Jump to content

Talk:Daybreak Game Company

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freerealms is opening in november

[edit]

no longer on the closed, because I believe it begin on the Freerealms page. Joe McCullough 15:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy/criticism section?

[edit]

There is no need to change the term success when it comes to EQ2, because it was and continues to be a success. You see product is a success if it meets or exseads the expectations of the manufaturor of said product. Saying EQ2 is not a success because a differant game from a differant company sold far more is like saying a movie is not a success unless it make like Titanic did. WoW is a phenomenon as such it can not be used as an accurate comparison to other games in the same genre. Infact I don't think another US developed MMO has even cracked the 500k mark let alone gotten open.

Something needs to be changed about the "success" of EQ2. Which compared to WoW has been almost a failure with only a few hundred thousand singups compared to 9 million. 300k was big back in 2000 but 300k now is not considered a success, becayse out of those 300k that have signed up maybe 100k or less still play. EQ2 and just about EVERY Soe game since EQ has been a commercial failure if at least not a "hit" like EQ1 was.

Are we going to add something about how lots and lots of gamers hate SOE for allegedly ruining Star Wars Galaxies? It seems like that should be in here, because that's what SOE is most well-known for right now.

I think the Controversy section could be adjusted to be more objective. The "horrible, unreliable and dissapointing online service" seems excessively opinionated.

I think the point that SOE has changed "many" games drastically needs to be fixed. While all games change only SWG changed at such speed. Most other changes for games have been gradual and for the most part accepted by their respective communities

This section seems a bit odd to have on a corporation's wiki. I don't get why Sony Online Entertainment would be having so much about SWG, when it isn't even their primary game. I think this should be on the Star Wars Galaxies topic. SWG was published by Lucas Arts, and SOE developed it. I don't see any references or sources to issues with EverQuest, and that would be more appropriate than so much about SWG.

Couple of questions for the criticism section
1) Why is it the second main point on the page? Shouldn't this be towards the bottom after Titles and the Station.com section? Seems to make more sense there.
2) What is with the ridiculous amount of Matrix info it? Shouldn't it just be a sentence or two vice a unnecessarily lengthy diatribe?
BaronJuJu 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SWG is the only game I see the criticism of dramatic change as valid. Maybe EQ2, but I did not witness those. EQ gameplay has evolved with adding layers of content and functionality on top of old content. There never was a removal of classes or skills, the combat or magic system is the same as day one plus some fluff. In addition, as mentioned above, those developments have been mostly acceptable to the EQ community.

Sony Station?

[edit]

Sony Station is an online thing that they run which supports three games I believe, one is the classic online MMO 3rd person shooter Infantry and a Tank and Space shooter game. This service is still running but most of the games original players have moved on as the game community has moved on to more advanced games in the last 5 or so years.--Exander 01:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology not quite right?

[edit]

I think that the chronology might not be quite correct. Tanaris and EQ were both in development at SISA/989, and actually launched from that organization. When SISA/989 decided to focus on Playstation games, the EQ/MMPORPG side was spun out into it's own company Redeye/Verant. Sony TV had it's flagship online title as Wheel of Fortune, and when they saw the success of EQ they decided it would be easier to buy Verant instead of expanind their own operations. Verant was an independent company (with partial Sony ownership?) for about 18 months before the acquisition by Sony Entertainment.

Recent Changes

[edit]

I avoid editing and meddling in pages i have had nothing to with, but recent changes look like someone has removed the contorversy section entirley and rpelaced it with an advert for 'station.com'. Can someone more familiar with this page confirm if this should be reverted? Bjrobinson 12:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok im re-inserting this, it seems clear it shouldn't have been removed. (The two users who removed it are a bit sus).Further to this, the section on Station.com looks like blatent advertising Bjrobinson 08:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated a bit of the criticisms section. It didn't make a lot of sense to be broken up this way. I'll also be adding in some more games I know of. Hardcore Gamer 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Online In The Criticisms Section

[edit]

Removed the unnessicary and grossly opinionated PoV Matrix Online section from the criticism area, if people want to discuss/comment on 'adding insult to injury' they can do it somewhere other than wiki. This is a place for fact, not opinion. 

      Jeez, I posted valid problems with the game, would it kill you to get your head out of your ass?

The simple fact is if your going to write about something on wiki make sure it's neutral, factual and even correct. This is not the place for opinionated, misinforming and highly questionable statements such as 'constant problems', 'Live Events have been limited', 'under-staffed development team.', 'To add insult to injury', 'Live Events are only available during regular times in the United States', 'making attendance impossible, 'latency meter automatically sky-rockets'.

Yes, some points are valid, but they're currently being shrouded in a thick misinformed coat. And even then the SOE article is not the place, if you wish to post about the valid downtown lag issue then do it in the MxO article itself.

Downtown lag *IS* a problem, and I posted that the devs are working on it. And yes, the development team is under-staffed, which is a fact (as far as I know, it's only five people working on Matrix Online), and SOE is to blame for that. Live Events, European and Asian players living in their respective continents also complained about it.

SOE is horrid company run incompetently

[edit]

I tagged the article with POV because it reads like a marketing brochure and avoids mentioning any of the fiascos under Smed's management. Also, nothing is referenced. You've got a total crap article here overall. Jonawiki 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Way to contribute! That was like a hit and run... say something biased yourself and scram without helping clean up the topic. Hardcore Gamer 00:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did this to the Vanguard page as well. Not sure about the other SOE related sites.Nschubach 05:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also done on the John Smedley and SWG pages as well. He is on a vendetta on SOE and its products and personnel--BaronJuJu 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been trouble for a long time, on the one hand you a have multynational with a GDP most sub saharan cuontries would aspire to and the other, some very passionate and vocal ex-customers. I guess the key is to retain POV and sources. I note that the fully refenced critiscm section has been replaced yet again by generic non sourced text. Bjrobinson 14:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not, I will soon correct the lack of neutrality and verifiability in this article. Watch out, it's coming soon. Jonawiki 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem pretty melodramatic... I can't see how you'd be able to correct a lack of neutrality. I'm looking forward to seeing what you put together. Hardcore Gamer 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must also take into account that Sony is not the most liked company out there and people are quick to either vandalise or bad-mouth them without thinking first... On that note, I'd like to see a coherent nuetrality fix myself.Evilgohan2 15:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fix nuetrality by taking one extreme and using it to balance out what you beleive to be an already existant extreme. ¬.¬ Had enough opinionated stuff here with the MxO 'critisms' - lets just leave this back and forth forum style arguementative stuff out of wiki shall we?

It seems that some of Sony's staff have been attempting to remove criticism and controversy as you can see here. Now I don't wish to get involved, but I felt I should mention this. .:Alex:. 08:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to add that yes while SOE have made some horrid mistakes over the years the NGE decision was not made by SOE. that decision came down from lucas arts. as the owners of the IP it was thier call.

I have played alot of MMO's and the changes made to EQ2 over the last 18 months hae been incredible to say the least. I would if i were SOE take it as a compliment that blizzard itself is lifting many of the options out of EQ2 to add to wow in thier bid to challenge SWTOR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.7.52.18 (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs protection

[edit]

After reading the biased Non-encyclopedic Criticisms section I feel that this page must have protected status. It's a constant back and forth between Wiki users that want to promote fair and balnced articles and the SOE hatesquad.

Martinj63 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Na-rw soe large tif 100.jpg

[edit]

Image:Na-rw soe large tif 100.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Verant/Verant Entertainment??

[edit]

I came to Wikipedia looking for information on what "Verant"/"Verant Entertainment" is, and find myself redirected to the Sony Online page with only vague, off-handed references to the thing I was looking for... what gives? Obviously Verant is some sort of Sony Online related venture (though what sort, exactly, is apparently not for me to know). Was there more information in the original Verant article before the redirect was put in place? It seems that no-one living may tell. SOme things man is not meant to know... Dissembly (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell Verant didn't exist long as an independent company. It was spun off of a Sony division and then reacquired by Sony shortly later. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to post this, but at the top, it shows SoE creating both Everquest 1 and Vanguard. While they may have bought the companies Verant and Sigil, should they really be called the creators? If I buy the publication rights to a book, I can't say that I wrote the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.226.144 (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

A lot of this article seems to be a bit biased, Can we remember NPOV? Thanks :D Gsp (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EverQuest Next

[edit]

As of August 2009 there are semi confirmed rumors that a Everquest 3 is in the early stages of devolopment. Will update as more information becomes available —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.7.52.18 (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added EQOA Expansions Frontiers & Underfoot

[edit]

Added EQOA Frontiers Added cancelled expanion Underfoot. Not sure if it should go there since it was cancelled, but that's for you better editors to decide. I didn't cite that info, not sure if I needed to, but I don't feel like doing that much. (I also created a redirect for EverQuest Online Adventure: Underfoot to the main EQOA article. Doubt I did anything wrong, but I don't do this too often, so it's be nice if somebody checked that out to make sure.) My sources for this expansion are: http://forums.station.sony.com/eqoa/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=115600008432&#115600133789 posted from the at-the-time lead dev. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/clint-worley/1/977/714 Scroll down and there is info there. This page also tells you why said paid is valid (he worked on the game). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofuggin bob (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section requires expansion

[edit]

Nothing important in this comment, but I just found the tag of "this section requires expansion" in the Expansions section to be hilarious.Primalmoon (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

restoration of Customer Data Breach section

[edit]

on 15:52, 9 June 2011, 86.72.211.119 deleted the section titled "Customer Data Breach". i restored the section since there seems to be no consensus yet, and the merge tag on the target article is intact. -badmachine 14:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Online Entertainment vs Daybreak Game Company

[edit]

Does anyone think maybe this should be split into separate sections (not articles)? It's a little bit confusing seeing all of SOE's games listed as being developed by Daybreak Mr. Someguy (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the lead section to say "They" instead of "DGC" where it says "known for creating..." because DGC is not known for creating them, SOE is. By making it "They" instead of "SOE", I'm saying that the company itself (before the name change) was known for that, not the new name. Fanra (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead rewrite tag removed

[edit]

I removed the tag {{lead rewrite|date=June 2014}} since it is supposed to be followed up with something on the talk page explaining why it is there and there is nothing here on it. Just adding the tag is not enough, whoever puts it there has to also explain why it is there. Since they didn't, I removed it. Fanra (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daybreak Game Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daybreak Game Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the article editing their own page?

[edit]

On four separate occasions, twice on April 6th, twice on April 9th, an employee from Daybreak Games has removed information from this article. Twice as "Daybreakpr" and twice as an anonymous account with an SOE IP address. This is frowned upon.Feldon23 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Nova ownership confusion

[edit]

There appears to be some new information disputing who exactly owns Daybreak [1], saying "Daybreak Game Company has no affiliation with Columbus Nova. Jason Epstein, former member of Columbus Nova, is and has always been the primary owner and executive chairman of Daybreak Game Company." Whether this warrants any comment in the article, I'll let you decide because I haven't been able to verify this. -- Crash demons (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind someone already added a comment about this on the article -- Crash demons (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just elaborated on it. Just as confused as they are. I left the lead open to interpretation (saying that it had been spun off to independent investors), while the body explains what's going on. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daybreak_Game_Company&oldid=1206897964"