Talk:Ryzom/Archive 1

Rip from official pages

At least the Game World text seems to be ripped verbatim from the official web pages. Although it sounds a bit unencyclopedic, this isn't too bad, but I suppose it should at least have a reference? 82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, at least parts of the text can be found here [1] (as well as on various wikipedia rip-off sites,e.g. over at wikia dot com) Ketil (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a false alarm, caused by various sites ripping off WP. Tracked down some of the copied text to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryzom&oldid=63285622 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 11:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Press release?

This reads like a press release, and seems distinctly absent of NPOV. It is unfortunate. Agbdavis 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal

It's unfortunate that a game like this which was released prior to the World of WarCraft, has less information. Not to mention the parellels between it and WoW. Something should be done about this. -Anon.

Popularity

For an article that reads like a press release, it's not clear to me how popular or successful the game has been. --71.169.136.115 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial history

For those editors who know about this subject: it'd be a good idea to add a section on Ryzom's commercial success and lack there of, and how it's being sold off and might be sold to the Free Ryzom group (supported by the FSF) which would Free all the IP assets. As it is, the article is conspicuously lacking such information. --Gwern (contribs) 19:58 14 December 2006 (GMT)

A paragraph for the GPL campaign

A paragraph shoud definitely be consacrated to the campaign for bringing Ryzom to the Free Software ecosystem, under the GPL, just like how it happened with Blender.

FSF has also made the GPL-ization of Ryzom a high priority project. This is by no mean small news. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omegasaid (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The article states that “The game's engine, NeL, was created by Nevrax and licensed under the GPL”. Would someone clarify what the Free Ryzom Campaign is trying to purchase in addition to the game engine? --66.81.125.49 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were trying to get the game assets; the data files with maps, sounds, graphics, polygons, etc. The assets are what make the game worthwile, without them there is no Ryzom.

Requested move

The Saga of Ryzom → Ryzom — In August 2006, the name "The Saga of Ryzom" was simplified to "Ryzom" for marketing purposes, and I an trying to correct that on Wikipedia, the name of the game is no more "The Saga of Ryzom" but "Ryzom".----92.104.115.110 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)--Francois77 (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 92.104.115.110 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't say that.

Most pages cited here don't mention the term "open source". Only the hompage of the project does et al. Some of you referenced pages that explicitly said "free software" and then write another thing. One could argue they call it FS, because of the collaboration with FSF, and that's fine. I might say they use OS on main pages for marketing reasons. But let's keep it NPOV, and respect the authors' wishes in these things, shall we - at least don't change the wording when referencing. --Paxcoder (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Does anyone know if there's an official WP for this thing yet? I've seen vandalism related to this.

subscription model

Page doesn't say anything about its subscription model. Since it's free software, does that mean it's free to play? I don't think so, but the article doesn't say. Ohemgee (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, FTP up to a level. I can't find exactly which level this is, so far I haven't hit it :-). Anybody who knows, please add this info! Ketil (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote history

I rewrote the history section aiming for more prose than list-of-dates. Please check it and edit it!

Also, lots of talk here is outdated/old, can we clean up the discussion page?

Ketil (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]