Template talk:Infobox video game

Add website parameter

Why is there no website parameter? I think there should be one. PhotographyEdits (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top of the page (or at Template talk:Infobox video game/FAQ) which has a list of the various discussions where this was decided against. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"Lead Developer" field?

I noticed this term "Lead Developer" when creating Of Ash and Steel. hardcoregamer uses this term. It is unclear to me what this role means. In a software setting, I would expect it to mean something like lead programmer, which is already a field. However in game dev, "developer" generally has a broader meaning, because game companies are known as "game developers" while software companies are generally called "software companies." (cf. eg. Adobe Inc. and CD Projekt.) So "Lead Developer" might mean more like "head of the development studio." The lead developer in question in this case, Victor Kondakov, is also head of the studio. The term is also used in the announcement trailer here (timestamp) and here (timestamp) Any thoughts on this? Is it the same as lead programmer or some other field? Should we add a new field "Lead Developer?" J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@J2UDY7r00CRjH Am I missing something in your example? I cannot find "Lead Developer" used at HCG. Youtube video wise, it seems to be a title that Fire and Frost are using themselves, so it'll be difficult for us to determine exactly what they mean. Developer is a bit of a wishywashy term. Sometimes it means programmer, sometimes it means designer. -- ferret (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the quote from hcg:

>The specifics of the narrative were kept a secret by the development team, but lead writer Alexander Pylin and developer/head of Fire & Frost Studios Victor Kondakov did share a bit in terms of what ways things can go.

You are correct that it doesn't say "Lead Developer" directly. I read it as lead [writer Alexander Pylin ] and [developer/head of Fire & Frost Studios Victor Kondakov]. That is, that "lead" was going on both "writer" and "developer." But that may not be correct. How would you fit Kondakov into the infobox? Or is it too vague to decide where to put him? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's kinda too vague for the structure we have... I'd lean towards director and/or designer. I don't *think* they mean it as Programmer. -- ferret (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave it for now then. I guess when the game releases more info will be published and it will be more clear. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

developer come first

for some reason the developer within infobox of video agme appear first ahead of publisher, for then what is the significance behund it? @J2UDY7r00CRjH 182.253.250.209 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The developer is the one that writes script, the code and creates the game assets. Sometimes a publisher will help with these things, but generally the role of a publisher is to fund the game and then deal with distribution and marketing. Sometimes there can be multiple publishers for the same game. Additionally, many video games are self published and have no publisher, while every game has a developer. Therefore the developer is a more important detail than the publisher. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Early Access dates

Per Talk:Star_Citizen#Early_access and @Cloverfield70 it came to my attention that MOS:VG allows for early access dates to be listed in the infobox up until official general release. However, the template still states to exclude all beta, early access, early start, etc. The infobox should probably simply be updated inline with MOS but I'm raising the topic first. MOS:VG text, which appears to be a couple years old actually: 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. -- ferret (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd propose adjusting the infobox documentation to say, Early access dates should be removed after full release., or similar. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a WT:VG discussion some years ago said it should be removed when the official date is first announced, just like going from "Early 2025" to February 16, 2025. If we are proposing new guidelines, then I'd oppose keeping it until the official date arrives. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dissident93 Changing the template to match MOS feels like something we can do with a quick discussion. If you want to adjust the MOS, it's gonna require hopping over there and a broader discussion. Right now MOS says "once released" not "once official date announced". -- ferret (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't aware that was in the MOS; I guess I missed later discussion on it or simply misremembered. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I support including the early access release date *during early access* but then replacing it with the 1.0 release date whenever that hits. So I guess that means I support the existing MOS, and agree with ferret's suggestions to update the infobox documentation. Tbh I thought this was already fairly standard, but looking a few sample articles now I see it's not really consistent across Wikipedia. Satisfactory for example currently lists both release dates even though it's no longer in early access. Clarifying the template rules would be helpful. CurlyWi (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

EA dates should never be shown in the infobox upon full release, there's never been any consensus for that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A few extension questions: If we can list early access dates during early access, do we also list alpha dates during alpha? If a game in alpha goes into beta, do we list the alpha date or the beta date? If a game in any pre-release state is cancelled (after having been widely available), do we still list any of the pre-release dates or just "cancelled"? IceWelder [✉] 20:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

All of them fall under early access don't they? What makes an alpha release different than a beta beyond an arbitrary milestone set by the developer? As for being cancelled prior to an official release, I think simply going with cancelled there makes the most sense as development had stopped before it went "official". Regardless, all of this would be explained in prose so there shouldn't be any confusion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't mention alphas, only open-betas and early access, both of which it allows until general release. -- ferret (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I've made the following change that I believe captures what MOS states: Special:Diff/1263959939. If we feel the MOS is unclear or needs changed, we should head over to that page for further discussion. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think your changes and the MOS are fine. There will always be weird fringe cases like Deadlock where the game is sort of released by not really (technically a closed beta, but anyone can easily get into it), but those can be evaluated case by case if people want to argue about them. CurlyWi (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Add age rating

I don't know if we should add this in different parameters (EULA rating, PEGI rating, etc.) but there should be the age rating on the infobox RowanJ LP (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a perennial proposal that we have not done because there are too many rating systems in place to include them all. It's the same way for films and TV shows which don't include them. — Masem (t) 16:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)