Talk:PlayStation 3 system software

Upcoming System Software Update Features

Upcoming update features (no release set)

• YouTube Support - the experiment is being supported globally and is designed to let developers easily integrate YouTube uploading into games

http://apiblog.youtube.com/2008/05/let-games-begin.html

http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/874/874506p1.html

http://www.developmag.com/news/29815/Sony-adds-YouTube-upload-support-to-SDK

• Larger Blu-ray Disc Support - 50GB is the current capacity and can be expanded if necessary

http://www.pcworld.com/article/117867/sony_eyes_200gb_bluray_discs.html

• Revamped Internet Browser
• PSN Video Store country expansion

Information on PlayStation Home

Home appeared automatically under the PSN section and it was not part of a System Update. Please post information on the PlayStation Home article and not on here, unless its to do with a specific update. ✰Ffgamera✰ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2008/12/10/playstation-home-open-beta-launches-tomorrow/

Exclusive Features (Japanese)

As an owner of both Japanese PS3 (CECHA00) and UK PS3 (CECHC03), I understand that I get a menu called Edy under "Settings" in Japanese PS3 that does not exist in my UK PS3. Can we add that feature along features exclusive to each region to the article? I can't remember when Edy was released, but I think it was shortly after PS3 release, before European release. I'll try to find a source if this proporsal is approved w_tanoto (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Did not take me that long actually:
[1] (JAPANESE)
[2] (Manual describing EDY)
[3] IGN Article on firmware 1.50
w_tanoto (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AV Watch article (Japanese) The Seventh Taylor (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Signing on this article talk page

(I think I did it right) I have put a bot-block on SineBot for this article, this is because most of this talk is about the future updates and nobody is really discussing the article, due to the fact that the formatting, etc, is pretty much perfected. however obviously, please ensure that you sign discussions. ;) hope everyone is ok that I've done this. if not, then feel free to revert.Chocobogamer (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Release Date

I took the liberty of changing the date. It is not based on your local time on Japanese release (or any region which release it first), but should be the official time stated at the website. So far American version hasn't come out. I expect it will be dated 18 June as well when it is.
Japanese and European version are available, and both are dated 18 June w_tanoto (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Firmware 1.00

should we add this to the article just like PSP? we can then add "initial japanese/na release" w_tanoto (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong information

This article contains some wrong facts about the changes in updates: "New page added to profile of users under [Players Met] which shows the last game played with that user." This came in 2.40. "You can now turn off the PlayStation 3 system from the XMB screen using the [Turn Off System] option." This feature had been implemented for a long while, its not new in 2.40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.32.96.113 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the first one, but the second one is incorrect. XMB [Turn Off System] located under Users is a new option in 2.40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.165.163 (talk • contribs)

[Players Met] was in 2.40, but can we get a reliable source to back this up? I suspect that you can;t cite your own system, after all... -- Ratarsed (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it says that Antialiasing is supported in patch 1.80. The PS3 has never supported Anti-Aliasing, just a screen-wide smoothing/blur effect. Anti-Aliasing means running the game in 2X, 4X, 6X or sometimes even 8X the normal resolution and performing adjustments to the image to maintain detail on the edges of polygons. To see the difference between the two, run a PS1/PS2 game in emulation on a computer with Anti-Aliasing turned on, then see the same game on the PS3 with "Smoothing" turned on. The edges of polygons look nothing alike. Check the Anti-Aliasing article on Wikipedia for more detail.

One other thing: the 2.60 update doesn't allow non Signed In players to download content on the Store. It's Browse only! (I've tested It) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.188.242 (talk • contribs)

DivX logo during playback of Divx (not XviD) content

I am still surprised no one has mentioned about the DivX logo fading in and out in the playback of DivX videos on the PS3. I would post it, but there is no source on the internet to back it up and it would be deemed "original research". And this condition is not with that the videos have it encoded into the file, even if you restart the video, the logo pops up again. It also fades out if you pause in the middle of it appearing, making this part of the System Software, not part of the encoded video. --Jack Zhang (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a notable feature. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

2.4x to 2.8x

2.40's withdrawal

Please post information here until verified by Sony.

The main rumour so far is that it isn't downloading to the console correctly. However the version from the PS website http://duk01.ps3.update.playstation.net/update/ps3/image/uk/2008_0702_96e9def601672c5abcbb4604bb2346f1/PS3UPDAT.PUP has been withdrawn to (which of course can be verified that it downloaded correctly), which means it could be something more serious. Obviously I'm worried coz I got it literally moments before its withdrawal. I'd like to know the problem and its effect. chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[4]I wouldn't add this link as reference as it is blog, and engadget record is not good as a good source. But apparently some of us experienced bricking (not me). If someone can find similar sourcew_tanoto (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I added this on this link to the article page, http://kotaku.com/5021458/ps3-240-update-problems-and-solutions

Problem: "Owners of PS3s in all shapes and sizes have been reporting that their systems were loading to the initial PlayStation wave screen and simply hanging there after applying 2.40. No icons, no controller functions, no nothing, just the wave across the middle of the screen."

Solution: "Users found that removing and reformatting their PS3 hard drive and then reinserting it into the console would get the system to boot completely, after which it asks to reformat the disk again and everything runs normally. Of course they lose all of their saved games and have to redo all of their downloads, but I suppose that is better than sending in the system for a $150.00 repair."

Ofcourse Sony had to temporarily remove the update as only a few people are familiar with how to remove and formatt your HDD to fix their own Console.Denzelio (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

apparently holding down the power button till it beeps works as well. Sony need to rush out a 2.41 which is just 2.36 retitled until its perfected rather than trying to fix this before having a stable version. It was bound to happen really, XMB was promised at launch... chocobogamerLOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard about removing PS3 hard drive and reinstall it solution. but I also heard bricking. Still need to find a good sourcew_tanoto (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on 2.42 addition I little while back I added the following to the 2.42 update info:

• Before a firmware update, there is now the option to have the system automatically shutdown after installation.

I've downloaded every update since I bought my PS3 in early January, and I had never noticed this option until I was going to download and install the 2.42 update. Before you start, you can check a little box that will turn off the PS3 after the update is installed. I had never seen it before, and I figured it was one of those behind the scenes deals, so I added it to the list.

It was eventually removed from the page, so I figure somebody believes I was mistaken. Has anybody seen this option before, because I never have. I could be wrong, but I just wanted to check on the talk page. 68.161.79.96 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember seeing it when I went to install 2.41 (and as I had 2.40, I believe it to be a feature introduced in 2.40, as I'd have been running 2.40 at the point it prompted me.); Can't find a reliable source either way, though -- ratarsed (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Firmware 2.43 is here!

Not sure what is in it but it's right here in the blog. Just thought you might need this for updating this article. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 08:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 08:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Firmware 2.50 It's not here yet but the official intel is right here in the official blog. Also bonus intel on PSP firmware 5.00 FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 15:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Now it's out, but there's something new you can activate under System Settings for DivX VOD. I don't know what it's for, and it isn't listed on the wiki yet. Anyone want to add it? --71.241.70.96 (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

DivX VOD is code must be used with your DivX player. Open DivX player on a PC. Go to Tools>Device Manager>Register Device and you have to select Sony as the brand. And you have to input the code that the PS3 says when you go to System Settings>DivX VOD. When all is done, you download a video that you put on a USB device. Play it on the PS3, and it should register the PS3.Ffgamera (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Firmware 2.50 pauses videos if you press the PS button now? Rather than still play the video? Ffgamera (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that myself. I wondered if it was a glitch or something new they did. Can anyone find a refrence? --Keithkesslerexp (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anyway thing from an offical source that's in an article I'm looking but seems common Altman Be Praised (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the PS button video pausing is intentional, due to the fact that it has been there for the past three system updates. Ffgamera (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The PS button thing is a "feature" (albeit a stupid one) introduced with 2.50. There appear to be lots of people complaining about this but it's all forum and blog comments, nothing that can be used as a reliable source unfortunately. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just so people who are going to read a comment or something similar, don't miss out on a bit of the video or something silly like that. Ffgamera (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Firmware 2.52 The playstation just gave me new update 2.52. Downloading now so no idea of changes made or new features. 218.214.24.247 (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC) stevenbomber

Firmware 2.53

Is it true that it will come today (or tomorrow depending on time zone)? Because it sounds dodgy that Sony said "It was released on 26th November", when it hasn't as of now. And people use that info as: it WILL be released, instead of Sony's notion. Ffgamera (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's been delayed but the information is still valid. Just leave the date as "TBA" for now I think. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The update was released on December 1 Ffgamera (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible firmware in 2009 (2.54 maybe?)

Not sure how true this is but sometime in 2009 it's rumored that the PS3 might be getting a firmware that will allow stereoscopic 3D support. Sources are here & here. PLEASE NOTE THAT I'M NOT SURE HOW TRUE THIS IS. So please don't add it yet.FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 03:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It was firmware 3.30, April 22, 2010. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 03:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Firmware 2.70

None of the rumoured features were included, as anticipated. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was included in this release, but I haven't noticed it previously: Downloads (and possibly Installs/Copy's etc. (Although I haven't checked)) now give an ETA, just above and to the right of the progress bar.--Tindap (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Another feature I've found in 2.70 that I haven't seen announced is that there has been some change in the videofile-compatability. I had "Lord.Of.War.DVDrip.XviD-xV" on my PS3s HDD and it said "unsupported format" when I tried playing it. I then downloaded 2.70 and 10 minutes later, after install, it worked! Has this been announced or has this been hidden from us? EzelMannen (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

System software 2.80

Someone should add that Sony has blocked access to Open Remote Play, as stated here: http://www.ps3-hacks.com/forums/post-84140.html#p84140

Page layout

I would like to re-add the nested sections within the table. This would put an edit button into each table row (unfortunately, you can't see the "edit" buttons on old revisions). This table is starting to get rather cumbersome, after many years / software updates. The only downside is that it also makes the Table of Contents way too long. Is there a way to add a section without it being listed in the TOC? LobStoR (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

could do it for the major updates ie 2.5x and ignore the 2.53, 2.55 etc headerwise? chocobogamermine 15:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be very horrifying for navigation. We should only do it for major updates as chocobogamer has suggested. Ffgamera (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be split by year? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who messed it up so that version 3 is just one big blob of information instead of being broken down by each firmware version number like it still is for versions 2 and 1, but version 3 needs to be fixed. Right now it is completely useless. I was just prompted for a new update, came here to see what it included, and I cannot tell because version 3 is just a giant blob of unsorted information. Please change it back to the useful sorting method used for versions 2 and 1! 69.207.219.125 (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

NOT support Xvid at all

DivX, XviD, 3ivx and other MPEG-4 Part 2 codec implementations work with a simple import into MP4 using a program such as MP4Box. - The it does NOT support XVID if you have to jump through hoops to convert it. Its wrong to write that it does. (yes it is) --IceHunter (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've played many files encoded using MPEG-4 part 2 in AVI containers on my PS3 without any remuxing or reencoding. Sony advertises support for DivX (and will show the DivX logo when playing a file with the DivX FourCC code), but handles many other MPEG4-in-AVI files just fine. So I'd say it is the note that is incorrect rather than the claim that the PS3 can play such files. --James (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

release dates of updates

I've said this before it needs to be sorted. The simple answer is to source the updates from the UK website. Why? Simple - We should be using UTC as its the Universal Time Code. UTC is what used to be called GMT (obviously) and is therefore British time. Edit warring over a date is pathetic and as bad as rowing over American or British English and it needs to stop. chocobogamermine 23:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BRAVIA Sync

Is there any evidence yet as to whether BRAVIA Sync depends on v3.00 system software or on PS3 Slim hardware? (Obviously, the new model has both) The Seventh Taylor (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

the way sony's articles are written its slim only, and as slim ships with 3.00 its impossible to say if it was usable before chocobogamermine 22:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The signal needed would be hardware wouldn't it be?Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the answer now: it's dependent on the hardware (on the HDMI chip) so only available on PS3 Slim. See [5] The Seventh Taylor (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

some real information please?

This article is useful for those interested in updating their PS3, but this is an encyclopedia not a tech guide. Things should be more academic. I was hoping for information about the operating system itself. What is it? Most OS's have some history going back decades, I'm guessing it lives on the OS family tree somewhere. But I still have no clue. --71.213.239.59 (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The article you are looking for is XMB I believe. And I'm not sure what you're looking for. The system software article covers everything that is in the firmware. The article even states clearly that it's a game system firmware. Not a computer OS. It doesn't have a "family tree" because it's simply a firmware. The PlayStation and PlayStation 2 have BIOSes, but the PS3 has a firmware (or system software). System software are different from operating systems. The article already says that it is similar to the PlayStation Portable's. Please tell me what you're wanting to know specifically. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm fine with the contents of this article, like the OP I'm eager to find more information about the operating system that PS3 must have (though I'd expect to find it in the main PS3 article) . The XMB is not an OS, it's a Graphical User Interface, part of the system software which is built on top of the OS. Very much like the Xbox360's 'dashboard' GUI is built on top of a Windows-derived OS. Sony remains (probably intentionally) vague about the OS, perhaps because it's not an open environment anyway. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

its completely closed source so theres little chance of finding out exactly how it works, moreso than windows/osx, all you can find out is about the updates and the gui at the moment chocobogamermine 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OS X's kernel is open source. And actually we knows tons about the history of Windows. Check out the Wikipedia article sometime. ;) --eean (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean like what coding does it use and what engine they used? Unfortunately, I have no idea and don't know anyone who has the slightest idea of the programming side to the PS3 system software. All we know is the interface and art side of it. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

All I really know is that it's Linux-based and that a lot of the XMB animations were done by Q-Games. Shouldn't be too hard to find citations for this. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 10:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• You don't need to justify the information in this article. It's a game console OS article. It's Sony's proprietary OS, built from the ground up for the PS3. No history, no family tree. I don't think Sony's released anything on the OS beyond what is in the article right now, anything else would just be speculation on the part of the editors. --Ashitaka96 ^{| E-mail • Talk |} 01:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If it was written from scratch that would be pretty interesting to know. I personally doubt anyone has written a non-academic production operating system from scratch in decades though. :) --eean (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it is possible to install Linux on a PS3 (at least for the currently released ones), but I haven't seen anything to indicate that the hypervisor (the software that limits what "other OS" software can do) or the game OS are based on Linux. If they were, then Sony would need to inform people of the fact and provide the Linux source code runnning on the system as required by the license (this wouldn't necessarily require them to release the rest of the firmware). You may be right, but I would find it surprising. --James (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Chimpanzee, don't you mean Unix-based? Not Linux? ✰Ffgamera✰ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 05:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Firmware 3.0

It released on August 31, 2009 for a lot of the world. And apparently, the PS3 120GB was actually shipped with System Software 2.75, which is an unheard of firmware. ✰Ffgamera✰ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 04:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

as we're meant to follow UTC, then no it was the 1st as I live in England and checked after 1am and it still wasn't up. Im guessing 2.75 probably is just Bravia Sync - the preview shots of the slim PS3 were like months old so I would have been surprised if they all had 3.00 on lol, bt I'm guessing Bravia Sync is out-of-the-box, it could have been available unknowingly because the fat one can't do it chocobogamermine 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree to follow UTC, but it's just not gonna happen for some people. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Slim features, not 3.00 features

My Slim shipped with 2.76 with Bravia Sync and Other OS removed out of the box. So I'm removing those features as 3.00 features, they are just Slim features and not introduced in 3.00 --Ciao 90 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are indeed Slim-specific. The options are still there on my PS3 and even have subtitles detailing both. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Controller issue

Needs to be changed from 'the' to 'some', as, if the controllers are knock-off ones that are going down, not all the controllers will be effected, as it is the official HK code used by SCE http://asia.playstation.com/hk/en/ps3/peripheral chocobogamermine 12:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

in fact scrap that, id say remove that part altogether, if they are fake controllers Sony are hardly likely to patch the software to use them chocobogamermine 12:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

'Slim' name

Just so you all know, the English language Asian official PlayStation sites are referring to the new PS3 as "PS3 Slim & Lite" in the sense of it being its official title over there. Also, UK site has at times referred to it as 'slim'. In my opinion, it is therefore fair to use the term "Slim" as long as there are quotation marks as the company itself refers to it so chocobogamermine 16:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Slim is much easier anyway. If we used 120GB, it wouldnt be correct, because the 250GB is a slim model as well. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 08:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

v1.00

Can anyone confirm that 1.00 was in fact shipped on consoles and it wasn't just an internal build? as we can't say what the changes to the pre-1.00 alpha and beta builds were we can't list what they have and would say its not worth including chocobogamermine 23:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone confirm. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 02:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Revamped Article

I have done a revamp which involved resorting the categories and adding a new category for TV, Network, PSN and Friends "Network changes". I think navigation will be much easier now. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 03:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

XMB Table

I removed a "Features" section from the article recently that included exhaustive information about options available on XMB. I don't quite understand why this is needed. The article is for system updates, not for information about XMB. The features could be placed in XrossMediaBar or PlayStation 3 as alternatives. Furthermore, the PSP system updates article does not contain an XMB table. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 07:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a good idea to remove it. I tried editing it several times to make it look good, but it never did. So I think removing it entirely makes sense. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 13:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cinavia

I'm not confident, but I think the latest firmware update (released 6 December 2010) may have added Cinavia. Obviously we'd need a source that talks about that change as well as verification that it wasn't added in a prior firmware update, but if you go to the XMB and look at the About (the scrolling credits which detail things like which technologies are used in the PS3) you should be able to see/not see Cinavia as the last entry now. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

3.56 Hard Drive Issue

Sounds suspicious. The Playstation 3 is a bit peculiar in that it only recognises FAT32 file systems. Maybe it is that which is the problem. Antimatter31 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

the internal hdd isn't formated using FAT32 but a more unix-like filesystem, it's not the cause Markthemac (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Qriocity with 3.56 reissue

I updated my PS3 to the 3.56 reissue, and noticed that I have "Music Unlimited powered by Qriocity" under Music, but looking at my friend's PS3 which has not been updated to the reissued 3.56, this feature is absent. Not a 100% sure, but it looks like the reissued update gives users (or at least US users) access to Qriocity on PS3. 173.20.89.180 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

3.74 update

I was prompted to install this when I ran the Chinese version of Final Fantasy XIII-2, so it should probably be added to the page.

OtherOS class action

The class action for the other OS may have been dismissed but it looks like it's gone to appeal here http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/11-18066/ perhaps someone who can access pacer can tell us what's happening with it. Pleasetry (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have succeeded if anyone is interested. Pleasetry (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I added this information to the upper part of the article which, prior to my addition, only presented Sony's argument. That argument ultimately failed in our courts — as apparently it's not good business to remove advertised features after the fact and use ad hominem and other fallacies (e.g. "no one cared about this feature") in the courts against customers who liked said feature(s) — so it should not be written alone. Therefore, I added information about the resolution. It includes the scope of the settlement cap as well as the venerable corporate settlement claim of not having done anything wrong. I can condense the information to a single sentence but left it in three parts for reading simplicity.

System update 4.45

It looks like there's at least one article on problems that have been occurring with the current PS3 system version, though I'm not sure how to integrate it into the article (if it's even a good time to do so). http://kotaku.com/dont-update-your-ps3-today-514213464 --Thunderbird8 (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

remove it it has been pulled --Wjmdem (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The system update will no doubt be reissued once the issues have been fixed (as has happened before). I don't see any reason to remove it from here, at least for now. --Thunderbird8 (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Mention of CellOS being based on FreeBSD citation is bad

Citation 2 on this page links to a page which links to a 404'd blogspot article about the PS3 CellOS being FreeBSD based. Since there is no adequate citation, a new citation needs to be found, or that part of the article needs removed. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This citation is also just completely wrong. CellOS is a unique design, both the hypervisor and the kernel. The network stack originally came from NetBSD. Yes, pieces of various open source code are used, but it is in no way "a fork of FreeBSD." Since Wikipedia is so strict about having web-based citations, I'll suggest using my interview with BSDNow.tv [6] as the citation. Ohmantics (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

About that update history

Since it’s been decided to keep the problematic “updates” section for now, I’ve attempted to address some of its problems. Like the listings in the PS4 article, it had some real identity issues with its lists, and also with duplicate id attributes, so now that’s sorted. I’ve also deleted some horribly vague and uninformative descriptions that were probably copied and pasted from official sources like the rest of them. And I’ve tagged the latter complaint, {{copypaste}}, as well as {{third-party}} since it doesn’t seem to use any third-party sources.

Anyway, if there is a compelling and encyclopedic need to include details about past versions of the system software, could we limit it to important and/or noteworthy details? Wikipedia is not the place for complete version histories (but anyone can feel free to start your own wiki for that purpose!). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No justification has been given for keeping the section since I first posted here, and it’s chock full of copyright violations of questionable encyclopedic value, so I’ve removed it again. If there’s any reason to keep it, please join in the discussion here. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

67.14.236.50, there was a recent discussion for the changelogs of several console systems, and it didn't result in a consensus for such removal of all them. If you have concerns of copyright, rewording them is the proper solution, not removing them. IMHO the way to follow is what Wagnerp16 did at Xbox One system software‎‎ - change the prose so that it summarizes what RSs have said about those versions; but of course, that's a lot more work than merely removing the content that can be fixed. Diego (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and associated pages show a consensus for removing text copied verbatim from other sources. You are of course right that we can and should rewrite the appropriate content in our own words, but why preserve the copy-paste in the meantime? Why keep what we know can’t stay? If necessary, we could just mark the article as a stub while writing is in progress. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And in response to your reverting edit summaries: everything that anyone writes is copyrighted. This very statement of a fact is copyrighted to me (under the terms of the GFDL/CC-BY-SA). Copying from copyrighted material without explicit permission to do so is a copyright violation, and that includes software release notes. So yes, these tables are pretty massive copyvios. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If the text is properly marked as citation from another source it's not a copyright violation + the standard wiki license is not applied on this text. --Denniss (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Denniss: The project-wide license can’t be selectively applied. All contributions to Wikipedia are required to comply with CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Fair use exceptions apply, but a simple attribution does not make large-scale reproduction okay if the source is not under a compatible license or free. Please review WP:Copyrights.

In this case, my copyvio-based objection is to the large amounts of text that seem to be copied verbatim (or nearly so) from official update notes across these console software articles. There are also the matters of WP:Due weight and WP:NOTCHANGELOG; I question and challenge whether the majority of these details (for instance, the ability to set who can see trophies, or a bug fix for disappearing text) have been covered by reliable sources to an equal extent, because this article is covering them to an equal extent. And then of course there’s WP:TONE and WP:YOU—many of the descriptions are completely inappropriate in tone.

Other editors in the AFD discussion generally said either that we should keep the content because WP:ITSUSEFUL, or that the content should be cut or trimmed substantially per various policies and guidelines. If I continue to be the only one attempting to discuss this, I will continue to edit these articles per WP:BRD. If you have policy-based reasons for objecting to my edits, I implore you to share them and justify the undue weight given to every minor bug fix and tweak in comprehensive changelogs. If you do not, or if you choose not to share them, I would kindly ask that you cease reverting my attempts to improve Wikipedia by removing cruft. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So are we cool with tackling the issues I mentioned? Because no one’s claimed they aren’t present in each one of these articles (except for the copying of copyrighted text without permission, of which I stand by my response here). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

IMO your latest change to these related pages would be fine if, instead of removing all commentary as you did, you left in the comments referenced to third party sources. Diego (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Then why restore all of them? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to replacing the tables with a couple paragraphs summarizing major (as determined by RS coverage) developments in the update history? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If I may take the silence to mean no objections, then can we have less reverting and more writing, please? It would be great to see some progress in these articles. Per this proposal, I’m removing the tables again, and we can write up some prose to replace them using the third-party sources we have. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the prose and the table are incompatible, we can have both. In any case fully removing the table is a contested action, please don't do it again without a consensus. Diego (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of the AfD was to establish that these elaborate changelogs should only remain articles if they were turned into prose and cited in secondary sources. That's the consensus and I only see one person fighting the change. I think it's safe to assume that the IPs who change it back are just confused that the table went missing one day. – czar 23:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, if discussion dies down without a consensus being reached, I’m entitled to make a WP:BOLD edit like removing the tables in favor of prose. That said, I agree with Czar that there was a consensus to remove the tables, particularly if they’re made redundant. And in any case, no argument has been made for keeping the tables, so we literally have no reason to do so. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

To summarize what we have so far:

Changelog tables arguments

Keep	Delete
Some editors think WP:ITSUSEFUL	They’re full of WP:CRUFTy, trivial details for which it would be impossible to establish any significance
WP:PRESERVE says to fix problematic content instead of deleting it	WP:PRESERVE says to fix problematic content instead of duplicating it
Other articles include them	WP:NOTCHANGELOG says to avoid changelogs exactly like these
Reverts and objections show there’s no consensus for deleting them	Prior discussion showed consensus was generally against keeping them, and there’s no substance to the arguments for them
They aggregate information that isn’t readily available elsewhere (WP:LOSE)	Many of the update descriptions appear to be WP:COPYPASTEd directly from primary sources
	The tone is problematic, often that of Sony speaking directly to the consumer, wholly inappropriate for a reference work
	Most of the changes are uncited or cited only to primary sources
	Most of the changes are given with no context to show their significance
	The changes that are cited to third-party sources, even where said sources do discuss their significance, also fail to show their significance
	Much of the information has zero long-term significance
	No one has even bothered to claim WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, let alone provided any

Please let me know (or edit directly) if I’ve missed any lines of argument. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC) edited 01:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the sources cited in the tables actually describes the update as “non-news.” So, what’s in that pile of updates that is actually relevant enough (with meaningful third-party coverage) to keep in any form? I’ve found maybe fourteen of nearly a hundred cited sources that were third-party and had anything of substance in them, and that doesn’t cover anywhere near the full history. I’m open to suggestions. (Or if someone wants to explain why the whole mess ought to be kept as an exception to various rules, I’m open to that as well.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are those sources, and I don’t think even they are all reliable or relevant here:

• edepot.com (self-published?): v1.00 and v1.02 existed
• Kotaku: install any PS2 game to PS3 hard drive under v2.17, reported in error
• Engadget: v2.20 supports cheap BD-Rs
• Eurogamer: v2.41 to make PlayTV DVR peripheral usable during gameplay
• Engadget: v2.50 recovery menu
• Techradar: full-screen Flash in v2.53 browser
• Engadget: v3.0 disables third-party controllers
• BBC Internet Blog: iPlayer updated
• PS3 Attitude: v3.10 sends error reports
• CVG: v3.41 speculation, delta updates
• VG24/7: Sony investigating adapters disabled by v3.50
• IGN: v4.00 to allow transfer to/from Vita
• PlayStationLifeStyle.net: free Vita game with v4.31
• PlayStationLifeStyle.net: v4.45 (recalled) adds notification options, possibly ability to disable
• Destructoid: PS4 controllers compatible with PS3

If anyone has any thoughts on this list, or how to get meaningful article content from it, please share. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If no one has any ideas, does anyone have any objection to simply removing the section? I don’t find that ideal, but it seems preferable to having disjointed paragraphs jumping from version to version. I seem to be the only one trying to work on this, but I’m open to suggestion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather prefer to summarize the updates and only keep the main points instead. --Cartakes (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: There are inexplicably new posts in the thread above this one. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As you may be aware, a sizable amount of the “Description” content in the contested changelogs has been copied and pasted from official sources or similar. This is a copyright violation. If you feel the tables must remain present while alternatives are discussed, please remove the copied material from it. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

And speaking of which, let’s actually discuss alternatives. Would something like my summary of the Wii U updates be acceptable here? Please note that unlike in this article, the Wii U changelogs had third-party sources for only two updates, so those were the ones I discussed there, along with the initial release(s). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I contest the removing of the tables and think it is a silly thing to do across all of these system software pages, largely on the grounds of WP:ITSUSEFUL. It's important to have a changelog for each one, separate from official sources, and Wikipedia has traditionally served this purpose quite well. The tables also show when certain exploits where removed, this is largely seen on the PSP page (don't get any ideas, 67.14.236.50), but can/could be seen here. A table seems to be the best medium to show this in. If in some cases they're the same info as official sources, they're at least a time stamped and (relatively) safe from unseen editing 69.178.97.25 (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You do realize ITSUSEFUL is an example of an invalid argument, an argument to avoid, as is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and no, the PSP version history certainly doesn’t belong on WP, either). I trust you’re also aware of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, which has been discussed multiple times here and in the AFD discussion, and which contradicts the notion that WIkipedia has a consensus for such detailed (and in many cases, WP:COPYPASTEd) changelogs. If you insist that there is, it may be a good idea to take the discussion to WT:NOT or WP:VPP instead. (I’d do it myself, but I’m so sure it wouldn’t fly that I worry I’d be accused of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.)

Until then, please stop restoring these tables; current policy is against their inclusion, no substantive argument for an exception has been made, and we have had a consensus to remove them and replace with something else. If you think there’s encyclopedic value in cataloging exploit patches (and if you can explain why), we could have a paragraph or two about it, or a small table containing only that information. The rest is best left to fan-Wikias and the like.

Also, why in the world did you post up here instead of down at the bottom? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very long tradition of hosting these changelogs, and it's basically the go to for anyone who needs info on the newest update. The purpose it's served is having both the official release info, as well as the stuff snuck in, in one convenient place. Wikipedia is a public, third party entity that has a history attached to each article. So once a changelog is released, it can't be changed later to cover up any shenanigans, without a history being shown of such an act happening. It's also laid out very, very conveniently here.

I honestly don't have the willpower or patience to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia rules enough to stand my ground and fight you on it. It does seem to be a matter of you though, 67.14.236.50. You largely seem to be the only person on each changelog wanting this vehemently. Maybe you're just the Herald of Scorched Changelogs, and a decision was made farther up. I dunno, you're still the destroyer though.

I posted up here because this thread seemed the most relevant, dunno how threads work here, I guess. 69.178.97.25 (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(Note: I’m moving this sub-thread down to the end of the page to make the new posts more noticeable.)

This may all be true, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Any public wiki shares all these features. That’s why I’ve suggested using a Wikia-based wiki instead, since there are uncountable fan and hobbyist wikis hosted on there.

Also, generally. there is no “farther up,” and if you don’t like a rule, you can help change it. Wikipedia users, just like you and me, decided some time ago that WP:NOTCHANGELOG was a good idea. If you (or anyone else) thinks that bit of policy is a bad idea, if you think it’s a good idea to document every minor change to a piece of software despite a complete lack of coverage in reliable sources, then go ahead and suggest a change at WT:NOT (the Talk page for that rule) or WP:VPP (a page for discussing rules in general). No one has, so I’m assuming it still widely reflects community consensus. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - IP editor 67.14.236.50 has the right idea about keeping copyright violations out of the article. Even if attributed, we cannot copy large portions of prose content like this and present it as a Wikipedia article. Excerpts have to be judiciously used and it's a little troubling that not everybody recognizes this. Because of this confusion, I should point out that even close paraphrasing can constitute a copyright violation. So pre-emptively, editors should be aware that they should not be doing that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015

Since the {{under construction}} template has been removed with virtually no progress made toward construction, I ask that the empty § Details of updates be removed. The alternative, given the third-party sources previously used in that section, seems to be a couple of awkward proseline paragraphs (which I’ll attempt if this request is rejected and no one else has a go at it). Merging with PlayStation 3 may also be an option. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Done But feel free to undo it. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015 (2)

Fix the ref for the latest release in the infobox. The page at http://us.playstation.com/support/systemupdates/ps3/index.htm appears to be titled “PS3™ System Software Update,” and unless we update the ref along with the version number, it’s a terrible idea to include it in the title as it is now. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015 (3)

Fix the refs that have the access date in the |publisher= param, a missing publish date, and misspellings (“suite” for “suit”) and file formats in the titles. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: A couple of missing pipes and some missing |date were inserted. As for file formats in titles, that's not something needing immediate attention. Create an account and WP:SOFIXIT. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks on all counts! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What on earth happened with the update details?

Posted this over on the PS4 talk page, but then my PS3 also needed an update so it's just as relevant here.

I'm an infrequent PS3 user which means pretty often when I switch on there is a system update. I come to this page to see when the update was released and what it contained.

I'm not interested in the whys and wherefores, all I know is this page is now utterly useless to me. I will now have to go and try and find the information somewhere else, hoping it's listed as conveniently and concisely as it was here. Doesn't that rather defeat the purpose of Wikipedia? 151.229.182.193 (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Having done a little more reading of this page, it seems to be somebody complaining about copyright violations? Seriously? This isn't a book, these are update notes released into the public domain by Sony. This article (used) to serve as a place where they are all collated into one easy to find, easy to read, concise table. And to the complaint that the notes were often vague (system stability improved!) that's because Sony themselves are often vague - but it's still important to be listed here as that still provides information to me as the reader (i.e. minor update, nothing noteworthy). Every time I've tried to contribute to this site, I'm left frustrated by some frankly stupid policies. It also seems that there is one person here campaigning to remove information, so everybody else and all the readers just have to suffer the consequences, absolutely nonsensical. If you have something of value to add great, but don't take stuff away. 151.229.182.193 (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I literally cannot find another source that lists all the updates, with the details of what was included with each update, with the release date of each update. I had to resort to using the history of the main article to find the information I needed, and looks like I'll be totally screwed for future updates. Not impressed. 151.229.182.193 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can cite where the update notes have been released into the public domain, that would be a good step. However, I recommend that you instead use a wiki (or other resource, perhaps a forum) devoted to PlayStation users, which Wikipedia is not. The crux of the decision to remove these changelogs was WP:NOTCHANGELOG, which is Wikipedia policy, meaning it reflects widely held community consensus. You are as free as anyone else to endeavor to get that policy changed if you disagree with it, but no one has yet made any argument (other than WP:ITSUSEFUL) as to how the inclusion of changelogs would benefit the encyclopedia. But whether you choose to participate or not, I wish you well in your search. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• 151.229, here you go: http://us.playstation.com/support/systemupdates/ps3/history/index.htm – czar 17:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree with the first comment, the current setup of the update pages are horrible across all consoles - sorting updates in a table is not only common sense, but a much better schema to access relevant information from. Creating a narrative to avoid copyright violation is not only stupidity, but destroys the purpose of the page. Wikipedia policy seems to have taken a disingenuous stance with respect to changelogs, they are a schema best fitted to store information is associated with a particular set of times, similar to a timeline. I guess people have taken the term article literally as opposed to thinking about the layout of information as it is presented in your favourite textbooks, I.e. What is the ideal format to present the information or data.

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus and no more discussion over a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartakes (talk • contribs) 01:08, 10 November 2015‎

---

The prose in this article goes into way too much detail and is sourced primarily to secondary sources. Anything that needs to be said on the subject of the Other OS lawsuit or controversial OS updates has been covered within PlayStation_3#Software (or can be). I recommend redirecting there. – czar 16:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Support merging. If the legal issues with the PlayStation 3 are notable enough that we need this much coverage of them, we should have an article devoted to them. If not, we should trim it down. Either way, this is the wrong article for it, and what’s left is a candidate for merging since no one seems interested in building it up as anything other than a matter of convenience. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose if similar articles such as PlayStation 4 system software and Nintendo 3DS system software also exist on their own. They should be handled as a whole, instead of individually. --Cartakes (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cartakes: Are you opposing on the grounds that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? The existence of those articles is also contested, and the closer for the mass AFD recommended handling them individually. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not opposing because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I believe. However, because of these articles are quite related to each another, I think we should define the scope of these articles as a whole first and decide each individual article according to the same standard (instead of completely individually without any established standard). Hope you can see what I mean. --Cartakes (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cartakes: This article has fairly detailed descriptions of controversies and an unrelated lead. The PS4 article has a bit of technical info about how the software works. The 3DS article has several sections describing various user-facing parts and features. I really don’t think they’re directly comparable. If you mean you wanted to start a WikiProject discussion or something, I don’t think any of these OSes are really notable enough to warrant it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Each article's scope is determined independently. The depth of coverage for the Vita's system updates is not the same across the board for the PS3/4, etc. When an article is gutted, it's common practice to redirect it to its parent section. If the PS3 article accrued enough info about system updates to warrant a split, it would have no opposition. Instead this is another wasted conversation about whether to keep an unhelpful shell of an article standing. – czar 16:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Amazimg, destroy an articles entire worth, then ask the question "why isnt this page worth having?"−69.178.101.145 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was that the tables in this article didn’t belong on Wikipedia. By your logic, this article never belonged on Wikipedia. (But as I’ve said a number of times before, go ahead and copy it out of the revision history if you know somewhere it does belong.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, but I think like similar articles such as PlayStation 4 system software and Nintendo 3DS system software, there is no need to merge everything together when WP:SPLIT is already applicable to them. --Cartakes (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015

Since the changelog tables have been removed and consensus doesn’t seem likely to restore them, the “key for new updates” should probably also be removed from the comment at the top of the article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ done – czar 01:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

History of updates and problems with updates

If this article has a history section, shouldn’t it incorporate the stuff about certain parts of its history, rather than treating them in separate and abnormally small sections? Also, the history section is currently unsourced. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the section level to make these sections as subsections of the history section. Furthermore, I have added a number of sources to the history section. --Cartakes (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I’ve started a discussion at the help desk which may be relevant to recent changes to this article: WP:Help desk#Unremarkable software updates. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And then a village pump discussion about what WP:NOTCHANGELOG says and should say. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2015

Add to the top of this article:

{{merge to|PlayStation 3|discuss=Talk:PlayStation 3 system software#Merge}}

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done --Stabila711 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we now finally get update history back?

Since it looks like changelog purges did finally stop can we please get our update history back? Sony doesn't officially post whole update history and biggest flaw is their release notes are never complete. They often don't release all changes in new updates but are later discovered by various communities and posted here with sources. This was until removal most complete and correct list of update history. No such list exist as of now. After some debating deleted update histories for various products here on Wikipedia were already restored. Including iOS version history, android version history, PSP version history, Nintendo DS3 update history, Nintendo DSi update history, PS Vita update history, Nintendo Wii update history and others. Considering update histories for those products exists I don't see any reason Why PS3 update history shouldn't be allowed. So I give proposal to finally restore PS3 update history. Any thoughts by other users and mods? Last talk about this topic was in September 2015 when almost all update other histories mentioned above were purged but are restored now again. So it seems that time has changed. 213.161.24.221 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject, but according to the page above, a significant issue related to the update histories involved copyright concerns. You might want to review these concerns and address them if you're proposing that this sort of data be brought back. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The significant issue, honestly, was a select few guys had a chip on their shoulder and were on a witch hunt to destroy the page.

Seems to me that the whole "copyright" issue is rather baseless. How do you copyright a changelog? Why would you? Why are we removing a very long term feature of the page under a very vague threat? Where (and I'd be interested to be shown otherwise) theres never been case of someone getting sued from having a changelog 72.42.145.145 (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Browser info is wrong

The citation on the browser is incorrect. The PSP browser was NetFront. The PS3 browser started with an implementation by Sony Electronics, but switched to WebKit a few years into the product life and remains as WebKit. This is easily verified. Ohmantics (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

New software update for PS3?

new update just launched and will make the ps3 Proform better. However i still feel it's quite the same since old update in 2023 27.96.193.130 (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)