Talk:PlayStation (console)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

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

Thanks for taking the review so promptly, Indrian. I know I can count on a thorough review. The article already features a diverse bibliography, among which there are books I own personally. Unfortunately I haven't seen a copy of that, though the scan that exists is a limited preview, I'm not sure where else I could access it - if I could access it I would of course love to use it. I'll keep searching. ♦ jaguar 23:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You can "borrow" that scan for 1 hour/14 days if you'll log in into archive.org -- it's available right now for borrowing. Should be enough to make screenshots for a personal use. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• I had been waiting to see if some material from the book would trickle into the article, but so far I do not think it has. I will start doing a formal review shortly, but a lot of it will be about incorporating key material from the book. GA is not FA, so comprehensiveness is not a requirement, but without some of this material, the article does not meet the requirement for broad coverage. Indrian (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay, Indrian. I've been busy this month with tackling my final year of university, among other things, so editing activity has been slow. I've spent the past few days combing through the book and implementing material into the article. The history section is beefier as a result; I've added more content regarding Kuturagi and Ohga's strife with Sony's board, early development and attracting third-party developers. If you think there's any other lack of coverage please let me know. I can of course add more once we start going through section by section. ♦ jaguar 22:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• No worries at all on taking some time on this. I will start the formal review very soon. I appreciate the effort you have put into the article and into integrating the new material. Indrian (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• It has been a month, any updates on this Indrian? (also ping Jaguar).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I volunteered to take over a FAC for a user that had to suddenly leave due to IRL issues, which has absorbed the majority of my Wikipedia time. I certainly do not want to hold this review hostage, so if Jaguar wants to request another reviewer, they are welcome to do so with no hard feelings from me. Otherwise, I will return to this once the FAC resolves. My sincere apologies for the delay. Indrian (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently in my final week of university so things have been very hectic lately. Like any idiot student I've left things until last minute and have six days to finish my dissertation, so by all means Indrian the delay is very welcome! I'm happy to wait. ♦ jaguar 19:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Indrian:, are you OK to start the review? ♦ jaguar 12:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Indrian, what is the status of the review? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The status is already stated above. The nominator is more than welcome to get another reviewer if they want. If they are okay waiting, I need to conclude the FAC I unexpectedly took over the other month. The nominator knows this. No hard feelings no matter what the nominator decides. Your meddling is not particularly needed here. Indrian (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

You deserve a breather after Namco. No worries Indrian, I know that your expertise will help give this article what it needs. ♦ jaguar 14:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Indrian:, ping. ♦ jaguar 20:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, IRL got super crazy. Should be able to do it late this week or early next. Indrian (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Indrian: are you OK to start the review now Indrian? I should have more free time from now on. ♦ jaguar 19:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• First, the lead feels a little out of order. We go from Sony making the console easy to develop for to them releases a slimmed down model in 2000, then we flash back to the launch. As the article does go chronologically through launch and development, it makes sense to stick with that and mention the commercial success before the release of the new variant. Also, since we brought up that it competed against the Saturn and N64, we should probably also mention how thoroughly it dominated the generation commercially.

• You have a point. I suppose I subconsciously modelled it on how you would write a typical video game article with intro/development/reception format. I've rearranged the lead to agree chronologically. ♦ jaguar 22:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• We have a similar out-of-order problem at the beginning of the development section. We start by introducing Kutaragi, then we go to the siniging of the deal for the Play Station peripheral, then its back to the SFC sound chip. While the SFC did not release until after 1988, the sound chip deal was first, so the section is a bit disjointed by bringing up the PlayStation before the sound chip, which was the first Nintendo-Sony collaboration.

• I have tried rearranging the first two paragraphs to put the SFC sound chip before the Play Station peripheral deal. I'm not sure if this makes it look more cluttered and disjointed for a new reader, though. Please take a look. ♦ jaguar 20:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Yamauchi secretly cancelled all plans for the joint Nintendo–Sony SNES CD attachment. Also unbeknownst to Sony, Yamauchi sent Nintendo of America president Minoru Arakawa (his son-in-law) and chairman Howard Lincoln to Amsterdam to form a more favourable contract with Dutch conglomerate Philips, Sony's rival." - While its true that they did not tell Sony that they were going to violate the agreement until they had the deal with Philips in place, they did give notice before the actual CES press conference. Sony tried to get Nintendo to change its mind and even called Philips, which it was already a partner with on CD technology in general, but everyone was unmoved. Sony decided that since they had a contract, they would announce anyway and let the chips fall where they may. As written, the article implies that Sony only found out about the betrayal after their own press conference when Nintendo announced the Philips deal publicly.

• Yes, you're right. And it seems that certain modern sources like IGN construe it this way too. Rephrased to better corroborate with Asakura's book. ♦ jaguar 20:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Sony briefly considered allying itself with Sega to produce a stand-alone console. Sega's CEO at the time, Tom Kalinske, took the proposal to Sega's Board of Directors in Tokyo, who promptly vetoed the idea". - So this is all very confusing (not the article, the actual history), and I am not sure that I can find you sources that completely clear this up, but Kutaragi and the PlayStation and the potential Sega-Sony partnership where different things. The Sega-Sony collaboration is something that the American branches of Sega and Sony cooked up between them separate from Kutaragi approaching Ohga about keeping PlayStation going. It may be worth mentioning in the article, but its not really accurate to say that the PlayStation project or something similar was ever going to be a Sega-Sony collaboration.

• I'm afraid I can't find anything in Asakura's Revolutionaries at Sony book. To come and think of it I never encountered much clarifying the Sega-Sony relationship whilst writing this, and I get your point regarding accuracy. In the USGamer source Kalinske said "let's jointly market a single system – the Sega/Sony hardware system", which at first glance may allude to a proper console but upon closer inspection suggests something along the lines of a CD-ROM attachment for the Mega Drive. I've clarified that this was discussed among the American branches of both companies, in any case. I'd be grateful if you could direct me to those obscure sources... ♦ jaguar 22:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Ohga shifted Kutaragi and nine of his team from Sony's main headquarters to Sony Music" - We have some corporate confusion because Sony is a really weird multi-headed beast. The "Sony Music" being referred to here is not the Sony Music linked in the article, which is the US-based organization created when Sony bought CBS Records. Rather its Sony Music Entertainment Japan, which was established in 1968 as a joint venture between Sony and CBS before Sony actually bought CBS Records, and remained a separate entity thereafter. Calling it a "separate financial entity" is not quite right to my understanding, because its still part of the Sony Group, but its certainly a different subsidiary of the company. Also, at this juncture, Maruyama was not yet CEO of SMEJ, but was still managing the Epic/Sony label of SMEJ, which is where Sony's Japanese-based console game and CD-I development was housed. If that all sounds like a confusing mess, that's because it really is.

• I have amended this. I believe one of the sources referred to Sony Music as being a separate financial entity, and indeed erroneously referred it to as being Sony Music rather than its Japanese subsidiary. I've removed the mention of Maruyama being the CEO and reworded it to being a subsidiary. Corporation language... ♦ jaguar 22:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "This secured the launch of influential new games such as Ridge Racer and Mortal Kombat 3, with the former being the most-popular arcade game at the time." - As this sentence directly follows the info about Namco, the structure implies it was securing Namco's support that game them Mortal Kombat 3, which is not the intent of the article.

• Rephrased. ♦ jaguar 22:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

@Indrian: I've hopefully addressed your preliminary points. Sorry that it took me a week to get back to this, I will be more free from now on. Looking forward to your next round. ♦ jaguar 22:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry it's been awhile again. I have found another potentially useful source. I will complete the review very soon. Indrian (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Indrian: just a heads up that I anticipate to be entering new employment in January and will therefore be very unlikely to commit time to Wikipedia in the new year. I hope that we can get the review wrapped up before then... I don't want to put pressure on ourselves, but just a heads up... ♦ jaguar 23:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Indrian: I'm sorry Indrian but I'm going to have to ask for another reviewer. I'm wary of time before and after Christmas, but if you wanted to jump in the meantime that would be good. ♦ jaguar 22:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• That's totally fine and no hard feelings. I would have done so well before this if it were me. My life has been crazy the past few months, and I have not had the time to give this review the attention it needs. I am glad I was able to point to a few sources and straighten out a few confusing areas. The next reviewer should be able to wrap up fairly quickly. My apologies. Indrian (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Joebro takes over

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

First comments, focusing on the lede:

• "It was first released on 3 December 1994 in Japan, 9 September 1995 in North America, 29 September 1995 in Europe, and 15 November 1995 in Australia" WP:VG/DATE: "Whenever possible, the release dates in the lead should be summarized to the year of release, or month and year if further applicable." How about "It was released in Japan in December 1994 and in the West in September 1995"?

• I tried this but condensing it omits Australia's release and I found that it makes the rest vague. Precise dates of release are included on other console articles, so I'll leave it be unless there are other suggestions. ♦ jaguar 17:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• "... and was the first of the PlayStation line of video game consoles." I don't think this should be in the first paragraph—it's more of the PlayStation's legacy, given that the PlayStation wasn't destined to be the first in a line of consoles. I'd move this down to the discussion of future consoles in the last paragraph, something like "The PlayStation's success led to a line of successors, beginning with the PlayStation 2 in 2000".

• Done. ♦ jaguar 17:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think my main issue with the lede is that it doesn't really tell me much about the PlayStation. We're talking about one of the most influential game consoles of all time—and the article's length certainly justifies a longer, perhaps four-paragraph lede. I'd look to the Sega Genesis and Sega CD ledes for inspiration; there's likely plenty of important information in the history, hardware, library, reception, and legacy sections that could be condensed and incorporated in the lede.

• I've expanded the lead to better summarise the article. ♦ jaguar 21:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Going off the previous comment, I'd restructure the lede to follow this format: developer and distributor/release date/competitors → background/development → marketing/contemporary sales and reception/popular franchises → impact/legacy.

• Addressed as per above; I've rearranged some parts and segmented it into four paragraphs. ♦ jaguar 21:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• "... (which helped lead to the creation of the DVD)" I'm not really sure if this is relevant.

• Removed. ♦ jaguar 19:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• "While the purchase was controversial at the time..." I've added a {{why}} tag here, since saying the purchase was controversial and then not explaining why it was controversial raises more questions than answers.

• Removed. A couple of sources did mention the controversy but did not explain why. ♦ jaguar 19:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The main microprocessor is a 32-bit LSI R3000 CPU..." There's a little bit of WP:SEAOFBLUE going on here. Is there a way we could address that?

• Removed two links. ♦ jaguar 19:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• "... also being forward compatible with the PlayStation 2, as they use the same connector and protocol." I don't think this is relevant in the Controllers subsection, given that it's about the PlayStation, not the PS2. EDIT: now that I've read through the whole article I think you should definitely remove this since it's mentioned in the Legacy section.

• Removed. ♦ jaguar 20:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've noticed the article is a little inconsistent regarding the use of a serial comma in lists. I'm not going to let that get in the way of anything, but I did want to note it. If you bring this to FAC, it may come up.

• I've inserted commas appropriately. No doubt this would be raised at FAC. ♦ jaguar 20:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• "The initial pack-in games were Jumping Flash! (1995) and Ridge Racer" An inconsistency here—you mention in the Launch section that the PlayStation had no pack-in games at launch

• I've rephrased this. There were indeed no pack-in games upon launch, but rather those two games were merely available upon launch. ♦ jaguar 19:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Third-party developers committed largely to the console's wide-ranging game catalogue. At the time of the PlayStation's first Christmas season, Psygnosis had produced around 70% of its launch catalogue" Another inconsistency—you mention in Development that Psygnosis was a first-party developer

• I've rephrased and moved this sentence to the end of the paragraph. Hopefully that will quell confusion. ♦ jaguar 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The PlayStation was well received" I'd challenge this as a generalization that requires direct references to back it up. Especially when you consider that the next sentence immediately says that Famitsu gave it a score that's equivalent to a 4.75/10, which isn't exactly a glowing assessment. I'd say the same for Critics in the west generally welcomed the new console
• I actually think you could cut one of those "well received" statements—we don't need to tell the reader the same exact thing twice

• Done. ♦ jaguar 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Would you happen to know what exactly Famitsu said in its review? I understand that the score is likely a remnant from before you rewrote the article, but I'm a little weary on including the review if all we have is a score and can't provide the actual commentary.

• I may be screwed here because I can't find Famitsu issue 335 anywhere, and I'm usually good at searching for obscure magazine prints. Only a limited quantity of scans are on the Internet Archive, and I've had no luck elsewhere. I thought mentioning the Famitsu review scores in the article would satisfy the need for a Japanese perspective, but I'm afraid it's impossible for me to elaborate on context. I'm open to removing it...? ♦ jaguar 22:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to let this hold up the review, but I think the reception section is missing retrospective reception. We've got reviews discussing the PlayStation back in the day—how do critics feel about it now? Are there any retrospectives about it? Maybe look through the more recent PlayStation Classic reviews and see if any critics bring up what they liked/didn't like about the original console.

• I've had a look through whatever magazines I could access (both physically and online) and couldn't find any solid retrospective reviews, surprisingly. I note that the Sega Genesis and Sega Saturn articles don't offer retrospective reviews, but rather a legacy section similar to the one in this article. I've cleaned up the reception section regardless and will add more reviews if I find them. ♦ jaguar 18:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• "ended up going head-to-head with the last major console dedicated to home play to rely on proprietary cartridges—the Nintendo 64" This statement needs to be revisited given that the Nintendo Switch now exists.

• I've removed this mention and added a footnote. ♦ jaguar 23:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'd add comparisons to the NES/SNES Mini and information about the PlayStation Classic bombing commercially in its subsection.

• Done. ♦ jaguar 19:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• I was surprised that the Bleem! controversy isn't mentioned anywhere in this article—is there a place it could be incorporated?

• Added a new paragraph under the functionality subsection. ♦ jaguar 19:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

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

@TheJoebro64: that should be that! I've addressed hopefully all of your concerns. I'm open to removing the Famitsu scores since I'm unable to locate the issue (I thought everything was on the internet?) and I've also left the reception section largely intact since both standalone contemporary and retrospective reviews are scarce, and it's a comparable length to other console FAs. Thank you for taking up the review, I'm very grateful Wikipedia's longest GAN is soon to come to an end! ♦ jaguar 19:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to remove the Famitsu score if you don't want to; I just commented upon it as I felt like it was one of those things someone might take issue with in a future FAC. Other than that, you need not wait no more. Let's get this sucker promoted. JOEBRO64 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)