Talk:Planetary Annihilation
Section on Commanders Relevant?
editDo we really need the section on the commanders? They provide no gameplay benefits, and are simply re-skins, additionally, they have no images and take up a large part of the page. --John Wukong (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Why it looks and plays like other games
editI added in mention that the guy doing artwork for this game also worked on the artwork for Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander, which will explain the obvious similarities. And its head guy worked as a major programmer for those two games. They also used the same voice actor as Total Annihilation. Imported information to note. Dream Focus 01:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Funding
editEven though I just added a whole lot to the bottom section on funding, it would seem to me that it needs to be somehow merged with the section at the top. I'll leave that to someone else, however, since I feel as if the stuff I added should stay at the bottom as more of an additional interesting wrinkle to the story of the game, while information about an announcement should be at the top. 208.180.238.130 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- In looking at the top stuff, it looks like it's mostly non-announcement stuff, so I moved it down and deleted the section. 208.180.238.130 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Key People
editIs Chris Taylor involved with the project? --ConCelFan (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, Chris Taylor is still CEO at GasPowered Games and the two companies are not working together. Jon Mavor has said on the stream following the end of the kickstarter that he hadn't heard anything from Chris Taylor, related to the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.187.180 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then who is the game designer of Planetary Annihilation? --ConCelFan (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Jon Mavor, CTO of Uber Entertainment is the lead developer/designer in a 'game' sense. Steve Thompson is heading up the art/aesthetic design. See their short bios near the bottom of the Kickstarter page: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/659943965/planetary-annihilation-a-next-generation-rts?ref=users — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oosh (talk • contribs)
- Filled. Also, sign your posts please. --ConCelFan (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Jeremy Soule involved with the project? --ConCelFan (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, Howard (last name prob in KS video) is doing it (Source: [1])
Do we have to run thru the entire credits of SupCom and rule them all out now? -Oosh (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- The guy only asked two names, and that was months ago. Dream Focus 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Been filling the relevant fields in the infobox, that would answer the questions asked (with citations provided).
- And with SupCom mentioned, one more question on that:
- Was Jon Mavor programmer on Supreme Commander 2 too or only Supreme Commander 1 (the impression that Kickstarter's project page gives)?
- --ConCelFan (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- AFAIK the original Uber Ent crew jumped ship from GPG prior to SupCom 2. So No. -Oosh (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Steve Thompson's paragraph on Kickstarter's project page notes that Steve Thompson "worked as an animator, director of cinematics, and art director for the Dungeon Siege and Supreme Commander franchises", which implies that he worked on more than 1 Supreme Commander. Was there any comment from them that they both didn't work on Supreme Commander 2? --ConCelFan (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any source on the identity of neutrino outside of login-required Profile View? Then the sources can be used on Supreme Commmander and Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance pages. --ConCelFan (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- That won't help, his Uber forum profile has no IRL details, and I am struggling to find a WP:RS that doesn't require at least some WP:OR to definitive confirm his identity. :( -Oosh (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any source on the identity of neutrino outside of login-required Profile View? Then the sources can be used on Supreme Commmander and Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance pages. --ConCelFan (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
outrage
editlinks to articles about outrage over the price if its worth adding it in.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/31055/planetary-annihilation-hits-steam-for-90-causes-an-outrage/index.html http://kotaku.com/theres-a-90-steam-game-and-people-are-freaking-out-513318065 http://www.pcgamesn.com/indie/uber-respond-planetary-annihilation-alpha-price-rage-our-pricing-was-determined-our-kickstarter http://www.game-debate.com/news/?news=6483&game=Planetary%20Annihilation&title=Planetary%20Annihilation%20Alpha%20Now%20On%20Steam%20For%2090%20Dollars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.234.192 (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- The TweakTown "article" barely qualifies for the name, it's a collection of forum quotes, and the Game Debate one is just a summary of this non-event.
- That leaves two articles with some merit, which are both largely supportive of Uber, but it's too early to call this a "controversy" and anything but the lightest touch of it in the article would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. - Oosh (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, maybe a sentence if anything. The thesis of the Kotaku article is that the complainers don't have a leg to stand on. --SubSeven (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to leave it out atm. If it continues and/or gets wider coverage then we should re-assess. -Oosh (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree we should leave it out. There isn't really much to it. There are always guys on forums whining about something they don't like, but we don't put information about this in every single article. Dream Focus 12:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- What stands out about this particular game, however, is that the price is significantly above average (over fifty-percent more) compared to most other titles currently available on Steam (specifically for an early-access title). Considering the discussion boards are a good chunk of the Steam community, this can be deemed as "public reaction" to a decision the company made about the price for a retail outlet - to the point where the store page itself has an announcement that explains the price. I think the price causing a community reaction is something worth putting in this article, especially since a google search will result in articles on other websites pointing out the same thing. That's my opinion on the subject. Alkaven (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree with you on that, maybe add as little as a line about it, something like "The alpha access was priced at $XX on kickstarter as well as on steam early access, which spurred some controversy on the steam forums" (with citations of the company answer on steam forums, and a news article.) Givello (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Charging more (instead of less) for Early Access/Alpha/Beta/etc. is not novel. It's even mentioned by Valve in their FAQ [3]. -Oosh (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert with the policies of wikipedia, so I don't know if "novel-ness" is a requirement for interesting and relevant information. As someone who reads wiki articles regularily, though, I'm surprised this information isn't permitted here. I am a regular Steam user and this title became quite a topic for debate between my friends and colleagues. It's quite possibly the first early-access title to cost this much on Steam unless I'm mistaken. Alkaven (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Charging more (instead of less) for Early Access/Alpha/Beta/etc. is not novel. It's even mentioned by Valve in their FAQ [3]. -Oosh (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree with you on that, maybe add as little as a line about it, something like "The alpha access was priced at $XX on kickstarter as well as on steam early access, which spurred some controversy on the steam forums" (with citations of the company answer on steam forums, and a news article.) Givello (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- What stands out about this particular game, however, is that the price is significantly above average (over fifty-percent more) compared to most other titles currently available on Steam (specifically for an early-access title). Considering the discussion boards are a good chunk of the Steam community, this can be deemed as "public reaction" to a decision the company made about the price for a retail outlet - to the point where the store page itself has an announcement that explains the price. I think the price causing a community reaction is something worth putting in this article, especially since a google search will result in articles on other websites pointing out the same thing. That's my opinion on the subject. Alkaven (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree we should leave it out. There isn't really much to it. There are always guys on forums whining about something they don't like, but we don't put information about this in every single article. Dream Focus 12:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to leave it out atm. If it continues and/or gets wider coverage then we should re-assess. -Oosh (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, maybe a sentence if anything. The thesis of the Kotaku article is that the complainers don't have a leg to stand on. --SubSeven (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- 44,162 backers so far [4] and only a few dozen complained on a Steam forum because they didn't understand the situation. That's not really something worth putting in the article. It'd give undue weight, making it appear as though a lot of people were upset about this, instead of just a relevantly small number. Dream Focus 16:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sadly it looks like a lot of the discussion threads getting created here: http://steamcommunity.com/app/233250/discussions/ are getting deleted/removed. But I notice about 2-3 different threads a day from different users, and there was a 1200 post thread requesting that Steam take it down. And as I said there are other media articles that have pointed out the price: [5]. Of course a google search will reveal more. I'll leave it at that for now (only a reader) and let someone argue if they feel the same, but from seeing this, I'm pretty disappointed in this decision and still surprised something significant like this is being locked down and kept silent on Wikipedia. Just seeing # of kickstarter backers as an excuse makes me think there's some bias at play here I'm not aware of. Alkaven (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why is that sad? There is a sticky thread there dedicated to discussion of the pricing. --SubSeven (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- What bias would be at play here Alkaven? Kickstarter games get funding by asking for different amounts of money for different things, including being able to play it sooner than anyone else. Its how they got the funding to make the game. All of them do this. http://store.steampowered.com/app/233250 shows them explaining at the very start of them being available on Steam that the price was determined by what they did on Kickstarter, they not able to suddenly lower the price after so many others paid more for this. And it includes other bonuses not just the early play option. There will always be people complaining about anything out there. That doesn't mean its noteworthy enough to be put into a game article and give misleading negative impressions about the game. Dream Focus 21:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like bias because "negative impressions about the game" is the only thing preventing relevant and interesting information from being in this article. Something like: "On -date-, Planetary Annihilation became available as an early-access title on Steam. Many steam members reacted negatively to the above-average price set for an early-access Steam title, the value which was intended to be fair and courteous to those backing the kickstarter." is not negative and is relevant information, considering the controversy it stirred up online. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with how they get money to fund their game. There's an obvious public reaction to a "retail outlet" (not crowdfunder) that has an "above average price", and that piece of historic information is being overlooked by this article simply because the "weight" of it isn't satisfactory enough to someone? Yah, I stand by my bias-at-play-here argument. I don't write many articles on here, or contribute, or donate, if anything all I do most of the time is search/read, but when I noticed something like this erased from this article a while back, it really bothered me. I can't believe reasons like this are all that's necessary for hiding relevant information. It's upsetting. Alkaven (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Some people on a forum didn't like it, and others posting in that same long forum thread defended what they were doing. Did anyone go through and count how many people were on each side? The pinned topic got a lot of post, but some of those were from the same people discussing things back and forth. To say "Many steam members" is rather vague. What does many mean? A few dozen, a few hundred? How about "while over 44 thousand kickstarter backers and countless people buying it on steam had no problems with the pricing at all, an unknown but far smaller number of people on a forum complained about it. Dream Focus 21:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- So - maybe someone else can step in here and confirm for me, because I honestly don't know - the "relative quantity" of people between two groups decides whether or not which group should be overshadowed? I would very much like to know if that controls content on these wiki articles for future reference. This link [6] has more than 1000 posts, and plenty of different users and this [7] has over 3000 posts with several other (again different) disgruntled replies, and I know for a fact I've seen a few new threads pop up that have disappeared the next hour later. Again, I haven't read through these, nor am I against/for whatever the company is doing and for whatever reasons. What I'm upset about is that this piece of relevant information is getting removed when it really shouldn't. Alkaven (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned already by another Wikipedia editor, see WP:UNDUE to learn why you can't add that in. Dream Focus 22:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. Thank you. It's a minority view at least for sure. But that's my opinion on the subject. I'll leave it at that. Alkaven (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is no sense in counting up forum posts. An angry mob on a video game forum does not a controversy make. This happens somewhere every day. If we had to make note of every one, yikes. I'm imagining 500-page World of Warcraft and League of Legends Wikipedia articles. Instead of counting up forum posts, you should be asking has a reliable source called this a controversy? Yes, a few legitimate outfits have mentioned the forum rage in passing, and to a tee they have basically concluded that "some people on the forum are up in arms, here's why they are wrong". Right now, the only story here is that some people on a forum are angry. Which is about as notable as the sun coming up. If you want support in adding this to the article, find a reliable source that states there is some substance to this "controversy". --SubSeven (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oosh, please explain why you feel that the citation needed tag I added to the introduction should be removed. Wikipedia does not exist to support Kickstarter projects, although it's beginning to feel that way given the appearance that it is being hijacked here for that purpose. The controversy is real. As editor, your job isn't to limit access to information, only to ensure that it is accurate and delivered in the proper format and context. As for counting posters on a forum, that might be helpful if their comments weren't continuously being deleted to protect Uber Entertainment's interests; however, this talk page is enough evidence in itself to support the assertion that a controversy exists. Also, to even suggest that one must have some number of complaints to make a controversy substantial is a flawed, illogical argument. Uber representatives may feel free to continue deleting, locking, and banning posters who complain at the Steam forums, but they should keep that garbage away from Wikipedia. The truth is far more important than that which some are attempting to do here for obvious and questionable reasons.Infinityseed (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The citation needed tag you put back I just removed again. Look at the history section of the article, and it explains things rather well. And consensus is to keep the controversy nonsense out of the article, it isn't notable, and it'd be undue weight. Dream Focus 01:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't nonsense. The controversy is ongoing, though you may disagree justifiably at this point. If it turns out that there's valid supporting evidence of a prominent minority, or if it becomes more than that, I'll be back to check on the impartiality of this article. I'm not sure what import consensus carries here, as it cannot overcome undue weight. As for the citation needed tag, you are mistaken. The talk page is not the location for this information to be shared, and it is not common knowledge. A source should be cited.Infinityseed (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- When I said the history section of the article, I meant Planetary_Annihilation#History. It list who is involved in this and what past games they worked on and what role. Dream Focus 01:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Infinityseed, I recommend you read all of the discussion on this page if you haven't already. The short of it is, you are applying the word 'controversy' very generously, and you cannot use forum threads as citations. Forum posts are not reliable sources because they are self-published. --SubSeven (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Someone needs to contact whatever authority entity exists for Wikipedia because I am absolutely convinced there is a biased party preventing relevant information from being added to this article. It's okay if you support kickstarters, but preventing a public article on a site (that claims to remain neutral) from having relevant information represents a corrupt and unfair policy here at Wikipedia. There are numerous articles from various sites representing this growing issue: http://kotaku.com/theres-a-90-steam-game-and-people-are-freaking-out-513318065 , http://thisismyjoystick.com/editorial/planetary-annihilation-reverses-minecraft-model-charges-more-for-unfinished-product/ are two examples from simple google searches. If these sites are willing to recognize the "minority" of this outrage, then there is no reason why this information cannot be present on Wikipedia constructively with a neutral disposition. I can't believe - despite all the information available - the amount of resistance this edit is getting. It's completely uncalled for and something should be done about it. Alkaven (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Still beating the dead horse? There is no consensus to add that nonsense to the article. You have a couple of minor reviewers that may or may not be paid anything for their opinions, posting on sites that allow content to get in rather easily, who don't understand the 90 dollars or higher tiers had other things you got with them, and those are the things that people were paying for. Go to their kickstarter page and see. [8] They decided if you got that tier or higher, you could play the game early on while it was still being developed in its alpha stage. If you paid just 40 dollars, you could get early access to the beta testing. Most games don't let you play during their alpha at all, you buying the game early just to play the beta stage. Only 40 dollars for that. Dream Focus 23:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I'm still beating this dead horse. I don't care about the game, the company, kickstarter or anything else with regards to the issue. I care about relevant information being shut out of this article. What you explained sounds like something that can be added to this article - a large audience reacted negatively to the unusually (and uncommonly) high price for an early-access title, which was set to remain fair to kickstarter backers. But what you haven't explained is why that information isn't allowed in this article - short of a minority argument, and there IS a visible minority represented by public internet editorials - acceptable despite what your personal opinion is of them. That's fine if you support Planetary Annihilation, or Kickstarter, or whatever bias you might have that deems this information offensive, but don't let your personal bias keep out perfectly acceptable and relevant information on the subject. As I understood it, wikipedia is a collaboration of information and history, and what you are doing is snuffing out a piece of history here. Alkaven (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- "a large audience reacted negatively" is bias. No way to tell what percentage of people found it negative and what didn't see a problem with it. Its misleading to word it like that. Also most who complain don't seem to understand you aren't paying more for playing it early, the beta not done yet, you are paying more for other things, including the right to see the game while its being developed in alpha. So I don't really think we can count their personal ignorant opinions posted on sites that don't have strict requirements or any real editorial overview as a legitimate news site would, as reliable sources. Dream Focus 11:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Also most who complain" suggests that even you are aware there is an audience reacting negatively. I don't care what their reasons are - even if they are ignorant. Humankind has a history of ignorance - should every article regarding human ignorance be excluded from wikipedia as well? The simple fact remains: there was a negative reaction to the price being unusually high. I'm not biased because I don't support one side or the other, I just want that information available on Wikipedia. Perhaps some of those involved parties would GO to wikipedia to -- *gasp* LEARN why the price was so high. But instead nobody will be the wiser because someone who strongly believes this information is somehow "harmful" is preventing that information from being made available on wikipedia by multiple editors. What is your reason for that? I've got no stake in this - the only thing that offends me is what happening here, which is an injustice I can't tolerate. Alkaven (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Should we purge every instance of human ignorance, no, but that doesn't mean we need to document every single case either. There is a middle ground. We stick to the ones that are noteworthy. --SubSeven (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Other sources of the outcry: http://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/1ga5wj/anyone_have_a_good_explanation_on_why_planetary/ , http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.818747-Planetary-Annihilation-at-90-on-Steam , http://www.steamgifts.com/forum/Ev5JM/ , http://www.game-debate.com/news/?news=6483&game=Planetary%20Annihilation&title=Planetary%20Annihilation%20Alpha%20Now%20On%20Steam%20For%2090%20Dollars (another editorial - is this one insignificant to you as well?) , how much more evidence is needed to fairly represent a minority? Alkaven (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have made my own change this time, rewriting what was put there before and using citations from actual public editorials/articles (with the exception of one forum article posted by a presumed representative of Uber Entertianment themselves, I think). I'm not a wikipedia author, so if there are mistakes, feel free to correct/adjust them - but don't just outright remove that piece of information just because you disagree with it. I put in the time to research what details I can about the story (there was supposedly a metacritic score that got taken down, but I don't know how to backtrack sources). Apart from edits/adjustments to the details, there's no reason that information can't stay there. Alkaven (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, if someone could fix or adjust the citations a little bit, would be appreciated. I've probably only ever authored one wikipedia article before. I can look up how to fix it myself later today when I get time. Alkaven (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Also most who complain" suggests that even you are aware there is an audience reacting negatively. I don't care what their reasons are - even if they are ignorant. Humankind has a history of ignorance - should every article regarding human ignorance be excluded from wikipedia as well? The simple fact remains: there was a negative reaction to the price being unusually high. I'm not biased because I don't support one side or the other, I just want that information available on Wikipedia. Perhaps some of those involved parties would GO to wikipedia to -- *gasp* LEARN why the price was so high. But instead nobody will be the wiser because someone who strongly believes this information is somehow "harmful" is preventing that information from being made available on wikipedia by multiple editors. What is your reason for that? I've got no stake in this - the only thing that offends me is what happening here, which is an injustice I can't tolerate. Alkaven (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- "a large audience reacted negatively" is bias. No way to tell what percentage of people found it negative and what didn't see a problem with it. Its misleading to word it like that. Also most who complain don't seem to understand you aren't paying more for playing it early, the beta not done yet, you are paying more for other things, including the right to see the game while its being developed in alpha. So I don't really think we can count their personal ignorant opinions posted on sites that don't have strict requirements or any real editorial overview as a legitimate news site would, as reliable sources. Dream Focus 11:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I'm still beating this dead horse. I don't care about the game, the company, kickstarter or anything else with regards to the issue. I care about relevant information being shut out of this article. What you explained sounds like something that can be added to this article - a large audience reacted negatively to the unusually (and uncommonly) high price for an early-access title, which was set to remain fair to kickstarter backers. But what you haven't explained is why that information isn't allowed in this article - short of a minority argument, and there IS a visible minority represented by public internet editorials - acceptable despite what your personal opinion is of them. That's fine if you support Planetary Annihilation, or Kickstarter, or whatever bias you might have that deems this information offensive, but don't let your personal bias keep out perfectly acceptable and relevant information on the subject. As I understood it, wikipedia is a collaboration of information and history, and what you are doing is snuffing out a piece of history here. Alkaven (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Still beating the dead horse? There is no consensus to add that nonsense to the article. You have a couple of minor reviewers that may or may not be paid anything for their opinions, posting on sites that allow content to get in rather easily, who don't understand the 90 dollars or higher tiers had other things you got with them, and those are the things that people were paying for. Go to their kickstarter page and see. [8] They decided if you got that tier or higher, you could play the game early on while it was still being developed in its alpha stage. If you paid just 40 dollars, you could get early access to the beta testing. Most games don't let you play during their alpha at all, you buying the game early just to play the beta stage. Only 40 dollars for that. Dream Focus 23:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Someone needs to contact whatever authority entity exists for Wikipedia because I am absolutely convinced there is a biased party preventing relevant information from being added to this article. It's okay if you support kickstarters, but preventing a public article on a site (that claims to remain neutral) from having relevant information represents a corrupt and unfair policy here at Wikipedia. There are numerous articles from various sites representing this growing issue: http://kotaku.com/theres-a-90-steam-game-and-people-are-freaking-out-513318065 , http://thisismyjoystick.com/editorial/planetary-annihilation-reverses-minecraft-model-charges-more-for-unfinished-product/ are two examples from simple google searches. If these sites are willing to recognize the "minority" of this outrage, then there is no reason why this information cannot be present on Wikipedia constructively with a neutral disposition. I can't believe - despite all the information available - the amount of resistance this edit is getting. It's completely uncalled for and something should be done about it. Alkaven (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned already by another Wikipedia editor, see WP:UNDUE to learn why you can't add that in. Dream Focus 22:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- So - maybe someone else can step in here and confirm for me, because I honestly don't know - the "relative quantity" of people between two groups decides whether or not which group should be overshadowed? I would very much like to know if that controls content on these wiki articles for future reference. This link [6] has more than 1000 posts, and plenty of different users and this [7] has over 3000 posts with several other (again different) disgruntled replies, and I know for a fact I've seen a few new threads pop up that have disappeared the next hour later. Again, I haven't read through these, nor am I against/for whatever the company is doing and for whatever reasons. What I'm upset about is that this piece of relevant information is getting removed when it really shouldn't. Alkaven (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Some people on a forum didn't like it, and others posting in that same long forum thread defended what they were doing. Did anyone go through and count how many people were on each side? The pinned topic got a lot of post, but some of those were from the same people discussing things back and forth. To say "Many steam members" is rather vague. What does many mean? A few dozen, a few hundred? How about "while over 44 thousand kickstarter backers and countless people buying it on steam had no problems with the pricing at all, an unknown but far smaller number of people on a forum complained about it. Dream Focus 21:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like bias because "negative impressions about the game" is the only thing preventing relevant and interesting information from being in this article. Something like: "On -date-, Planetary Annihilation became available as an early-access title on Steam. Many steam members reacted negatively to the above-average price set for an early-access Steam title, the value which was intended to be fair and courteous to those backing the kickstarter." is not negative and is relevant information, considering the controversy it stirred up online. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with how they get money to fund their game. There's an obvious public reaction to a "retail outlet" (not crowdfunder) that has an "above average price", and that piece of historic information is being overlooked by this article simply because the "weight" of it isn't satisfactory enough to someone? Yah, I stand by my bias-at-play-here argument. I don't write many articles on here, or contribute, or donate, if anything all I do most of the time is search/read, but when I noticed something like this erased from this article a while back, it really bothered me. I can't believe reasons like this are all that's necessary for hiding relevant information. It's upsetting. Alkaven (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sadly it looks like a lot of the discussion threads getting created here: http://steamcommunity.com/app/233250/discussions/ are getting deleted/removed. But I notice about 2-3 different threads a day from different users, and there was a 1200 post thread requesting that Steam take it down. And as I said there are other media articles that have pointed out the price: [5]. Of course a google search will reveal more. I'll leave it at that for now (only a reader) and let someone argue if they feel the same, but from seeing this, I'm pretty disappointed in this decision and still surprised something significant like this is being locked down and kept silent on Wikipedia. Just seeing # of kickstarter backers as an excuse makes me think there's some bias at play here I'm not aware of. Alkaven (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Linking to three forum posts doesn't help your case for reasons already explained to you, and the game debate site I've never heard of, but appear to just let anyone post whatever they want there. None of those are reliable sources so it doesn't matter what they say. You aren't allowed to do original research. See WP:OR. Dream Focus 16:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/06/14/walletary-annihilation-planetary-annihilation-early-access/ , https://forums.uberent.com/threads/planetary-annihilation-steam-82-99-euros.47770/ , http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/06/13/planetary-annihilation-offers-early-access-to-alpha/ (PC Gamer even!) How many more references do you need? I didn't write any of these articles - again - I have no stake in either side! I don't like seeing relevant information being blocked for unjustified reasons. Alkaven (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- The RPS and PC Gamer articles don't say anything at all about a controversy. I have yet to see one reliable source that describes this as any kind of a meaningful controversy that impacts the game. --SubSeven (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just look at the comments in these articles. Sure, I'll admit, any one forum/comment post can't be considered a credible source for negative reaction, but all of these social channels show enough evidence to support that there was a negative reaction to the initial price. The pricing was explained for this reaction - otherwise no explanation would have been necessary! Alkaven (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- You link to two articles that don't mention a controversy at all, and a forum. No one cares what some random people post in comments. We go by WP:reliable sources here on Wikipedia. Stop adding this pointless nonsense back in. Its not important enough to be in the article, and you don't have any coverage about it which would be considered reliable sources. Dream Focus 18:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just look at the comments in these articles. Sure, I'll admit, any one forum/comment post can't be considered a credible source for negative reaction, but all of these social channels show enough evidence to support that there was a negative reaction to the initial price. The pricing was explained for this reaction - otherwise no explanation would have been necessary! Alkaven (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- The RPS and PC Gamer articles don't say anything at all about a controversy. I have yet to see one reliable source that describes this as any kind of a meaningful controversy that impacts the game. --SubSeven (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I see the forum drama over the price is rearing its ugly head again. (To be clear, I completely agree with the previous consensus that it does not belong in the article.) Pinkbeast (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
An indie developer with no real work history is charging 150 percent of the going rate for a triple A title. This is clearly note worthy. Bloody Sacha (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
You'll be glad to learn that the Titans thing did create an unusually large stream of negative comments, too. I've not searched for articles, but unless you believe the most of the comments all over the net had been manipulated, it is clear that there was a controversy, because other games of this size generate not even a tenth as many. Do what you like with that information. --mafutrct (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Beta Release Date Confirmed
editThe release date for the Planetary Annihilation beta has just been released. However, I'm unable to edit the page as the page is protected due to the recent editing wars. The beta starts September 26th, 2013 and the source is http://www.uberent.com/pa/2013/09/13/planetary-annihilation-beta-release/ ~ MSJohnman (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the "Release" section to include these details as it appears the lock has now been removed :) Bag (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Ubuntu version support
editThe requirements state that either 12.04 or 13.04 is required. This seems oddly specific- is it certain that 12.10, 13.10, or forthcoming releases will not be suitable?
Jack Vermicelli 71.238.46.250 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 2warped@gmail.com
Hello, I suspect anything beyond Ubuntu 12.4 will play the game fine. I imagine PA are simply targeting the LTS releases in order to lessen the support burden on themselves in the long run, although that's not to say the game won't run just fine on them. Plenty of people seem to have already managed to get the PA beta working on there distros of choice, so between community support and the fact Ubuntu is fairly consistent i really don't see it being to much of an issue.
Additionally, the linux support info is currently taken from PA's steam page, so may change anyway as the game gets closer to final release.
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Planetary Annihilation. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620170233/http://blogcentral.plantronics.com/game-over/2012/12/06/interview-with-howard-mostrom-audio-director-and-composer-for-uber-entertainment-creator-of-the-upcoming-pc-title-planetary-annihilation/ to http://blogcentral.plantronics.com/game-over/2012/12/06/interview-with-howard-mostrom-audio-director-and-composer-for-uber-entertainment-creator-of-the-upcoming-pc-title-planetary-annihilation/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130916191909/http://www.uberent.com/pa/2013/09/13/planetary-annihilation-beta-release/ to http://www.uberent.com/pa/2013/09/13/planetary-annihilation-beta-release/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109024614/http://www.twitch.tv/uberchannel/b/337596251 to http://twitch.tv/uberchannel/b/337596251
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/when-900000-isnt-much-money-the-story-of-planetary-annihilations-kickstarte
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002072447/http://www.uberent.com/pa/2013/09/26/beta-begins-now/ to http://www.uberent.com/pa/2013/09/26/beta-begins-now/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131123074607/http://www.uberent.com/pa/2013/11/19/youre-in-2/ to http://www.uberent.com/pa/2013/11/19/youre-in-2/
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) 17:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Planetary Annihilation. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203004228/http://www.mavorsrants.com/2013/06/annihilation-alpha-launched.html to http://www.mavorsrants.com/2013/06/annihilation-alpha-launched.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131208015823/http://www.uberent.com/pa/2013/12/06/planetary-annihilation-now-coming-done/ to http://www.uberent.com/pa/2013/12/06/planetary-annihilation-now-coming-done/
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) 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Planetary Annihilation Inc
editNew developer and publisher is Planetary Annihilation Inc: https://planetaryannihilation.com/news/planetary-annihilation-inc-the-future-of-pa-and-titans/
Mikeyh-pa (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
A permanent 90% off discount for the upgrade to Planetary Annihilation: TITANS was also announced on August 17, 2018.
Original Planetary Annihilation (Classic PA) Removed From Sale
editThe original Planetary Annihilation (classic PA) was removed from sale on September 5, 2018: https://planetaryannihilation.com/news/planetaryannihilation-com-the-future-of-titans-and-pa/
Current Focus On Historical Information
editThe information in this article is predominantly historical information about the original development, team and release of classic Planetary Annihilation.
At some point we need to expand this article with new sections to cover the TITANS release, Planetary Annihilation Inc, etc. Alternatively we could create a new entry for TITANS.