Jump to content

Talk:Seventh generation of video game consoles/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Resolution?

The PS3 is the only one that has 1080p HD capabilities. The Xbox 360 can upscale to 1080p but it is not TRUE HD. I think that should be mentioned on the table.--66.176.92.191 (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seventh Gen. Sales

On 13 September, 2007 I placed factual evidence once more in to the console sales table please may no one edit these figures unless they may provide factual and real evidence thank you. Animal91X 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please may NO one - with out evidence - change the seventh generation sales figures as they are CORRECT. If any one may visit any of the 3 consoles wiki pages and the sales figures are incorrect please correct them. Animal91X 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No you didn't, you basically rely on the fact that everyone is too lazy to look up your sources and read them to see the numbers you put up are completely unsourced made up BS, or taken from crap sites like VGChartz. Then you have the gall to call people who replace your unsourced crap with sourced facts fanboys. And you edit articles with ban threats even though you have no authority to ban anyone. Tehw1k1 21:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wii sales numbers seem to be at odds with the Wii page, I think the date given may be wrong, Reference 30 on the Wii article seems to agree with the number but not the date. Opdw20 23:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

remove the sales numbers

Those numbers are false! They are heavily disputed and gamespot is not a valid source. How can we believe those numbers when NPD doesn't back them based on sales from the same site? NPD has the 360 at 6.3 million flat in the USA and Media crate has the 360 at 400k plus in Japan...That is SOLD not shipped, so are we to believe that the 360 has only sold 2.2 million in every other nation in the world? Sorry if I think something doesn't add up here. Pardon me if something just doesn't seem right, at best the numbers should be left N/A until more reliable numbers are given. To further back this that study didn't include all nations as countries like Canada and Australia are not included.

(Death is a right 10:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

"Those numbers are false! They are heavily disputed and gamespot is not a valid source." - They are not heavily disputed, as far as I can tell. Give me a valid source that disputes that claim. GameSpot is considered a valid source, having been cited many times. "How can we believe those numbers when NPD doesn't back them based on sales from the same site? NPD has the 360 at 6.3 million flat in the USA and Media crate has the 360 at 400k plus in Japan...That is SOLD not shipped, so are we to believe that the 360 has only sold 2.2 million in every other nation in the world?" - If you had read the article, you would find that the data is for July 31, 2007. You are comparing the numbers in the article to data given at the end of August 2007. "Sorry if I think something doesn't add up here. Pardon me if something just doesn't seem right, at best the numbers should be left N/A until more reliable numbers are given." - Seems reliable enough to me. "To further back this that study didn't include all nations as countries like Canada and Australia are not included." - Prove that they are not, please. 71.17.35.93 02:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

It is 40 KB long. Laptopdude 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, do it.--Kyle(talk) 01:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Archived Laptopdude 01:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

wrong price

Also if it hasn't been changed, the 360's price was dropped to 349. Check all stores.

Are you talking about Elite or Premium?--Kondrayus 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


(Death is a right)

It hasn't been changed because of the very large sign at the top of this page.(They are the launch prices!)--Kyle(talk) 04:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

dispute

Even at the end of July the numbers would have been at 6.0 plus, maybe 6.1 because the 360 sold 277k in August and they have been at 400k in Japan for months, thats 6.4 million and based on those numbers only 2.5 million in the rest of the world. If you look at the Wii it says 9 million, the wii sold 400k in us last month, so that 3.6 million at the end of august, it passed 3 million as of July 15th, so at the end of the month it would have been 6.6 million and only 2.4 million elsewhere even with the fact it sold over 700k in europe in december of 2006. Are you saying it sold only 1.64 million there in 7 months? Thats only 234k a month europe wide..Nope it doesn't add up!

http://www.codenamerevolution.com/?p=3806

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUST5575120070719


Read the article again, it states australia and canada are not included.

http://www.xbox-scene.com/xbox1data/sep/EElAykAFAyXLoPUoCD.php


Sorry, but only europe, the us and japan are counted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Death is a right (talk • contribs) 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


What exactly are you disputing? The fact that the article says the sales are from the entire world or are you disputing outside sources? Could you please clarify?
On a side note, make sure to sign all posts on talk pages by placing four ~~~~ after your comment.--Kyle(talk) 04:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Sales table

I see that someone has rechanged the sales table after I reverted the changes that person has made. I was just curious which one people prefer- the previous one (the one I like) or the one that 87.127.157.166 and KP-TheSpectre changed it to?--Kyle(talk) 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just going with the pattern, as it is like my version in the previous 6 generations pages. I also preffer it as it shows the sales in a league format, with the consoles listed in order of the most sales KP-TheSpectre 20:00, 21 September 2007

I prefer the current configuration:
Console Sales
Wii XXX
Xbox XXX
PS3 XXX

I don't know if I am speaking for the majority or not, but that's my opinion on the matter. Useight 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine I just wanted to know the reasoning. The difference is so small that it doesn't really matter to me to much(I still like the previous better though).--Kyle(talk) 19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot Should NOT be used

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6179772.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;2


That article says the 360 has a 11.6 million installed base, but they posted another article saying it was 8.9....Which is it gamespot, get your story straight!


(Death is a right 01:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Different sources, shipped vs. sold.... Tehw1k1 20:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

BioShock is NOT an exclusive!

"However, Microsoft hopes to surge sales with the release of upcoming exclusives such as BioShock in August"

BioShock has been released for the PC and is due for Xbox 360 release some time later. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. Check the link. BioShock Overmage 14:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess in terms of consoles it is an exclusive, in that it's only available for Xbox. But that's confusing nonetheless. Charles 18:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

the wii is not a next gen console

reggie fils-aime has stated at a nintendo press conference that the wii is not a next gen console. it is therefore a 6th gen console. and should be moved to that article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infernoply (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone always tries to do this. I'd just like to say that there is no more "next gen". The so-called "next gen" is now the current gen. Next gen will be the PS4, Xbox 720, and, uh, Super Wii or something. Anyway, the Wii belongs in the 7th generation because it is the successor to the GameCube, regardless it not being 20 times more powerful or any other factor. Because it is not a remake, a slimmed-down version, or anything else, it is a completely different architecture and therefore not a GameCube, making it the successor to the GameCube. Horsepower, and Nintendo's claim to not be competing against the PS3 and Xbox 360, do not deny that fact. It's after the 6th generation, so it's the 7th generation. Useight 14:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe Reggie was actually saying the Wii is a current-gen console, instead of a next-gen one (providing this is the conference-thing or whatever I'm thinking about). You'll need to provide some form of proof of this statement, though. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why does someone always have to start something huge over something as little as this? The Wii is a next gen console. If it were a sixth gen console it would have been released along-side the gamecube. But was it? No. Therefore the Wii is a seventh gen console.--Kondrayus (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, game legend Will Wright just recently stated that Wii is the only next gen console. I suppose that means we should remove the PS3 and Xbox 360!--Clicketyclick 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

PS3 sales number are very wrong!

PS3 Article itself says: "Units sold 4.28 million (as of June 30, 2007)" And we have the same number here but for as of September 20, 2007!!! so it has not sold any 10K units for 2 months and 20 days?!?! [36] reference is a "file not found" link. and [37] is an article written on "Posted Sep 13, 2007 1:42 am GMT"!! So it'd be intresting to know where this 20 September date has come from?! Also, the only thing about PS3 sales written in [37] is: "According to the FT, approximately 9 million Wiis were purchased across the globe as of July 31, just barely overtaking the 360's sales of 8.9 million units during the same period. Both platforms were far ahead of the PlayStation 3, which sold only around an estimated 3.7 million units internationally." !!! So there's no new info. Anyway, I remember Sony announced in TGS 2007 that they have sold between 5-6 million PS3. We can't use it as it's not fixed, but atleast change back the date to 30 June. Nintendo’s Wii takes console lead Found the original article by Financial Times. Quote: "According to sales data from each console’s launch through to the end of July (or the end of August in Japan), consumers have bought 9m Wiis, 8.9m Xbox units and 3.7m PS3s." So should I assume it's saying PS3 has sold 3.7m as of end of August? Pretty much outdated! GLdK 06:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You've been Animal91X'ed! Enjoy your stay. IMO, we should all agree on ONE or TWO sources at the most for worldwide sales, and just stick with those. Too bad there's too many fantards out there. Tehw1k1 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Milestone Titles a joke

Most of the Milestone Titles look like a joke and just a milestone title according to the person's POV. Brain Age and Big Brain academy can't be said to bring the "non-game" trend if there aren't many games like that. You can't claim this in the beginning of a gen, only towards the end. GeOW being the showcase of UE3, might as well put any game as the showcase of a new engine? UE3 was anticipated I guess, but so have many other engines. If anything, UE3 is getting nothing but bad press lately. "Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games marks the first time these two former rival mascots will officially appear in the same game." - Pure POV. I don't see this as Milestone, especially as it's not a trend yet. IF you want to put it, it should be towards the end of the Gen after this proved to be the beginning of a multiple-game trend. Pokemon Battle Revolution and WiFi... So what? We already knew the Wii can pull it off, is it a milestone title only because it's the first to do it? Can't we say the same thing about R:FoM and whatever 360 game first pulled online off? Or milestone titles for the Wii itself now count as milestone titles for every console? Halo 3, I guess I can agree with. "Potter and the Deathly Hallows. This may help Microsoft make its first profitable quarter since the release of the Xbox in 2001" - Is this a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.124.63 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this section is too opinion-based. I'm for deleting it, more than anything, but it's best to see what others say first. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There ARE many games like Brain Age popping up all over Japan, Europe, and the US. Trends still exist even if you're unaware of them. However it is poorly worded. GoW: Because it was first. What does the supposed quality of the engine have to do with anything? It's still the first million selling home console game of the generation, which is pretty significant. Mario and Sonic: Milestones and trends are two different things. Being a Milestone is debatable, the first Mario and Sonic game is fact and not debatable. Pokemon: agreed, if anything, Mario Kart DS is more significant since it was the first overall online Nintendo game. Overall, either delete the entire section or keep a few and call it something less weighty than "Milestone titles". Tehw1k1 20:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Games that aren't "games" popping up is not something new of this generation. Being trendier now doesn't warrant an appearance in milestone titles. GeoW was the first game with the unreal engine, and it does have to do with quality if it gets its own spot in milestone titles (unlike hundreds of other engines, yeah?). But nevermind, it appears to have been deleted. Mario and Sonic would count as a big thing only if they made a trend out of it. No one would care in 20 years if the first Mario & Sonic game was this game if... It's the only one that ever came out. That's why saying it was the "first" or saying anything about it right now isn't important enough. I'd say delete the whole section or just put the Halo one up for now. Xolver 10:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why compare Halo 3 to a movie and a book? It is of a different genre. I believe the last comment should be deleted. Saying it is the fastest selling came and most profitable and what not is fine, but comparing it with other genres is not.

Also, to add some more, it appears Sonic is now on SSBB.Xolver 09:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I changed it, if you change it back please have a good reason. Xolver 22:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Elite Price

Someone changed the Xbox 360 Elite Price. I'll change it back.--Kondrayus 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sales numbers

If you go to the "playstation 3" article in wikipedia, it says the Ps3 has 5 million+ sales, and it cites a source that is not vgchartz.com or nextgenwars.com or a source that did not get its info from either of these sites. Perhaps i should change the number of them sold to 5 million here as well? What do you guys think? change it back if you don't agree, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crymetyme1000 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

overall console sales numbers

this is the site i got my info from, so i am changing the total sales numbers ok?


http://n4g.com/News-75304.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.48.142 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the general consensus is that figures from VG Chartz are not reliable enough for use in Wikipedia articles. Dancter 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


oh ok sorry, i didn't check, i just looked at the page. And this is my username. i forgot to log in before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crymetyme1000 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

prices for playstation 3

can someone take a look at the prices for playstation 3? I'm not sure, didn't exactly check websites, but the 20 Gb (same price as 60 and 80) is 100 dollars more than the 40 Gb. Are these correct? Maybe the 20 Gb comes with more accessories. thanks GoldenGoose100 01:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this is correct. The 40gb was released after the 20, 60, and 80gb after Sony realized the PS3 was too much.--Kondrayus (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Playstation 3 - Loss of exclusives?

I've been looking up information with regards to the two examples of games touted being originally exclusive to the PS3, namely Assassin's Creed and GTA IV. While I have found a citation specifically mentioning Assassin's Creed losing it's exclusive status, I've yet to actually find an article which specifically says GTA IV was ever an exclusive. Anyone can find any references to it? I'll remove the mention of GTA IV, but if a reference comes up don't hesistate to put it back if the need is there. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 06:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide sales standings should not be changed until January 2008

The financial statements of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are the only truly reliable sources for hard sales numbers. After all these companies are bound by law not to give false statements on their sales numbers to their investors. As tempting as it may be to change them when some news source has updated numbers, they should remain unchanged until the companies issue their next statements, which will be in January 2008. Tehw1k1 04:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the numbers should only be updated when the companies release official statements, but we do not have to wait until january 2008. The fiscal year for 06-07 ended in september so all of the companies will be releasing statements sometime soon. The references I just updated with are official reports from sony and nintendo. I have been unable to find a microsoft one so far and it seemed wrong to just leave xbox numbers as they were so I looked for a new number as a temporary replacement while I look for an official statement. The source I used seems to check out so I think it is ok to leave it for now. I am actively searching for a microsoft statement to update the numbers with something official. (not today, but I searched for a while yesterday. I will continue to search later tonight and tomorrow)--Kyle(talk) 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this primarily because the definition of sales means shipped not SOLD. If we want to list it as number of units SHIPPED that's fine but sold implies that it's actually left distribution channels. MysteriousMystery 2:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.130.78 (talk)
Since when does sales mean shipped? Also, I am confused in general by your statement that sold implies that it's actually left distribution channels. From the way I read that, sold does not just imply that, that is basically the definition. Any chance you could clarify your entire statement because on a whole it is just not making sense too me? --Kyle(talk) 03:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
In a company statement sold usually means to distributors or large retail chains, it does not indicate sell through to consumer. Due to things like price drops many times sold does not actually indicate that the manufacturer has even been paid for the product (this is why when a price drop occurs retailers don't generally lose the difference in price, they simply take the dropped price off of what they owe the manufacturer based on their remaining inventory). In the case of using financial statements, sold means shipped not sold to consumers. I'm going to edit my explanation a little further to clarify. Here is an example of when sales don't mean sales but shipped. In a company statement shortly after the launch of the Ngage Nokia announced that they had sold 400,000 units. Their definition of sold meant they were available to purchase in retail channels the actual number sold to consumers was shockingly low (under 20,000 worldwide at that point). MysteriousMystery 3:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the section needs clarification although when I looked at it before reading the financial reports, I understood it to mean sales to distributors and retailers, not to consumers. Just because I knew what it meant when I first read it doesn't mean others will, isn't it. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 03:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems that Kyle for example didn't understand that it meant to retailers and distributors and not to consumers. I'd guess that most people don't understand that relative to a manufacturer sold means "produced and no longer in our physical possesion" not "Sold to consumers". This is where the confusion arises. MysteriousMystery 3:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the best way to deal with this is a note under units sold specifying that it means sold to distributors and retailers and not to consumers. I'd guess 90% of people will read sold and use that to believe that it means to consumers. MysteriousMystery 4:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree to adding the note. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 04:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Same--Kyle(talk) 04:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Done, although styling could've been better, or there is a proper system to adding notes that I am unaware of. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 04:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't entirely think that sold meant to customers, I was just confused by what you had said. Something about the way you worded the second sentence- I can't quite think of how to explain what my mind made of it. Also, somehow my mind does not connect the word shipped to money, sales=money but shipped=units made. I know this is wrong, but that is my initial thought when I see the words. --Kyle(talk) 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW I had thought all three had issued statements when I first posted, sorry for the confusion. I remembered something about formatting tables, so I edited. I hope the meaning remains clear for the layperson. Tehw1k1 08:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

profit/loss per unit sold

I removed "Microsoft is believed to be making money on each console sold" and its reference because these are old numbers and I'm not sure they still hold true for the following reasons:

1) the recent price cut (for the model listed by iSuppli, it would be $349.99 not $399)

2) didn't Microsoft start installing a decent cooling system and/or start making a new CPU in response to the red ring of death problems that cost Microsoft >1 billion dollars?

3) isn't it a little misleading not to include the manufacturing prices of the extras that come with the console, like for example, the wireless controller?

4) not every unit sold is a Premium model; there is no cost analysis of the Core, Arcade, or Elite models, but if one of those results in a loss per unit sold, then it is not true that Microsoft would be making money on each Xbox 360 sold.

Simply put, I find the iSuppli source to be lacking because it is incomplete, partly because it is dated and partly because it was an analysis geared towards the PS3, not X360. Does anyone disagree or have more recent and complete sources that can establish whether or not Microsoft (or anyone else) is actually making a profit on each console sold?

Oh, and something completely unrelated, but I'm having difficulty determining what tense to use. Perfect past for everything, including new developments, and what about "has had" vs. "had"? My tense-shifting annoys me! --Clicketyclick 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you reckon it's too old to be used by all means, remove it. I was weighing between adding it or not because as you said the article is a old news. In the end I threw it in because it was the only thing I could find that actually even mentions the Xbox 360 making money for Microsoft (I don't know how long that sentence has been in this article really), and figured between now and when the article came out they must've used other cost-cutting methods since then (this would be original research though I believe).
From what I read the new CPU was more cost-cutting than in response to RRoD actually, as making chips at 65nm is cheaper than making them at 90nm. I'll need to dig up where I read that. Never actually read any official news about the cooling system though.
Uh... Mea culpa on not catching the bit where the article doesn't mention the peripherals? I should've seen that when I was going through that article to use it as a reference. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to find some reference showing that Microsoft is actually making money off the Xbox this time around (perhaps adding in a few lines about Microsoft's strategy of getting their foot in the door with the Xbox 1. It does sort of relate to how they have(n't) approached the Japanese market.) But so far, all I've seen are articles that briefly mention that Microsoft makes a profit off each console sold and either they don't cite their information or they cite iSuppli. Well, I suppose the new reference you added (about Microsoft Gaming reporting a profit for the first time in two years) suffices to show that the Xbox is not the new Dreamcast (!)

Oh, and about that reference: reporting a profit is the same thing as being in the black. I was almost word-for-word quoting it: "making this the first quarter this area of Microsoft's business has been in the black since back in 2005." However, I prefer your wording, so thank you for changing it. "Back in the black" has a nice ring but is a little too ambiguous for an article.

I have also read that Falcon (and next, Jasper) cut production costs. Here are some references: "A more advanced process allows chip makers to shrink the size of a chip, thereby increasing the number that can be produced on a single silicon wafer and reducing unit production costs...Since the Xbox 360 is sold for less than its manufacturing cost, cutting the cost of the processor -- typically the most expensive component inside a computer -- is good for Microsoft, allowing the company to reduce the console's price or cut its losses on each console sold."[1] "When Microsoft redesigned the Xbox 360 motherboards with 65-nanometer chips to cut manufacturing costs they called it Falcon."[2] I'm not sure how good these are as sources though. Do you think this information should be added to the Xbox 360 section or the "Discontinuations and revisions" section?--Clicketyclick 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the networkworld source looks good to me. My biggest concern is addressing that one line;

According to Microsoft, new models of the console featuring 65 nm technology promise to help alleviate this and other complications.

as I really couldn't find anything definitive saying that they moved to 65nm to address the RRoD. As for where to put it, I'd say put it in the Xbox 360 section rather than discontinuations and revisions, if only to help take my mind off that one sentence =P But by all means, if you intend to put it in the article go ahead. If I find other sources I'll throw it here on talk first to compare and make slight changes if the need arises. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dean Takahashi's blog contains the alleviation claim. 212.58.233.129 10:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Mike A.

Ah, Mike! Nice work and thank you. I inserted it in and changed the wording of the passage a bit.
Chan, I think I'll add in text after all the unreferenced facts get referenced, which I plan on working on right now (in addition to release dates of consoles and handhelds... having a little difficulty with Europe). If you want to add it in, please feel free, but otherwise, I won't get to it for maybe a week or two. (Do you know the PSP Value Pack launch price in Europe? I'm thinking €209 and £179.99, but I don't really know, and I don't really trust the PSP wiki page because it has the prices wrong for Canada (or else Future Shop is gypping me.)--Clicketyclick 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can dig up. Happy editing :) Chan Yin Keen | Talk 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
good ideas guys. I too remember reading that the 360 was going to 65nm components, but I have never seen any concrete evidence. Also, I've never seen any reputable website demonstrate that the 360 hardware is making a profit. (Microsoft's gaming division has posted a profit in several scattered months.) Until that happens, I would leave any comments about that out of this article. Oh yeah, there never was any danger of the 360 being the next Dreamcast as far as money goes; we're talking about Microsoft here. They could probably sell the 360 at a loss for the next 250 years and not go under. Thingg (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Euro PSP value launch prices

Looks pretty solid at 249€ [3] [4][5].

Press release on day of launch [6]. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 00:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that took waaaay to long (damn Sony and their stupid naming system and all; made it so much harder to track down the prices with different colours in different regions and different names) but I've got all the PSP prices referenced now. Only problem is I can't find references for the Canadian PSP Slim prices (core and entertainment packs). I know they're correct because I live in Canada, but I just can't find any news site announcing it. If you happen to come across anything, please stick it in. The best I could find was this news post by one "superskull85", which I am not inclined to add as a reference (would "superskull" count as the first name and "85" as the last?)
So, I know you were saying on your user page that you planned on finding out what is the bestselling PSP game in order to fix up the page. I looked far and wide for actual numbers, but the best I could find making the claim that GTA:LCS was a bestseller (as claimed on this wiki page before I altered it) was Rockstar's site (www.rockstargames.com, then click News, then click "Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories Now Also Available for PS2"): "The all-time bestselling PSP game is now also available for PlayStation®2 [...] The game that ate up the PSP (PlayStation®Portable) System charts, and is still to-date the all-time bestselling title for that platform..."
Boastful, but no hard facts. On the other hand, there is this source from January 12 '07 saying that GTA:LCS only sold 593K copies in 2006 (and was only released Oct 25 '05 and later, so it wouldn't have squeezed in that many more sales in the ≤2 months not counted in the tally) and this source from January 18 '07 that claims, without providing numbers or a source, that ""Liberty City Stories" has sold more than a million copies". Considering the tally reported only a few days earlier was at just under 600K copies (excluding the first two months of sales) and the best it could be pegged at in a number-ish way is "more than a million copies", I don't think it should be called the bestselling PSP game when we've got a clear 1.4 million copies reported by Capcom for Monster Hunter Freedom 2.
Additionally, when GameSpot reported in July 2006 that Sony was awarding its bestselling Japanese titles, the only gold PSP title (500K-1mill copies sold) was the original, Monster Hunter Freedom (the sequel hadn't been released at that point.) So we know that the original in '06 was doing about as well as GTA is doing now. I think that it's safe to assume the sequel, which surpassed the original in sales (see Capcom's site), surpassed GTA in sales, especially when Rockstar gives no concrete numbers to challenge Capcom in claiming that they've made the all-time bestseller.--clicketyclickyaketyyak 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
(Ooh, just found another link. This one says that "Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories, sold 238,500 copies in November 2005 and 401,000 copies in December 2005." Adding 238.5K and 401K from 2005 to 593K from 2006, that comes out to 1,232,500 copies sold by Jan 1 '07 (after 14 months on the market.) One month later (Feb), Monster Hunter Freedom 2 was released and within 4 months (June), had hit the 1.4 million copies mark. That MHF2 in 4 months outsold what it had taken GTA:LCS 14 months to sell makes me think that MHF2 is the actual bestseller.)--clicketyclickyaketyyak 03:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up what the top selling PSP game is to a satisfiably verifiable level :) I'll see if I can find anything official about the Canadian PSP Slim core and entertainment packs, although if they're already correct, do we really need to reference them? Chan Yin Keen | Talk 10:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wait till the price is lowered...!--clicketyclickyaketyyak 07:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PSP/NDS audience, demographics.

Attempting to resolve that statement regarding both of them being marketed to different audiences, but right now all I'm getting is like a general feeling that they are meant for different demographics rather than an official line stating "we are marketing this to kids/old people/core gamers etc". What I have found though, are two interviews (probably more as I dig around later), one with the Senior Marketing Manager for the PSP which states it "when we launched the PSP the key demographic for us was really north of 25 years old" [7] and another with Sony's Marketing Head which says the PSP is more for the "core gamer market"[8]. Thoughts on whether this clears up the demographic for the PSP? I'll be digging for articles about the Nintendo DS now. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Engadget interview with Reggie Fils-Aime All I could glean off this one was their insistence that they are here, "[with the DS and Revolution] ...bringing innovation to the marketplace that satisfies the hardest of the hardcore as well as brings new consumers into the marketplace". Reckon we can find better sources? I'll probably be filling that needed reference after this. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 12:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

comparison table bloat - too much information?

Does anyone else think the "Launch price" and "Included accessories and extras" sections are getting a bit too large? What are your thoughts on trimming them down? Which skus are the most relevant to this article, the most recently released ones, or the ones released at a console's launch? Tehw1k1 05:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, you're so right. But the launch prices are modest-sized boxes in comparison to the mammoth Accessories section. I'm thinking we can cut down by taking out unnecessary details like the colour of the finish or chrome rimming or whatever. Perhaps some separately bulleted accessories can be combined into one line under one bullet. I'll give it a once over and please reverse what I've done if you think the details I took out are necessary. It's just that the way I figure it, this is a general comparison of consoles rather than a full listing of all things included in the package. If they wanted that, they can look up the console's wiki page or view product info when they go to buy it. (I see this page has been promoted to High Priority. When did that happen?)--clicketyclickyaketyyak 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I put in some hide tag code things to shrink the table. Is it good? Should there be more? clicketyclickyaketyyak 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice work. I think it does look better, though I'm not sure if it's due to the smaller text or edits. Can you detail your edits or link to a comparison? IMO there's no need for details on more than 3 SKUs (I realize its a completely arbitrary number, but 4 or more is overkill I think). Tehw1k1 (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From earliest to latest, here are links for my edits to the comparison tables specifically to shrink them (prior to that, I was just adding references to dates):
• 22 November 2007: unnecessary information removed; repeated names shortened with use of standard abbreviations.
• 29 November 2007: added in hide/show code.
• 29 November 2007: conciseness.
• 12 December 2007: shrunk font size.
• 14 December 2007: convert flags to standard country codes (as per VG WikiProject guidelines, which also happens to reduce size.)
• 14 December 2007: more of the same.

I was thinking that perhaps a scrolling bar might look nicer than show/hide. Like, if you look at the right side of this page, that scrolling bar thing. Better, do you think? I've seen it used in some article's infoboxes. By SKU do you mean release prices? clicketyclickyaketyyak 00:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Xbox exclusive problems

The Xbox is being criticized for not having the disk capabilities that the PS3 has. GTA might have to come on multiple disk. I think that is worth mentioning--66.176.92.191 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but not GTA speculation (unless in a quotation). I've certainly seen criticism of the 360's disk capacity before. I think one was in an interview with Hideo Kojima about MGS4, explaining why he won't bring it to the 360. Will google. clicketyclickyaketyyak 05:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Added a paragraph about it to the 360 section. Check it out and tell me what you think. For balance, I say a paragraph should be added to the PS3 section on the PS3's slower drive speed, resulting in longer load times. clicketyclickyaketyyak 09:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
ok, we've been through the load time thing before and it has been said elsewere (can't remember where, check the Blu-ray page maybe) that a 16x DVD is about the same speed as a 2x BD. I can tell you from personal experience that the 360's games load at about the speed as PS3 games. That being said, I don't thinks it's fair to put something supporting the PS3 and bashing the 360 (not literally, but you get the point) without doing the converse as well. Right off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that the 360 has on the PS3 other than game selection and price (not relevant from an encyclopediac viewpoint). The current section is very well written and I definately do not see POV in it. If you can't find anything other than load time (which I've already stated is not valid), it may not be a bad idea to omit the section because it could be taken as fanboyism, (I personally have nothing against either console, though I do think it was a bad move by Microsoft to not include a hard drive with all their consoles.) I guess you can make the call on whether to keep it or not. Thingg 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

16x DVD's data rate is 177.28 Mbit/s (21.13 MB/s). 2x BD's data rate is 72 Mbit/s (9 MB/s). That is not, at least by my standards, "about the same speed". As for "360's games load at about the same speed as PS3 games", I would refer you to IGN's PS3 review of The Orange Box: "Almost all the PS3 load times are at least five seconds more than the 360" ; "loading a saved game/loading after death is particularly awful. These clock in at about two or three times as long as the 360 version, which slows down the gameplay considerably." ; "Even in Portal, a short title that often requires a little trial and error, this problem is massive. The 360 version takes about three seconds to load your last checkpoint if you die. The PS3 version takes seventeen. It hurts."

I'm willing to work on a paragraph of criticism of the PS3 here on the talk page before inserting though, if that would put you at ease. clicketyclickyaketyyak 20:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes on my numerous edits

I am not trying to express fanboyism with any of my edits. If you perceive any of them as fanboyism, please contact me and let me know of your changes. (Obviously, you don't have to do this, but it would be greatly appreciated.) I also wanted to say that although the PS3 section on Backwards Compatibility is much longer than the 360 or the Wii's, I feel this is necessary because of the many different PS3 versions and BC capabilities.

Questions

Should the Xbox 360 Xbox Live Video Marketplace, Wii EverybodyVotes Channel, or Wii Sign Mii Out channel be counted as seperate services?
Does anyone know what wi-fi band (a, b, or g) that the DS uses?
Is it true that the PSP Slim is lighter than the DS Lite?

Thanks for the help. Thingg 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The PSPslim&lite is indeed lighter than the DSlite. The PSPS&L's product description lists it as 186 g. The DSL's product description lists it as 218 g clicketyclickyaketyyak 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Xbox 360 segment in general

This piece is in need of serious work. The PS3 does not need to be mentioned so heavily in a history of the 360, nor does the 360 segment need to be about how "great" the PS3 is in comparison.

The author was obviously biased. Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 segments are laregly about how awesome the PS3 is by comparision and cites several things that are questionable at best (like backwards compatbility claims, when Sony is REMOVING such features from the PS3...).

Wikipedia is not for fanboys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morning buzz (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

please see here for my comment
Thingg 20:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Except for the backwards compatibility part (I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to in the 360's section on that), I wrote the paragraphs critical of the 360 in its section upon request. I am not quite clear on which company it is you are accusing me of being "obviously biased" towards. Am I "obviously biased" against the PS3 because I wrote in criticism that game developers had for 360 and their preference for the PS3? Or am I "obviously biased" against the 360 because I rebuffed Sony's criticisms with the sentence: "Yet a month later, an Xbox 360 collector's edition was announced and though it lacked the movie Hard Boiled that the PlayStation 3 version included and required a second disc for the bonus material, the Xbox 360 version of the game achieved an average review score 2% higher than the PlayStation 3 version on Game Rankings, casting doubt on Russell's claims"? If you could clarify which company it is I am "obviously biased" against, I would be most thankful.
As for why the PS3 section is largely "about how awesome the PS3 is by comparison", I haven't yet created a counterbalancing paragraph criticising the PS3 in its section as I've been a bit busy and have been trying to fill in needed citations first. Apologies. clicketyclickyaketyyak 20:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

PSP Lite?

I have never heard of the new PSP being reffered to as the "PSP Lite." I had removed that name from the table, and Silver Edge (who I assume, based on his numerous edits on this article, knows what he is talking about) put it back in. If anyone could explain this to me, I would appreciate it. If no one can find something referring to the new PSP as the "PSP Lite", I think we should remove that name from the article. Thingg (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article for the new PSP is named PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite, and two sources cited in that article refer to it as the "PSP Slim & Lite", [9] [10] one of those sources is a uk.playstation.com article. It seems PSP Slim & Lite is used only on the packaging in Europe, while "PSP" is used on the packaging for the new PSP in Japan and North America. See Talk:PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite#Name and Talk:PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite#The Slim & Lite moniker is for U.K. & Europe only --Silver Edge (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that and thanks for the answer. Thingg (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

cached pages

Regarding the removal of the 'cached' part of urls (by Silver Edge), isn't it a good thing to use the Google Crawler that preserves websites in an archive in order to prevent Link rot? I'm just afraid that in five years when Nintendo releases its next console (or even before then), their Wii website will be taken down. Even while I was looking for things to replace the 'ref needed', I was finding references to an article on Bloomberg, but when I went there, it was gone. And I just had to replace a reference to an article about record-breaking Halo 3 because, as it said when I went to the link, "The page you are seeking has expired and is no longer available at MSNBC.com." Doesn't the caching prevent references from becoming dead links, or am I neglecting something in Wikipedia policy (sorry, I'm not very familiar with it yet)?

(On that subject... Thingg, maybe you would like to replace the WP:GRIEF link on your userpage with this version, which is cached by Google, as the page has since been deleted and can no longer be read otherwise.) clicketyclickyaketyyak 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

360 SKUs out of date

The 360 SKUs (and PS3 SKUs?) are out of date on the comparison chart. The "core" SKU no longer exists and has been replaced with the "arcade" SKU, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longman391 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not out of date. The new SKUs are mentioned along with the old ones because they existed, not because they are still being sold. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 04:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Page semi-protected

So I finally had enough of all the edits to release dates and prices and sales/shipped figures and requested semi-protection, if you're wondering why the page suddenly shows that it's semi-protected. You can, of course, request deprotection, but I hope you'll agree with me that it's much nicer to not have to check through a bunch of edits to find out what the actual figures were after multiple intervening edits have potentially changed the figures beyond recognition and removed the actual info. As long as VGChartz exists (and stores keep lowering the prices of consoles), I'm afraid that semi-protection seems the best solution... clicketyclickyaketyyak 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

PS3 Sales way off

I recently found this on the internet saying the ps3 surrpassed 7million sales some time ago (november 9th)

http://www.digg.com/playstation/PS3_sales_pass_the_7_million_mark_faster_than_360

So I'm stillconfussed about how to work the website but hopefully this is the right place and some one can update these figures.

Thank Alan

What was digged was vgchartz. Unfortunately, we're not using VG Chartz. If you look back on top of the discussion page, we don't consider VG Chartz as a valid source. So, all we wait for are sources like the quarterly reports from Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony to ascertain how many have left their hands. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting Reports from the Future?

On the comparison of Xbox 360s, Playstation 3's, and Wiis and how many of them have been sold or shipped to retailers, it says that the Xbox 360 has sold 17.7 million as of 8 JANUARY 2008. Did someone come from the future to tell us that? Also, we should get an update for the number shipped to retailers, because it looks wierd saying that there are 2.7 million less than the number sold. Stevv (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was BioShock and Mass Effect removed from the Milestone section?

Doesn't make a lot of sense, the wording was matching to the standards of the previous "milestones," not to mention BioShock is highly regarded a lot more in the industry than Halo 3 and Mario Galaxy, and Mass Effect is setting a very, very high bar. It had the sources to back the claims, and it's unsettling that it was just erased so abruptly. We're too far into this generation to only have TWO milestone titles, and not to mention the two added are very clearly regarded as milestones. Other suggestions: Call of Duty 4 and Manhunt 2. Why Manhunt 2? Because if you are a gamer you know what that game went through and what it did to the ratings board and circumstance involving video game censorship, very much worthy of a milestone trademark for its impact on the gaming industry combined with the ratings board, as well as the violence controversy which surrounds the world of gaming. Call me biased, but I'm adding those back and I fully support other well-informed gamers to add more milestones, we're well along into this generation, and we're packed full of landmark titles that can arguably define this generation as the best and one of the most influential. Theseven7 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the removal. I think the "Milestone" noun can be interpreted in a number of ways, and is not clear to which one is referring. Critical success? Commercial success? What is the minimum bar for each? Without a clear rule, this is highly subjective, and anyone can "lower" or "raise" it according to their preferences. It is what I call a "magnet for subjective discussions between fanboys", just like "Examples of social networking sites are...", "... are considered highly regarded titles in the industry", "...is considered better than..." etc.
It appears the section only accepts one title for commercial success (Halo 3) and one for critical success (Super Mario Galaxy). Bioshock is a highly regarded title, yes, but Super Mario Galaxy won the GOTY award at IGN and GameSpot, the most important gaming publications. Personally, I wouldn't object its inclusion, but then you would have to accept Orange Box, Rock Band and maybe Call of Duty just for the critical success. Now, Manhunt 2 a milestone title? Why it is a milestone title? Just because it got censored and they had to tone it down? It is not the first game to be cut, nor the last one. What would we gain with it as a milestone title? That the industry is stupid for judging a game and a movie with different standards? That is what I call subjective. Same with Mass Effect: first you should add a reference to claim that it "advanced the single player narrative in games with an evolving storytelling system". And then consider whether that is a reason good enough to consider it a Milestone. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The best way to compare the milestones is to look at the previous milestones in the other articles. Eternal Darkness being a milestone? Soul Calibur? If these make it, then Rock Band, COD 4, Mass Effect, BioShock, all deserve it for what they bring to the generation. I said Manhunt 2 can be argued for due to the controversy. When people talk about innovative games of the generation, which is what this category should be regarded as, as future generations will likely want to know the top-tier regarded titles in some sense of revolution, there are much more than just Halo 3 and Mario Galaxy. That is my view, anyway, but I think it's best for the reader to have a list of the games people will remember most about this generation. A source for the claims of Mass Effect can be gotten easily, but didn't think it needed too many sources for just a few sentences about the game. Besides, selling a million copies in a month of a game is a great task not any game could do, making it memorable for that alone in the same context as Mario and Halo.

If ME can't make it, fine, but BioShock clearly has a place on this list without debate. Anyway I was just a little taken aback about the instant delete without any sort of talk page on it. 2007 has been record shattering for the gaming industry, and needs more than two milestones regardless.Theseven7 (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To give you an idea, Madden sells over 3 million the month of its release every year, and I would not call it a milestone for the year. In any case, the user who removed it left an edit summary explaining why he did so, and we usually go with the 1-revert rule (if you modify the article and someone reverts your edit, instead of restoring your edit you discuss it in the talk page). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see where you're coming from on BioShock, but I am absolutely opposed to Mass Effect being included. If you are going to include that, why not include Uncharted: Drake's Fortune? That title has graphics that far exceed any other game out there. Also, Wii Play sold pretty well, as did Mario and Sonic at the Olympic games. Basically what I'm saying is this, there are a lot of really good games out there (see last sentence), but most of them are not "milestone titles" in the same sense as Halo 3, Super Mario Galaxy, and to a lesser extent, Bioshock are. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is the biggest game to come out on PS3, doesn't make it that big of a deal overall.pjh3000 (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, as far as I know, metacritic.com is a reliable source, but I wanted your opinion before I remove the tag. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There should be a better reference. Nobody signs the Metacritic reviews. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I put a CNET blog reference and a 1up review to replace the Metacritic one, but Metacritic is very reliable; so I went ahead and removed the tag to prevent congestion of that sentence, if it's not good enough I am sure any one of us could find another.Theseven7 (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol... BioShock removed again? Who did it this time? I thought the general consensus here agrees with BioShock being considered a milestone? Theseven7 (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the article history and talk with the one who removed it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Super Mario Galaxy should be listed. Just because it's big right now, there will be a dozen other Mario titles coming out after it. Halo 3, Mass Effect, BioShock. Those are the big 3 so far.pjh3000 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I bet you own an Xbox 360, right? ;-) Halo 3 is a milestone because it had a great opening. Galaxy is a milestone because it is the second best game ever released according to dozens of aggregation sites. Bioshock could be considered another milestone for its quality, narrative and depth. But Mass Effect? It is just another RPG which got free publicity because of a scandal, just like San Andreas. What did it do that is considered groundbreaking?
Milestones varies from fan to fan, that is why I am against having such section in these articles, because fans will never agree. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sales standings

How can the worldwide sales figures for the Xbox 360 be lower than the US figures? pjh3000 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because those are the last available numbers. Notice how the Wii and the PS3 numbers of sales units are also defaced. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seventh_generation_of_video_game_consoles/Archive_4&oldid=1190116088"