Jump to content

Talk:List of video game crowdfunding projects/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Proposed merge with Kickstarter

No Merge. Consensus makes it seem that this standalone list currently has no place in Kickstarter. Makes sense, considering that the article's subject handles more categories than just video games. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Hello, I feel this would be more accessible to people on the kickstarter page, what do you think? AviationExpert ✈ (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you define "more accessible"? --Odie5533 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I actually think a better merge target would be Crowd funding in video games. This seems like a perfect fit for that larger article. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The list could contain potentially over a hundred notable games. I don't think it should be merged into an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case, then it could be considered an indiscriminate list. Edit for the now, not some potential future. What exactly are the criteria for inclusion in this list? Is it every game that successfully gets funded on Kickstarter? That's getting into some dangerous territory there. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Any notable game that ran a Kickstarter campaign. How is that dangerous territory or an indiscriminate list? --Odie5533 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this could be a useful list, to supplement Kickstarter and Category:Kickstarter projects. I would limit it to games which have received reliable third party coverage, whether the game has succeeded or not. So stuff like Wildman and Shaker would be covered. The list should also indicate the amount raised, and possibly the number of backers - rather than the release date - which would just sit in the infobox of the games' articles anyway. - hahnchen 21:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
So just checking, the mere fact that a Kickstarter was run is not sufficiently notable is it? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
No, just the fact that a kickstarter campaign ran or even was funded does not alone demonstrate notability. If the campaign received a lot of media attention, however, that might be sufficient. At this point, I'd say any game that is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia should be listed. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I would support a merge, but with the criteria that the games in the table have to have been noticed (even if not having their own article) by secondary sources. IIRC there's 1000s of game projects on KS per year, so a list without inclusion limits would be impossible to maintain. I'd also require that the fate has to be known - either the KS has meet its funding goal, or it completed and failed. There's probably more to keep the list tame. As a second consideration, a category might be better here which would handle the indiscriminate nature of the category but would not be sorted as nicely. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the list will get to big to be merged. It's already a bit big to be merged. Kickstarter has many categories, so I think it will crowd the Kickstarter page to focus on video games so much. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I've changed the merge target to Crowdfunding in video games, which is a better target, IMO. I don't think it's particularly large yet, with barely 20 items. If it gets too big, we can split it out again. In the meantime, I think it'll complement the information in the Crowdfunding article nicely. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Against merge The list satisfies the Wikipedia requirements for list. It groups related topics. Provides more useful information than a category would. It is interesting to see how many games got made because of that. Dream Focus 20:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge to Kickstarter page. As for the other suggested merge, I don't see any tags that would suggest this is even being discussed officially. Kickstarter page is already overly long and doesn't need some random list to pad it out more. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:26, 3 April 2013 (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.

Proposed merge with Crowd funding in video games

Not happening. - hahnchen 18:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I just boldly closed the previous discussion because new people were coming in without reading the discussion about the changed merge target. I've never thought it made sense to merge this page into the main Kickstarter page. I think it should be merged to Crowd funding in video games for two reasons. 1) Not all crowd funded games are on Kickstarter and I don't think we need individual lists for "List of Indiegogo video games" and "List of Appsplit video games". 2) The Crowd funding in video games article is a perfect merge target because it discusses the topic of this list and then it can nicely list all of the games it has discussed within the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2013 (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.

Missing games from the list

At this moment, this list contains 169 games. But KickStarter already has 2,216 successfully funded game projects. So it's completely unrealistic to try to maintain this entire list updated, including in it even games which raised $1,790 (Video Games: The Movie). On top of that, to include the 4,122 unsuccessfully funded game projects is insane. Or someone should have a permanent job just for keeping the list updated. Probably it's more realistic to try to keep the list updated for the games which raised more than say - $100,000. By the way, it would be very interesting to know how many game campaigns end each day. I guess there are at least 5 per day.

For the moment, the following game projects which raised above $1M seem to be missing from the list:

—  Ark25  (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

We use the metric that the game's Kickstarter/crowdfunding has been recognized by (at least) one of the main VG Project's reliable sources, as a likelihood that the game itself will be notable and potentially have a separate article. (If the game's KS doesn't get recognition but the game later becomes notable, we can retroactively add it too). --MASEM (t) 19:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. Anyways, I found a reference for the following games (in case someone has the time to add them):

Reference: http://www.geek.com/games/the-top-ten-games-made-possible-by-kickstarter-1497287/

—  Ark25  (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

True. Found another referenced game:


  • I will add that if this list starts to get unmanagable, it would be completely fair to create a category to put all the games into, and then leave the most significant crowdfunded games (I'd probably use a game either exceeding $250k of funding, or more than twice the target funding, but that's a line to worry about later). --MASEM (t) 02:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, only games which have generated reliably sourced commentary should be on this list. Those Yogventures stories wouldn't cut it, being in a list article. My personal standards as to the entries I've included are probably a bit stricter - I only include projects which have a non-cut'n'paste story dedicated to the project. In the case of Video Games: The Movie, Gamespot wrote an article, and their second $100k+ project generated some of the usual cut'n'paste news posts.

Length wise, it's not as long as platform-games articles such as List of PlayStation 2 games, and when those get too long, they're usually split. I'd probably split this by year, you wouldn't be able to filter for "most raised overall", but List of most successful crowdfunding projects would be able to help.

I think this list is useful to get an idea of what types of games are involved in crowdfunding, and what kind of figures they achieve. It's useful as a supplement to crowdfunding in video games, and gives insight into projects that have generated coverage, but may never qualify for a standalone article, such as Wildman. - hahnchen 14:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Alpha Funding/Early Access

The most recent addition to the list is NOWHERE. You can pay now and get instant access to the game, which in my eyes paints it as alpha funding/early access rather than crowdfunding. Some of the sources given have described it as crowdfunding though.

The other clearly notable, but not on this list alpha funding project is Prison Architect, which has also been described as crowdfunding. I consider alpha-funding (like Minecraft and Steam Early Access) to be separate from crowdfunding, and so do other sources.

So I suggest that we remove NOWHERE. Thoughts? - hahnchen 14:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly a separate table to distinguish between projects that won't go forward unless they get their funding verses projects that are moving forward but to the degree of what funding they get? (Also note that there are KS projects that get on Steam Early Access too - like Paranautical Activity - to continue the funding cycle). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
That list would be better as a subset of an as yet unwritten alpha funding article. - hahnchen 15:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
And a quick search suggests that we could write an article on that, but with as few alpha funding projects compared to KS, that list could be currently contained in that article. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There's an entire article on film finance and no video games equivalent, but then again, the film industry is infamous for its accounting. - hahnchen 14:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Early access article now created and I've left space for a list of NOTABLE games that have/had early access (eg Minecraft, Prison ARch, etc.) I would note that this is primarily where early access outside of a Kickstarter reward is something that can be paid for. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, some question on "nowhere" funding: the 2 most notable aspects I found are: it's open source & and is organized by the humble store, both pretty unique features in the crowdfunding landscape therefore I would like to get in mentioned and I found it clearly more notable than the name of the developer or rift support. regards Shaddim (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed those two notes because those unique features aren't really backed up by reliable sources. The Beige engine seems to be completely non-notable. The Humble Store isn't a crowdfunding platform, it's a payments processor. There are other Independent campaigns on the list, these were usually set up to allow Paypal payments, but we don't specify Paypal in that column. - hahnchen 14:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi hahnchen, thanks for feedback. My point of view here is the fact that an kickstarter campaign includes the "open source" concept which I consider notable (first one as I'm aware of). Was not meant as statement on the notability of the enigne (which is infact not notable at the moment). Similar with humble bundle store as platform, as far as I'm aware of it's the fist campaign using this as platform, which I find notable. The fact of Occulus support seems less notable as many crowdfunded projects already promised support. regards Shaddim (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding column for post-funding status

I know we've mentioned this before, but I think it would be reasonable to add a column that describes, if any, any post-funding-campaign activity on the game/title, such as if/when it was released, or the like, just to show the connect between funding projects and their actual outcome. This would highlight things like Code Hero (Which is in legal issue territory now), Broken Age (the splitting/delay issues), and of course games that have successfully been released without other fanfare. Obviously, failed campaigns would have nothing here, though if there's a second attempt or a different funding route taken, we can add that.

To simply the display, I would then recommended two things for the ref column: the ref to the crowdfunding page can be a link in the funding mechanism column (eg, most would read "Kickstarter [link]", and the ref for being notable on this list can be attached to the Notes column. References for the post-funding activity column would be attached there. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's true that it's difficult to get a overall view of crowdfunding success rates by looking at the table. When projects are released or cancelled, I add it to the notes - so I do think its important. But even if we merge the references into other columns, I don't think we have the space to display a second text column. Maybe you could have a "released" column instead, which just showed green/red - and for details, you refer back to the notes? - hahnchen 14:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely needs to be added. When I created this article, the purpose in my mind was to make it easy for people to know if VG Kickstarters were delivering their promises on time. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree, we need a "Released" column. People need to see how many projects were successful, and which ones are those. To be honest, I think the release date should be linked directly to Steam (or other platform where the game is available), so the reader can see the game there, and check the price. Also the text can specify if the campaign was canceled, if there are legal issues or if the release is delayed (and for how many years). —  Ark25  (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well that only took a few hours. Almost two years later, I've added Release Status column. Having done that, there are a ridiculous number of games on this list that are in development or flat-out cancelled that have no references other than their kickstarter pages and possibly one article about them. This list definitely needs to be trimmed. Fench (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the column is necessary, or I would have added it myself at some point over the last two years. I think it adds more height to the list and makes it look worse on non-widescreen displays. My thinking about the list is that each column was key to the campaign itself, and any other supporting data would only be found in the notes field. The release requires more nuance then just a date, some projects become episodic, some change their scope. Instead of translating the month of release in the notes column, you've gone for exact dates, I guess this is so you can sort the table by release date, but I'm not sure how useful a feature that is. Just going by month made it easier to update. You need to be consistent about release dates, I have always used the date of official release, not early access or beta tests - yet you've marked Darkest Dungeon as released. - hahnchen 19:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
As for Darkest Dungeon, that would be a mistake on my part. I tried to use official release dates whenever possible, but some of the resources I checked weren't always clear if they were official releases or not, so there may be some early access/beta releases listed on accident. Feel free to change any incorrect dates you notice!
With early access and episodic and whatnot, I did try to add date ranges for episodic releases, and I agree that having a fourth option (in addition to a release date, "Unreleased" and "Not funded") for Early Access or something similar might be a good idea, too.
For readability, the extra column may be a bit of a burden on non-widescreen displays, but the table already had 8 columns, so I didn't consider this a major problem. I felt that the Notes column was not a good place to store these dates, since it's not immediately obvious that entries would be there, and I noticed that several of them were out-of-date - editors might not think to add "Released on XXX" to the notes column, but if they see a "release status" column it'll be clear to update it when the game releases. If anything, I feel like the "References" column could be merged into the "Notes" column to improve readability and reduce the column count.
Let me know what you think of my suggestions to improve this column. If the general consensus is that the column is a burden, then I'm all for reverting it back to its previous state, but if there's a way to improve the column, I feel like that would be a better choice than keeping this information hidden away in the Notes column. Also, slightly unrelated, but I feel the biggest issue with this article's readability is the vertical length, not horizontal. I've started a separate section on this talk page about the size of this article, too. Fench (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you move the release date column to in between Notes and References, that way you keep all the campaign data together. - hahnchen 22:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Can do! But would it be better to the left of the Notes column? I feel like Notes and References should be the last two columns. If you disagree I'll just put it between them.Fench (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Another comment - perhaps where known, the anticipated release for projects in the "released" column though leaving "Unreleased" text there? eg Bloodstained would be "Unreleased (Early 2017)". If the funding fails, we don't include , and if the project is funded but ultimately cancelled, that would be marked differently. That way a reader can judge the time expected between the funding drive and anticipated release. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The release date should come after the notes. It's the last step of the campaign. I don't want to put estimated release dates in, because as it has become clear, those dates are mostly fiction. - hahnchen 12:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree, this list seems like it needs pretty regular updates as it is, having to deal with future release dates that will almost definitely be changing on a regular basis seems like it'd be a lot more work than necessary. As for the column itself, it's been moved between the Notes and References columns. - Fench (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

List too big

According to this, this article is way too long. There are several ways we could break it up, such as:

Or just alphabetically (List of video game crowdfunding projects: A, List of video game crowdfunding projects: B etc.). I know it's ugly, but according to Wikipedia policy, any article over 100KB almost certainly should be divided. At 188KB, we're at almost twice that informal limit. Thoughts? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I think we should delete all the games that are not notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • While that is an acceptable idea, that would likely change the approach how this is built as only a handful of games get enough coverage to be notable after the kickstarter is over. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so that's out. What about the ideas I presented above? Any preference? Any other approach? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I like Dream Focus's idea. Building on that, how about a separation something like this?
Video game crowdfunding projects
List of ongoing projects List of failed projects
Successful completed projects
List of projects that raised less than $100,000 List of projects that raised more than $100,000
? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Or this article could contain the active, ongoing projects. Completed ones would have separate pages as outlined about. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The list is not currently too big. It's around 200kb, but a lot of that is references. This is still significantly shorter than plenty of "List of Console games" style articles. Eventually, the list will need splitting, I think it would be best to do it chronologically. - hahnchen 17:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
According to this, it is too big. If there are other articles that are twice 100KB, they should be split too. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What happened?

For a while, this article was updated daily. After I mentioned the list was too big, all participation ended. Why the sudden drop-off? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of being too large to be practically maintained. Also, just watching twitter and VG stories, there's not a whole lot of recent titles that have pushed through. I think we first need to take one of the steps to break up this table and or add in higher standards for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course I'm all for breaking it up, but we didn't get much participation in the discussion above. I'm up for doing the work, but I want to get consensus first. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I was planning to update it once the February projects were done. I'm not that active right now, but I'll keep on top of this article. - hahnchen 17:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Dragon Fin Soup

A user who's handle is pretty telling, OfficialGrimmBros, added Dragon Fin Soup to the list. Is this game in any way notable? The reference provided is just a link to its Kickstarter page. Should we remove it? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hah, the devs are about! I didn't even know that. I actually already made a page for the game (Dragon Fin Soup). I definitely think it is notable. A lot of the games on this list aren't notable though, but I don't think we ever nailed down any criteria (or did we?) --Odie5533 (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I added a third party reliable reference, an article that goes in depth rather than the WP:NOTNEWS style copy-pastes that come with every Kickstarter project. The comment at the top of the article says that blue-links are OK without references, and has been there since the beginning of the list's revamp, maybe that should be an edit-notice instead. It's still hard to enforce, because some blue-linked articles have no decent references within. - hahnchen 16:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I started this discussion when it was a redlink and I had no idea whether it was notable or not. Since it has reliable refs as being notable now--and an article--I don't have a problem with it remaining in. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Rename

Wouldn't "List of crowdfunded video game projects" fit better? I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar ♔ 01:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. With the current name, I have a hard time finding it when searching for it. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
"Crowdfunded" implies success. This list gets significantly more traffic than crowdfunding in video games and shows up quite highly on Google and Wikipedia searches. - hahnchen 16:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Quality of sourcing

@DepressedPer:I just removed some non-notable entries with no third party sources. I left the ones you added, but am wary over the quality of the sourcing. RetroCollect, Dorkly, GameSkinny and NicheGamer do not inspire confidence and aside from Last Year, none of the projects added seem to have any significant funding. - hahnchen 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing Entries.

I saw some talk on this page about this list being too big, with some mentions of splitting it; however I feel like simply removing most of the entries would be a much better choice. There are dozens of games on this list with no Wikipedia article for either the games nor the developers themselves, that either weren't funded or have been in development for years, with no references other than their crowdfunding pages. Determining what should stay and what should go may be hard for some of these games, but I feel for all of the games that fit the description I just gave, they should either be deleted or given some actual sources to back up their notability. Fench (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely say that the first measure should be an article on the game, whether it was during the CFunding or after the fact. Barring the existence of an article then it should be based on whether there is more than a few sources that have called to the existence of the crowdfunding effort but not enough to start a new article full. As you state, if the only external source possible is the crowdfunding landing page, that's not sufficient for us. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no way I'd support "removing most of the entries". The standard I apply, which is slightly stricter than the one agreed - is that the campaign must have at least one reliable third party feature. Not just a news-post that says, "this exists", but something substantial like a preview or interview. I would not (and did not) add entries like Poi or Insert Coin, but did add Devastated Dreams. I think there are quite a lot of rightful entries on the list which would never be notable enough for an article, such as Uber Entertainment's Human Resources. - hahnchen 20:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe "most" was an exaggeration, but I saw a handful of games on the list that are unreleased, have no article, and only have their own kickstarters as references, or unreleased games with no articles and just one non-campaign reference. I feel like entries in the former category should be removed, and other long-unreleased or cancelled games with little coverage should be either given more references or be removed, too. As it stands, though, it seems like from previous talks that this article is far too big to reasonably fit all of these games, so if not enough are removed to make the list manageable, reviving the split discussion might be a good idea. Fench (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Article is too Large

The size of this page is approximately 350kb. This article needs to be separated by alphabetical order. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I would actually recommend the approach used for the Rock Band DLC, where we have a separate page for each year, worked out so that only the tables parts can be transcluded, and then have one complete list for those that need to use the full sortable list. As it is now, this page is uneditable on my computers because of how much text there is. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The readable prose is less than 100KB, the bulk of the article size are the references. What machines are you editing it on? Are you using the standard editor? I'm using Firefox and have had no problems, the editing interface even works on mobile (but that's obviously impractical for any serious editing). - hahnchen 20:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
On a windows 10 computer with 16 GB of memory using chrome, editing the page slows to a halt. I also have a older laptop with all latest updates that can't even start to edit the page. This is the default, text-based editor that en.wiki gives (not Visual editor). --MASEM (t) 21:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sortable columns

Can you please make it so that columns with dollar amounts in them are properly sortable? I know this is possible, but I forget how to do it. SharkD  Talk  17:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I see now that some values are pounds instead of dollars. Should they all be converted to the same currency? SharkD  Talk  05:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Add {{Sort}} to the front to each cell. See List of best-selling PC games for example. You can set the sort key based on US $, and display whatever is appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of video game crowdfunding projects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_video_game_crowdfunding_projects/Archive_1&oldid=1079344519"