Talk:Gravity (Korean company)

renamed to the wrong thing?

According to all the financial websites I've been able to find, GRVY is referred to as GRAVITY CO., LTD. Shouldn't the article be Gravity Co.? --moof 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct! Well, let's change it, again. But remember, in some countries, their version of Corporation is, Company, Limited Liability, or LLC equivilant, which becomes Co., Ltd.--Akosygin 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Big issue here; Gravity Interactive, LLC is the Los Angeles-based "semi independent" (according to the article) company which runs International Ragnarok Online - distinct from Gravity Co. Ltd., the parent company in Korea. I am altering the article to reflect this. - Tenmiles 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Predecessor Game Info?

I heard tht the game Arcturus ~The Curse and Loss of Divinity~ was a game created by Gravity Corp. Can anyone provide an info page on it? Howevr the game is restricted to only the East Asia Region. Anyone in that area can provide assistance?

Reassessment

I'd like to propose re-assessing this article as Start class, as it clearly has grown beyond a Stub. --Resplendent (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Gravity Interactive

I suggest mergin this article and Gravity Interactive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.4.45 (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Feud Against Private Servers

Below is a brief summary/timeline I wrote regarding private servers. Provided semi-reliable sources. 3rd Source is literally from the official renewal site themselves, yet the information provided isn't proof enough for these wik editors. Please help me figure out why a game that exist for almost 2 decades now that had a major problem with Private Servers not mentioning any of this. Last discussion on this page was 2008. Talk about suppressed information...

Gravity & their game Ragnarok Online has arguably always had an issue with private servers since its release.

On February 6, 2004, Gravity would announce that it had filed a criminal complaint against seven private server operators. However, these servers and operators went unnamed, thus what happened to them during this period is unknown.

https://www.gamemeca.com/view.php?gid=47367 - also enforces arguably always having an issue.

Sometime around August, 2006, Gravity would take legal action against a private server called the "Steel Server" and it's operator nicknamed 'Guri'. The server would reach player counts averaging more than 1,500; Extremely close, if not more than the official at the time. This one of the earliest cases of a popular Ragnarok Online private server being shutdown due to litigation.

https://www.gamemeca.com/view.php?gid=61151 - Gravity mentions the server by name.

On April 20, 2022, Gravity Interactive announced that it and all official partners would start taking legal action against private servers.

http://renewal.playragnarok.com/news/updatedetail.aspx?id=339 - OFFICIAL website for the international version of RO mentioning they'll be attacking Private Servers.

On April 26, 2022, Gravity would actually take legal action against Novaro, LLC, a company that hosted a fairly popular Ragnarok Online private server called NovaRO. This would be one of the few private servers with substantial evidence of Gravity taking steps against them as the court case can be viewed publicly online.

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2022cv02763/850478 - Court Document

https://mmos.com/news/gravity-is-taking-legal-action-against-ragnarok-online-rogue-servers - MMOs.com discussing Gravity assault on private servers. Unreliable source, but not entirely untrustworthy. Mentions NovaRO by name.

https://massivelyop.com/2022/05/06/gravity-is-apparently-cracking-down-on-ragnaroks-rogue-server-community/ - Massivelyop.com also discussing assault on Private Servers. Also mentions NovaRO by name.

So someone please explain to me why my edits are being full on deleted. At the very least, should be able to keep the part about the website making that announcement somewhere* in Gravity's history.

4ReeZy (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop accusing editors of attempting to suppress the Ragnarok Online/Gravity information. user:ThaddeusSholto explained their revert with the summary ' "arguably" is MOS:EDITORIAL The blog sources are not WP:RS and you were told not to use primary sources', but you restored your edit without any attempt to address these issues. This is the identical edit that you repeatedly attempted to add to Ragnarok Online. The issue of coverage of the private servers has been discussed more than once at Talk:Ragnarok Online, and various editors have communicated with you in article edit summaries, on your talk page, and on User talk:MrOllie.

As I said on your talk page, We can likely include some version of this information, ... There are definitely problems with how you added it. Calling this a "feud" is WP:POV and editorializing. And the sources do appear to be somewhat less than ideal. I'm not sure which ones ThaddeusSholto thinks are blogs, but several of them do look questionable to me. We need independently published reliable sources (not blogs or company press releases), and we need to cover this neutrally. You may not have a problem with using unreliable sources [1], but as user:NinjaRobotPirate pointed out when denying your unblock request, once Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines are explained to you, you're expected to read them and start following them. Meters (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

And as for why there has not been any discussion of this since 2008, it appears that after 2006 the company itself was content not to deal with the issue of private servers again until 2022. Meters (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You said we can likely include some version of this information, yet no version of it was added here, nor the Ragnarok Online. Calling it a "feud" is absolutely not wp:POV and editorializing. What else do you call it when a company is combating against others, specifically private servers, from using their IP and from a neutral standpoint? Feud is but another way of saying "the fight against". If "Feud" was the issue, then ya'll could've provided help for another title to replace it. "several of them do look questionable to me" I find this statement highly amusing as one of the sources is from the company themselves talking about how they'll be pursuing legal action against private servers, titled "Regarding Private Servers", but I suppose the company itself is also, "questionable". While specific names weren't given, they do infact state taking legal action nonetheless. I gave primary sources, supplied by secondary source backing, and though unreliable, not entirely dismissible. I covered it neutrally, and any thing that may be considered slightly bias could've been modified.

Also, regarding private servers being discussed multiple times at Talk:Ragnarok Online, users have expressed that they think Private Servers should be on the article, not the opposite. Since 2009. As to finding an agreement of how to go about including the mention of it's legality it is another can of worms. But nonetheless should be mentioned. In which I mostly wrote in a timeline fashion. I think whether it's on Ragnarok Online or here is valid enough, that's why I edited both articles. It's Gravity's game.

Last thing I would like to mention is that, my edits of private servers on Ragnarok Online were reverted, yet the "Reception" segment which was empty, that I supplied with text uncited remained. Which one can argue as an opinion and "praises" the game. As well as 4 extra review scores from websites uncited, such as IGN. Also, in the "Related media" segment, I include "There were 5 games, each one based off one of the 6 original first classes; thus leaving Acolyte excluded." with no citation, yet that remained also. I believe those edits should be reverted too based off the arguments that was presented against me. As there is no source to prove such statements. 4ReeZy (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, some version of the material can probably be included, but It's not up to us to write your material for you. You want to add it, so please propose a version of the material that address the issues that various editors have raised. Continuing to push a version that has been rejected multiple times by various editors is not going to work. Use independent reliable secondary sources and present the material neutrally. More than one editor has expressed the opinion that your coverage was POV and editorializing, so I suggest that you accept that, whether you believe so or not. Don't go into excessive detail. Don't use company press releases about what they were planning on doing as evidence that they actually did it. Don't use user-generated blogs as sources. Don't use unreliable sources at all. It's not OK to use non-reliable sources as long as you also include a reliable source, as you seem to believe (and though unreliable, not entirely dismissible). Meters (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)