Talk:Star Citizen

Crytek is suing Cloud Imperium Games

Crytek is suing the company for breach of copyright.173.187.192.99 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Legal issues don't belong in the 'reception' section.

I have attempted as far as possible to reorganise the article to separate 'legal issues' from 'reception', since they clearly don't belong together. This hasn't been entirely possible, since CIG have sometimes responded to criticism (e.g. fron Derek Smart) with legal threats, but everything that has ended up in court is now in the new section. I've also put the paragraph relating to the change in terms of service in that section, since it seems to relate more to the other material there than elsewhere. I'm not altogether happy with this rearrangement, and if anyone can come up with a better way to organise the article that doesn't bury significant content amongst unrelated material, I'd be interested to see it. This isn't a typical story of video game development, and it probably needs more thought regarding structure than is normal for such articles. 109.158.187.247 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Spin Squadron 42 off into new article

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: After reviewing the discussion, comments were split. Policy arguments were about equal and went down primarily to judgment calls. This discussion seems stale and has not attracted any further interest after two months of idle time. I am not sure if a "no consensus" finding here affects any subsequent AfC submission of the draft. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Since Squadron 42 is being developed as an entirely separate title from Star Citizen, I think it would make sense to separate the two. This would especially help for when Squadron 42 releases, since it will get extremely confusing in reception and gameplay sections since we'd have to constantly differentiate between the two or separate those sections into subsections that just mess with the article's readability. Also we'd have to split up the release dates, since S42's release won't be the same as Star Citizen's release. There's some precedent to this with Red Dead Online being spun off of Red Dead Redemption 2 despite being offered in the same package. Wanted to get thoughts on this before doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadoubleyoujay (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

So far, I've seen little evidence that third-party sources discuss Squadron 42 in any real depth, except in the broader topic of Star Citizen. And without substantial third-party coverage, an independent article wouldn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. PCGamer, EuroGamer, NewsWeek, and Polygon have articles regarding the development of the game, and that's from the first page of a google search on Squadron 42. On top of that, much of the Star Citizen article can be slimmed down and revised to move Squadron 42 material over to its page. In fact, coverage surrounding the Crytek lawsuit even separates Squadron 42 into a separate entity. They are two distinct games despite sharing much in common and are represented as such in sources. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 05:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that any of the articles you link provide sufficient coverage of Squadron 42 itself to justify a separate article. None of them really tell us very much more than that SQ42 is scheduled to be released at some point (they don't seem to agree when), and three out of four dedicate at least as much time to discussing CIG's legal troubles as they do the game. Splitting the existing article into two would result in needless duplication of much content, and fly in the face of the overwhelming majority of sources, which discuss the project as a unified whole, inextricably linked in funding, in development, in terms of the legal disputes, and even in gameplay, as the PC Gamer article makes clear. It should be noted that it is coverage in third-party sources that justifies the existence of an article on the projects at all, and accordingly Wikipedia should follow their lead. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Taking a few seconds to run yet another google search shows an article from Engadget clearly distinguishing between the two. There's even this PCGamer article discussing the game's vertical slice, showing gameplay, story, etc., which is replicated across a few other outlets. IMDB has a page specifically for Squadron 42. It is marketed and covered in the press as a separate title. By your logic regarding the duplication of content, the Red Dead Online article shouldn't exist either, despite the fact that unlike S42 and Star Citizen, you can't even buy Red Dead Online separately. It shared the same funding source, development team, and gameplay. Obviously since RDO is released, there's reviews and further discussion on features, but S42 has enough to write content specifically geared for it, and most of the "duplication" that would occur is because the current Star Citizen article merges much of the content together. Splitting them up isn't difficult, but so far I don't see any support for you argument regarding a lack of notability considering I've come across 7 outlets that discuss S42 as a separate product without even spending any time digging. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 16:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You should probably read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. IMDB can't be used as a source. As for the rest, they read like little more than recycled press releases to me, and don't contain a great deal of substantive content. Anyway, this shouldn't be just a debate between the two of us. Hopefully someone else will chip in, but failing that, a neutrally worded Wikipedia:Requests for comment might be the best way to settle this. You are of course free to work on the draft for the SQ42 article in the mean time, if you like. It could end up not being accepted, or on the other hand you might be able to convince people of the merits better of a separate article if you have one to show. Your choice. Just so there's no misunderstanding though, I should probably make clear that as far as I'm concerned, in the event of a split it is absolutely essential that both articles have appropriate coverage of the negative issues that have arisen over delays, funding, legal matters etc, as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy requires. This will mean a lot of duplication (one reason I'm against the split), but there isn't any alternative if the articles are to reflect what the sources have to say. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding to my first post, I wrote a draft for a separate Squadron 42 article that I think shows that it is substantive enough for a split. I have a few points on why it should be separate:

1. 1. Squadron 42 is considered by the press, and its developer, as a separate title. This is corroborated by the lawsuit with Crytek being around this exact distinction.
2. 2. There is enough Squadron 42 specific content for its own article without significant duplication. This would need the Star Citizen article to be revised to pull out Squadron 42 content that is needlessly duplicated so it can focus on the actual game. Duplication of content isn't actually that prevalent once the articles have been sliced up.
3. 3. Overall, I think Cloud Imperium Games has enough content for its own article as well, where the full scope of the Crytek lawsuit would be detailed along with some other minor things from the Star Citizen article (like working with the Kingdom Come dev team, which has little to do with Star Citizen itself), while both the Squadron 42 and Star Citizen articles can have summaries that pertain to their respective roles in the various legal battles. This would go a long way in combating duplicated content.

— seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 04:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Your first point is demonstrably false. The vast majority of discussion of Squadron 42 in the press has been in the broader context of the Star Citizen product as a whole, as a moments perusal of the titles you cite in your own draft will amply demonstrate. As for your attempt to spin the result of the Crytek lawsuit to suit your proposition, since we don't have details of the settlement (and are unlikely to ever see it), any statement about a 'distinction' there is guesswork. Not that it matters, since again, the coverage of the legal dispute in RS has almost invariably described it as being about the project as a whole.

As for your second point, much of the 'Squadron specific content' in the draft is written in the present tense, entirely inappropriately. What you are actually describing isn't a released game. Your sources (some dating back as far as 2012, and therefore questionable even in regard to CIG's current intentions) aren't describing a game. They are instead repeating CIG's assertions about what the game will contain. Wikipedia is not a platform for the regurgitation of unverifiable promotional material. Or at least, it shouldn't be. There is far too much of this in the Star Citizen article as it stands, in my opinion. That needs to be rectified, not duplicated elsewhere.

And no, there is no merit whatsoever in splitting this article even further by creating a CIG article. Not while the sources we cite rarely make a distinction between CIG, Star Citizen and Squadron 42. Everything is intertwined in a manner that can only be explained as a unified whole. That is what the sources do. Policy requires us to do the same. This isn't an ordinary story about game development. It isn't an ordinary article about released games. It is a complex and ongoing story about a controversial project that needs to be seen in its entirety. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have a particular bone to pick with this whole thing. I'm not "spinning" the lawsuit to suit my proposition. One of the core arguments in the lawsuit is that Cloud Imperium is selling two games instead of one. That's fact. So either you didn't read the sources regarding the lawsuit or you're lying. Saying the "vast majority" of sources discuss Squadron 42 in the context of Star Citizen doesn't make any sense either. Prior to 2016, Squadron 42 was apart of Star Citizen. Afterwards, especially in the last year or two, while it is often called "Star Citizen's Squadron 42" this is because one project came from the other, but those sources literally describe it as a separate entity. Here's a source. PC Gamer calls it a "standalone single player campaign". Variety calls it "the standalone single player game". So, a lawsuit calls Squadron 42 separate. Sources call it separate. Whether it's "in the context of Star Citizen" is like saying Red Dead Online shouldn't exist because it's "in the context of Red Dead Redemption 2". There is precedent here, yet all you can offer is the same "broader context" argument you've been regurgitating as I provide more and more information.

As for your second point, I modeled the article on Final Fantasy VII Remake. If writing it in the present tense is "inappropriate" as you so provocatively explain, that's something that can be fixed but in the grander scheme of things means nothing in regards to the content. This is gameplay as it's been explained by the sources. "They are repeating CIG's assertions about what the game will contain", like, I don't know, every single pre-release article ever written on this site? "Wikipedia is not a platform for the regurgitation of unverifiable promotional material." Yeah, it's also not a platform for the regurgitation of an argument that refuses to even consider the likelihood that this article is workable when there is adequate information to support it. Flawed, sure, I'm not a fantastic writer, but there's content here. 47 references worth. Do you need more for some reason?

On your third point, I genuinely need to ask, why is the concept of splitting these topics so insane for you to consider? I brought up the CIG split as a potential concept, since there most definitely is enough content to warrant it, I just haven't written it yet, but ultimately it wasn't that big of a deal anyway. Just because this isn't an ordinary project doesn't mean that expanding the auxiliary topics that have enough merit to stand on their own is that crazy. But since I first brought up this concept you have be a "NO" with no intent on approaching this discussion with any good faith and haven't adequately addressed the fact that the sources, those things you seem to hold so dear, don't agree with you.

— seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 21:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to add onto this in order to organize my argument in a better way since this whole thing is circular and becoming emotionally charged at this point. For this article to be justified, I have to satisfy a few things.

1. WP:NOTE. This topic has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. PC Gamer, Variety, Eurogamer, and others have discussed Squadron 42 at length over the last 8 years both as a component of Star Citizen and as a separate title. They are independent of the subject.

2. WP:NVG. In "Notability of derivative game releases", if Squadron 42 is considered an "expansion pack" rather than a separate game (just for kicks), there is still precedent to create a separate article. Since the game is not an expansion pack, it would be considered a distinct item. There is one line "Avoid creating spinout articles that are short or redundant." The draft I linked isn't short and adds additional information. If the redundant content from Star Citizen is removed to retool the article towards the actual game the article is for, then many of the redundancies are resolved.

3. Is there precedent? Grand Theft Auto V and Red Dead Redemption 2 have articles for their online components, despite those online components being shipped directly with their parent games. You can't buy them separately. Both obviously have far more content due to being released, but content comparisons aren't necessarily valid since there are numerous articles with far less content. Squadron 42 would be the inverse (a single player game spun off of a multiplayer one), but is even more separate due to requiring a separate purchase. It still has enough to adequately build an article.

4. Why should it be spun off from Star Citizen instead of embodied within the article? As Star Citizen and Squadron 42 have been separated from each other, as written in the sources, there is some reasoning here. They share development and are definitely related, but the projects are distinct now. The Star Citizen article should be rewritten to focus on its subject matter more instead of bloating itself with another game's information. In fact, the separation of the games is in of itself notable due to it being one of the primary arguments in the Crytek lawsuit. Both articles can coexist and cover their respective content properly.

There is overlap, sure, but once again, there's overlap in the GTA and Red Dead Online articles for the exact same reason. Spinning off Squadron 42 allows it to be covered properly based on its notability in the media. In order to deny spinning the article off, there has to be adequate reasoning for it, since several guidelines have been satisfied for the creation of the article and adequate precedent exists. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 23:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Consider this your only warning: accuse my of lying again and I will report the matter at WP:ANI. As for the rest of your comments, I am basing what I say on my understanding of Wikipedia policy, and on what the only relevant sources have to say on the matter. Sources that almost exclusively only discuss Sq42 while also discussing the broader topics: not just Star Citizen the game, but also the delays, the lawsuits and the apparently endless ability of the project as a whole to attract crowdfunding. For an article to be acceptable on Wikipedia, it needs at minimum to demonstrate that the article topic itself is independently notable. Not just that the subject exists independently. And even if a subtopic can be demonstrated to meet notability guidelines, the decision as to whether it is appropriate to cover it in an independent article may need discussion based around how best to reflect the way the sources cover it, about how to avoid duplication, etc. A discussion we are supposed to be having here. A discussion which WP:NOTE, which you have just linked, makes clear is entirely appropriate, since it dedicates an entire section (WP:PAGEDECIDE) to exactly that. As I have already made clear, I think it will be necessary that other people contribute to this discussion, since we clearly aren't going to agree.

And as for the content of other articles, I suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFF. They aren't what is being discussed here. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I came off strong, and I'll apologize. I was frustrated with the accusation that I was spinning the lawsuit and took it too far. I don't have a problem with discussion, the issue I have is that the requirement of "exclusively only discussing SQ42" seems to be a weird way to discount this whole conversation. The complexity in coverage is that Squadron 42 is routinely mentioned in tandem with Star Citizen, but the coverage itself is contextually unrelated to Star Citizen as a whole. As an example, this PC Gamer article uses Star Citizen's name often when discussing Squadron 42, but the article's content is exclusively geared towards S42. And I understand the concern about duplication of content, but I genuinely believe that if the Star Citizen article is restructured that duplication can be highly minimized. In all honesty, the Star Citizen article is a mess, with too much irrelevant information, a lack of expansion on relevant information (like a single sentence on an entire court case in the Legal section that could easily be expanded). Slicing up the article is necessary for cohesion of a complex project. You're right about it being complicated, but we're talking about an extremely noteworthy project with a few parts that are noteworthy independently considering the amount of discussion being generated on each part separately. The method in which sources discuss both projects is confused specifically because of its complexity, but that doesn't mean that their contextual separation of the two is any less true. I brought up the precedence of the other articles to show that there can be value in splitting up the articles (especially considering Red Dead Online is a good article nominee). It's meant to be an added discussion point rather than an end-all-be-all "that exists so this must." In any case, I've invited anyone from WPVG to participate in the discussion, I definitely think outside perspective would be helpful. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 02:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the real issue here is that you and I have a very different understanding of how sources on a subject should be appropriately used. It is certainly possible to find specific content within sources which discusses Sq42 only. My argument however is that using them as evidence for independent notability is inappropriate, since the sources themselves (or at least, a large majority of them) consider the broader context to be of prime significance. Consider the BBC article you linked above.[1] It mentions Star Citizen in the title. Not Squadron 42. It uses the words 'Star Citizen' 8 more times in the article text, and once in the caption. And the words 'Squadron 42' appear in it only once. Using it as evidence that "Cloud Imperium is selling two games instead of one" as you suggest above, while ignoring the fact that the BBC isn't discussing them independently at all, looks questionable to me at minimum. I'm not disputing that they are projected to be 'two games'. I never have. Instead I am suggesting that as the majority of sources don't discuss them independently, neither should Wikipedia. Not now at least. Not while Sq42 is unreleased and all that can be said about it as a game can only really be based on CIG's own promotion of it. Doing so wouldn't accurately reflect the way the subject as a whole has generally been discussed. That would, in my opinion, give undue weight to 'SQ the unreleased game', and to CIG's promotion of it, at the expense of 'Sq42 in the broader, more controversial context', which is what the sources you have cited in your draft are almost always discussing.

Having said that, I should note that it is possible, even likely, that if and when Sq42 is released and the subject of significant third-party discussion as a reviewable, playable product, that consideration will again have to be given to a split, but for now, it seems entirely inappropriate to engage in what I can really only characterise as cherry-picking of sourced material to extract content which doesn't reflect the overall balance of the sources available at all. And if and when such a split is ever merited, it will still need careful thought if it is to avoid treating Sq42 as just another game. Given what has already occurred, and what sources have already said about it, that will never be appropriate. Which is another good reason (beyond WP:OTHERSTUFF) why selecting articles on other video games as models for how the subject should be treated is inappropriate. 'Star Citizen' as a topic isn't just about one game. Or two. It is a much more complex, and much more interesting, than that. Our readers deserve to be told the whole interesting story, and that is best done in one place in my opinion. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think splitting Squadron 42 is reasonable since it is going to be a standalone product. You will have to split it sooner or later becaue the two games will be reviewed separately by the press. RS coverage on Squadron 42 seems to be sufficient for a separate article. Typically when a game has a standalone release and is considered notable enough, it will have its own page. OceanHok (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The game hasn't had 'a standalone release'. Or any sort of release at all. We don't use sources that we think may exist in the future to justify creating an article now. See the discussion above for why Wikipedia coverage of 'typical games' isn't appropriate in the context of the Star Citizen saga, and see WP:PAGEDECIDE for what this discussion should actually be about. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If it is another game, treat it as a separate game. I don't understand why we should treat this differently, even if the context is a bit different. I also don't find the argument about Star Citizen being a broad topic convincing. (The situation is more similar to the situation with Gwent and Thronebreaker rather than Fortnite, which is the broad topic for Save the World and Battle Royale). You can still have a subsection here in the main article discussing Squadron 42 though, but a split is reasonable, whether you do it now or later.  OceanHok (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about a typical video game, and we don't (or shouldn't) create articles by set formulae. Almost all coverage of Sq42 has been in the context of the project in general: not just about 'a game', or two games, but about the unequalled level of crowdfunding support, the delays, and the legal disputes. What little there is directly discussing only Sq42 as a game consists almost entirely of regurgitated promotional material for an unreleased product from CIG, and would, I suspect, fail to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. And please note that we are discussing the merits of a split now, based on the sources available now, on what is currently an unreviewed, unreleased product. WP:CRYSTALBALL makes it clear enough that until "encyclopedic knowledge about [a] product can be verified", it is best to treat such material as a part of a larger topic, if it is to be discussed at all. So any discussion of Sq42 needs to be done in a way that accurately reflects the balance of what the available sources have to say on it. Which as of now is almost entirely as a subtopic of the broader one. Follow the sources. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We have two categories just focusing on upcoming games: Category:Upcoming video games and Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2020. This is not a reason not splitting out the article now. There is no problem for an "unreviewed, unreleased product" to have its own article, and the current coverage from RS, while not very extensive, is good enough already. As I have said, you can have a section here that talks about Sq42. OceanHok (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for so amply demonstrating why Wikipedia coverage of other video games should not be cited as an example of how to cover Sq42. I've not looked through the entire list of pages in the "Upcoming video games", but taking the ten starting with 'A' as a sample, I note the following:

Two have apparently been released, and aren't 'upcoming'. Two are solely promotional fluff, and wouldn't stand an icecream's chance in hell of surviving an AfD discussion as they stand. One is a redirect to another article. Two are actually about upcoming games, and probably have the sources to survive AfD. And the remainder are projects which are either moribund (for many years in most cases) or which have been cancelled.

I suggest then that rather than resorting to WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments around questionable categories, you instead address the issues I've raised, and explain why you don't think that the way that Sq42 has been discussed in sources (almost entirely as part of a broader topic) should be reflected in Wikipedia. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

What I am demonstrating with the categories is that it is absolutely fine for games to have their own articles before they are released and WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here. I am pretty sure Draft:Squadron 42 would survive an AfD. Nothing here strikes to me that this case requires any special treatment. Yes, it is true that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, but I fail to see how this case is any different. I would like to reiterate that I don't agree that "this isn't a discussion about a typical video game" because this is very much a discussion about a typical video game, and we should handle the situation using the conventional ways. OceanHok (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No, what you have demonstrated is that the articles in the categories you linked were mostly miss-categorised, totally out of date, or outright violations of policy. At least, the sample I looked at were (as were some in the 'Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2020' category - I have just been in contact with an admin to get one dealt with as consisting almost entirely of a blatant copy-paste from promotional material). Nothing 'absolutely fine' there. And if you fail to see why an article about a subject which has been discussed by the New York Times and the BBC due almost entirely to issues beyond normal game development is different from other topics, I can only suggest that you need to read what the sources have to say. Any article representing Squadron 42 (or Star Citizen) as a 'typical video game' would constitute a gross violation of WP:NPOV policy. We go by sources, not WikiProjects pet categories. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A controversial game is still a game. Saying that this is anything different, or the term "Star Citizens" being more than just "one or two game" and that it is a "broader topic" are WP:OR (and also WP:NPOV as you have mentioned). The game is still the primary topic even with the fiasco surrounding it (we can see similar cases in No Man's Sky and Duke Nukem Forever). Saying that the some of these articles are in a bad shape has nothing to do with this discussion and the point I want to raise. If you want to challenge the consensus (that we allow upcoming games to have its own page), go discuss it at WT:VG or MOS:VG. Anyway, I will reaffirm that I support any effort in spliting the article, whether you do it now or later. OceanHok (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no WP:OR whatsoever involved in noting the way sources have discussed a subject. It is almost impossible to arrive at a NPOV position without doing so. You discuss how sources cover something, and then strive to do the same. As for your supposed 'consensus', who came to it, and where? I would remind you that WikiProjects have no particular say in how subject matter is arranged: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." [2] And MOS guidelines don't overrule NPOV policies. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Your usage of the policy isn't that right to begin with. Splitting off the page has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. NPOV stresses the need of presenting viewpoints in a balanced manner, not about page split. It applies within an article instead of across articles. I don't see sources that explictly say Star Citizen is more than just a game, so your conclusion is WP:OR. Even if they are discussing the lawsuits or the crowdfunding fiasco they are still discussing the game's development, thus the primary topic is still the game. Saying that we can't doesn't mean we shouldn't impose our standard here. There is no convincing reason to not follow our consistent format and stick with your own. OceanHok (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) If my assertions about what the sources indicate were WP:OR (they aren't) then so would yours be. You cite nothing that says that the SQ42 is 'a typical video game' either. You are basically accusing me of engaging in WP:OR by reading the sources, and summarising them. Something that is mandatory when writing an article. And your own argument seems to actually support what I have been saying anyway. The lawsuits and the crowdfunding 'fiasco' (a funny way to describe something that has raised over $250 million so far, and shows no sign of stopping there) relate to CIGs project as a whole, rather than to component parts. The Crytek lawsuit wasn't about one of the games, or the other, it quite specifically related to contractual agreements concerning software which had been used to develop the project as a whole. The funding controversy (fiasco or otherwise) likewise relates to the entire project. There has been no separate crowdfunding for Sq42. And likewise, development for Sq42 is deeply intertwined with that for Star Citizen. The assets are largely the same. Both games are based around CIG's own modifications to an existing game engine (firstly CryEngine, and later the Lumberyard fork of it). According to CIGs own statements, actions taken in Sq42 can directly effect later SC gameplay. All of this indicates just how closely intertwined the whole story is. A story so intertwined that a draft for a proposed article on Sq42 is cited almost entirely to sources which use 'Star Citizen' in their titles, rather than 'Squadron 42'.[3] Sources which are almost invariably discussing the project as a whole, rather than a component part. It is a requirement per WP:NPOV to use sources for what they say, in a balanced manner. The sources discuss the project as a whole, and ignoring this while cherry-picking them for Sq42-only content is unrepresentative of how such sources currently perceive the project, no matter how you try to justify it by referring to standards you seem to think should be imposed here. Standards which, as I have already pointed out, no WikiProject has any mandate to 'impose' on anything. The fact that most Wikipedia coverage of video gaming has generally been shoved into nice little boxes is neither here nor there when discussing a complex story about a project which clearly doesn't fit. Subdividing a closely-intertwined ongoing story to follow a 'standard' simply because that's the way we usually do it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Such a subdivision would be imposing Wikipedia's (or more accurately a WikiProject's) preferred version of how things should be told, rather than following the sources themselves. It would constitute a misrepresentation of such sources in the very structure of the way we used them. Follow the sources, and if that means that 'standards' aren't followed, so be it. We are writing for the benefit of readers, who expect us to accurately represent the topic as covered elsewhere. We aren't writing for the convenience of contributors who prefer to arbitrarily follow precedent in inappropriate contexts. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

First, neither the article here nor most of the sources establish the game as "something more" besides mentioning that the game is a massive crowdfunding success or calling it a potential vapourware that will never be released. Second, even if it is really a "broad" topic, splitting the article would not affect how you represent the topic or the flow of this "ongoing story". You are still going to have a section here. In fact, if you want to portray Star Citizen as a "broad" topic, what you need to do is to write a precise summary of what Sq42 is and its connection to Star Citizen, and then have a subpage detailing the elements exclusive to Sq42 (such as the gameplay, pre-release reception etc.) and wrote clearly in Sq42's development section that the game is derived from the broader Star Citizen project.

The spirit of WP:NPOV is not to jumble everything together in one page. NPOV is about giving due weight, meaning to write a lot about Star Citizen in the page about Squadron 42 and not to write too much about Sq42 in the article about Star Citizen. As long as the "context" is present in a separate article about Sq42, I see no problem. OceanHok (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This has already been amply discussed and responded to below. I am under no obligation to respond yet again to the same points, and breaking up this overlong discussion by adding yet more to it halfway through does nothing whatsoever to add to comprehensibility. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read this whole enormous discussion yet but my instinct is to wait and see. Neither Star Citizen nor Squadron 42 is out yet and the article isn't long enough to require a split. Given that the two products are highly interlinked, I don't see a compelling reason to split at this time. If they end up with separate development and reception sections in the future, I could be convinced of a split, but not at this time. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup. As I said above, it is entirely possible that a split might be appropriate at some point, if and when Sq42 is released, reviewed etc, and if and when sufficient new sources can be found to justify it (though a great deal of care would still be needed to ensure that the controversial aspects of the project are appropriately covered in all relevant articles, per WP:NPOV). My argument is that we base articles on the sources we have, and not on hypothetical sources that might exist later. An argument that seems entirely founded on Wikipedia policy. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

So on the topic of the Star Citizen article not being long enough to warrant a split, I'd argue that this is partially due to the article not getting much needed attention on expanding it and reorganizing it. Currently, there is ample differences in pre-release reception (especially in regards to Star Citizen) because Star Citizen has a playable alpha that has received massive amounts of coverage that isn't included here. Over the last year, there has been more discussion on development of Star Citizen as well that is unrelated to Squadron 42. My goal for the split is to pull out much of the Squadron 42 information so that Star Citizen can be expanded and overhauled to better fit into Wikipedia standards, especially because coverage of the two titles has become increasingly separated over the last 1-2 years. To break it down in examples, in the following three sections, there is enough material to warrant slicing out the information:

1. Development. There are references in the Star Citizen article to Arena Commander, Alpha 3.0, Player Driven content, emergent gameplay, etc. In my draft of Squadron 42, all of this is removed and in fact, much of the "development" section in Squadron 42 isn't duplicated at all in Star Citizen's section. I haven't had time to expand the "Standalone Release" section of Squadron 42, but as that section grows, it's even more distinct from Star Citizen.

2. Reception. Squadron 42 has pre-release reactions that are distinct from Star Citizen's pre-release reactions. Whereas Star Citizen has numerous articles detailing the state of its modules, Squadron 42's coverage has been specific to its development, especially in the voice cast, its delays, and its promised features. Coverage about Squadron 42 delays is different from Star Citizen delays because technically Star Citizen is "released" in some capacity while Squadron 42 is not.

3. Legal Issues. This is somewhat inverted. There are numerous legal issues surrounding Star Citizen that are largely unrelated to Squadron 42. Ship refunds in particular are more related to Star Citizen rather than Squadron 42, and the Legal section in Star Citizen is massively underwritten considering the controversies that have arisen. In fact, there would need to be a controversies section in Star Citizen that covers other things like land and currency sales that have been covered by the media. But the point is that while they share funding, sources that discuss Star Citizen refunds and controversies are largely exclusively discussing Star Citizen itself, not the entire project. The only exception is the Crytek lawsuit, which explicitly names Squadron 42 as a source of their complaint.

Finally, 109.159.72.250 has been pointing out that we base articles on the sources we have, but the sources we have right now absolutely divide both projects, especially in recent years. I've linked a number of sources both here and in my draft that focus explicitly on Squadron 42, but the source of contention here seems to be that because they mention Star Citizen in those articles that we should ignore the context of those articles because it's "not distinct enough". This seems to be largely arbitrary, since there's very little doubt as to the subject of these articles and the context in which they discuss the game, but media will always attach the more popular name to the project simply due to familiarity. But the attachment of a name for familiarity isn't grounds to ignore the context in which these sources are written. According to sources, Squadron 42 is a separate entity. There are sources speaking about its content, gameplay, and story exclusively. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 20:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope. You don't justify splitting an article into two by ignoring what the sources say about the interrelatedness of the topic. Or by making assertions about what you think such articles are actually talking about. Not when the articles themselves state the opposite. That is WP:OR, at minimum. If you create such a split without the question been decided here first (which clearly needs more than four participants, especially since they are split 50-50 on the issue), there will be no grounds whatever to justify it not being merged back, to accurately reflect the coverage we are citing. Coverage that almost always treats the topic as a whole.

And note that 'controversy' sections in articles have been deprecated for many years: see WP:CSECTION. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how the following articles have anything to do with the project as a whole rather than explicitly Squadron 42:

• PC Gamer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

• Eurogamer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

• Kotaku: 1, 2, 3.

• Polygon: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

• IGN: 1, 2, 3, 4.

• Additional Sources: Engadget, Variety, GameSpot 1, GameSpot 2

These are clearly talking about only Squadron 42, not in the context of Star Citizen, despite usage of the name. That's not WP:OR, that's what the sources themselves are discussing. Simply using Star Citizen's name doesn't change the context of what's being discussed. Yes, 2016 and earlier it is discussed far more in tandem with Star Citizen as they were joined, but post-2016, the coverage regarding Squadron 42 has changed to focus on it individually. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 23:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

From the PC Gamer articles you link:

"Squadron 42, the single-player section of massive space sim Star Citizen"

"Squadron 42, the single-player slice of Star Citizen"

"Squadron 42, the single player component of the Star Citizen project"

"Squadron 42 won't release for Star Citizen in 2016"

"Squadron 42, Star Citizen’s FPS campaign"

"Squadron 42—Star Citizen's single-player component"

I could go on, but frankly I don't see the point, since it is self-evident that the sources have been cherry-picked, and don't support you claim even so. We don't select specific sources to make a specific argument, we look at how a topic is covered in relevant sources as a whole. And proper coverage of this complex project needs better coverage than PC Gamer's regurgitations of CIG publicity material. 01:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Claiming that a source's intent is the "regurgitation of CIG's publicity material" in order to discount that source's validity when they are recognized as a reliable source per WP:VG/S is a violation of WP:NPOV. Also, please keep in mind that I cited 8 websites, not one, and that you didn't answer my question about what the sources were discussing. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 01:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We can clearly add WP:RS to the long list of Wikipedia policies you don't understand. And I have already made it clear by quoting sources you have listed exactly what they were discussing: a 'section', 'slice', 'component', of the overall project. When one thing is a component part of another thing, they aren't two separate things at all. I'm under no obligation to go through your entire cherry-picked list when it is self-evident that they don't support your claims, and when cherry-picking sources in that manner is contrary to policy. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Definition of cherry-picking: "the action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available." You've ignored the entire context of these articles for a single phrase that supports your argument. That's cherrypicking. Providing 33 sources from 8 different websites that discuss Squadron 42 separately from Star Citizen isn't cherrypicking, it's providing evidence that your argument is wrong. So once again, you haven't answered my question, I'll quote it here again: "Please explain how the following articles have anything to do with the project as a whole rather than explicitly Squadron 42." — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 02:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have already repeatedly explained how sources that describe something as part of something else are discussing both the 'something' and the 'something else'. If you have trouble understanding this simple concept, it's your problem, not mine. And you are cherry-picking because you are ignoring the many other sources we have already seen, which don't support your arguments. Basing decisions regarding content on a self-selected subset of sources that don't accurately reflect coverage as a whole would violate policy. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

1. Show me a source that supports that they are one game. I've provided sources stating they are not.

2. "Would violate policy". So far, the sources I've listed satisfy WP:RS and WP:VG/S. WP:NPOV, more specifically WP:UNDUE states that "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". The majority both in sources and in the public accept Squadron 42 as a standalone title, and sufficient sourcing has been provided to support this. WP:OR would only be violated if I were drawing conclusions about them being separate games when sources clearly state that they are standalone releases. You argue about WP:OTHERSTUFF, yet the consensus within the project that works on these articles is that releases like this can be separated, hence the comparisons, since WP:VG accepts that consensus. You quoted WP:CRYSTAL, but this isn't about unverified claims or future events. Both projects are currently in development, both experience coverage, and Squadron 42 in particular has had independent coverage from its Star Citizen parent. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 03:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(1) I have never made any such assertion. The topic of the Star Citizen article as it stands is the overall project, as discussed under that name both by the sources cited in the current article and by the articles in the list of PC Gamer links you have just provided. Since you have just demonstrated that sources are still using the term that way, and for all the other reasons I have had to explain already, I believe that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia readers to follow the terminology used elsewhere, and not to needlessly fracture discussion of a complex topic which is of interest to far more people than just a minority of gamers who wish to read regurgitated hyperbole about unreleased games.

(2) This is a straw man, since again you are arguing against points I've not raised. If you persist in disrupting this discussion by spamming it with repeated misrepresentations of what I have written, I may find it necessary to make a complaint about your tendentious behaviour. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

These aren't points you haven't raised. Your initial claim was "So far, I've seen little evidence that third-party sources discuss Squadron 42 in any real depth, except in the broader topic of Star Citizen." When provided with evidence of sources discussing Squadron 42 in depth, you moved to claim that because they use specific terminology e.g. "Star Citizen's Squadron 42" despite the article's clear discussion of Squadron 42 as a separate title. The Star Citizen article in question doesn't clearly indicate anywhere that it is about the project as a whole, since the very first sentence says "Star Citizen is an upcoming multiplayer space trading and combat simulator" and the page constantly refers to it as "the game", which means the page is discussing the Star Citizen game, not the overall Star Citizen "project". Your continued claim that the sources are "regurgitated hyperbole" is arbitrary and baseless. These are reliable sources as accepted by Wikipedia, and there are enough of them to consider the standalone title as independently noteworthy.

If you find it necessary to make a complaint about my "tendentious" behavior over a topic that is clearly accepted by the majority of sources to be true, go ahead. Also, since you conveniently deleted your preceding post to my question, let me quote it here with bolded emphasis on the claim that warranted my question that you say is a strawman:

"I have already repeatedly explained how sources that describe something as part of something else are discussing both the 'something' and the 'something else'. If you have trouble understanding this simple concept, it's your problem, not mine. And you are cherry-picking because you are ignoring the many other sources we have already seen, which don't support your arguments. Basing decisions regarding content on a self-selected subset of sources that don't accurately reflect coverage as a whole would violate policy. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)" You have yet to provide a source that says they are one game, rather than relying on a piece of terminology and ignoring the rest of the content in the articles I presented. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 17:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the deletion of my earlier post. I shall of course restore it. This was entirely unintentional, and I think a consequence of trying to edit in the middle of a long and convoluted thread. It is a darned sight easier to communicate properly if people stick to posting comments at the end of a thread, rather than halfway through. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

And in reply to your other comments, you appear to be under the misapprehension that merely because something can be cited to a reliable source, it can automatically be included in an article. This has never been Wikipedia policy, in any shape or form. As for the existing article not indicating anywhere what it is about, articles rarely do, since it should be self-evident from reading them what they are referring to. If that isn't the case, it can of course be rectified. As for the rest of your straw-man arguments, I am going to offer no further response, since it is at this point self-evident that you are incapable of understanding the points I have made, or are wilfully ignoring them. It is obvious that you and I aren't going to agree to this, and accordingly I shall be looking into alternative means to resolve the dispute. An RfC would seem the most obvious option, but if you have an alternative suggestion, please feel free to suggest it on User talk:109.159.72.250. Note however that I am not going to engage in any other discussion regarding the dispute over article(s) there, and any attempt to do so will be deleated unread. And meanwhile, since this issue is undecided, I would ask you not to make major edits to this article without prior consensus, or to do anything else which prejudges a decision which can only sensibly be resolved with outside input. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Are you really going to claim that other than the CryTek case, the legal issues that CIG have faced have been in relation to Star Citizen only, and not Squadron 42? I think that will be a difficult argument to make in the face of a source that states that "a new direction for spin-off shooter Squadron 42" was one of the several grounds for a refund being argued in court. [4] Another case (which was won by the ex-backer) likewise related to unagreed changes in the terms of service, to the project's failure to meet stated deadlines, and to CIG's decision to delay indefinitely any work on VR, which they had expressly stated would be supported in "Star Citizen/Squadron 42". [5] These sources make it entirely clear that they aren't about a part of the project, but all of it. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The second court case is about VR in the project and isn't specifically about Squadron 42, especially since Squadron 42 gets a single mention. The backer wasn't after a refund because of something specific to Squadron 42, but as the project as a whole, that part is true, but that also means that Squadron 42 doesn't need to explicitly discuss it in its article's legal section. Also I never said "none" of the legal issues concern both, but that the primary one was the Crytek lawsuit and that a "majority" of the legal issues are related to Star Citizen proper. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 00:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Leaving out content because you think it doesn't relate to the article subject even when sources available clearly indicate that it does is a violation of WP:NPOV. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Inventing context because you think it relates to the subject at hand when the source makes a single mention of a title and isn't explicitly discussing it is a violation of WP:NPOV. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 01:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't invented any context (or content, which is what I wrote). When a source uses words to denote something, it is discussing it. And since I'm not proposing any new content here, nothing I've said can possibly violate WP:NPOV. You can't violate a policy by not doing something. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Third opinion here via the WT:VG notification. Didn't read the above but from what I know about this topic, the split is inevitable. I recommend continuing to expand the Squadron 42 section within this article and when it becomes unwieldy (undue emphasis on a singular aspect of the topic), it will warrant a summary style split so as not to overwhelm the rest of this article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of summarizing my main points from the conversation above, my justification for the split is that there's already independent coverage of Squadron 42 to warrant it receiving its own page. I've written a draft of a Squadron 42 article that shows it having enough content to stand on its own, and am working on an overhaul of the current Star Citizen article in my sandbox that shows how large it can get once proper expansion of topics per sources have been implemented. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 17:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I see no need to yet again reiterate what I have already said on the subject, beyond stating that Seadoubleyoujay's interpretation of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines appear to differ from mine, and that I can see no way to resolve this without a more formal means to do so, probably involving a properly-conducted RfC. Accordingly, at this point, I can see little benefit in continuing to discuss the matter here, though more input from so-far-uninvolved contributors will of course be welcome. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZERULE, the article is still well under the minimum length to necessitate a split. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Czar and Axem Titanium: Size isn't really the only concern. I added a bunch of points to the WP:VG page for clarification on my justifications, just so you guys wouldn't have to spend six years combing through this discussion. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 14:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the post made by Seadoubleyoujay at the WP:VG talk page presents only his side of the argument appears to violate Wikipedia:Canvassing (more so with an RfC imminent), I have reported it at WP:ANI. [6] 109.159.72.250 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Concern isn't the parent article size (necessity) but due weight. The section in the parent article still warrants expansion but there is more than enough content for a dedicated article. I'd support the split because if someone did it and was challenged, the AfD or merge discussion would likely end in stalemate. Tie goes to the runner. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, Sq42 is not a standalone game. It is not actually a game of any kind yet. This may change (although I doubt SC or Sq42 will ever release, Chris is not interested in making a working game, just in getting paid, hence all the waste of time and effort at CIG) and if it does warrent it's own article then one can be created.

At this time the SC article should just read "a game in development hell that will probably never be released" and Sq42 should read "a sub game of the game that will never release".

If games journos actually get any info on a working version (even a working alpha) then lots of article will be written and then u/Seadoubleyoujay can write a page for Sq42.

Until then the only purpose that a Sq42 page can serve is boosting the web profile of the project. Honestly the amount of effort that some here are putting into the idea of a seperate page is worrying regards their impartiality. 82.10.140.18 (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of whether Squadron 42 is a standalone game or not, reliable sources shared earlier in the discussion and on the Squadron 42 draft don't agree with you. Earlier points in this discussion were focused on whether the coverage of Squadron 42's standalone nature was notable enough or substantially distinct enough to warrant the article. That discussion has so far not rendered a consensus. As for the rest, per WP:TPG talk pages aren't the place for opinions about the state of the game or its developers. Please keep the focus on the core discussion. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 05:10, 5 April 2020 (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.

Major article edits

I've been working on some changes to the Star Citizen article in my sandbox that I'd like to incorporate into the main article, but since it vastly expands and overhauls what is currently here, I wanted to get opinions on which sections are viable to work into the article. Some sections are incomplete, marked with [r], but everything else is complete prior to feedback. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 14:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

As I have already stated above, I am going to start an RfC on the proposal to split Squadron 42 content off to another article, and any major revisions to the existing live article in the meantime are inappropriate. And in any case, it is generally considered bad practice to copy-paste live articles with significant ongoing editing, make substantial revisions while editing elsewhere, and then replace the existing article en-mass. It risks losing edits by others made after the copying, makes it harder to determine who originally made an edit, and most of all means that anyone wishing to check the differences has to review the whole thing at once. Edits to the article should be done in small stages, so we have a chance to discuss them properly, after due inspection.

And as for your draft, I'm not going to look at it any detail for now, for the reasons I have explained, but even a quick inspection shows several obvious issues. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, don't discourage a good faith editor from content contribution. Even if the draft is not the best it is already miles better than the article's current shape already. If it is a complete/substantial rewrite, just go ahead and replace the whole article when you are finished. The change is (mostly) not controversial and it is not like a lot of people are editing the page (less than 20 edits in the past 20 days). You can always view edit history, which basically meant nothing to our readers too.

Also, there is not much of a point starting a RfC if we have this colossal draft here. Moving the content from the draft to mainspace will have a massive impact on the RfC about the page split (due to WP:PAGESIZE as previously mentioned). It is unwise to start a RfC before the content of this draft is implemented because this will just be a waste of time. OceanHok (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not discouraging good-faith editing. I am advising that it be done in a manner that allows others to see what is being done, in a way that doesn't overwhelm proper review.

As for postponing the RfC, that might be advisable, given that Seadoubleyoujay has seen fit to canvass support for his side of the argument at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, as I have just reported at WP:ANI. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

My intention was to merge my edits one or two sections at a time, potentially incorporate any live edits made prior to the merge, then adjust accordingly. I don't plan on a mass merge considering the number of changes. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 13:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Crytek lawsuit section.

In my opinion, this section lacks neutrality. It quotes CIG six times, and CryTek only once. Further, it uses non-neutral wording (e.g. "revealed") to characterise statements by CIG which were never tested in court. Claims made by one party in a court case cannot be reported as fact.

The section should stick to reporting the facts (such as they are), and omit all quotes beyond any absolutely necessary to explain what the case was about. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

From what I could find while writing it, it seems to be a product of the coverage. A majority of the writing from the press has been covering CIG's responses and claims, while Crytek has gotten little to no real coverage of any additional responses outside of their initial claims and their filings. If additional Crytek info is out there, I'd love to add, but it was difficult to find much. On the "reveal" wording, I based that off of CIG showing off that information in the dismissal hearings in a way that directly countered the direct claim of the engine switch, which was based on the ArsTechnica wording of the situation (saying the lawsuit was no longer relevant and the confirmation proving that). That said, feel free to reword, I don't see an issue with another pass at the language. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 18:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

ArsTechnica makes it perfectly clear that it is reporting CIG claims. Not 'information'. Claims. Nothing whatsoever has been 'directly countered', since the court has made no ruling on the matter. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The Amazon confirmation isn't just a claim, it's directly from discovery. CIG was restating the discovery finding. Ars was reporting on the restatement (hence them saying CIG was "noting" instead of "claiming"). In this Eurogamer source that I included for the passage it writes "Amazon confirmed it licensed Lumberyard to CIG in 2016 - and that it included CryEngine in that licence" in pretty clear terms. The wording of the section doesn't suggest that the information has been accepted by the court, just that the information was discussed in the dismissal motions. Like I said earlier, if you want to reword, go ahead, I'm not gonna fight on the idea that the language as is could be considered slanted because of the connotations of the word "revealed". — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 20:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@109.156.239.85:Re: your recent edits, I have a question about one of the changes. I saw you removed the quote from the ArsTechnica article regarding the license agreement. Based on the article wording, they weren't quoting CIG, but language from the actual license agreement between the two parties. If you feel strongly about the concept of quoting directly, I can understand that, but the omission of the context that the license agreement adds to the case, I think, takes away from the necessary information needed to understand the case. If it was just a claim, I wouldn't have a problem with the removal, but considering it's not only from the original document but was also reported by ArsTechnica as fact, it at least warrants some discussion. All the other changes are great though! — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 04:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the quoted material is that it is selective, and incomplete. CryTek have (as far as I'm aware) never suggested that the contract didn't name Squadron 42 explicitly. It clearly does. The issue as far as CryTek was concerned was that at the time the contract was drawn up, CIG was proposing to sell SC and SQ42 as a single unified product. What CryTek claimed was that the contract did not permit CIG to sell a second product (i.e. SQ42 after a split) under the terms agreed. The quote explains none of this, but instead gives a misleading impression that CryTek were disputing something they weren't. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Squadron 42 section

Quote: "An announcement from CIG revealed that a beta release is planned for Q3 2020, following a 12 week delay from their initial projected release". Which 'initially projected release' is that? The 2014 one from when SC was announced? The 2017 one (see the thread in the archive [7] which cites sources for this)? Or any of the other 'release dates' that CIG have claimed over the years? CIG are clearly not a reliable source for release dates, and Wikipedia has no business implying that the latest date has any more credibility than their previous 'revelations'. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article, not promotional puffery. I have rewritten this sentence, and ask that it not be restored without discussion. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(Note: for clarification, I am the same person as 109.159.72.250 above, editing from a dynamic IP). 109.156.239.85 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

From what I could find, the 12 week delay comes from the cited source, though it's a little confusing because of how Eurogamer writes it. Originally, S42 had been announced for Q2 2020, the Eurogamer article was covering the announcement that it was being delayed to Q3 2020, quoting CIG's "12 week delay" but calling it a "3 month delay" in the first sentence. In my opinion, including the official release date projections (as long as they're reported by reliable sources), helps illustrate the constant shifting of release dates, which ties into a common thread through the project. That said, I do agree that any implication on credibility for the release dates isn't appropriate, any additions of material regarding release dates should avoid any such implication. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 05:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My issue wasn't with reporting CIG's statements about projected release dates (which is fine, as long as we report them as attributed assertions, not facts). The issue was using Eurogamer as a source for a statement that the revised date was "following a 12 week delay from their initial projected release". If Eurogamer had said that, they would clearly and demonstrably have been wrong, since the actual 'initial projected release' was 2014. Reading the Eurogamer source again though, I don't think they are actually trying to say that anyway. All they are really reporting is that CIG had announced a three-month delay from an earlier projected release date. Not something of any great significance to our article, since such slippages are a recurring theme. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Structure of article

The structure of top-level headers was used to align with MOS:VG. As for the Development section, the structure was used for the following reasons:

• Origin, renamed Background, meant to cover material leading up to the formation of CIG and the initial kickstarter. Initial concept wouldn't work as a title, because it doesn't just cover the initial concept, but rather the circumstances, origin, and necessary context of the project's development. Origin isn't a reference to anything, it's meant to be a brief overview of the origin of the project.

• Kickstarter and early releases, meant to cover the initial modules and the delays experienced during the 2012-2015 development cycle. Moving Arena Commander, Star Marine, and Initial Delays outside of this doesn't make sense, because they'd fall under that cycle. The reason Persistent Universe is separated is because it's notably a milestone module that has a greater context than the smaller modules. Initial delays would need to be here as well because of chronology, adding it after Persistent Universe doesn't make sense for its content.

• • In regards to the "delays" section, anything not covered in the "initial delays" section is discussed in the section for the respective project that was delayed (see: Squadron 42's section noting the release date differences and the Persistent Universe section noting the delay of Alpha 3.0)

• Persistent Universe, meant to cover the primary module of Star Citizen. The "future" section is directly related to this section as a subheading because the content is focused on the Persistent Universe, none of the content in "Future" relates to the other modules.

• Funding is directly related to the development process for Star Citizen, the two are directly interlinked and the coverage of the project by reliable sources creates a clear relationship between the two. Whether or not the Grey Market section belongs here is up for debate, it's not really something to stand on its own and seems to be related to the funding model.

The Squadron 42 section is under gameplay due to its function as a story based offshoot, MOS:VG places story content between Gameplay and Development.

I'd kindly ask that prior to major structural changes that they be discussed, especially in regards to heading order per the Manual of Style. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 03:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree that attempting to following MOS:VG should be maintained. -- ferret (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

MOS:VG is of course advisory. My reasoning for altering the ordering was that it made more chronological sense. This is not a released game, it is still under development, and prioritising a 'gameplay' section that is a moving target, necessarily incomplete, and probably out of date (many of the sources cited are several years old) over the things which have attracted the most media comment (i.e. the unprecedented level of crowdsourced funding, and the repeated delays) seems wrong to me. And as a general principle, almost any narrative is best described in chronological order, at least as far as is practical. With most Video games articles, this isn't really an issue, in as much as there is little coverage until they are released. As for the remainder of the reordering, I can see no logic whatsoever for separating out material concerning delays into separate sections - the sources don't do this, and doing so makes it harder to find such content. This is a major part of the SC story, and needs clear coverage. And as for 'Future' somehow being a subtopic of 'Persistent Universe', I don't see the logic of this either - We need a section on future plans for SC development, and that is what the section describes. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue I have is that "not released" isn't well defined in Star Citizen. Currently every piece of gameplay content in the Gameplay section is available for players and as up to date as possible outside of minor meta changes. The sources are citing playable updates to an early access alpha and become much more recent in the Persistent Universe section due to it being the one in active development. While sources might discuss the unknown commercial release, early access scenarios like this don't allow us to make a clear determination on whether to treat the game as if it's a typical "unreleased" game (especially when the sources use language like "an update was released"). As for chronology, the development section is currently in chronological order (barring funding, which should be in the development section but covers too wide a period to be placed anywhere specific beyond the end). Moving the "Future" section into its own level 2 subheading isn't as much an issue (I just put it back to a higher heading like you had), but the section regarding "initial delays" is a little more nuanced than that. While looking through reliable coverage of Star Citizen, it appeared to me that coverage of Star Citizen delays was most active during the 2012-2015 period as modules were consistently pushed back and both SC and S42 missed their 2014 release dates. Following the release of Star Marine, discussion by reliable sources regarding delays has largely stopped with the exception of Alpha 3.0's delay in 2016 and S42's soft delay in 2019 (which was removed a couple weeks back). Generally speaking, reliable sources don't discuss delays anymore, they just note that the game hasn't been commercially released yet and is still in development/early access/whatever they decide to say. So my intent with the initial delays section is to organize that highly notable period within the context of the early development stage (announcement => hangar => arena commander => star marine), especially since the Persistent Universe module caused a drastic shift in coverage. There are "feature delays" within the Persistent Universe that are common, but there's very little reliable coverage that I could find due to the shift in focus. I think if we do end up moving Initial Delays out of the Kickstarter section, it should be rewritten to reflect a more comprehensive section rather than the specific period that the section currently covers.

To summarize, since the game is "playable" per sources, I believe placing the gameplay section at the top seems appropriate to mirror conventions with other "early access" type titles (as long as the gameplay is from a released update with proper sourcing, no "future gameplay features per CIG" belong in that section). I couldn't find a substantial enough counter-argument for the Future section, so I returned it to a standalone subsection of Development. My version of Initial Delays describes a specific period of notable coverage in the Kickstarter and Early Releases section and attempts to provide proper weighting to that period, while the less-covered delays after 2015 have been implemented in their respective sections since they fall outside of that notable period. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 00:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The 'initial delays' section cites an article from May 2018. That is not commentary on an 'initial delay'. As for the game being 'released', I see no reason to treat this differently from any other game, and to assume that when the developers consider it to be so, they will start selling it as a finished product, rather than offering 'pledges'. That is certainly what they have indicated they intend to do. And I likewise assume that if and when that happens, the video gaming media will state that the game has been released, and review it as a released product. We base content on what the sources say. They are describing an incomplete alpha build, and we are in no position to describe the gameplay of a finished product. Doing that will require sources that have access to one. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a 2019 cite that is a retrospective of the 2014/2015 delays, and the 2018 cite is there to illustrate that as a consequence of the initial delays, public perception of the project has turned to vaporware. That doesn't change the overall tone and context of the section. There's plenty of examples of more recent articles discussing older topics through a modern lens.

As far as the "released" state, the gaming market has become highly complex with release formats over the last decade, and titles with an early access structure like this that have substantial notable coverage of their gameplay warrant not only thorough inclusion (as far as the scope of reliable sources extend) but a treatment similar to other instances of this development style. As changes are implemented and coverage acknowledges this, we can update the gameplay section as needed. All early access-style titles follow this format and include gameplay content as covered by reliable sources. Unless there is a compelling enough reason to not follow the structure that is widely accepted for titles with similar release formats, we should be adhering to that format. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 04:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what sources have to say on a subject. They are not structured around the spin that contributors wish to put on such sources. Such sources are still commenting on delays. This is a fact. Any attempt to imply that this was somehow confined to earlier stages of development is a violation of WP:NPOV. And likewise, sources still state that the game isn't a finished product. As late as December last year, the BBC, in an item in its 'Click' series said exactly that. And featured CIG's technical developer of content Sean Tracy describing it as "very early alpha" [8]. This is the same BBC broadcast still saw fit to describe SC as having a "lengthy gestation period". The game is delayed, it is unfinished. The BBC says so. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no implication in the section as written. Sources overwhelmingly cover a specific period where delays were extremely common and only cite two specific delays since then (one of which you yourself removed). Implying that sources cover delays outside of that period with the same frequency or notability despite a clear difference in coverage goes against WP:UNDUE. There's no spin here, and the article's citations support that. Further, the rest of the article makes it clear that the game isn't done, considering the lede and reception sections include material regarding the ongoing development AND the initial delays section not saying anything like "there haven't been delays since". There have, and the one that hasn't been removed is in the very next section for both proper chronology and weighting. The Initial Delays section as written details a specific period where there was greater coverage of specific delays. Since then, delays have been discussed more generally, which is reflected in the tone of the article.

Since you linked the BBC source, I watched it and found that not only does it support the early access point that I made earlier, but that it doesn't cite any specific delays, speaking about them generally and just noting that the project is still in development, which is different from specific delays (as I've discussed above). The BBC even says "the game is playable" and Sean Tracy is directly quoted as saying "Star Citizen is out, that's one of the things I like to remind people about." Here's some additional coverage discussing the game as early access:

Eurogamer, VentureBeat, Wired, Polygon. Unfinished or not, its in an early access state and should be treated as such. The game is still "upcoming", it's still "in development", and the article clearly reflects that, but as an early access game, there is released content that has been covered by 28 sources cited in the gameplay section. All early access games across Wikipedia are treated in this manner, so as stated earlier there would need to be compelling reason to go against the conventions established by the community. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 14:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Entitling a section 'initial delays' carries a clear and unambiguous implication that such delays have been confined to the early days of development. Since sources are still discussing delays to the project, it is a violation of WP:NPOV to do so. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless we get additional comment from someone else on this, I object to moving this section as it's currently written due to WP:UNDUE. Coverage of delays is weighted more towards that period and has a separate section due to that weight. Additional or generalized discussion of delays have not been omitted and are worked into the article's content and tone as per their proper weighting. I've opened a request through WP:THIRDOPINION for some outside insight. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 16:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You linked four articles in your previous post. The first one, a Eurogamer article from December 2017, asks "Five years after its announcement, where is the future of Star Citizen headed? Will it ever be finished?". The December 2018 Venturebeat article is little more than an interview of Chris Roberts, and accordingly can't be cited for third-party commentary: all it really confirms is that Roberts is touting Q3 or Q4 of this year for the release of Squadron 42. And we already have sources for him saying similar things for 2014, or 2017. The Wired article from 2015 says that "only a few isolated segments of the game have been released so far, and even those are in a very early, bug-ridden form". The Polygon article from last November which is a broader discussion of 'early access' in general has relatively little to say on Star Citizen, but mentions the few components currently available, and then comments that "there’s still nothing that turns all of these things into one coherent game. And there’s no telling when it might actually be released". The very sources you cite for the game being in 'early access' also make it clear that they are describing a game with a great deal of development to be done, and with no clear indication of when (or even if) it will be finished. What is 'undue' here is trying to make out that a game originally slated for a 2014 release isn't 'delayed' just because people can play fragments of it. That isn't what the sources describe. Wikipedia goes by what the sources say. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No one is making the argument that the game isn't delayed. The fourth sentence of the lede says "While its launch was originally anticipated for 2014, significant expansion of gameplay features and scope have led to repeated delays." The first sentence makes it clear that the game is still "upcoming" and hasn't been commercially released. Delays have been mentioned in other areas of the article. You're claiming that this specific section somehow creates a narrative that isn't reflected in the rest of the article, when, in fact, the entire article makes it clear that the game is still delayed, is still in development, and has missed its earlier established release dates.

Also you seem to be suggesting that the game being in "early access" somehow negates the delay discussion. The "early access" argument is in regards to the overall structure of the article. The game has gameplay that is covered by sources, gameplay comes first per MOS and conventions established by all titles with similar release models. That doesn't affect the article's discussion of Star Citizen's delays. Your focus on making the delays a centerpoint of the article conflicts with your own assertion of NPOV. Proper weight should be given to each section as covered by sources, including gameplay from an early access release. You keep repeating "Wikipedia goes by what the sources say" and then seem to want to completely ignore what the sources are saying on the topic. This happened in previous discussions, where you dismiss sources, either in part or outright, if they don't support your argument. So either we're going by what sources say or we're going by what you say, because I've provided more than enough context and sourcing for everything I've stated, showed clear dates, timelines, fully explained the context of what's been written, but instead this discussion has boiled down to strawman arguments. If we're going to continue debating this, we need to debate the actual points: 1. Overall structure should be followed per MOS due to "early access" conventions. 2. Initial delays is about a specific period of time when coverage was overwhelmingly discussing repeated date delays versus more generalized discussion in later years. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

1. MOS is, as always, advisory. 'It should be followed because it is the MOS' isn't actually an argument for anything. If it were, MOS:VG wouldn't say, concerning recommendations regarding article layout "Do not try to conform to them if they are not helping to improve the article". I do not believe that an article on this subject is improved by placing things out of chronological order, and over-emphasising the small subset of intended gameplay currently available in what the developers themselves have described as "very early alpha". This isn't an article about a finished game, where a 'gameplay' section can meaningfully describe the product.

2. Delays are still being discussed in sources. There is no logical reason whatsoever to separate coverage of 'early' commentary on delays from similar commentary made later. If delays merit a separate section (which they clearly do) the section should include all sourced coverage of the topic, not just some of it, picked out on the whim of a contributor.

And cut out the 'strawman arguments' nonsense. I have pointed out how the sources you cited don't support the arguments you are making. Your apparent inability to accept that the sources you cite don't support your own arguments has nothing to do with straw men. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

From your earlier post: "What is 'undue' here is trying to make out that a game originally slated for a 2014 release isn't 'delayed' just because people can play fragments of it." Please show me where I made the argument you're claiming here. In addition, MOS is advisory, but if the community treats all "early access" projects the same way, you'll need more than just yourself to argue against following MOS. As I stated earlier, unless some form of consensus supports your view that we should break away from MOS when there's a clearly established convention there isn't much basis to do so. Also "over-emphasising the small subset of intended gameplay currently available" is a weird claim that is in no way supported by the sources in this article. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 19:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Since it seems self-evident that we aren't going to agree here, per WP:BRD the correct approach would seem to me to be to revert the article back to the stable state it was in prior to your extensive edits on the 10th of April (the edits are here [9], and the stable state is here [10]) I had hoped, from what was said in the 'Major article edits' section above that we would be able to amicably discuss differences of opinion over content, but it seems that you are entirely unwilling to compromise, and are intent on forcing your personal preferences into the article. Since that isn't the way things are supposed to work, I am going to revert as described shortly, unless given a substantive Wikipedia policy based reason not to. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering we're waiting on a third opinion, a revert would be inappropriate, especially since this discussion doesn't even argue against a majority the included content. You can't just revert things when you don't get your way. I've amicably discussed several changes, yet as the conversation got deeper you accused me of "spin" (not for the first time, since you did the same in the S42 discussion) and eventually started arguing against a misrepresentation of my argument. If you'd like to continue accusing me of being unwilling to compromise while you shout me down with NPOV claims and dismiss the sources I present, we can bring this to some form of dispute resolution. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 20:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I accused you of 'spin'. And I stand by it. Your behaviour, both here on the talk page and in the article itself, seems slanted in a manner to present CIG and SC in the most favourable manner, and to obfuscate criticism of this controversial project. With more than a hint of WP:OWN thrown in. And yes, I can revert the article, since that is precisely what WP:BRD mandates. You made the edits. I disagree with them. We revert, and then discuss. As for dispute resolution, I may be willing to participate (participation is of course voluntary) but that will depend on what form of dispute resolution you are proposing. I have little interest in a 'resolution' process which sees you repeating the same behaviour as I've seen here. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a pretty bold accusation to make (re: obfuscating criticism) considering I expanded their legal section, made very few content edits to criticism, and included information regarding the delays in several parts of the article. There's no WP:OWN here, I made changes, requested discussion before major changes, and then found myself arguing with someone who has been combative about every change to this article since I first suggested the S42 split. Further, from WP:BRD: it's an "an optional method of reaching consensus", writes "BRD does not encourage reverting", and "is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." At this point, if you continue to accuse me of bad faith editing, we can engage ANI and I'll accept whatever outcome arises from that. If you revert without a compelling reason beyond you not liking the changes or without outside input, we can engage ANI. I don't have a problem with discussion or editing in general. I do have a problem with being shouted down, accused of bad faith, and trying to weaponize wikipedia policy to subvert edits that have more than enough substance to them. At this point, I will disengage from this discussion until the third opinion comes through. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 20:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you expanded the legal section. And in doing so filled it with quotes from one party in the dispute. And added misleading material implying that CryTek weren't aware of the contract they had signed. Along with weasel-worded statements about how CIG had 'shared' and 'revealed' evidence in court. The section as you originally edited it [11] was clearly slanted towards CIG's position, in the light of precisely zero information as to how the case was finally settled. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Since you decided to continue berating me, I've opened a thread at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil_behavior/threats_of_reversion_from_IP_editor. Outside of this, I am continuing to disengage from this discussion until a third opinion has come through. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 00:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 3O Response: Insofar as the MOS and headings: It is advisory, but that does not make it purely optional or something to ignore on a whim. Absent clear consensus to deviate from it, the MOS should be followed. That consensus to deviate is clearly not present here. There seem to be quite a lot of other disputes here aside the headings, but those are outside scope of what was requested. Ask on those as well if you like, but please remember it ultimately comes down to following the sources, not only in terms of what is factual, but also in terms of what is significant and what is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:I appreciate the response! Outside of the MOS topic, there was another particular debate going on in regards to a specific section, entitled "Initial Delays". I wrote the section to provide weighting to a period of time within development when delays were frequently commented on due to release dates being missed. They were highly public, have quite a bit of sourcing on those specific delays and missed dates, and seem to correspond with a much more notable period. While delays have continued since then, source discussion of them has become more general in terms of "it's been x years" rather than "x date was missed", and even if they comment on a specific date, it's usually a retrospective thing like "It was supposed to release in 2014, but has been delayed since then". We have one or two specific delays cited in the 5 years since that period, one of them being the Alpha 3.0 release, which is included in the Persistent Universe section of Development.

My core arguement is that because of the contextual shift in coverage from hardline "missed date" delays to long-term "it's not out yet" comments, having a section dedicated to the period where those highly common missed dates occurred makes sense (while incorporating the other comments into things like Reception, the lede, and the Persistent Universe section). The IP editor's argument is that there should be a comprehensive delay section that talks about the delays from project start to project finish, with all content regarding delays incorporated into that one section, as titling a section "initial delays" makes it seem like there haven't been any delays since. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 00:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see the concern regarding an "Initial Delays" title. Remember that many readers only skim through an article or read the lead and TOC rather than the entire article. The presence of an "Initial Delays" section would make it appear to the casual reader that the delays were relatively normal and have since been resolved, which here is clearly not the case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it's just the way it's titled or the way the entire section is presented? My main concern is that since the company seems to have largely abandoned clear release dates since 2015/2016 (there's a few sources that mention this but I haven't had a chance to find them again), there's a noticeable shift from when they had all these specific release dates that they kept missing and when they finally decided to say "screw it, we'll develop as long as we need to" with minor exceptions. If you think the section's format (even if the title is changed) still provides a misleading impression, I can revisit it to change it up, rewrite the whole section to be a standalone, or just work the content into that "early releases" section differently. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 02:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think my primary concern would be the title. Maybe "Delays in release" would work? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That was essentially what I have been proposing, though I thought that entitling the section 'delays' was sufficient. The dispute here though has been about more than the title though, since I feel that it is important to give clear and comprehensive coverage of something which has been a prime reason (along with the level of crowdfunding) for the SC project attracting the attention of sources well beyond the normal video gaming media. As for the developers supposedly saying "screw it, we'll develop as long as we need to", or anything to that effect, they haven't, as far as I'm aware. And if they had, this very significant statement would certainly merit inclusion in the article. But this is certainly not in the case regarding Squadron 42, where only a few months back Chris Roberts was telling the media that it would be released in Q3 or Q4 this year. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I rewrote the section to be more comprehensive and altered the title to be less constrained to a time period. I found sources about them removing Star Citizen release dates after 2016 (outside of S42), but am still trying to figure out where I read/saw their specific quotes that they were generally abandoning the release dates for SC for a more iterative process. I expanded the S42 delays in that section too to show several instances of release changes. For now, I think the section now compromises between both viewpoints, though I think the title is a little clunky (best I could think up at the moment). Titling it as just "Delays" seemed like it left out some context about impact and might not fully sell the ongoing nature of it, especially if someone does just read the TOC. Any other edits or additional insight is welcome, my primary concerns are now resolved. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 16:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you any objection to me moving the now-retitled 'Delays and extended development' section from its current position to what seems to me to be a more logical position, after the section describing development of the 'persistent universe' and before the 'future' section (which I've renamed 'future plans', since Wikipedia doesn't generally predict the future), or alternatively after it (not quite sure myself which would be preferable)? It seems odd to have it between sections describing the development of specific parts, since it relates to development as a whole. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think putting it in either place works, though I'm on the fence about there even being a "Future/Future plans" section in the first place. When I was doing my rewrites, I couldn't figure out how to work those pieces into the other sections and threw them into that section since it was the best compromise I could come up with at the time. As it stands, some of the pieces are a little too speculative/potentially outdated (things like the "matchmaking mechanic" and the "slider") since none of that has been implemented and discussion surrounding those things are extremely limited. I think if we can work out what should stay and where it would go, we can move those out and then just do away with the "Future plans" section altogether, which would put the "Delays and extended development" section right before "Funding" no matter what we choose to do right at this moment. So I'm fine with either placement. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 23:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see what you mean about the future plans section. I'd suggest that the only part of it that really says much is the first sentence, and that could be moved to the end of the 'persistent universe' section. The source for that is rather dated too, but I don't think we need worry too much about a statement to the effect that CIG intend to continue development after release. It's a fairly generic thing for developers to say, and I can't imagine CIG have changed their plans in that regard. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree on it being generic, I dunno if it's necessary to keep (it might make more sense to include if Star Citizen ever releases). For me, I'm likely going to pull the sentence about economy plans into my Sandbox until there's more coverage (and potentially an actual implementation) of the dynamic economy system they touted last year. It's complex tech that could be notable if it goes anywhere, but since it's just a concept right now there's no real standing to keep the 2013 quote in there. Once there is an implementation though, adding back the sentence with proper coverage of the implementation could be worth exploring, since it would establish the chronology of the announcement and the 7+ year development time. The server meshing sentence might work with the SOCS/Alpha 3.8 paragraph in the prior section since the two techs are related and the SOCS source even mentions server meshing having some level of progress, but that might need to wait until further sourcing can justify it. The "fictional language" sentence is kind of notable as fully developed conlangs aren't a common occurrence in projects, but that I'd probably pull out of the article too until a section exists for it to make sense in. Which, I planned on creating a "story/premise" section (which Squadron 42 would fall under) to organize the content about the project's setting and campaign, the conlang sentence could work there, but since the citation is broken and there's no archive, I'd still have to justify the inclusion with sources discussing it. There's also the problem that so far there aren't many third party sources discussing the conlangs as being in development or completed, 99% of that material is only on CIG's platform, which isn't really useful.

If you don't think mixing the server meshing sentence with the SOCS paragraph is workable, I'll just pull those three sentences I mentioned into my sandbox and revisit them once/if they're developed more. I don't think the first sentence is necessary, but if you think adding it to the end of the prior section works, I'm down for that. Outside of that, I think we can remove the section. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 00:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm rather of the opinion that using phrases like 'server meshing' or 'object container streaming' in the article as it stands doesn't really impart much of significance to the reader. We aren't in the position to explain the actual technology here, and probably shouldn't even if we were, since doing so properly would require the sort of technical knowledge most readers don't have. Which leaves the reader with what appear to be unexplained buzzwords in a sentence that basically says that CIG have a technical problem, and they think they have a solution. Solving problems like that is central to much of what game developers do (or at least, it is to developers with any ambitions), and if CIG are to achieve even half of what they aspire to, they are going to have to tackle these sort of issues repeatedly. When they have done so, there might be something more to be said on how they did it, hopefully from a source that can explain it in layman's terms. Assuming it is worthy of commentary at all, and isn't just new jargon for an existing technique (I've seen comments to that effect about OCS somewhere, though I'm not sure it was in a WP:RS source). If such techniques are actually new, and can be demonstrated to be doing something of significance, we'll have the sources to justify discussing them as actual tech, rather than just buzzwords.

As for the conlang thing, I'd entirely agree that it will deserve coverage when it is implemented, and I wouldn't object to it being included in the article now as something CIG have said they intend to do, if you think it merits it. It doesn't need much in the way of further explanation, and is unusual enough to deserve a few words at least. If and when they actually implement it in-game to a significant extent, we might even see some commentary on it from beyond the usual gaming media.

With regard to the 'dynamic economy' thing, this isn't really new, at least as an ambition, though games that have tried it in the past have generally found it harder to actually achieve than to talk about. As you say, best left out until there are sources commenting on how well it works.

Finally, I'm not sure about a 'story/premise' section being practical right now. There is a fair bit on this from CIG, but it is all rather disjointed, and scattered over multiple publications, from what I've seen, and trying to make a coherent narrative from it would risk engaging in wp:synthesis. There's no harm in trying I suppose, but if it was me I'd wait until the product was closer to completion and there was more to go on. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fair on being too technical. I think there still might be some viability to include in the article that some sources are noting the value of the tech (Eurogamer notes that because of the sheer complexity of the project, implementing a solution like this is not only unique from other projects but, in their words, a "technical achievement"). The current source just describes the technical stuff and what CIG hopes to get (it came out prior to the implementation). The tech does currently exist in the game as Eurogamer noted in December. Granted, there still might be need for further sources, but it's a start. That said, the technical stuff can go away, I'm really just suggesting that we include something that's noting the commentary from the sources in regards to the tech implementation rather than a description of the tech itself. Or something else, I'm not sure how to approach that.

As for the story/premise section, let me work out a version in my sandbox and get your thoughts on it, I should have some time tomorrow. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 04:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I organized existing material into a story section in my sandbox. The premise section is from an older version of the article, here the material actually makes sense and stands as a brief overview of the project's general concept. I included the Squadron 42 section here since it's the campaign for the whole project, and I broke out the cast section because of the high-profile nature of the game's casting. I left out the conlang thing from this section but am now wondering if it *does* belong in development since Massively OP wrote in 2017 that the language development was already happening and showed the guy working on two of the languages. It's not critical, so I think we can start removing the Future plans section while we discuss the conlang thing separately. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 14:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Start of Development (Pre-Production & Production) Dates

Text regarding this have been repeatedly subject to edits which were in contradiction to existing sources.

Start of development is generally aligned with the start of pre-production, which was stated to be 2010.

Multiple sources confirm that the production of the game started in 2011. It is irrelevant whether the produced content was eventually released to the public. In fact, the producer is being cited in the sources that the production of the game (and not some separate "tech-demo") was started a year before the announcement. Even though this can't be validated without original research, parts of the production from 2011, like ship models, were used in initial, public test releases of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:8280:79AA:28F6:5F60:DD49:BBD2 (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Incorrect Squadron 42 Beta Planning Dates

User:ferret and others repeatedly edit the last officially announced date for the SQ42 Beta with incorrect assumptions which are contrary to the very sources cited. The official roadmap, that was updated after the one quarter delay, clearly scheduled the completion of the Beta before the beginning of Q3 2020. This is also made clear by the fact that no development items other than "polishing and bug fixing before release" were scheduled in Q3 2020 (after 30 June). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:82C0:8D9C:3426:A209:6392:6F67 (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"List of Star Citizen ships" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of Star Citizen ships. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 2#List of Star Citizen ships until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Major improvements to the article

Hello everyone, I am thinking about adding a lot more information to the article and rewriting some bits. The organisation of the gameplay section does no longer seem relevant to me, and some data are rather outdated. In addition, I think there is a need of a lot more insight about the game itself, whereas it seems to me that the sections dealing with the controversy over the project (grey market, reception, legal issues) are proportionally more developed. This is why I will be mainly focusing on the gameplay section. I am also thinking about adding a new section called Universe which resumes the Star Citizen lore. Overall, I plan to take a lot of inspiration from the French Star Citizen Wikipedia page in which I largely contributed. But since I am not a native english speaker, I may make quite many mistakes so please be understanding. If my initiative is unwelcome, please tell me, I will understand. But it seems that there has not been a lot of activity on this page recently and I think the project and Wikipedia itself deserve a Wikipedia page up to date, thorough and that represents faithfully the current state of the project, so this why I am making this proposition. --SgtChouquette (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

Sandi Gardner to change to Sandi Roberts as one of the founders Scfan042 (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandi Gardner to change to Sandi Roberts as one of the founders Scfan042 (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Current source lists a Sandi Gardiner. If you have a source that says that she? changed her name please provide it and reopen the request Cannolis (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2021

Sandi Gardiner to change to Sandi Roberts (as one of the founders in the development section) - source: https://cloudimperiumgames.com/core Scfan042 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Release date

Didn’t this game come out in 2021? Rachelskit (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It's been 'coming out' for getting on for a decade now. As an 'alpha', or under whatever convenient alternative description enables the developers to simultaneously sell it as something you can play now while excusing the lack of promised features, and the endless bugs, as a consequence of it still being in development. Sadly not unique in the video game industry, but taken to unprecedented levels. There has been no official 'release' and I've not seen any recent external WP:RS coverage of the subject that actually expects there to be one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not unprecedented. There have been video games before Star Citizen that where "In development" for 10+ years. RedWhiteDevil (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There have been games in development for extended periods, certainly. None of them were crowd-funded in the manner Star Citizen has been. None have taken players money for undelivered content on the scale that Star Citizen has, over such an extended period that Star Citizen has. If a normal developer has a product under development for a decade, unreleased and unsold, it affects nobody but them and their investors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

At the most recent CitizenCon 2953 event (10/21/2023 through 10/22/2023) a statement was made by Chris Roberts (video game developer), Richard Tyrer, and a few others, that Squadron 42 is now content/feature complete and has entered final polishing. With that, they expect the bulk of the CIG developers to move back over to Star Citizen development. Further, CR noted that everything shown during the CitizenCon 2953 panels was planned to be added into Star Citizen over the next 12 months. Now, I've been following the game for a long time so it's entirely fair (and warranted tbh) to take that comment with a significant dose of Na. But, it's been stated publicly and the content presented there was very sharp and looked well put together. Time will tell. Alundil (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the amount of 'final polishing' Sq42 must have gone through since they first announced its immanent release back in 2014 (?), I'm surprised they've not rubbed it down to nothing at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC))

Link to official website contains a referral link

Found at the bottom of the article, under external links. Right now it points to {redacted}, when the more appropriate link would be just https://robertsspaceindustries.com/. I'm unable to make the change myself. Cheers! 85.221.174.214 (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be getting the supposed 'official website' from Wikidata. This has clearly been tampered with, so I'll replace it with the default. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Simple vandalism from two days ago. Fixed. -- ferret (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent updates to main article

Funding Crowdfunding Funding from backers exceeded $300 million in June 2020, surpassed $400 million in November 2021, $500 million in September 2022, and $600 million in September 2023.

The current number of backers is unknown, as it does not equal the advertised counter 'Star Citizens'. (Line should be removed or a new source corroborating it's claim located.

If I've added this incorrectly, please forgive (and offer constructive feedback as it's my first WP edit). Alundil (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Development topic

CIG is beginning to refer to their game engine as Star Engine^TM as seen in a recent video from CitizenCon 2953 which took place October 21-22 2023.

Screen grab of the branding. Video can been seen here at 23:45. Alundil (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless and until third-party sources suggest that this is of any significance, it is of no consequence to the article what they call it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough - thought it worth pointing out. Alundil (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't think it is new anyway. I seem to recall they used a similar name, if not the same one, during their dispute with Crytek back in 2017. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Link(s) to build notes, change logs, patch notes

To be added under the Development section.

Patch Notes

These could definitely be fleshed out with high level points as needed. Alundil (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not without secondary sourcing, no. Patch notes are are a normal part of game development, and have been ever since online distribution became the norm. Its how the industry works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2024

Under arena commander "G-forces", remove the section about multi crew arena commander as that has now been implemented. 74.197.51.149 (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ®asteem Talk 01:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Early access

Star Citizen has indeed been confirmed as Early Access by many sources including CIG ones. Many other games treated in Wikipedia include those Early Access release dates in the info box such as: Phasmophobia (video game) , Valheim or Ark: Survival Ascended. This information needs ot be added to the info box here and also the main text. Cloverfield70 (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Those articles are wrong. Per the template documentation as well as MOS:VG, beta and early access dates are not put in the infobox. They can be in the lead though. They must be reliably sourced. -- ferret (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Cited from the MOS:VG: "Early releases such as open beta-testing periods, early access, or other similar mechanics should not be included in the infobox once the game is actually released. While the game is in an early release state, that early release date may be included in the infobox, but it should be indicated as an early release, and in the article prose, the game should be treated as an upcoming video game that has yet to receive a full release for all other purposes."

This clearly states Early Access release dates should be included in the infobox, for as longa s the game is actually in early Access, which is the case here. Please confirm? Cloverfield70 (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cloverfield70 The template says don't do it, the MOS says "until officially released". So there is a conflict. I will raise that on the template's talk page. -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. For what is worth, and imho, I do not see major conflicts in the Early Access release date being displayed at the info box as long as it is clearly labled as such, we can even include a "Full release: TBA" for further detail. Given the fact many other games, including behemoths such as Fortnite, include the early access date in the info box aswell, it seems to be a very common accepted practice in Wikipedia. It´s good info. Cloverfield70 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cloverfield70 MOS says to do that, but the infobox explicitly says to never include early access. We just need to get that fixed so there's no more confusion between the two. -- ferret (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Ferret, I saw your exchange in the info box uopdates. Looks good, thanks. I see you have already also corrected the Star Citizen info box accordingly, but you have selected the 2017 date (citation 2 at Eurogamer) instead of the earlier citation by the developer of 2016 for Early Access (citation 1 at MassivelyOP). Shouldn´t the earliest of the two be used for reference? Cloverfield70 (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cloverfield70 A vague retroactively updated crowdfunding claim of "sometime in 2016" without detail, versus a clear "We will consider it early access when 3.0 releases". The first source, MassivelyOP, also references the 2017 date. -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is vague in that it does only mention the year, yes. But it comes from developer official sources. Furthermore that statement has been used by the developer in legal proceedings to argue their case as defendants, so it is as official as it can get I reckon, no? Cloverfield70 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Primary source claims made retroactively are suspect. In 2017, they said that with the 3.0 release they would consider it early access. Years later, they claim "early access some time in 2016". That contradicts the contemporary sourcing, so we would not use it. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I think it is still of interest to keep that 2016 citation, if only for reference, as it comes from the developer and confirms the developer considered the game as Early Access by then even if later formally announced in 2017.

Now, given this Early Access info I am planning to update some of the info in the main text in the next few days so to clarify the game sources of revenue, i.e. crowdfunding revenues versus Early Access sales revenues. Cloverfield70 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)