’re going to attempt to answer any questions you might have about the Steam Machine and explain why it may (or may not) be your next gaming PC. [...] What are Steam Machines? Steam Machines – which are sometimes mistakenly referred to as Steam Boxes – are PCs designed specifically to run SteamOS and PC games.
Question: What are Steam Machines? Answer: Steam Machines are specialized gaming PCs made by a variety of manufacturers. They run on SteamOS, a unique operating system based on Ubuntu Linux and produced by game developer Valve. Steam Machines are generally optimized as living-room entertainment centers rather than comprehensive gaming rigs.
What is a Steam Box? Or a Steam Machine? Are they gaming consoles or innovative spa treatments? Let's clear up some of the confusion... It's a new type of gaming PC that looks like a console. Simply put, a Steam Box is a Steam Machine.
Steam Machines are basically just another type of PC, so it’s not surprising that Valve was showing off a line of Steam Machines developed by gaming PC manufacturers like iBuyPower, Falcon Northwest, Alienware, and Gigabyte. These are more like PCs than consoles, offering a wide variety of hardware specifications... There’s no standard Steam Machine hardware like a console offers. Instead, you’ll find a wide range of hardware like you would on a PC.
What Are Steam Machines Anyway? Steam Machines, like ultrabooks, are a class of computers.
It appears that it is just be a small form factor PC. It will, according to Newell, be Linux-based. It will not be a closed system like a console. It will also be possible to change the hardware, install your own software [and] run another OS^IGN
Valve has revealed the Steam Box, now known as Steam Machines, in an effort to take over so-called living room gaming. Steam Machines are “a powerful new category of living room hardware,” according to the company.^{[http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/25/steam-machines-valve-reveals-its-hardware-plans/[}

It's not black or white, that's for sure. — TPX 09:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A primary source, the Alineware website, calls the Alienware Alpha a "CONSOLE". That is all that matters, really. Regardless of what a couple journalists report, the Alienware Alpha is a console. Can you find a source that says it isn't? NO. Can you find one that says it is? YES, there are hundreds. They refer to it as a console. The sentence is completely inaccurate. The PlayStation 4 is NOT the most powerful games console, unless someone chooses to make their own definition of a console.

From Google/Webster: Video Game console: n. Noun. A video game console is a device that outputs a video signal to display a video game.

By definition, the PlayStation 4 is NOT the most powerful video game console. Chambr (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"A primary source, the Alineware website, calls the Alienware Alpha a "CONSOLE". That is all that matters" And yet, in your preceding response, you argue the opposite, that company representatives are prone to making assertions irrespective of their accuracy (an issue compounded by journalistic sources who mindlessly repeat their PR spin). Interesting. So when a Sony rep makes a statement, we must proceed with caution, to the point of discounting what they say; but when Valve issues a press release, we suddenly suspend our disbelief because "that's all that matters". (diff) PR blurb can indeed be misleading. Nor are we interested in hearing your personal interpretation of Webster dictionary. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this point. As editors, we defer to reliable secondary sources. Not merely one or two, which could present a distorted picture, but a preponderance of sources. How do reliable sources that tackle the issue head-on, how do they categorize and define steam machines? — TPX 09:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound like I was using a double-standard. I was just saying that Dell classifies its Alienware Alpha as a console. I am not arguing the opposite. I am arguing that many reps do tout their product. Whether it be Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, or even Sega did with the Dreamcast. I added the secondary reliable sources that call it a console just to show there is an open debate over it. Console is just such a broad term. Also, I didn't "interpret" the definition. I simply listed it. Don't read so much into every little thing people say. That is how you miss the core argument. All I am saying is that the term "console" is EXTREMELY broad, covering a wide range of devices, and the way this article had a certain sentence worded, was very misleading. Chambr (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The whole premise of the statement is preposterous and wrong. Not only is the definition of a game console not absolute, but the definition of powerfulness is not absolute. The number of FLOPs in your GPU is not the last word on power. And finally, the nature of the prose is non-neutral. I rewrote it to at least be somewhat neutral, as a component of critical reception instead of a statement of fact. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I don't mind the new re-wording of the statement near as much. Thanks. Chambr (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I appreciate you bringing it up. I didn't even read the sources though! I just saw the titles! I don't even have a PS4... in fact, how are you talking to me through this magic box? I don't know if it's literally accurate, and I don't know if just that one source says "most powerful games console" — in which case the statement would still be wrong. I just spat on the ground and gave it a stab, rather than follow my first urge to delete it! ;) I should have included that one template that warns someone to verify the quotation. Please do verify and refine, or delete. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Only one of the sources claimed it was the most powerful, and it was a statement from a Sony representative, and every rep for any company will claim something about their console. Even if it was from an actual secondary source, doesn't make it true. Like I said, some journalists think Elvis is alive, does that mean we don't need a death date at his article? Video games console is way too broad of a category which covers a wide arrangement of devices which does include Steam Machines. A misleading quotation should not be in an encyclopedic article. Chambr (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better for the article not to make the claim at all, but just to say "Sony calls the PlayStation 4 the world's most powerful console.^[1]". We can avoid the muddy definitions of "console" and "power" by just quoting Sony directly. Although not explicit, what they're clearly trying to say is "The PS4 is more powerful than the XOne" - they're not considering Steam boxes, either because they're not games consoles or because (if they are) Sony don't see them as the PS4's main competitor. The very fact that they make this claim (and Microsoft don't) is notable. Chimpanzee ^Talk 07:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. In addition to Sony, we can attribute the performance gap to Edge (magazine), after talking with numerous game developers. "Multiple high-level game development sources have described the difference in performance between the consoles as 'significant' and 'obvious'." — TPX 10:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So, this then?

Sony calls the PlayStation 4 "the world's most powerful console" and, speaking to Edge magazine, numerous game developers described the performance difference between the PS4 and Xbox One as "'significant' and 'obvious'".

The bit about the Edge story also helps clarify that "console" (in this context) refers to PS4 and XOne and doesn't include Steam boxes and the like. Any objections? Chimpanzee ^Talk 11:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I love the new wording. The word console is far too broad. That new wording is way more clear and concise, therefore better. Chambr (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-added the new wording. Chambr (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Can someone...

Release dates

13.5 million in sales

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2014

Advertisement Text?

PS4 and Vita launch in China

Angry Birds Transformers

US-centric prices & inflation

Shipped or sold

Units Shipped

PS4 mainland China delay controversy

Proposed changes to the lead

I think it's high-past time we cleaned up the lead. It has many issues including inline references, content that doesn't exist in the body of the article, and absolutely zero mention of the console's reception. My goal here is to make this a more interesting introduction that summarizes the article's most important aspects while leaving out details that are unnecessary in the lead (per MOS:LEAD).

Here is a proposed update: New
Here is the current (at the time of this posting): Current

If you have any issues with the proposal, or if you see any other areas that need to be modified, please let me know. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I found your edit summary ("clean up") to be somewhat misrepresentative of your actual edit. You not only altered a paragraph that had been carefully agreed upon by a number of editors here on the talk page, but you also deleted perfectly referenced information and replaced it with unsourced text. For example, the lede section previously summarised PS4's technical aspects in the following way...

The PlayStation 4's GPU can perform 1.843 teraflops. Sony calls the PlayStation 4 "the world's most powerful console" and, speaking to Edge magazine, numerous game developers described the performance difference between the PS4 and Xbox One as "'significant' and 'obvious'".

Edge magazine is a high quality source. You'd be hard-pressed to find one better. Its editors spoke with "multiple high-level game development sources" who all described PS4 as having a "significant" power advantage. This paragraph was deleted and replaced with...

Prior to its release, the PlayStation 4 received widespread praise for engineering choices that went into the design, including high-end graphics memory that gave the console a slight edge over the competition in terms of performance capabilities. The PS4 was well-received by critics and led global sales among video game consoles in 2014. Some have criticized the lack of meaningful software updates to the console, while others have praised its ability to play some games at higher resolutions than its primary counterpart, the Xbox One.

A widely cited performance benchmark was removed (1.843 teraflops). All reference to Edge magazine was vanished. The text was replaced with a new formulation that says the console only has "a slight edge over the competition". I immediately became suspicious because the whole thing looked like a stealth edit to remove unfavourable information.

I also don't agree with removing the following paragraph:

The console enables interactivity with other services and devices, by way of the PlayStation Network, through the following methods: PlayStation App, designed to enhance gameplay by using iOS and Android mobile devices; PlayStation Now, a cloud-based gaming service that offers streaming video game content; and wireless Remote Play, a feature that enables users to activate the PlayStation 4 from a distance away, in order to continue playing on a secondary screen, such as PlayStation Vita, a Sony tablet or smartphone.

to be replaced with...

The console is able to interact online and with other devices using a variety of applications and services such as the PlayStation Network and PlayStation Now.

The original version had the benefit of expression and concision, so why drastically change it and delete well publicized features like Remote Play?

My recommendation is to wait and let other edits have some input. And if something is badly wrong and needs tweaking, we can discuss it here first. — TPX 22:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@ThePowerofX: I appreciate the feedback. Let me address some of those concerns while we're waiting for other editors to weigh in. First of all, if you review featured articles, you will find that the tendency to exclude unnecessary citations in the lead is a common practice. Only in rare situations when the article's subject is highly-controversial should citations typically remain (WP:LEADCITE). So it may have looked like I was removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced statements, but on the contrary, it is a typical process of cleaning up the lead as the article evolves towards the goal of achieving good and featured status. Until you reverted the changes, I was in the process of moving some of the removed content to the body of the article, which is evident in this edit. The next piece I was going to move was the excerpt regarding Edge (which by the way I noticed you recently did). In retrospect, I probably should have moved the content first before removing it from the lead, which I'll be sure to do in future edits. I honestly never expected it would be reverted entirely without at least a notice on my talk page or here, and certainly not within a mere half hour.

As for the other points you raised, I think it's important to keep in mind the true purpose of the lead introduction, which is a summary of the article's most important aspects (MOS:LEAD). It needs to introduce the topic in a fashion that appeals to the general public. Throwing in elements such as x86-64 and 1.843 teraflops are unnecessary and belong in the technical sections of the article. A non-technical reader gains nothing by their inclusion in the lead, especially when there's no comparison or context to what they mean. Also, the paragraph about the console's interactivity needs to be summarized, more so that it already is. There's no reason to list every single feature that pertains to the interactive nature of the console. My proposed change does exactly that. It narrows it down to the most recognizable features (there's wiggle room here of course).

ThePowerofX, I know you are a heavy contributor here in VG articles, so I respect your opinion. I can understand the knee-jerk reaction of reverting what appears to be a massive change. However, I feel that a closer inspection of the proposed lead changes will reveal that they are in fact an improvement over what was there before. I am certain that any kind of good or featured article review by another editor outside of the VG community would agree that there is a lot of unnecessary bloat in the introduction, as well as some points surrounding the console's reception that are missing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The point about unnecessary citations is a good one. The one exception is the paragraph concerning Sony's own pronouncements, and those of independent game developers, regarding the capabilities of the system. These claims were challenged in the recent past, hence the carefully added footnotes. This is supported by WP:LEADCITE. But I agree that fewer citations are preferable. This is one area of agreement where we can rapidly move forward.

I remain puzzled by the note you left on my talk page, saying "the current lead is full of garbage and contains content that isn't even mentioned in the body of the article". Please understand that you cannot justify deleting material from the lede section because the information does not appear in the body of the article, then proceed to make the same error. The information you added regarding resolution differences, and how they might be perceived, was similarly nowhere to be found in the article body, which seems to undermine your explanation that this is partly what motivated you to make alterations in the first place.

I also disagree with the suggestion that "the paragraph about the console's interactivity needs to be summarized, more so that it already is" as there is "no reason to list every single feature that pertains to the interactive nature of the console." We don't come near to describing every single aspect of the system. The few we do make reference to are summarized because they fundamentally define the console and set it apart from what Sony has done before. Most importantly of all, these social features have received significant coverage by the mainstream press.

If it's widely accepted that our introduction is excessively long, we can make minor adjustments until everyone is happy, but at the present time I do not believe that size is a problem. In fact, PlayStation 4's lede section is smaller than most other 8th generation consoles and their forerunners:

373 words 2364 characters - Xbox 360

372 words 2414 characters - Xbox One

363 words 2208 characters - Wii

351 words 2158 characters - Wii U

315 words 1971 characters - PlayStation 4

244 words 1508 characters - PlayStation 3

The reception section is underdeveloped and requires more attention. Perhaps that should be our starting point if we wish to address the performance/resolution differences more thoroughly before summarising such viewpoints in the introduction. I have started collecting quality sources. — TPX 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that controversial statements in the lead should retain their references. Also, I'm glad we agree to work on reducing unnecessary citations. Where are we regarding x86-64 and 1.843 teraflops?

The "full of garbage" comment was a bit over the top, I admit. Part of the issue I had when I posted that was the timeliness of your reversion and the somewhat vague comment in your edit summary. I'm over that now and willing to move forward. In regards to "seems to undermine your explanation", I was in the process of updating the entire article through a series of edits. One such edit was going to be in the Reception section addressing that very point about higher resolutions. I think you'd agree that this has been widely reported in media dating back to pre-launch. I halted those edits after the changes to the lead were reverted to focus on having a discussion first. I'll reiterate that I made the mistake of not adding and moving content first to the body of the article before I made changes to the lead. I was "trigger-happy" I suppose. Despite the way the events unfolded, it's still a valid concern that content in the lead must summarize content in the body. I agree that addressing content in the body, especially the Reception section, would be the best place to focus our attention first.

Aside from some of the issues I addressed above, the phrasing/grammar in the lead also needs work, which was actually the main driving force behind my intentions to improve it. And regarding the length of the lead, we can approach that too when ready. Preferably trimming down to two or three paragraphs would be in accordance with WP:LEADLENGTH. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, to recap:

Para 1: Name of the console, launch date(s), and it's position in the gaming landscape
Para 2: Sony's past difficulties, new design choice, plus brief remarks concerning its capability
Para 3: Emphasis on social gameplay and how 'sharing' is an integral part of the new system
Para 4: A description of how PS4 interacts with other services and devices

Paragraph 2 we agree is problematic and needs immediate attention. There are two distinct elements here. Firstly, SCE's past development troubles are central to understanding their engineering choices. Adopting the familiar x86-64 instruction set found in most home computers is key to making their system more accessible (exactly the same transformation is described in our introduction to Xbox One). I'm not sure how to convey this information in entirely non technical terms, but we can try. Secondly, the reception section is undeveloped, particularly when compared to similar articles. This seems like a good place to describe the capabilities of Sony's system, notable performance differences, and what reliable sources say of them. We should start a new talk page section to help determine what general points to express. Afterward, we can select what elements should be represented in the lede. Paragraphs 3 and 4 could be merged together. I'm confident we can do this without losing essential information. — TPX 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I don't believe we need to be completely non-technical. Your statement about the x86-64 instruction set is spot on clear, concise, and provides context. If we could add some form of that to the lead, I wouldn't see a problem with keeping x86-64 in there. My concern was with tossing around technical terms without any context. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The performance gap, who to believe and what to say?

A lot has been been written about this topic and, the truth is, we can cherry-pick sources that say the performance gap is small and we can handpick sources to say the gap is large. People who say the performance gap is "slight" appear to base their findings on a single metric. That standard of measurement is multi-platform titles with straightforward resolution differences. The vast majority of PlayStation 4 games run in full HD whereas a considerable number of Xbox One games do not. This divergence has been labelled "resolutiongate". One of the sources added by User:GoneIn60 in support of his proposed lede changes, saying the PS4 offers only a "slight edge" over the competition, is Forbes business magazine contributor Paul Tassi, who writes

The problem is that even the resolution difference is functionally irrelevant across PS4 and Xbox One [...] The difference between 1080p and 900p or even 720p on home consoles is not nearly as noticeable as it is on PC [...] the power difference is largely negligible

This is in stark contrast to an Edge magazine editorial which says

Multiple high-level game development sources have described the difference in performance between the consoles as "significant" and "obvious."

The two sources are not necessarily in conflict. Digital Foundry's Richard Leadbetter was one of the earliest people to argue that most third-party developers would use PS4's extra power in the most mundane way possible, with simple framerate and resolution improvements. External developers, he suggested, are not going to invest considerable time and resources exploiting one systems full power to the detriment of the other. Indeed, an almost identical point is raised by Edge magazine:

One source even suggested that enforcing parity across consoles could become a political issue between platform holders, developers and publishers. They said that it could damage perceptions of a cross platform title, not to mention Xbox One, if the PS4 version shipped with an obviously superior resolution and framerate; better to "castrate" the PS4 version and release near-identical games to avoid ruffling any feathers. This claim was later countered by a contact at a different studio. "It would be totally fine for us to make one version prettier without any political difficulties but it usually doesn't make financial sense," they said, "unless it’s a very simple tweak."

In their technical breakdown of both systems, ExtremeTech expressed the same point but in a different way:

In short, the PS4’s GPU is — on paper — 50% more powerful than the Xbox One. The Xbox One’s slightly higher GPU clock speed might ameliorate some of the difference, but really, the PS4’s 50% higher CU count is a serious advantage for the Sony camp. [...] I think the PS4 will always have the edge when it comes to raw graphics power, and thus higher output resolution and smoother frame rates. In reality, due to commercial restraints, I expect most cross-platform games will look virtually identical across the two consoles for their entire lifecycle. PS4 exclusives that take full advantage of the console’s superior hardware, though, such as masterpieces produced by Naughty Dog, will probably look significantly better than anything on the Xbox One.

In summation, quality sources who are familiar with the hardware describe PlayStation 4's extra power as "serious", "significant" and "obvious", but say this advantage won't always be fully apparent in third-party, cross-platform titles. I would like to know if editors agree with this line of reasoning, before trying to develop these points in article main space. I'm also open to hearing arguments to the contrary. — TPX 22:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent job of compiling excerpts from several reliable sources on the subject. It is much appreciated. All are good candidates for inclusion. I would like to clarify that "slight" was one of the many word choices in my proposal that can be accepted, changed, or dropped altogether. Just saying that the PS4 has a performance advantage without describing the amount (e.g. dropping "slight") may very well end up being the least controversial choice. Regardless, I'm sure we won't have a problem reaching an agreement. Let's continue the process you started to improve the reception section, and then contemplate later the best way to summarize its contents in the lead section. I'm beginning to think this part of the lead is going to look very different from my original proposal!

We should include a variety of performance gap viewpoints in the reception section giving more weight to the predominant ones, much like we do in other topics such as film. Then the predominant ones will help us form the best wording in the lead. It would probably help to differentiate between the developer's perspective and that of the gamer or consumer (described by experts in the industry of course). Eagerly waiting to see how others feel about this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So how about this, pending flow and grammar fixes.

Speaking to Edge magazine, numerous game developers have described the performance difference between the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One as "significant" and "obvious". ExtremeTech says the PS4's graphical processing unit offers a "serious advantage" over the competition, and while many third-party game designers may use some of the additional power in a straightforward manner, to boost frame rate or output at a higher resolution, titles from Sony's own first-party studios that take full advantage of the hardware "will probably look significantly better than anything on the Xbox One."

This I believe is the dominant viewpoint. With regard to architecture, the two systems are remarkably similar (it really is striking when you consider neither competitor knew what the other was planning). But PS4's faster memory and GPU is said to offer Sony a significant advantage. It's not final, but it's a start. — TPX 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The "significant and obvious" article is outdated and not relevant anymore. The last year and a half has shown that games look exactly the same on both consoles and even that article states that the difference would probably be negligible on multiplats. I feel the article is old, and misrepresents the actual truth about the power of both consoles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.124.149 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

PS4's advantage lies with its faster memory and beefier GPU. Do you seriously dispute this? If so, please take a look at the following article: Playstation 4 Vs Xbox One GPU. Understanding the Differences. Here is a breakdown

More information PS4 GPU, Xbox One GPU ...

PS4 GPU	Xbox One GPU
1152 Shaders	768 Sharers
72 Texture mapping units	46 Texture mapping units
32 Raster operators	16 Raster operators
18 Compute units	12 Compute units
8 Asynchronous compute units (64 queues)	2 Asynchronous compute units (16 queues)
1.84 Teraflops	1.32 Teraflops

Close

The raw power gap will never be "outdated", no matter what API/SDK improvements are made. The same point is underscored again. Multi-platform titles that share the same development assets will often appear the same, "but the real advantage will likely come from the Playstation 4’s first party developers." — TPX 20:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Correct, for first party games I don't dispute that. However I feel that something along the lines of "Multi-platform titles that share the same development assets will often appear the same" should be mentioned as well, as currently it seems to imply otherwise and might give people the wrong idea. I'm sure you could quote the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.124.149 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How about something like:

Numerous industry professionals have acknowledged the PlayStation 4's performance advantage over the Xbox One. Speaking to Edge magazine, numerous game developers have described the differences as "significant" and "obvious". ExtremeTech hypothesised that the PS4's graphical processing unit offers a "serious advantage" over the competition but noted that the advantages would likely only be noticeable in first-party games which "will probably look significantly better than anything on the Xbox One.". However, they expect third-party games to look "virtually identical" across the two consoles because the extra power would only be used to gain nearly imperceivable frame rate or resolution improvements, rather than making major enhancements to a single version of a multi-platform game.

I think this wording matches the overall sentiment of the sources. Chimpanzee ^Talk 14:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Hypothesised" is a little too uncertain. ExtremeTech come straight out and say PS4's GPU is more capable. I'm also not sure about "nearly imperceivable" resolution improvements. It depends on who you ask I suppose. Eurogamer says the difference is notable in their tech reviews. This is what I drafted last night, with some of your text worked in:

Numerous industry professionals have acknowledged the PlayStation 4's performance advantage over the Xbox One. Speaking to Edge magazine, multiple game developers have described the difference as "significant" and "obvious". ExtremeTech says the PS4's graphics processing unit offers a "serious advantage" over the competition, but due to the nature of cross-platform development, titles that share the same assets will appear identical. In other cases, designers may tap some of PS4's additional power in a straightforward manner, to boost frame rate or output at a higher resolution, whereas games from Sony's own first-party studios that take full advantage of the hardware "will probably look significantly better than anything on the Xbox One."

I think we're moving in the right direction. — TPX 17:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to move this over, if it's ok. — TPX 01:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Sebastian Anthony is now quoted directly saying many cross-platform titles will appear "very similar", everything else is the same. Other areas of the reception section now need attention. — TPX 17:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Backward compability

Interview with president of SCE China

The performance gap, who to believe and what to say?

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks